1964-02-26

Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, from time to time there have been requests for the tabling of a report that was commissioned in 1955 on a possible diversion of water from the Columbia river to the Fraser river. As the report was related to the negotiations which had been undertaken with the United States relating to the Columbia river treaty, it was the policy of the previous government not to make the report public. The present government also felt that the report should not be released before negotiations by this government were completed relative to co-operative development of the Columbia river in Canada.
Now that these negotiations have reached successful completion with the signing of the agreements on January 22, 1964, I take this earliest opportunity to table one copy of the report which bears the title "Report on an investigation of Columbia to Fraser river diversion project, 1956", which was prepared by the B.C. Engineering Company Limited; also two copies of a paper which summarizes the findings contained in the report.
Shortly put, the report is not optimistic with regard to the cost at which power could be produced on the Thompson and lower Fraser rivers, either with or without a diversion from the Columbia. Without such a diversion the production cost is estimated at 9.7 mills per kilowatt hour for firm energy, and 6.75 mills for firm plus secondary energy. With the Columbia diversion the cost is estimated at 8 mills for firm energy and 6.95 mills for firm plus secondary. The increment of energy actually provided by the diversion is estimated to cost 7.1 mills per kilowatt hour when delivered to loads in Vancouver.
In arriving at this cost the report does not charge the diversion proposal for any portion of the cost of dams on the Columbia river required for the regulation and diversion of the water. The report does not go into the fishery problem, which is a major one, although it does deal with the cost of fish passages at the proposed dams.
As the report is very bulky, I regret that it is not possible to provide copies to individual members. However, they will be able to have access to it among the papers of the house.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: In
view of the importance of the subject, and the fact that it will be a matter of discussion before a committee of the house, would it be possible to have copies made of the summary, either printed or mimeographed, for the benefit of the house?


Arthur Laing: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We tabled two copies of the summary today, and it will be prepared in volume.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Justice in a position to answer the questions I directed to him yesterday regarding the circumstances connected with the raid on Ashbury College?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the question was whether any search was made by the R.C.M.P. in accordance with any warrant. The answer is that there was no warrant. The R.C.M.P. did not intervene, and I think the circumstances of the taking of the arms by the army were fully explained by the Minister of National Defence.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister this question. What authority would members of the armed forces have to enter this school around midnight and make this search? Where is the authority, or is this simply lawlessness gone wild?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisler of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to say something about this in view of the fact that the Department of National Defence was responsible. On Friday last the right hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to what he termed "the deplorable armoury break-ins" and asked what security measures were being taken for the storage of weapons. In my answer I informed the house that as a result of the recommendation of the special commission which had been set up following

Inquiries of the Ministry the robbery of the armoury in Montreal, all small arms and ammunition were being withdrawn from reserve establishments where maximum security could not be provided. This was a temporary measure until it was possible to implement longer term measures. The services were informed that this order should include the province of Quebec and areas in the provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick adjacent to Quebec. The interpretation of the order has not been uniform, which has resulted in some obvious anomalies, such as the action taken at Windsor; but I should point out that the action taken by the armed forces was aimed at ensuring the security of all arms and ammunition in the minimum time possible.
I might add with regard to ammunition that some reserve units held large quantities, and it was decided some time ago that these should be withdrawn to central depots and only sufficient ammunition would be issued to meet immediate training needs.
Having asked on Friday what steps were being taken to secure weapons, yesterday the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, in a display of indignation, questioned the action taken with regard to the cadet unit at Ashbury College. He termed the activities of the members of the Canadian army as an invasion of privacy, repeatedly referred to the incident as a search, and even asked the Minister of Justice if a search warrant had been issued.
This is what actually happened. Following the order last Friday, headquarters central command of the Canadian army issued instructions for the withdrawal of weapons, the property of the Department of National Defence, from units including certain cadet corps in eastern Ontario areas. A party selected for the Ottawa area left Kingston, Ontario, at
7.30	on the evening of February 21 with instructions to collect the small arms from Ashbury College cadet corps and other cadet corps in the Ottawa area. The chief instructors of these cadet corps were informed and, in so far as Ashbury College was concerned, the estimated time of arrival was given as
9.30	p.m. However, due to the breakdown of the vehicle involved, there was an unavoidable delay.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Some of the vehicles acquired by the government of the right hon. gentleman are not as reliable as they should be.
Again, the chief instructor of the cadet corps was informed. The party actually arrived at Ashbury College at 12.45 of the morning of February 22 and were met by the chief instructor, Captain Anderson, who gave his full co-operation to the army unit. The weapons and stores were removed from

two rooms in the basement as quickly as possible. These included ten FN rifles, thirty-seven .303 rifles, six .22 rifles, one hundred and fifty .22 Cooey rifles and four .303 Bren guns.
The action taken by the army was in complete conformity with the original order, and the only regrettable aspect was the late arrival of the party. I should emphasize, however, that at the time of the removal of the small arms no objection was made. On the contrary, the utmost co-operation was given by all concerned. I should point out also that the removal of small arms from other cadet corps units was carried out without any other incident being reported. In fact these cadet corps expressed full understanding of the reasons for withdrawal of weapons, and all assistant cadet instructors received complete co-operation. As I said yesterday, while the party from Kingston was armed, the ammunition was carried in pouches and bayonets were not in place, as was suggested by the right hon. gentleman opposite.
I am fully aware of the inconvenience to the members of the reserve and cadet units involved, who have generally shown complete understanding of the reasons for such action. May I repeat that these are temporary measures which have been taken until such time as the individual inspection of units can take place and proper safeguards are afforded. This individual inspection of units by senior officers has commenced. Following their report in each case that satisfactory arrangements are available, reinstatement of small arms will take place. This action will be implemented as expeditiously as possible, but it must be realized that in view of the large number of units involved some time will elapse before the task can be completed in full. I am sure that the temporary inconvenience caused reserve and cadet units, which I regret as much as anyone else, will be accepted in good grace as preferable to a further loss of weapons to unauthorized persons.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not permitted to make a statement on some of the observations made by the hon. gentleman. If I were, I would make it very clear how ridiculous the explanation is that has been given.
However, I should like to ask the minister two questions. The first one is, was Commodore W. D. Ross, chairman of the board of governors, telling what was true when he said it seemed totally unnecessary for these soldiers to march through Ashbury with fixed bayonets and loaded rifles? He said he would take the matter up with the army or the Minister of National Defence.

Second, if all this was so wonderfully arranged, at the mystic hour of midnight why did they take an hour and a half in the search, as stated by one of the teachers in the school?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The bayonets were not fixed. The rifles were not loaded at the time, and Commodore Ross has been in touch with me, or written me a letter to which I am replying today, I hope.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did it take an hour and a half if it was such a happy adventure?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
a supplementary question, according to the trustees of Ashbury College they claim they have been in touch with three other colleges in the neighbouring province of Quebec which report none of their cadet weapons have been collected. I would like to ask the minister if this statement is true; and, second, whether Rockcliffe is now considered by the Department of National Defence to be a particularly dangerous area requiring special precautions.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, the application of the order was not uniform, and this has resulted in some anomalies.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: As a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence, while he has explained that the rifles which were confiscated were army property, neither he nor any member of the government has yet explained by what right any armed force was entitled to trespass on private property in order to recover these rifles, and I think the house is entitled to an explanation for this.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is a ridiculous suggestion. Obviously, when the cadet corps commander was there to assist the army in removing the rifles, there was certainly no question of trespassing involved.


Erik Nielsen: Would the minister care to explain to the house whether his department, or any official in it, had prior authority from the school officials to enter upon the property to confiscate these rifles?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I suspect that when the cadet corps instructor, who obviously is connected with this school, had been advised, he would be authorized to make the weapons available to the army.


Erik Nielsen: Is it a fact that they simply told the school they were coming out?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this is a good time to call the attention of hon. members to paragraph 39 (1) of the standing orders, which states:
Inquiries of the Ministry
-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 particular may I call this to the attention of hon. members-
-and in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the collegiate institute at Woodstock, Ontario, was yesterday visited by emissaries of the army for the purpose of removing small arms and ammunition, may I ask the minister (1) is Woodstock, Ontario considered to be a sensitive and unreliable area-this was not mentioned in the minister's remarks -and, (2) if it was felt necessary to make this visit why was only the .22 calibre ammunition removed and the target practice rifles still left in the custody of the collegiate? May I respectfully remind the minister that .22 calibre ammunition can be purchased at most hardware stores, sporting goods stores and many general stores in rural areas.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Quite obviously it is a most sensitive area.


John George Diefenbaker: This is all sensitive area for the government.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I indicated in my statement, large quantities of ammunition had been in store in some units, and the policy which was decided upon by the army some weeks ago was to reduce the amounts of ammunition in store and release it on a required basis, and this was the basis for the action taken at Woodstock yesterday.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: As
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would the minister inform the house when he expects that the Liberal "operation disarmament" will be concluded?


Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temiscamin-gue):: I have a supplementary question to ask the minister. Is it the intention to refer the current operation in which troops are involved on the home front to the defence committee when it is reconstituted?


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: I should like to ask the minister, seeing he has so much trouble keeping our peashooters and water pistols in order by amateur troops-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member kindly take his seat?


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: too, have a supplementary question for the

Inquiries of the Ministry minister. I should like to ask him whether the party which went to Ashbury College was armed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I indicated in the statement I made, they carried rifles and the ammunition was carried separately in pouches.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the minister of defence which I could not get in at the time. When the minister referred to a party going to Ashbury, how many were in the party, how many vehicles were used and how many vehicles broke down on the way to Ashbury College?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In the minister's reply to some earlier questions today he indicated that certain areas in Ontario were considered to be sensitive areas. I was wondering whether he could tell us which areas in Ontario are considered by himself and the department to be sensitive areas?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I would not care to give a precise definition.



POLICY RESPECTING CONTINUATION OF NAVAL RESERVE UNITS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Following the review which was ordered to be carried out of the situation with regard to naval reserve units, I understand the minister has made some announcement in connection with keeping open certain units which the minister of defence had stated before Christmas would be closed. I wonder whether he would now deign to inform the house what is the situation in this regard.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the two committees of the R.C.A.F. reserves and of the Royal Canadian Navy reserves are to meet with the Minister of National Defence and myself on Friday. At that time decisions will be taken and it will be possible to make known to the house the over-all decisions taken by the Department of National Defence.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question. Has the minister not made some announcement already with regard to this matter?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, an announcement was made, and the subject matter of the
[Mr. Fairweather.l
announcement that was made has been agreed upon by both the R.C.N.R. committee and the Department of National Defence.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The question I asked was, what units are going to be kept open which formerly it was stated would be closed?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: There are two units. They are H.M.C.S. Malahat and H.M.C.S. Scotian,.which had been scheduled to be closed and will now be kept open.



MID-CANADA LINE    REPORTED DESTRUCTION OF TOWER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence. Is it true that guy wires are being cut on huge radar towers and the towers are being allowed to tumble down as nothing but scrap, particularly the one in the Buffalo bay area in Saskatchewan, and in many cases not even to be used for scrap? Will the department not allow a study to be made into the possibility of these great structures, which cost so much money, being used as television relay towers to serve the population in the vast northland? When one stops to think of the many families-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that this question be put on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Rosthem on a point of order.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: My point of order is with reference to the decision regarding the question posed by the hon. member for Meadow Lake. I believe that any time a member of the house brings up a matter of urgency involving unnecessary waste that is being condoned by the administration, the question certainly is one for the orders of the day.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: I should like to ask the Associate Minister of National Defence if he has had any representations against the destruction of these radar towers, and what reply he gave to these protests? I believe representations have been made to the minister concerning possible alternative uses for them.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, representations have been made to the department on this matter. However, I believe I should remind the hon. member that on December 30 it was announced that operations would cease on the western portion of the mid-Canada line, including the one to which reference was made

near Buffalo bay. This station had to be evacuated by March 31. Furthermore, the services of the civilian contractor maintaining the mid-Canada line would only be available during the same period. It was necessary to utilize his services for the recovery of the removable assets and the carrying out of such tasks as were necessary in connection with the closing of the stations.
The hon. member will appreciate, I think, that these towers present a special problem, in that the air regulations of Canada require that all unlit towers be removed since they are a hazard to flight safety. Another factor is that these towers were located in relatively inaccessible areas and their removal after the departure of the maintenance contractor would have been a difficult and expensive undertaking.
Early in July discussions were held with other government departments and major communications agencies to ascertain whether anyone was interested in acquiring these entities. Discussions were held also with the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation in order to see whether any civilian agency might need these towers. At no time was any interest shown in this matter, except that we received a letter from the C.B.C. on February 13 in which they asked for the details of the construction of these towers because they were considering their possible use as television relay towers. Unfortunately the tower at Buffalo bay had been destroyed on February 14, and it was impossible to get word to the contractor in time. That is the situation on this matter.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Was no interest shown in these towers by the government of Saskatchewan?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker, so far as I am aware there was no indication of interest from any agency except the C.B.C., and that came too late.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Mitchell (Sudbury):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware of the injurious effects of a drug named pamate which, according to reports from the United States, has caused a number of strokes to people taking this product? Also, is the Department of National Health and Welfare considering removing this drug from sale in Canada?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In answer to the first part of the question let me say yes, the department is aware of recent reports from the 20220-17
Inquiries of the Ministry United States with respect to this drug. At the moment representatives of the company and of my department are having discussions, and I should be in a position within a few days to advise the house as to the results.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister of health and welfare a supplementary question. I understood her to say that they were investigating sales of the drug parnate in Canada. I should now like to know whether she or her department has been in touch with the standing drug committee. I should also like to know the names of the members of that supplementary drug committee.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, my friend has unfortunately not given me notice of this question, and I shall have to take this as notice.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yesterday the hon. member for Calgary North asked me if I could give him information regarding the number of United Nations troops in the Congo and the Canadian proportion of the force. The total number of United Nations troops in the Congo is 5,039, of which the number of Canadian military personnel, who are serving in a difficult and, indeed, a dangerous situation with courage and distinction, amounts to 248.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question directed last Friday by the hon. member for Villeneuve to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and in the latter's name, I am pleased to announce the release of the three Canadians detained in Albany, Georgia: Michael Newman, Mary Susuki and Peter Light. These Canadians were taking part in the "march for peace" which started last June in the direction of Cuba. They were arrested by municipal authorities under the local laws and the Department of External Affairs was so informed on February 11.
Our consul general in New Orleans, Mr. Bisson, looked into the matter immediately. However, as the prisoners had not been refused the services of counsel and1 were not

Inquiries of the Ministry ill-treated, there seemed no reason for an appeal by the Canadian government to the American government on their behalf.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, Georges Valade (St, Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I mentioned to Your Honour that I had the intention to do so ai the start of this sitting, I shall tackle the question now, as it is the most appropriate time.
My point of order tends to avoid a precedent which seems to have been set yesterday by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Chapdelaine), when the question was put with regard to the amendment moved by the Conservative party. On that occasion, the hon. member for Sherbrooke abstained from voting and stated, as may be seen on page 247 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I have not voted because I was paired.
Mr. Speaker, I have failed to find a precedent for an hon. member not being obliged to state with whom he was paired, so that the house may check whether it was really a pairing or an abstention.
I think we have here a precedent which it would be dangerous to create, and, to my mind, an hon. member who was paired should be asked to identify with whom he paired and to tell how he would have voted, if he had done so.


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrc :ke):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point of #rder, I simply want to say to the hon. member for St. Mary, that I have not to state with whom I was paired. If he wants to know, he should just come and ask me.
Moreover, I must tell him that, had I voted, I would have voted as I wanted, and not necessarily for the party of which I am a member.


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend- [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: X thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to the attention of the house. In return may I refer him to Beau-chesne's fourth edition, citation 70, in the middle of paragraph 2:
The Speaker's attention must be directed to a breach of order at the proper moment, namely, the moment it occurred.
I would also direct attention to paragraph 4:
A point of order against procedure must be raised promptly and before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place.
And to paragraph 5, in which it is stated: Points of order are justified when there is some flagrant misuse of the rules, but they are unfortunate necessities which should not be regarded as usual phases of procedure and ought not to develop into long arguments with the Speaker who, being in a quasi-judicial position, should not be drawn into controversial discussions.
Once more I thank the hon. member for drawing this to the attention of the house, and I suggest we leave it there.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queenc-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, and I regret I have not had time to give him notice. In view of the fact that the season will soon open for the annual slaughter of harp and hood seals on Canada's east coast will the minister inform the house what progress is being made to prevent these seals from becoming extinct, through the ratification of the north Atlantic fishing treaty by planning a quota on their harvest under international control?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the hon. member that my department has prepared a set of new regulations affecting the killing of harp and hood seals, and those regulations should be approved within the next few days.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question.
Could the minister inform me whether there has been an international meeting on this question, and international agreement given to his new regulations?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, this matter was discussed at the I.C.N.A.F. meeting held in Halifax last summer, and my department is taking action in so far as we can within Canadian jurisdiction.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of his statement yesterday that the Ottawa centennial centre, along with the provincial centres, will be of
[Mr. Haldasz.l

great importance in the cultural life of Canada, will the Prime Minister say why an ordinary office building was approved as New Brunswick's project?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question, but I will be glad to look into it.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Can he inquire of C.B.C. to determine why the separatist leader, Mr. Marcel Chaput, received so much publicity last evening on the C.B.C. television news?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire and report to the house.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. Has the minister or any of his officials yet caused charges to be laid under the Criminal Code against Dr. Chaput concerning the statement he made with reference to threats against the life of the Queen when she visits Canada?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, it must be remembered that if charges are laid against any person under the Criminal Code the administration of justice is still vested with the attorneys general of the provinces. However, as I told the house, I am personally inquiring as to the exact nature of the words spoken, and trying to get an accurate report of the actual words used.


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister report to the house as to the outcome of his inquiries when they are completed?


Guy Favreau: I shall report to the house, Mr. Speaker, to the extent that I feel it is my duty or right to do so.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked the Minister of Justice some questions with respect to the acquisition of the John Labatt brewery by the Joseph Schlitz brewery of Milwaukee. I wonder if he is prepared to 20220-17J
Inquiries of the Ministry give me an answer now, and whether he could at the same time tell the house if the restrictive trade practices branch of his department could look into the whole matter with a view to seeing whether there is any violation of the anti-trust and anti-merger legislation.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for having waited until today to put the question again after having given me notice. I should like to answer the first question which was left unanswered on Hansard. He asked whether any representations were made to my department for intervention or action with respect to merger procedures, and the answer is no; no demands or requests were made to my department for that purpose.
In order to give the house an up to date report on the situation, and in answer to the general question, I shall read from a prepared answer which I have before me On February 18 the United States government notified the Canadian government of the proposed civil anti-trust proceedings in the United States against the merger of Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company of Milwaukee and John Labatt Limited of London, Ontario, and invited our comments. This was' in accordance with the understanding reached between our governments in 1959-that is between the former attorney general Mr! Fulton and Mr. Rogers, who was then the attorney general of the United States-to the effect that discussion will be held at the appropriate stage when it becomes apparent that interests in one of our countries are likely to be affected by the enforcement of the anti-trust laws of the other. The object is to avoid possible infringements of sovereignty such as might occur if the enforcement of the United States law had an effect in Canada that conflicted with Canadian anti-combines law or Canadian business or commercial policy, or affected the operation m Canada of a Canadian business.
Although an interim restraining order was made in the United States courts the following day, the United States government informed us that this step had to be taken promptly to preserve the status quo and that our comments in the matter would nevertheless be welcomed before the trial of the main issues, for which there would be adequate opportunity.
Having carefully studied the matter, I concluded that the situation does not appear to give rise to any conflict with Canadian anti-combines law and commercial policy, and that no action is contemplated in the United States courts that would affect the

Inquiries of the Ministry commercial operations of Labatt's in Canada. In my opinion this is a matter of concern to the domestic economy of the United States: the United States authorities are seeking to restrain a United States company from acquiring or retaining assets that will increase its power in the United States domestic market.
In all the circumstances my colleagues and I have formed the view, on the basis of our present information, that there is no occasion for the Canadian government to intervene, and a reply has gone to the United States government accordingly. For the information of the house a copy of the reply will be tabled. I might add that it is my intention to keep under review and to pursue further the question of any possible overlapping in the jurisdictional sense between the anticombines legislation of Canada and the United States anti-trust laws.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Due to the fact that many more people have been using the railways for transportation to and from cities in the past year or two, would the minister use his good offices to urge the railways to discontinue the present trend toward abandoning important feeder lines in very important communities throughout western Ontario, or any other place in Canada, where this is detrimental to the economy of the country as a whole?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very happy to bring the hon. gentleman's question to the attention of both railways.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Has the Postmaster General seen a copy of the Vancouver Province of February 11 this year, which contains an open letter to the minister headed, "Let's have a Red Ensign postage stamp"? If he has read this article, does he intend taking any action on the suggestion which it contains?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, it has been announced that the government will deal with this matter within

a limited time. When that announcement is made, it will incorporate my views as a member of the government.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to address to the Postmaster General. I will put it in French.

As the year 1964 marks the centenary of the death of Sir Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, does the Postmaster General intend to issue a commemorative stamp this year to underline that-


Mr. Gregoire:: That what?


Georges-J. Valade: That event.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: A departmental committee continually studies these matters, Mr. Speaker. I think the quota of new stamp issues for the year 1964 has been decided upon, but I thank the hon. gentleman for his suggestion, which will be referred to the departmental committee forthwith for study.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether it is his intention to introduce at this session legislation implementing a new national aviation policy for Canada, as he forecast during his recent visit to Edmonton. If the answer is in the affirmative, is the minister going to recommend to the house a one air line policy for all overseas operations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to forecast at this stage whether any legislation would be required or forthcoming on this particular topic this session. The whole question of future air policy is, as I think the hon. gentleman is well aware, under very active consideration at this time. However, I may say that no conclusions have yet been reached. As soon as they have been reached they will be made known to the house and to everyone else concerned. I hope this will be before too long.



POSSIBLE CONNECTION BETWEEN CANADIAN AND U.S. CRASHES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.

Would the minister have some further information to communicate to us concerning the crash of a DC-8 aircraft at New Orleans and any possible connection between that accident and the tragedy which occurred at Ste. Therese?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to take the hon. gentleman's question as notice and consider the reply I could make.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. When he was visiting Washington in January, did he or his officials ask what official United States opinion or reaction was or would be to any Canadian legislation which would curtail the impact of Reader's Digest and Time upon the Canadian market?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I made no request for such an opinion during that visit, either of the President or any of his officials.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was there any discussion with United States officials at any time, at any level, during that visit about the projected Canadian legislation to deal with this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not sure whether any of the officials in our party discussed it with the United States officials. I know we had informed the United States, I am not sure whether it was during that visit or earlier, of the action we were considering taking.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware of the representations that were made to the government this morning by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which included a request that participation in the Canada pension plan should be mandatory not only for employees but also for self employed persons? Is the government giving consideration to this request?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for advising me of this matter. I was invited to be present, but unfortunately circumstances did not permit me to be there. This is the first notice I have had of this request, and I will take it under advisement. I am certain the government has already considered it and will be considering it further.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON INQUIRY INTO PRICE INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelie (Villeneuve):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Similar questions have already been put to the former minister of justice but they were not answered in a satisfactory way at that time.
Could the Minister of Justice tell the house whether steps are being taken at present to find out and prosecute the public thieves responsible for the raising to a very high level the price of sugar? What kind of measures are they, and what is being done by his department to that effect?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the inquiry on the price of sugar does not, under the existing circumstances, fall within the competence of the Department of Justice.
Even though no formal investigation is being carried out, I must say that the director of investigation and research is keeping an eye on the situation, in accordance with the Combines Investigation Act, in case something happens concerning the act for whose administration he is responsible.
For the time being, inasmuch as the federal government is concerned the question of sugar could only come under the Departments of Industry or Trade and Commerce.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As
a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice this question. If the director of investigation under the Combines Investigation Act, who is keeping his eye on this situation, is not motivated to recommend anything by the fact that the price of sugar has doubled in one year, what does the minister think would stimulate him to make some recommendation?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, surely, as a civil servant charged with the administration of a particular sector of our legislation, what would or could motivate him to make some

Inquiries of the Ministry recommendation would be that which he ascertained to fall within his jurisdiction at the moment.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
Is he ready to admit that there really is a combine responsible for the intolerably high price of sugar in Canada at present?



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question I wanted to direct to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, but in his absence perhaps it could be taken as notice. Having in mind the minister's statement yesterday regarding the discussions proceeding in Calgary concerning civil or military operation of the veterans hospital there, are similar discussions contemplated or proceeding in Vancouver with regard to the Shaughnessy military hospital?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's question as notice.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Justice or the Secretary of State have answers to the questions I posed last week.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, exactly to what questions is the hon. member referring, because there have been quite a number of questions posed?


Robert Carman Coates: I asked the Minister of Justice if he would be in a position to give the house an explanation of the action taken by his department to assess the amount of organized crime moving into Canada from the United States.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to answer that question later, and I also ask for leave to discuss the advisability of answering it.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberi Muir (Cape Breion North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. A day or two ago the Minister of Labour, in reply to a question regarding alternative employment for people to be laid off and who have already been laid off at the Point Edward naval base, referred specifically to the development at North Sydney. I presume he was referring to the major dock project and facilities to be constructed there. May I ask the minister how soon tenders will be called and the actual work commenced; because this would at least provide some temporary employment, which is very badly needed. As the minister is aware, this project has been delayed for many months already because there has been no decision by the present government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, without necessarily subscribing to the speech made by the hon. gentleman after he asked his question, I will say in response to his question that tenders will be called just as soon as it is physically possible, and the work will be done just as soon as a tender can be accepted and a contract awarded. The government is very well aware of the importance of getting this work started, not only to provide employment but also to make very badly needed improvements there.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister agree with the statement by the mayor of North Sydney that the Department of Public Works has advised him that tenders will not be called until this fall and construction will not start until next spring?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know what information the mayor of North Sydney may have, but I have not got such information. I think perhaps I should not agree or disagree with the mayor, but should make inquiries about the actual facts.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Can the minister tell us whether he has made an investigation at the Quebec income

tax district office about the arbitrary and discriminatory practices of the inspectors at that office, which we have exposed several times in the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the minister replies, I do not wish to interrupt members all the time but as this is the start of a new session perhaps I might again recall to them standing order 39, which says in effect that no opinion should be offered in asking a question, and that 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. If we follow that rule I am sure we will save considerable time.


Gilles Grégoire: Then, Mr. Speaker, I am merely going to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether he has carried out an investigation at 1 he Quebec district income tax office in the activities-which I shall refrain from calling by their true name-on the part of the officials from that office?


Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times we have to deal with this same subject. There have been many questions of the same nature posed by the hon. member. I can only say that the same policy is carried out across the country, and there is nothing special associated with the office in the city of Quebec.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister.
Is he giving us that answer as a result of an investigation made at the Quebec office?


John Richard Garland: Not necessarily.


Gilles Grégoire: Then, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another supplementary question to the minister.
How can he tell us that the situation at the Quebec office is the same as everywhere else in the country, if no investigation has been made?


Raymond Langlois: I should like to raise a question of privilege arising out of the answer given a few minutes ago by the Minister of National Revenue to the question asked by the hon. member for Lapointe. I believe there is something queer
Inquiries of the Ministry going on in connection with the administration of the Quebec bureau-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must advise the hon. member that I do not see any question of privilege. At best it is a point of order, not a question of privilege. I believe that earlier today I stressed this precise point. It is not open to members at question time to argue with an answer given by a minister. They can pose another question, but certainly, at the very least, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the minister.


Raymond Langlois: I will ask my question. Will the minister inquire into the administration of that office and refer to the letter I sent him last week concerning one particular case? The minister mentioned that there was no difference across Canada, and if that is so it is becoming a national calamity.


John Richard Garland: Will the hon. member pose a specific question?


Raymond Langlois: Will the minister inquire into the administration of the taxation bureau in Quebec?


John Richard Garland: As I have said in this house many times in answer to the same question, we are in constant touch with our offices across the country. By this series of questions, a group in this house seems to be trying to indicate that something special is going on in the Quebec office. This is not so. We have the same policy, as I am sure most members of this house know, across Canada. We have one policy for Canada.


Raymond Langlois: I did not mention that there was anything special in that bureau. The minister mentioned that there was the same thing all across Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that he come and see me when the orders of the day are called, when I am out of the chair, and I will do my best to explain what the general procedure is that we follow in this house.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
How can the Minister of National Revenue say that the same thing is being done in Quebec when he has just stated that no investigation has been carried out in the Quebec offices?


Mr. Speaker:: This is precisely the sort of thing about which I was speaking to the hon. member for Megantic. Hon. members should pose their questions without argument and

Inquiries of the Ministry without stating opinions. They should pose a clear, concise question and the minister should do his best to give a clear, concise answer.


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a point of order.
I raised no argument nor did I express a personal opinion in my question. I just asked the minister how he could discuss the situation in the Quebec offices if no investigation has been carried out in those offices.
I feel my question is in order and deserves a reply.


John Richard Garland: As I have already said on several occasions, we are in constant touch with the offices across Canada.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question either to the Prime Minister or to the house leader. In view of the fact that after today only three more days remain for debating the address in reply to the speech from the throne, can the government give some indication either today or tomorrow as to what will be the priority of government business when the present debate is over?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be in a position to do that before the end of the week, which would be Friday.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question which the hon. member for Bow River addressed to me last Friday, February 21, the statement of the Blackfoot chief which appeared in the Calgary Albertan has been thoroughly investigated and I am assured that there is no starvation on this reserve. School principals report that school attendance is good and that the Indian children are adequately dressed and nourished.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I took

notice of a question of the hon. member for Timmins. I referred the subject matter to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and I am advised that they have had no evidence presented to them suggesting that the situation referred to by the hon. member does exist.



COLUMBIA RIVER-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF TREATY PROTOCOLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources tabled a document this afternoon with respect to the possibility of the diversion of the Columbia river into the Fraser river, the essential contents of which we have reason to believe were known to the United States authorities years ago, would the minister now table for the information of members of the house the protocols to the Columbia river treaty and the glowing press reports that were issued with them, so we may have an opportunity to study them prior to the minister bringing his motion before the house?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member would not want me to table anything that was incomplete or inaccurate. I will have to read his request today and take it under advisement.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Jean-Paul Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne who fulfilled their task with spirit and great talent.
The state is a group of citizens who, because they belong to the same community, must submit to a common behaviour. To make that possible, those men chose the government which, in their opinion, seems to be in the best position, because of its nature, quality and composition, to meet their present needs as well as their hopes and aspirations.

That double duty of the government should not be misunderstood; the government must at the same time see to immediate necessities and develop plans in order to enable each and every citizen to accomplish, in the most favourable conditions, the things he considers as the most precious.
While we enjoy the benefits of democracy, we should not be complacent in our felicity. We will keep it only if we can discern the spirit which is under the surface, if we can remain fully aware of the great moral principles as well as of the material and external characteristics of this democracy which we profess to cherish and defend.
Is there too much idealism in this conception of government? A government must have ideals; otherwise it will not be equal to its task. We cannot exist without government. The best form of government, in our mind, according to our aspirations, is the government conducted by upright men, endowed with the necessary qualities to fulfil the obligations of a government.
In order to perform its mission as required, a government must have definite objectives, concrete goals. These objectives will vary from one country to another, with the circumstances and the environment, but the supreme criterion, the essential question will always remain the same: Confronted with actual problems and with prosperity, do the citizens enjoy the required protection and security?
This prompts us, particularly in Canada where ethnical, cultural and even economic problems are becoming more and more prominent, to ask ourselves serious questions. Integrity is one of the essential qualities of any government. A government draws its strength from the certainty, from the firm belief of the governed that the rulers do not hide anything and speak the truth.
Whenever a representative is elected by the people, he enters the government, not politics. A political party must strive to unite those who share the same ideas on certain questions, so as to enable them to put their principles into practice. After hearing the views expressed in the course of a debate, a member of parliament has the duty to arrive at an opinion of his own; he also must use his influence to act in accordance with the interests of the population as a whole.
Canada is divided into several areas- geographically, economically, historically- all of which often have conflicting interests. Representative government is the one where the member of the House of Commons should be ready to examine the claims from his electoral district in the light of Canada's interests, as a whole. The people as well as their representatives should think as Canadians, but they should also keep in mind that 20220-18
The Address-Mr. Matte all Canadians are equal. If this question of unity has been much discussed since the beginning of this session, it is due to its great importance.
The government holds its authority from the people; in turn, the people must know the mechanism of government in order to exercise their right for its functioning. A well informed public opinion will resist the trend which is, after all, only apathy and which consists in dissociating oneself from all political activity. Negligence in exercising one's rights often results in social scepticism and defeatism. However, to speak of indolence is often to conceal something else.
Fewer and fewer people vote in such and such a way because their parents did so, but there are still a great number whose vote is influenced by discussions on topics of the day. Those who have dealt with political matters in the last decade know where such an uncommitted vote can lead.
The prime and most obvious duty of any taxpayer is to elect representatives who commend themselves by their intelligence and their integrity. Every voter should require of the candidate seeking his support a statement on the policy he intends to advocate, something clear, unequivocal, definite, rather than vague and obscure statements. In my opinion, the present government is to be commended for its policy and its speech from the throne.
Canada is a federative state. The legal basis for this federation is an act of the imperial parliament known as the British North America Act of 1867 and the amendments thereto.
We propose to celebrate our centennial in three years. More and more, the question is raised: how will that be done? What importance will it have for the Canadian people? Are all Canadians attached to confederation? Are there some who would like to break away? How many? Why have they come to that conclusion? Are their reasons serious? Are those reasons irrevocable?
Would it be that such a situation is taking shape because Canada does not have the type of government it needs, because in view of our parliamentary system, all Canadians are not equal partners in the country and in every region? Would it be that our parliamentary institutions have become incapable of meeting those requirements? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker.
A government is judged on its achievements. Therefore, we must ask ourselves questions like these: what is its program? How is this program to be carried out? Does the government stick to its promises? We could add: does it repeat the same promises

The Address-Mr. Matte everywhere and to everyone? Does it advocate everywhere the same program? Does it propose to all Canadians the same steps to carry it out?
It is at least partly in the light of such questions that we must consider the recent attitudes of the French speaking Canadian citizens-particularly the French Canadians In Quebec as well as their complaints, and that is preci ely what I mean to do. Our Intentions are evidently honest, but is that honesty always followed by realistic and practical action? Our Canadian civilization is based on a social heritage of which many other countries could be envious. Our philosophy of life requires greatness from our leaders, honesty in our promises and faithfulness towards all our citizens.
A political crisis arises every time our institutions seem to stop like mechanical toys which have become unsprung. There are in fact times when we turn our backs to the lofty heights of individual freedom and responsibilities so dearly bought by our forefathers and retrograde in the dark valleys of bondage and servitude, and even bloody revolutions.
I am sure that most Canadians vote with the desire of choosing the best possible government. In choosing a government, a nation must look for superiority, free itself from prejudice, distinguish what makes the value of government and convince itself that mediocrity will never be a substitute for excellence.
Canada has chosen a Liberal government. The election of our party to the administration of the country is a rather recent event. All citizens have still fresh in their memory our campaign platform which led us to victory. And it is with that program that we want to administer and give Canada and all Canadians the prosperity, the security and the pride that should be every Canadian's lot. The policy that won us the electorate's confidence is also the policy with which the Liberal party began, right after the election, to administer the country. The first session and the present speech from the throne prove it.
The province of Quebec, a highly rural riding which I represent, strongly contributed to the Liberal victory. The province knew exactly what it could expect from each party. It is often said that the French Canadians in the province of Quebec resent confederation. It would seem that it is not confederation they resent, but the way it has often been applied.
Equal partners throughout the country, according to the spirit of confederation, they do not want to be considered as second-zone citizens in any part of the country. All sorts

of promises were made to them in the past. We have often seen our people disinterest themselves totally from the federal question. They had made too many requests; they had received too many promises which went unfulfilled. So, they decided not to expect anything any more from Ottawa. In a sense, they isolated themselves. They considered they were treated as foreigners, and they decided to stay at home.
For months there has been talk of bicul-turalism, of equal rights. These French Canadians have in Ottawa more ministers than ever. Our government became aware of their claims. The French Canadians have been awakened, as it were, to the federal institutions. But we must not be blind to the fact that this interest finds expression in two ways. There are some who proclaim the time has come for the province of Quebec to constitute itself into a separate state, to sever its links with the rest of the country, because it is too late to expect anything else. There are others-and they are the great majority- who say another chance, whole and honest, should be given confederation to show what it can do for the French speaking Canadians living in Canada, not only in Quebec, where French Canadians are the majority, but in all the other provinces, where they consider themselves as equal citizens in every respect.
I say, I declare and I repeat every day to my French speaking fellow citizens: It is more than ever essential that French Canadians be interested in federal affairs, not only to demand the respect of their language, a distinctive flag and national anthem, but also a more active participation in the economy of the country. They wish, of course, in these days of great strides to take in hand the promotion of the rights and privileges which they consider as their own in every sphere of federal activity. They must have full and complete confidence in the program set forth by the Liberal party at election time and which is exactly the same as the one which the government intends to implement.
We must strengthen national unity by placing on the same footing the two founding races in this country, while taking into account the contribution of other races to our national culture:
Thus spoke our great Prime Minister at the national meeting of the national federation of the Liberal party held in Ottawa on February 11, 1963.
He added:
As far as national unity is concerned, and especially the acceptance of the one principle on which that unity can be based I wish to state that it can only be based on the principle of equality of the two races which established confederation.
Canada is a bicultural and bilingual country, and it is impossible to ensure the survival of confederation or even to celebrate its centennial in

worthy fashion if we ignore that principle. We have to remember that French Canadians do not constitute a minority which enjoys special rights in but one province. They have rights equal to those of English Canadians and they share the benefits and responsibilities of our national development. That is why the Liberal government was duty-bound to set up a royal commission which was to consult the various provincial governments in order to find out how that principle can be applied. If we attain that objective-and it would be a marvellous achievement to mark the centennial celebrations-Canada will keep on progressing as a true federation. We wish to ensure national unity according to that principle.
Since he was put in office, the Prime Minister has not been talking differently and all his actions up to now indicate how much he believes in biculturalism.
I should now like to pay him a tribute for the splendid speech he made in the house last week; he showed once more his greatness and his broadmindedness. He is duly recognized as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of all the Canadian prime ministers.
The former member for Laurier, now high commissioner in England-to whom I offer my congratulations and very best wishes of success-talking about the problem of biculturalism, quite rightly recalled that the present Prime Minister had been the first Anglo-Saxon leader to commit himself to the setting up of an inquiry intended to make French Canadians equal partners within the nation.
The day is gone, he said, when the French Canadians, dissatisfied with not being heard, simply gave up any attempt to raise their voices.
They do not claim special privileges, they want recognition, in practice, of the fact that they are everywhere equal partners in a confederation which they helped to found (and which was an essential requirement then). They want for their compatriots in the other provinces a treatment similar to that enjoyed by the English speaking Canadians living in Quebec. Should that request be disregarded, then the uneasiness and even the bitterness of the French Canadians would be directed against confederation and separatism would really spread.
That is not to be wished for either group, but rather understanding in action on both sides.
As I said before, the former minister of justice speaks in the most realistic way when he says:
If we intend to celebrate the centennial only by building monuments and organizing festivals and exhibitions a bitter awakening is in store for us, because the unity we will celebrate then, if it still exists, will surely be just an imitation of the real thing.
If we wish to celebrate the centennial of confederation together, we must get our minds together as we have done in the past and think not only about what we are but about what we want to become. We can no longer be satisfied with respecting each other in our mutual isolation. We 20220-18i
The Address-Mr. Matte
must take this opportunity which may be our last chance, to reaffirm collectively our will to live together on a truly equal footing.
Mr. Chevrier has repeated those remarks time and again. From his experience, they expressed a deep conviction and contained a program which he has always fought for passionately.
I should also like to say that I have truly marvelled at the harmony and understanding which prevails among all Liberal members in the house.
They exchange ideas in brotherly fashion.
I would have liked to deal with the importance and advisability of extending the Three Rivers harbour, which I am asking for in the Champlain riding. I shall refer to this matter later on.
Even though part of my constituency has not been considered as a designated area, because it failed to meet required standards, the unemployment problem is of great concern to us.
Mr. Speaker, in the past, the province of Quebec was essentially an agricultural province. It has become industrialized a great deal since, but farming remains an important industry in Quebec. Eastern farmers have known and still experience difficult years. They were under the impression that the Department of Agriculture existed solely for the other part of Canada. They considered themselves as foreigners in Ottawa.
Westerners are wheat growers and we wish them prosperity; easterners are mainly engaged in the dairy industry. While they were planning their program, the Liberals knew that the Quebec farmers as well as those from Ontario and the maritimes, needed a minister specifically to take care of their problems which greatly differ. That is why the speech from the throne mentions that a measure will be presented to provide for a minister responsible for rural development. This will be a new department created by the government during this session. We do not harbour any grievances towards the western farmers on account of their prosperity; we wish them well-besides, they also have their problems. I have been very fortunate in touring a part of their territory last year and I hope that all the members will have the opportunity of visiting all parts of Canada; it would enable us to understand one another better and to understand each other's problems.
We also would like our problems to get some consideration, so that we should also experience prosperity, thanks to the dairy industry, which is the very basis of farm economy and ensures our farmers the greater part of their income.
We should take the necessary measures to control the farming industry to a higher

The Address-Mr. Ricard degree by means of a stronger "advisory control" based on statistics, while keeping in mind that stability of prices more particularly for feed grain, is essential if we want to succeed.
Following the great evolution in Quebec, there is a growing awareness that some aspect has been neglected there. People are anxious to believe in confederation.
Mr. Speaker, it is not with animosity, but with trust that one obtains a federal government which strives for national unity and knows the right means for making Canadians everywhere in this country equal partners in the magnificent endeavour to make Canada a great and prosperous country in which there will be recognition, understanding and mutual respect for every uniting and common factor, as well as for existing diversity. That is what the Liberal party promised Canadians. It has already started applying the measures which will at last answer all the aspirations of all right-minded people in my county of Champlain, in my province and my country.
If we understand each other, if we love each other really in our diversity, we shall be able to celebrate the centenary of this confederation with enthusiasm for the benefit of this country and all its citizens.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, like previous speakers, I wish to extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They have made a superhuman effort to do their job and they deserve that we say it out loud. In view of the emptiness of the speech from the throne, it is easy to see that they had to devote several hours to the preparation of their speeches and the fact that they performed their task in such an elegant fashion is all to their credit.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss matters concerning my constituency, but since I wish to leave enough time to the following speakers and I also wish to move an amendment, I will only make a few remarks, reserving the right to bring up these matters later on.
For instance, as far as the interests of my riding are concerned, I shall take a few minutes of the time of the house on some future occasion to deal with the matter of the St. Pie penitentiary so as to show with what contempt and in what offhand manner the former minister of justice (Mr. Chevrier) has been grossly unfair toward my constituency. This is enough for now, but I shall bring up the subject later on.
As I said earlier, the speech from the throne, which will surely go down in history

on account of its emptiness, is useless because it provides absolutely nothing either for the workers or for the farmers. In view of the fact that I have the honour to represent in this house an electoral district made up of these two classes of the society, practically in equal parts, I shall take only a few minutes to make some remarks on the needs of my constituents.
Mr. Speaker, if you exclude from this speech from the throne, the continuation of the measures instituted by the Conservative government, you will conclude that it contains nothing new.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that during the election campaign of 1962, as well as that of 1963, those who are now sitting on the treasury benches and are members of this cabinet were pretending to know all the answers to our questions; they were going to solve in no time at all, all those alarming problems facing farmers and workers alike.
You will especially recall, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian farmers have been presented as the great architects of the present-day community, and it was even said that we had all the necessary ability to give happiness and satisfaction, in short an earthly paradise, to the majority of those people who deserve so much on account of their endeavours to provide food for the nation.
There may be nothing for farmers in the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, but there is nothing for workers either.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that during the sessions prior to the last general election of 1963, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) in particular used to be very sorry for the unemployed. He said at the time that he had in his files the legislation that should be passed to stop unemployment in a jiffy.
We just have to compare the situation today with that prevailing at that time to find that there are now 466,000 people without jobs throughout Canada.


Mr. Cyr:: Much fewer than before.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: And those men, Mr. Speaker, were to suppress unemployment entirely. Well, I shall tell those who are sitting on the treasury benches, as well as those who are making interjections from their seats in the back: You have now a free hand, you can go ahead, so please carry out the program you prepared during the election and, do something at last, because, during the nine months you have been at the helm in Canada, you have, as yet, done nothing worth while.

It is high time to tackle this task, as you promised to Canadian people, and which is expected from you. Put an end to the inertia which has taken hold of you since April 1963; get going and arouse yourselves from your torpor and do something, because the Canadian people are anxious to see you make a start.
We were told, Mr. Speaker, you will recall, that 60 days would suffice a Liberal government to accomplish much more than the Conservative party did during the years it presided over the fortunes of the country.
Indeed, several decisions were taken, but there were also, it must be admitted, indecision and do-nothing periods during those 60 days which marked the beginning of the Liberal government. Our friends opposite have no doubt accomplished something.
First of all, they accepted nuclear arms, even without consulting parliament. They established an 11 per cent tax on construction materials, which tremendously contributed to a rise in the cost of living, which, by the way, is presently the highest in the whole history of Canada. They have greatly tarnished Canada's reputation abroad by imposing a 30 per cent tax on securities, a tax which they withdrew later on under the pressure exerted by financiers, their friends. They also reduced farmers' income by removing the premium of 25 cents per hundred pounds of milk sold to manufacturers.
A short while ago I was listening to my good friend from Champlain (Mr. Matte), who said a better chance, more advantages, should be granted to dairy farmers. Assuredly, and the present government gave many advantages to farmers-it reduced their income.
What have they done besides that, Mr. Speaker? Well, they showed their contempt for the autonomy of the provinces when they tried to enter certain fields reserved to the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one to say so, since Mr. Levesque, Mr. Lesage and Mr. Gerin-Lajoie stated that the present Liberal government was trying to infiltrate into fields specially reserved to the provinces, and in particular the province of Quebec.
Have they done a great deal for the Gaspe area? The government of which I was a member decided to build a railroad between Ma-tane and St. Anne des Monts to assist the economic development of the area. What help did the Liberal government give that area? When it came to power it quickly cancelled that railroad project and since then the people of the Gaspe peninsula and the member for Gaspe have been deploring that action.


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?
The Address-Mr. Ricard


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Certainly.


Alexandre Cyr: Would my colleague inform the house why the former government, in October 1962, after having been advised by the C.N.R. that the company expected a deficit of approximately $210,000 a year from the operation of that line, instead of taking action right away, waited until April 1963 to talk about it in an electoral speech?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Did you finish your own speech?
Mr. Speaker, the remarks of my hon. friend from Gaspe will not disturb me. I simply ask him whether he would deny that the railroad project was decided by the Conservative government and was then cancelled by the Liberal government as soon as it assumed office.
Now, let us go on, Mr. Speaker. Let us see what the present Liberal government did to raise the standard of living. It collected from the Canadian taxpayers new taxes in the post office. You know that the rates changed drastically. Some rates, for instance, were increased by 50 per cent and if I had the time I would give you the list of the various increases, but I will simply say that these postal rate increases will be paid by the entire Canadian population which certainly expected something else after all the promises made by the Liberal party in the election campaign.
May I mention also the tax increase from 3 to 4 per cent and this, in order to provide for a pension fund. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that during the election that tax was levied on salaries. It was simply said that once in office the Liberal party would set up a pension fund for everybody and that all Canadians would benefit from it immediately. But if we compare their words with the action taken, we find what we are discussing now, that is a tremendous difference between the promises and the action of the Liberals.
Under the Conservatives there was no tax on building materials or production machinery, but the financial wizard in Canada decided to impose an 11 per cent tax. Then he had to spread it out in instalments, because of the representations coming from all sides. He even spread it out later so it would be advantageous to all those who could take advantage of honest people.
He also disclosed a long time in advance the measures that the budget speech would contain concerning the levying and the withdrawal of certain taxes. During all that time we made all the representations we could to help the people because we know them well and we are their friends. We did all that was in our power to have that tax withdrawn. But no, the financial genius wants it that way and that 11 per cent tax will remain.

The Address-Mr. Ricard
I said a while ago that we had 466,000 unemployed in Canada. I discussed that matter a while ago and I shall not come back to it, but I must point out to you, Mr. Speaker, the huge difference between the attitude taken by the Liberals when in opposition and the one they take today now that they are in office.
If my memory serves me right, I think it was in November 1962 that the question of the president of the C.N.R., Mr. Gordon, came up in the house. Representations agreeable to my Liberal friends were made on several points. In the house they demanded that Mr. Gordon be fired immediately because, they said, he had shown contempt for French Canadians. What did they do as soon as they were in a position to act in that respect? They gave Mr. Gordon an extension. That shows how sincere they are; that is how they translate their words into action.
There is more than that however and I should like to take a few minutes to discuss matters which are of special concern to farmers.
Where are the defenders of our farmers? When they were sitting on this side of the house, the Liberals claimed to be the true representatives of farmers.
I have here a copy of the Liberal platform for the 1962 and 1963 elections. If you read that platform, you will see that our opponents, who called themselves the "seventy five", were astute indeed.
In the farm bulletin for May 1962, they published the program they would undertake to carry out as soon as they would come to power. What is the Minister of Agriculture waiting for to implement that program?
And they said they had all the answers.
One plank of the Liberal platform was the following:
Organization of marketing on a national basis.
Is there any mention of that in the speech from the throne?
Here is another plank:
Improved long term financing of co-operatives.
I see no indication in the speech from the throne of legislation to carry out that promise.
Here is another plank of the Liberal platform:
Realistic and systematic forecasting of the demand for grain and cattle.
Where are the measures likely to achieve this purpose?
I shall not go on, Mr. Speaker, because there is no end to unfulfilled Liberal promises.
And yet, you Liberals, more especially those from the province of Quebec, remember how much you speculated and gambled during the last election campaign on the necessity of appointing a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada. It seems that you


have completely forgotten your promises. As a matter of fact, where is the minister of agriculture for eastern Canada whom you were crying for so vehemently when we were in office? You promised that this minister would be appointed as soon as you came into power. You are in a position to do so now, and yet, you do nothing; you even fail to keep your election promises.
Mr. Speaker, that is hardly surprising because apparently government members believe that the end justifies the means.
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this debate, it has been noted that the attitude of government members is completely different from what it was during the last sessions.
In fact, Liberal members from rural constituencies were showering the then minister of agriculture with all kinds of requests, maintaining that the Conservative party had failed to submit any project or to consider any measure to help farmers. However, what have they done since they are in power? They merely continue to follow the policy and implement the measures applied by the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), who, according to experts and farming authorities, was the greatest minister of agriculture we ever had in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it would appear that our friends opposite have been told to talk about national unity, bilingualism and biculturalism so that their promises can be forgotten. I am wondering whether this is not the voice of their conscience forcing them to repair the harm they have done to Canadian unity in the past. I think they have a heavy load on their conscience, and this would explain why today, to live down all the harm they have caused, they feel compelled to take up the time of the house to talk of national unity and bilingualism.
Mr. Speaker, I do not trust the word of those people and, judging by their past behaviour, I do not think the team now to be found on the cabinet benches has the qualifications needed, and I would even go so far as to say the sincerity, to promote national unity.
Is there a member who has been more vilified, more ridiculed and more slandered that the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker)?
During the election campaigns, more particularly in Quebec, they visited religious orders; they came to the most informal meetings to tarnish the reputation of the man who was prime minister for six years and to spread the most contemptible rumours about him.
They went everywhere in the province of Quebec and said to male and female members of religious orders: Do not vote for him,

he is a 32nd degree Mason. But did they have the courage to repeat the same thing in Ontario? No.
To those who would be inclined to believe that I indulge in exaggeration, I must say that I have some documents they will be able to check, which indicate that the Liberal party policy was to divide to better rule.
I have here an article written by Mr. Yves Michaud, which appeared in the St. Hyacinthe Le Clairon, showing clearly how racial feelings were being taken advantage of. Here it is:
In our opinion, the problem for French Canadians is not very complicated. On the one hand, you have Mr. Louis St. Laurent, leader of the Liberal party, who inspires Canadian policy at home and abroad and who knows how to give real meaning to Canadian unity. On the other hand, you have Mr. John Diefenbaker, leader of the Progressive Conservative party, who has shown, on many occasions, his resentment towards the French Canadian minority in our country.
Is that not playing on the heart strings and trying to stir up ill feeling between the races? And the same thing was tried against me. In my own riding, during the night of June 8 to June 9, 1957, a circular was distributed which said:
A vote for Ricard is a vote for Diefenbaker, and a vote for Diefenbaker is a vote for religious persecution.
And to think that the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) defended in his own province of Saskatchewan, in 1922, teachers who taught French in the schools of that province.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals thought that there was something to be gained by distributing such propaganda; as a matter of fact, I am sure they made political capital out of that in some places.
Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard it said that the statements made in the province of Quebec by members on this side of the house are not the same as those they make in Toronto?
Yet, I have here an article according to which the Minister without Portfolio is alleged to have said that one must not say the same thing in Montreal as in Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, I used to be a school trustee in my home town and, as such, I know something of the problems with which the father of school children is faced. That is why it is a pleasure and an honour for me to move the following amendment.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth that the following words be added to the address in reply to the speech from the throne:
We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to propose the extension of family allowances to children 16 to 18 years of age who still attend school.
The Address-Mr. Chapdelaine
To conclude I should like to associate myself with the words that the Conservative leader for the province of Quebec, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), said here as reported on page 4155 of Hansard for October 29, 1963:
I am here to lend a hand to all members, be they French speaking or English speaking, who want to work for the good of our country. Indeed, such are the basic principles of the Conservative party which led to the birth of confederation as we know it today.
I would express only one wish, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative party, which gave confederation to Canada, be in power in 1967, in order that, all together, we may celebrate its centennial.
The Conservative party-and I am proud of it-since confederation has given the country ten prime ministers, who all ranked among the most brilliant in our country's history.


Gérard Chapdelaine: join the previous speakers to offer congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I also wish to congratulate the newly-elected members for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc and St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), and I shell express the wish their presence in this house be an asset for the province cf Quebec, which they represent, and for the whole of Canada.
In the past, I had the opportunity of putting forward my views on a necessary reform of parliamentary procedure and it would be useless to repeat my former suggestions, since they already appear in the record. Fortunately, since then, a committee to reform parliamentary procedure was established and the speech from the throne shows that the government intends to continue the work already begun by this committee.
However, I should like to call once again the attention of the house to a particular aspect of the changes which are to be made not only to the procedure of the house, but also to the ceremonies that take place at the opening of parliament. Again this year, we attended imposing ceremonies that seem useless to me, and to express my views on the subject, I could find no better words than the comments of Mr. Andre Laurendeau in Le Devoir, which show how antiquated and anachronistic those demonstrations are. This is what he had to say:
The strange ceremony by which parliament opens its sessions was broadcast on the C.B.C. Tuesday.
In a liturgy, usually, gestures are the symbol of actual facts. But this ceremony is more of a historical reconstitution. We are playing at the parliamentarian monarchy of the last century.
Who is running the affairs of Canada. The government and the members of the house: being plain,

The Address-Mr. Chapdelaine ordinary people, they are those we hardly see while the speech from the throne is being read. Yet, it is the government supported by a majority of house members, which dictated the words spoken by the Governor General.
Thus do appearances betray reality. Those who count have to be satisfied with the last places available, while those who no longer count have a monopoly on uniforms and all the trappings.
Those are considerations, Mr. Speaker, which I hope shall be seriously examined by the committee on parliamentary procedure. Without wishing to hurt anybody's feelings, I respectfully submit that we are no longer living in a century where we have to impress people with all sorts of trimmings and eyewash to make them believe we are playing an important role in this house.
A classic author said:
When not gifted with beauty, we must make up our face.
It would be much better to get to work with humility at the sober opening of the session to prove to the people later on that our work is worth while.
But since, this year again, we have to follow the established rule and talk for eight days, often to say nothing, I shall keep on talking a little more so as not to leave my place to someone else who probably thinks, the same as I do, that these discussions are as useless as they are empty. In a house with four parties and one group, I think it would be better to put the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne in the hands of a few members who could easily, in two days, wrap up what we take eight days to say. Especially, Mr. Speaker, in this case where we have to talk, not about the substance of the speech of the throne, but mainly about what it lacks. Once more, I should like to quote a comment by Mr. Laurendeau concerning the general outline of the policy of the Liberal party, as stated in the speech from the throne:
My government will attempt to make its full contribution to the maintenance of peace and the improvement of international relations; to the strengthening of our national unity through a cooperative federalism; to fostering the full employment of our people and the efficient growth of our economy; and to broadening the opportunities for a good life which should be open to all Canadians.
The slashing comment is as follows:
So that all parties might answer amen. And then the real debates begin.
Yet, it would be important to know what the present government intends to do, or when it intends to do something, if anything, about recognizing red China. But, last February 19 when I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) if his government was now contemplating, whatever the attitude of the United States, the possibility of recognizing red China, he answered,

without turning a hair, that Canada is a sovereign country and that its government would reach its own decision, taking into account only what concerns Canada and what comes within its jurisdiction.
That was an answer like the ones the minister usually gives, that is no answer at all, since everybody knows now that only the influence of the United States can prevent Canada from recognizing red China.
All Canadian politicians and all diplomats admit that it is no longer possible to ignore 600 million Chinese who have, on the international scene, an ever increasing influence. To refuse the dialogue with such a power is a diplomatic nonsense that cannot be justified by any reason in the circumstances; and the recent action taken by France should set an example to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who might take tangible action to prove to the rest of the world that Canada is a sovereign country.
Concerning a matter of less scope on the international scene but of some importance in Canada itself, I would like to say a few words on the problem of patronage which still exists in government, and which was inherited from the former administration, which in turn had inherited it from the previous one.
Everyone is familiar with the miniature scandal which arose when a Conservative member published a list of "consultants" which was in the possession of the former postmaster general. This scandal took a comical turn when the postmaster general, in order to justify himself, found no better way than to publish the "consultants" list which existed under the Conservative administration.
I should like at this time to address myself to the Minister of Justice, whose honesty, integrity and sincerity are unquestionable, and call to his attention a fact he ignores, I hope, and which he will be able to redress after I have told him about it.
A shameful patronage is now going on in Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, under which in every city or area, public notaries are designated who will be the only ones entitled to prepare mortgage contracts for C.M.H.C. loans. In Sherbrooke, under the Conservative administration, four public notaries had been designated by the minister of justice, and they were immediately replaced by three notaries of Liberal allegiance after the April 8, 1963 election.
I understand that there may be some advantages in proceeding this way in some cases, but it is unthinkable that a young notary, at the beginning of his career, should be deprived of vital income when experienced notaries, with a good practice, who have

served in the ranks of the party in power, benefit by an additional source of income amounting to several thousand dollars when they could easily do without it and while young notaries are literally starving during their first years of practice.
If the Minister of Justice does not have the list of notaries who hold the rose bowl at this time as far as contracts with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are concerned, I can give it to him; at the same time, I could send him the list of all the other notaries in the area who are in dire need of work.
Since separatism, bilingualism, bicultural-ism and binationalism are current topics of conversation these days, I would be remiss if 1 did not make a few remarks about those questions. I should like to say first of all that I am not a separatist and that I openly condemn all extremists, no matter what side of the fence they stand on, because in his way, each of them works against the solution of a problem that neither French Canadians nor English Canadians can ignore.
May I commend the government for the efforts it is making in connection with this disagreement which is gathering momentum. I have great sympathy for the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who finds himself between two stools more often than he should but who still has found it possible, since he took office, to take steps which may not be satisfactory to everybody but which have none the less raised the discussion to the level of a dialogue.
I am thinking of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission which is travelling across the country at present to collect useful information. Even though some men in public life are questioning the merits of such a commission, I am convinced that individuals as intelligent and sincere as Messrs. Lauren-deau and Dunton would not have accepted this task if there had been no hope. You will tell me that hope is a plant that grows even in graveyards, but I say that where there is hope, there is life.
There is also the matter of federal-provincial conferences which have started and will continue to take place. During those conferences, a solution is sought by means of sound discussions, which is the normal way of doing things in civilized society. I prefer such an attitude to that of people who seek to thrust their views on others instead of having them discussed for fear they would be untenable. Such an attitude is typical of the weak.
I also prefer such a way of tackling problems, since an agreement has to be reached, to the attitude of those who are looking for extraordinary solutions copied from
The Address-Mr. Chapdelaine countries where the mentality and living conditions are as foreign to Canada as a rider to a cow.
Let us attempt to understand and enforce a document conceived by Canadians of both original racial groups for the Canadian people, a document entitled the British North America Act. Useless to add that it would be advisable to renovate it, to refurbish it, to bring it up to date, without bungling it or what would be worse, destroying the country which is the envy of all other nations. It is time to read over that agreement entered into between free men in 1867 and to meet our commitments on both sides.
If Quebec gets the tax share it is entitled to, if its rights in education are respected, I am convinced that most extremists will get closer to the centre, because some will get what they are entitled to and the others will not feel that they have given up what they believed was rightfully theirs.
I would like to add to that a truly bilingual capital, which would put an end to this dialogue between deaf people which even the least patriotic of French Canadians find frustrating when they come to their national capital, Ottawa.
We have no intention of asking that bilingualism be enforced throughout Canada. In some parts of the country, it would be just as ridiculous as trying to impose Chinese to the Russians. As soon as things come to light, English Canada is in a position to realize that we have been ignored in the federal civil service, especially at the higher levels. We simply want to enjoy equality as a nation and to be able to occupy positions in proportion to our population-strength and capacity being equal.
As all or practically all French speaking members can speak English, it would be appreciated throughout Canada if English speaking members would try to do the same with regard to French. This is a matter of courtesy and not an obligation or claim on our part.
In the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, there is also a mention of interest free loans to students. I do not want to deal with the constitutional aspects of these loans at this time, but I would just ask the government why it cannot think of granting interest free loans to municipalities, or for the building of public utility facilities? It would be possible, while safeguarding provincial autonomy, to make available to the various provincial and municipal organizations loans without interest, which would cut in half the cost of those public utility facilities, and would, consequently, decrease the burden of the taxpayers who have to pay twice the value of those facilities.

The Address-Mr. Chapdelaine
Again, we will be told that money does not grow on trees or fall from the sky like manna; and I shall answer that, like everybody, we are not stupid enough to think so. But, when we explain to the government or to economists that nothing would prevent amending the Bank Act so that the authority -to loan up to 12 times as much money as they have on deposit with the Bank of Canada -given those institutions by that legislation be gradually taken from these private enterprises which the chartered banks are, and transferred to the government, which would then be able to create its own money or credit that could be extended without interest, or with a simple carrying charge, to the provinces and municipalities. There has never been a single economist or banker who denied that such action was possible. Prove to us that it is impossible, and we shall cease to make impossible suggestions.
Existing governments, all over the world, whose economy is based on capitalism, somewhat fear state socialism or plain communism. It is because of that saving fear that they pass, reluctantly, socializing measures as needed at election time in order to gain the favour of the electorate; we are sinking more and more deeply into socialism for lack of a better solution. Therefore, it is the present state of capitalism which breeds socialism, and rather than correcting the deficiencies in capitalism, we fall stupidly into the arms of a monster which provides us day after day with renewed evidence of its inefficiency. Are wheat sales to red China and Russia not the tangible proof of the failure of state farms while, in western Canada, where even weeds would hardly grow at the beginning of our century, private enterprise and initiative have succeeded in growing gold.
To accept the socialist philosophy, we must accept as a premise that everything in capitalism is essentially bad and only then could we understand a government reluctantly accepting socialism since there is no other solution.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is the Social Credit solution which intends to correct the deficiencies of capitalism and, sooner or later, if governments do not take it into consideration, they will have to submit to pure and simple socialization.
Fortunately, the United States realized lately that they had to cut taxes in order to increase buying power, and I hope this government will also understand that and take similar steps in the near future.
Before I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make some comments on the amendment moved by the Conservative party proposing to increase family allowances in the case of children from 16 to 18 years of age who still attend school.
[Mr. Chapdelaine.l
We are in complete agreement with such a measure, but we have confidence that the Liberal party, having advocated the same policy in its platform, will stand by its promises, and we think that, under the circumstances, that Progressive Conservative amendment is useless and just a scheme, since only yesterday the Conservative party voted against a similar amendment moved by the Ralliement Creditistes. Therefore, we do not attach to it more importance than it deserves.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin my remarks by associating myself with the tributes which have been paid to the mover and seconder of the address in reply, the hon. member for Longueuil and the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard. I should like also to associate myself with the compliments and good wishes which have been extended to those of my colleagues who have been newly called to the ministry.
The speech from the throne contains two items of special interest to my constituency. I refer to those parts which deal with the 12 mile limit and the fishery development program. We must wait until the legislation has been brought down before we can judge just how beneficial it will be, but since 80 per cent or more of my constituents are fishermen I should like to advise the government now that if the fishery development program is to be of any immediate benefit to the people of my riding it must contain at least four measures.
The first of these should provide for some means of easy credit whereby fishermen can obtain small loans for boats and gear without having to make any down payments. When it is considered that the average income of these fishermen is less than $1,000 a year, hon. members will understand that it is not possible for them to find funds for down payments, however small may be the sums required.
The second reauirement is an improvement in the bait service. At the present time we have two bait services in my province. One is supplied by the federal government and the other is supplied by private enterprise, mainly by the operators of fish processing plants. The difficulty is that when a fisherman gets his bait from a fish plant he is compelled to sell his fish to that plant, and is therefore not free to take advantage of any other market which may be available. He cannot choose a market where he might get a higher price. This is a situation which should be corrected.
The third requirement is an extension of the existing insurance coverage for boats and fishing gear. The fourth is some method of

compensation tor the lack of competition so as to ensure that fishermen receive the highest possible price for their catch.
The speech from the throne also indicates that steps are to be taken to expand markets for Canadian exports through the liberalization of world trade. Canada, with a domestic market of 19 million people and an industrial capacity sufficient for 50 million people, must sell her surplus products in foreign markets. To provide jobs for those who are presently unemployed as well as for the ever growing work force we must, therefore, continue to expand our world trade. This urgent necessity, together with the changing pattern of world trade, underlines the vital necessity of a new trading plan for Canada, a plan based on the new thinking which is being directed toward trade problems and trade development. Essentially, this new approach must be global in character; global trading with mass storage, mass distribution, continuous supply, cheap transportation and low distribution costs. Such a plan envisages the utilization of a global chain of entrepots or mass storage and distribution depots such as already exist in Hong Kong, Singapore, Beirut, Europort in Rotterdam and Colon in Panama.
In order to expand her world trade, Canada must have a link in this chain; in other words a Canadian equivalent of Europort, a Canadian entrepot, a showplace for Canada, a kind of giant supermarket where our products can be stored in readiness for mass distribution to the whole world, and where other nations can store their goods for mass distribution to North and South America. Viewed from this angle, a Canadian link in this world chain of entrepots becomes a necessity, and the logical location for it is on the south coast of Newfoundland. For more than 50 years people have dreamed of such an entrepot at Mortier bay in my riding of Burin-Burgeo, which is admirably located at a point where world trade routes and world shipping lanes converge. The time has now come when this dream can be translated into reality, and I urge the government to give careful consideration to this proposal and to do everything possible to bring it about. As a corollary to a trading plan for Canada we should also initiate a program to build a new Canadian merchant fleet so that our goods can be carried to world markets in Canadian ships.
The speech from the throne also makes reference to some measures to improve the efficiency of parliament. Last session great concern was expressed on both sides of this house and by members of all parties about the image of parliament which we were creating in the public mind. It is heartening to see again, at the beginning of this session, that similar convictions are being expressed.
The Address-Mr. Carter Some suggestions have been made as to procedures that may be adopted to compel us to make better use of parliamentary time, particularly as it applies to the question period.
Personally, in my opinion all that is necessary is to obey the rules we now have. For example, if we asked questions only of national importance and which required an urgent reply, our question period would seldom exceed 30 minutes. The same applies to points of order and to questions of privilege; if we would refrain from raising false points of order and false questions of privilege we would use up very little time in this way, and what time was devoted to this would be well spent. There should be no finger pointing about this, because no party and no member has any right to point the finger in this respect; we are all equally guilty of transgressing the house rules.
At the same time, the suggestions which have been put forward appear to me to be second best. They suggest an admission on our part that we do not intend to obey the rules, and that therefore instead of obeying the rules we will resort to devices to save parliament from the consequences of our reluctance to do what is right. In my opinion that is not a sign of maturity. We all have a duty and a responsibility to make parliament work, and it is better to obey the rules we have than to add to the rules and disregard them.
By making parliament work we would also take a long stride toward making confederation work. In a country like Canada there is bound to be a conflict of interest between one region and another. In a country with our historic background it is inevitable that problems of human relationships will arise between one group and another, between one race and another. These will require adjustments of attitudes and reconciliation of viewpoints.
However, there should be no problems between reasonable people which cannot be reconciled on a basis of what is right for the country as a whole, and personally I see no need to tear our country apart in the process. If we make confederation work we shall set a good example in making democracy work; and we should never forget that democracy is still on trial and fighting for its life. The free world is still engaged in a life and death conflict with world communism. Improved economic conditions and overpreoccupation with our own problems tend to make us forget that fact. But the communists have not abandoned their unswerving commitment to our destruction; they still intend to bury us, and any disagreement between them is only over the best way to do it.

The Address-Mr. Carter
Our problem of national unity is not unrelated to this great world problem. Any division that weakens Canada also weakens the free world and democracy everywhere, and at the same time we give comfort and aid to our enemies. Parties with different goals and viewpoints should reflect whether it is worth while to gain their own particular aims or their own particular aspirations if the end result is that we are going to wind up as slaves, as has happened to one third of the human race.
In the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker, many speakers have dealt with the problem of national unity. The eloquent and moving words on this subject spoken by our Prime Minister at the opening of this debate will rank with the best in the history of our parliament. Fine speeches and mutual expressions of good will are most helpful, because they create an atmosphere and an environment without which true unity cannot be born. But we must not delude ourselves that having created a proper environment we can then leave the rest to royal commissions, provincial conferences and federal legislation. True unity cannot be manufactured; it must be created, and it is our job to create it.
The first step in creating national unity is to establish a solid foundation for it. In a democracy such as ours, which is based on the concept of man as a created being, there can be only one true basis of unity, and that is the acknowledgment of a divine Creator and obedience to His moral law. In fact, true democracy cannot function except within a framework of moral principles. We must realize too that real and lasting unity has a price tag on it, not in terms of dollars and cents but in terms of humility, of admitting where we have been wrong and endeavouring to put it right; in terms of caring for the other fellow, showing a willingness to consider other viewpoints and reconciling differences on a basis of what is right for the country as a whole. True unity cannot come from without. It cannot be brought about by outside agencies. It must come from within, and the price must be in terms of changed hearts, changed attitudes, changed outlooks and changed objectives. It cannot be done on the cheap.
True unity once established must be fostered and preserved. This requires a strong national purpose. A national purpose for the world in which we live today must be bigger than ourselves. It must be bigger even than our own country. It must be global in scope, something that we can give ourselves to completely, something we can lose ourselves in.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that our national purpose should be nothing less than the creation of a completely new order of society in which the world's resources would be used for the benefit of all and for the exploitation of none. That gallant young soldier whose epitaph was quoted by our Prime Minister did not die just for Canada. He died for a better world for all mankind, for a new order of society where all people would live together in harmony, decency, dignity and peace; where everyone would care enough and would share enough so that everyone would have enough.
Our young people may never again be asked to die for their country, but they are being asked to live for their country and that may prove to be even more difficult. We deplore the recent display of "Beatlemania" and other similar phenomena so prevalent among our young people. Could not the reason be that we of our generation have never given them anything big enough to live for? We can correct that right now if we are prepared to honestly face our country as it is and determine to put right what is wrong in it.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we should be less introspective and self centered and more concerned with problems of the world at large. Instead of looking inward, we should start looking outward at the 2J billion people who go to bed hungry every night and the millions who are enslaved in poverty and disease with no future, no life expectancy beyond 40. What better national purpose can we have here in Canada, where we enjoy so many blessings including material abundance, than to take the lead in creating a society where there would be a better life for all? Here is a purpose big enough to unite us all. Serious as are the problems that face us in Canada, if we view them against the background of world problems we will see them in better perspective and in more correct proportions. Moreover, by dedicating ourselves to doing something about this human poverty and degradation both in our own country and in the world at large, we shall find an unfailing source of real and lasting unity, not only for ourselves but for future generations.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, in adding my contribution to the address in reply to the speech from the throne I should like to take advantage of the traditional privilege of complimenting the mover and seconder of the address. I think I should point out that these new members in the house are witnessing a parliament that is somewhat unusual. The parliament in which we are now taking part has brought.

to life an old custom that is known as bundling. I am told by those who know more than I do about the custom that bundling started at one time in the highlands of Scotland when the nights were cool and damp and many of the people lived in one room homes. Because in the nature of things there was no opportunity for the young people of the household to engage in those very necessary activities of youth, it was arranged that while the older people sat around and looked into the fire-place, from which they obtained their warmth, the younger people were allowed to wrap a blanket around themselves and lie side by side in a bed along the wall. This custom of bundling came to the New England colonies and has become a part of the American vocabulary.
I wish to begin my remarks by saying that bundling is not dead in Canada. We have a new type of bundling being practised, and this is the bundling of politicians. Some of these politicians are not happy with the use of the word "bundling". One of them did not deny that bundling was going on, but one did disclaim this fact somewhat. I shall quote from the Medicine Hat News of January 11, 1964 where the headline says:
Olson says Socreds are bundling, but...
He says they are not bundling with the Liberal party, but just with the Liberal government. He excuses this bundling on the grounds that it is in the national interest to keep the Liberals in power, regardless of the issues at stake. I wonder where he was about a year ago when this same question arose, of keeping a government in power that had been elected not on fraud but had been elected on its record? Then we saw such an amount of bundling that eventually brought down the government.
This bundling has resulted in another minority government, and it has not stopped just with the bundling of the Social Credit party; it has gone on. This bundling habit has come to the attention of the fourth estate of the country. I shall now quote from an editorial in the Toronto daily Star of October 10, 1963. In part it says:
Indeed, the Liberals seem to be already angling for the loyalty of Robert Thompson's rump Social Credit group, which would give them a fairly secure majority. How else can one explain the government's support of the Thompson group's claim to precedence over Real Caouette's more numerous Creditistes?
Such attentions are well calculated to maintain Mr. Thompson's sense of his own importance, and he may prove to be a pliable ally if he is kept buttered up.
But the Star is interested in progressive as well as stable government, and we cannot see much forward thrust coming from Mr. Thompson and his 10-man crew.
The obvious candidates for a progressive alliance would be the Liberals and the New Democrats.
The Address-Mr. Hamilton
So here we have the quasi intellectuals of our country-


Stanley Howard Knowles: We do not want to bundle.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -suggesting that the Liberals are making a mistake in bundling with the Social Credit party-that is, the western wing -and that their bundling should be with the New Democratic party.


Mr. Brewin:: It should be a willing partner.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I hear it suggested from the ranks of the New Democratic party that it should be a willing partner. Perhaps I may deal with that for a moment. In the same Toronto newspaper, dated December 21, I read, over the signature of one of the senior editorial writers, Mark Gayn:
In Ottawa and Toronto.
Report Liberals, N.D.P. hold talks in secret for 'unified action'.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder if the hon. member would allow me to finish this part of my remarks. He may find the answer to his question in a further clipping.


Francis Andrew Brewin: That is a marijuana pipe dream.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This article says:
Highly secret conversations have been in progress between Liberal and New Democratic party leaders on both the federal and Ontario provincial levels.
Involved in these contacts-described variously as "shadowy" "exploratory" and "tentative"- have been a number of federal cabinet ministers.
Then several are named. The article continues:
Also participating was Keith Davey, the Liberal party's national organizer.
Then the article names a number of members of the New Democratic party, including T. C. Douglas, party leader; Douglas Fisher, its whip in the House of Commons, and David Lewis, the party's vice chairman.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, could I now ask a question of the hon. member?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the answer to the question the hon. member wants to pose to me is contained in the next clipping.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I should like to ask it while you are dealing with that clipping, if I may.


Mr. Winkler:: How about the Liberal leader in Ontario?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was going to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I am just an ordinary member of parliament from a very pleasant constituency, Qu'Appelle, and 1 am not quite up to the standards of the professional man, the lawyer. This is what I was going to say with

The Address-Mr. Hamilton regard to the next clipping of two days later. This story appeared in the Toronto daily Star:
Douglas calls merger talks 'impractical'.
T. C. Douglas is reported to have invited left wing Liberals to join his New Democratic party.
But he said the parties are so far apart that talks on a future merger would be "impractical".
I believe that other members like the hon. member for Port Arthur disclaimed all responsibility for these talks, but a number of Liberals in the province apparently did not do so.
Arthur J. Reaume, Liberal member for Essex North in the Ontario legislature, said yesterday he is head of a provincial Liberal committee that is exploring the possibility of a common meeting ground with the N.D.P.


John George Diefenbaker: What did Mr. Thatcher say?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I continue:
John Munro, M.P. for Hamilton East, said that, although a merger may be the only way to regain political stability, publicity about the recent talks has killed all hope of union for the present.
Apparently this type of bundling does not stand up to the light of the fire or to the sun. It only goes along well when there is a blanket over the bundling.
Mr. Munro said the two parties are steadily finding more areas of common ground.
I think this requires some observation, because if we are to have a good parliament, such as the hon. member for Newfoundland just talked about, there must be some devotion to principles. I was in the house last night and saw the members of the N.D.P. stand up this time and be counted, whereas in the budget debate of almost a year ago they took the course of being silent, creating a precedent that the house had never known. But last night they stood up, except two of them who still wanted to bundle, and I think I know the reason.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But they were bundling standing up.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is an expert in bundling. I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that last night we saw the N.D.P. stand up and vote for what I hope is a sound principle by expressing their opposition to regressive taxation, namely the 11 per cent sales tax. For obvious reasons I hope they continue to stand up for their principles. Across this country people are just a little concerned about the obvious desire of many people in public life to forget their principles and seek power at any price. We saw the Liberal party not so long ago get on their knees in this house and plead for support for funny money. They chose as their spokesman at that time the 
present Minister of Finance. They demonstrated their willingness to bend all their principles and support funny money just to get the support of the Social Credit and try to defeat the government of the day. Now they say to Canadians "Please be gentle with us. Please give us all the consideration that Canadians want in their parliament. Please do not expect us to meet the type of conditions you had to meet".
The Liberals have forgotten the parliaments of 1957 and 1958. They have forgotten the parliament of the fall of 1962, when not a single estimate was allowed through the house because of the deliberate policy of opposing everything the government did and trying to force the government of that day into a position whereby it could not get enough money to carry on and as a result would be forced to go to the country. The whole blueprint of that went into the public press under the signature of the Liberal member whom I have learned to call secretary of state but who has now been promoted to Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickers-gill). I will just deal with this briefly in order to make sure that the country understands what the purpose of all this bundling is.


Mr. Byrne:: It replaced a lot of bungling.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In the case of Saskatchewan the suggestion that the Liberal party and the N.D.P. were going to do more than bundle and were going to take the blankets off caused great disturbance. The Liberal leader there got up in the legislature and said that he would fight to the death against the bundling of Liberals and members of the N.D.P. in Ontario. Yet he goes about Saskatchewan trying to work up a bundling arrangement with certain business concerns. I gather that from the way the N.D.P. voted last night they have, with the exception of two mavericks, abandoned this bundling at the federal level. They are going to stand up and fight, because they know if they do not the boys who are carrying on these negotiations in Toronto have a very simple, ruthless rule. If you do not produce, out you go. The very forces that worked so hard to make the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, the leader of the N.D.P., will be looking for new leadership if he does not produce a majority in the house. If he does not take a strong stand on the basis of principles he has no other course but to hit the skids.
As one who comes from Saskatchewan I have been a little surprised over the last year to see the extent to which the N.D.P., or what used to be called the C.C.F. party, have been leaning over backward to bundle with the government. We wondered whether

this session they were going to crawl completely into bed with the Liberals. I think of that old adage, politics makes strange bedfellows. But coming from Saskatchewan as I do I never thought I would see the N.D.P. and Liberals lying in the same bunk.


An hon. Member:: That is a lot of bunk.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Last night in the house the Liberals voted for the retention of the regressive 11 per cent sales tax, but I think to see the significance of that vote last night we have to look at the wider picture. I want to go quickly back over the last 14 years, starting with the time of the Paley report to the president of the United States in 1952. Hon. members will recall that the Paley report pointed out to the government of that country that some strategic reserves of the United States were already or soon would be in short supply, and advocated that those in private enterprise in that country engaged in the work of developing and processing resources and energy should seek abroad for new reserves.
One area in which the report recommended they should seek these reserves was Canada, because we had a stable economic structure and were known to keep our word both in business and in international affairs. As a result of advice of this type and as a result of the great potential of Canadian resources, our country received in 1954, 1955 and 1956 a tremendous influx of capital to secure ownership and management control over large reserves of our resources. This brought to Canada in those years a foreign exchange problem.
There were two courses open for any Canadian government to follow. One course was a policy of restriction, and there were many advocates of such a policy. The idea was that we should put up barriers against capital and goods coming into our country, even to the extent of stopping $1 billion of United States goods from coming into Canada, and that we should add to this a policy of barring investment. It was suggested that we should impose heavier taxes as a part of this overall restrictive policy, which was referred to as pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps or tightening our belts and getting out of the hole in 10 or 20 years.
That was one course which was supported by some, but there was another course. It was the course the former government took in facing this difficulty. That course was to bring before parliament an expanded trade program, to enter upon a program of expanded international credit sales; and from June of 1961 to start deliberately to bring our dollar into a realistic relationship with the currency
The Address-Mr. Hamilton of other countries on the basis of our real exchange situation. We also moved into an extended program of research. This was actually started in wholesale measure in the years 1958 and 1959. My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was one of the leaders in that effort.
I outlined this research program, I think, during the 1959 debate on the address in reply. We went further than that and earlier than that, in changing the oil and gas regulations and the mining regulations dealing with the areas we had under our control in the Northwest Territories and the lands beneath the sea. We did so in order to ensure that these great reservoirs of future wealth in the form of minerals and of energy would always be preserved for Canadians, not only in so far as the control of these resources was concerned but in the right to participate in their exploitation. These mining regulations, these oil and gas regulations, were a landmark in the attempt of Canadians to have more control over the economic future of their country. Now we see stories in the newspapers that section 45 is to be abandoned and the regulations changed.
I should like to point out one thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is throughout this attempt to get control of our resources and energy there was no question of a repudiation of contract. All contracts in effect before the date of these regulations were honoured, and I hope they are still being honoured. Any future oil, gas or mineral leases would be made under our regulations.
What happened when the new government took office? Everyone knows that through their budget they turned back from a policy of expansion, in trying to meet our balance of payments difficulties, to a policy of restriction. They turned to transfer taxes to bother the flow of capital. This transfer tax repudiated contracts. They turned to the 11 per cent sales tax, and they tried to take away with one fell swoop all the good we got out of the 7i per cent dollar devaluation.
I should like to mention, too, that when you voted last night you were voting to go along with the old policy that we said in 1957, 1959 and 1960 would lead to expansion, or to stay with the new policy of the new government, a policy of restriction which will eventually throttle the rising economy we have had since June, 1961.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I should like to call the hon. member's attention to standing order 35 when he refers to a recent vote in the house. I do not believe there is any need to read it at the moment.

The Address-Mr. Hamilton


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I thank you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I just made a passing reference, and I do not believe I was too far out of order.
In the remaining time that is left to me I should like to deal swiftly with two items which I think have a bearing on the government's policy, not deliberate but blundering and unintentional, of restriction. I have asked some questions of the Minister of Trade and Commerce dating back as far as May of last year concerning international commodity agreements. These questions can be found by looking at Hansard for May 31,
1963,	page 495; June 5, 1963, page 685; February 20, 1964, page 39; February 25,
1964,	page 201.
What do all these questions indicate? They indicate that there was a change of policy on the part of the government during the last year toward these international commodity agreements. If you look at the minister's answers in May and June of last year you will find he was in favour of long range international commodity agreements. The other day he gave an answer indicating that the time was not propitious for entering into these agreements.
I have all these statements before me, and what do they say? First of all, in order to build up my case, I ask what are the purposes of international commodity agreements? One purpose is to give international stability in the prices of primary products. However, there is another purpose which has come to the fore in the last 15 years, and that is to help those nations of the world to which the hon. member from Newfoundland was referring, which need help. These people can be helped by giveaways, but that hurts their pride. They would prefer to be helped on a solid basis of sound trading between the developing nations of the world and the other trading nations. Most of these nations have just one or two products to sell. If you think in terms of western wheat you have the complete parallel.
In 1949 we finally won our long battle in western Canada to get an international wheat agreement. Now every three years we negotiate a minimum price and a maximum price. The minimum price protects the producer and the maximum price protects the consumer. You try to pick a price that gives the producer a living without gouging the consumer. Here we have this example of protection for products outside our country; we have good protection for our wheat. Would the producers of sugar around this world not like that same stability?
We have had an international agreement on sugar. When the government changed, one of the first questions I asked of the Prime
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten).]
Minister can be found in Hansard for May 31, 1963, page 495. It reads in part as follows;
I wonder whether I might ask the Prime Minister a question on the same subject but in a slightly different vein. Now that the United States Senate has ratified the international commodity agreement on coffee, will the Canadian government take the lead in pressing for completion of the international agreement on sugar?
The Minister of Trade and Commerce replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the policy of this government to encourage international commodity arrangements-
Then he went on to describe how the government favours them. Then if you read Hansard for June 5, 1963, you will find the real reason for not renewing the sugar agreement, which would have protected consumers of the United States and Canada against this tremendous price increase we experienced during the last year. There was a disagreement over Cuba. In other words, because of Cuba's part in the negotiations it was found impossible to get all the countries into the agreement. Hon. members are allowed only one question as to which country was objecting to Cuba. We have had these high prices for sugar and all these questions in the house. Those people who depend upon sugar for a living still have not got their agreement renewed.
If you read the long answer by the minister you will find that there was agreement finally. Then he said if it were found that less than the required number of countries had become parties to this protocol by January 1, 1964, the governments that had signed, ratified, accepted or acceded to this protocol might agree to put it into force amongst themselves. Why did this government if it believed in giving some sort of fair deal not only to our own consumers but to the producers of these newly developing countries, not stand up and say they would enter into an agreement? Why did they stand up and say, "We do not think it is propitious to enter into an agreement"? They did so because they are thinking in the old fashioned way of squeezing down the poor, unhappy country that has no bargaining power and which is dependent upon one or two products. It is all part of the restrictive attitude of mind that unconsciously dominates this government.
I could go through agreement after agreement to illustrate my point. The government of which I was a member was proud to take the lead in the O.E.C.D. in talks with our United States friends and talks with the other countries of the world concerning long range agreements when we knew they were trying to give these poor-I almost said devils- trying to make a living on sugar a fair price.

The world price for sugar was slightly less than 3 cents a pound, and it rose to 14 cents or 15 cents a pound recently. If there had been a price of between 5 cents and 8 cents a pound established under an agreement we would have doubled the price to the producer and the price to the consumer would not have been too high. This government unwittingly stuck a dagger into the hearts of the newly developing nations that were looking to Canada to continue this leadership and give them some form of justice.
There are so many things I want to say, Mr. Speaker, but I must watch the clock and I have just three minutes left. In those three minutes I want to speak not of sugar but of all the other nations of the world seeking the light. For several years I have felt that one of the great underdeveloped markets for the western world has been the Orient and the countries behind the iron curtain.
I went to China in 1961 to ask if they were willing to continue the long range trade agreement beyond 1963. They said they were if they could find their way out of various technical and trade difficulties. Since Canada could not absorb all their goods they could never begin to pay bilaterally for the big wheat sales we made to them, so I have been trying to figure out ideas to help them. I invited the Chinese to send a trade delegation to this country in 1961, and another came here in 1962, at the time of the election when everything was in confusion. I think western civilization's long search for China as a market for the western world is over. Ever since the days of Marco Polo men have tried to contact Cathay. Many met a frozen death trying to find their way to China, but now I think we have found our way. So in my conversations with the Chinese I have suggested various things that would help solve their technical and trading difficulties whereby they would have better access to the markets of the world.
Just a few weeks ago I received a letter from the Chinese inviting me to visit their country in the month of March next. I shall be leaving about the middle of March to continue the discussions I had with them in April, 1961; only this time I hope to be dealing with officials in the capital city of their country, and I hope to be able to point out the many products we have in Canada. I hope to be able to add some ideas to their own thinking on how to get their products into the western markets, so that great country of 700 million people can be drawn more and more into the orbit of the trading nations of the world and, as we talk together and trade together, I hope in the long run this will lead to more and more friendliness and a greater chance for peace in the world.
The Address-Mr. Langlois [Translation]


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Indeed, it was hard to praise such an empty speech, because in a case like that, one can easily find oneself blowing a lot of hot air. However, they performed their task creditably.

I should like to say a few words in reply to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle concerning a little bit of last year's administration. He said that the Liberals supported a funny money policy in an effort to overthrow the Conservative government. It might be funny money to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, but for my own part I would just as soon start to support funny money as start to support funny people.
A few minutes ago he was criticizing the Liberal government, and he had reason to do that. There is no reason to congratulate it, and he was blaming the government for having no policy. But, Mr. Speaker, I hope he remembers that on a national television broadcast a couple of weeks ago the hon. member for Three Rivers, when asked a point blank question, "What is the difference between the Liberal and the Conservative party so far as policy is concerned?" answered, "There is no difference. Just the men make the difference "
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that is not much.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard several speeches in which the beautiful sentences and the noble sentiments in favour of national unity were not lacking.
There is at the present time some friction between this country's two great nations: the French Canadian nation on the one hand and the Anglo-Saxon nation on the other. Maybe we should go back to the beginning of our history to find the basic reason for that misunderstanding.
If we study the present situation in Canada -I mean the province of Quebec and the Anglo-Saxon Canada, that is the nine other provinces if we study closely the economic situation of those two parties, we might find the basic reason for the awakening of French Canadians and why they insist on getting more from the federal government.
And that might greatly facilitate the task of bringing those two great races back to a perfect understanding.
Mr. Speaker, let us consider the province of Quebec and its general economic situation. Let us first look carefully at the industrial

The Address-Mr. Langlois field. As a member from a mining area, I can state that in the case of the asbestos industry, covering a period of 90 years, not a single secondary industry is manufacturing asbestos products.
Statistics show that for the year 1961-1962 the province of Quebec exported $131 million worth of asbestos to the United States, where it was transformed into secondary products which brought $2 billion to the Americans.
Why have no steps been taken up to now to process ourselves our raw materials, such as asbestos? This is not the only case. There is also the oil industry, as well as others, which supply our American neighbours and even other countries, so that they are able to process our raw materials and resell them to us as finished products.
The province of Quebec has very few secondary industries compared to the province of Ontario, for instance. That may be why the economy of the province of Quebec has not developed as it should have.
The same applies in the field of labour, and this is due to the lack of secondary industries in our province. Therefore, it necessarily and logically follows that in a province with a population of almost six million, the rate of unemployment is high. Compared with the rest of Canada, in the province of Quebec alone 45 per cent of the labour force is unemployed.
The matter is serious enough and even shocking for the province to wake up at a certain time and say: there is something lacking which might provide jobs for our people.
Mr. Speaker, 45 per cent of the unemployed in Canada are localized in the same province. This is intolerable. The answer to the problem is not to mess things up, but rather to attempt as soon as possible, to find a positive solution and put matters straight.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us consider the agricultural industry. I have here an article published in La Presse of February 25, 1964, and which states that in 1963, the agricultural income was rising in Saskatchewan and Alberta, but decreasing in the province of Quebec.
This is not the first time I have dealt with Quebec agriculture in the house and, believe me, Mr. Speaker, this will not be the last either.
Farm income in the province of Quebec shows a decrease at present. I have here an article published in the February 15, 1964 issue of La Tribune under the following title:
There is a severe need for technicians in Megantic and Wolfe counties.
Out of a total of 2,028 farms, 1,565 have registered sales amounting to more than $1,200 this year.

Mr. Speaker, half the farms have registered sales of more than $1,200 while the average per farm amounts to $850 in the province of Quebec.
The county of Megantic is, at the present time, quoted at 77 per cent among profitearning farms in the province. What about farms quoted at less than 77 per cent?
At present, the county of Megantic has an average income of $850 per farm, while in western Canada, the income is almost $6,000 this year.
That is the present situation in the province of Quebec; and yet we live in the same country, we share the same cost of living and have the same expenses. Western problems are well known but those of Quebec are overlooked.
We may be right in requesting a larger slice of the federal tax. It is the reason why we are witnessing at this time misunderstanding between Anglo-Saxons and French Canadians.
The Quebec farmers are saturated with taxes. I happen to have before me a brief which was submitted by the U.C.C. in which farmers threaten the provincial government with refusal to pay their taxes on their properties if there is no change.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the agronomists of Megantic county give us the following argument: Your sales quota is 77 per cent; you are not too badly off. This simply means: you are dying from hunger but less rapidly than others.
We will not tolerate reports of that kind any more than eastern or western farmers would.
I see that my time is running out. We have just heard the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) make a speech which he concluded by proposing an amendment to family allowances. It seems to me that he should have been more consistent since the members of his party voted three times against a subamendment on the same subject. And to show that we, at least, are consistent, I propose, seconded by the hon. member for Dorchester:
That all the words after "18 years" he struck out and the following be substituted therefor: and have not proposed at the same time a general increase in family allowances according to the cost of living index.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying the farmer, the labour class, in brief, the consumer generally, is exploited not only in the province of Quebec but in the whole country. I have before me an article written by Mr. Lorenzo Pare, chief editor of L'Action Catholique, in which he declares:
The consumer is king.

It is good to read such a thing from time to time and to remember it.
The consumer is king in our modem economy. It is a flattered, besieged, wooed king, who is often deceived by the multitude of those who curry his favours. But it is a king without any real defence against all those courtiers, who find a thousand and one reasons to incite him to grant them favours, to take away from him the dollars he earned the hard way.
President Johnson, in the United States, has just acknowledged the often critical position in which the American consumer finds himself. And
The Address-Mr. Langlois the Canadian consumer's position is not different. For, as Mr. Johnson stated: "For a long time, the consumer had little to say and had little weight in the government. As a worker, a businessman, a farmer, a lawyer, or a doctor, the citizen has been well represented. But as a consumer he took a back seat."
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock? [Text}


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 27, 1964