1968-09-20

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the house that messages have been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has appointed certain of the senators to act on joint committees of both houses, the library of parliament, the printing of parliament, and the parliamentary restaurant.



TABLING OF WHITE PAPER ON ANTI-DUMPING

Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in English and in French, a copy of a white paper on antidumping. As hon. members are aware, to implement the anti-dumping code negotiated in the Kennedy round certain revisions are required to existing customs legislation. It is the government's intention to seek the approval of parliament in the near future for a separate statute dealing exclusively with the application of anti-dumping duties. The white paper is being made public at this time to provide hon. members and other interested parties with an opportunity to examine and comment on the kind of legislative provisions being contemplated to give effect to the antidumping code. I also suggest that the white paper be referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, as soon as the house agrees to set up this body.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short comment in this regard. It is particularly apposite that the white paper should be brought forward now. However, in view of the fact that recently the United States Senate passed a renegotiation bill which also contains provision for the repeal of the antidumping convention entered into by the United States, and as dumping affects Canada and the United States particularly, I think this house will want to examine this convention and the proposed legislation very carefully in light of events outside this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FINANCE


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have tabled today copies in English and in French of the report of the tariff board on reference No. 134, together with a transcript of the evidence presented to the board at its public hearings.
Reference No. 134, equipment for hospitals and other institutions, covers items in the customs tariff which provide for the duty free entry of goods imported for hospitals, educational, scientific, religious and other institutions, and of goods imported for the benefit of afflicted or handicapped persons.
I assure the house that the board's recommendations will be considered carefully by the government. Interested parties who wish to comment on this report should do so as soon as possible.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: The house will note that on today's order paper there are some 100 public bills listed for introduction by private members. It would be difficult if not impossible for the Chair to review the provisions of each of these bills at this time. May I therefore suggest to the house that we adopt the procedure which was agreed upon by the house in several recent sessions; namely, that we proceed to the introduction and first reading of these bills so that each may be scrutinized between now and the time appointed for its second reading, in order to determine whether there be any defect therein with respect to the practices and usages of the house.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
Therefore in order to save the time of the house, taking into consideration that perhaps more than two hours would be required to introduce each of these measures separately, it is suggested that by unanimous consent all

September 20, 1968
Public Bills
the bills listed for introduction on today's order paper be deemed to have been introduced, given first reading and ordered for second reading at the next sitting of the house, subject of course to a subsequent examination as to the regularity of each bill.
Does the house agree to this procedure?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill C-2, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (professional sports)-Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond).
Bill C-3, to amend the Criminal Code (modernization of law of	picketing)-Mr. Broadbent.
Bill C-4, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-5, to amend the Criminal Code (company-censored housing)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-6, to better assure the public's rights to freedom of access to public documents and information about government administration (administrative disclosure)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-7, to repeal the British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act-Mr. Howard (Skeena).
Bill C-8, to amend the Canada Elections Act (qualifications of voters and electors)-Mr. Stanbury.
Bill C-9, to provide for the Establishment of the Alaska-Yukon highway authority (Alaska highway)-Mr. Thompson (Red Deer).
Bill C-10, to amend the Immigration Act (mental retardation)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-ll, to govern, licence and regulate the operation of rainmaking equipment in Canada-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-12, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (listing of ingredients)-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-13, to amend the Canada Elections Act-Mr. Deakon.
Bill C-14, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (three weeks annual vacation after three years)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-15, to provide for the protection of news sources (press privilege)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-16, to amend the Canada Elections Act (students' franchise)-Mr. Deachman.
Bill C-17, to amend the Criminal Code (invasion of privacy)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-18, to amend the Criminal Code (wire tapping, etc.)-Mr. Peters.

Bill C-19, to amend the Criminal Code (fine print clauses)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-20, to establish a national capital region planning board-Mr. Francis.
Bill C-21, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters)-Mr. Nystrom.
Bill C-22, to control air pollution-Mr. Haidasz.
Bill C-23, for the Parole of Steven Murray Truscott-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-24, to amend the Criminal Code (control of electronic eavesdropping and wiretapping)-Mr. Stanbury.
Bill C-25, to amend the Railway Act (responsibility	for dislocation	costs)-Mr. Skoberg.
Bill C-26, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act-Mr. Saltsman.	.
Bill C-27, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards)	Code (severance pay)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-2 8, to amend the Post Office Act (hate literature)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-29, to amend the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act-Mr. Howard (Skeena).
Bill C-30, to preserve and promote native Indian and Eskimo arts and crafts-Mr. Howard (Skeena).
Bill C-31, to ameAd the Combines Investigation Act (floor penalties, criminal joint tortfeasors, and moieties)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-32, respecting Sir John A. Macdonald day-Mr. Macquarrie.
Bill C-33, to amend the Canada Elections Act (political affiliations of candidates on ballot papers)-Mr. Howard (Okanagan Boundary).
Bill C-34, to amend the Air Canada Act-Mr. Fortin.
Bill C-35, to amend the Criminal Code (prohibiting the oral or written publication or distribution of hate literature)-Mr. Brewin.
Bill C-36, to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act-Mr. O'Connell.
Bill C-37, to amend the Public Service Employment Act (appeal panel)-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-38, to amend the Inquiries Act-Mr. MacEwan.
Bill C-39, to amend the Broadcasting Act (cigarette advertising)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-40, respecting the employment of women in federal jurisdiction before and after childbirth-Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway).
September 20, 1968
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-41, respecting hate propaganda-Mr. Wahn.
Bill C-42, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (increased prices)-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-43, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (notice and payment to employees in case of discharge or layoff)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-44, respecting the Research Animals Protection Act-Mr. Groos.
Bill C-45, to restrain the use of tobacco-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-46, to amend the Supreme Court Act-Mr. McCleave.
Bill C-47, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act-Mr. Howard (Skeena).
Bill C-48, to amend the Criminal Code (provincial lotteries)-Mr. Valade.
Bill C-49, to amend the Judges Act-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-50, to amend the Criminal Code (abortion)-Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way).
Bill C-51, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the senate)- Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-52, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (greater equity for urban electors)-Mr. Stanbury.
Bill C-53, to amend the Food and Drugs Act-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-54, to amend the Parliamentary Secretaries Act-Mr. MacEwan.
Bill C-55, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act and the Interest Act (off-store instalment sales)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-56, to amend the Food and Drugs Act-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-57, to establish the office of parliamentary commissioner-Mr. Thompson.
Bill C-58, to amend the Weights and Measures Act (truth in packaging)-Mr. Rose.
Bill C-59, to amend the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act-Mr. Caouette.
Bill C-60, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (freedom of conscience)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-61, to amend the Canada Corporations Act (filing of returns)-Mr. Burton.
Bill C-62, to amend the Criminal Code (adjournment for accused to obtain legal representation)-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-63, to amend the Criminal Code (disturbance in parliament)-Mr. Caouette.
Bill C-64, to establish the Canada law reform commission-Mr. Schumacher.
Public Bills
Bill C-65, respecting the use of the word "Canada"-Mr. Caouette.
Bill C-66, to amend the Supreme Court Act-Mr. Caouette.
Bill C-67, to amend the Remembrance Day Act-Mr. Danson.
Bill C-68, to amend the National Capital Act-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-69, to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-70, to amend the Criminal Code (air and water pollution)-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-71, to establish a national capital region official languages board-Mr. Francis.
Bill C-72, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters)-Mr. O'Connell.
Bill C-73, to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act (age discrimination)- Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-74, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (increased minimum hourly wage)-Mr.	Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre).
Bill C-75, to amend the Criminal Code (preventive detention)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-76, concerning the exportation of the growth and produce of Canada-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-77, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Goode.
Bill C-78, to amend the Criminal Code (wiretapping, etc.)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-79, to amend the House of Commons Act (internal economy autonomy)-Mr. Howard (Skeena).
Bill C-80, to amend the Canada Elections Act (qualifications of electors and candidates)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-81, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1968, (duration of House of Commons)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-82, respecting the metric system- Mr. MacLean.
Bill C-83, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act-Mr. Howard (Skeena).
Bill C-84, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act (instalment purchases)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-85, respecting the metric system- Mr. Peters.
Bill C-86, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-87, to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code (birth control and abortion) -Mr. Wahn.
[Stage Direction]
September 20, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry
Bill C-88, to amend the Small Loans Act (advertising)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-89, to amend the Canada Evidence Act (incriminating statements)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-90, to amend the Canada Elections Act-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-91, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (grants of aids and supplies)-Mr. Caouette.
Bill C-92, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Monteith.
Bill C-93, concerning reform of the bail system

Mr. Mather.
Bill C-94, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (provision for a ninth general holiday with pay)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-95, to amend the Criminal Code (harassing telephone communications)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-96, to amend the Small Loans Act-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-97, to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights with respect to official languages-Mr. Valade.
Bill C-98, to amend the Criminal Code (tire safety)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-99, to amend the Canada Pension Plan (housewives' contributions and benefits) -Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-100, to establish a national capital region pollution control board-Mr. Francis.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Is the hon. Minister of Finance aware of the franc devaluation problem and, if so, will the Canadian government take some action in this regard?']
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the existing tax sharing arrangements between Canada and the provinces expire, if I understand the agreements correctly, on March 31 next, has the Prime Minister taken any measures to invite the premiers to meet with the government of Canada to discuss what arrangements will succeed or continue after April 1 next?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am today sending a letter to the ministers of finance of the provinces inviting them to a meeting late in October. It is anticipated that we will have two meetings,

one late in October and the other in December, which will deal with this and other matters.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the tax collection agreements relating to the tax sharing arrangements expire December 31 next, does the Minister of Finance not agree that it is a matter of very considerable urgency to make arrangements to carry on satisfactorily after December 31?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This matter will be discussed in October, which will leave two months before the agreements expire. The earliest date that I thought it would be possible to get the ministers of finance together to discuss this matter was shortly after the budget in October.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that it must be clear that all the provinces will now be preparing their estimates for the next fiscal year, how does the Minister of Finance justify leaving this question open for so long without having started negotiations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that his further supplementary question is argumentative.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell the house whether the explorations to which he referred on Wednesday, with a view to bringing the urgent Bia-fran crisis before the United Nations, have made any progress?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the explorations are still going on. They are very difficult indeed because of the resolution of the Organization of African Unity, with which I think members of the house are familiar, in which the African countries meeting in Algiers among other things recommended that the Biafrans should lay down their arms, that the Nigerian government should observe a cease fire, and said "Please, no intervention".
It is very difficult under these circumstances to bring before the United Nations the
September 20, 1968

aspect of the problem in which we as Canadians are particularly concerned, namely the humanitarian considerations, and to try to express our concern about this matter without involving ourselves in the political aspects of the dispute.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Before putting my supplementary question I express the hope that the minister will pursue these matters he has mentioned. Has it been possible to make further arrangements with the International Red Cross for Canada to supply transport planes so as to convey relief supplies to Biafra?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are in continuous discussion with the International Red Cross to get supplies into both the Nigerian and the Biafran controlled areas. The International Red Cross is not pursuing for the moment the question of a plane because of the difficulties of flying in daytime, but just as soon as it is possible to use any transport that we can provide, it will be provided.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question. Do I understand the Secretary of State for External Affairs to be saying that Canada is reluctant to bring this matter before the United Nations to prevent the suffering and deaths of thousands of people because this country might be accused of interfering in the internal affairs of Nigeria?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, that was not what I said. I said we are very anxious to bring the matter before the United Nations but we are encountering difficulties in getting the kind of support that is necessary in the United Nations, because of the positions which have already been taken.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister say what nations have been approached and have agreed to join Canada in making representations in the United Nations along the line suggested by the Leader of the Opposition?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not catch the first words of the right hon. gentlemen's question.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister
advise the house as to what nations are prepared to join Canada in bringing this matter before the security council or the general assembly of the United Nations?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we do not know the answer to that yet; that is the purpose of the exploratory meetings we are now having. I regret to say there is a good deal of reluctance on the part of several nations which we hope will join us in bringing this matter before the United Nations, because of the fact that they do not want to get involved in the political decision as to the form of government most suitable for Nigeria.
These nations would like us to put forward resolutions dealing with the humanitarian aspects of the problem, the relief of starvation, the relief of suffering, and the cessation of the loss of human life. This is our desire, as I am sure it is the desire of all the members of the house, and we have been taking an initiative in this matter. I hope that as many countries as possible will join us.
I should also like to say to the house that it is more difficult than might appear to us in Canada to get this kind of support because of the reluctance of many countries, including Canada, to interfere in the dispute between Nigeria and Biafra about the future form of government of that country.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have one other supplementary question. What is the difference between interference in this particular case, where thousands are dying while Canada contemplates, and the position taken by Canada with regard to Rhodesia?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we did not
encounter the same difficulties in the United Nations with respect to the Rhodesian question as we are encountering in the question of Nigeria.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: I can assure hon. members that this is a most delicate and difficult matter for countries which are members of the United Nations to decide how to give the most effective help to the people of Nigeria and Biafra under the present circumstances.


Mr. Dinsdale:: While they die.


Mr. David Lewis (York Souih):: Mr. Speaker, I may introduce my supplementary question by saying to the minister that no one questions his sincerity in the matter and that he does not need to beat his breast quite so hard.
I should like to ask him whether, in view of the fact that there is no required number of nations which must support the placing of the matter on the agenda, that it can be done

September 20, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry by two or three as well as by 12 or 13, is he and his government prepared to ensure that this matter is placed on the agenda the moment that one other nation agrees with the notion that the humanitarian aspects of this matter should be discussed at the United Nations?


Mitchell William Sharp: The main purpose of putting any motion on the United Nations agenda is to get as large a degree of support as possible. I am sure the hon. member wants that too, and that is the purpose of the exploratory talks we are now having at the United Nations. It may give Canada some satisfaction to place this item on the agenda, but it will give us greater satisfaction if it has some practical result.


John George Diefenbaker: In another couple of
weeks the Biafrans will all be dead.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: While the minister is considering this problem this morning, will he let us know what humanitarian considerations justify the latest food allocation, which by the way he announces in a press release rather than in a statement on motions, being shipped by sea rather than by air?


Mitchell William Sharp: Our purpose is to get as much food as possible to that area of the world as quickly as possible.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) stated in his speech yesterday that the only way to fight poverty efficiently was to increase productivity. Therefore, is the government considering a system to distribute the present productivity, which is very high in Canada, when there is also a very large number of poor people?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member not feel that his question is too general in nature to be asked at this time?


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.

Can he tell us whether he intends to announce, in the near future, the abolition or reform of the other place, according to the wishes of the present Speaker of the other place?


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could the minister tell the house whether his department is involved in the now famous Rossillon affair?


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Is the hon. Minister of Finance aware of the franc devaluation problem and, if so, will the Canadian government take some action in this regard?



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right honourable Prime Minister.
Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister whether the delay in appointing a French cochairman to the commission on bilingualism and biculturalism would result in slowing down the work of the commission, and the right honourable Prime Minister replied:
No, Mr. Speaker, it is only a matter of drafting.
I should like to ask the right honourable Prime Minister whether, in his mind, the drafting of the report is a secondary task which can very well do without, for the time being at least, the contribution of a Frenchspeaking co-chairman of high calibre?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The answer to that question is still no, Mr. Speaker, but it is evidently related to what I said in the first part of my answer yesterday, namely that I had already discussed the matter with the co-chairman, Mr. Dunton, and I expect to appoint a very distinguished person quite soon, and that is why I thought the drafting was not delayed, considering that the report has to be published in both languages, that the thinking is still being elaborated and that the research is complete. It is now a matter of replacing the late co-chairman, but the fact that he has not been replaced yet, in my opinion, has not delayed the work of the commission.
September 20, 1968


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question.
Could the Prime Minister tell the house whether he intends to appoint as co-chairman a person who is already a member of the commission?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, we are limited in our choice to a few people and, as far as possible, we shall appoint someone who would accept the position and who has already worked in some way with the commission, so that a newcomer will not have to become acquainted with this work which has been in progress for several years.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Prime Minister tell us if, among the people he intends to appoint to the Lau-rendeau-Dunton commission, there will be some candidates defeated in the last election?



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON EXPORT POSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: wish to direct this question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but in his absence perhaps the Minister of Agriculture would be prepared to answer since he is working so closely with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the growing anxiety in economic circles as to the state of Canada's wheat exports, would the minister be prepared to make a full statement on motions next week as to the amount exported this year and as to the future import commitments with other nations? Perhaps the minister might also include some comments on the Canberra talks.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: The Minister of Trade and Commerce has already indicated he is going to respond to the invitation of hon. members opposite to make a statement on the subject the hon. gentleman has mentioned.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the Minister of Agriculture perhaps suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that when he makes this statement he advise the house whether the countries
Inquiries of the Ministry involved in the international wheat agreement have now signed the agreement, and whether those signatures have been ratified by the appropriate authority in each country?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Crossman (Weslmorland-Keni):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. When will the ferry John Hamilton Gray, which is to be christened at Sorel on September 21, be put into operation between Cape Tormentine and Borden?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: It will be subjected to sea trials at once, and hopefully can be put into operation some time in October. The actual date has not been set as yet.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, on the general question of ferries. First of all may I welcome the minister back to the house following the housing conference. I hope he will be building ferries more quickly than he has been building houses.
Has the minister anything further to state to an expectant eastern Canada on the Digby-Saint John ferry which was promised in a certain election campaign, and promised unequivocally, by the Prime Minister and amplified in a press statement by the Minister of Transport? The last statement made in the house was on March 19, when the minister said that something would be coming soon.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, we are making excellent progress. As the Prime Minister said, we intend to go ahead with this project and with the terminals in preparation for the ship that will be provided by the C.P.R. I want to reassure my hon. friend, after all these years of waiting, that he can now assure his constituents that the progress is real and that it will not be too long before we will have a nice new end loading ferry there.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (Soulh Weslern Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Will there be an item in the estimates for 1968-69 to cover the cost of new wharf facilities at both Digby and Saint John?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the estimates will be tabled very shortly. I think my hon. friend's curiosity will have to wait until then.

September 20, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A further supplementary. Has the government signed an agreement with the C.P.R.-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Malpeque.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether his department is taking action to increase facilities on the Borden-Cape Tormentine service. The ferry now being built is to replace the Prince Edward Island, which I understand is going to be taken out of service. Therefore I would ask the minister whether he would take action to retain the Prince Edward Island in service until an additional ferry service can be provided, thus relieving the tremendous congestion on this route during the summer months?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I share my hon. friend's concern over the capability to meet the demand during the summer months. The whole question of what might be done in addition to the present capability is under active study by the department.


Mr. McCleave:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have had a number of supplementary questions on this general subject. I suggest we move on to another matter now.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will come back to it in due course.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be the Minister of Transport's day because I too wish to direct a question to him. In view of the announced closing of the Canadian National express and freight traffic in Lunenburg and the effect that this action will have on our large local shipping, fishing, foundry and other industries, will the minister expedite his review of our l.c.l. freight charges in the hope that the necessary services of Lunenburg will not be removed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this question should be placed

on the order paper. Listening to the previous questions concerning a number of ferry services the impression I got was that the information given to hon. members in reply to the questions could have easily been obtained by putting the questions on the order paper.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance and ask him whether he has concluded his examination of the charges made in Canadian Petroleum magazine regarding tax evasion by the Shaheen Natural Resources Company in the province of Newfoundland. If so, is the minister prepared to take some action in this matter?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the examination is not completed at this particular point. I should again point out to my hon. friend that Shaheen is not the only firm that is involved in an arrangement such as this.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question. The minister's answer demonstrates the urgency of concluding this examination. Can the minister say when he will be in a position to report to the house on this matter?


Edgar John Benson: Soon, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the deplorable housing conditions being experienced by a great number of native people in Canada, particularly in the western provinces, can the Prime Minister say whether the federal government has any plans to confer with the provinces with a view to setting up a joint plan to render financial assistance in the field of Metis housing?



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF TASK FORCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Since the Minister of Labour in his speech yesterday said it has taken his task force two years to bring down a report dealing with the
September 20, 1968

practical and academic aspects of labour problems, which report will not be ready until December, may I ask the Minister of Transport, who is at present conducting an inquiry into housing, how soon after his task is finished a report will be available.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Thirty days, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Carman Coates: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, and I hope his reply will show that the solution of the problems facing the Atlantic provinces is to be facilitated by the expeditious and efficient passage of certain business through the house. In view of the many unsolved problems facing the Atlantic area, will the Prime Minister be bringing forward legislation to cover the establishment of a new department that will combat regional economic disparities, so that our people will have some idea of the plans the government has for their area?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the government reorganization bill is on the order paper; when discussing that bill we shall discuss the new department.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wish to apologize to the hon. member to whom I said a few minutes ago that the government reorganization bill is on the order paper. It will be on the order paper soon. It was mentioned in the speech from the throne, and I discussed it in my speech during the address in reply.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That was the reading of the will.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It will be on the order paper very soon.


Robert Carman Coates: Will the Prime Minister assure the house that as soon as the bill is placed on the order paper it will be given priority in being brought before the house, so the people of our area may learn what the government plans to do in the Atlantic provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, it will be one of our priority bills, Mr. Speaker, but it is important that the house understand that many of the things we intend to do are being done now.
Inquiries of the Ministry The government reorganization bill will bring about certain legal changes but the department, under its present name, is already beginning to do the kinds of things that will be done later.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In making his appointments to the consumer advisory council will he consider including representation of the millions of practising housewives of Canada?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Mac T. McCuicheon (Lambion-Kenl):: wish to address my question to the Postmaster General. I have given him notice of it. In view of the information placed on the record of the Senate yesterday with respect to the distribution of filthy and immoral literature in our universities, will the minister investigate the responsibilities of his department in this matter and take appropriate action?


Hon. Eric Kierans (Postmaster General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax):: My question is directed to the Minister of Defence Production. Can the minister advise the house whether the government has any current plan to deal with the critically serious situation in which the Fairey Aviation plant finds itself, near H.M.C.S. Shearwater?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is difficult for me to know how urgent the matter is to which the hon. member has referred, but I presume the question could be placed on the order paper.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I draw to your attention that this is one of our largest, most sophisticated and complex industries and any losses in such an industry would

September 20, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry bring about a most serious situation. I leel greatly concerned about the matter.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: My
question is directed to the Secretary of State. Since a precise schedule for the construction of Place Radio Canada in Montreal was announced last May by the Secretary of State, I think, what is the reason for the further delay of one month in opening tenders?


Mr. Pelletier:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not acceptable.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: In the
absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of a suggestion in the throne speech and from remarks made in this chamber that the manpower training program is expected to offset or deal with any added unemployment that may arise this winter.
I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he does not consider that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration ought to make a statement to this house, perhaps during the course of the throne speech debate, to indicate what additional plans are being processed by the manpower department to deal with increased unemployment this winter.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I will discuss this matter with the minister, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I should like to address a question to the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration and ask him what program is being devised to take the place of the winter works program which has been discontinued, bearing in mind that the number of places available to Canadian manpower centres in Ontario under the retraining scheme has been cut from more than 800 to 455.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: I have reason to believe I am the acting minister. I think it was announced on a couple of occasions last year that the winter works program would be abandoned this year. This was not news-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean Marchand: It was
announced. Possibly some hon. members were not here, but it was announced that the program would be changed and that there would be something new. This is what I recall. Maybe hon. gentlemen opposite can check the record-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We will.


Jean Marchand: Do that, and I will do the same. Our intention was to increase the amount of training during that period. Remember, this program was not introduced in order to help the municipalities but to improve the employment position during winter time.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Why then has the number of places been cut from over 800 to around 400? Why has this been done if the program is intended to increase training opportunities?


Jean Marchand: I would have to inquire into that aspect; it is a matter of agreement between the federal government and the provincial government of Ontario.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since a number of municipalities have asked that this matter be referred to a standing committee of this house so they might appear and make representations, may I ask whether this request will be considered by the government?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to refer this question to the minister concerned.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Was
the decision to cancel the winter works program, as indicated by the minister in his statement a few moments ago, relayed earlier to the municipal governments concerned in order that they could plan accordingly?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we do not negotiate directly with municipalities.
September 20, 1968

Last year, when I was Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I met the responsible ministers in the various provinces, and together we looked into the possibility of changing this program which everybody considered inadequate and which was open to great abuse. All provinces were in favour of an amendment of the plan, although we did not have time to agree on an amending or alternative program.


Mr. Russell H. MacEwan (Central Nova):: May I ask the minister why the government did not consult the special committee on winter works which I believe was set up at the request of the government itself-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport concerning the subject of our coastguard and shipbuilding. Some three months ago the minister announced plans to replace the 56 year old Canadian coastguard vessel Estevan. At that time he announced that he expected a contract for a new vessel to be let within two months. I should like to know whether that contract has now been let. If not, when can we expect action on this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My interpretation of the rules is that this type of question ought to be on the order paper.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My
question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister advise the house whether he will be tabling further supplementary estimates before the presentation of the budget?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board is responsible for the tabling of estimates. I think he will be tabling the blue book of estimates before the budget.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then may I direct my supplementary question to the appropriate minister and may I ask him when it is anticipated that the revised blue book is to be tabled?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we hope to do this as soon as the rules of the house permit, which is on the first supply day after the conclusion of the address in reply.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. gentleman will concede that nothing in the rules prevents the tabling of the blue book. It is the presentation of individual estimates that is prohibited.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the numerous telephone calls which I have received recently from members of the house and public servants, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can he tell the house whether he intends to give the bonus for bilingualism to employees in all the departments of the public service and in the House of Commons and, if so, when?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I am taking note of the question, Mr. Speaker.



EXPO '67 DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING MONTREAL SHARE OF DEFICIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. What negotiations or discussions have taken place with city of Montreal officials with respect to that city's outstanding debt of $36 million concerning Expo financial arrangements?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the Expo corporation is under the purview of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. May I take this question as notice.

September 20, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



INQUIRY AS TO PRODUCTIVITY REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. Considering the critical situation of the Canadian groundfish industry can the minister advise the house when the Winspear productivity report may be expected. Will this report be tabled in the house?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: May I take this question as notice? I shall answer the hon. member as soon as I can.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the seriousness of this situation I should like to ask the minister whether plans are contemplated for interim arrangements to relieve the hardship faced by the Atlantic fishermen while the long term plans are awaited.


John (Jack) Davis: As the hon. member knows, there is a deficiency payment program under way at the present time; it is currently under review to determine the extent to which it will be continued through the fall months.


John Howard Lundrigan: Is the minister able to tell us when we shall be given some indication of the long term plans contemplated by the government?


John (Jack) Davis: Shortly, Mr. Speaker.



REPORTED PRESENCE OF RUSSIAN VESSELS OFF B.C. COAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Richard J. J. Durante (Comox-Alberni):: I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister received reports during the current fishing season of Russian trawlers fishing off the west coast of British Columbia within the established 12 mile limit?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to remind the hon. member that it is not in order to ask simply whether a report or correspondence has been received by a minister or a department.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: May
I address a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether discussions are being held at the present time between his

department and the government of Manitoba with respect to the continued use of the overhaul base of Air Canada at Winnipeg, so the bulk of the employees there can be assured of continued work in Winnipeg.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The committee which was established some years ago is actively studying the alternatives which have been proposed or which are available to us, and I hope its deliberations can be concluded quite soon. A number of proposals are before the committee, and I hope it will not be too long before some conclusions are reached.


David Orlikow: The minister says he hopes the study will be completely shortly. Will the result of the study be made public, and is Air Canada being consulted so there will not be a continued difference of opinion between the government and that organization as there seems to have been up to now?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Air Canada have been directly involved in this study, particularly in recent months, and I am sure they will be completely in accord with the solution reached, when we can get a solution which is acceptable to all the parties involved.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport in his capacity as minister in charge of housing. In view of the reluctance and even refusal of financial institutions such as insurance companies, trust companies and banks to invest money in mortgages for condominium housing, would the minister consider making available direct mortgage loans to builders of such homes in order to help solve the housing crisis?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If my memory serves me correctly some loans have been made to condominiums by private lenders, and I hope there will be more made available in the future. Many people feel that the condominium type of housing accommodation is one of the ways of achieving lower cost housing and every effort will be made to persuade private lenders to put some of their funds into this particular type of housing. I can assure the hon. member of this.
September 20, 1968

If we are unsuccessful, and if at anytime in the future there is money available for direct loans, we would naturally wish to assist this field of the market as well as the others.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: The minister responsible for Indian affairs looks rather comfortable this morning. May I ask whether he is in a position to reply to the question I asked him a couple of days ago regarding the situation at the Eskasoni Indian reserve, a question which I thought was a proper one to direct to a privy councillor.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have already considered this problem. The problem of housing for Indians is very complex and as far as the Eskasoni Indian reserve is concerned, we are now trying to relocate all the houses in one spot where we will be able to set up an adequate sewage system. We are giving priority to this project.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I shall recognize the hon. member in a moment.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not immediately identify the question to which the hon. member referred. I had the impression that it was not in order. In any event it has been answered, but there should not be a supplementary with regard to it.


Robert Muir: On a
point of order, this was taken by some to be a facetious and amusing question, but it should be regarded seriously. Let us see some action, not just lip service to the Indian people on the part of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: I realized that the question was of a serious nature, but I had the impression it was the type of question which should normally be placed on the order paper.


Robert Muir: There is urgency.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



REPRESENTATION TO U.S. RESPECTING ANTI-DUMPING LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Finance is prompted only by his projected absence for two weeks. Could he tell the house, in the remote possibility that we will be considering the white paper he tabled this morning, whether the Canadian government has made representations to the administration in the United States concerning the implications of the Senate action with regard to the anti-dumping convention?


Edgar John Benson: will have to take this question as notice. Since I shall not be here next week I will have my parliamentary secretary answer it.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but since I see he is not here I shall address it to his parliamentary secretary. Is it correct that the Canadian government provides special tax benefits to new firms in the defence production industry and, if so, are these benefits greater than those to firms engaged in other types of production?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question should be placed on the order paper.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has his department or the government reached a decision concerning whether hovercraft should be used to solve some of our transportation problems not only in Atlantic Canada but in other parts of Canada as well?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member would not agree that this is a question concerning general policy the answer to which should be sought by a question on the order paper.

The Address-Mr. Hees EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



VIET NAM-U.S. KNOWLEDGE OF CANADIAN POSITION ON BOMBING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Prime Minister in view of his repeated statements to the effect that the bombing of North Viet Nam must cease immediately and totally during the Paris peace talks. Is this government policy on this matter?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The government's policy on this matter has been stated repeatedly by my predecessor. It is that the bombing should cease once the peace talks would begin in Paris. The government hesitates to tell any one side what it should do. We hope the parties are negotiating in good faith and will achieve results. It should be wrong to intervene in these peace talks to tell one side what it should do.


Randolph Harding: Has this policy been conveyed officially to the government of the United States?



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, September 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Eymard Corbin for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Prime Minister is leaving the chamber, I sent a message to his office this morning asking whether he would be good enough to remain in the chamber because I intend to refer to him a number of times in my speech, and I believe it is always fair to let a member know about this in advance. I have done so. However, if the Prime Minister decides that he is not able to remain in the chamber, that of course is his business.
During the election campaign and since we have heard a great deal about the just society. The Canadian people are now interested in knowing what steps the government intends to take so that Canada will become a more just society than it is today. I believe we in this chamber should ask ourselves what conditions should be corrected so that in Canada we may have a more just society than

September 20, 1968
The Address-Mr. Hees we have ever had before. I think all members of this house and all Canadians would agree that poverty is something which cannot be tolerated in any society which calls itself just. I believe the Prime Minister and all members of the Government would agree that a society that did not do its utmost to remove poverty from within its midst could not deem itself to be a just society.
In recent weeks, through reading the report of the Economic Council of Canada, we have learned a good deal about the question of poverty. The chapter devoted to this contains 37 pages. The question of poverty was dealt with in great detail. The report describes poverty in Canada today as a national disgrace. I was very interested to hear the Prime Minister agree with this opinion. He has said he agrees that poverty in Canada today is a national disgrace.
From this report we have learned a number of important things. We have learned first of all that there are 4,200,000 Canadians living in poverty in Canada at this very time. The report describes the conditions in which these
4,200,000	people are living in the following terms: the sour atmosphere of poor health, bad housing, accumulated defeat, alienation and despair, a sense of helplessness and entrapment. It says this is often disguised because it does not invariably go in rags and can pass unnoticed.
Second, the report tells us about the incomes received by the people of Canada who are living in conditions of poverty. It refers to single people earning less than $1,500 a year, married people with two children earning less than $2,500 a year, married people with three children earning less than $3,000 a year, married people with four children earning less than $3,500 a year and married people with five children earning less than $4,000 a year.
Third, we are told that poverty is not usually to be found only in those locations which we have learned to consider as depressed areas. It tells us that poverty is spread fairly evenly across this country. A great deal of it is found in the large metropolitan centres of the country which usually are considered to be affluent areas.
Fourth, we are told that the majority of the people who live in conditions of poverty today are not unemployed but are employed for the most part in the following industries: laundries, tanneries, lumber mills, clothing factories, hotels, restaurants, taverns, dry cleaning establishments, the retail trade, the
September 20, 1968

shoe industry, the box factories and woollen mills.
Fifth, we are told that most of these people who are suffering from poverty today are working for the minimum wages that are established by the federal government and the provincial governments for the industries which come under their jurisdiction. Those who have read the report are left with no doubt that the people who are suffering from poverty today will be raised from that condition only if these minimum wages are increased, and increased adequately now.
[DOT] (12 noon)
I should like to give hon. members an example of why these minimum wages should be increased at the present time. The minimum wage in respect of industry under federal jurisdiction was last raised on July 1, 1965 to $1.25 per hour. Since this increase the cost of living has risen by 12 per cent. I was not a member of the house when the last increase in the minimum wage in industries under federal jurisdiction came into effect but I assume that the members of the house who discussed this matter then satisfied themselves that a wage of $1.25 per hour was adequate to lift the people who receive such a wage out of the realm of poverty and above the poverty line. As the cost of living has increased by 12 per cent since that wage increase went into effect it is obvious that these wages are at least 12 per cent too low today. The same applies to wages which fall within provincial jurisdiction. These minimum wages vary across the country between $1 and $1.25 per hour and are as low as 80 cents an hour for women.
As we all know, those employees in Canada who come under union agreements have their wage agreements examined and negotiated with their employers usually every two years. These negotiations always result in substantial increases and increased fringe benefits, so those people who work in these industries are provided for adequately. That is the way it should be.
On the other hand, one-fifth of the workers across this country work for minimum wages and they do not have anyone to bargain for them. They have no one to go to their employers and demand an increase in wages to compensate for any increase in the cost of living. They have no one to negotiate the same type of health insurance plans and retirement plans that organized workers receive as a result of negotiations by their
The Address-Mr. Hees union representatives. This one-fifth of the working population is weak and unorganized and they are forced to work for these minimum wages because of health problems, lack of education or lack of skills.
The only way that such workers can have their needs adequately taken care of when from time to time the cost of living goes up, as has been the case during the past five years since this government came into office-18 per cent in five years, the greatest increase in any five-year period in Canada's history-is by the senior government in the land giving this matter serious consideration year by year. When the time arrives, as it does each two years in the case of organized workers, the government should increase the minimum wages paid to employees in industries that come under federal jurisdiction. This increase should be related to the negotiated increase on behalf of union employees in unionized industries across Canada.
The way to bring about a satisfactory wage increase for those who work for minimum wages across this country is for the federal government to decide what kind of an increase should be paid and then bring to this house a recommendation for an increase in the minimum wage. I am sure such a measure would be quickly passed by the members of this house.
Once this has been accomplished the Prime Minister should call together the provincial premiers, outline what the federal government has done and urge as strongly as possible that the provincial governments should follow suit. This is the only way that the weak and unorganized workers of this country can receive an adequate wage so as not to fall within the realm of poverty, the position in which one-fifth of the workers in this country find themselves at the present time.
We in this house have never shown any reluctance to increase our own wages. A few years ago we in fact doubled our wages. We increased our wages from $8,000 and $2,000 expenses per year to $12,000 and $6,000 expenses per year. This in fact doubled the wage we received at that time. There was no reluctance on the part of any member of this house or on the part of any government member in suggesting that these wages should be increased. Let me add that there is apparently no reluctance on the part of the government, when Liberal members are defeated, immediately to give them good jobs in various parts of the country so that they will not suffer.

September 20, 1968
The Address-Mr. Hees
It is incumbent upon us at this time to look very carefully at the needs of those in this country who look to us for help, particularly when one-fifth of our working population is living in conditions of poverty. It would not cost the taxpayers of the federal or provincial governments one cent to increase these minimum wages. Such action would simply require the employers who pay minimum wages to pay those who work for them a living wage. There may be some who will say that if we do that we will automatically cause an increase in the cost of goods and services provided by those industries which employ people at minimum wages. I am sure that every member of this house will agree that no Canadian has the right to receive cheap goods or cheap services as a result of paying inadequate wages to that one-fifth of our working population who must then live in poverty.
The Prime Minister has agreed with the report of the Economic Council of Canada and its statement that poverty in this country is a national disgrace. The Prime Minister had this to say about poverty as recorded on page 68 of Hansard:
-we must define, with as much clarity as possible, the essential components of a minimum standard for satisfactory living-not a subsistence standard but one which allows for dignity and decency.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
The Prime Minister also said at another point that they did not need the report of the Economic Council to make them aware of the poverty because they had known about it for a long time. In other words the knowledge about poverty which the Economic Council of Canada made available to Canadians was in the hands of the government and the Prime Minister a long time ago. I am sure, judging by his remarks in this regard, that he knew all about this situation when he became the leader of the government five months ago. Therefore he had adequate opportunity to prepare a practical program for combatting poverty in this country.
With this background I had great hopes that the Prime Minister would tell us what steps he intended to take immediately to make it possible to eradicate poverty in Canada. It was with this hope that I asked him the following question in the House of Commons on Friday last. The question is recorded in Hansard at page 16 and reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Since the Prime

Minister has stated that he agrees with the finding of the Economic Council of Canada that poverty in Canada is a national disgrace, and since the commission has reported that a great deal of this poverty occurs because people who are working are not receiving sufficient wages to enable them to bring up their families in decency and reasonable comfort, do the Prime Minister and the government intend in the very near future to increase the minimum wage as it applies to industries under federal jurisdiction, particularly as this would be an incentive or an example to the provincial governments?
This question came as quite a surprise to the Prime Minister, judging by his answer, because he obviously had not given any thought to such a suggestion and passed the buck to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mack-asey). The Minister of Labour, as could be seen by his hesitation in answering the question, was equally taken aback and answered as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is always conscious-
Then there was a long pause.
-of the needs of the working man in this country, and will give consideration to the suggestion of the hon. member.
Members of this house know perfectly well that when a minister of this government tells you a matter is under consideration it means it is something he has not thought about. He feels it would not be wise to refuse to do it but he really has no intention of ever doing anything about it. I tell the 106 new members of the house never to become carried away when a minister tells them he will give their suggestions consideration, because it means that as far as the minister is concerned the suggestion is dead.
I think the Minister of Labour did mean what he said. I believe he would like to do this because he is a humane man who has had great experience with the working people of this country and realizes the need for increasing minimum wages at this time to make it possible for the 4,200,000 people living in poverty to rise above the poverty line. I believe he would like to raise the minimum wage paid to workers in industries under federal jurisdiction. But he will not be allowed to do so because, in his next answer to me, the Prime Minister laid down the party line for action in this regard. Mr. Speaker, you and I know that the members of this cabinet not only are not allowed to speak outside cabinet but I am told they are not even allowed to speak inside cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
September 20, 1968

The Address-Mr. Hees


George Harris Hees: There is only one speaker in cabinet, the Prime Minister, and the 27 little helpers he has for window-dressing are becoming known as the silent 27. Therefore the idea of raising the minimum wage paid to workers in industries under federal jurisdiction will not be considered by this government. I then asked the Prime Minister this supplementary question:
Does the Prime Minister in the very near future intend to call a conference with the provincial premiers to discuss this very vital problem?
His answer was:
The question asked by the hon. member is one relating to wages, costs, prices and incomes.
Now here comes the party line. This is the policy of the Liberal government for combatting inflation. I remind hon. members that this is the government that pledged itself to instituting the just society. The Prime Minister continued his answer in this way:
Our attack seeks to ensure that inflation will be curtailed in Canada. We believe this will be the best attack on the problem.
There it is. It is very easy to understand; there are no complications. That is the plan laid down by no less a person than the Prime Minister. I have no objection and nobody in Canada, of course, could have any objection to the Prime Minister saying that the government is going to take steps to curtail inflation. Heaven knows, inflation needs to be curtailed by the government because they are responsible for the greatest inflation this country has ever known.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: September 20, 1968
The Address

Mr. Hees
per cent increases. Those who are well organized and strong get just about anything they want because of the fact they are organized and strong, and those who are weak and are forced to work for minimum wages in unorganized industries in various parts of this country, those who cannot bring economic pressure to bear on the government, are told that even though there has been a 12 per cent increase in the cost of living since they last received a raise in 1965, the government will not give them an increase now and will not even give them any indication that they will ever get one at any time in the future. Because these people are weak and cannot bring force to bear on the government, they will get nothing.
I asked the Prime Minister whether he would consider raising the minimum wage and he said no. He said, "our approach, which we think is a far better one, will be to curtail inflation". Therefore he will try to allow inflation to increase at somewhere between 2 and 3J per cent per year.
We have now seen what this government's attitude is toward the weak. This is the attitude of the Prime Minister who said he will bring in a just society. It has been made very clear that this government's compassion toward its fellow Canadians is in direct proportion to their strength. If you are strong you get plenty of action from this government, but if you are weak you get absolutely nothing. That is what the Prime Minister said in effect when he laid down his policy for dealing with poverty in this country. The Prime Minister said he is not willing to take the necessary steps to eradicate poverty in our midst. He said he is willing to try to stop it from increasing at too fast a rate, and what he will do is to make sure inflation increases no more than between 2 and 3J per cent a year.
It is clear that the just society about which the Prime Minister spoke all across Canada, at shopping plazas and on television and radio, will have a built-in poverty which will increase year by year. Not only will it not disappear but it will not decrease; in fact it will increase. This is the kind of just society about which the Prime Minister has been talking for the last six months. This is the kind of plan he is putting forward. This is his idea of compassion for those who are weak. He says in effect that if you are strong you get what you want because you are strong, but if you are weak, you get nothing. That is this man's idea of compassion, decency and consideration for his fellow human beings, for

the 4,200,000 who are living in a state of poverty at the present time. It is very clear that the just society about which the Prime Minister spoke is nothing more than a slogan to win elections.
We all heard him talk about the just society all across the country and we could feel his heart bleeding for those poor people who are subjugated to a state of poverty. We could just see the blood that poured out of his heart running all over the place. This is the man who says he will give Canadians a better deal, a more humane deal, the man who claims he is compassionate toward those who cannot look after themselves. Perhaps this man will bring in some constitutional reforms, which are sorely needed, but I can tell you that those 4,200,000 people-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member but it appears his time has expired, unless he has the unanimous agreement of the house to continue.


George Harris Hees: Will you allow me one more minute, Mr. Speaker?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This is a good speech. Please continue.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


George Harris Hees: We have seen, in all its threadbare reality and all its nakedness, exactly what this just society will be. I say to the house and to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the policy of the government and of the Prime Minister for dealing with poverty, as I have described it and as the Prime Minister described it in his answer to me a week ago, is a sample of the government's approach to a problem which the Prime Minister himself agrees is a national disgrace, if it is a sample of the Prime Minister's compassion for those in this country who are weak and cannot look after themselves, if it is a sample of his integrity toward those people who voted for him in the last election because they believed that in reality he was going to produce a just society, then God help this country.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to join in the unanimous chorus of congratulations to you, sir, on your re-election to your high and important office and also couple with that my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply. As you know, at the opening of the last session I was given the honour of moving the address in reply, and I can appreciate fully
September 20, 1968

The Address-Mr. Jamieson
what an important milestone it is in the life of any new parliamentarian.
I have been impressed by the vigour and the degree of participation in this debate, by the vigour more this morning than on previous occasions, and I must say that I find myself on all fours with the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the comments he made the other day on his birthday. Since I entered this house I have been constantly aware of the peculiar kind of kinship that exists among all of us who have chosen this road of public service and which prevails even despite our party loyalties and our sometimes strongly held partisan feelings. I believe that the level of activity in this debate is a good omen, and I hope that on all important matters hon. members, regardless of where they happen to sit in this house, will exercise their best and most objective judgment.
I want to say a word about the speeches made by the leaders of the three parties in this house on the opposite side. I was most impressed with the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). As I listened to him and noted the barbs being flung in our direction I felt somewhat like the missionary who, describing an occasion when he was nailed to a tree by the spears of savage natives, was asked if it hurt and replied, "only when I laughed."
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
In the case of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), the impression is growing on me that the most appropriate title for this worthy gentleman, and I am sure he will not mind my saying so, is that he has become the smiling cobra of the commons. He has a benign, quiet and friendly approach right up to the very instant before he strikes. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that he has long been, as he well knows, one of my favourite debaters. I am pleased to say, too, that he is one of my close friends. When I refer to his contribution to the debate I can do so best by paraphrasing the familiar expression that, where he is concerned, when attack is inevitable I am quite content to relax and enjoy it.
In so far as the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) is concerned, he must surely be a most unusual member of this house. I noted during his contribution to the debate that there were a great many English speaking members of the house who appeared to be understanding everything he was saying without the aid of translation. I feel that he is demonstrating more and more
that an understanding of the language is not always necessary for effective communication. If he would not mind, I would even suggest that perhaps he would be a worthy subject for study by the commission on bilingualism and biculturalism because in his person we may have a solution to many of the serious problems of communication.
Having made these quite sincere statements to the gentlemen opposite, I find it a little bit difficult now to make any criticisms.


David Lewis: Now, how do you insult?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Exactly; I do not propose to spend too much time in any essentially negative approach. These three gentlemen, having criticized the Speech from the Throne for its lack of newness and imagination, themselves trotted out all the standard cliches. I suppose if one went back over the last several sessions of this house one could find some similarity in the rebuttals of the opposition leaders. One could really say, therefore, there is nothing of any significance or what I might describe as constructive criticism in what has been said. It may be argued that this is not the role of the opposition.
I should like to turn for a moment to the problems of Newfoundland, but I shall not deal with them in any narrow perspective. I would have to say that those members from my own province who have spoken have adopted much the same approach. I give them the fullest possible marks for sincerity and for being deeply conscientious about the problems of the Atlantic region. They are, like me, first and foremost Newfoundlanders. In dealing with some of the comments that have been made about our approach to the question of regional disparity, I hope I can do so in a constructive manner, without being overly critical or generating what I regard as the useless antagonisms that have on many occasions in the past made it difficult to achieve any meaningful advances.
Let me emphasize once again that I think the immediate importance of the problems of regional disparity are not exclusively those of Newfoundland. However, I believe that by examining what has been happening in that island province, where we have made mistakes and where some of the programs that have been implemented over the years have been failures, it should be possible, as the Speech from the Throne suggests and as some hon. members on the opposite side have suggested, for us to take a hard look at the whole picture. We should be examining the
280	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Jamieson possibility of integrating all the different schemes that have been devised on an ad hoc basis over the years. We should be bringing these programs into some kind of focus which will result in permanent advancement and improvement.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has said that the government, and I presume he was going back to 1949, has been guilty of shameful neglect of the problems of Newfoundland and the Atlantic region. Let me emphasize that I am not going to argue his statement of conditions that exist. I do suggest, however, that the charge of shameful neglect is not one that can stand on all fours with the facts of the case. I doubt very much that he can argue too strongly against my proposition because he was a supporter of a government which did a great deal, I am ready to concede, for the Atlantic region. Since that time other programs have been implemented and have been added to those which were introduced in those years and previously. I believe, therefore, that the sum total of aid that has been advanced to the Atlantic region, in the case of Newfoundland since 1949, is really quite impressive.
One has only to look, for example, at the numerous benefits to our province that have resulted from the completion of the trans-Canada highway at a very great cost. One has only to total all the contributions that have been made over the years, one way and another, to bolster and support the fishing industry. There have been any number of other projects, some of general application to all Canadians all over this nation, and others that have applied to the Atlantic area alone or even to Newfoundland expressly. The truth of the matter is that in the case of Newfoundland, since 1949 right through until now, nearly 20 years, the real indictment of these programs, the real indictment of administrations at the federal level whatever their party colouration, is that they have not succeeded, despite these fantastic expenditures relatively speaking, in curing the essential and basic problems.
A case in point is one which my hon. friends opposite have talked about in this house and outside on a number of occasions. It is something which will be almost totally foreign, I believe, to other parts of the nation except Newfoundland and the Atlantic region.
I refer to the salt subsidy program. I should like to dwell on this for a moment because it is illustrative, it seems to me, of the kind of thing that we ought not to be doing and perhaps ought not to have been doing over the

DEBATES	September 20, 1968
past number of years. This salt subsidy program is a federal contribution to a particular provincial problem, a regional problem. The program was introduced for one year 15 years ago to deal with a specific and unique development within the fishing industry. It was clearly stated at that time, and everyone understood, that it was not to be an ongoing program. Yet 15 years later, the program is still in existence because when we arrived at each new fall season and made an assessment of the fishing season someone said that was not the year to cancel it. The program was designed for a very special purpose and in fact it was really disguised welfare. It has been larded on year after year for a period of 15 years.
We have expended, I suppose, in excess of $10 million on this program in a period of 15 years. I do not know the exact figure without looking up the records but it must be in that neighbourhood. This amount has been paid out in dribs and drabs over the years, so that after 15 years we find hon. gentlemen opposite able to claim that the cancellation of the program amounts to a near death blow to Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces' fishing industry. Even conceding the seriousness of the withdrawal for a moment, the really significant point is that the amount involved here, if my hon. friends are right and it makes the difference between security and the lack of it for the Newfoundland fisherman, is not much more than $350,000.


An hon. Member:: That is a great deal of money.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member for St. John's East stated that there were about 150,000 people engaged in the Newfoundland fishing industry. I suggest that may be something of an exaggeration, but that is beside the point. If $350,000 spread over a group of
150,000	people, either directly or indirectly, is going to have such an effect, it is clearly indicative of the fact the program has failed. I say, therefore, we must look quickly at the alternative. I quite agree it is not enough simply to carve off programs that are demonstrably inefficient. You have to provide alternatives. I do say to those gentlemen, and to members in this house in general, that it serves no useful purpose to continue with this kind of dribs and drabs contribution when after 15 years we find the program is not really making a significant contribution to the protection or improvement of the fishing industry.
September 20, 1968

There are two other aspects of the program that are wrong that I should like to mention.
I merely use this example to illustrate once again why it is so important that we have, as the throne speech suggests, a detailed reexamination of a great many programs. One of the difficulties or shortcomings of the salt rebate program is that the more fish a man catches the more salt he is going to use. The more salt he uses, the greater the rebate he is going to receive. The conclusion is surely obvious, therefore, that the man who needs it least gets the largest rebate in a great many cases because he does have a substantial catch to sell.
The second point is that because of the structure of the program, which was set up on an interim one year basis, no one has really had the courage to say, surely we should halt this subsidy. The third point is that a very substantial part of the moneys given under this program, the withdrawal of which hon. gentlemen call a death blow, goes to the business community. While I am not suggesting for one moment that the fishing trade or business community is not entitled to consideration, let me assure you, gentlemen, that my heart is not bleeding for those people. If $500,000 or $600,000 or $700,000 is going to be given to the Newfoundland fisheries, then let it go to the primary producers, particularly in this case and indeed in many other cases as well.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I have taken a fair amount of time to discuss this matter, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is typical of the sort of band-aid solutions, as I have called them, applied by successive governments. If hon. gentlemen opposite are being critical of this administration, then let us have the same kind of criticism made of those who were in office up until 1963.
I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, and in fact a little puzzled, by the extent to which my hon. friends opposite from Newfoundland made the welkin ring over the cancellation of the winter works program. Here again is another of those examples of why we need to rethink these schemes. If these hon. gentlemen opposite had bothered to look at the details and the facts that are readily available to them, they would have discovered that in the last year of this program, that is, the 1967-68 season, out of an amount in excess of $20 million provided from federal funds for this program the absolute maximum total of funds spent in Newfoundland was $135,000. This, Mr. Speaker, out of more than $20 million.

The Address-Mr. Jamieson
Furthermore, if they observe how the rest of the money was spent they might also discover that the largest proportion of it went into the large metropolitan areas. I am prepared to concede that the big cities do have a different kind of problem, and my argument, therefore, at this point is not whether the winter works program was a good idea. But in the case of Newfoundland it is clearly evident that it was not worth the powder to blow it to Hades-$135,000 expended, spread over a period of five or six months. For the most part the municipalities merely shifted necessary works from one month to another, thus in totality generating no new employment at all.
Another defect in the program, if one takes a look at it as a regional development concept, is that the smaller the municipality, the less the funds for it to meet its share of the over-all expenditure. If hon. members would like to look at the figures they would find that in one place after another in Newfoundland amounts of $1,000 or $500 were spent, all small amounts with the possible exception of the city of St. John's. But essentially the weakness of the program was our inability to take advantage of it because of the failure on the part of the municipalities to find their share of the money.
It seems to me that when we talk of Newfoundland and of Atlantic Canada it is simple, easy and routine to get up and ask why we do not put more money into a project here or a project there, or to damn and criticize the government when it withdraws programs such as those I have mentioned. For Newfoundland and I suspect for all of Atlantic Canada-and it may be equally true in other non-urban regions of the country-the real necessity now is to examine all of the things that are being done, because in total they are most impressive.
As the throne speech suggests, Mr. Speaker, we must make some hard decisions both at this level and at the provincial level. We must examine the priorities that are available to us. Here again there is no better example of this than another of those emotion charged issues in which Newfoundlanders appear to delight. I refer to the decision to withdraw the Canadian National Railways passenger service in Newfoundland. I have to emphasize, as I have emphasized to some hon. gentlemen opposite, the necessity for me to avoid any flat-out or positive stand on this question, pending an appeal which may be made to the governor in council and in which I may have
September 20, 1968

The Address-Mr. Jamieson to participate. But that does not prohibit me from dealing with the matter in a general way and from making certain observations.
As a Newfoundlander there is nothing I should like better than to see this passenger train retained, though not because it is of any particular use to me. I do not travel on the Newfoundland railway very often, no more, I suspect, than most hon. gentlemen opposite who make the welkin ring with their protests.
This is something that we in Newfoundland must face, Mr. Speaker, and I think this provides a good example. In fact, we must come to it in all Atlantic Canada, in all of the so-called have-not and depressed areas of this country. We must ask ourselves this question with regard to the railways. The subsidy for the railway passenger service at the moment is in the region of many hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. There is no question, even in the minds of those who wish to see the railway retained, that this subsidy or operating loss will go even higher. Therefore we have to ask ourselves whether, if this subsidy is going to be employed, is this the best way in which to spend it? Or, in light of current technological development and improvements in other modes of transport, is the railway an anachronism that we can no longer afford when our other requirements are taken into account?
In all of this, Mr. Speaker, I am qualifying what I say by emphasizing my own contention, which is well known to gentlemen opposite, that should it become a question of abandonment the personnel involved must be completely and totally protected. We should not permit them to become the victims of some technological change. But stated baldly, if it did come to a choice-and these choices are going to come to us more and more in the years ahead, and for a number of reasons-between seeing a federal expenditure of $1 million or more pumped annually into keeping the train going or taking that $1 million and using it perhaps somewhere within the jurisdiction of St. John's East for a good regional development program, then what would be the choice? That is the sort of question we have to decide.
This summer, Mr. Speaker, I travelled throughout part of my own riding on a coastal boat. We steamed 20 miles in one direction and 20 miles back in a fairly large coastal vessel to deliver one package to an isolated community.


Mr. McGrath:: Hear, hear.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: My hon. friend applauds that. This is precisely what I mean and it is precisely why he has not seen this question in the right perspective. I say that because the several million dollars that annually go into the subsidization of coastal boats is money which might very well be better spent on the provision of more trunk roads, on the provision of more access routes to the trans-Canada highway, on opening up and providing our people with more mobility in isolated regions.
Hon. gentlemen who take this view will probably continue to argue against the abandonment of anything, adopting a kind of What we have we hold attitude whether it is good, bad or indifferent. But as long as that attitude persists and as long as we reject alternatives which can achieve the same purpose-better purposes, in fact-then we will not hear anything constructive from those who represent this province on the opposite side of the house. So as I say, Mr. Speaker, we have these choices to make.
Instead of having coastal boats of this sort and various heavily subsidized means of transportation, there is no doubt in my mind that we must look much harder than we have up to now, not only in Newfoundland but in many other places, at the process of centralization. It is very easy on a warm summer's afternoon to become ecstatic about the tranquil beauty of some isolated community and the rustic charm of some settlement which can be reached only by a pleasant ocean voyage over a calm sea. I am guilty of this kind of romanticizing myself, and indeed from time to time have been regretful of the pressures of modern society which appear, at least, to make this kind of livelihood no longer viable. However, it would be, and is in the case of some hon. members and others, the most shameful form of exploitation to suggest to residents of many of these isolated communities that in some way or other through government aid, and if we were big-hearted enough, we might provide them with the same level of amenities that society is now able to offer larger and more accessible areas. It simply cannot be done, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
When talking about Newfoundland we must abandon some popular notions. We must abandon the approach of going to 25, 30 or 40 families and saying to them, "You stay here; this is where you belong." Instead it might be well to remember an expression that is now widely acceptable, that is, that we "tell it like
September 20, 1968	COMMONS
it is." The fact of the matter is that the people in these Atlantic communities who supposedly are leading a tranquil existence, a pleasant life, and who are being uprooted and driven off into the industrial world have, or the great majority of them have, a sordid 100-year or more history of sadness, privation and even death which has resulted from their isolation.
Those who are against the present trend and who criticize government activity in this field are oblivious of the real facts. Within a matter of time the majority of these isolated communities will phase out of their own accord. When 7,000, 8,000 or 9,000 young people every year attend university, high school, vocational school or other centres of higher learning and when in Newfoundland, as in other parts of Canada, educational opportunities have become so greatly improved, one cannot blame our young people for not going back to the settlements from which they originated. It is only a matter of time before our communities phase themselves out. Even if we say to these people, "Stay, we will do all we can for you", and even if we encourage them to stay by providing what limited improvements are possible in the kinds of geographically isolated regions they live in, even then the drift toward centralization is irresistible. Instead of adopting this reactionary approach, Mr. Speaker, is it not more responsible to do everything possible to help our young people establish themselves and to bring them out of this isolation in a way that will ensure, at least, that they have a reasonable chance?
Where there have been failures-and I readily concede that there have been failures in some aspects of the centralization program -they have arisen because there has not been enough integration of the plan. Too vividly have we seen one side of the equation, the necessity to get them out, and we have not been sufficiently concerned with the sociological problems which have arisen. It is not enough to give a man a home or a few thousand dollars in order to move him to a more productive area. There are many other human problems of one kind or another which must be considered. In this regard I admit there have been difficulties.
On balance, the great majority of those who have moved under the centralization program are glad they did. I should like to take some of my colleagues on the opposition side who have different views and in their company talk to some of these people and ask
DEBATES	283
The Address-Mr. Jamieson them, "Do you want to go back?". I am reasonably certain that in the majority of cases the answer would be "No."
I realize that my time is coming to an end but I must say a word or two about a key element in any centralization program, the Newfoundland fishery. Once again, the charge of gross neglect in this field is not supported by the facts. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the problem may arise from the fact that there has not been a sufficiently practical focus on the kind of assistance that has been given. Let me illustrate my remarks by saying something about what has taken place within the last year or two.
For example, at the present time some $4 million is being spent, during the present season alone, to ensure that the price paid to fresh-water fishermen is maintained at close to the average of the last three years. Another $2.2 million or $2.3 million has been spent by the fishery price support board to take off the market a surplus of 1967 salt cod in order to pave the way for this year's production.
I believe the hon. member for Gander-TwiUingate (Mr. Lundrigan) during the question period this morning mentioned the Win-spear report on productivity. That study is being undertaken by the fisheries department of the federal government. A substantial marketing survey is under way in the United States; it was asked for by the trade, supported by the government and participated in by the trade, and its purpose is to see what can be done to increase the consumption of fish in the United States. Under the aegis of the Atlantic Development Board various plants have been provided with fresh and salt water systems at very substantial cost. I saw one last week which cost in excess of $500,000. Since 1949 governments, regardless of the party in power, have contributed to similar developments in all parts of Canada. The total amount spent over a period of years is most impressive.


John Howard Lundrigan: Since it is almost one o'clock will the minister permit a question?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, of course.


John Howard Lundrigan: The minister is tremendously eloquent. Regardless of partisan politics, would it not have been logical for any government to rethink its planning in the field of moving people? Would it not have been better to prepare new programs before abandoning old ones? That is the essence of my thinking.
September 20, 1968

The Address-Mr. Adrien Lambert


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. Because certain solutions appear to be at hand immediately and could be extended for another year, I think the necessity for recognizing existing problems would not be so great. Our attention would be distracted. That is one of the real difficulties we have encountered. For instance, we could always say, "Why worry-why not give them some more under the salt subsidy? Why not feed them with more pap?"
There is only one way to recognize our problems of regional disparity and that is to take off the band-aids, to reveal the naked wound and show the real nature of the disease. I will not agree with any member on the opposition side who says that we should abandon all our programs without providing substitutes. I think we must take action to substitute existing programs.
The tendency has been for us to continue doing as we have done in the past, and nothing illustrates my point more than a consideration of the salt subsidy over the last 15 years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I shall only talk for another minute or two. I believe we are on the right track in modernizing the Newfoundland fishery and instigating programs which are long range in their effects. That is the objective I have set for myself, and in that I am sure I have the enthusiastic support of this government.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 6(2) I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to thank you and to congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker of this house. You were chosen by the members unanimously because of your personal qualities which so well qualified you for such an important and difficult office.
This is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that I have the honour of sitting in this house, and I am therefore not familiar with the rules. [Mr. Lundrigan.l
However, I shall try to learn them and if I happen to break any of them by mistake, I beg you to excuse me and to show indulgence. I should also like to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for his kind words of welcome to the new members, as I am one of them. I should like also to pay my respects to my devoted and dynamic leader, the worthy member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) whom I would call, like so many others, a great Canadian. He is a French Canadian who has not been afraid to firmly insist on the rights of the French element across Canada without interfering with the rights of others or destroying them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I consider it a pleasure and an honour to belong to a Canadian political party whose leader is such a highly devoted man and who has the courage to foster the economic security of all through freedom.
I would also like to congratulate all the other members who have been re-elected or elected for the first time. However, I would be unfair to myself if I did not entertain a very special feeling for my colleagues of the Ralliement Creditiste who so valiantly deserved the trust of their fellow-citizens.
At the same time, I would like to congratulate and thank those entrusted with the legislative and parliamentary function who have achieved the present degree of parliamentary organization and efficiency. Even though perfection has not been attained and some may not be satisfied, there is an impression that, at least, we are not starting from zero. Already we are facing something that exists, that moves, that is organized and is improving and that is continually being completed, without ever reaching its final stage.
You will agree, Mr. Speaker, that beginning at the very early age of 16, as in my case, to farm the land and also becoming an orphan at the age of 11 and starting from nothing in almost all my undertakings, I have a very clear impression, on my election to the House of Commons, that truly something has been accomplished. I feel contented and happy, and I congratulate those who were here before.
But I do not come here without anything to my credit; something has happened in the past 40 years. I have always tried to understand why the people I came into contact with acted as they did. I learned first to get along pretty well with the members of my
September 20, 1968	COMMONS
family and now, for a long time, I have cultivated my land as well as my family and social relations. For 25 years, I have been the secretary of a municipality created with the help of my fellow-citizens, because the municipality I am talking about is relatively young, since it goes back only to the thirties. That municipality, which today is the pride of the riding of Lotbiniere, is well organized, because the hard-working people who live there have cleared the land and settled on farms. I would say therefore that I have some experience of public life.
For the last 30 years or so, I have been taking part in all the activities of farm associations. I have followed with a great deal of regularity, in the public gallery, the proceedings of the legislature in my province. Therefore, I do not feel completely as a novice in the social and public life when coming here to Ottawa. I am happy to feel at home, to have a part to play and not to feel as if I had stolen somebody else's place when taking my seat as a member. I feel that I am here really as the choice of most of the voters in my riding who honoured me by selecting me over my opponents, and whom I would not want to disappoint during the term of my mandate in the Ottawa parliament.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I am here, Mr. Speaker because I have something to say, a representation to make, and maybe also something to defend. I do not want to be too severe but I do want to be explicit, frank and honest in asserting the rights of all the citizens of my riding, of my province, of other provinces, in a word, of Canada as a whole. In my opinion, it is life that counts the most in the "qualification" of persons with whom I am in contact. To live on a farm and having chosen to do so, one must love life.
Since redistribution, the new riding of Bel-lechasse includes, besides the provincial county of Bellechasse, a large part of Montmagny and the major part of Dorchester. It is a large riding where the people, who used to live exclusively of agriculture and lumbering, now earn their living, partly, by working for industries which have settled there.
The agricultural production of the riding of Bellechasse, which formerly was quite considerable, has also decreased, as everywhere else throughout the province of Quebec and Canada, precisely because agriculture is not profitable.
As far as existing industries are concerned -there are large ones, and small ones-the
DEBATES	285
The Address-Mr. Adrien Lambert larger ones could still expand, and the Industrial Development Bank Act should of necessity be amended to allow loans to those industries, at lower interest rates, so that they might achieve their goal and expand for the benefit of the people who live in my area.
There are also smaller enterprises which have hired help. These are family undertakings, which can also develop but which, as it is, hire a certain number of workers who, for the better part, are farmers who work there to increase their income because their own farms do not bring in enough revenue.
There is talk, generally, and there has been for a long time, of industrial decentralization but not much is being done to achieve that objective. I feel that in order to achieve that industrial decentralization, interest must be developed at every government level, municipal, provincial and federal, amongst, the go-betweens, and also the people who live in that sector of society, in order to promote the development of the municipalities and to enable them to provide the services essential to the establishment and expansion of new industries.
It should also be realized that if we want to maintain a decent level of population in our rural areas, new industries will have to offer employment to the local manpower, in addition to farm labour. If this objective could be achieved, we could hope to see an interesting level of population, the construction of new family dwellings, on condition, obviously that it be found possible to offer rural areas the advantage of a housing loan policy that would encourage the construction of real family dwellings, buildings in which not only modern machines could be housed, but also little Canadians, so that those spouses who still want children are enabled to house them properly.
Mr. Speaker, we also have in our areas, in my riding, as in other ridings in Quebec, many abandoned farms.
The farmers had to abandon them because their income did not allow them to live there. If you go through those parishes, you see many farms which used to be the pride of our people, of our province. However, today, when you see them, you wonder what happened to bring about such a situation in such a great and beautiful country where there is still so much to do.
Mr. Speaker, those people who, for the most part, cannot offer their services to industry because they are not qualified have
September 20, 1968

The Address-Mr. Adrien Lambert become social welfare recipients. It is not good for our country when too many ablebodied people cannot do their share to build our country and to increase productivity in order to wage an effective war on poverty about which so much is said in the Speech from the Throne.
We will also have to work seriously to give our children, who will soon leave schools with a vocational or industrial training, a job enabling them to put into practice the science which they strived to acquire during all those years we kept them in school. People complain that education is expensive but, if so, it is one more reason why we should do something without delay so that these youngsters whom we are preparing for the future will not be discouraged, after having left school, when applying for a job. The first question put to a student seeking a job is: Have you a diploma? When he answers, yes, I have; here it is, he is asked a supplementary question: Have you any experience? But as he had always gone to school in order to get his diploma, he was not able to work and get experience, of necessity he had to answer no. And when he said: No, I have no experience, he was told: It is just too bad, but I cannot hire you because you have no experience.
Mr. Speaker, I mention those cases because they have occurred frequently in the last few months. Indeed, I have witnessed such dramatic situations and our children find them discouraging, because they are led to believe that a diploma some training or other, would enable them to earn a living and get ahead as easily as one drives a car on the highway.
Mr. Speaker, attempts were made, perhaps involuntarily, to lead all our young people to believe that diplomas would be sufficient to earn a living and to make their way up into society but, then our children discover that this is not enough, and they blame the adults for not telling them the whole truth.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is quickly running out. There are so many things to explain so that the house may improve the economic situation of the eastern part of our province. I am not the only one to have witnessed that situation and to have seen such things as I described to you.
During the conference of premiers which I followed on television-I heard one of the premiers of the eastern provinces say at one time: Yes, it is true that there is a constitutional problem in our country, but there is an even more serious problem, the economic problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: He then described our country. When we speak of a united Canada, united culturally and in our common efforts to develop and expand the country, I am entirely in agreement. But the provincial premier said that Canada is divided into two sectors, one rich and the other economically weak.
Mr. Speaker, I belong to the latter. I happen to represent a part of this economically weak sector, and I would like to make my contribution and to co-operate, working hand in hand with my colleagues. By co-operating with the government, we will find effective solutions which will give results. The people will then no longer think that we only come here to pass the time, without any intention of producing results.
Mr. Speaker, there is an exceedingly serious problem in the field of agriculture which is in urgent need of a solution, or else it will play us a nasty trick.
There is now some talk of importing certain products which people need to feed themselves. Unfortunately, in my opinion, if we keep on the course that we already have taken, it will not be long before we shall have to import more of those products.
When a country has to turn to others for its own subsistence, then it loses its freedom.
Farmers in the province of Quebec are said to be inefficient, unable to plan their production, unable to set the course of their business. Those same charges were made from 1930 to 1939, when the prices of farm products were at their lowest. Farmers indeed were being discouraged because they were unable to earn adequate revenues.
Of course, production dwindled, and that was normal. When a businessman, or a manufacturer is not in a position to make some profit, he becomes disheartened and is compelled to give up.
However, Mr. Speaker, this was not the truth. What was true is this: in 1939, when war broke out, we called on our farmers to do their war effort. Intensive production committees were set up in every community. I was the chairman of one of those committees, and I used to hold informal meetings with local farmers to incite them to produce more butter, cheese, eggs and various meats. We succeeded in increasing the production of those goods by offering the farmers higher prices, as well as the possibility, the hope of at least earning their livelihood.
One or two sons were taken away from them, Mr. Speaker, for military training.
September 20, 1968
Eastern Canadian farmers, Quebec farmers, proved their efficiency, since they answered the call of their government, of their country, and generously made their war effort.
Mr. Speaker, this prosperous situation enjoyed by the farmers in the post-war years continued until about the 50's when the marketing of our products was adequate enough. However, since 1951, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the farming conditions of Quebec farmers have deteriorated from year to year. They did to such an extent that, in 1968, according to some D.B.S. figures published in La Terre de Chez Nous, a weekly publication of the province of Quebec, it is shown that the net income of Quebec farmers, calculated on constant dollars, has decreased since 1951 in spite of a remarkable increase in productivity. In fact it has almost tripled. Therefore, the net farm income per unit which amounted to $1940 in 1951 had decreased in 1967 to $1684 constant dollars.
Note that these figures include the farmer's remuneration for his work, his administration, as well as for his net investment in his farm, that is more than $2,500 in 1967. This net property, capitalized at 5 per cent, would alone absorb more than $1,250 per year, which leaves barely $434 per farm in Quebec as working and management income.
Mr. Speaker, the disastrous situation of the farmer in eastern Quebec, stems from something, and one of the main causes lies in that the products used by farmers have increased, by 60 per cent from 1951 to 1967 while the price of agricultural produce has increased by only 17 per cent.
What is worse is that, in the meantime, the cost of living in eastern Canada kept going up to such an extent that at the end of 1967, it was one third higher than in 1957.
Mr. Speaker, some people complain sometimes because the farmers want more for their products, and when they make representations to get higher prices, some uninformed people might think that they are going too far.
So that producers and consumers can agree once and for all, they should stop accusing each other and quarrelling and try to rectify the situation.
I have here a small half pint container of cream, with 18 per cent fat, which I bought in Ottawa this week. I paid 34 cents for it and the producer-and I am happy to say publicly to that I am one-gets only a small fraction of that amount. On the other hand, 29180-191
The Address-Mr. Adrien Lambert the manufacturer of the container, the printer, and the selling companies get more for the container and its handling than the value of the contents paid to producers, but the consumer is unaware of that. We do not have the support of the consumer when we want to assert, in an honest way, the legitimate rights of the farmer or the producer.
The situation is the same for soft drinks. Mr. Speaker, has it ever occurred to people that 40 ounces sell for 50 cents, if we consider that an 8 ounce bottle costs 10 cents. At the present price of milk, farmers and producers of manufacturing milk, receive approximately $4.80 a hundredweight which represents 12 cents a quart. Imagine; 12 cents for 40 ounces of milk. However, one must pay 50 cents for 40 ounces of soft drinks.
I am interested in the consumer because I have children, I am myself a consumer. I tell you that we must do something for him in a common effort to establish a just society.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I am referring again to the establishment of a just society, of the just society, just for everyone including the small wage-earner. Mr. Speaker, I live among the poor people, I have always lived among those who have to work, on account of their circumstances. Therefore, I can tell you this: Today, I know all those problems, I am here the spokesman of the poor people, but I do not know what it is to work with you all, so that in the light of the requirements of each and everyone, we could do something.
Mr. Speaker, has the farmer any rights or has he only obligations in Canada? What are the obligations of the farmers, what are the obligations of the agricultural class? They are to cut down the trees in the forest, in an effort to make a farm out of it. This has always been done in Canada: My forefathers and yours did it. Before the building in which we are gathered was erected, there were but trees on this site. They are men like the one who is speaking to you, as many others in Canada, who have worked manually to fell forests and tried to make the Canadian soil fertile in order to feed mankind. Such is the nature of the obligation, such is our duty, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that we have rather creditably discharged it. Even when it is not profitable, cows are milked, crops are reaped and stored in order to keep them and make them available to Canadian citizens.
Mr. Speaker, this is our responsibility. Those are our obligations to the community, but I consider that there is never any obligation and responsibility without corresponding

September 20, 1968

The Address-Mr. Alexander rights. And the right for the farming class is that of a vital minimum; it is the right of a farmer to have an income enabling him to earn honourably his family's living. The farmer has a right to have enough revenue to pay for public services, like everyone else. They ask no special favours. If, two weeks from now, it should cost 6 cents to mail a letter, the farmer will pay 6 cents. If it costs $3 to get a tooth fixed, the farmer will pay $3. We are glad to pay the price, but in order to be able to meet the prices asked left and right, we have to have enough money. The farmer has a right to it, and that is why I am asking today whether something could be done about this. I am expressing myself as best I can, with the vocabulary at my disposal-for society did not give me much, and I do not have much of a university education, but at least I tried to get an understanding of the French language and arithmetic. If something could be done about this problem, it would help my fellow-citizens and perhaps my own family.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for the support of all
parties in this house to try to get some justice, not ten or twenty years from now, but as soon as possible, within a few months, so that the dairy farmers, the producers of manufacturing milk, may get at least a guaranteed price of $5.50 a hundredweight. That is not going to ruin anybody. Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Since we live in a just society, I think it would be unfair towards this house if I did not tell the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired. Unless he obtains the unanimous consent of the house, I cannot allow him to continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous consent, I must recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you for giving me this opportunity of speaking to this first session of the twenty eighth parliament as the representative for Hamilton West. To me this is a privilege and an honour which I shall long remember because it is at this time that I feel a sense of involvement and belonging.
I begin by congratulating you, sir, on your election as Speaker and informing you that there can be no doubt in my mind, after listening to the many plaudits extended to you, that we shall continue to be directed by
TMr. Lambert (Bellechasse) .1
your excellent guidance and leadership. My congratulations are also extended to the Deputy Speaker, whose ability has been recognized. I, as well as many others, particularly those sitting in this house for the first time, have been very impressed with the way you have been discharging your responsibilities, being knowledgeable, impartial and giving evidence of your wit.
My sincerest congratulations are extended to the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) and the hon. member for Kam-loops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand), both of whom, because of their seriousness of thought and ability to communicate, have gained the respect and admiration of this entire house.
I would also like to bring to your attention, sir, that at this moment I am very conscious of a meeting that I had in Toronto some time in 1964 with the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). It was there and then that he, in his wisdom and experience, believed that I should be engaged in politics as a candidate because, as he stated, he had faith and confidence in my ability and believed that I could and would make a contribution toward the ultimate destiny of Canada. For this I am extremely grateful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am also pleased to say that fortunately the electorate of Hamilton West were of the same opinion, and because of this faith and confidence, as expressed in many ways prior to the last general election, I now speak as the hon. member for Hamilton West. My gratitude is also extended to a former hon. member, Mr. Joseph Macaluso, who in his wisdom has helped me tremendously to be here this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, there are no words that can adequately express my thanks and those of my family for this great honour. Therefore I can only say with deep sincerity and conviction that I am profoundly grateful for this unprecedented honour and I shall do my utmost to become a worthy member of parliament under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), who has continually encouraged and counselled me, and the guidance of many hon. members on both sides of this house who have expressed an interest in my political career, sanctioned, I fervently pray, by Him without whom all goals are unattainable.
September 20, 1968

I am privileged to say that I was born in Ontario, the province of opportunity, the province to which many people in Canada look for leadership because it has progressed so dynamically, welcoming all peoples, regardless of race, creed or colour, desirous of contributing to its phenomenal growth and sharing its wealth and the good life. Within that province is the city in which I live, the city that has adopted me and propelled me with jet-like propulsion to the House of Commons.
In view of the time allotted to me, and because I would like to make some observations on other matters, I cannot recite a complete and adequate picture of the city of Hamilton, or in fact my riding of Hamilton West, one of four in the city that escaped Trudeaumania, much to the disbelief and bewilderment of the Grits. In any event, I find it necessary to speak about some of the important points of Hamilton because, as I understand it, a member is likely not to have another opportunity.
I would like to commence by pointing out to you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members that Hamilton had another first in the person of Hon. Ellen Fairclough, Canada's first woman cabinet member, who no doubt is warmly remembered by many hon. members because of her outstanding contribution to this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: To her I owe much, and I shall continue to rely on her wisdom and experience.
This city of almost 300,000 in population is the steel centre of Canada, producing more than one half of Canada's steel. It is interesting to note that iron and steel industry sales all across Canada make up approximately 2.7 per cent of the gross national product, therefore being even greater than wheat which is 1.7 per cent.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Because of the importance of this industry to our economy, Canada's principal basic steel producers, among which the Hamilton steel industry plays an important role, are of course very interested in the new anti-dumping code agreed to by Canada in the recent General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that something was said on this subject this morning. Industry regards dumping as a serious problem and is justifiably concerned about the potential loss of domestic markets to foreign competition at
The Address-Mr. Alexander dump prices arising from Canada's acceptance of article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Industry recognizes that competition on a fair trade basis is customary and of course challenging. However, competition at less than fair market value is disturbing and cannot be considered fair. In fact it may result in irreparable damage to the domestic industry and to the economy. It is suggested that the onus of preventing undue disruption from dumping into the domestic market rests completely on the importing country. Therefore I strongly urge that the government be very aware of the dangers of dumping, and in enacting any laws to bring the anti-dumping agreement into effect deep consideration and attention should be given to the scope of the legislation and the form of administration of the law because Hamilton, and indeed Canada, neither want nor can afford harmful effects on the economy.
Although steel plays a great role in the life of Hamilton, the manufacturing of machinery, electrical goods, rubber, chemicals and textiles also mean a livelihood for many Hamiltonians. Hamilton can further boast of the port of Hamilton which has a 10-mile waterfront providing three miles of berthing space. It is a port of call for 50 shipping lines and it has agencies with services to and from 100 world ports. Present trends suggest that the port will become an increasingly important seaport gateway through which an ever-growing volume of exports and imports will be shipped, thereby allowing it to continue to break records in terms of tonnage moved. In this connection may I remind the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) that notwithstanding the fact that in a democracy one can expect strikes, Hamilton would take issue with him in the event there was a prolonged strike in this area.
One cannot speak of Hamilton without reference to McMaster University, my alma mater, which has attracted and continues to attract students from all over the world who seek excellence in graduate and post-graduate studies. It is worth while mentioning that Hamilton's rock garden because of its floral display has received international acclaim. May I also point out, if anyone is in doubt, that Hamilton still has faith in the Hamilton Tiger Cats football team.
The city of Hamilton is progressing with an urban renewal program including a civic square, and Hamiltonians continue to expect, and in fact deserve, immediate, decisive and
290	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Alexander continued government leadership in that regard.
Of some concern to Hamilton at the present time are its plans for a cultural centre-the Hamilton theatre auditorium. Toward this end may I say that the people of Hamilton have made and met their financial commitments; the province of Ontario has made and is prepared to honour its commitment, and we now look to this government to become involved pursuant to the many requests made upon it so that a firm and early commitment may be expected. It is hoped that the government is as enthusiastic about receiving briefs and submissions on this project as are the Hamiltonians in presenting them.
Hamilton is no different from any other large city. Of course it has its urban problems. Hamiltonians also are very concerned about housing, unemployment, inflation, air and water pollution, lack of mortgage moneys, high interest rates, and lack of serviced land. These are the areas to which priority should be directed.
Hamiltonians, and indeed all Canadians, believed that the Speech from the Throne would indicate solutions to these problems with greater clarity as related to the just society, a phrase without definition and an election slogan that has frustrated and confused many. Canadians want solutions to the many social and economic problems which burden this nation. They want them now, and they will not be satisfied with tokenism and expression of intentions for the future.
It is not unreasonable to conclude that because the Prime Minister spoke of the just society on the hustings and said, "follow me, give me a majority", Canadians had the right to expect and believe that this government would present to them a dynamic, inspiring and moving political manifesto in the speech from the throne. I can remember the arrival of the Prime Minister in Hamilton and I can remember reading about him and his smile when he said "follow me" and they walked. Then he became famous for that which many of us younger ones would want to be famous and for which we feel some jealousy. The women said, "where do we go?" He said, "follow me", and they walked.
Now it is implied that the government did not have to give this country leadership or direction in the speech from the throne. Apparently, in the mind of the government, this conclusion was unreasonable on the part of the people and reached without justification, much to the dismay and disappointment of

DEBATES	September 20, 1968
many Canadians. I too am disappointed and in total disagreement with the utterances of many political experts who believe that it is inevitable that the speech from the throne should be dull, uninspiring and empty. Such speeches are not and never will be accepted. This is 1968, the jet propelled age and not the days of the horse and buggy.
As a result of their disappointment, Canadians have changed. I say that sincerely. They are no longer uninformed, naive and gullible. At this time an expression comes to my mind which was continually referred to by the late Dr. Martin Luther King in speeches in which he quoted the ungrammatical truths of an old preacher among which was the following; "We ain't what we oughta be, we ain't what we could be, we ain't what we should be, but thank God we ain't what we was." I say to the government: take heed and wake up before it is too late.
Mr. Speaker, since coming to this house I have become more and more aware of the tremendous responsibilities of a member of parliament. He must grapple conscientiously and diligently with the many problems which face this nation. He must find with expediency the solutions to them. He must be concerned about the quality of life being experienced by all Canadians. He must create with enthusiasm and confidence a climate of proper direction to ensure the realization of our ultimate goal, that of a greater Canada in which we can all pray, live, work and play harmoniously while enjoying the fruits of full economic development. To these ends I dedicate my strength and my abilities and in this dedication my thoughts are directed toward many people in Canada about whom I and my constituents in Hamilton West are concerned.
We are concerned about the fact that four million people live in poverty. We are concerned about the fact that the dream of owning one's home has apparently become an impossible dream under this administration. We are concerned about the fact that unemployment is at the unwarranted high level of more than 400,000. We are concerned about the reliance on welfare by many. We are concerned about the fact that because of inflation the pensioners, the aged, the disabled and those on fixed incomes have very little purchasing power.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Does this government have the solutions to these basic problems that face this nation? If
September 20, 1968

they have let them kindly advise the country, because the country is waiting for the answers. I say to this government, this is the time to show greater evidence of its concern. This is unquestionably a time for reassessment, a time for awakening. This is a time for reflection on the past only to better enable us to determine the guide lines and direction that positive action for the immediate future must take, particularly in relation to economic development, research and technology. We would then be in a more favourable position to solve these problems.
It seems to me that in a just society it should be the continuing responsibility of this government to be constantly aware of and concerned about the degree of the quality of life that each and every Canadian is experiencing. If there is any disparity, no matter how little, then the government should immediately set itself to reducing it, thereby assuring that each and every individual can live a full productive life and become in fact an essential part of the mainstream of Canadian life for the betterment of all Canadians.
I should like to move now, Mr. Speaker, to another topic. I am the first black man elected to the House of Commons. This results from the fact that many Hamiltonians have accepted as a way of life a simple truism expressed by Adele Florence Corey long ago. She said that men should be judged not by the colour of their skin nor by the way they fight, love or sin, nor by the gods they serve or vintage they drink, but by the quality of thoughts they think. How simple that statement is, but how unacceptable to many. Yet, if this way of life is not accepted, speak not to me of the Bill of Rights; speak not to me of democracy; speak not to me of the brotherhood of man or the fatherhood of God, because this then becomes hypocrisy. The black man also desires a place in the mainstream of life and because of this we read of his struggle, and struggle he must.
Listen to what Frederick Douglas, that great abolitionist, said back in 1857 about struggle. He said;
The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess freedom yet deprecate struggle are men who want crops without ploughing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. Power concedes nothing without a demand.
The Address-Mr. Haidasz
I look at the government.
It never did and it never will. Men may not get all they pay for in this world, but they must certainly pay for all they get.
The negro has to struggle. Some say I have it made. Let me, standing here, be no indication that all negroes in Canada have it made. Let me say this: the negro has awakened with a new soul. He knows he is somebody. He is Thurgoode Marshall, Supreme Court Justice; he is Dr. Ralph Bunche, diplomat extraordinaire. He is Carl Stokes, mayor of Cleveland. He is Dr. Martin Luther King, whose passive resistance movement has changed the nature of the thinking of the whole free world. He is Leonard Braithwaite who, even though a Liberal, sits at Queens Park in Toronto. He is the high commissioners and ambassadors we see here in Ottawa.
This is an impressive list, I know, but I wonder how many men of such calibre we have lost because of the deliberate rejection of people because of colour? I am not the spokesman for the negro; that honour has not been given to me. Do not let me ever give anyone that impression. However, I want the record to show that I accept the responsibility for speaking for him and all others in this great nation who feel that they are the subjects of discrimination because of race, creed or colour.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that our role in the building of the "just society", if it is to become a reality, is that we as parliamentarians must be involved with the hopes, the fears, the disappointments, legitimate aspirations and despair of each and every Canadian, ever mindful that involvement demands commitment in terms of actions and deeds, rather than words only.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne of the first session of this parliament, I am eager to congratulate you on your re-election as Speaker of the house and to wish you every success in the performance of your heavy duties.
I also wish to congratulate the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of committees (Messrs. Faulkner and Bechard) on their appointment.
I wish to add as well my congratulations to those that have already been made to the hon.
September 20, 1968

The Address-Mr. Haidasz member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), who has been chosen to move the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. The depth of his thoughts and the enthusiasm with which he expressed them assure us that he will bring a worthy contribution to the house proceedings.
I also want to congratulate the member for Kamloops-Caribou (Mr. Marchand), the first member of Indian origin to sit in this house and the mover of the address in reply. I salute his arrival in the house, as I salute that of the member who has just finished his speech. His presence in this house, as well as his special knowledge, will no doubt help us to better understand the problems of the minorities of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in joining my colleagues and my electors in congratulating the right honourable Prime Minister on his victory and that of the Liberal party in the general election of June 25. His wish for a just society, as well as the devotion and the courage with which he pursues that goal, is welcomed with great satisfaction and enthusiasm by my electors and, doubtless by all the citizens of Canada. I am particularly pleased to hear his statements and especially to read in the Speech from the Throne that constitutional reforms are the best guarantee of Canadian unity.
Our most important duty during this parliament is to strengthen national unity. Moreover, the Canadian charter of human rights must ensure to all our citizens the protection of fundamental liberties.
I wish also to thank the right hon. Prime Minister for the honour he extended to me by calling me to the office of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). I shall endeavour to fulfil my duties to the best of my abilities and I may add that I am very pleased to try and help the ministers, all the members and the Canadian people at this critical hour.
With the experience he has, the minister quite obviously understands the daily problems of Canadians and judging by the manner I have seen this department work since it has been his responsibility, I am convinced that the Canadian consumers are already being helped and will be helped further in the future.
Mr. Speaker, in the discharge of my duties, I want also to express my gratitude to the electors of Parkdale for having elected me as 
their representative in this house. I hope that I will, at all times, serve loyally and devotedly my constituents and my fellow-citizens.
Parkdale constituency, which is situated in the southwest area of Toronto, is almost a miniature replica of a cosmopolitan centre. Besides the Anglo-Saxon and French-Canadi-an groups, almost all other ethnic groups live there. As was the case for many of our ancestors, many of my constituents immigrated here to start a new life. Some came with a spirit of adventure; others were in quest of freedom. Coming to Canada in large numbers, thanks to a judicious immigration policy of the Liberal party, they have found freedom and a better life in this country. They are proud of the traditions of our country and anxious to participate in its development. A great many of them have contributed to a large extent to our economy as labourers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, missionaries, artists, etc.
During May last, the right honourable Prime Minister honoured us by presiding at a ceremony and unveiling a monument, in Toronto, commemorating Sir Casimir Stanislas Gzowski, one of the first Polish immigrants that settled in Toronto. On account of his services to Canada as an engineer and a statesman, he was knighted by Queen Victoria, in 1890.
Mr. Speaker, the immigrants constitute an invaluable asset for the future of Canada. The great amount of respect shown by my constituents toward our free and democratic way of life is very enlightening. They are firmly decided not to lose the freedom they have found in this country. Hence, they have an uncompromising desire to help those nations that have lost their freedom.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)

Among my constituents who, especially at this time, have demonstrated, and rightly so, a grave concern for freedom and basic human rights, a concern shared, I hope, by all Canadians, are those of Czech and Slovak origins. The aborting of the long awaited liberalization process in Czechoslovakia by the Soviet led invasion of that unfortunate country on August 20 shocked our citizens and indeed the people of the free world as well as many citizens in countries behind the iron curtain. This blow to freedom has marred the world's celebration of human rights year. The General Assembly of the United Nations
September 20, 1968

declared 1968 human rights year to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the declaration of human rights. I am sure we would all like to express the hope, Mr. Speaker, that before the end of this unfortunate year basic freedoms and human rights will be returned to the people of Czechoslovakia.
While attending the international congress of gastroenterology held in Prague in mid-July of this year I had the opportunity of not only visiting and admiring the 1,000 year old historical evidence of Christianity and western civilization, but also the privilege of meeting and speaking with people from all walks of life in that geographically small but rich and beautiful country of Czechoslovakia.
It was evident that Czechs and Slovaks awaited with a curious and patient expectation the beginnings of basic freedoms and human rights, and yearned for an economic growth that would benefit the common working man. But their hopes were short lived. On August 20 the cold harshness of the imperialistic designs of a totalitarian state extinguished the fire of freedom in Czechoslovakia. I believe, however, that the intense desire of the defiant people of that country to be free to determine their own destiny will never be extinguished.
The Canadian government, both at home and abroad, protested against the invasion of Czechoslovakia. At the United Nations Security Council emergency session the distinguished and able Canadian representative immediately voiced Canada's protest by cosponsoring a resolution condemning the Soviet intervention, and then initiated a second resolution which sought to ensure the release and safety of the leaders of Czechoslovakia. In Ottawa, following an emergency session of cabinet, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) stated unequivocally Canada's protest and voiced our indignation.
In Toronto at a public protest rally, I read on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs a special message which condemned the Soviet led invasion of Czechoslovakia. The message also stated that the Canadian government had unequivocally condemned this use of force and called for the immediate end of the Soviet occupation.
By its actions the U.S.S.R. had chosen brutally to ignore the most basic principle of international law and two of the cardinal principles of the United Nations charter; that of the sovereign equality of states, and the obligation that states must refrain in their international relations from the use of force
The Address-Mr. Haidasz against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. The Canadian government has been in the forefront of the efforts at the United Nations to aid the people of Czechoslovakia. Canada does not condone the occupation of Czechoslovakia nor the illegal and unjustified intervention of the U.S.S.R.
The special message of the Secretary of State for External Affairs also stated that an agreement reached under duress resulting from military occupation and this mode of resolving difficulties between states is completely repugnant to the Canadian government. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government showed its compassion in dealing with the consequences of the Czechoslovak tragedy. Already Canada has offered a new home and emergency financial assistance to the nearly 500 refugees from Czechoslovakia. This is an enviable record which I do not think has been surpassed to this date by any other government outside Vienna. It is to the credit of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen), with the co-operation of his cabinet colleagues and the efficient work of his officials, that Canada has provided such humanitarian treatment to these refugees.
May I encourage the minister to continue his efforts and also suggest to him that he add to the special Canadian team recently sent to Vienna more departmental officials and also representatives from Czech and Slovak national organizations in Canada. Such a move, I believe, is desirable in view of yesterday's Reuters press report from Munich that according to the international rescue committee there are more than 30,000 refugees from Czechoslovakia homeless in various parts of western Europe.
I believe many Canadians are impatiently awaiting the forthcoming session of the general assembly of the United Nations. Perhaps many people are hoping for too much, but, Mr. Speaker, despite its weaknesses, the United Nations is still the best instrument for peace and justice that the world today possesses. In the meantime, Canada should work toward the establishment of an impartial and effective international control agency. Such a body should be empowered to preserve peace and justice by controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons, negotiating peaceful disputes, advancing human rights and supporting economic development.
294	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Haidasz [DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
As the representative of Parkdale I also have deep concern for my constituents who, at the same time, are citizens of the great municipality of metropolitan Toronto. This great city was the first community in the western hemisphere to give political recognition to the metropolitan form of government, which was created by the demands of modern, industrial society. Metropolitan Toronto was legally established in April, 1953, by an act of the Ontario Legislature.
Toronto plays an important role in the development of our entire country, and not just in the development of Ontario. This great municipality, with a population of 1,900,000 persons-the population increases by about
60,000	persons each year-soon will contain nearly 10 per cent of all Canada. A great industrial and educational centre, Toronto is also a major port in the St. Lawrence seaway system; through the port are forwarded domestic and foreign cargoes to almost all parts of the North American continent as well as to many overseas countries.
During this long, hot summer I, with several Liberal colleagues of this house, attended meetings of the city of Toronto redevelopment advisory council, as well as meetings of other public agencies and officials concerning the great redevelopment plan of Toronto's downtown core, the Toronto harbour and the new 50 mile long waterfront, including a new and bold concept for the Canadian National Exhibition grounds. On September 10 the Toronto planning board approved an official and complete 15 year development plan, during which time metropolitan Toronto's population is expected to grow to 3 million people.
Toronto's redevelopment plan includes matters under federal jurisdiction such as transportation, new airports, extended harbour facilities, a post office in central downtown, a radio and television broadcasting centre, a new waterfront and, as I mentioned before, large grounds for the Canadian National Exhibition.
I am happy to see the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) in his seat this afternoon, and I extend to him an invitation to visit Toronto as soon as possible, to see the operations of the central post office. He might also wish to learn of the plan the Toronto planning board has for the relocation of the central post office. At the same time I extend a similar invitation to all other cabinet ministers whose departments have a bearing on this redevelopment plan. It is definitely in the national

DEBATES	September 20, 1968
interest to utilize all our technical know-how and financial resources in order to carry out these redevelopment plans. The people of Toronto need and demand swift action. Federal and provincial co-operation with Toronto officials on these matters will stimulate a great sector of the Canadian economy, provide thousands of new jobs and eventually increase our national revenue.
I submit that further provincial and federal initiatives are indispensible to the improvement of the quality of life in our sprawling urban centres. The problems of slums, poverty, disease, delinquency, crime, inadequate housing, air pollution, contaminated water and traffic congestion will choke our cities and paralyze the entire Canadian economy unless all levels of government plan and act more quickly. All our urban problems which have national implications must be examined thoroughly. The influence of modern environment on Canadian citizens is a major and urgent national issue. In order to cope with these and other environmental problems I suggest to the federal government that we establish a special department of urban and environmental affairs.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the government's legislative program has an underlying basic philosophy and an appreciation of the right priorities. It will satisfy many needs and provide better living conditions in our present, complex, modem society. I support and have confidence in this legislative program which, I submit, merits favourable consideration by members on both sides of the house.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to participate in this debate. My first words will be to congratulate you, sir, on your elevation to the position of Speaker of this house, a position which I know from experience you will fill with dignity and fairness to all members in all parts of this house. I also wish at this time to congratulate a fellow Nova Scotian on his promotion to the position of Clerk of the House. This is an important post and I hope that the trend in this house toward higher positions for Nova Scotians will continue in future.
Following a time honoured custom, I wish to congratulate the mover, the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), and the seconder, the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They
September 20, 1968

expressed their views with clarity and sincerity in a manner which honours the constituencies that elected them to this house.
Time will not permit me to extend individual congratulations to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees and all members of the new cabinet, among whom are some old friends. I wish them all good health in the carrying out of their important and heavy responsibilities to the Canadian people.
This morning I listened with interest to the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson). I regret that he cannot be in his seat this afternoon. In his remarks he did his best to explain away the removal of the salt fish subsidy to our fishing industry as well as the removal of the winter works program and other programs. In the minister's words, these were only "band aids" which were being removed to let the government take a closer look at the depth of the wound. Without being partisan or political, Mr. Speaker, I have a tendency to agree with the views expressed by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) who asked the minister this morning why these programs are being removed before something better is put in their place. To put the matter in the words of a member representing an Atlantic region, "We don't like to take away a man's lifebuoy before we have him safely in the lifeboat."
Though this is not the first time I have spoken in this chamber I feel honoured to speak as the first federal representative of the new federal constituency in Nova Scotia known as South Shore. It is a large riding which covers an area from West Dover in Halifax county, through Lunenburg, Queens and Shelburne counties to Clyde River. It contains such famous beauty spots as Peggy's Cove, St. Margaret's Bay, Chester and Ma-hone Bay-which is famous for the legend of the ghost ship Teaser and the island in which Captain Kidd reputedly put his buried treasure-the beautiful town of Lunenburg, home of the deep sea fishing fleet and of the Blue-nose whose famous skipper, Captain Angus Walters, last month departed on his last voyage. Lunenburg also is the home of the replica of the Bounty, and contains the floating museum, the LaHave River which was first settled by the French, the beautiful town of Bridgewater, the privateer town of Liverpool which is the home of Thomas Raddall, the writer, the fishing towns of Lockeport and 29180-201
The Address-Mr. Crouse Shelburne, home of the Empire Loyalists, a section of Kejimkujik national park, and many picturesque fishing villages too numerous to mention. Truly, the South Shore is one of the most storied and picturesque ridings in all of Canada.
The people in the riding are strongly independent and derive their living from many sources. Some are engaged in the development of our primary industries such as fishing, farming and lumbering; others are employed in ancillary industries such as shipbuilding, ship repairing, foundries, the manufacture of fishing nets, fish processing plants, tree farming and the manufacture of hard-board and newsprint, to name but a few.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
These industries are today, for the most part, facing the same problems as those which trouble other industries throughout Canada, namely, their costs of production are excessive and there are insufficient markets where their products can be sold at a profit. This applies to our newsprint industry, our agricultural industry and our fishing industry. As a result of our inability to compete in foreign markets we find unemployment levels increasing, and many of our people are gravely concerned about their future.
It was for these reasons that the people in my riding and throughout Nova Scotia looked forward to the reading of the speech from the throne, which they hoped would contain details of the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he spoke in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. According to the headlines appearing in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of May 31 the right hon. gentleman, who is now Prime Minister, stated that a new multi-million dollar ferry service would be established across the bay of Fundy between Digby and Saint John. The new vessel is to cost $7 million, and docking and other facilities another $10 million; the new freight, auto and passenger service, he said, would handle all the freight demands of southwestern Nova Scotia and the Annapolis valley. Why was this promise not mentioned in the speech from the throne? When can we expect assistance toward the provision of a second ferry between Nova Scotia and New England to aid our tourist industry?
On the same occasion, in Yarmouth, the Prime Minister spoke of economic disparities, describing them as a greater danger to Canadian unity than cultural or linguistic differences; it was too much to expect Canadians to be united unless they all got a
September 20, 1968

The Address-Mr. Crouse just share. Speaking in Halifax, the right hon. gentleman said the threat to Canada's national unity did not arise so much from French-English problems as from economic disparity, and in view of this he intended to give regional development top priority.
With these statements I agree, and I was amazed therefore to read in the speech from the throne that the government regarded its first responsibility, and the first responsibility of this parliament, that of clearing away the accumulation of essential legislative adjustments left over from the last parliament. Unless these were cleared up promptly, we were told, efficient public administration and the effective operation of the Canadian economy would be hampered. What arrogance; what gall! When we on this side asked the government to make arrangements for parliament to sit as soon as possible after the results of the election were known, we were told this was not necessary and that some time in the fall, some time in September, would do. Now the election is over, what does the government list as business of the highest priority? Not regional development as stated by the Prime Minister in Halifax, but parliamentary reform.
And when this is out of the way, what is parliament to consider? Are we to deal with economic disparities, which the Prime Minister described in Yarmouth as presenting a greater danger to Canadian unity than cultural or linguistic differences? Oh, no; according to the speech from the throne we shall next be asked to enact a totally new official languages act based on a recommendation of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism.
Mr. Speaker, I do not question the importance of these matters, but there are serious doubts in my mind about the government's sense of priorities. Many Canadians are living in poverty; they are calling out for assistance. They have not yet won their war on poverty, as have the defeated Liberal candidates. They are in the position of a drowing man who needs help immediately. But what are the members of this government doing? They are ignoring the drowning man's call. They say: We will help you, but first we must swab the deck, pump out the bilge and clean up the mess in the galley left by the former captain and crew; later on we will think about throwing you a lifeline. Mr. Speaker, by that time it will be too late.

I realize that the fo'c's'le and the captain's cabin of our ship of state must be in a terrible condition after the departure of the former captain and the exodus of his sloppy officers and crew. The present Prime Minister might simply have said in the speech from the throne that the ship of state needed to undergo a refit. In fairness to the right hon. gentleman the mess is not entirely of his making, since he has only been a Liberal since 1965. But he had lots of help from Judy and Jack, Gordon and Winters, as well as Robichaud and Martin, who fouled up our international fishing nets in a 12 mile limit and a fisheries policy which defied implementation or explanation by either one of them, a fact which may account for their departure to the other place.
If members of the government would take time to read the fifth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada I feel certain they would have a better idea of some of the problems facing Canadians. Reading this review it is evident that those of us who live in the Atlantic provinces have no priority when it comes to poverty in this nation. But we in the Atlantic provinces are especially concerned about statistics which show that our per capita incomes are as much as one-third lower than those enjoyed by the rest of the nation while our unemployment rate is double the national average, resulting in poorer standards of living and substandard housing. The council's report adds up to an admission of a continuing economic crisis in the Atlantic provinces, a crisis which Ottawa has not faced. The Atlantic provinces need a development policy geared to the needs of the region-a policy which will provide for the massive investment of federal and private funds which would enable us to process our plentiful raw materials within our own area.
Take shipyards, for example. The Liberal government's present policy of curtailing and reducing subsidies for ship construction has brought about a situation in which shipyard workers in my constituency face massive unemployment. Yesterday the leaders of the industry met with representatives of the government and I am sure they underlined the serious situation which exists within the industry. To the best of my knowledge, none of the shipyards in Mahone Bay, Lunenburg, Dayspring, Liverpool or Shelburne have any ships to build; the shutting down of these plants affects not only direct employment in the yards, but has a disastrous effect upon employment in our foundries and machine
September 20, 1968

shops. I noted with interest during the election campaign that the shortage of work in Quebec shipyards was a matter of concern to the then minister responsible for manpower and immigration, now Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand), who is reported in the Halifax Herald of June 17 as saying in Quebec that Canada made a mistake in selling its merchant marine after the second world war and that he would do everything in his power to restore it.
The speech from the throne is strangely silent about the major problems of our shipyards and of the deep sea fishing industry which is so closely allied with shipbuilding, but with the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development supporting my plea, I trust that our now silent shipyards will be reactivated. I realize, to use a popular phrase, that the bloom may be off the rose and that a large number of ships may not be required in the next few years. But some ships will be needed. In the fishing industry, Europeans are rapidly replacing their fishing fleets with new, modern, efficient vessels. In this they are encouraged by liberal loans, investment allowances, subsidies and special depreciation provisions. These large factory ships are producing frozen and packaged fish and unfortunately some of the fish they catch are marketed on this side of the ocean, creating problems for our Canadian fishing industry. As a matter of fact, the Canadian government reduced the subsidies on steel hulled vessels from 50 to 35 per cent at a time when we must compete with countries whose shipbuilding and fishing industries are state supported, and with whom expense is therefore no object.
Incidentally, no subsidies have been paid at the present rate in Nova Scotia since last November and when the hon. member from South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) yesterday when we could hope to see the restoration of those subsidies the answer he received was a model of brevity; it was simply a flat no.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
One aspect of ship construction assistance has always puzzled me. I have in mind the reasoning behind the government's action in making subsidies for steel ships under the statute, while the subsidies for wooden ships come under the estimates. Why does the government not put steel and wooden shipbuilding on the same footing and in the same amount? Since the present government apparently does not approve of ship subsidies and
The Address-Mr. Crouse since its lack of action has brought shipbuilding to a halt, I would propose that the government give consideration to implementing a system of investment allowances as a form of tax remission which would benefit the Canadian shipbuilding industry, the fishing industry and commercial shipping.
The Prime Minister often speaks of total involvement by Canadians. I believe investment allowances would bring about better involvement of Canadians in the building of ships. The investment allowances principle is not new. It has been used in the United Kingdom. I should like briefly to illustrate the principle of this system. If a ship cost $100 built in Canada it would be set up on the books as $175 for depreciation purposes. This additional amount would compensate for the difference in cost between construction in Canada and European countries. Under the investment allowance system the entire amount could be written off in a four year period if company earnings warranted this. The figure I have used is an arbitrary one. When the costs are compared with the costs of European builders it may be necessary to increase this amount. However, I wish to give the government something to think about.
I would also suggest that these allowances be extended to existing vessels, especially existing fishing boats, provided the allowance is used for the construction of new ships. I say this because the accumulated depreciation on existing vessels is only a fraction of what a new ship would cost and, consequently, such ships are difficult to finance. Under this system the builders of ships would be obliged to use their own profits, but I believe investment allowances would be a double barrelled approach to our shipyard and ship construction problems. In addition this would encourage thrift, reward ambition, promote enterprise and create employment which is seriously needed in many parts of Canada.
At the present time the fishing industry is facing many serious problems brought about by ever changing social and economic conditions which are prevalent throughout the world. In order for the fishing industry to expand into the key role of feeding countless millions, for which it has the potential, it must solve the problem of recruiting and training young men for the industry and must develop better deep sea trawlers with modern detecting, handling and processing aids. Fishing must be made acceptable as a vocation for our young men. We should no longer look upon the fishing industry as a second class
298	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Crouse industry or look upon fishermen as second class citizens.
On October 24 and 25, 1967, a conference on fish protein concentrate was held in Ottawa. I attended that conference, and I was impressed with the possibilities of fish protein concentrate. I believe measures must be taken to curb the tremendous waste of unwanted species of fish now taken by our trawlers which, it used and turned into fish protein concentrate, could further stabilize the economy of the fishing industry and supply an additional quantity of food to the starving masses of humanity.
I would also suggest to our new Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) that Canada, as one of the world's great fishing nations, should take the lead in fostering international co-operation for the conservation and use of available stocks in the world fisheries. One of the major difficulties at present affecting the industry is the depressed prices in our markets arising from increased groundfish production in Britain, Norway, Iceland and Denmark, plus the effects of the devalued pound. This overproduction, coupled with a market softness brought about by one of the rulings of the Pope-there were two-which relaxed the laws of the church concerning fish, has seriously lowered the consumption of groundfish.
Some progress was made in the Kennedy round talks, which is beneficial to our fish exports. But we still have a trade imbalance with the United States. It is evident that we need greater access to United States markets under more favourable tariffs, not in 1971 or 1972 but now. In the Kennedy round the United States made no change in the access for groundfish cooked fillets which are still subject to tariff quota revisions. Any change along this line would be most helpful to our fish processing and cooked fish industry.
Some species, however, are still in great demand. Here I refer to the lobster which is now live frozen and shipped to markets in the United States, Britain and France. Although the demand for lobsters is increasing the supply is diminishing. Landings at 35 million pounds in the Atlantic provinces were down about 6 per cent last year. This has resulted in new measures for registering lobster fishing boats and a trap limit in all provinces on the east coast, except Newfoundland.
These measures have been taken in an effort to control the industry so that our inshore fishermen may have a chance for economic survival. With the decline in lobster
fMr. Crouse. I
DEBATES	September 20, 1968
catches in some areas, some fishermen have found it necessary to go on the larger trawlers or seek employment elsewhere. Many of our fishermen, however, are too old to engage in offshore fishing or to be retrained. They are looking hopefully to the government's conservation measures as protection for their industry.
In view of the importance of the lobster industry, which was worth some $23J million to our inshore fishermen last year, I would suggest a change in the lobster pound regulations. At the present time the holder of a $1,000 lobster pound licence is permitted to scrub female lobsters that have become berried-that is, that have acquired eggs after impoundment-and put them on the market.
The law does not prohibit fishermen from taking female lobsters. Only female lobsters carrying eggs on their tail may not be retained. It is impossible for a fisherman to ascertain whether or not a female lobster is carrying spawn until the condition develops. This usually occurs during the period when the female lobster is impounded. I believe, in the interests of conservation, that it would be a better practice for fishing inspectors to be empowered to act for the government by buying back seed carrying female lobsters and returning them to the sea, rather than have the eggs destroyed. In this way, the natural reproduction of the species would assist in maintaining the various stocks which at the present time are seriously depleted in some areas. When we hear that a one pound lobster is capable of carrying 20 thousand to 35 thousand seeds on its tail and that if these could be returned to the ocean the chance of survival runs anywhere from 3 to 5 per cent of the 25,000 or 35,000 eggs-and, in addition, last year one pound is reported to have scrubbed something like 1,500 lobsters-we get some idea of what the conservation measure would mean to our economy.
This type of policy, if put into effect over the next five years, should go a long way toward rebuilding our inshore fishery resources. The cost of this conservation program would not be excessive. If the government cannot find the money for this project I suggest that it cut down upon the expenditures of the Company of Young Canadians, the royal commission on the status of women, or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which last year cost the Canadian taxpayers something like $145 million.
I should like to turn for a few moments briefly to the subject of external affairs and
September 20, 1968

the somewhat pathetic action of the government in respect of the Territorial Seas and Fishing Zones Act of 1964. In its brief to the Canadian government on Monday, January 28, 1963, the Fisheries Council of Canada, which represents some 400 fishing companies which process 90 per cent of Canadian fishing products, outlined the fishermen's proposals in these words.
Spokesmen for the fishing industry today urged the federal government to declare a 12-mile fishing limit, shielding Canada's coastal fisheries from damaging exploitation by foreign fleets. They said the need is urgent.
Executives of the Fisheries Council of Canada met with a cabinet committee to present a 2,500 word brief which warned that unless such action is taken important fish stocks will become depleted.
Foreign fishing fleets now may operate to within three miles of the shore.
The brief proposed unilateral adoption of a plan which Canada and the United States jointly sponsored at the second United Nations conference on the law of the sea, held in 1960. This called for a six mile territorial sea and an additional six mile exclusive fishing zone. It was supported by 54 nations but fell one vote short of approval.
"The rapid increase in world fishing effort and efficiency has focused attention on the fact that, unless adequate safeguards are taken, the marine resources that have played such a vital role in the development of the Canadian economy will be harvested by foreign fishing fleets," the brief said.
It cited the recent expansion of Russian and Japanese activity.
Calling for adoption of the twelve mile limit, the brief declares that "unilateral declaration of the government's policy must be followed immediately by active enforcement... and the policing of foreign fishing fleets."
"In the council's opinion, enforcement is absolutely essential if Canada is to maintain her position in world fisheries."
... Its brief suggested that declaration of the new zone take into special consideration the historic rights of France and the U.S. in Canadian national waters. As a first step, negotiations should begin with those two nations to reach a mutual understanding about their rights in an enlarged zone.
In keeping with the terms of the 1960 proposal, any nation whose vessels had made a practice of fishing in the outer six miles of the proposed twelve mile zone for at least five years would have the right to continue fishing that area for another ten years.
But, apart from those special circumstances, foreign fleets would be barred from the exclusive zone. This would permit for the first time an effective program of fisheries management and conservation to preserve the Canadian fishing industry.
An act was passed in 1964 embodying some of the council's proposals, but since that date successive fisheries council presidents have only been able to deplore the lack of action on this important matter by our government.
The Address-Mr. Crouse
That council met on December 5, 1968 and Mrs. Marie S. Penny of Newfoundland had this to say about the government:
We are not happy about progress on implementing straight base lines, and defining certain bodies of water as Canadian waters or, at the very least, exclusive Canadian fishing zones. We know there are difficulties-but if action is not forthcoming fast many nations which up to now have not had historic rights in many of our waters will have acquired such rights. There is, also, the inevitable danger of this foreign fishing seriously depleting our fish stocks. We need a stiffer government attitude on this question-and we need it nowl
Nothing could be clearer than this, Mr. Speaker. In all fairness to this government I must say they made a start in 1967 on geographic co-ordinates and base lines which were drawn from Cape Chidley, Labrador to Cape Kay, and here they stopped. No action has been taken to seal off the gulf of St. Lawrence or the bay of Fundy, two areas where conservation measures could be carried out which would be extremely beneficial to our east cost fishing industry, whose stocks are rapidly being depleted.
I cannot urge too strongly upon the government the necessity of facing up to its responsibilities in this matter, and if this is to be a housekeeping session let us see some action from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis). This is a very thorny problem. Let us not only get the broom out, let us get the vacuum cleaner out as well. Let us sweep the cobwebs from this department and get to work in an attempt to establish geographic co-ordinates and base lines. Let us set up areas where conservation measures can be carried out which will be helpful to our Canadian fishing industry.
Finally, if I have a little time left I should like to refer briefly to the speech from the throne and to the Prime Minister's statement regarding NATO and the action he proposes to take.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this might be a convenient time to interrupt the hon. member and to say that his time has just about expired, unless he has the agreement of the house to continue. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I would like to say to the Prime Minister, and to the government that I noted from the speech from the throne that they contemplate a review of NATO. I believe a review may be necessary, but I hope this will not result in any change of

Septembei 20, 1968
House of Commons
policy. NATO has not only provided us with protection on this side of the water, but it has served as a co-operative defence measure which has stilled the rising forces of the nationals within Germany itself. It is something that I believe we as a nation should continue to subscribe to and support at all times.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)



PROVISIONAL RULE CHANGES FOR LIMITED PERIOD

Hon. D. S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask for general consent to revert to motions to make a statement in respect of procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are aware that conversations have taken place in recent weeks in respect of our procedures and rule changes. As a result I am today giving notice of two motions which will be placed on the notice paper. The first will be for the appointment of a special committee to consider fundamental changes to our rules and procedures. That committee will be instructed by the house, in the terms of the motion, to complete its work and report by December 1, 1968.
The second motion is for the appointment of a special committee for the purpose of considering whether this house should make arrangements for the better oversight of instruments made under the authority of statutes of this parliament. I am assuming that when these motions are called, hon. members will want to debate them, and it is the government's hope that very early in the proceedings of the house, after the completion of the throne speech debate, we will be able to deal with these matters.
In the conversations which have taken place an agreement has been reached about provisional arrangements for the first part of this session, until the house rises for the Christmas recess. The suggestion is as follows, if I may summarize it; that with the exceptions or modifications I will note, the provisional rules that were in effect last April are to be in effect between now and the time the house meets again after Christmas; that Standing Order 15A is not to be in effect; that for the business of supply for 1968-69 a total

of 19 days are to be used, and that the standing committee system set out in standing order 65 is to be revised for the remainder of this session.
I have had a motion drawn along these lines. It is very long and somewhat complicated, but I believe it has been examined by the house leaders of the three parties and I understand there is no objection to having this motion made an order of the house at this time.
Perhaps I should add that discussions will take place among the house leaders of all parties as to which of the 1968-69 estimates should go to the standing committees, and in respect of the order in which the estimates will be called in the committee of supply. If the house is in agreement perhaps the motion I made could be made an order of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed, and is it also agreed that the motion which the hon. President of the Privy Council has now referred to be printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
should be printed in both Hansard and Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, it is understood that the government house leader has accurately condensed the arrangements by which the interim arrangements will be carried on until Christmas.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I need only a few seconds to confirm that the document to which the President of the Privy Council would like the house to agree does represent the agreement of the house leaders of all the parties. Speaking for my colleagues, let me say that we are glad that we have been able to reach this agreement. We hope that still further improvements in our rules will be made in the not too distant future.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, I wish to re-affirm our consent as to the document tabled in this house by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), concerning our agreement on the procedure to be followed in this house. I have nothing else to say, except that I should like to congratulate all the house leaders for their excellent work and co-operation up to now.
September 20, 1968


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members.
[Editor's note: The motion referred to above is as follows:]
That the rules and procedures in effect immediately prior to the dissolution of Parliament on April 23, 1968, shall be in effect during the present session until the sittings of the House are resumed after the Christmas adjournment, except that
(a)	provisional Standing Order 15-A shall not be in effect,
(b)	in relation to the business of supply for the fiscal year 1968-69 the resolution adopted on April 26, 1967, relating to Standing Orders 56 and 57, is hereby modified so that (i) the estimates of all departments shall be deemed to have been first taken up and entered for consideration upon the reference of the same to the Committee of Supply,
(ii)	an order for	supply shall	be	called on oneoccasion only for	the	purpose	of	moving "ThatMr. Speaker do now leave the Chair", and two sitting days shall	be	allotted	for	that purpose,(iii)	there shall	be	an overall	limitation of
seventeen sitting days allotted to the said business of supply, including interim supply, main estimates, and supplementary estimates, and proceedings on any bill or bills based thereon, but excluding the final supplementary estimates, and (iv) at the ordinary time of adjournment on the seventeenth allotted day, as specified above, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker, as the case may be, shall interrupt proceedings and forthwith put successively, without further amendment or debate every question necessary to dispose of all proceedings necessary for the purposes of this order,
(c)	for the duration of the current session Standing Order 65 shall be amended to read as follows:
65. (1) At the commencement of each session, a special committee, consisting of seven members, shall be appointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and report, with all convenient speed, lists of members to compose the following standing committees of the House:
a.	Agriculture, to consist of not more than 30 members;
b.	Broadcasting, Films, and Assistance to the Arts, to consist of not more than 20 members;
c.	External Affairs and National Defence, to consist of not more than 30 members;
d.	Finance, Trade, and Economic Affairs, to consist of not more than 20 members;
e.	Fisheries and Forestry, to consist of not more than 20 members;
f.	Health, Welfare, and Social Affairs, to consist of not more than 20 members;
g.	Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to consist of not more than 20 members;
h.	National Resources and Public Works, to consist of not more than 20 members;
i.	Justice and Legal Affairs, to consist of not more than 20 members;
j.	Labour, Manpower, and Immigration, to consist of not more than 20 members;
k.	Regional Development, to consist of not more than 20 members;
House of Commons
l.	Transport and Communications, to consist of not more than 20 members;
m.	Veterans Affairs, to consist of not more than 20 members;
n.	Miscellaneous Estimates, to consist of not more than 20 members;
o.	Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, to consist of not more than 20 members;
p.	Privileges and Elections, to consist of not more than 20 members; and
q.	Public Accounts, to consist of not more than 20 members.
(2)	The special committee shall also prepare and report with all convenient speed lists of members to compose the following standing joint committees:
On Printing, to act as members on the part of this House on the Joint Committee of both Houses on the subject of the printing of Parliament, to consist of 23 members;
On the Library of Parliament, so far as the interests of this House are concerned, and to act as members of the Joint Committee of both Houses, to consist of 21 members;
Provided that a sufficient number of members of joint committees shall be appointed so as to keep the same proportion in such committees as between the memberships of the House of Commons and Senate.
(3)	A majority of the members of each standing committee shall constitute a quorum unless the House otherwise orders;
Provided that, in the case of a joint committee, the number of members constituting a quorum shall be such as the House of Commons acting in consultation with the Senate may determine.
(4)	The standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House; to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon; to send for persons, papers and records; and to print, from day to day, such papers and evidence as may be ordered by them, and in relation thereto Standing Order 66 shall not apply.
(5)	Any member of the House who is not a member of a standing committee, may, unless the House or the standing committee otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the standing committee, but he may not vote or move any motion, nor shall he be part of any quorum; provided that a Minister who is piloting estimates or a bill through a standing committee may participate in the deliberations of any such committee as if he were a member, but he may not vote or move any motion, nor shall he be part of any quorum.
(6)	A seconder shall not be required for any motion in any standing committee of this House.
(d)	for the purposes of proceedings on private bills and in order to conform with the provisional Standing Order 65, for the duration of the current session, the words "Committee on Standing Orders" in Standing Orders 98, 100(2) and (3), 102, 103(1) and 108 shall be amended to read, "Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders", and the words "Miscellaneous Private Bills" in Standing Order 105 shall be amended to read "Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders".
302	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Foster [DOT] (4:20 p.m.)



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Eymard Corbin for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to have an opportunity to speak in the throne speech debate. For this privilege I thank my constituents in the Algoma riding and for the confidence they placed in me last June 25. No new member can come to this chamber without being a little awestruck by its history and traditions.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have to congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker of this house. I have already done that, as have many other hon. gentlemen. I must, however, thank you for the personal interest you showed in me when I first arrived on Parliament Hill. I am sure all new members received the same kind welcome and personal interest.
I would like to pay tribute, as did the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to my predecessor, Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, who for the past 19 years represented the former Algoma East riding in this house. Mr. Pearson represented the riding with distinction and with a great deal of concern for and interest in the people of that constituency.
This man has an international reputation as a Nobel Peace Prizewinner, as former secretary of state for external affairs, as former president of the United Nations, and as prime minister of our country; and the latest honour bestowed upon him: to lead a commission and prepare a report for the World Bank on the future course that should be taken by the developed countries of the world in providing aid and assistance to the developing countries. However, this was not the man the people of Algoma knew as their member of parliament. He was known as a common man, a man the people could meet and talk to on the streets of Espanola, Blind River, Elliot Lake or Manitoulin island, a man who was interested in the little people of this world, who was concerned with human problems. I believe it is a measure of the man that he who had walked and worked with the kings and state leaders of the world could find himself at home with the people of Algoma East and
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).l
DEBATES	September 20, 1968
their problems of everyday life. Therefore I wish to pay tribute to the job that he did, not only as prime minister of this great country but as member of parliament for Algoma East, now the Algoma federal riding.
The new Algoma riding also takes in much of the former Algoma West riding which was so capably represented for 28 years by Mr. George Nixon. Mr. Nixon, like Mr. Pearson, was a man concerned with the everyday problems of ordinary people. I wish him well in his retirement after serving the area of Algoma West for so many years.
I congratulate all members on their election and the positions they hold in this house. We are indeed a fortunate group to have the responsibility to govern a country such as ours, only 101 years young. As well, I congratulate my friend, the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand), on his election and on the speech he made. The hon. member is well respected in my riding, where we have some 15 Indian reserves, for the work he did as executive assistant to the minister of Indian affairs. In many ways, the hon. member typifies the over 100 new members in this house, young men who are aggressive, concerned and dedicated to the well-being of their country, Canada.
Mr. Speaker, these young men who were elected on June 25 to this twenty eighth parliament of Canada come here with high hopes that were inspired by our new Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the election campaign, inspired to believe that this parliament of Canada can become a more effective agent for dealing with the problems of this great country. They believe that if the old wrangling and bitterness which has beset this house in the immediate past years can be put away, if men of good faith can come to work together for a common good, a new page may be written in the history of Canada, a page of progressive and constructive government.
I believe we are concerned because of the recent problems that seem to be developing relating to rule changes for this house. These rule changes must recognize the traditions of the past, the traditional safeguards which the British parliamentary system has always afforded its people, and yet we must change so that the mountain of work which awaits hon. members here assembled can be dealt with in a careful but reasonably rapid manner. I believe that the Canadian people demand this of us, and indeed require that a more progressive, businesslike approach be adopted in the handling of the nation's business.
September 20, 1968	COMMONS
Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a place in our rules for a more definite method of handling the nation's business so that the member of parliament can better plan the use of his time. I believe this can best be done by the use of a parliamentary calendar which would provide at least one week every two or three months when the member of parliament would be free to return to his constituency and on a personal basis look after the problems of his people.
The riding of Algoma has within its boundaries some of the greatest natural resources of Canada. This area of northern Ontario has often been described as the treasure chest of Canada because of the minerals which are found within its boundaries. These minerals include iron, gold, copper, and uranium. Indeed, the largest deposits of uranium known to man are to be found in the area of Elliot Lake. I believe it is safe to say that at some time in the future more power will be produced from uranium, and the energy locked within it, than from any other source of power in Canada.
During the past year we have seen a renewed economic health in the uranium mining industry in Elliot Lake. This is very encouraging. Only a year or 18 months ago dozens, indeed hundreds of homes were empty and boarded up in Elliot Lake. Today nearly all these homes are being used, and we are told that within a year there may actually be a housing shortage in that area. So we never really get rid of problems; rather, we exchange one problem for another. Certainly, I would gladly exchange the problems of a depressed economy, such as we had a year ago, for the problems that result from a prosperous, booming economy such as we will be seeing within the next few years.
I believe that the government of Canada and this parliament should have policies which will expand the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Surely there can be no better way for Canada than giving leadership in the uses of uranium. Our country, which is so rich in this metal, should be a world leader in the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The world would benefit and we would benefit from it.
I believe that one of the most important pieces of legislation forecast in the speech from the throne is the creation of a department of regional development. This new department will be expected to do great things for the Algoma riding, because in this riding we have many areas of slow economic growth. In particular, in the town of Blind
DEBATES	303
The Address-Mr. Foster River we have a very serious problem confronting us. The McFadden Lumber Company, a division of Domtar, which has provided a livelihood and the mainstream of income to that town for many years, will be closing down its mill. This mill, which at one time employed well over 300 men, will be closing its doors at the end of 1969.
The proposed department of regional development will, we hope, be able to encourage new companies and industries to establish in the town and assist hundreds of people who will be left without work when the mill closes. There is a need in this town to develop a new forest industry based on some type of composition board using wood other than the white pine which has previously been harvested from the forests of the Mississagi river valley.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
There is also within this area the potential for a future pulp and paper mill. However, the markets for pulp and paper in Canada are presently in a depressed state, and it does not seem feasible that a new company can be attracted to this area to produce pulp and paper at this time.
The forest industry has always been very important to the Algoma riding. Logging and pulp and paper have an important bearing on the economic well-being of the area. The town of Espanola has enjoyed prosperity over the past several years, due to a large paper mill located there. The government must implement policies which will increase the export market for paper so that the prosperity which this industry has brought to many areas in this country can continue.
There is also a need in my riding of Algoma for an expanded and improved means of transportation. You name the type of improved transportation, and we need it. Whether it be improved highways, air service, rail service or water service, transportation is one of the biggest problems in the Algoma riding.
The Algoma riding has never had any airports with a regularly scheduled air service. This situation will be remedied in the near future when Georgian Bay Airways will start a regular air service to Elliot Lake next Monday, September 23.
Over the years the passenger train service which has been serving the Algoma riding has progressively deteriorated in the type of service rendered to the people. Previously, there was a regular train service offering
September 20, 1968

The Address-Mr. Foster sleeper car accommodation and operating at reasonable hours. However, recently this service has been removed and only a Budd car service travels through the riding from Sudbury to Sault Ste. Marie, one departure being at 3 a.m. in the morning. We hear that this service is to be discontinued in the near future. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Algoma will not allow this to happen without a great deal of resistance, and I will be there to assist in that resistance.
With the decrease of train service throughout the riding, the highways have become more heavily congested due to the heavy flow of trans-Canada traffic, both cars and freight trucks. There is a need for a further development of highway 17, the trans-Canada route, with the provision of passing lanes on hills so that slow-moving trucks will not cause undue congestion, and a four lane highway in the heavily travelled areas.
It has been proposed that a new road be built from Blind River to Elliot Lake, the Granary Lake road. This road would provide a logical access road to enable people to live in Blind River and commute to work at Elliot Lake. The development of this road is a necessity for the people of Blind River who, within the next year, will be losing their chief source of income, the Domtar mill. At the same time, it will provide for the Elliot Lake market a close source of manpower. This road, I believe, should be developed jointly by the federal and provincial governments as a spur of the trans-Canada highway.
With regard to water transportation, we have a serious problem developing on Manitoulin island. This island has traditionally been served by a regular ferry service between the Bruce peninsula and Manitoulin island.
For the past five years we have also had a ferry service between Meldrum Bay and Blind River at the west end of Manitoulin island. I understand it is proposed to terminate this service at the end of this shipping season. I do not have to tell the house what a catastrophe this would be, both for Blind River and Meldrum Bay. Both of these areas depend on this ferry to help stimulate and continue the tourist industry. The tourist industry is most important to the west end of Manitoulin island, and is indeed the main industry there. I cannot emphasize too much the importance of the continuation of the federal subsidy to provide this ferry service. This subsidy of some $50,000 a year would be
[Mr. Foster. 1
eaten up in no time with the welfare payments which would become necessary without a flourishing tourist industry.
On the other side of the coin, the same situation exists. If this ferry service were discontinued, Blind River would also suffer from the serious economic situation which is developing in that town, of which I have already spoken. It goes without saying that it would be a catastrophe for both ends of this service if it were to be discontinued.
Likewise, the ferry service at the eastern end of Manitoulin island, between Bruce peninsula in southern Ontario and Manitoulin island in northern Ontario, has problems. This ferry service has operated for many years, and over the years the number of tourists wishing to travel from southern Ontario to the beauties of northern Ontario has increased. It has become a problem because the ferry service that is available is no longer adequate. Often we have people who have to wait 12 to 15 hours in order to get a ferry across Georgian bay to Manitoulin island. It goes without saying that if we are to stimulate the economy of this area, this service has to be improved very soon.
The other main industry on Manitoulin island is agriculture, and we certainly have some problems in agriculture in Canada today. I am aware of many of these problems in this field, because of my profession. As a veterinarian I have intimate contact with many of the problems of the farmers in northern Ontario, and especially in the Algoma and Manitoulin districts. I believe that new approaches and new solutions must be found to the old age problem of low income for farmers.
I realize that the trend today is toward larger, more economic units in farming. Our main concern must be the welfare of these large units for the production of food. However, I believe that the government must have a small farms policy which will allow small operators who are in their declining years of farming, due to their age, to continue on the farm and still maintain a reasonable income on which to live.
I cannot emphasize enough the serious situation which has developed in northern Ontario in farming. The number of farmers is literally dropping off day by day and week by week. More and more are finding that they can no longer maintain a decent livelihood on the land and are turning to other fields of endeavour. This is especially true in the beef
September 20, 1968
producing areas of the Manitoulin and Al-goma districts.
The large dairy farm seems to be able to survive in the north but is also having a very difficult time in trying to make ends meet. I think it is up to this government and this parliament to adopt policies which will improve the lot of the farmer. In this day of affluence in our country, it is a national disgrace that we are unable to provide a better return for the farmer who has a tremendous capital investment, often up to $100,000, and still has a net return equal only to the wages of a clerk in the city.
The manpower department is planning to establish a school of agriculture for the winter months. I applaud this approach to upgrading and training. There is no profession or job in Canada that does not require retraining and upgrading in this day and age, and I believe this applies to farming as well as to any other business.
I would be remiss, in speaking in this throne speech debate, if I neglected to mention the thousands of people, native people of Canada, who live in the 15 Indian reserves in my constituency. These people have shown in the past few years that they can make progress on their reserves which is second to none in Canada. Recently, the former prime minister, Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, attended and officially opened a new development in the West Bay Indian reserve on Manitoulin island. This development, known as the Lakeview development, involved the expenditure of over half a million dollars by the federal government. It consisted of an elementary school, six senior citizen housing units, housing units for the teaching staff, and 28 serviced lots for a future subdivision development. This school was contracted by the Indians themselves and the work was done by the Indian people. Throughout the Algoma riding the Indian people have been constructing homes on their reserves, and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development provided a basic grant for each unit. However, in spite of these achievements we are not complacent or satisfied with the development which has taken place and we are not content to rest on our laurels. There is a need for improvement on the reserves in Algoma in the areas of housing, education, job retraining and upgrading. We also need diversification for our primary industries and the introduction of small industries into the area. I hope the Department of Indian AfEairs and Northern Development and the new department of regional development, working
The Address-Mr. Rynard in conjunction with all levels of government, will be able to create new job opportunities throughout the riding.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I would not want to sit down, Mr. Speaker, without saying a word of congratulation to our new Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). People in northern Ontario often refer to it as "new Ontario". It was for this reason northern Ontario quickly responded to the Prime Minister during the recent federal election campaign. The people in northern Ontario, or new Ontario as it is often called, are quick to adapt to new solutions, good solutions-they must be good-to old problems, and the Prime Minister offered these new solutions during the election campaign. He did not speak in the tired old cliches so familiar to politicians but exhibited a new attitude, a new approach to the problems of Canada. It is obvious this approach was well accepted in northern Ontario because 11 out of the 12 seats in that area returned the new Prime Minister's party to represent them in this house. This new Prime Minister offered a new era for Canada and the people of northern Ontario decided to share in this new life he offered.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I note that our Speaker of last year, who was appointed as Speaker this year, is not in the chair. However, I should like to say that anyone who has been Speaker, who performed his duties so well in the last parliament that he was again chosen by his peers to fill this high office, must be held in the highest regard by the members of this house. He simply has to have this regard because he is elected by his peers. I should like to say a word, too, to the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner), who was appointed Deputy Speaker. We hope he will have the wisdom of the ages in his youth.
To the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I should like to express my sincere congratulations upon accomplishing an overall majority with so little. To the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I should like to say that their speeches were well worth the time spent in listening to them. I think the speech from the throne exhibited little to support the rabble rousing Trudeaumania of the election days. The Prime Minister indicated that it would take some time to work out the just society, and that the economics of the nation

September 20, 1968

The Address-Mr. Rynard will have to be put in order first. The government will have to straighten out its finances. This is an admission of the seriousness of the economic problems that have been pointed out over and over again.
If any proof of this fact were needed, all we would have to do would be to look at the savings bonds which will be put on the market shortly, carrying an interest rate of almost 7 per cent over the next 15 years. I am wondering if this is not a good time for this just society to take a look at the possibility of redeeming some of these perpetual bonds that were purchased in 1936-37 paying 3 per cent and upon the payment of which the Liberal government welched in 1965. These bonds are now worth 50 cents on the dollar. Even if the just society were to repay the bondholders 100 cents on the dollar, the resulting funds would purchase only about a quarter of what they would have purchased at the time the bonds were bought. I expect the Prime Minister to correct this injustice immediately. It is a blotch on our escutcheon. Those of us who were living and working then know how tough this problem was. If we fail to redeem those bonds, we are going to leave the parliament of Canada in a very unfavourable light in its handling of bonds.
I should like to deal now with a few problems that the just society might straighten out and which have shown up since the election. Several questions have been asked by members both on this side and on the government side of the house concerning the rural mail carriers. It is interesting to note that some of these rural mail carriers went about their duties during the period of the strike, and were paid. I put a question on the order paper inquiring as to how many were denied the opportunity to work, and how many were allowed to work and collect the money called for by their contract.
The question is, Mr. Speaker, why this discrimination? Some of these mail carriers were paid and some of them were not. Why were some of these rural mail carriers refused entrance to post offices during the strike, even though they were there and prepared to carry out their duties? In my opinion, this was rank discrimination. I do not believe there is anyone in this house who considers it just to deny some mail carriers the right to carry on their work while others are permitted to do so. I should like to know the answer to this question.
Some of these rural mail carriers commit themselves to monthly payments, probably

for the vehicle they use to carry this mail. They are dependent upon that monthly cheque. I believe the situation created by the strike is covered by their contract, because clause (b) states:
In the event of any conditions arising during the life of this contract which could not reasonably have been foreseen when the contract was made and which substantially alter the service and for which a pro rata adjustment based on distance or frequency is not equitable, the amount of adjustment in rate shall bear a fair relation to the amount payable under the contract and shall be fixed and finally declared by the Postmaster General.
All of us who were members in the last parliament recall that the postal workers did not have the right to strike until the legislation was passed during the last session. It is my contention, therefore, and I have received some legal opinion on this, that those rural mail carriers whose contracts were signed before that date have a right to collect. Certainly one would think that in a just society when a man is prepared to carry out his work, it would be only proper that he not be denied the payments called for by his contract.
While I am dealing with the Post Office Department, I should like to take a look at the policy of closing out small, rural post offices. The department makes no distinction whatever between summer post offices and post offices that should be operating in small hamlets the year round. I shall cite a specific case. Let us take the case of a post office which is established for the summer season in a grocery store. This service is usually provided for the cottagers, and terminates when they close their cottages. As a rule they open up their cottages the last week in June and close them on September 1. I have no quarrel with the closing of post offices in such areas as that, but I do quarrel with the closing of post offices in areas where several hotels and motels are open for business, areas such as Port Stanton. Many of the people who visit that area are tourists from the United States and the bookings are done by mail. These people are making the bookings almost a year in advance and are disturbed to find that the address on the letterhead is incorrect as a result of post office closing. In this particular case-and I am only citing one out of dozens-the post office is not Port Stanton anymore, but Severn Bridge. People living many miles away are thus confused.
September 20, 1968
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this particular area to which I refer is one where people live all year round. Operators of hotels and motels do not close up on September 1 or shortly thereafter but continue to remain open on a 12-month basis. They have people working for them the year round. Week end tourists are guests and they receive visitors during the skidoo season. Buildings are being repaired or constructed and rooms refurnished.
To cut these type of people off, Mr. Speaker, is sheer folly. We spend millions of dollars on advertising for tourists to come to this country, and then we destroy the very magnet that draws them. This is not common sense. I am sorry that the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) is not present to listen to me, because this is exactly what he is doing by these post office closures. The minister is drawing no line of distinction. Surely there is a very clear-cut line of distinction between these hotel and motel operators to which I have referred, and summer cottagers. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to take another look at this problem, because if he continues to lose tourist dollars in this way he will likely hear more about the matter from other sources.
In addition to this, Mr. Speaker, there is the question of notice. How much notice were these people given? As I understand it, they received ten days. They had to prepare bookings for the following year, forward literature with their address printed on it, and so on. Port Stanton post office has been in existence for 100 years. If this not folly of the worst sort, I do not know what is. I trust the minister, who I think and hope is a very sensible man, will get busy right away and correct this situation. Do not let us rob Peter to pay Paul, which is what happens when post offices such as this are closed. When post offices remain open all year round, money is coming in. One hotel operator told me that on average he receives 5,000 letters a month, and there are six or seven hotels or motels in that area.
I also want to draw attention, Mr. Speaker, to this just society. As I listened to the speech from the throne it became apparent that it would take time to find the problems that exist. However, Mr. Speaker, let me assure you that they do exist right now. A tremendous amount of work has to be done by the just society. For example, take the case of the old age pensioner. There are approximately
The Address-Mr. Rynard one and a half million people in Canada 65 years of age or over. Most of them worked during the thirties for one quarter of what they could earn today; that is, if they were lucky enough to have found a job in those days.
The little they have saved has been eroded by inflation to the extent that it now buys less than half of what it bought originally. Succeeding governments have been eroding the value of the dollar, which has caused inflation. Priorities are not required to discover that; all we need do is look around us. Last year the dollar was eroded by almost 5 per cent. What we did was to give the pensioners a 2 per cent increase and take 5 per cent away from them. What a way to treat the senior citizens of this country! There is a commandment that says that you should "honour thy father and thy mother". Are we doing this when old age pensions are so scandalously low and housing is wholly inadequate?
I am sure that everyone in the house agrees that our employment policies are geared to youth. Ask a man 50 years of age, and unemployed, whether he can get a job. In addition, the leisure needs of the elderly people of this country are completely ignored. According to statistics, about 60 per cent of these people have little or no money and they qualify for the supplement. Many of the remaining 40 per cent have great difficulty making ends meet. When we talk of priorities, Mr. Speaker, this particular priority is there for everyone to see.
Another matter that bothers me, and I am sure many other members of the House of Commons who stop to think about it, is this: After we passed the legislation which gave the pensioners $75 a month, we waited a while before inserting an escalation clause increasing the amount, if necessary, by 2 per cent. In the meantime the cost of living increased almost 5 per cent. This is really treating people who cannot help themselves in a Scroogian way.
A just society, Mr. Speaker, would have tied the increase in remuneration to the cost of living. A just society would have given these pensioners $100 a month. Our party supported such a move, and it would have meant there would be no peeping Toms annoying and worrying our senior citizens in this land, as is the case now. Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we in this house will be the senior citizens, if we live that long.

September 20, 1968

The Address-Mr. Rynard
The other day, Mr. Speaker, I saw a paper that listed a series of questions which had been sent to and answered by an old age pensioner. The form was inquiring into his financial status. This particular couple had no money of their own and were living in an old home ten miles out in the country. They could stay there no longer because they were unable to drive or to afford a car, and consequently had to come into town. They sold the farm on which was situated a little farm house for which the buyer was paying so much a month. When they moved into town they had to pay a little more for a two-room apartment than they received as rental for the farmhouse. Having filled out the form they were then asked to pay for OMSIP, for hospital insurance. Thus their guaranteed income supplement went out the window.
Now, Mr. Speaker, is this proper treatment to give these people? The Pharisees in the new Testament used to do this. They said they followed the letter of the law; but let us not follow their example in this parliament.
I am also disturbed about the bureaucracy that is besetting provincial and municipal governments. We are being mentally and physically cruel to people we are supposed to honour and love. We have built up such a jungle of bureaucracy in our welfare work that we are on the point of helplessness.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
For example, a man who had been eight years in a mental institution came to me not long ago. I am speaking from memory, but I think he had undergone several operations, two of them to his feet. He had a heart condition. After eight years of custodial care, when he was 50 years old he was turned out into the world to earn his living. What happened was inevitable. He couldn't cope. He came to my attention and on his behalf I contacted welfare workers who, under their regional set-up had to drive 25 miles in order to see him. One worker came out but could not find the man in question, for whom some grocery money and room rent was left. Groceries were not the crux of the problem, because on the day following the ex-mental patient was without a room to sleep in. He could not cope with his new world.
We telephoned the regional welfare worker, told him the story, and he came out to look the situation over. He said, "Why, this man will have to go into a county home." After that papers were sent, and we filled them in. The papers were sent down to the committee

where they were processed and he was not accepted. We became involved with bureaucracy and more bureaucracy. Finally the papers were returned with the notation, "Unsuitable for this type of man", or some similar notation. The man is still on the street; he still has the same problems and nobody will look after him. He ran afoul of bureaucracy.
We are in a jungle of red tape where nothing happens and where taxes are increased to pay for that red tape. Bureaucrats run backwards and forwards piling up expenses for which we have to pay. I never thought that I should advocate a negative income tax to pull us out of the hole we are in, but I am approaching the point where I would advocate such a tax.
I expect many hon. members have heard of cases where people on welfare are better off than those who work for their pay cheques. That situation should not be permitted to exist. This situation applies not only in Canada but in the United States also. For instance, I have heard of cases where people in New York state living on welfare are better off than people in other parts of that country who are working for their living. It seems that we are all becoming helplessly entangled in bureaucratic red tape. The answer to the problem is that we must stop spending our money foolishly on increased bureaucracy. We must stop putting up unnecessary buildings or equipping necessary buildings with unnecessarily costly equipment. I have seen many hospitals, the equipment of which has become obsolete within ten years. The buildings needed altering, yet they were built to last from 25 to 50 years. Sometimes after the buildings had stood for 20 years it was necessary to tear them down. I have seen such complexes being destroyed. Canada cannot afford that type of foolishness when our people are short of housing. Lots of work is waiting to be done in the just society, Mr. Speaker.
On July 1 the government brought in medicare, and I have often wondered how the plan will operate when one considers the scarcity of doctors. Saskatchewan is participating, as is British Columbia. I understand that Nova Scotia is to come in soon.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Next year.


Philip Bernard Rynard: And the government is going to blackmail every province into entering the plan, whether the province has the money for it or not.
September 20, 1968	COMMONS


An hon. Member:: You are against
medicare.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I am not against medicare; I am all for it, but it must be on a sensible basis, where we have the doctors to do it.
What sort of medical care will our people obtain when one considers that in the emergency departments of many hospitals one has to wait several hours before being treated. That is the sort of thing I object to. We cannot have adequate medical services if the country has not enough doctors. At the present time in Canada there are approximately
2,000	people for every general practioner. Our doctors, apart from their duties in treating patients, are harried by forms they have to fill in, by bureaucracy and by all sorts of red tape.
I ask, what has the government done since 1963 to increase our supply of qualified doctors. Mr. T. C. Douglas, who is not here at the present time, supported me in a speech I made on this particular point. I urged the government to allow the medical schools to operate all year round and thus increase our supply of doctors. I believe six medical schools agreed to do so, provided the government came up with the necessary funds to help toward the professors' pay. This assistance was refused and today, when medicare is in operation, we have insufficient doctors for our needs. Consequently our medical services will be inadequate.
It is time that we took a serious look at the situation. The government ought to make available through the health resources fund money which will help to train additional doctors. I am sure that the majority of medical schools in Canada would be willing to operate all year round if given the chance and the money. They did so during the war, when doctors were turned out in four years. Dr. John Evan, the young and distinguished dean of the McMaster medical school in Hamilton said, "We could do it in three years if we have active support and the necessary funds."
The government turns a deaf ear to such pleas, at the same time shoving down our people's throats a form of medicare that will not work. I am greatly concerned about the quality of medical care that our people will obtain from doctors who are hopelessly harried and overworked by the demands of bureaucracy. I saw the work of medical practitioners deteriorating in England. There were so many forms to be filled in that patients
DEBATES	309
The Address-Mr. Broadbent after a very cursory inquiry were told that they had to come back next week and the week after that. In the end, when the doctor has little time to see the patient and only has time to guess at what is wrong with him, he says, "I have made a reservation for you to enter the hospital where the doctors will find out what is wrong with you."
When this happens your hospital operating expenses go up. All your health costs soar, simply because doctors have insufficient time to spend with each patient. We have one doctor for every 2,000 patients, and in that regard Russia is away ahead of us, with one doctor to about 500 people. Even the United States is better off than we are. Yet we are crowding medicare through in one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world. I say this in all sincerity; I do not say it offensively: While I have been critical, I hope some of the things I have said this afternoon will be noted by the government and by this house, and that action will be taken to see that the people of this country get proper medical care, and to see that the picture of the just society which has been built up across Canada gets going. This is not just a matter of priorities; it is so obvious it is staring them in the face.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise and make my first speech in the House of Commons. I must say I am particularly pleased to see such a crowded house at 5.15 p.m. on a Friday afternoon. Who would have thought that so many thousands would have turned out?
Before I get to the main body of my speech I should like to say a few words about my predecessor. Michael Starr represented what is still the core of my new riding, Oshawa-Whitby, formerly the Ontario riding, from 1952 until this year's general election. There can be no doubt that in terms of his services to the personal needs of his constituents Mr. Starr performed an outstanding job as a member of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Edward Broadbent: This is widely recognized by his constituents, whether they were his political supporters or not, and it is widely recognized, I am finding, among all parties in the House of Commons. I am also learning that among members of this house in all parties he is regarded as a man of great integrity
310	COMMONS DEBATES	September 20, 1968
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
possessing all the qualities of a genuine gentleman. I should like to add that I am not saying any of these things because it is, supposedly, the conventional thing to do; it is something I genuinely believe, because I heard it expressed on countless occasions since I arrived in Ottawa and, prior to that, in my riding. I have rarely agreed with the policies of the party which Mr. Starr represented for many years, but I unhesitatingly salute Mr. Starr the man.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Edward Broadbent: Now, in my short but, I hope, not completely irrelevant speech I wish to address myself to the two issues raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In his speech on Monday of this week the right hon. gentleman suggested that in our discussions during the present debate we should concern ourselves with questions which relate to "the kind of country in which we want to be living and the directions in which we should be moving to build such a country."
Earlier this year the Prime Minister suggested, if I understood him correctly, that in Canada we had gone about as far as we could in our efforts to construct a welfare state. Once we have medicare established on a national basis, he implied, the structure would be almost complete.
As a member of the opposition, and more particularly perhaps, as a New Democrat, I am in the unfortunate position of having to agree with the Prime Minister on both issues. In short, it seems to me that the debate on the speech from the throne is an occasion when the social philosophical objectives of Canada should be discussed; and, second, it is true that we now have in Canada the basic structural components of a modem welfare state.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my contribution by saying something about the second issue. The 100 years since confederation can be divided roughly into two socioeconomic periods. Up to the 1930's Canadians were concerned with laying the foundations of a viable capitalist democracy in which our two principal cultural groups could at least co-exist peacefully within the framework of a liberal constitution. The central components of a liberal democratic society were firmly established throughout the land: universal franchise; freedoms of speech, religion, press and assembly; competing political parties, and a national banking system.
[Mr. Broadbent.)
Since the 1930's we have experienced important modifications of the classical liberal structure. The more important of these include: (1) the right of trade unions to exist and to strike; (2) the gradual implementation of old age pensions; (3) some form of progressive taxation; (4) comprehensive medical and health programs and (5) an unemployment insurance scheme.
No sensible Canadian would deny that these measures have made a very significant change in the kind of life the majority of our people can now experience. They have provided the quantitative basis for a qualitatively enriched life for millions of adults and children. These five changes have provided the structural core of our modern welfare state.
I emphasize the point that we have the core. It would, however, be both false and irresponsible for me to suggest that we have the whole apple. Previous speakers in this debate have ably indicated serious deficiencies which still remain and about which the government gives almost no indication of seriously concerning itself. The most glaring of these are: (1) the abysmal lack of adequate housing, (2) severe economic inequality between both individuals and regions, (3) the absence of a guaranteed annual income, and (4) an outmoded and inequitable system of taxation-a shock to the western world, I might add.
Mr. Speaker, these four areas of concern should not in any way be dismissed as being of minor significance. They are the major evils of the day. They can be and should be remedied. Previous speakers from the New Democratic party have indicated their existence and have suggested solutions in this house. Earlier in the year our leader-soon to be returned to this house-and candidates across the land discussed them directly with the Canadian people. There is little need for me, at least in this debate, to add to what has already been said.
Instead, what I wish to stress is that every one of these evils can be substantially dealt with within the existing socio-economic structure. We do have the core of the welfare state. We need only the will to complete it. Houses can be built, taxation can be improved, a guaranteed income can be introduced, and regional disparities can be significantly modified. All this can be done without making any further significant changes in the distribution of power within Canadian society.
September 20, 1968

[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
It is in this sense that the Prime Minister is almost right when he suggests that in terms of welfare we have gone about as far as we can go. It is also his implied suggestion, that it is as far as we should go, that makes me believe that the Prime Minister is a profoundly conservative man. His vision extends to the welfare state, but not one step beyond. His vision of the just society is what we almost have. To defend what we have and to refuse to go beyond is to cease to lead. And to cease to lead beyond the welfare state is to leave Canadians with a kind of society which is inherently inegalitarian, inherently acquisitive, and inherently unjust.
Having indicated substantial agreement with the Prime Minister on the nature of the welfare state I want now to proceed to suggest why we New Democrats-unlike the Prime Minister and the Liberal party-cannot accept it as being an adequate kind of society. Perhaps the major objection to the welfare state is that for all its advantages it rests on a grossly inadequate understanding of democracy. In Canada today children are taught in schools throughout the land that our country is democratic primarily because there is more than one political party and because citizens have both the right to criticize and the right to change their rulers every few years. This view of democracy, Mr. Speaker, is a distinctly modern phenomenon and is in marked contrast with the understanding of democracy of both the early Greeks and 19th century Europeans. Prior to our century democracy was seen by its defenders and critics alike as a kind of society in which all adults played an active, participatory role not only in the formal institutions of government but also in all the institutions which crucially affected their daily lives. Similarly a democratic society had been seen previously as one in which all its members had an equal opportunity to develop their capacities and talents; it was not seen as one in which citizens had an equal opportunity to earn more money or advance up the class ladder.
It is this old view of democracy that we must once again take up. We must use its standards and apply them to Canadian society. We must once again talk about equality. We must see justice and equality as going together. Of course, Mr. Speaker, if we do this we know we will find our society grossly inadequate and significantly unjust. Every sociological study done in European and
The Address-Mr. Broadbent North American welfare states in recent years has revealed their inherently inegalitarian nature. One of the most important of these, Professor John Porter's "The Vertical Mosaic" documents in chapter after chapter the inequalities of Canada's social system. The recent report of the Economic Council of Canada provides additional concrete information on the existence of economic inequality.
It might well be granted that this is the case. But what, asks the defender of the status quo, can be done about it? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is a lot. We must begin by insisting that in a democratic society-in, if you would a just society-all adults should have equal rights in all those institutions which directly affect them. Where authority is delegated, then those to whom it is delegated must be responsible to those over whom they exercise their authority.
In concrete examples, Mr. Speaker, this means that in our factories, in our offices, and in our large commercial and financial institutions, legal power must shift from the few on the top to the many below. We can of course have no illusions about completely dispensing with authority. In a complex industrial society, this is impossible. But we can democratize authority in our non-political institutions just as we have in the political. Management can and must be made responsible to the workers, just as we are responsible to our constituents.
More than this, however, is required. Not only must legal control pass from the few to the many, but also the many must be given the right to make more of the decisions themselves. Responsible university students around the world in recent months have initiated this process on their campuses.
I urge the Canadian government to promote this development, to lead the way, not only because such democratic institutions would be more just, but also because they would be infinitely more conducive to the development of responsible and creative men and women. Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill realized this one hundred years ago. Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm and many others have stressed the same truth in our own day. We as the political leaders of the country have a duty to initiate this battle for a truly democratic society. We have a duty, Mr. Speaker, not simply to praise our past and celebrate our present, but also to create the future. We must reject the sterile view of both the government and the official opposition. Both the Liberal and Conservative parties are bound not by bad intentions but by an outmoded and unjust
312	COMMONS DEBATES	September 20, 1968
The Address-Mr. Francis ideology. They have their heads as well as their feet firmly imbedded in the ideas and practices of the past.
No amount of parliamentary reform, social razmataz, or fiscal responsibility can lead to a just society. At the very most they can remove little pockets of inefficiency. The basic unjust and unequal structure will remain. What Canadians require is a leadership deeply dedicated to the, democratization of the whole of society and thoroughly committed to changing by means of law the existing power relations needed to bring this about. In recent decades we have built a welfare state. It is now time to go beyond it.
Mr. Speaker, in these brief remarks I have attempted to follow the Prime Minister's suggestion and discuss in a general way what I think the future of Canada should be. In so doing, I have also tried to indicate the inadequacies of the present. In addition, a serious approach to politics also requires proposals for specific legislation intended to bring about the desired future. In the past the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and the New Democratic party have accepted this important responsibility, and have led the way in providing ideas for the welfare state. In the days and months ahead we shall continue to provide programs intended to take us beyond the welfare state.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, according to the custom in the house I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), the mover of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) who seconded the address. Those two new members have already attracted attention in this house, because they spoke quite well and have shown their ability.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)

I understand there are some 100 new members in this House of Commons. To these I want to say a few particular words about the city in which they will be residing for a good part of the year, that is the city of Ottawa.
I can well remember in 1963, when I was first elected, the then member for Renfrew South in a brilliant and witty display of oratorical talent talked about the way he

could feel the cold waters of the Ottawa river lapping at his back from the point at which he observed the proceedings of this house. He has since moved down to the front benches and perhaps he swims in warmer waters from time to time.
I would like to call to the attention of hon. members of this house those waters of the Ottawa river which raise an important question of policy, and which must concern us. In these beautiful days of early fall I hope that members will walk around the back of parliament hill and look down on the Ottawa river from the cliffs. I am sure every one of you will feel, as I do, the tremendous pride we as Canadians enjoy in this truly magnificient river. When I saw the rivers of other parts of the world that I have read about in history books, the Thames of London, the Tiber of Rome and, yes, even the Seine of Paris, none of these could equal the majestic river which is part of our heritage.
When Champlain came here 350 years ago he must have seen a truly inspiring sight. He must have looked at the junction of the Gatineau and Rideau rivers, naming the falls by the French word meaning curtain, and naming also the Chaudiere falls. He certainly could never have anticipated the degree of pollution of this stream that we have permitted right under our noses.
Look across to the pulp mill on the other side of the river and there you will see a symbol of the industry itself and its contribution to Canada. The pulp mill means investment, a high standard of living and many things to many Canadians. The industry is advantageous in many ways; but day after day you can observe in the Ottawa river that milky, contaminated layer of discharge of pollutants. Correction of this will be costly, but failure to correct it will probably be very much more costly in its ultimate consequences. Remember as well that the extent of sewage treatment on the far side of the river is almost negligible and the city of Ottawa itself provides only primary, coarse screening of its effluent from a metropolitan population of over 400,000.
I have placed a measure on the order paper that I hope will come up for debate before this house, which will create a national capital pollution control board, and I hope hon. members will join with me in calling this national disgrace to the attention of the people of Canada.
September 20, 1968	COMMONS
I hope also that hon. members will stroll down the beautiful Sparks street mall and then turn right down Elgin street. As you approach confederation square you will see before you the national centre for the performing arts which will cost, I understand, more than $45 million. From confederation square the outline of the centre has some interesting features and it is abundantly clear that the view from the side of the Rideau canal will be truly beautiful. But walk down to the Lord Elgin hotel on Elgin street and then turn back and look at it.
To the visitors on Elgin, Laurier, Albert and the mall it appears as a huge, dirty, brown wall of ugly, unrelieved cement which presents a fagade that, for sheer ugliness, is almost impossible to surpass. I was one of those who looked forward with anticipation to the performing arts centre and believed, as I still believe, that it will make a tremendous contribution not only to the cultural life of Ottawa but to all Canadians.
Certainly the early models which were displayed on the Sparks street mall gave no sense of the ugliness that would be extruded from the western side of the building. Something will have to be done about this wall. In Mexico they would, no doubt, engage artists to create brilliant, ceramic tile concepts which would be striking and beautiful.
If we must have something more Canadian,
I suggest we invite some of the Eskimos from Cape Dorset to come down and see what they could do to relieve a large panel of it. Possibly some of our Canadian Indians could develop some themes based on their culture, which would be distinctly Canadian. Failing this, if Treasury Board feels that they cannot afford such extra costs, and I can well sympathize with their sensitivity about the cost of this project, I suggest that they mark it out in little panels and issue spray paint cans to the citizens of Ottawa. Certainly the artarama project suggested that it was possible to do some interesting things to improve dull space of this nature. No matter what the results were, there would be a substantial improvement.
I did not mention the centre for the performing arts in an effort to be picayune or to be purely negative in criticizing the National Capital Commission, which has been responsible for advising the government on these matters and has done some tremendous things for Ottawa. It has created some parks and is building a parkways system of which we are all justly proud. But the National Capital
DEBATES	313
The Address-Mr. Francis Commission itself is in a process of transition and so, for that matter, is the future form of government for the nation's capital.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), speaking in this debate, indicated the scope of reforms which are going to be undertaken and the pragmatic way in which the government will approach these reforms. He indicated that conferences were planned at a technical level relating to the future of the Canadian constitution, and he hoped to have discussions in October or November of this year with provincial premiers.
On the subject of the national capital, there has been much speculation and a number of suggestions have been made that, in my opinion, will not stand close examination. Very few people indeed believe that the present form of municipal organization in the national capital region can survive without substantial changes in order to serve national purposes. I know that the Minister of regional development, who is responsible for the national capital is carefully studying the problem and all its ramifications.
There are those who believe we should simply create a federal district and make it a bilingual and bicultural show-piece for the rest of Canada. Indeed, the resolutions that have been passed at the conventions of all the major parties represented in this house at times came close to a simple declaration of this nature. In my opinion it might have been possible to create a federal district in Queen Victoria's day, but many things have happened since that time.
The first and foremost difficulty in creating a federal district, of course, is the matter of property and civil law within the federal district. Which law would be adopted, the common law of Ontario or the code law of Quebec? Would an attempt be made to create a district in which the two systems of law would co-exist side by side with equal rights? My legal friends tell me there are very great practical difficulties no matter what solution is chosen in this respect, although anything is possible if we are willing to put up with the annoyances involved and the possible substantial changes in property values and property rights which would ensue.
The second and equally grave difficulty, in my opinion, would relate to education. Would the new federal district adopt the educational system of the province of Ontario, or would it adopt the educational system of the province of Quebec? Perhaps it would feel obliged to create still another educational jurisdiction in
September 20, 1968

The Address-Mr. Francis this confused land of ours-a jurisdiction in addition to that of the ten provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Speak to the families of bank managers, of servicemen, of employees of corporations whose livelihoods require them to be transferred from one part of Canada to another, and you will receive in an overwhelming majority of cases an eloquent plea for a reduction in the number of educational jurisdictions, not a proliferation of them. In any case, the proposed new federal district would have to break entirely new ground in the field of education. This might be desirable but it does raise grave difficulties.
Lastly, the creation of a federal district raises a fundamental problem of provincial sovereignty. It is expecting a great deal to ask the province of Quebec to yield sovereignty over a large region which is included, by the statute of the federal authority, within an area known as the national capital region.
Has there been any indication that the province of Ontario is any more willing to concede its sovereignty over an even larger area, with more people? Elected representatives who sit in the houses at Toronto and Quebec city can hardly be expected to view with equanimity legislation which would eliminate their constituencies.
In my view the solution will have to be resolved along different lines. Frankly, I prefer the twin city national capital concept. I believe that the future capital of Canada will consist of two regional municipalities. One will substantially follow the borders of the recently created regional municipality of Ot-tawa-Carleton in the province of Ontario. The second, in my opinion, will include a similarly constituted regional municipality within the province of Quebec on the other side of the Ottawa river.
If we do follow this development of a twin city national capital, and this is the most workable and possible solution that I can envisage, there will then be the difficulty of relating the national capital commission, as the federal arm, to the regional municipalities in Ontario and Quebec. The measures which I am proposing and have placed on the order paper are designed to assist in tying together these components into what will be a functional national capital.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I have already mentioned the national capital region pollution control board to deal with both air and water pollution. I believe it will

also be necessary to create a national capital commission transit authority charged with the responsibility of integrating the bus lines and an underground rail rapid transit system with north-south and east-west routes.
Frankly, I would place the rail rapid transit system as a high priority in this national capital. Indeed, a bridge for rail rapid transit, in my opinion, should have a higher priority than any future automobile bridges across the Ottawa river. This will require negotiations between the federal authority and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Only joint action involving the three government authorities can solve the confused tangle of jurisdictions, intermittent services and costly rivalries that now plague public transit in the national capital region.
I believe, also, that there should be created some form of advisory national capital region planning authority. This is difficult, because of the primary constitutional role of the provincial authorities in property and civil rights. But somewhere, at some time, representatives of the area municipalities, of the provincial authorities and the federal government, represented by the national capital commission, must sit down at the same table and agree on long term plans of the land use, traffic patterns, future building sites and the like. Lastly, I believe that an official languages board, following the general recommendations of the bilingualism and bicultur-alism commission, should be created for the national capital region.
Mr. Speaker, I would not like to close without some reference to the special task force on housing which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) has so ably undertaken at this time. I have had discussions with the minister and am very much impressed with the drive and integrity he is employing to resolve our national housing crisis. If one man in Canada is equipped for the task, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is so equipped.
In the national capital region the federal government has destroyed more housing than in any other part of Canada. This has been a by-product of the elimination of some bad eyesores in LeBreton Flats, Sussex Drive, and many other places. The sites that have been taken for national purposes are part of the creation of the national capital for all Canadians.
In Ottawa there is a frightful housing shortage, as the new members coming to this city will have discovered. I do not believe
September 20, 1968

there are any apartment dwellers in my constituency who have faced increases of less than $20 per month in the last year. The remedy for a shortage in housing is not controls over rents, as some have urged, but creation of more housing. I hope the Minister of Transport, who has spoken so eloquently and well of the need for new Canadian cities and satellites, will choose Ottawa as the initial point for a demonstration project of what a future new satellite city should be.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is the question of the future form of the city itself. The national capital commission regards itself as the planning arm of the federal government and attempts to exercise an over-all responsibility for such things as height control, general zoning problems, the aesthetic appeal of new buildings and the like.
There has arisen a major conflict between the municipal authority of the city of Ottawa and the national capital commission on building heights. Yesterday, for example, the national capital commission called a Professor Wilbur R. Thompson from Wayne State University at Detroit to present testimony before the Ontario municipal board regarding Ottawa's skyline.
Some of Prof. Thompson's remarks, as reproduced in the Ottawa papers yesterday, gave me the greatest concern, and I question what purpose is served by the national capital commission bringing a two-day wonder of this nature to testify on such controversial matters in such unqualified fashion. For example, Prof. Thompson is quoted as follows:
Planning concepts in Ottawa should focus around aesthetics and economic factors were in no way significant and possibly even trivial.
That is a good quote. He is further quoted as saying that Ottawa does not need large buildings. The Ottawa Citizen quotes him in this way:
It was quite all right and even desirable for Toronto and Vancouver to have 20th century skylines, but it was quite another matter for Ottawa to have the same.
Mr. Speaker, the national capital commission is not responsible for providing the health, welfare, recreation, traffic engineering, street maintenance and other services that the city of Ottawa provides. It does not have to levy a mill rate on the citizens and answer for gaps in service. The citizens of
The Address-Mr. Francis Ottawa do not call the national capital commission if their garbage collection is unsatisfactory, but they do call their aldermen, controllers and mayor, and the city council must have the resources to do the things that the citizens require. It is a cavalier thing for a spokesman of the national capital commission to say that economic factors are not important, but members of this house know that very few of us in this life are privileged to set our rules of conduct in such narrow limits.
Mr. Speaker, I invite hon. members of this house, especially the new members, to drive along the magnificent western parkway which has just been created by the national capital commission. Drive west along the parkway from its junction on Wellington street to its termination on Carling avenue, and then turn around and come back. It is a beautiful drive. As you approach Wellington street from the west, you will pass beside Nepean bay which has been substantially beautified by the national capital commission's efforts. Look ahead and you will see Ottawa's skyline. I hope you make the trip some time just at sunset, when the lights begin to glow, and see the skyline Ottawa has created.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will
the hon. member join with me in the hope that this view will not be obstructed by the national defence tower, which is planned for this area?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I have discovered in this world that some people start with the answers and if the facts obscure the answers with which they start, so much the worse for the facts. I have always been of the opinion that one should study and observe. My view of the skyline is not that everything must be thus and so, and everything else that is built must detract from it.
I invite the hon. member to look at that skyline from the western bridge. If he does, I think he will agree with me that it is a magnificent skyline in spite of the new buildings, hotels and all the other things that have come to this city. This is good for the city of Ottawa. There is a view held by a number of people engaged in the national capital commission which runs something like this, that
September 20, 1968

The Address-Mr. Francis on Parliament Hill we have a Gothic jewel in this house, the east and west blocks, and that this view must be preserved for all time. It is believed by these people that we must create a cocoon around Parliament Hill and must desist from building other structures which might detract from this main jewel.
We have heard a professor from the United States saying that Ottawa does not need large buildings and should grow horizontally, not vertically. However, he does not have to answer for the tax base, and so on, in this city. He is putting forward purely aesthetic principles. If one is talking about the rear of the national centre for the performing arts, that is one thing; but I believe Ottawa must have a skyline. I believe there is no purpose in having federally appointed members of a public body if they do not have to answer for these things.
I read in the newspaper that an architect yesterday said that the extension of Place de Ville was not acceptable to the federal government. If Place de Ville is not acceptable to the federal government, there is a very simple remedy; the Department of Public Works could simply refuse to lease space in this building and it will not be built. On the one hand we have the federal government stating that they wish to have office space within the city in order to provide those services which the federal government must provide, and on the other we have the group concerned with aesthetics, who say that such construction is neither necessary nor desirable.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It is quite understandable in my opinion that when members of the council of the city of Ottawa and other municipalities read such testimony given by the N.C.C. and see the actions of those responsible for leases in other government departments, they think that one government department is contradicting another, and they may feel that the time has
come for a major reconstruction of the N.C.C. itself.
In this brief outline I have tried to suggest to members of the house the kind of problems about which we are going to have to think in the development of our national capital. Hon. members have already had an opportunity to observe such problems in dealing with air and water pollution as the conflict of jurisdiction, the lack of adequate definition of municipal authorities on the Ottawa and the Hull side of the river, and the lack of proper liaison between these authorities and the planning arm which the government has created. One government department enunciates one type of policy while another department appears to create another type of policy.
These are the kind of problems which I am sure are being carefully studied and are the subject of a good deal of discussion behind the scenes which must continue to take place.
I	invite hon. members of this house to continue to take an interest in the structure of the national capital, the form of government, and the instruments which must be created so that it will be a symbol of unity and pride for all Canadians.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, befare the house rises and in order that the hon. member for Pembina may continue on Monday I should like to annonce that the business of the house on Monday starting at
II	a.m. will be the continuation of the address debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It being six o'clock the house will now rise until 11 a.m. on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, September 23, 1968