November 14, 1957

SC

Bert Raymond Leboe

Social Credit

Mr. Leboe:

-it will follow the example set by the previous government and extend the paving of that highway north. As I pointed out, this is very important to the people in that area and all the people to the south right down to the southern part of the United States.

I have a few words to say about the C.B.C. and the National Film Board and when I say "a few words" I mean just that. Under the present policy for television broadcasting we find that there is an unequal division between the parties in this house in terms of the time allotted to them for television broadcasting. I maintain that this completely overlooks the wishes of the people who are looking at their TV sets and recognizes the situation only from a political point of view. If political television broadcasts are to be continued I think there should be an equal division among the four major parties in this house and an equal amount of time should be allotted to each to present their views so the Canadian people will get what they are looking for and will be assisted in finding out what the various parties stand for, what their platforms and programs are. I do not think anybody except perhaps those who are in political office will argue the point. If a canvass were made of the listening audience across the country I am sure it would be found the people generally would look most favourably upon a policy under which 25 per cent of the listening time were allotted to each of the four major parties.

Now, just a word about the National Film Board. I seem to be ranging far and wide in my remarks but these are just a few thoughts I have in connection with these various subjects. It has been brought to my attention that the National Film Board will not release the film "The Sceptre and the Mace" through its channels for six months. I think this policy should be scrapped at once. There are many people who for conscience sake never darken a theatre door. This film will be released through commercial theatre circuits for a period of six months before it is released through the circuits of the National Film Board. As I undertsand it this is being done to defray expenses. It is the taxpayer who pays in any case and therefore why should the people who want to see this film

be deprived of seeing it through National Film Board channels for a period of six months or more? Many centres throughout the country lack theatres but many have social groups to whom the National Film Board material could be made available. This film should be shown across Canada while the visit of Her Majesty the Queen is fresh in the minds of the people. I do not see for one moment why we should have to wait for six months to view this film on the pretext that we are trying to save some money through releasing it commercially in the first instance. If we think it is possible to save some money for the National Film Board we should perhaps investigate the possibility of uniting the efforts of the National Film Board and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Possibly we could save enough money by this means that the authorities would not have to worry about the few dollars they will collect through the rental of "The Sceptre and the Mace" and other films.

Another subject I wish to raise is the need of airports. As we travel across the country we see a great need for establishing new airports and extending the facilities of existing ones because registered aircraft in Canada continue to increase rapidly and the miles travelled by people by the medium of airplanes is increasing every day. Also, new applications are being made for charters. I trust that the government will look into the situation a little closer in respect to the seaplane base in Prince George. A lot of the chartered aircraft in the northern areas of British Columbia, as in other parts of the country, take off and land on water and Prince George is one of the chief centres in western Canada in that respect. A good seaplane base at this point is extremely essential.

There was some mention in this house the other day of the Wenner-Gren project. This happens to be considered for construction in the Cariboo riding. It was described by some hon. members as a steal, a give-away program and many other things but I can refer those hon. members who are concerned about it to three documents, the memorandum of agreement of 1956, the one dated in October 1957 and other related material that is available for distribution in British Columbia. I would also refer them to the water act of British Columbia which is the key to all these agreements. Hon. members of the

C.C.F. party have been inclined to throw cold water on the proposed construction to be brought into being in the Cariboo riding at what is known as the Rocky Mountain trench. I have before me a clipping from

the Ottawa Journal dated April 2, 1957 and I would like to read a part of it for the benefit of those hon. members. The article has reference to a pulp agreement in Saskatchewan and says in part:

Under the agreement, the American group is given an option on 12,000 square miles of crown-owned spruce, fir, jackpine and poplar forests. Construction of the mill, with a minimum production of 300 tons daily, would start before September 1.

This announcement was made by A. G. Kuziak, natural resources minister of the Saskatchewan government. It seems to me that the members of the Saskatchewan government know on what side their bread is buttered as do some of the rest of us, and jealously will get these people nowhere. The people I represent in British Columbia are very happy about this proposition and they are the ones who live in that country. They are developing that country and they are the pioneers whose children today are engaged in the fields of engineering, surveying and so on which are the keys to prosperity in our province. We are looking forward to great things happening in the Cariboo riding.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Robert John Pratt

Progressive Conservative

Mr. John Prait (Jacques Carlier-Lasalle):

Mr. Speaker, may I add my congratulations to the many already extended to yourself and to the Deputy Speaker, and also to the mover and seconder of the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne.

May I also say how sorry I am that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) has chosen to relinquish his high office. I have always admired his personal qualities and qualifications and I sincerely hope that he will continue to serve his country for many years to come in some other important capacity.

The tradition has been very well impressed on me by now, Mr. Speaker, that in addressing this house for the first time one does not plunge into the controversial but rather dwells on the delights and innocent requirements of one's home constituency. I am sure that I do not need to dwell upon the delights of the county of Jacques Cartier-Lasalle with its great industry, its beautiful scenery and its highly intelligent population; but I would like to say a few words about the innocent requirements of this important riding which already consists of over 100,000 people and which will probably double its population within the next decade.

I certainly do not need the pressure of tradition to encourage me to concentrate on the problems of my riding, as indeed my

The Address-Mr. Pratt entire campaign platform in the recent election was based solely on our own local problems and nothing else. However, local though those problems may be, they are actually of national interest, as similar problems exist in many other constituencies right across the country.

One of the most urgent of our problems is the continued and growing pollution of the Ottawa and St. Lawrence rivers, in as much as it could adversely affect the health of many thousands of citizens in every municipality along the banks of these streams. It is a disgrace to allow this disgusting, barbaric practice of dumping raw sewage and industrial wastes into our beautiful lakes and waterways. It is a practice which must be stopped but the expense involved is great. It is not fair that the municipalities should be expected to pay the entire cost out of their limited revenues. It is a responsibility of all three levels of government. The federal government is involved not only because many of these streams such as the Ottawa and St. Lawrence rivers are navigable but because many such streams run across interprovincial and even international borders.

My constituency is also seriously concerned about the question of railway level crossings. Again, this is an archaic situation which has been allowed to exist and grow worse right across the land but it has reached an appalling state in the western section of the island of Montreal which constitutes the riding of Jacques Cartier-Lasalle. We are very happy and proud to be the absolute hub of railroading in Canada, but in consequence we have four of the busiest lines where the fastest trains in America continue to take their toll of human life and suffering and where parents dread the thought of their youngsters crossing and recrossing the tracks on their way to and from school, and where the nights are made absolutely hideous by the never-ending scream of train whistles in the hands of nervous drivers trying to prevent the inevitable death and destruction. This problem was solved in Europe in the middle of the 19th century with picks and shovels. Surely, we should be able to cope with it in 20th century Canada with all the wonders of modern power shovels and bulldozers.

Equally pressing is the question of increasing highway traffic, with the lack of adequate bridges over federal canals and navigable waters causing bottlenecks which are not only a nuisance to the travelling public but which are costing millions of dollars in lost time to commercial and industrial transportation. The traffic complex at the Lachine canal in Ville St. Pierre is a nightmare of bad planning and lack of planning. At the

The Address-Mr. Pratt other end of the riding there is a single bridge over the canal which creates a bottleneck at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, resulting in stalled traffic for two or three miles on either side of the block. This happens every weekend with ordinary traffic. What would happen with a civil defence evacuation, under emergency conditions, of a quarter of a million people?

When we speak of civil defence we realize in Jacques Cartier-Lasalle that it is difficult to formulate specific policies, or consolidate specific plans, owing to the complexity and increasing rapidity of scientific progress, but this is all the more reason why the federal government, with its greater access to last-minute information and its greater access to the necessary funds, must itself take the leadership and not lean so heavily on provincial or municipal initiative.

There were only two other planks in my election platform, namely to obtain better postal service in the developed areas of my constituency and to ask that the cities and towns be given a fair share of the national tax dollar. I would like to congratulate the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) and thank him for all he has done and is doing to improve the postal services in Jacques Cartier-Lasalle. I would also like to congratulate and thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) for all he has done and is doing to further the cause of mutual understanding and mutual co-operation between the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Postmaster General on their initiative in getting things started and I personally thank them for helping me to achieve already at least part of my platform promises.

A recent magazine article remarked that it was highly unusual for a comedian to become a member of parliament. After listening to some of the hon. members in this house I find that it is not at all unusual for a member of parliament to become a comedian. I would like to say just a word about my first reactions as a wide-eyed newcomer to this historic house. At first, to be quite frank, I was rather disappointed at the hard, cynical way in which some of the older members put their party interests above the common good. I was, therefore, very pleased to hear in the speeches of some of the newcomers the kind of idealism that I had always associated with a true understanding of the real, traditional significance of parliament. I could not help but wonder whether these young men in time would also become hard, cynical and myopic in their narrow focus on the interest of party above all else. Since then I am happy to say I have heard several battle-scarred veterans of many years in this house reveal

an idealism that is far too simple and straightforward to be merely histrionic and I am sure there is no better example for a young man to find than an old one who has kept faith with his principles.

However, there are still too many who seem to have come here to get rather than to give. I have heard far too many talk of their heritage, their rights and their privileges and not nearly enough of their duties, their responsibilities and their potentialities. Let us think less of our separate past and more of our tremendous collective future. I would like to feel that, at least from now on, this house is regarded by all as somewhat more of a parliament and somewhat less of a snakepit.

There are two reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I think I should cut this speech short and not take up any more of the valuable time of this house. First, because I have an uneasy feeling that, like so many hon. members, I may tend to use rather too many words for what little I have to say and, second, because I realize that this year we have an unusually large number of Conservative newcomers, some of whom are still awaiting their opportunity to speak. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that neither of these two mild understatements will be regarded as controversial. It is also six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink

AFTER RECESS The house resumed at eight o'clock.


LIB

William James Henderson

Liberal

Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate on the throne speech with a sincere feeling of appreciation to the electors of Kingston riding for returning me once again to parliament as their representative. I should first like to direct my remarks to you, Mr. Speaker, and to congratulate you as the first Commoner. Over the years, you have shown integrity and industry in your profession, and may your political career be as illustrious.

I rise today with a great deal of humility to direct my remarks for the most part to the affairs and conditions of the Department of National Defence. I do so with humility possibly because my knowledge of defence matters may not be as great as that of some members in this house, and because the Department of National Defence is headed by a renowned and respected soldier, carrying with him the highest award for gallantry that a soldier may earn. I am sure that in the last parliament when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) had my position on this side of the house, and the then

The Address-Mr. Henderson

minister of labour, the Hon. Milton Gregg, V.C., occupied a front bench on the government side of the house, we were inspired to have two such gallant men in our midst.

I should like to say a word, not to be interpreted as faint praise for the Minister of National Defence, but upon reviewing Hansard since the beginning of the session I find that he is the only active minister of the crown who has accepted his responsibility and has not endeavoured to make political speeches and avoid his responsibility by claiming the inadequacies of his predecessors. I have previously stated that my knowledge of defence is limited. This same condition may apply to some of my colleagues on this side of the house, and on the other side of the house, but we as members know that if this situation kept us quiet there would be a long silence in this forum. I am advising the minister that we serve notice on him now that we have a willingness to learn, so to speak to be taught, not only for our own purposes but so that the people of Canada will learn that their country has an appropriate defence force and that the security and respect of Canada has not been tinkered with to fulfil election promises of a desperate political group trying to remain in power.

I have for eight years been the representative of the Kingston constituency, a constituency whose military tradition is second to none in this country. May I interject that I am happy to have retained the confidence of my electors as expressed in the last election, and so be able to be here taking part in the discussion, particularly on military matters. During the eight years I have represented Kingston I have been compelled to deal a great deal with the Department of National Defence and to learn something about its operations. This has been true because the defence establishments in and around the city of Kingston are amongst the most important in Canada. I feel, therefore, for these reasons I probably have some modest competence to discuss the affairs of the Department of National Defence.

It has been evident that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) either does not have a financial policy for Canada or refuses to advise Canadians of his policy and having expressed my admiration for the Minister of National Defence, I would not want to think he had fallen into the same category. We would want to feel, as Canadians, that all was well with defence and the security of Canada. We have heard rumours that anywhere from $200 million to $500 million could be cut from the defence budget to provide the answer to election promises, including a cut in income taxes. Let me say

this at the beginning, if it can be done without impairing the security and defence of Canada we would greet this action with approval. Our ministers in the past, the Hon. Brooke Claxton and the Hon. Ralph Campney, would have done the same thing. There was one assurance that we had when they were heading the Department of National Defence and that is they had a policy, a recognized and consistent policy. It is evident that Canadians are becoming disturbed about their security and defence today.

If I might for a moment, I should like to refer to a newspaper article that appeared in the Toronto Star of October 17, 1957 which I think sums up the situation very well. It says:

Is the government hacking away here and there just for economy? Just what is the program? If changes are required, what are the reasons? Mr. Claxton and Mr. Campney, the former defence ministers, had a defence policy, a consistent policy. It was a program which carefully took into account the needs of Canada for the defence of our homeland and for meeting our commitments to the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty alliance.

The new defence minister may have information which proves that the defence program should be changed to meet changing conditions. If that is so, the people ought to be told in clear, forthright terms. Let there be no tinkering with Canada's defences.

In recent months we have heard from members on the government side great orations about Canada first policy, anti-Americanism. We have heard about the regency of Canada in the north, but it can be noticed now that United States newspapers are writing about the islands north of Canada. North of Canada should be known as the north pole, and the islands should be known as Canadian islands. The regency of Canada in the north depends upon her small settlements and the ships which make their appearances in the north. Our attention has been drawn to the presence of H.M.C.S. Labrador in the north in picture parade of the Family Herald of October 24, 1957. This newspaper shows a picture of the crew of H.M.C.S. Labrador raising a naval ensign over an abandoned trading post. According to recent reports the H.M.C.S. Labrador has been transferred from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Transport for duty as an icebreaker on the St. Lawrence, which job I hasten to say probably it can do well. However, what about the Labrador as Canada's medium for exhibiting sovereignty over the Canadian Arctic? What about the scientific and survey work which the Labrador could do in the north?

Is it the policy of the government that Canada does not want to know as much about the north as Russia? Are we to disregard

The Address-Mr. Henderson the words of this ship's last master, a Royal Canadian Navy captain, who no later than last week said:

There is no other ship internationally known as well as the Labrador for its pioneer work in the Canadian Arctic, and no ship has done so much tangible good there.

Do we take it the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) is anxious to have this ship under his command and simply says, "this will be an economy move all around"? Is this the policy of the Minister of National Defence that he adheres to or does he simply take the explanation of the Minister of Transport and comply with his wishes? What training is the Royal Canadian Navy going to carry on in the Arctic? What fleet are we to have in reserve or in being? I would suggest to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Defence that they read the book entitled "The True North", if they have not done so, in order to familiarize themselves with the initiative and foresight of Captain Bernier who did so much to establish the sovereignty of Canada in the Arctic. Just after the turn of the century Captain Bernier came to parliament hill and gained the support of 60 per cent of the members of the House of Commons for his work. It has been said of him that he, more than any other man, kept Canada from tossing away its Arctic inheritance.

The minister has now seen fit to make a change in another branch of the armed forces, the militia. In reply to a question I asked him on October 16, 1957, page 37 of Hansard, he inferred that the militia would have training emphasizing civil defence and the militia's role otherwise would have been glamorous and phony. In reply to another question, he hesitated to set a date for the transfer of the role of the militia to that of civil defence.

Summer camps are to be abolished and the number of days training paid for by the government are to be reduced from 60 to 40. All this may mean the end of the militia but if this is the government's conclusion, let us hear it definitely. I suggest to the minister that he has set a date for the end of the militia, namely January 31, 1958. If that is not correct, let him tell us so. This may be the date that the militia resorts to the role described by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith). I quote from the Montreal Gazette of September 20, 1957, Mr. Blakely's column, in which he says this:

Civil defence is at times a discouraging and thankless task.

If the Minister of National Defence wishes to take away the uniforms and rifles and

issue the militia in January with dungarees, brooms, pails, shovels and fire-hoses, let him make his position clear.

The militia has played an extremely important role in Canada's defence in the last two wars and in peace time. The permanent force has provided a nucleus for the active voluntary forces, and its tradition can best be expressed by extracts from speeches made by the minister's own colleagues in the cabinet. I refer to a report in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of September 1, 1954, which is "PC Member Gives Views on Issue" and reads in part as follows:

George C. Nowlan, Q.C., M.P., Progressive Conservative member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, speaking in connection with the proposed disbanding of the North Nova Scotia Highlanders, gave his opinion of this proposal in an interview here in which he said: . . .

"For years we, of the opposition, have been deploring the treatment accorded the reserve army by our government, and have been urging that definite action be taken to further the interest in, and increase the efficiency of, this essential part of our national defence effort. How can this be done by disregarding the reputation, traditions and the dress which are the greatest attraction and asset of any military organization".

The present Secretary of State (Mrs. Fair-clough) speaking on national defence supply on July 20, 1956, as reported at page 6269 of Hansard of that year, said this:

I should like to make just one more plea to the minister on this basis. The city of Hamilton has always been very proud of its military men in all branches of the services: its militia has been a source of great pride to Hamiltonians generally, and it has a good auxiliary naval force. It seems too bad that one arm of the services should be left out of active participation. I know it is a matter of great regret to Hamiltonians generally and those who were members of the 424 squadron in particular.

She goes on further and says this:

In all seriousness I ask the minister to give great consideration to this matter, because it is not a light thing to discourage so many persons who are actively engaged in military exercises of this sort, particularly when their activities have been a source of pride and a matter of interest for a quarter of a million people in that district.

But I think the greatest supporter of the militia is the present Minister of Transport. Speaking on national defence supply on June 30, 1955, as reported at page 5539 of Hansard of that year, he said this:

I am also disturbed about what appears to be happening to another great Toronto militia regiment, the Queen's Own. I understand that their recruiting base has been shifted to Calgary, which to me sounds absolutely fantastic. The Queen's Own is a Toronto regiment and has been for many many years. It is one of the really old battalions of this country. Its roots are in Toronto, its spirit is in Toronto, its alumni are in Toronto, and if you want to raise men for the Queen's Own you had better leave the recruiting base in or near Toronto so the traditions of that regiment can remain intact.

I think the treatment of the militia by the government at the present time and the creation of the first, second, third and fourth Guards battalions is stupid. Why not leave these fine regiments intact with their traditions and names that mean so much to them? Why not leave them with the most important things they possess, their uniforms, their names, their traditions? Why do what bureaucrats are always trying to do, streamline or simplify, and in so doing complicate and lose what originally was possessed?

As a former member of the militia and knowing how much these things mean, I appeal to the minister to stop what I consider to be this stupid process of destroying the really important things that keep a militia regiment going, and the only things that do. Leave them intact. Let our regiments remain the fine regiments they are, with the fine traditions they have had for many years past.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, where are those members of the present cabinet and what support are they now giving to the militia they supported a short time ago?

Besides the morale and traditions of the militia, let us consider that we may still have many conventional skirmishes before the 30-minute war which the minister may have in mind. Let us remind him that although gas was used in world war I, it was not used in world war II, although both sides could have used it. The same may be true of the hydrogen bomb and other nuclear weapons. We may have a war without them. Would it not be better for an aggressor to take over our lands without destroying them? On the other hand, if for any reason we are the aggressor, I am sure that the minister has heard of conventional troops under the town major. Our active forces may have more technical duties to perform in the case of a conflict. I say it is the obligation of the Minister of National Defence to produce irrefutable information that the militia, the citizen army, will not be needed again before he abandons it and places the personnel in the role of air raid wardens and so on. The members of the militia are entitled to know their future.

Why might the minister be hesitant to give the details of the new roll of the militia? I should like to refer to an article in a paper published in a militia city, namely the Kingston Whig-Standard, of October 12, 1957. It is entitled "The End of the Militia?" and it reads in part as follows:

But if the government has come to this conclusion, why does it not say so? Far better to abolish the militia straight away than to keep willing people on a string and slowly cut off their supplies, thus forcing them out in favour of civil defence. Maybe the abolition will come after the next election. The reason why it does not come before is clear. Disbanded militia men, keen on their regiments, might be disgruntled enough to vote against the government who cut them off without a penny.

The Address-Mr. Henderson

Or is the minister by maintaining the membership of the militia gradually accepting the advice of the new minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Smith, and using the militia as the nucleus for implementing the brain child of the new Secretary of State for External Affairs? I quote from the Toronto Globe and Mail of November 29, 1947.

A year of national service-not essentially military -for high school graduates was advocated yesterday by President Sidney E. Smith of the University of Toronto in an address to Toronto Rotarians-"I have something in mind not entirely military and would go so far as to suggest the organization might have a civilian chief''.

Canada's militiamen deserve to be given all the information of their future role.

Let me for just a moment refer to the permanent forces of Canada. I shall have more to say about it at a later date, but it is indicative that their amenities and their privileges will be lessened. For example, the curtailing of the current affairs bureau, the decided closing off of the defence construction building program, and also the unnecessary moving of the personnel and their families from one area to another.

The minister must realize that these men and women and their families have devoted their lives to a very honourable and necessary profession in which they have been highly trained. The minister should consider his department's policy very carefully before he disturbs the personnel and their families and takes away from them their accommodation and the amenities to which they are entitled. We trust the minister will not hide too long behind the delays attributed to designers and architects. I say we have the finest forces in the world and let us not prejudice that standard by a hit and run policy initiated by any political strategy.

The minister has been credited with making several announcements of cutbacks in the Department of National Defence expenditures. If there is waste and extravagance and duplications, as has been claimed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), let him give us the chapter and verse. We have heard spot announcements as I have just mentioned, such as "Current Affairs bureau next for Pearkes' axe", "R.C.A.F. braces for cuts in budget", and so on. I suggest that the minister, in dealing with the R.C.A.F. is carrying out a policy reflected by his predecessor in office 25 years ago when his party was in power. As a matter of fact a very famous training centre of the R.C.A.F. by the name of Trenton also came into the news then. I quote from Hansard Volume 1 for 1932 at page 597:

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Donald Sutherland

Mr. Sutherland:

Trenton will be very seriously cut down.

The Address-Mr. Henderson

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

James Layton Ralston

Mr. Ralston:

But my hon. friend Is adopting Trenton instead of Borden.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Donald Sutherland

Mr. Sutherland:

If the hon. gentleman Instead of developing Trenton had stopped the development at that time a great deal of the trouble we are having at present would have been obviated.

Now we find 25 years later that we hear of the transfer of air training command headquarters from Trenton to Winnipeg. I believe the minister was recently trying to retrace his steps however, possibly for a purpose, and I was interested the other day-to be exact November 7-as reported at page 850 of Hansard-to find this question asked of the Minister of National Defence by his colleague the hon. member for Calgary South.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Arthur Smith

Progressive Conservative

Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South) :

May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence? Can the minister confirm speculation that certain major changes are planned in the operation of the R.C.A.F. training command in the immediate future?

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

George Randolph Pearkes (Minister of National Defence)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence) :

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. Reductions in the R.C.A.F. NATO training program will lead to certain reorganizational changes involving a reassessment of the facilities required by the R.C.A.F. training command. No firm or positive action has yet been taken on this matter, and in any case no changes are planned for 1958, with the exception of the R.C.A.F. station at-

And then it goes on to describe the stations. I ask the minister what is his policy, or is he just trying to get past another election date?

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Who is talking politics now?

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

William James Henderson

Liberal

Mr. Henderson:

We have very little information about what the minister has really done to the department. I say to the hon. member who interrupts me that he had better get up and defend the militia. The minister has announced a nibble here, a bite here and a chunk out of here, but what is his policy? Has he adhered to the warning given to him by General Simonds, supported by the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness). I am sure the present Minister of National Defence can now tell us if his colleague the Minister of Agriculture last year was making an irresponsible statement when speaking of the subject of national defence on July 19, 1956. He is quoted in Hansard of that date at page 6173, as follows:

When it comes to statements of opinion concerning the subjects General Simonds dealt with in his article, I am more prepared to accept his opinion than the minister's.

I may say this is referring to the article in Maclean's of June 23 written by General Simonds:

Having been the chief of staff and having spent his lifetime in the Canadian army. General Simonds I think is perhaps better qualified than is the minister to express an opinion as to the efficiency of Canadian defence headquarters. I think he is better qualified than is the minister to state an

opinion as to whether defence headquarters could operate efficiently and effectively in the event of war.

He goes on to say this:

In any event it has been my contention for several years past that defence headquarters is topheavy and as a result wasteful and inefficient. I now have two very powerful witnesses to reinforce that claim. General Simonds has said in this article that the headquarters is topheavy. The minister, of course, said that was only his opinion. I think that that opinion is a very weighty one and it is reinforced by General Macklin and every other retired officer with any experience with whom I have ever spoken in regard to the matter. General Simonds said that in a real crisis national defence headquarters would come to a grinding, shuddering halt. I claim that is probably correct, in spite of the minister's opinion to the contrary.

Would the hon. minister still be influenced by General Simonds' statement when he said last week that the CF-105 was a "dead duck". He made this statement on November 11, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of November 12, 1957, as follows:

He said Defence Minister Pearkes' decision to use the militia in a civil defence role is "an attempt to convince the people that something is being done when nothing is being done at all."

We as Canadians may well be disturbed when we read the headlines of the Vancouver Sun of November 6 and the press clippings from the Vancouver Sun of that day. The headline says: "Our Defence Outmoded by Missiles" and the clipping says "we are defenceless, Simonds declares", "Ex-chief of staff blasts Ottawa 'Fumbling Stupidity'." The events which have happened in the last few months with respect to the development of guided missiles and nuclear weapons by nations of the world will force the government of Canada to face the making of very important decisions. We must recognize the fact that the threat of guided missiles must be met. This cannot be accomplished by vote-catching economy cuts that could hinder the defence program of Canada.

Although the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) and the president of the Progressive Conservative Association have announced that the election campaign is now on-this was confirmed this afternoon by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hodgson), and was also so capably dealt with by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-I am sure that Canadians and fellow members of NATO would be more pleased if the government could divorce itself from its election campaign long enough to deal with the immediate problems of the defence of Canada and formulate a defence policy which would discourage our enemies and encourage our allies. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in the present circumstances the Prime Minister and the

Minister of National Defence, with apparently no policy, who has been forced to nibble, tinker and meddle with the defence of Canada, should take the appropriate steps to set up a committee on defence to examine that matter and hear witnesses and assure the people of Canada that they have provided security and to prove that this government has a policy on defence.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

Louis Harrington Lewry

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Louis Lewry (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with other members of this house who have spoken in this throne speech debate by extending congratulations to yourself and to the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault). A good job very well done.

Coming from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, in the centre of Canada, I hope to give my constituents the kind of service they should expect from their member in Ottawa; also I intend to continue to pursue and uphold the policies of the C.C.F. as long as my stay in this house continues.

The Lake Centre part of my riding was at one time represented by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). Speaking nonpolitically, of course, I might add, his representation was considered excellent; he set an example that I hope to take as my own, may I repeat-non-politically.

I may say however that I intend to do my best to prove that the right hon. Prime Minister is a poor prophet. According to a press story a week after the June 10 election, he wired the Progressive Conservative candidate his congratulations and the news story indicated that the Prime Minister believed that the Progressive Conservative candidate might win Moose Jaw-Lake Centre in another election. The Tories had better not count that egg in their basket.

When I checked into my office in the House of Commons, I found there was no electrical wall plug. The electrician promised to have one installed but while waiting I borrowed a 10-cent plug to enable the use of the desk lamp socket. I was told by the electrician that he had to have the plug returned as he said it was the only one they had. I am happy to be able to report to my constituents that unlike the Liberals' Petawawa army camp and its horses, the Conservative government has only one plug on its payroll so far.

The speech from the throne indicated that some of the election promises made during the campaign by the Conservatives were to be carried into legislation. We of the C.C.F. group are pleased to see this legislation for which our members have been clamouring for years and for which we have indicated our approval and support.

The Address-Mr. Lewry

Coming from a constituency half urban and half rural I can tell hon. members that farmers are in a depression and that this is being carried over to business places in western Canada. If the farmers of Canada are not prosperous, businessmen are likewise not doing business.

The latest dominion bureau of statistics index indicating the number of commodities and services used by prairie farmers shows some interesting facts. The farmers' cost of living and production now stands at 240.5, with the years 1935-39 represented by 100. In other words, it now costs prairie farmers $2.40 to buy what a dollar would buy in 1935-39. This means, therefore, that the $1.40 initial wheat payment is worth only 48.2 cents in the 1935-39 value of money on a basis of No. 1 northern at Fort William; at the average country elevator point it is worth approximately 50.5 cents a bushel. How can the western farmer be expected to buy a $7,000 combine on 50 cent wheat?

In all probability the Conservative government may be called upon to set up a royal commission on markets for trade, or may even suggest doing so itself. I am not laying claim to ownership of some recent verse, but I think the house may be interested in the following which sets out what may be expected from the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on the subject of trade. It is entitled "The Trader":

Said Honest John, on power bent,

"What can I say, confound it?

With joyous cheer the air was rent:

"Eureka I have found it!"

"Our trade with shrewd old Uncle Sam Is getting mighty skittish I'll wave the flag and beat the drum And holler: Let's buy British.

So up and down our fair domain He stumped the June election And kept repeating his refrain:

"The commonwealth connection."

So loud his voice, so bright his eye

So hard the anvil smitten

That even skeptics were convinced-

And so was Mac of Britain.

And when the smoke had cleared away And Liberals lay buried To Canada without delay The British Traders hurried.

"You wish to trade" said they, "my lad On even-steven basis?"

"A Free-Trade hand we'll deal, b'gad And give you all the aces."

In utter horror and despair

Our Honest John recoiled

They'd stripped him clean; his bluff was bare

His gimmick had been spoiled.

"Up drawbridge, lad" cried he to Don "And bar the gates," to Gordon "Call out my trusted Tory troops And form a solid cordon."

The Address-Mr. Lewry And in his tower, cold and bare In turn, he cried and shouted He beat his breast and tore his hair He raged and sulked and pouted.

"O woe is me! O lack a day!

How could they so deceive me?

They know I mean not what I say Why must they now believe me?"

In meditation thus he sate While hours passed uncounted And as he pondered on his fate His tribulations mounted.

Then, all at once, a blinding light!

His doubts and fears were shattered.

'''Arise, my lads, on with the fight!

"Our foes will soon lie scattered.

"I have a plan-a master plan!

To solve this sad condition.

"We're off the hook, confound it man.

We'll set up a commission!"

Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal now with some of the pre-election promises made by the present government. I do not want to indicate at all that, as the Prime Minister stated shortly after this house opened, the Liberals expect the Conservatives to do everything in five months that the Liberals failed to do in 22 years. Nothing of the sort. We just want the Tories to carry out the promises they said they would carry out if elected.

There appear to be no plans under way for an immediate reduction in taxation as suggested by the Prime Minister when he was leader of the Tory opposition, back in Toronto on April 25. He said at that time that when the Conservatives formed the government of this country a session of parliament would be called to reduce taxation. We have the session of parliament, but no budget appears on the horizon. In fact, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), seems reluctant even to discuss a budget.

The Prime Minister also said that the Tories would have a vigorous immigration policy to increase the population of Canada. After they took over the reins they took steps to stop immigration.

Speaking in Charlottetown on April 29, the present Prime Minister said that the pipe line bill had made millionaires of a few friends-a few companies-who had bought shares in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited at $8 a share. He asked: "Who risked the money? You and I. Who made the profits? Those pampered pets." Whose friends are they now? Whose pampered pets?

The Tories made the promises, but for downright flaunting of public opinion the Liberals took the cake in western Canada. On May 6, the son of the former prime minister, spoke in my home city of Moose Jaw, and I quote:

I'm from the east. I'm not a wheat man. but at least I have a solution which could be an answer to some of the wheat sale difficulties.

The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke of a new method of treating wheat being developed by an American company, whereby it looked and tasted like rice. Since more than half the population of the world is rice-eating, the hon. member saw in this the possibility of greatly expanding Canada's wheat market and providing a solution of the present wheat-selling problem. He said the new product had been tested in Puerto Rico and India and had been considered favourably by the Canadian government. There were problems concerning rice-producing countries which, however, would have to be met, he added. I am wondering now if the Tories are continuing to offer such an easy solution to the problem of the wheat surplus in Canada.

Moose Jaw is the buckle of the wheat belt. Our farmers grow the finest hard wheat in the world, but the policies of the Liberals for 20 years, now apparently being continued without change in any respect by the present administration, have put our western farmers on the brink of depression. They are moving off the farms because of the lack of any planned agricultural policy of the federal government. The youngsters cannot make a living in farming any more and they cannot be enticed into staying on the farm. Agriculture is the mainstay of a large part of the economy of our country. That should be recognized by the federal government as it is recognized in almost every other agricultural country in the world.

Some of the problems that the farmers in my constituency have told me of include the dire need for equalization of delivery quotas for all shipping points. They demand the right to deliver their grain to elevators of their own choice. If they get a quota opened up, they cannot make deliveries because there are no box cars; or if there are cars, there are no orders and the elevators are full. In many communities in my constituency, farmers are forced to deliver grain to the line elevators simply because the box cars are not distributed at the delivery point in accordance with the place where the farmers wish to deliver their grain. As an example, at one time the pool elevator at Bulyea in my constituency purchased 80 per cent of the grain at that point. At present the percentage has dropped to 60 per cent, simply because the box cars are spotted at the line elevator, forcing the hard-up farmers to deliver grain there, over and above what the line companies should have.

Today I received a letter from a farmer in the centre of my constituency. It reads in part:

My farm consists of 240 acres, 210 of which are under cultivation. The other 30 acres is in pasture. So you see what a 5-bushel quota means to me for two years in succession. I have stored up enough grain for over two years ahead, and have nothing to live on. We small farmers have the same living expenses as the medium or large farmer. If it was not for the cream cheques, I would have had to leave the farm two years ago. But no matter how hard I try and save, if this present quota set-up continues I will have to leave the farm on which I have lived for 22 years and raised my family of four children. My farm and machinery are paid for, due to the hard work and self-denial of my family. But if the present set-up is not changed I will have to sell it to a larger farmer for the price he offers me, not for what it is worth, as I will have no other alternative as I have been going backward year after year since 1953. This is the part that hurts most of all. All that will be left for me is to sell the farm, move to the city, walk the streets and start all over again as a day labourer now that I am of middle age. All this would not be necessary if we had a party in power that had the welfare of the common man at heart.

I noted with some interest a news story in the press not too long ago to the effect that this House of Commons is back on the Thursday to Tuesday weekend. I am not at all convinced. I believe that story was written in an effort to indicate to some constituents-and it cannot apply to mine as the long weekend is not long enough for me to go home to Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and back-that these eastern members of parliament are not spending their time in the house.

1 am wondering what those same reporters would report back to their editors if the members of parliament revealed that the press gallery appears to be on a one-hour question period alert on many occasions. My fellow members of the fourth estate file out of the press gallery like homing pigeons after the question period. On many occasions the press gallery fort is held by one lone reporter many hours of the day. We realize they have work outside this chamber; perhaps they will realize that we also have duties to which we must attend outside this chamber.

While I am on the subject of the press I would point out that it is becoming increasingly evident-and this is not criticism of the working reporters in the house-that the editors back home are using their large pencils to delete from stories filed in Ottawa, references about their elected members here and apparently there is no rule so far as party preferences are concerned. If you come from Saskatchewan, newspapers in Ontario and Manitoba use the stories, but not the newspapers in Saskatchewan; or, at most, 96698-74J

The Address-Mr. Lewry not in the home constituencies of the elected members. There also appears to be an iron curtain around news from western Canada in eastern newspapers. We do not read news from Saskatchewan in the great journals of the east. I was somewhat surprised to pick up a Regina newspaper the other day which contained the following story:

Enthusiastic Liberal delegates on their way to Moose Jaw early this week for a two-day provincial council convention ran afoul of the H.C.M.P. radar timing device located temporarily at the half-way point between Regina and Moose Jaw.

Out-of-pocket delegates by way of explanation said they had been caught because they were in a hurry to get the convention started and draft up a plan for better living in Saskatchewan.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

George Hugh Castleden

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Casileden:

Liberals in a hurry.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

Louis Harrington Lewry

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Lewry:

I continue:

Notable among the delegates thumbed off the highway for a date with a ticket were Hon. Lester

B. Pearson; provincial Liberal leader A. H. "Hammy" McDonald; and provincial president Dr. H. S. Jamieson, all in the same car.

"A clean sweep if ever there was one", one of the car's occupants remarked.

I did not notice any report of such a clean sweep in eastern newspapers. They must have had a sympathetic judge, too, for the

C. C.F. to allow such notable Liberals to get away with just a fine.

Another point I would like to mention is that during the election campaign suggestions and promises were made in connection with the need for expanding industries. Coming from western Canada, I can say that while Saskatchewan in the past 15 years has developed from a totally agricultural province to a province with secondary industries there is much need yet for industries within our province. In the overcrowded east industry is forced to pay higher prices for land. In Saskatchewan we have acres of suitable land available for expanding industry at a very attractive price compared with the rates here in Ontario. From a point of view of defence and decentralization a policy of assistance to such industries to locate in the central provinces of Canada should be developed.

Our municipalities both urban and rural, in the west in particular, are continually facing increasing tax rates and increasing demands for services. Having spent some seven years in the mayor's office in Moose Jaw I can tell you that the elected representative closest to his elector is the councillor and mayor of a city or town, the reeve and councillor of a rural municipality. The Prime Minister has already taken action to discuss with the provinces the matter of provincial-federal fiscal relations. We have not been assured that the views of municipalities will

The Address-Mr. Lewry be considered or discussed except only in so tar as the provinces may wish to do so. The municipalities all across Canada are facing ever-increasing financial burdens with no hope of relief unless a new fiscal arrangement on the sharing of the tax dollar can be worked out.

I mentioned a moment ago the fact that Saskatchewan in the past 15 years has changed from a total agricultural economy to one with developing industry. Much has been said in the press both here and in the west about the failures of the crown corporations in Saskatchewan. I wish to point out that the crown corporations of Saskatchewan have resulted in a much more buoyant economy for the people of our province. Despite what may have been said and regardless of what you may have been led to believe the government of Saskatchewan has been better able to give social welfare services to our people with the help of the crown corporations.

Taking into account those few corporations that did fold the total wages paid to the workers of the 21 crown corporations of Saskatchewan up to the end of 1956 was $30,562,000. In addition, grants in lieu of taxes paid to municipalities totalled some $308,500. And dues and royalties paid back to the provinces were in excess of a total of $5,500,000. Some people would defame their own province and foul their own nest by maligning the crown corporations and their operations but the people of Saskatchewan are proud of the accomplishments and the results of the operation of these industries and services.

I suppose as most new members do prior to taking their seats in the house, Mr. Speaker, I sought information on the proceedings and operations of this level of government. I was fortunate in having been given a copy of an autobiography of an esteemed former member of this chamber, the Hon. Sir George W. Ross who for 11 years represented the Ontario riding of Middlesex West. I was told by my hon. friend across the way, the present Conservative member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas), that he is the first Tory to represent that riding in about 75 years so I am sure he and other hon. members on that side of the house will be interested in hearing some of the references in this book. Dealing with initiation day in the House of Commons in the year 1873 Mr. Ross states:

My seat was to the left of the Speaker (or rather to the left of his chair, for there was as yet no Speaker), and about the middle of the fourth tier of seats. Who designated me to this particular part Of the chamber I do not know. I answered to the

label cn my desk. It was the same as that of my wardrobe locker. "Ross-Middlesex". My seat was well situated for observation, and, comfortable though it was, I felt myself in strange surroundings-strangers to the left of me, strangers to the right of me, strangers in front of me, shuffled and chattered. But many were old acquaintances by reputation, good, bad and indifferent-

Later he continues:

The routine of the house soon becomes uninteresting. After listening to a few speakers on any question one feels there is little more to be said. Why should you not in self-defence, if for no other reason, go to your room or take a stroll through the lobbies with some fellow member and avoid the ennui of a tedious debate-or, what may be preferable, go into the open air and recuperate your flagging energies? Then there is the freedom of number nine-

The ante room-

-where you can smoke your pipe or cigar ajid enjoy the good fellowship of others who like yourself have been overcome with the tedious reiteration of arguments neither new nor forcible. Or you have some correspondence to attend to, or an interview from a friend with a grievance, or business with some minister in his private room, or something to look up in the library. And so to keep your place in the house for a long sitting becomes irksome. Nothing but a full dress debate by the leaders commands your attention; all the rest is "vanity and vexation of spirit". As a consequence days and weeks are spent to very little purpose; you have added nothing materially to your knowledge of public questions, you have marked time, that is all. Now, to a young man, a few sessions spent in this way is fatal to his career.

I remind hon. members that this description was written back in 1873.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

John Whitney Pickersgill

Liberal

Mr. Pickersgill:

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a question. How does the hon. member relate that quotation to the amendment now before the house?

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

He has to fill in his 40 minutes somehow.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

Louis Harrington Lewry

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Lewry:

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raised that question because that is the point with which I intended to deal next. I turn now to Mr. Ross's description of the session of 1882. He says:

The chief interest in the session of 1882 centred around the bill to adjust the representation of the electoral districts of the province of Ontario, better known as the gerrymander bill. Under the constitution the representation of the different provinces must be adjusted decennially, Quebec alone remaining constant-

And so on. I continue:

Sir John Macdonald introduced the bill on April 28, or within three weeks of the close of the session, and the excitement on the opposition benches was intense. Nearly all its active members were affected by the changes proposed. It was evidently the intention of the government to hold its majority by brute force, otherwise why change county boundaries and shift municipalities like pawns on a chess board, regardless of symmetry or public convenience? Nothing more unfair could have been devised, and the debate was accordingly warm and aggressive.

-Accordingly I presented what I called an alternative bill in part as follows:

Whereas by the census of the year of our

Lord 1881 and in accordance with the British

North America Act of 1867-

Et cetera-

Therefore Sir John Macdonald, by and with the advice of party wire-pullers and Tory deputations from the province of Ontario and with the connivance of the Tories from the other provinces, enacts as follows:

1. The House of Commons shall consist of 211 members, a majority of whom shall belong to the Conservative party.

My suggestion to the Liberal opposition in this house is that they could very well copy the example set by Mr. George Ross in 1882 and move a similar motion to the effect that the House of Commons shall consist of 265 members, a majority of whom shall belong to the Progressive Conservative party, and I am sure hon. members opposite would willingly support it.

In conclusion, we welcome the measures indicated in the speech from the throne and we urge that the measures be placed before parliament with the least possible delay in order that the benefits proposed therein may accrue to the people of Canada at once. However, we also urge consideration in our amendment that the government deal with inflation, unemployment and other serious problems that face this country. Mr. Speaker, I will support the amendment.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Donald Methuen Fleming (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson), in speaking in this debate, drew attention to-I take it deplored-the fact that not many cabinet ministers had thus far taken part in the debate. I can give him the reason at once, Mr. Speaker. It is that there are so many new members in the house, able members, who should have every opportunity to participate in this debate. But it has occurred to me that some things might be said tonight at this stage of the debate after we have heard now nine days of debate arising upon the lack of a motion of want of confidence on the part of the official opposition and upon a motion of want of confidence on the part of the C.C.F.

It is in no perfunctory sense, sir, that I offer my hearty congratulations to those two new members, the mover and the seconder, of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both of them acquitted themselves with distinction and, like so many of the other new members in this house who have participated in this debate, have earned the congratulations that have been generously showered upon them.

Perhaps you will forgive me a personal word, Mr. Speaker, having regard for the

The Address-Mr. Fleming composition of this new house and another change which is to take place on Monday next. It was in the month of September, 1923, that a third-year class in English constitutional history in the University of Toronto awaited the arrival of a lecturer and when the lecturer stepped into that classroom it was hard to identify him as a lecturer. He was youthful looking; he looked more like an undergraduate but he proved to be a very capable and popular lecturer. That gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is now the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson). I was one of the students in that class.

Then one thinks of a scene two years later in the first-year classroom at the Osgoode Hall law school when a class that included the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), Senator Brunt, the late Senator Joseph Bench, Mr. G. R. Boucher, the former member for Carleton, Mr. William Robinson, the former member for Simcoe East, Mr. Frank Flaherty, a member of the press gallery, and myself awaited the arrival of a lecturer in a class on the law of personal property. He when he arrived also was a young looking lecturer. He is today the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Doctor Smith. Students of his learned much from him; I am sure he is capable of teaching us a good deal yet if we are still capable of learning.

This session has now run five weeks, Mr. Speaker. If one were to endeavour to sum up its features I think there are two that would be outstanding. The first has been the ample government program put swiftly before the house in fulfilment of the pledges given to the Canadian people during the election campaign. The second has been behaviour, irresponsible to an unprecedented degree, on the part of those yonder who have been busy heaping upon the government criticism and denunciation and yet in the votes insist on supporting the government with might and main. Their criticism of us has been bitter; they have jeered at us; they have sought to harry us; they have sought to harass us; they have sought to delay us; they have endeavoured to ridicule us.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

George James McIlraith

Liberal

Mr. Mcllrailh:

No.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Donald Methuen Fleming (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fleming:

They have said we are unfit to hold office, Mr. Speaker. If they really mean what they say, then I suggest that their consciences should dictate to them that they should act and vote in accordance with their own words.

The record of the government, sir, in those five weeks has been an exemplary one of promises fulfilled with dispatch. Look at the pensions legislation. Five bills now have met the approval of the house; bills which hon.

1160 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Fleming gentlemen opposite had ample opportunity to introduce to provide for the increases which these bills provide for, but which they did not find it in their hearts to introduce when they were the government and had an ample majority to support them in this house at the last session.

Legislation has been introduced for the benefit of veterans. Cash advances have been provided for farm-stored grain. A measure is on the order paper to give to agriculture the fulfilment of the promise of a new deal for that basic industry of Canada. The government's program for national development, applicable to all parts of Canada, received today a striking measure of fulfilment in the announcement that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made with respect to the financing of the Beechwood project in New Brunswick and the whole power development project that is going to bring very great benefits to the Atlantic area.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink

November 14, 1957