May 27, 1958

CCF

Frank Howard

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

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):

Mr. Speaker,

I have one more question for the Minister of Transport. It appears to be a question which concerns quite a number of members, especially those from the extremities of the nation. Can the minister advise the house as to what progress is being made with regard to his oft-repeated desire to have air travel passes made available to members of parliament?

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES PASSES FOR MEMBERS
Permalink
PC

George Harris Hees (Minister of Transport)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):

Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter with the management of Trans-Canada Air Lines. I find that the cost to the government, which is the cost to the people of Canada, of providing such passes would be quite considerable. It is a matter which is still under consideration by the government.

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES PASSES FOR MEMBERS
Permalink
LIB

George James McIlraith

Liberal

Mr. Mcllraiih:

Did you not know that when you made the speeches before?

Topic:   TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES PASSES FOR MEMBERS
Permalink

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY


The house resumed, from Monday, May 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Lafreniere for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson.


PC

Robert Leith Hanbidge

Progressive Conservative

Mr. R. L. Hanbidge (Kindersley):

Mr. Speaker, when you were good enough to call it ten o'clock last night to give me a chance to get my second wind I was referring to a luncheon speaker in Calgary who commenced his address by saying: "Mr. Chairman and fellow Conservatives". I also said something about the whooping cranes in Saskatchewan and how since June, 1957, their numbers have increased as the sands of the sea. Also, Mr. Speaker, I had paid my compliments to you on being elected to the highest office in the gift of this parliament.

Now I would like to pay my tributes to the Deputy Speaker and the chairman of the committees of the whole house. I am quite sure that we down in this corner of the house, sir, will do all we can to make their arduous duties as easy as possible. I suppose I could, as some of the other members have

done, simply concur in what has been said by the previous speakers with regard to the other members who have contributed to the debate; but I should like to say a word to the mover (Mr. Lafreniere) and seconder (Mr. Nielsen) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on the splendid manner in which they acquitted themselves. I am sure their constituents will be more than proud of the manner in which they conducted themselves in these, their first addresses in this chamber.

I should also like to congratulate the new members of the cabinet, namely the new Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley) and the new Secretary of State (Mr. Courte-manche). I should like to add my congratulations to the very gifted and charming lady who was promoted to be Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I should just like to tell my constituents in Kindersley that all the nice things they have read about that lady are actually an understatement and certainly not an exaggeration. My hope is that the three ministers will have a long tenure of office with their colleagues on the treasury benches.

I should now like to say a word to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), and I am delighted to see that he is in the house this morning. While we in the southwest corner of the house compose a somewhat larger group than the Leader of the Opposition wishes to see over here, and while I have not had the privilege as yet of getting acquainted with him, I want to say to him that the three members for Kindersley who preceded me were very good friends of mine and also of his. Despite their political views they are all friends of mine, and all spoke very highly of the Leader of the Opposition. Before long I hope that we shall be able to meet back here in the corridor. I want to congratulate him on his election as leader of his party last January. It is a high honour indeed to be chosen leader of one of the great political parties in this country. My sincere wish is that he may long preside over the destinies of his party, that he may continue to occupy the post he now holds on this side of the house, and that he will continue to be surrounded as he is now by members of the party to which I belong.

Some 30 years ago, when I took a much more active interest in municipal politics than I have taken in recent years, I remember attending a convention of the urban municipalities association after one of the members of his party-and I am now referring to the Leader of the Opposition-had suffered a disastrous defeat at the polls. In addressing that convention he took as his subject a text from Holy Writ: Him that the

Lord loveth He chasteneth. I pass that text along to the Leader of the Opposition for whatever comfort he can get out of it.

The election of March 31, Mr. Speaker, if I may say a word about myself, was the fourth in which I was a candidate. Twice I tried for the legislative assembly. The first time I tried for it I was elected, and was the first Conservative member to represent the old riding of Kerrobert in that legislative assembly. Five years later, in 1934, I retired from public life and went back to the practice of law with the consent and approval of the majority of the people in that constituency. In 1945 I gambled $200 that I could get half as many votes as the winning candidate in the Kindersley constituency. I lost that bet. On March 31 last I was swept into office here, Mr. Speaker, the first Conservative member for the riding of Kindersley. I rode in on the blizzard that swept across Canada; hence my batting average now stands at 500. That is not bad as batting averages go in Saskatchewan for Conservatives over approximately the past 40 years.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is a time-honoured custom in this house to say something about one's constituency during one's first speech in the house. The Kindersley constituency is named after the largest town in it the town of Kindersley. The town was named after Sir Robert Kindersley who was at one time chairman of the board of the Hudson's Bay Company and a prominent financier in Britain. The seat was established in 1914, and down through the years has been represented by members of various parties. The first member was a supporter of the Union government, Mr. E. T. Myers, who represented the seat from 1917 to 1921. From 1921 to 1935 the constituency was represented by Mr. A. M. Carmichael, a supporter of the Progressives. From 1935 to 1940 a supporter of the Social Credit party, Mr. O. B. Elliott, represented the constituency. From 1940 to 1945 Mr. Charles A. Henderson, a supporter of the Liberal party, was the member. From 1945 to 1949 a C.C.F. supporter, Mr. Frank E. Jaenicke, Q.C. was the member. From 1949 to 1953 Mr. Fred Larson, a supporter of the Liberal party, represented the constituency. From 1953 until March 31 of this year Mr. Mervin Johnson, a supporter of the C.C.F. party, was the member.

I was acquainted with all these men, and all were friends of mine despite the fact that many of them held views that were different from mine politically. I have the honour now to be the first Conservative to be elected by that constituency. I should like to say, sir, that in the four political campaigns in which I have been a candidate my opponents were 57071-3-33^

The Address-Mr. Hanbidge friends of mine. We were friends when the campaign started and we were still friends when the campaign ended. We managed to conduct all four campaigns without bitterness and, better still, without any mud slinging.

Now I should like to put on Hansard a very sincere thank you to the hundreds of men and women throughout the constituency who worked so hard at the March election to elect me as a supporter of the Diefenbaker government. I should like also to say a thank you to the 8,995 people who voted to send me down here. I am very grateful to them, and I want to assure them I will try to represent them faithfully at all times during my tenure of office.

The present riding of Kindersley was established prior to the 1953 election in the redistribution or gerrymandering, call it what you like, when the number of members representing Saskatchewan was reduced from 21 to 17. Several seats were wiped out, but the principal one that was being obliterated was the seat then represented by the present Prime Minister. The aim of the top brass of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan then was to get rid of that man Diefenbaker, to try to drive him out of public life. One of the greatest stimulants the Conservative party in western Canada has received in recent years was when he declined to accept the nomination in a safe seat in Ontario. He decided he was going to stay in public life as a member for Saskatchewan or he would retire to the practice of law. He then went into the historic riding of Prince Albert, a seat that had been held by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and later by Mr. Mackenzie King.

We in the west were never prouder of our Prime Minister than when he turned a Liberal majority of 1,575 in the 1949 election into a Conservative majority of 3,001 in 1953. This, sir, was one of the greatest shots in the arm the Conservatives in the west have received in recent years. Even at that time he was recognized at least as our western leader, if not our national leader.

I want to say another few words about the constituency of Kindersley. It has a population of almost 48,000 and is bounded on the north by township 41, on the south by township 14, on the east by range 16 west of the third meridian, and on the west by the eastern boundary of sunny Alberta. It is roughly 156 miles from north to south and 84 miles from east to west. It is cut in two by the South Saskatchewan river, which flows from west to east from Alberta. There are 9 townships south of the river and 15 townships north of the river.

The Address-Mr. Hanbidge

From the Alberta border on the west to No. 4 highway in the riding of Rosetown-Biggar there are no bridges whatsoever. The people are served by ferries but at times it is almost impossible, of course, for these ferries to operate, so to get from one side of the river to the other means travelling east to No. 4 highway, a considerable number of miles.

The good people south of the river are actually tributary to the larger centres of Maple Creek and Swift Current, and many south of the river would prefer to be tied in with those centres politically; but I want to make it clear that there are a lot of mighty fine people in that territory south of the river. I like them and they gave me a majority in the last election, so far be it from me to suggest that that district be taken away from the constituency of Kindersley.

Our chief industries are farming and ranching. Some of the most fertile heavy clay land in Canada is in my riding. Time does not permit me to name the districts. There are, of course, some districts which are not so good, and there is some marginal land and some lands valuable only for pasture and ranching. We have some oil fields; we have the Coleville-Smiley oil field north of the South Saskatchewan river, and south of that river there is what is known as the Fosterton oil field. In the Coleville-Smiley field there are 526 oil wells capable of producing, and there are actually 358 wells in production. In the Fosterton field there are some 52 wells capable of production and all are producing. There are two oil refineries, one at Coleville and one at Eston. So any of you who own stock in any of the larger oil companies have a slight interest in the Kindersley constituency.

We also have gas. East and north of the town of Kindersley is what is known as the Brock gas field. Gas from that field is piped into several of the towns in my constituency and also into some of the cities. I must add that the premier of Saskatchewan is somewhat disturbed because gas pressure has been lowered since March 31. During the political campaign one of those who spoke with me, a former attorney general of Saskatchewan, when speaking at the town of Fox Valley down in the southern part of the constituency referred to the monument to the wheat policies of the Liberal party. In this town, owned by the United Grain Growers, there are three large elevators. Some of you will know about this, particularly those members from the west; an annex is a temporary addition to a grain elevator for the storage of grain, and the biggest annex in the world,

I believe, is in the town of Fox Valley. It connects two elevators owned by the United Grain Growers, and it stores something like 145,000 bushels of wheat. As my friend, M. A. McPherson, said, this is a great monument to the wheat policies of the former government.

So much for our industries. Now as to the people of this constituency, we have as fine a cross-section of citizens as you will find anywhere in Canada. Our people or their parents and ancestors came from the eastern provinces, from Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, the maritimes and also from the United States, England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, France, Denmark, Norway, Russia, Sweden, China and the countries of central Europe. We have even some from old Ireland; they are the salt of the earth and they all live together in peace and harmony building homes, towns, communities, raising their children to be happy and contented; industrious people working together as Christian, law-abiding citizens, helping to build up this great land.

My hon. friend from York West said something during the course of his address about being careful of the direction in which hon. members on the other side of the house would send their fire in shooting this way. He said not to shoot back until you see the whites of their eyes. I take it that my hon. friend from York West is a goose hunter, and the people in the constituency of Kindersley would think I had been remiss in carrying out my duties if I did not let this house know that Kindersley constituency is known as the haven of goose hunters. Hunters come from the east and up from the south to my constituency in great numbers. As a matter of fact they come from all over Canada and the United States, pouring into our area. I would like to put in a plug here, if I may, for the C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan, and suggest that as many of you as possibly can do so should come to that province, take out your licences to hunt geese, and of course contribute your foreign capital to the coffers of the province.

Many years ago when I hoped a little more seriously than I did in recent months to become a member of this chamber, I resolved that at my first opportunity I would pay tribute to one of the greatest western Canadians. More years ago than I care to remember I was articled as a young law student in the office of a man who for many years had been a member of the old Northwest Territories council and who was later premier of the Northwest Territories for 14 years, before the provinces of Alberta or Saskatchewan were formed. I refer to

Frederick William Gordon Haultain, a man who was deprived of the honour of being the first premier of Saskatchewan by the government of that day. He was the man actually responsible for the ordinances passed in the Northwest Territories, the basis for the first laws of the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and for the establishment of law, order and good government in the territories now comprising those provinces. When Saskatchewan was formed he became leader of the opposition, a post he held until 1912, when he was appointed chief justice of that province and held that position until 1938, when he retired to private life. Looking back over the years during which I knew him, which goes back to the fall of 1909, I feel I must pay tribute to the man who in my book did more than any other to establish civilization in that part of the west which we now know as Saskatchewan and Alberta.

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

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear.

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

Robert Leith Hanbidge

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hanbidge:

He was a pioneer, a lawyer, a statesman, a jurist, one of nature's noblemen, a great man of his day and generation; Sir Frederick Haultain.

I want to commend the government for a few of the things they have done during the short period they have been in office. Time will not permit me to cover everything by any means, but I do want to congratulate the Prime Minister, his government and particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce for the efforts they have made to dispose of wheat and other grains. We in Kindersley are particularly glad to learn that in this crop year there is a prospect of disposing of some 300 million bushels of wheat. If ever a minister of the crown inherited a difficult task it was the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I want to commend him and his departmental officials, as well as the officials of the wheat board, for their efforts to regain lost markets and find new ones.

I want to commend the government also for exploring the matter of contributory old age pensions; for proposing assistance to the forgotten man, the small businessman; for appointing a commission to investigate price spreads; for its efforts, particularly the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour to avert the recent rail strike; for extending the period of payments under the Unemployment Insurance Act; for increasing the payments to our senior citizens under the old age pension plan, and also for the plan whereby advance payments on farm-stored grain were made to farmers through the wheat board and the elevator companies.

So much for the commendations I wish to lay at the door of the government. I now

The Address-Mr. Hanbidge want to pass on a few suggestions, for I believe the Prime Minister has intimated that he will receive suggestions from his supporters, particularly from those in the southwest corner of the house. First, with respect to the matter of the Crowsnest pass freight rates agreement, some of the groups in my constituency are very much worried lest there be a change made in that agreement, and I urge the government that no alteration be made.

I commend to the government the building of a series of interior grain storage elevators. It looks as though the government of this country will be in the grain business for a good many years to come. Storing grain is a great expense to farmers of western Canada, and I suggest that serious consideration be given by the government to building storage elevators throughout the west, at the head of the lakes, on the west coast and also at the seaports of eastern Canada.

I suggest, also, that unemployment insurance benefits be extended to apply to farm labourers. Also I suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the sale of low-grade wheat by one farmer to another farmer or livestock feeder should be encouraged, not discouraged, and that such sales should be permitted both to someone within a province and to someone outside a province without requiring the permission of the wheat board. I suggest also that loans made by the Canadian farm loan board be investigated in order to find out whether it is the policy of the board to advance money only on heavy clay land.

Then I suggest that serious consideration should be given to making some grant toward the expenses of those Canadian athletes who will be representing Canada at the British empire games. While I have never had the advantage of playing in professional sport- iri recent years my sporting activities have been confined to golf and curling-in years gone by I played football in Regina on the same team as John Bracken. I was one of the Regina Roughriders-this, of course, was after Mr. Bracken's time-in the days back iri 1912 and 1913 when we were good enough to be champions of western Canada.

In those days we did not play under the 3 and 4 platoon system; the men who played on the team did not get splinters in their posteriors by riding the bench. We played for 60 minutes. As one who was an impecunious law student I know what it means to have your nose and several other things broken and have to pay your own expenses out of your own pocket, I seriously suggest to the government that consideration' be given to assisting these athletes who are going

518 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Hanbidge overseas as ambassadors of good will, meeting with athletes from different parts of the empire at these games.

I had intended to say a word about the South Saskatchewan river dam, but as my hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. Jones) referred to the subject yesterday, I will be very brief. This question has been a political football for many years, and I commend the government for having taken the initial steps, at least, to see that this project is proceeded with. I have in my hand an editorial from the Globe and Mail of May 24. I do not want to take up the time of the house by reading it, It is headed "Water is the Answer".

I should very much like to have this editorial incorporated into my remarks. It has to do with the efforts being made by the University of Saskatchewan to set up a farm of 250 acres near Saskatoon to investigate irrigation methods and conduct research in the use of water. On the same page of the Globe and Mail of May 24 is an editorial copied from the Calgary Albertan dealing with conditions in western Canada at the present time. The situation in the three prairie provinces has become serious because of wind erosion and lack of rain. Sunday evening I telephoned to my home town of Kerrobert, and I was informed that all day long a blizzard had been blowing and the dust was flying as in the period of the dirty thirties. I should like to have the two editorials to which I have referred incorporated into my remarks if I may. If not I will see that they are put into the hands of the government.

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of rehashing or reliving the issues of the recent campaign, but there are a few things which have been said in this debate upon which I wish to comment. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) said, as recorded in Hansard for May 21 at page 317, that he wondered if the Prime Minister had mistaken himself for Superman because of his activities during the recent election campaign. I have known the Prime Minister for a great many years, and I do not think any of us in western Canada have ever considered him to be a superman physically. But we have known for a long time that he is a superman mentally.

Again the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, as hon. members will see if they look at Hansard of May 21 at page 318, referred to "the exaltation of one man-the cult of the leader". The hon. member should know whereof he speaks. He should know more about that topic than those in our party. If I recall correctly, the only platform his party had in 1949 and again in 1953, the only plank they had to stand on, was the one labelled "Uncle Louie". Again, back in

1908 and once more in the election of 1911-and I can go back that far-the only platform the Liberal party of those days had in Canada from Vancouver to Halifax, illustrated by pictures of the old chieftain with the silvery locks Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was, "Let the old man finish his work". The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate should know whereof he speaks when he talks about platforms, slogans and so forth.

Then again, as reported in Hansard of May 21 at page 318, the same hon. gentleman said something to this effect: "The occupants of the front benches were a very small factor in the last election." I did not have all the cabinet ministers in my riding, but I did have one, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, for two meetings. I just want to say that the minister is now being given an invitation by me on behalf of the executive of the Kinderlsey Federal Conservative Association to come back and assist whoever may be the Progressive Conservative candidate at the next federal election. I want to tell the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that the Minister of Trade and Commerce not only made votes for me in that election but, more important, he did not lose me any. We were mighty happy to have his help. Moreover, we would indeed be happy to have any of the other ministers in the Kindersley riding who can see their way clear to come during the next election, and I am extending an invitation to them to assist the candidate.

Further, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said something to this effect, as reported in Hansard at page 318:

The Conservative ministers counted for very little and I say again, with no desire to belittle the supporters of the government, that the private members supporting the government counted for less than nothing.

I want to thank the member for that kindly remark, "no desire to belittle the supporters of the government". We realize that it was made with courtesy on his lips and kindness in his heart.

For several days now I have been amazed at the talent with which the Prime Minister is surrounded. True, there may not be many who have had the training and experience of a history lecturer, but there are a great many of the private members supporting the Prime Minister-medical men, lawyers, merchants, businessmen, farmers, manufacturers, men from a great many different walks in life-who have made a real success of their own affairs. I have been amazed at the manner in which a great many of these men have been able to get to their feet for the first time in this house and express themselves with such ease. Many of them are men who have taken an active part in their own

communities at the municipal level and, in some cases, the provincial level; men who have looked after the hospitals, the Red Cross organization and things of that nature.

I had no intention of discussing politics during this, my first speech in the House of Commons, but I thought some answer should be given to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in view of the somewhat insulting remarks he made with regard to the private members. I should like to tell a story here, but I am afraid my time is too short. I will tell it to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate privately.

I have known the Prime Minister for a great many years. At different times on different platforms I have said a lot of kindly things about him and his party. During the last election campaign I told a little story on an occasion when I did not have time to say all the nice things I wanted to say about the Prime Minister. The story concerns a young man who attended a church service. As he was leaving he stopped at the door and shook hands with the parson and said, "Mr. Parson, that was a damned fine sermon and I enjoyed it very much." The preacher looked at him with some amazement and said, "Thank you very much for the compliment, but I do think your language might be a little less emphatic." The young man replied, "Well, I did enjoy the sermon, Mr. Parson. In fact I enjoyed it so much that I put a $50 bill on the collection plate." The parson stepped back in amazement and said, "The hell you say."

May I observe in conclusion that in this year of grace a spirit of harmony prevails across this great land. The discords and seeds of hate and disunity that were planted, fostered and promoted in years past by certain parties and certain people for political purposes are, I hope, now a matter of history. Today our party, the party of those great men who have gone before-Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Georges Etienne Cartier-the party of Borden and Bennett and of Arthur Meighen, who is happily still with us, to name but a few, has been reborn and under the guiding hand and the inspired leadership of that great parliamentarian and peerless leader, our Prime Minister, I believe this great land of ours will continue to prosper and flourish as one of the great, free and liberty-loving nations of the world. I want to assure the Prime Minister and those associated with him on the treasury benches that the member for Kindersley will be voting for the main motion.

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

Mervyn Arthur Hardie

Liberal

Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):

Mr. Speaker, I wish first to congratulate you and your deputy on your appointment to

The Address-Mr. Hardie the high offices you occupy in this house. I am confident that you will look after not only the rights of the majority but also those of the minorities in the days to come. I should also like to extend congratulations to the mover (Mr. Lafreniere) and seconder (Mr. Nielsen) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Their efforts were very fine; but I would like to say to the hon. member for Yukon, who made reference to me during this speech, that it is quite clear to me now why it was necessary for him to call upon the new blueeyed Indian senator for assistance during the last election campaign.

The speech from the throne, although vague in its wording, does cover a wide variety of proposed legislation for this session. What it will mean to the people of Canada will not be known, of course, until the legislation it foreshadows comes before the house. Today I would like to comment on a few of the announcements contained in the throne speech as they affect the riding of Mackenzie River. I will deal with them in the order in which they appear.

First there is the proposed amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act to extend the seasonal benefit period an additional six weeks. This amendment will naturally be of assistance to those who qualify, but from what I can gather this group will represent approximately 25 per cent of those Canadians who are today facing hardships and misery because of lack of employment. In my own riding I doubt if 5 per cent of the people presently unemployed will qualify for these benefits. The reason for this is the fact that a large number of my people have no opportunity to work on a payroll job for any length of time, the result being that they do not have the required stamps to qualify them for benefits under the act.

Many of these people are Indians, Eskimos or people of mixed blood whose normal living would be derived from trapping and hunting. We also have fishermen who fish two seasons of the year, in the summer from around July 1 to the latter part of August and in the winter from early in January to about the middle of March. These people by and large cannot collect seasonal benefits because the fishing season conflicts with the seasonal benefit period. I would suggest to the government that provision be made whereby their contributions to the unemployment insurance fund would entitle them to seasonal benefits in the period of each year in which they find themselves unemployed.

The problem of the trapper is such that he cannot make a living or even exist on

The Address-Mr. Hardie trapping because of the serious decline in the price of fur over the past ten years. Hunting has also become a thing of the past in some areas because of the serious decrease in the numbers of caribou and other game. This has left the native in the unfortunate position of relying on the government for a hand-out or, in the case of persons of mixed blood, in the position of having to sink or swim. I have spoken in this house on numerous occasions during the past five years bringing this problem to the attention of the government. I have told the house repeatedly that these people do not want hand-outs but rather they desire an opportunity to make a living.

What is this government doing about it? Well, Mr. Speaker, I will outline some of the things that have happened in the short time since the Conservative party took office. Hon. members will recall that on December 19 last the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources announced in this house a winter works program. This program included two road clearing projects in my riding or immediately adjacent to it, one between Fort Providence and Fort Rae, the other between Peace Point and the western boundary of the Wood Buffalo park.

I want to quote from the minister's statement with reference to the labour to be used on these projects, as found at page 2580 of Hansard of December 19, 1957. This is what the minister said:

I will be in close consultation with my colleague the Minister of Labour to ensure that these jobs are filled by persons coming from areas with high rates of unemployment. Most of the work is of an outdoor nature and should, for example, provide substantial assistance in finding jobs for unemployed forest workers in British Columbia.

The minister should have added that it would be of assistance in finding work for natives of the Northwest Territories. On January 8, 1958, as reported at page 2988 of Hansard, I addressed the following question:

I should like to direct a question to either the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or the Minister of Public Works. Is it true that the department has invited bids on a cost-plus management fee basis for the completion of the Mackenzie highway between Fort Providence and Fort Rae in the Northwest Territories? If so, will the minister see to it that all available local equipment and manpower will be utilized before either are brought in from the province of Alberta?

The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources replied in these words:

The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part of the question is that I shall have to take it under consideration because of the fact that we are trying to get this work started by January 15, which makes it imperative to move at high speed. I will take

the matter up with the department to see what we can do. I want to assure the hon. member that one of the conditions of these tenders was that the government of Canada would have the choice as to the source of the labour supply.

The minister's answer brings up another point which deals with the calling for tenders on these projects. In the case of the job between Fort Providence and Fort Rae in particular, a nOmber of construction companies outside of the Northwest Territories were asked to bid. Not one contractor resident in the Northwest Territories was invited to tender although inquiries were made as to camp equipment, etc., owned by the contractors in the area. The feeling was that they were not equipped to handle camps of the size required. As it turned out, however, the natives hired on these jobs were put up in tents, and I am sure that any contractor in my riding certainly has enough experience in the country to put up a tent camp. And since time was of the essence, according to the minister, I ask you what contractor from Alberta could get on the job faster than the local people who had their outfits within 50 miles of the project?

Well, after the minister's assurance that labour would be recruited from the areas of high unemployment, what happened? The contractors were given specific instructions that 50 per cent of the labour hired for those projects was to be hired through the unemployment insurance office in Edmonton and 50 per cent from the Northwest Territories. Men were flown in from Edmonton via Canadian Pacific Airlines, some of whom arrived in Fort Smith and Fort Providence dressed up like city slickers, as a matter of fact like our present Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who arrived in Frobisher Bay some weeks ago in clothing that would have been suitable down in Florida: a felt hat, toe rubbers and all the rest of it. These people were all shipped in from Edmonton to work with axes in the bush clearing roads. Well, bush clothing was purchased for them; their way was paid from and to Edmonton. At the same time natives in my part of the country were going without food or living on miserable rations because of the lack of work.

Well, I ask this house, who is more qualified to work in the bush than a person who was born and raised in the bush? I might add here that at Fort Rae the government gave the natives a contract to clear six miles of this road, and I would bet money that the cost of that six miles of road would not come to over 30 per cent of what it cost the contractors and this government to clear the other part with hired labour from Edmonton. There are many other things that I could say about

this particular project, Mr. Speaker, but I shall leave that to some other time.

Another instance of the injustices encountered by local people up north took place at Hay River this past winter. An outside contractor was the successful tenderer on a group of buildings for the Department of Fisheries. Not one carpenter was hired from the town of Hay River, although there were qualified carpenters, residents of the community, without work. Is it logical to hire men in Edmonton, pay their way in and out of the area by air, rather than hire local people who are qualified?

The reason given by the contractor for this state of affairs was that the men at Hay River were not union men. Now, Mr. Speaker, it may be that they are not union men, but I am telling you that they are going to be, and this government had better either pass labour laws for the Northwest Territories or instruct their appointed representatives on the Northwest Territories council to pass ordinances that will look after the labour of the north. There has been too much of this business of outside contractors moving into the riding and shipping in men from outside at the expense of our people.

Another criticism I have of what is apparently the policy of this government is in regard to the work on the new townsite of Aklavik. I think hon. members will recall that a few years ago the former administration thought it necessary to move this settlement from its present location because of the lack of room for expansion and the problems created by the thawing of the permafrost, along with other reasons. At the time the government decided to move this town Mr. Frank Carmichael, who was then representing that area on the Northwest Territories council, and myself made recommendations to the government of that day in regard to the manner in which this move should be dealt with. We pointed out that because of the very rapid increase in the population of the Mackenzie delta area and because of the fact that some 35 to 50 families were without trap lines, with no way to make a living, it was our belief that the project should be carried out over a period of six or seven years. Of course, the extension of this project over a period of six or seven years would provide work instead of relief for the people of that area and of the Mackenzie river. It would also give on the job training for natives in the skills of carpentry, truck driving, equipment operating, diesel mechanics, electricity and the like. These people who are actually being forced from their trap lines should be given an opportunity to learn some other way in which to earn a living.

The Address-Mr. Hardie

As I understand it, the government of that day did accept our recommendation and did plan to move this town over a period of six or seven years, but the policy of this government apparently is to complete this job in the next two years. To do so, I understand they are moving 800 men in from Edmonton this summer to clean up this job. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sympathetic toward all Canadians who are unemployed at the present time, but I do think the problems of the north are such that special consideration has to be given; otherwise we shall break down the morale of our people who would rather work than take rations. I hope the government will change its policy in this regard and take a second look at the unnecessary rush to complete this job, which could do a great deal to provide much needed work and training to keep people in the Mackenzie river area.

The additional $300 million which has already been provided for house construction in Canada will be of great assistance to the construction industry and also to those who can afford to purchase houses in Canada. But many people in Canada are still forced to live in substandard houses because of the amount of the present down payments and the high interest rates charged by the lending companies. It is my opinion that an even greater boost for housing could be brought about by amending the legislation to provide for lower down payments and the availability of loans at a lower rate of interest. In my own riding the cost of house construction is at least 50 per cent higher than in most places in Canada. If the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible to parliament for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will look over the cost to his own department of the construction of houses in the north I am sure he will have to admit that the north should be given special consideration. I would suggest that the government consider the possibility of increasing the maximum loan under the act, more in line with the cost of construction above the 60th parallel.

The announcement in the speech from the throne that we shall be asked to authorize the building of a railroad to Great Slave lake will certainly be looked upon with great enthusiasm, not only in my riding but in all parts of Canada. This railroad, if built, will not only open up possibly the largest lead-zinc deposit in the world, but it will also do a great deal for the development of the whole Mackenzie district, which has a great potential in copper, gold, lithium, uranium, and almost every known metal, oil and gas, forest products and agricultural lands. The differences of opinion as to the route thp railroad will

The Address-Mr. Hardie take, which have become quite evident recently, should not in any way delay the immediate start of this worth-while project. A definite decision as to the route should be taken at an early date so the bill can be introduced in the house as soon as possible.

This project is one which the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) has pushed and publicized over the years since he was appointed minister of northern affairs and national resources in 1953. Also a great deal of credit for stimulating the national interest must go to the deputy minister of this department, Mr. Gordon Robertson, along with his officials who have continuously worked toward the day the first spike will be driven. In any event, Mr. Speaker, both political parties were committed to the building of this railroad; and though I would have hoped that the party which had done the preliminary work would be the government presenting this bill at this session, I must congratulate the new government on accepting the recommendations of the former administration.

You will recall that during the election campaign the Prime Minister and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources promised a $100 million road program in the Northwest Territories and Yukon and a $75 million program in conjunction with the provinces for so-called access or development roads. I have checked the newspaper reports of speeches made by the two hon. gentlemen during the election campaign and find that this road program of the Tories included at least 6,000 miles of roads in the northern parts of Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. This I may say is a very conservative estimate, as I measured the mileages on the map as the crow flies. All these roads, according to the statements we heard during the campaign, were to be built at a cost of $175 million. This suggestion is simply ridiculous. This amount of money would not build roads suitable for a Bennett buggy, let alone a Diefen-baker chariot.

We in the Northwest Territories have had our experiences in the past with substandard roads. A very good example is the portion of the Mackenzie highway lying within the boundaries of the province of Alberta. After this road was built it stood up for a very few years, but because of the great increase in traffic, together with the reluctance on the part of the Alberta government to properly maintain the road, for the past number of years we have experienced times when the road was closed for from three weeks to six weeks during the break-up period. As recently as last summer, in the month of

July, when freight movements are heaviest, we experienced a condition which made it necessary to reroute freight from Grimshaw all the way back to Edmonton and on to Waterways in order to catch the water transport boats.

I suggest to the government that when negotiating with the province of Alberta with regard to the rebuilding of this road, consideration be given to the amounts promised to the provinces. These amounts that were promised were $1,500,000 per year over a period of five years. I would suggest that this amount be substantially increased so that when the rebuilding of the Mackenzie highway is undertaken we can build this road to real highway standards and go so far as to include hard surfacing.

We have heard a great deal about the road from Hay River to Bear lake. It was mentioned in the speech from the throne, and of course it was made to appear as something new. There is nothing new about this road. It was started two years ago by the former administration. To date approximately 93 miles have been partially completed. But to come back to the Mackenzie highway, Mr. Speaker, may I say that this road to Bear lake from Hay River is useless unless the Mackenzie highway is rebuilt to proper standards.

The speech from the throne also indicated that a great deal more money would be spent in the Northwest Territories for roads. I have here the estimates tabled the other day. On looking over the road program for this coming year in the Northwest Territories I find that the amount totals $3,813,200. This is the amount this government estimates it will spend in the Northwest Territories this year. Let us take a look at last year's figure. It was $4,434,100. This great vision of more roads is actually a reduction in road building in the Northwest Territories this coming year. Not only had the former administration set the policy which the Tories today have stolen with regard to the Bear lake road, but the Tories have included in their vision roads that were either surveyed or started by the former administration. I refer to roads from Fort Smith to Fort Vermilion; from Fort Fitzgerald to Bell Rock; from Stewart to Cassiar; and the opening of the Canol road. This program of the former administration would have cost, in my opinion, approximately $100 million, close to the figure promised by the Prime Minister during the election campaign for access or development roads. It is just about as phony as this $1,185 million of public works projects that was announced by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. All the Tories

have done is steal the ideas of the previous administration and project them into a ridiculous story about vision, all on the same amount of money or close to it.

My Conservative opponent during the election campaign also had vision. When speaking to the Indians at Fort Rae and Fort Providence he told them of visions he had in which the natives in a few years would be driving cars to their trap lines. Of course one of his chief executives was a Plymouth dealer, so I presume that the natives were all going to be driving Plymouths. But I wonder now, as I wondered then, how many miles of road there would be between Fort Rae and Great Bear lake if the road was to be built around every muskrat area between those two points. It would have to be built around the muskrat areas if these Indians were going to travel by car to their trap lines. I wondered at that time whether I had not been mistaken when I heard of the $100 million promise of the Prime Minister. When I heard this story of a road through the trap lines to Great Bear lake I was sure this $100 million was just for that road alone and not for all the roads.

During the course of the election campaign my opponent also distributed a circular letter. In the last paragraph of that letter he said:

In a personal letter I received from our Prime Minister a few days ago, he said, in part, "I look forward with keen anticipation to having the member for the far northern parts of Canada sitting with us on the government benches, as your wise counsel and experience will prove invaluable to our party in our plans for the development of Canada's northland."

Since my opponent is not here to advise the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, I am offering my services in that capacity today, just as I did with the former government. While I am at it 1 want to let the Prime Minister in on a little secret. The former administration obtained most of their vision from my advice; and since the Prime Minister thought it was good enough to use in the last national election campaign, I am confident I can still be of service to the government of Canada. He will have to admit that while I was sitting on the side of the chamber he now occupies I was not hesitant in criticizing the government when I thought they needed it or in congratulating them when 1 thought they deserved it. I shall try, Mr. Speaker, to continue this attitude from the place I occupy at this time.

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):

My first remarks, sir, must be of a congratulatory nature directed to the Speaker upon his reelection as the first commoner of this land. I can recall, not too many years ago, hearing an individual say to the speaker in similar circumstances that when you really meet a 57071-3-34J

The Address-Mr. A. R. Smith great man who is quiet, modest and unassuming, it gives one a feeling that perhaps there are some hopes for the individual himself in the future. I am sure the Speaker will appreciate it when I say that we from western Canada, recognizing that your birthplace was also in western Canada, take some pride in your success and therefore bathe in the reflected glory of one of our greatest exports, men of the calibre of the Speaker of this house and the Prime Minister.

I should like too, sir, to congratulate, and not in a perfunctory manner, the mover (Mr. Lafreniere) and seconder (Mr. Nielsen) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I know that as they sit and listen to some 90 people speak, as it was my privilege to do in the last house, they must feel that perhaps this is a perfunctory gesture on the part of members. I learned, and admittedly it was from a gentleman on the opposite side of the house, that the best way to determine whether or not it is intended as a sincere expression is not to listen to the comments of those people who have been in the chamber for only a session or two, but to those who have occupied a place in this house for a generation or two, such as members of the civil service and the protective staff. I can say to both hon. members that the calibre of their contribution was such that they need not worry about anyone suggesting that these remarks are perfunctory in nature. They both made able contributions to this debate.

I should like now to congratulate the Deputy Speaker, too. I think most hon. members will agree that in the short time he has occupied this position he has carried out his duties with a quiet dignity which is so in keeping with the green chamber. I know that the fine tradition of his family is being carried on by his conduct and many great things will still be expected of him.

Perhaps I have been remiss in not speaking in more eloquent terms, either in this debate or the previous throne speech debate, of the city which I represent. I did not do so, sir, because I felt it would be an insult to the intelligence of the members of the house to imply that they would not know the city of Calgary. Contrary to popular opinion amongst some eastern Canadians, we do not lynch easterners regularly; we do not wear our six-shooters or our white hats to bed.

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

An hon. Member:

Just occasionally.

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

Arthur Smith

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Smith (Calgary South):

Well, perhaps the hon. member was an exception. I would say that actually, by nature, we are a very modest people. It does concern us when people describe us in independent reports as that city most likely to succeed; as the

The Address-Mr. A. R. Smith greatest centre of the petroleum industry in Canada, in fact in the British empire; that city with the greatest advantage from the tourist trade, the greatest per capita turnover in bank receipts, the fast growing city and so on. Actually we do blush with modesty when we hear these glowing reports. Naturally we take some enjoyment, unlike other members who have had to say they are the first Conservatives to represent their constituencies in 30 years, from the fact that we have very seldom had a Liberal representing the constituencies in Calgary.

What I had intended to say, aside from all this nonsense, is that you have been invited by members of this house to everything from a log-rolling contest in British Columbia to a Sunday school picnic in a section of eastern Canada. I would be remiss, therefore, if I did not invite you to the greatest outdoor show in the world, the Calgary stampede.

I should like to point with some pride to the fact-this is perhaps the only political remark I shall make-that in this chamber all 17 members from the province of Alberta are on the government side of the house. We know, and many of those who had a tremendous uphill fight will be the first to agree, that unless we carry out our responsibilities to the public that situation could change. We recognize that many of the candidates who were defeated previously had substantial majorities. What I say, Mr. Speaker, is that the day may not be far off when, having been the only province in the history of Canada to completely eliminate a political party, we will also have the privilege in a provincial election of forming the first Conservative government of Alberta.

I had thought that my remarks today might be entitled as an "I am not mad at anybody" type of speech, at least that was my intention until I heard the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) yesterday. He dragged out that old argument that because of the trade policies of the Conservative government, the United States had retaliated against us by placing oil import quotas against western Canadian crude.

I come from a city that has 42,000 United States citizens and is the centre of Canada's oil industry. If that were a truism it would have been a difficult subject for me to be confronted with. Let us look at his statement. Obviously the hon. member dragged it out of one of the senior Liberal member's speeches during the campaign, which was repeated in every section of Canada except my city. The fact of the matter is that oil import quotas were imposed. We had some indication that this would be the case because, after Suez, the United States found itself in a surplus position on oil production.

The United States then found, to a large extent as the result of pressure from certain internal groups within their own economy, that it was necessary to impose quotas, not just on Canada but on all exporting countries including Venezuela and the Middle East. If the argument that we were being retaliated against were valid, then it would follow also that the United States was retaliating for some reason against Venezuela and the Middle East countries. The fact of the matter is that the oil industry as a whole in Canada has not been able, for economic reasons of price competition, to even meet those import quotas which were imposed. So I suggest that we dispose of this ridiculous argument that it was a question of retaliation, because those who are concerned with the industry and are a part of it certainly will not accept it, and I am sure the members of this house will not accept it either.

I think because of misrepresentation- perhaps misunderstanding might be a more parliamentary word-of the problem of oil marketing I could be excused if I spent a minute or so in describing where the industry stands today. It is of course recognized that oil is Canada's No. 1 mineral resource, and it should be appreciated that, unlike wheat, this industry obtains no assistance from any government with respect to its marketing. Unlike coal, it receives no subvention for its transportation. Unlike mining, it receives no subsidy, and it has not received from the government any direct financial aid other than relief in the form of amendments to taxation statutes.

The problem of Canada's petroleum industry is serious, and I confess that it is a problem the seriousness of which I have had some difficulty in impressing upon members on both sides of this house. I feel we may well be confronted with one of the most difficult economic problems of our time unless we in this house are prepared to show some leadership in reaching a solution. The problem lies in the simple fact that today we can produce some 800,000 barrels of oil per day, while our ability to market is less than one-half this amount. In fact our ability to sell oil either in Canada or in the United States accounts for only about 40 per cent of our possible production. If you take any industry and compare it with the oil industry you can see how serious the situation is. Take coal, gold or wheat, and project the situation that you could market less than one-half your possible production, and then consider that it is costing you $1J million per day to maintain the industry. Then you have the economic equation in its proper perspective.

We in Canada must recognize that our national resources place us in the position where in the eyes of the world we are the country most likely to succeed. However, the difficulties of marketing our oil either in Canada or abroad are such that with a landlocked industry we will undoubtedly encounter a problem which will be one of the most serious this country must face.

A variety of solutions have been suggested, and this matter is of course now before the Borden royal commission. It would therefore be unwise and inappropriate for me to suggest the conclusions which might be reached by this commission, but let me state the following. When you find an industry depressed to the point where less than half its production can be sold; when you find that perhaps less than half the potential of employment is being maintained by that industry in production or development, and when you find that many of the independent companies which to a very large extent depend on their ability to produce and sell oil are becoming far more extinct than the whooping crane, then you can place this problem in its proper perspective. We have in effect only four major independent companies today, whereas ten years ago we had 50 such companies. These concerns, because of the lack of markets, have found that for their very survival they must choose between two alternatives, to amalgamate into a group of companies or to declare themselves bankrupt.

The solution is twofold. We must either be able to sell in an unrestricted manner to areas in the United States which comprise our logical and economic market, or we must be able to develop a process by which we can sell more oil in our own country. The commission, of course, will reach its conclusions on which of these solutions is acceptable. Suffice it to say that if Canada through its highest diplomatic channels is unable to convince the United States of the most urgent need for an understanding by means of which we may ship our oil into the Pacific northwest area, then we have only one logical alternative which, as I say, is to sell more oil by some system in those areas of Canada which today are using foreign crude.

I know when I speak of moving western oil into eastern Canada my friends on both sides of this house, particularly those from Montreal or the eastern Canadian section, will say, "Here is another instance, I suppose, in which eastern Canada is asked to subsidize a western Canadian industry." That is not the case. It is apparent from early reports and engineering studies that oil

The Address-Mr. A. R. Smith can be transported to Montreal and compete with foreign crudes to the extent of about 275,000 barrels per day.

It is also apparent, to me at least, that if we expect to have in our country any form of national unity we must first enjoy economic unity. Not only in the interests of national defence but for the very survival of one of our most important energy sources, if the Borden commission or the government of Canada are unable to come to some conclusion on how we can move our oil into the logical U.S. markets, we will have to look to the Montreal or Toronto refinery centres in order to sell these products. I say we are asking no favour; we merely ask to be allowed to compete with foreign sources of crude from which we are today importing, and I have in mind certain dictatorships.

I would like to turn from oil to another very important problem, that of marketing our natural gas. This subject also, of course, is before the commission, which will have the difficult task of determining whether or not the reserves of this commodity are surplus to the requirement of the whole country or merely to those of a particular province. It is estimated today that we have somewhere between 22 trillion and 27 trillion cubic feet in gas reserve. Most gas producers accept the principle that they have a primary responsibility to first ensure the rights of Canadians to these assets, but here once again we must remember that only to a point can we economically transmit natural gas to places where it is competitive with other fuel sources. It is however not practical to consider that we should keep in the ground for some future time gas supplies which in some distant year may be required.

Hon. members may ask why and the answer, of course, is very simple. Like oil, you cannot turn off the tap of this energy source; you cannot close down your exploration or your development, and you cannot lose the incentive to develop the resource which is expected by us to become one of the greatest resources in the world. I say this because we have 700,000 square miles of geologically favourable land for such development. I say, therefore, that the problem of developing natural gas resources may be expressed simply in this way. First of all, having established a policy for protecting the rights of Canadians, we must then make every effort to export our gas surplus, and benefits from export will come to all Canadians. I say this is for the benefit of Canadians also, because gas is not a simple product but one from which we obtain a great area of secondary industry including the propanes, butanes and ethanes. This resource will produce for Canada secondary industries

The Address-Mr. A. R. Smith producing thousands of consumer goods and will form part of the program of processing raw materials in Canada.

I should like in leaving the subject of oil and gas, to come to a conclusion, namely that we should seek to impress upon our United States friends the necessity for an understanding on selling our products south of the border and, if we fail to do this, call together the provincial premiers and the leaders of the industry and determine how we can work out this problem in the interest of Canadians as a whole, because it is no longer a regional problem but one which will have the widest influence on every section of the Canadian economy.

I should like now to make a reference to a subject which has been described in generalities in the speech from the throne, and to discuss two government agencies, first the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and second Trans-Canada Air Lines, the national air line system of Canada. Of the C.B.C. I would say this. It has become fashionable, both inside the House of Commons and outside it, to criticize the C.B.C. to the extent of members making such remarks as "We should sell the C.B.C. or junk it". I myself have been guilty of pursuing this indoor recreation of criticizing the C.B.C. also, but I think we should temper our criticism by recognizing that had we not had a system of this nature we should not now enjoy the advantages of a national radio broadcasting system.

I agree with the conclusion reached in Mr. Fowler's report that the choice is between a Canadian state-controlled system with some exchange of programs east and west across Canada, with some Canadian content, some development of a Canadian sense of identity, and a system which could hardly provide such features. Enthusiastic as I am about private radio, I do not believe private radio is yet in a position to provide us with network services which will answer these needs. This may however occur in the future. I think, as has been indicated in the speech from the throne and by a statement of the minister concerned with the C.B.C., that we have reached the point where it can no longer be possible for the C.B.C. to be in the position of a competitor and a policeman in the same field. We shall, perhaps, accept Mr. Fowler's opinion that a board of broadcast governors should be established. I agree with the Minister of National Revenue when he said in effect that the day of the single channel policy for television is going to be shortlived. I think it is right that competition should be allowed, or that we should expose the C.B.C. to this competition, because both private and public broadcasting will improve

as a result. I think, too, that the C.B.C. in certain areas, certainly in the most lucrative program line areas, should withdraw part of its programing in order to provide greater incentive for private radio. I think we should recognize that private radio is today developing its own code of ethics, something to guide it so its members will keep within the limitations of good taste. I should like also to say that competition with private radio and television is going to provide a very high standard of radio in Canada.

I believe that the criticism I would direct against the C.B.C. could be summed up in these words. The C.B.C. as a government agency should not be expected to force culture down the throats of Canadians for eight or nine hours a day. I believe also that the CiB.C. or its agency-the station relations division, as it is called-should not be given the task of policing the private radio stations, but that this should be done by a separate board. We should define the rights of the C.B.C.; then we should get off their backs having given an opportunity for private radio to advance. Having done this we should be proud that we have accomplished so much in so short a time with the most important communication media in the world.

I would also say to the minister concerned with the C.B.C. and with radio and television that the VHF system, which is the very high frequencies used in television, could conceivably be taken over somewhat arbitrarily by our friends across the border. The time has come when we may find ourselves short of the very high frequencies for television, and I think we should be in a position to negotiate with the authorities in the United States and be absolutely certain we have given protection to this industry before it is too late.

The other problem which is important to me concerns the air line system of Canada. I want to do nothing more than say that I agree with the sentiments which have been expressed to the effect that Trans-Canada Air Lines does need competition. Having said that, let me suggest to hon. members that we not be too general in our criticism, or describe our air line system as inferior. Let us be specific in remembering that based on its accident record this air line is second to none and that its practices-that is when the aircraft are actually in the air-in my opinion as one who has done a considerable amount of flying make it one of the most efficient air lines of the world.

I, too, have criticism to make of the line's public relations from the ground standpoint. I think the competition which the air transport board may allow would aid materially in improving these public relations at ground level. But I would remind this house that

when we talk about duplicating 10 per cent of the Canadian air line system, taking 10 per cent from it, and then look at the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines, realizing that though they enjoyed a 15 per cent gross increase in income their actual net profit was lower by $1 million compared with the previous year, we must assess what is likely to be the future of this undertaking in providing competition.

It will of course be argued that a second air line would automatically increase business, but hon. members must also take note of the fact that the other air lines of the world indicated clearly at their recent conference that although they enjoyed increased passenger volume and gross profits were up, net profits still showed a falling off. I think it is right and proper that T.C.A. should be given competition, but I do not think any air transport board or any government should approve a decision which would place in jeopardy the net equity of a system which contains much that is good in an attempt to improve a particular facet of that air line service.

What I am saying in effect is, let us temper our enthusiasm for providing competition with T.C.A. by remembering the record of performance which this air line has enjoyed in these early years of air transport. We may place this system in considerable jeopardy of falling into the taxpayers' lap as a losing proposition both from the service and financial standpoints. I believe the provision of greater transportation facilities, increased assistance to the development of our airways, and increased financial aid to our airports, as mentioned in the speech from the throne, is sound. I would like to feel, though, that we will encourage our municipalities, as we should have done in the past, to develop their own facilities. If I may say so with some pride, the cities in the province of Alberta have developed their own airports and air terminals. It has been the experience of these municipalities that projects of this nature are sound profit-making utilities which the cities enjoy. We should not take away the incentive of Canadian municipalities to develop what is logically going to be a lucrative operation by placing at their doorstep millions of dollars to do a job which in many instances they are capable of doing themselves.

Our responsibility, of course, is to develop hangar accommodation and runways and see that the bilateral agreement opens an even greater area of opportunity for Canadian transportation. Our responsibility is to regulate the system under which major air lines will fly across this country. However, I am still a free enterpriser and I believe that the

The Address-Mr. Bourque rights, privileges and enjoyment of developing self enterprise at the local level are still paramount.

In these concluding remarks I want to say this. I have dealt specifically with problems of a materialistic nature. Taxation, air lines, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the problems of our petroleum and natural gas industry are all important. But there is another more intangible problem which must be examined by this parliament and by the people of Canada. There is in Canada today a growing nationalism which is enabling Canadians to achieve a better understanding of one another. We now recognize the problems from one end of our country to the other, and the recognition of these problems will undoubtedly produce solutions to them.

We also have the responsibility, however, to be absolutely certain that our nationalism is channeled into a proper field and that it does not get out of perspective. In our attempt to be pro-Canadian we must not unconsciously become anti-American or antianybody. This is a responsibility we have in developing our national identity. We must not become a carbon copy of any other country, but must achieve an individuality of our own as Canadians based on an appreciation of how fortunate we are in our system of government and in the development of our resources. We are proud of our two great cultures, one French, the other English. We should be proud indeed that we are Canadians, but we should always recognize for how much of our success we must thank our Maker. I charge that this is not the responsibility of any particular political party, but rather it is the responsibility of every hon. member of this house.

At one 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 2.30 p.m.


LIB

Romuald Bourque

Liberal

Mr. Romuald Bourque (Ouiremoni-Sl.Jean):

Mr. Speaker, at the opening of this morning's sitting the different party leaders referred sympathetically to the tragic death of Colonel George Flint, and offered condolences. Colonel George Flint was a distinguished soldier and a citizen of the city of Outremont. As mayor of that city I would like to join those who have spoken before me in expressing to his family how deeply touched we were to hear of his sudden passing, and to express to them on behalf of his fellow citizens of the city of Outremont their deepest sympathy.

Last Tuesday, May 20, 1958, Mr. Speaker, I spoke in this house. In that speech I mentioned the menace that "goofballs" constituted

The Address-Mr. Bourque to the youth of our country, and asked that immediate measures be taken by this government to put and end to this illegal traffic in drugs. In Saturday's Montreal Star and Herald I noticed that a gentleman by the name of H. R. Hart, chief of the inspection services of the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, had taken it upon himself to deny the facts mentioned in my speech and brought to his denial many facts that I had not even mentioned or touched upon. I should like now to read into the record the article that appeared in the Montreal Star and Herald on Saturday, May 24, 1958:

Stiffer Penalties Urged

Expert denies suburb has "goofball" problems.

A spokesman for the federal department of National Health and Welfare says it is up to Outremont magistrates to stiffen penalties against violations of the drug act if there is a "goofball" problem in the city.

But H. R. Hart, chief of the inspection services of the department, said there is no "goofball" problem in Outremont.

He was replying to a speech in the commons by Mayor Bourque, Liberal M.P. for Outremont, earlier in the week. The mayor said "goofballs"-mixtures of tranquilizers and barbiturates dissolved in liquids-were being sold illicitly to teenagers in his riding and that federal legislation needed to be stiffened to control the traffic.

Mr. Hart told the Montreal Star yesterday that federal legislation was extremely stiff if maximum penalties were imposed.

Mayor Bourque claimed in his speech that "goofbaU" distribution could not be controlled because tranquilizers and barbiturates were not covered by legislation.

Mr. Hart stressed that all drugs of this type were specifically listed in the federal Food and Drugs Act, policed by his service, and that their distribution and sale was by doctor's prescription only. Heavy penalties were ready for violators, he added.

"This is a matter for the magistrates to make up their minds about", Mr. Hart emphasized.

In an interview with the Montreal Star, Mayor Bourque admitted that $100 fines were imposed in cases of convictions in Outremont.

Mr. Hart said that for a summary conviction for a first offence, a maximum $500 fine plus three months imprisonment could be imposed; a second offence could bring a fine of $1,000 plus six months jail.

And a subsequent offence could bring a fine of $5,000 plus three years in prison.

"Plenty stiff", said Mr. Hart.

He didn't take seriously the term "goofball".

"I heard that one 30 years ago", he said. "It can mean anything the user intends it to mean. It used to mean a mixture of aspirin in a soft drink, and that really didn't do much harm".

A "goofball" generally indicates a combination of stimulant and tranquilizer, taken together.

Mr. Hart conceded that there have been prosecutions of pharmacists in Outremont for illegal sales of medicinals which can only be sold on prescription, and that $100 fines were imposed, in spite of requests from the federal Department of National Health and Welfare for stiffer penalties.

He did not consider distribution of "goofballs" or anything resembling them in Outremont a "problem", however.

Mayor Bourque considers that any situation which may have existed in Outremont has now been

cleared up, and says that he made the speech to bring to the attention of federal authorities a problem which might arise in other Canadian cities.

Notwithstanding this official denial I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that "goofballs" are being sold and Mr. Hart must be asleep at the switch, or evidently he is trying to avoid his responsibility, when he states that "goofballs" are riot being sold. Evidently he hears nothing, sees nothing and does nothing. I have proof that they are being sold, and it is contained in a six-page police report.

When I spoke in the house previously, Mr. Speaker, I said that these tranquilizers or barbiturate pills did not come under the drugs and narcotic legislation and, for that reason, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police criminal investigation branch, are powerless to deal with the problem. The matter rests with the food and drug division of the Department of National Health and Welfare, and the officials concerned can prosecute only if they can locate from whence the pill comes and is offered for sale without a licence. I shall read to you from the report of the director of police after he had made an investigation:

I immediately contacted Inspector Belec of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police criminal investigation branch, and he stated that he would send a member of the drug squad up to see me. Later on, Constable Sauve of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police drug squad came to my office and we discussed this case; he also went with the detectives to see the two boys and stated that he was of the opinion that the drugs mentioned were goofballs and that he would report back to Inspector Belec. The next morning Inspector Belec called me and told me that their investigation had revealed that the drugs used by these boys were goofballs- "barbiturates" or tranquilizing pills, and did not come under the drug and narcotic act, but he told me to call up Mr. St. Onge of the food and drug department of national health and welfare. I contacted Mr. St. Onge by telephone and he told me that he would send an inspector up to see me.

On March 11, Inspector Marcel Deschenes of the food and drug department came to my office and he stated if we could locate Where these pills came from, they could prosecute them for selling without a licence. I sent Mr. Deschenes with Detectives P. Seguin and C. Begin to continue this investigation and they report that they went to see (name of individual) and asked him to come to the station at 7.00 p.m.-

Later on they said:

-They also added that it is very easy to obtain these pills around St. Catherine street and on lower St. Lawrence boulevard, drug stores, pool rooms, etc.

I read a while ago that Mr. Hart said that pharmacists in Outremont had been fined for the illegal sale of "goofballs" and medicines. Mr. Speaker, I absolutely deny ever having said at any time that any Outremont druggists had ever been convicted and fined $100 for selling drugs in contravention of the drug act. I could not say this because I know of

The Address-Mr. Asselin

no such case. We have only about eight (Translation):

druggists in the whole of Outremont. I did say, in the house however, that I believed there had been five or six druggists fined $100 each in Montreal for selling drugs in contravention of the drug act, but I never mentioned Outremont. I do not believe any Outremont druggist has ever been tried on any charge such as this.

Mr. Hart mentioned the city of Outremont throughout his interview. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I never mentioned the city of Outremont in my speech. I spoke of my riding, which is Outremont-St. Jean and comprises part of Outremont and part of Montreal, but I never used the word "Outremont" in any part of my speech. I cannot see why an officer of a department should bring into his interview names and facts that were not mentioned in the speech he is commenting on. In fact I doubt the propriety of any officer of any department criticizing or denying what has been said by a member in good faith in this house. I said "goofballs" were sold. I repeat, "goofballs" are sold, and if Mr. Hart wants the proof I shall be glad to supply it to him. Before criticizing my speech which contained only the truth he should have at least got in touch with me to see what proof I had to offer.

May I state here that I brought this matter to the attention of the house only after it had been brought to the attention of Mr. Hart's department. I was not talking through my hat when I brought this matter up in the house. I have already read to you an excerpt from a report I received from our director of police under date of March 27, 1958. I repeat what I previously said, Mr. Speaker. There is a serious menace emanating from the sale of "goofballs". Instead of wasting his time denying that a problem exists, Mr. Hart should investigate. I brought this matter up in the house in good faith after proper investigation had been made. I am of the opinion that it ill behooves an officer of a department to try to ridicule and belittle a member after he has made an honest attempt to bring to the attention of the proper authorities a menace that is already a most serious one to the citizens of Canada.

Mr. Hart is acting like the ostrich. Let him pull his head out of the sand and look about. It may prove to be a little bit more tiring than sleeping in his chair; nevertheless in this way he will be earning his salary. A little bit of work might not hurt him. "Goofballs" are being sold. I can furnish Mr. Hart with all the proof necessary if he will wake up long enough to take cognizance of this proof.

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

Martial Asselin

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):

Mr. Speaker, like the many previous speakers, may I offer you my most sincere congratulations on your appointment to this position of trust, which involves the compelling obligation of faithfully maintaining the sacred character of our parliamentary institutions. Every day, your spirit of justice, honesty and impartiality earns you the esteem and regard of all hon. members of the house.

I should like also to pay homage and respect to the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny) for his appointment as Deputy Speaker of the house. He will, I am sure follow in the footsteps of his father, whom the nation remembers as a gentleman brilliantly dedicated to the service of his fellow citizens.

My congratulations also go to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Messrs. Lafreniere and Nielsen), who have so proudly voiced the aspirations and recommendations of their electors, thus symbolizing the youthful ideal which pervades this parliament.

May I be allowed to offer my congratulations to the hon. members for Lotbiniere and Labelle (Messrs. O'Hurley and Courtemanche) for the mark of confidence given them by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he appointed them respectively Minister of Defence Production and Secretary of State.

But, Mr. Speaker, if there is anyone in this house who deserves the consideration of the people, it is indeed the right hon. Prime Minister who has managed, in a few months, to display to his fellow citizens his qualities of leadership, his great personality, and who has succeeded in giving the Conservative party a new sense of leadership, upholding at the same time the fundamental principles that gave birth to this great party of ours.

I think it would be proper, Mr. Speaker, to offer the Liberal party and its leader (Mr. Pearson) my sincere sympathy for the ordeal they went through on March 31.

I hope the Leader of the Opposition will fully understand the obligations of Her Majesty's loyal opposition and I am asking him to offer constructive criticism in keeping with his political principles. Patience and courage should be essential qualifications for opposition members, because they will have to wait for at least twenty years before they move over to this side of the house.

Mr. Speaker, is there any need to remind you that I represent in this house one of the most beautiful ridings of the province of Quebec? Stretching on the northern bank of

530 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Asselin the St. Lawrence river, my riding offers to all visitors a panorama remarkable for the beauty of its mountains and lakes, and is therefore rightly called "Quebec Switzerland". My riding, Mr. Speaker, extends from Beaupre hill to the mouth of the majestic Saguenay.

I take this opportunity to point out that this year the shrine at St. Anne de Beaupre is celebrating its tercentenary. The authorities of the shrine expect that nearly two million pilgrims will come from the United States and all parts of Canada to this miraculous shrine to reaffirm their faith and their beliefs. May I tender to the Rev. Re-demptorist Fathers my respectful homage for preserving in this shrine at St. Anne de Beaupre the stimulating atmosphere which is so necessary to those who come from afar to put their problems, their trials and their plight at the feet of St. Anne.

Due to its geographic location, Mr. Speaker, the riding of Charlevoix is faced with an extremely important economic problem; I mean the problem of transportation at the three levels; by rail, water and air.

I am happy to recall in this house that our local economy has been given a start by a Conservative government, when the railway connecting Quebec with Murray Bay was built. Also, the memory of Sir Rodolphe Forget, who was Conservative member for the riding of Charlevoix from 1904 to 1917, is deeply rooted in the minds of my fellow citizens, as of a man who, by hard work and devotion, got this railroad built and thus promoted the economic and industrial development of my constituency.

However a newspaper report which appeared in Le Soleil on May 8, 1958, announced to the people on the Beaupre coast that the Quebec Railway intended discontinuing the Quebec-St. Joachim service. This public service, established nearly 50 years ago, is of great convenience to the local population and, if the Department of Transport were to grant the Quebec Railway's request, it would be a setback in the economic development of the district. I therefore wish at this point to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) to the matter so that he may prevail upon the company to maintain its present services.

In order to promote the industrial development of the north shore at Beaupre, Mr. Speaker, it would also be necessary to look into the possibility of relocating the present

railroad line which hugs the shore of the St. Lawrence river. The present route followed by this railway prevents a great many taxpayers from using the land located near the national highway for housing projects of all kinds. Geographically the eastern north shore is so located as to be closely connected with the riding of Charlevoix.

The industrial activity of the north shore, with the construction of a paper mill at Baie Comeau and of the refinery of the Canadian British Aluminum Company Ltd. calls for the construction of a railway in the near future.

When one realizes, Mr. Speaker, that mining production in 1956 in New-Quebec reached $110 million, or 23.5 per cent of the value of the total production for Quebec, which is 465 million, while so far only 5 per cent of the 330 square miles of mineral resources have been explored, it would seem that there is no limit, from the standpoints of quantity or diversity, to the development of these areas. It means that mining development in this district is proceeding at an accelerated rate. But so that mineral products can be shipped outside the area, it should be connected as soon as possible with the province of Quebec's great centres by extending the railway from Murray Bay to Seven Islands. A technical survey has already been made in this respect and it would seem that such construction is possible and less costly if carried out in this way, in view of the fact that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

Mr. Speaker, as my riding is located on the shores of the St. Lawrence, I need hardly say that all forms of navigation are important factors in the commercial and industrial development of that part of the province of Quebec.

There is not a single point in my riding, Mr. Speaker, where shipping does not play a leading part. In places like Petite Riviere, St. Francis, Baie St. Paul, Isle aux Coudres, St. Joseph de la Rive, Murray Bay, St. Irenee, Pointe au Pic, Ste. Catherine and St. Simeon, quite a high percentage of the people count on shipping for their livelihood.

These people make a point of owning their own coasting vessel for that purpose. They like the sea and every spring enjoy trimming their boats in the hope of new adventures. In my riding, navigation is open all year round at two places: Pointe au Pic and St. Irenee. For more than 30 years, navigation has remained open at Pointe au Pic throughout the

winter. Before the railway was built this was the connection point between the south and the north shore. This port at Pointe au Pic has also supplied the north shore with foodstuffs in winter for nearly 15 years. During the winter of 1956-57, 11,000 tons of goods were shipped there for the north shore. Winter navigation has always been possible at Pointe au Pic and St. Irenee because the ice does not accumulate, as it does elsewhere, so that ships can come in, take on a load and leave the port without the help of an ice-breaker, which is always so costly for the government to operate.

I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the Conservative government on the interest it takes in winter shipping in the St. Lawrence estuary. The government has surely understood that, in developing winter shipping in this way, it will encourage other industries to take advantage of the cheap power and transportation which the north shore has to offer, and through the establishment there of new industries, increase the population and reduce the cost of living.

As the trend of our economic life largely depends on navigation, improved wharfage is becoming increasingly imperative.

The Liberal government, with its customary lethargy, was content, during its term of office, with mere maintenance works. But to answer the economic needs, it is urgent that substantial improvements be made to the wharves of Pointe au Pic, St. Joseph de la Rive, St. Irenee and Petite Riviere St. Frangois.

Furthermore, in view of the iron ore development in Saint Urbain, the construction of a deep-water wharf is now imperative at Baie St. Paul so as to cut down the shipping costs of iron ore to European countries.

In this connection, may I be permitted to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) to consider the possibility of establishing a deep-water wharf at St. Joachim, in order to facilitate the shipment of paper by the Abitibi Paper Co., in Beaupre.

In 1954 the county councils of Charlevoix east and west started to build an airfield in the limits of St. Irenee. To do so the county councils had to obtain the Quebec provincial legislature's permission to borrow $45,000 in order to acquire the necessary land. That was the essential condition set by the former Liberal government so that it would then carry on such construction at its ex-

The Address-Mr. Asselin pense. But, unfortunately, things turned out differently; once the commitments of the county councils had been adhered to, the Liberal government of the time decided to cooperate in the proportion of 2 to 1. Popular subscriptions were launched by the county councils so that they could go ahead with the project and today, it is believed that $75,000 would be needed to complete it. I cannot too strongly urge the government, Mr. Speaker, to grant that $75,000 for the completion of that project, considering the importance of commercial and tourist aviation in my riding.

Agriculture also plays an important part in the economic life of my fellow citizens. Tireless workers, they have realized that farming and forestry are the cornerstone of economic expansion in this country. I congratulate the government upon the invaluable help it gave to our farmers when stabilizing the price of some commodities. Our rural communities are already feeling the beneficial effects of that piece of legislation. I believe it is fair to point out that, due to that piece of legislation, our dairy products have increased from 58 cents to 64 cents a pound. Eggs and pork have also gone up, eggs from 38 cents to 44 cents, and pork from 23 cents to 25.75 cents.

The price stabilization act gave our farmers a glimmer of hope, increased their confidence in the future and brought them substantial income which will enable them to make both ends meet, as their budget is often showing a deficit. Tilling the soil and clearing forests, most of the people back home earn their living in the lumber industry. Two paper mills operate in my riding, one at Beaupre and the other at Clermont.

To keep those mills working, forest products are needed as well as iron-willed strong men to go out into the bush camps.

The gross unfairness prevailing on the pulp-wood market in our part of the country cannot be too strongly condemned, Mr. Speaker. Dealers and buyers compete for the purchase of this wood, often below production cost. It is high time that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) appointed a committee of men familiar with this matter who would study pulpwood problems and determine whether it would not be appropriate to ask the Industrial Bank of Canada to finance the creation of small pulpwood companies or co-operatives, in specified districts, to handle the buying and selling of this product in such a way as to avoid our people being victimized by any glaring unfairness in this field.

We would like the Minister of Agriculture to include pulpwood in the price stabilization

532 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Asselin act. The plan would be quite practicable for the profits made by corporations on each ton of paper are well known.

The Conservative government has put an embargo on turkeys and fowl during the last parliament. That legislation, Mr. Speaker, saved fowl and turkey producers in my riding from unavoidable bankruptcy. At last, in the fall of 1957, those producers who had been competing in an unfair market made some profit thanks to this eleventh hour legislation. We hope the government will maintain this embargo for some time, in order to restore this country's fowl market in a permanent way.

(Text):

Now, Mr. Speaker, up to this time the members of the opposition have not impressed me with the manner in which they have dealt with unemployment. They have repeatedly emphasized the existence of unemployment in the country without bringing forward any positive solution to the problem. This way of acting has a disastrous psychological effect on the nation. When one complains about a pain, that pain is emphasized. In the month of June, 1957, the Conservative party, realizing what the situation was, began to adopt all the necessary measures for stopping the economic recession brought about by the Liberal party. The vast program of public works and the development of our natural resources are, in my opinion, the most effective means by which to renew the business activities which are so vital to our country.

(Translation):

The Canadian family, custodian of our traditions and customs is now faced with two major problems, the almost prohibitive cost of education and the alarming increase in the price of consumer goods. I see two ways of helping the Canadian family. The income of the worker should be taxable only over $1,500, and the government should also consider the possibility of increasing family allowances for children up to 16 years of age and continue paying allowances for those who wish to continue their studies after reaching that age.

The result of these two measures would be to increase the buying power of the Canadian consumer and to facilitate the intellectual development of young talents who are so often lost because they lack the financial means to pursue their studies.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved by the praiseworthy efforts made by hon. members to express their thoughts in both official languages. That is an excellent way of demonstrating to the nation the fact that national unity can be achieved in this country. National unity will become a reality through positive action and complete respect for the rights and privileges of this ethnic duality which makes for the strength of the Canadian nation.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the Conservative members of the province of Quebec who sit in this house in a spirit of harmony and understanding are convinced that the Conservative party, under its leader, will respect the confederation pact by granting to all provinces the rights and prerogatives assigned to them in 1867.

In conclusion I would like to thank the electors of Charlevoix-Montmoreney for the confidence they placed in me on March 31 last. Once again I would like to express to them my esteem and my deep gratitude for providing me with this opportunity of taking my place in the parliament of this nation to work together with my colleagues for the greatness and the prosperity of Canada, realizing in this way the ideal of true Canadianism.

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

Jean-Thomas Richard

Liberal

Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):

Mr. Speaker, while you have been repeatedly congratulated in the course of this debate, I know you will not fail to appreciate the sincerity of my own congratulations. The tributes paid to you were deserved ones and I add to them my own wishes for a fruitful term of office. I respect your qualities of honest and impartial judge and at the same time I point out specially your sympathetic and kind attitude toward all your colleagues.

I also congratulate the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny) even though he is not in the house at this moment. He fills a very important post which will impose upon him a very heavy task during the whole life of this parliament. We already recognize that he possesses the necessary qualities to fill his duties very successfully.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of representing as many others have said but in my case it is true, the finest constituency in Canada. In fact, as you know, it is quite close to Parliament Hill, along the majestic Ottawa river. It is bound on one side by the Rideau river and on the other by the Rideau canal. For the benefit of those who have not read about it in history books, may I mention that it

The Address-Mr. J. T. Richard

was in my constituency, at Nepean point that year. This year, the government has merely

during one of his exploration trips, Champlain landed. Incidentally a society has erected a monument to his memory on that very spot. Furthermore, it was Champlain who named the Rideau river waterfall that runs into the Ottawa river, close by the French embassy, as well as the Rideau river which takes its source in the St. Lawrence, 120 miles from Ottawa.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the only bilingual university in America, the University of Ottawa is in my constituency; the only great French daily outside the province of Quebec is also there as are numerous educational institutions. I am also privileged in having in my constituency the official residence of the right hon. Prime Minister as well as that of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. As you see, I am in good company. Moreover, I must add-and this is what counts most-that I am very happy to have within my riding a charming and intelligent population which has always preserved the respect of its civil, political and religious tradition. I am pleased to have the opportunity to thank those people for re-electing me for a fifth term of office.

Barely six weeks after the general election, we met in order to listen to the speech from the throne. This document contains a very heavy program of projects which the government intends to have approved. However, we are entitled to wonder if, under the present circumstances, where we are suffering from an economic recession and a period of unemployment, the government has submitted the best means to solve these problems.

I remember very well that during the campaign, government candidates had a great deal to say about this public works program worth one billion dollars or more, and designed to solve unemployment. We have no objection whatever to public works. Everybody is quite happy to see them carried out, but it is a recognized fact that new projects cannot be undertaken fast enough. Certain projects require agreement between both levels of government, others necessitate the acquisition of land and of businesses, or require the drawing up of plans, of architectural or engineering designs. In fact public works do not provide employment until many months or years after it has been decided to carry them out.

There have been striking examples of this here, in Ottawa. We have always had public works going on. Work on the building on Booth street is now in its third or fourth

carried on construction work on the building which will house the offices and laboratories of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. For years we have had buildings going up on Wellington street, the latest meant for the Department of Trade and Commerce. Before that we had construction of a building for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. All those works had already been started and they are not works likely to prevent a recession such as the one we are witnessing at this time.

However, let us just the same examine the public works program in the light of the estimates tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), and let us see what they really are.

Does the government really propose, as it has announced, to make this huge sum of $1,185 million available for public works as a means of curing unemployment?

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. The Minister of Finance has included in this amount the normal annual program of public works and maintenance which is regularly submitted to the approval of parliament, including projects already started by the Liberal government, such as the St. Lawrence seaway, the northern Ontario pipeline, and so on. Those projects would have been carried out even if we had had full employment.

Incidentally, I suggest to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green), who lives in the city of Ottawa and has the opportunity to have a look at the numerous federal buildings, to see to it that the temporary buildings here in Ottawa are painted. The time would be well chosen since we are inviting important personalities from abroad and even a member of the royal family, Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret who will visit us next August. I hope that among the works intended to be carried out in order to help alleviate unemployment, the minister will have a coat of paint given to all the frame buildings in the city of Ottawa.

I also suggest to the government, if it wants to carry out useful public works, to undertake the construction of the interprovincial bridge between Hull and Ottawa. The federal government could entrust the Federal District Commission with that task, since that bridge would connect lands and roads on each side of the river which have been laid out by that agency. I would also suggest to the government that it take heed of the financial

The Address-Mr. J. T. Richard difficulties of the municipalities. The government could make it easier to give work to a large number of unemployed by lending money to municipalities at reduced rates of interest so as to make it possible for them to implement urgent public undertakings.

You might have had the opportunity, since you have arrived in Ottawa, to notice that like a large number of other municipalities, we have miles and miles of roads and sidewalks which should be replaced by better constructed roads and sidewalks.

(Text):

I repeat that for several years this problem of the interprovincial bridge has been bandied around in parliament. It was mentioned by hon. members on this side of the house during the last campaign. I think there is only one solution. It is no use waiting for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec to decide whether they will agree to contribute 15 per cent, 20 per cent, or 30 per cent of the cost. I think this government could at this time initiate this project as' a public work and pay the whole cost of building the bridge.

I mention this bridge because it is in my constituency. I think that as a nation we cannot be very proud of the fact that we have so many rivers in this country which are spanned by so few bridges. I do not know how these things are done in the old country, in Europe, Asia and other places. They have important streams and rivers, but somehow or other in a site similar to this there would be four or five bridges. I do not anticipate that there will be any bombing attacks and that people may have to run across to the other side of the river, but it would be a fatal situation for people on this side if they had to cross the bridge we have in order to seek refuge in the Gatineau hills.

I am sure the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) will agree with what I have said. He will support my contention that the government of Canada could contribute the whole cost of this project and undertake, in addition, to provide the necessary funds for the federal district commission to build some of the bridges which he himself has in mind and which are closer to the limits of his own constituency.

(Translation):

And now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal briefly with the unemployment situation, or rather since I have already spoken of the unemployment which is rife in the city of Ottawa and throughout the country, I will remind the house that one of the most difficult problems we have to face at this time is that of inflation.

(Text):

I am obviously in some difficulty because I am switching from English to French. I will go back to English, because I understand some of my hon. friends would not understand this important piece of elocution unless I continue my remarks in English.

Another great danger faces us now, and it is not so much the danger of unemployment as the danger of inflation. People who are out of work and in receipt of unemployment relief are faced with an increase in the price of food and necessary commodities. Although I am not a farmer, I am all in favour of support prices and a fair return, but there cannot be two ways about it; prices must be stabilized or wages will be increased, and those who are without jobs will require more help and assistance than they presently enjoy.

This government cannot allow prices to spiral further, and should give fair warning that it will ask parliament for the power to apply the necessary controls to our economy if necessary. There are far too many men and women in Canada who are not enjoying their proper share of the necessities of life because of high interest rates, low wages, and the cost of living generally.

I notice that one of the most important papers in the country printed an editorial today suggesting that it was "all hogwash" to mention that people were not enjoying the necessities of life in this country. It is true that in Canada we do not have the poverty and the suffering experienced in certain other countries which were more severely affected by the last war, but in a young country as prosperous and as rich as our own it should not be necessary today to have so many welfare and church agencies assisting our people to obtain the bare necessities of life. I do not blame any particular government for this; I just say it should be our aim that every Canadian should share in the riches produced in this country.

I have heard a great deal said about trade, and I suppose I am just as much an expert on this subject as are some of the hon. members who have spoken. I think the long-range solution to our problems is trade, but the best order of preference for trade is, I maintain, to support first of all our Canadian market at home. We must institute a campaign among our people to buy first in Canada. It is well and right to talk about diversion, or about trading in certain areas, but it is very important to see first of all that we keep our own people at work in industry.

I have here a publication put out by the Canadian Manufacturers Association and published in May, 1958, and I am going to read it. It is entitled "A Wise Canadian".

Canada's manufacturing industry employs no fewer than one and a quarter million Canadians. They depend for their pay cheques on the industry being able to sell the goods they produce to Canadians, as, indirectly, do tens of thousands of workers in other industries.

But, note this: Canadian purchases of foreign-made goods have risen enormously in the last two or three years, and are now running at an annual rate in excess of $1,400 per Canadian family! Import buying on such a scale is both foolhardy and dangerous.

The warning recently given by H. V. Lush, president of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, is timely: "Every purchase of an import at the expense of its Canadian-made equivalent is a blow struck at a Canadian worker somewhere. Of course, it never enters the head of the unthinking buyer that he or she is hurting a fellow-Canadian, but obviously, a foreign article purchased means a comparable Canadian article left on the shelf.

Goods left on shelves don't swell payrolls. They do the reverse. They reduce them and it's quite possible that a shrinking payroll may cause the loss of a job to a neighbour, a friend, even a relative. In fact, one could go so far as to say that a careless wife who made a practice of discriminating against Canadian-made products, albeit unconsciously, could indirectly jeopardize the job of her own husband!"

I think that speaks for itself. We Canadians must awaken to the fact that we should buy Canadian goods first.

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

Gordon Knapman Fraser

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fraser:

Too bad the Liberals did not think of that when they were in power.

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

Jean-Thomas Richard

Liberal

Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):

I am sure if at any time they were guilty of such excesses in that regard there was a great deal of probing on the part of the opposition we had at that time.

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

Gordon Knapman Fraser

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fraser:

You are wrong there.

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

May 27, 1958