1968-09-17

CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. gentleman tell the house whether in the meetings of the federal-provincial officials concerning the constitution, to which he has referred, consideration has been given to the question of an amending formula for the constitution?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The questions which are being discussed by these officials are those which were decided at the meetings held at government level last February by federal and provincial heads of government. The amending formula, it was decided then, was not among the priority items. The committee agreed it was more important to try to reach agreement on the substance than on the mechanics of changing that substance, as had been attempted for years and years, so we agreed to reverse the order and that is why the officials are not discussing the aspect to which the hon. gentleman referred.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the Prime Minister undertake to make a full report to the house in the near future as to the agenda for the meetings of the officials? Could he also give the house a report as to what progress has been made in the various areas under discussion? If he is not prepared to report as to progress, can he not at least give a full and precise report regarding the agenda of the meetings?


Mr. Trudeau:: The agenda can easily be found; it follows from the agenda established in public in front of television cameras last February. I should not like to say more about these discussions at the moment for the simple reason that the provincial and federal governments decided jointly that the officials should hold their discussions in camera and that no public statements should be made.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the Prime Minister not prepared to inform the house precisely as to the agenda which is being discussed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition should understand that this is not a strictly federal matter. This is being done in co-operation with the provinces. It was decided that these meetings should be private; the provinces have been quite firm in that respect, and I think they are quite right.


Mr. Real Caoueile (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a complementary question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that high officials are meeting at the present time, when does the Prime Minister envisage a meeting between the federal and the provincial governments to discuss constitutional matters?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday or the day before, I have written to the provincial premiers to suggest a conference of the Prime Minister and premiers in the second half of November or December. I am still awaiting their answer, but that is the date we suggested.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the announcement reported in today's press that Chrysler has raised the price of cars in the United States, will the minister inform the house whether he is getting into contact with the Canadian subsidiaries of the United States auto makers in order to make sure there is no increase in car prices in Canada?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The purpose of the automotive agreement was, among other things, to reduce the differential between the cost of automobiles in Canada and in the United States. Over the period of three or four years this has been done to a great

September 17, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry extent. When the agreement was put into operation the price differential between Canadian and United States cars was about 8 per cent. It has now been brought down, on an average basis, to about 3 per cent. I have made inquiries and I understand that some standard cars are sold in Canada, wholesale of course, at the same price as in the United States. I also understand that if one shops around properly he might find some cars being sold in Canada at a slightly lower price than they are in the United States.


Mr. Woolliams:: Where?


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: That is only to cabinet ministers.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I could not give names of cars because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It appears to me that the minister is now going beyond the terms of the question asked by the hon. member.


David Lewis: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, do I understand the minister to say to this house and to the people of Canada that when the United States price increase is just a little more than the Canadian price increase, then the purpose of the auto pact will be served; or is he going to take steps to see that the price is not increased in Canada unless such increase is fully justified?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was just trying to say that the effects of the automobile agreement on prices have been concrete. I was just trying to demonstrate that, and if I had been given more time I was going to say that these moves are expected to continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the minister should be given more time.


David Lewis: He has no answer.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasf-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the letters which the presidents of Canada's three largest automobile companies recently sent to the minister made no mention of any undertaking to increase Canada's share of North America's automobile production in the 1969 model year, has the minister since been in touch with these company presidents to make sure that Canada does receive a satisfactory increase in the 1969 production year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not agree with that at all, Mr. Speaker. In the letters which were sent to me by the three leading manufacturers up to now-and I expect other letters from the less important ones-


An hon. Member:: Less important?


Jean-Luc Pepin: -they gave me clear indication that they agree with the automotive agreement, that they have made progress under it and are going to continue making progress. And they gave examples of the kind of progress they have in mind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is only part-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might go into another subject.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister make a statement in regard to the renewal of the NORAD agreement which, as the house knows, was contracted since the dissolution of the last parliament; and will parliament be given an opportunity to discuss this important commitment?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there will of course be an opportunity during the throne speech debate to discuss this matter, but it is the intention of the government to give parliament ample opportunity to discuss all aspects of Canada's foreign policy. A special effort will be made to bring these matters before the parliamentary committee, at which time the NORAD agreement can be discussed; but if the house wishes me or the Prime Minister to make a statement in the house at some appropriate time then we have no objection whatever.


Francis Andrew Brewin: As a supplementary question, is the minister aware that the former prime minister said on March 11 that his government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Francis Andrew Brewin: -would make its decisions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member obviously is not asking a question that is
September 17, 1968

in order. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat? The hon. member is asking whether the Prime Minister is aware of a statement made previously. That is not a question that can be put at this time.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: 
Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I will be glad to discuss this with the two ministers mentioned by the right hon. gentleman.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In the light of the answer he gave the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings yesterday, in which he mentioned the proposed date of the budget, would the minister advise the house whether this will be in the usual form of a budget preceded by a white paper so we can discuss the whole financial situation of the country, or is this to be merely another tax-grabbing budget?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: It
will be a full budget.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Will the minister advise the house whether this budget will include tax reform proposals, or has the minister abandoned the proposal that his predecessor in office made to this house that the tax reforms would be preceded by a white paper, and that legislation would follow in due course?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I answered this
question yesterday.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



STATEMENT BY FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER RESPECTING PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the government taken official cognizance of yesterday's extraordinary statement by the foreign minister of France, Mr. Michel Debre, accusing the Prime Minister of making false statements; and is Canada forwarding any official protest?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. Politicians even of this country accuse the Prime Minister of making false statements. I don't.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING JURISDICTIONAL CHANGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could he tell us whether the Quebec government entered into conversations with the federal government last summer, in order to assume responsibility for unemployment insurance and vocational training, as suggested on March 27 by honourable Paul Dozois in his budget speech?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I have had no conferences with the representatives of the government of Quebec on any of these proposals.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambion-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. On or about June 7 the then minister of agriculture announced a payment of $60 per acre to farmers of southwestern Ontario for not growing sugar beets. I wonder whether the minister can say when the farmers will receive their cheques.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: I will take the question as notice.
96	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Owing to the fact that the people of the nation are viewing with alarm and anxiety the increasing number of strikes which affect the public interest through curtailment of vital functions in our economy, does the government plan to take any action that would be helpful in these situations?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: There is a committee on labour questions which was set up by the previous government. I have talked to the chairman of that committee, Dr. Woods, and I understand there will be a report before Christmas. We will decide then what action should be taken on that report.


An hon. Member:: Which Christmas?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, since the right hon. Prime Minister says we must wait for the report on strikes, could he tell me if we must wait for that report to end the strike at the Garage Royal in Rouyn?



WHEAT-STEPS TO DISPOSE OF CARRYOVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the D.B.S. figures just released indicate that the wheat carryover in this country on July 1 was the second largest in history, would the minister take the opportunity provided by the throne speech debate to outline to the country and the house what steps the government plans to take to sell this enormous carryover of wheat?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will consider this generous offer.

DEBATES	September 17. 1968



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Agriculture received a request from the Ontario Farmer's Union for a meeting to discuss the serious marketing and pricing problems of this year's corn production? If so, what date has been set for this imperative meeting?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the farmers' union of Ontario has already had one meeting with the Minister of Agriculture and senior officials of the department. That meeting was held in August. There are three other groups also representing corn producers in southern Ontario who have requested a meeting. One meeting was held a few days ago and another will take place this Wednesday. Perhaps we will be able to hold another meeting with the F.U.O. regarding this problem before the end of this week, providing we have had the opportunity of hearing from other groups who legitimately claim they also represent Ontario corn producers.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been raised on several occasions, but I should like to ask the minister how soon he can make an announcement in the house as to the intentions of the government in respect of this very serious problem.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will consider an announcement as soon as the groups who in fact represent the various sections of the corn producing industry agree on what action the government ought to take.



QUEBEC-INQUIRY AS TO ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Eastern Quebec farmers, especially in the riding of Bellechasse, have suffered heavy losses due to crop damage in 1967.
Has the Quebec government or any farm group made representations to the Minister of Agriculture so that financial assistance may be provided to the farmers involved, prior to
September 17, 1968

the coming into force of the Quebec Crop Insurance Act?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there have been many requests to the federal government during the past three years for what might be called special ad hoc assistance programs. For approximately the last three years the position of the federal government has been that it would participate in approved crop insurance programs to the extent of 50 per cent of administration costs and 25 per cent of premiums. It is very difficult to deviate from this program when the emphasis has been in that direction in order that we may have established crop insurance programs all over the country to deal with these problems as they arise.



CANADA COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that Francois Dor-lot, the recipient of a Canada Council grant for study in France, has been linked with the Rossillon affair, and the strong stand taken by the Prime Minister on this subject, what action is the government taking in the matter?


Hon. Gerard Pelleiier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with the Canada Council about that matter. It is true that the council has granted that student who, I am told, is very brilliant, upon his teachers' recommendation, a scholarship to write a thesis on a matter as far removed from contemporary politics as the waterway traffic in Canada around the 17th century. The Canada Council told us that it does not investigate the recipients' political beliefs and awards its scholarships according to the candidates' intellectual and academic qualifications.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should be more specific. What action will the government take to assure that Mr. Dorlot will not be one of Mr. Rossillon's secret agents to agitate among the French speaking minority upon his return to Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Inquiries of the Ministry HARBOURS



POSSIBLE MOVE OF BOARD HEADQUARTERS FROM OTTAWA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the acting Minister of Transport, and may I express the hope that the minister's absence from the house will be only temporary. Will the National Harbours Board headquarters be moved from Ottawa to Montreal, and can the minister give any possible reason for this move?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence from the house of the Minister of Transport I would like to reply to the hon. member. There is no plan to move the National Harbours Board from Ottawa to Montreal. However, the future use of the administration building at Expo is being studied, and it is possible that the management of the port of Montreal, which is part of the National Harbours Board system, will be moved to this building. It was for that reason that there was a misunderstanding and an inaccurate report in the press, but I emphasize that there is no thought at the present time of moving the headquarters from Ottawa.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colches-ter North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister instructed Mr. William Lee to countermand the invitation extended to his friends to use the switchboards of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for the purpose of relaying calls-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Carman Coates: -to his new firm, in view of the fact that the first contracts obtained by Mr. Lee and Mr. Neville in their private capacity have been from the government of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
98	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
Could he tell us whether a study is now under way with regard to underdeveloped areas and whether we can expect to receive shortly a report on the areas which, in his [DOT]opinion, are to be considered as underdeveloped in 1969?
lEnglish]


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister I will take that question as notice and refer it to him.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister advise the house whether it is his intention to transfer the responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board from the present Minister of Trade and Commerce to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Maybe I could rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: You had better.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to transfer the Canadian Wheat Board from the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: It doesn't sound much better, does it, Mr. Speaker?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I rephrase my question in this way, Mr. Speaker. I direct it to the Prime Minister. With reference to the export of grain, is the Prime Minister aware that a contract has now been signed between France and Japan which will take the final amount of grain that we would be shipping to Japan under our export contract?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is not in order. I indicated earlier to an hon. member that to ask simply whether a minister is aware of a particular matter is not in order.

DEBATES	September 17. 1988


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweafher@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder whether Canada is going to try to have the United Nations deal with the tragic war in Nigeria?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government, as are all members of this house, is very, very concerned about these tragic events in Nigeria and Biafra. We have been exploring the best means by which the force of public opinion in the world could be brought to bear, and the question of bringing the matter before the United Nations has been considered. As I said in answer to a question the other day, the best way this matter could be brought before the United Nations would be by the neighbouring countries of Nigeria.


John George Diefenbaker: Why not by Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Africans are on the spot, very much concerned, as we are; and I am sure nobody in this house would suggest that we in Canada are more concerned than are the people of the neighbouring countries of Nigeria about the tragic events of these days. If the countries of the Organization for African Unity are not prepared to take an initiative-and we must wait to see-the Canadian government would have no hesitation in bringing before this world body the humanitarian aspects of this conflict.


An hon. Member:: Why not now?


Mitchell William Sharp: There are two questions
involved here. One is that I do not think we should intervene in the political affairs of the people of Nigeria. I do think, however, that we, like all the other people of the world, are concerned with the humanitarian aspects. That is why we have been concentrating our efforts in that direction. I can assure the house that if this were the best way of bringing the matter before the United Nations, the Canadian delegation would not hesitate to take the initiative.


Mr. Fairweafher:: I have a supplementary question. Is the minister not aware that the Organization of African Unity has declined to take the initiative at the United Nations, and does this not now free Canada's hands?
September 17, 19G8


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is possible to give as definite an answer as that. The Organization of African Unity is still seized of the question and meetings on this question are going on currently in Africa and elsewhere. However, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me most important that we should govern ourselves in terms of how we can be most useful in this situation; not whether we can satisfy our own humanitarian instincts, which are so strong, but how we can act most effectively on behalf of the people of Nigeria and Biafra. This should be the test which should govern all our actions, both in Nigeria and elsewhere.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs think it would be any use in going to the United Nations after all these people have starved?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the events surrounding the efforts that are being made to supply food are well known, but perhaps not as well known to all members of the house as they are to myself as the minister for external affairs.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about it.


Mitchell William Sharp: Strenuous efforts have been made by the Canadian government over a very long period to open the way for these supplies.


An hon. Member:: When did it start?


Mitchell William Sharp: We believed that the best means of getting adequate supplies of food was by a land corridor. This was turned down by Biafra for reasons which I can understand.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Mitchell William Sharp: They felt this would provide a corridor for military efforts by Nigeria. So, that having failed, we concentrated on an air lift, and so did the International Red Cross. An agreement to an air lift was apparently reached on September 3 by the International Red Cross, who thought they had the agreement of both Nigeria and Biafra for this purpose. Unfortunately, as has happened on so many occasions, when the time came to implement this agreement not the Nigerians but the Biafrans turned it down on exactly the same ground, that it would interfere with their military effort.
These are the facts, Mr. Speaker. This is a most terrible war but it is being fought on
Inquiries of the Ministry both sides as a war for survival ahead of the humanitarian purposes which we all share. We are doing the best we can to make the humanitarian considerations predominate, but we have failed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. In view of the fact that what is taking place against Biafra has all the appearances of genocide, is this not a matter that Canada as a member of the Security Council should bring before that body if the negro states surrounding Biafra refuse to act? Surely this is something that Canada could bring before the United Nations, being noted among the nations for its independence. Why does the government not act?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is becoming a debate, but I ask for your indulgence to continue it for a few minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister is willing to answer the last supplementary question.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there have been charges by the Biafran authorities that the purpose of the Nigerians is genocide, that their purpose is to wipe out thousands or millions of the people of Biafra. This may be so, but we do not know.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni):: What are you doing to find out?


Mitchell William Sharp: We are following the developments very closely indeed. For us to go to the United Nations and charge the Nigerian government with genocide is a step which I am sure we would all hesitate to take. Therefore, as I said, our purpose in all these exchanges and in all our efforts is to put the humanitarian considerations first and try to reach the starving people of Biafra and Nigeria. I believe that under these circumstances this is the best we can do, and I do not believe we should interfere and say that either Nigeria or Biafra is right in its political objectives.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister a further supplementary question. Like all the others I share his concern about the situation. However, could the minister tell us whether it is not possible to bring this matter before the United Nations without making charges, but to
September 17, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry insist that both Nigeria and Biafra explain the situation to the world? If it is not possible-and if it is I will want to ask a question based on this-in view of the fact that between the 13th and 16th of this month the International Red Cross organized about 13 flights to Biafra with inadequate planes, why is the government refusing to lend at least one Hercules plane to the International Red Cross to carry out this great humanitarian work about which the minister speaks with such feeling?


Mitchell William Sharp: I should like to say in answer to the first question that this is the course of action we have been considering and which we hope the African states which are neighbours of Nigeria might take; because surely it is more appropriate for the neighbours of Nigeria to take this action before the United Nations than it is for a country like Canada to do so.


David Lewis: Why? It is either right or wrong, and if it is wrong why does the government not take action? Why does it have to wait for the African states to do so?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the minister for a moment to remind hon. members that we are still in the question period. I realize that questions have been asked regarding a very serious matter, but even though the matter is of considerable importance we should still observe the normal rules applying to the question period.


Mr. Howard:: Maybe we should have an answer period.


Mitchell William Sharp: As I said in my earlier answer, what we are seeking is the most effective way to help the people of Nigeria and Biafra. I am sure members of the house would agree that if we can get the African states which are neighbours of Nigeria to take this matter before the United Nations, it would be the most effective possible course.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: However, I will repeat what I said earlier, that if that failed we would not hesitate to do so ourselves. Our objective is to help these people in the best possible way, not just to satisfy the humanitarian feelings which we all have. To be most effective, I think the house will agree that it would be

better for the neighbours of Nigeria to take this matter to the United Nations than for us to do so. However, if they will not do so we would certainly not hesitate to act.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How long will you wait?


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of his concern over the African states taking the initiative in the Biafra situation, and since they have taken the initiative of calling for a cease fire, will the minister, on behalf of Canada, join them in requesting a cease fire?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have called for a cease fire on many occasions. We have put our views before the Nigerian government on many occasions. We are opposed to a military settlement of this dispute. This has been the Canadian position from the beginning. This view has been expressed privately and publicly by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on behalf of the Canadian people.


David Lewis: I do not blame the Secretary of State for External Affairs for having missed the second question I asked. May I rephrase it, because I think it is of importance. Is the minister aware that the International Red Cross has made quite a number of flights into Biafra with supplies and that it is in urgent need of additional aircraft? In that situation, why is the government not prepared to lend the International Red Cross at least one Hercules plane for this purpose, even if the flying is done during the night?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been having discussions with the International Red Cross about the provision of additional aircraft. There is no hesitation on our part in providing aircraft of this kind. The issue that arose earlier, and which to some extent is not now so important, was that we did not believe we should put Canadian air force aircraft, manned with Canadian military personnel as had been suggested in many parts of our country, into jeopardy by flying contrary to the wishes of the Nigerian government. If the planes were to be attacked under such circumstances the Canadian government would be involved in a very serious incident.
I suggest to the hon. members that is not a course that would commend itself to this house. No government in the world is flying supplies contrary to the wishes of the Nigerian government. What is happening now, and
September 17, 1968

I am sure it is agreeable to the house, is that we are working with the International Red Cross. We have no hesitation whatever in helping.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: May I ask
a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister could assure the house that the relief supplies now being loaded on a ship in Halifax will reach Biafra.


Mitchell William Sharp: I cannot give that assurance. All I can say is that the supplies will go to the starving people of Nigeria-Biafra.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister foresee the possibility of Canada ever using her military strength to interfere with the desires of another foreign state, if in the opinion of the Canadian government that foreign state-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is much too general in nature to be acceptable at this time.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works.
Could he tell the house whether the government intends to keep on building post offices next winter, especially in designated areas?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member could easily put this question on the order paper.
rEnglish1



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. L. Whiting (Halton):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio, Hon. Mr. Richardson. Will the Department of Transport immediately set up an inquiry into the Canadian National passenger train derailment which occurred yesterday in the town of Oakville. In this tragedy one person was killed and eight were injured.
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. James Richardson (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, immediately upon learning of this unfortunate accident the district inspector of the railway transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission went to the scene. He has already filed a preliminary report. The Canadian National is conducting its own investigation, but up to this moment the cause of the accident has not been determined. However, I can assure the house and the hon. member that further investigations by the Canadian Transport Commission and by the Canadian National will be undertaken.


Donald MacInnis: May I ask a supplementary question. I should like to ask which came first, the answer or the question.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Tom Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: should like to direct my question to the acting Minister of Transport. Since there has been a major crisis in connection with automobile traffic to and from the Vancouver international airport during the last two weeks, resulting in long delays, what steps are planned by the minister's department to cure this serious problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question, as well as the previous question, should be placed on the order paper. If I may say so, the Chair may have been too lenient up to this moment in allowing questions. The normal procedure, as hon. members know, is for questions to be put in writing on the order paper. It is only in very special circumstances dealing with matters of urgent national importance that verbal questions should be allowed. I believe all members desire to observe this general rule. I suggest that the question asked by the hon. member might be placed on the order paper.
GANDER-REQUEST FOR IMPROVED FACILITIES On the orders of the day:


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the serious implications emanating from reports that the stretched jets and other large aircraft are bypassing Gander international airport and landing in
September 17, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry another country because of inadequate terminal facilities, and in view of the announced $32 million expenditure on a west coast terminus, could the Prime Minister say what action is contemplated-


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



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister recently received representations from the oil seed industry of Manitoba with regard to the importation of foreign vegetable oils below our cost of production, which is having a very serious effect on this important segment of our agriculture industry?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest the hon. member should place this question on the order paper.


George Robson Muir: The situation has
reached crisis proportions. I suggest this is a serious question which should be answered.


Mr. Speaker:: It is because it is important that I suggest it be placed on the order paper.



REQUEST FOR REPORT OF SPECIAL TASK FORCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister indicate when it is anticipated that the report of the special task force on agricultural policy will be available to the government, and whether that report will be made available to members of the house.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say when the report will be made available to the house. We have asked for an interim report for December, and the task force has indicated that it is working toward delivering that interim report in December.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and it relates to an order in
[Mr. Lundrigan.l

council passed by the government when parliament was not in session concerning a reduction in customs duties. The order in council was based on the Financial Administration Act. In view of the fact this order in council is similar to one passed in 1962 which was found later to be such that it had to be validated by parliament, can the minister inform the house whether all aspects of this were checked by the Department of Justice before approval was given to this order in council?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: will have to take this question as notice. I wonder whether the hon. member would send me the number of the order in council?


Stanley Howard Knowles: will be glad to do so if the minister is not aware of it.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Si, Barbe):: I have a question for the minister responsible for housing, but in his absence I will address it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the extremely critical shortage of housing in Newfoundland, would he indicate when the minister and his task force will be visiting that province? Has the minister accepted an invitation from the inter-faith social action committee of Corner Brook to attend their conference on housing in October?


James Armstrong Richardson: In the absence of the Minister of Transport, who is not in the house today because he is with the task force on housing, I can only reply that I am certain the housing problems of Newfoundland will be very much the concern of the task force. I am sorry I cannot give the exact dates when the task force will be in Newfoundland.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Is it the intention of the government to include in the omnibus bill which is to contain amendments to the Criminal Code amendments concerning
September 17, 1988	COMMONS
the bail system and the expunging of criminal records?


John Napier Turner: At the moment I am undertaking a review of the omnibus bill with officers of the department. Representations are being received from all over the country and from members of the house. The amendments in the omnibus bill will be resubmitted, and they will include the subject matters of the original bill. I hope at an early date to be able to incorporate other Criminal Code reforms, including the matters raised by the hon. member, in a subsequent piece of legislation.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether at the appropriate time after the introduction of the bill he would be prepared to refer it to a house committee, so that a thorough examination in committee could be made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether this question might not be asked when this bill is submitted to the house.



PROHIBITION ON SALE OF CANADIAN TURBOT IN U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I supplement an answer I gave yesterday to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) with respect to Greenland halibut. The ruling of the United States food and drug administration which I talked about yesterday does not involve any prohibition on the import of Greenland halibut to the United States until November 20, the deadline for the delay that has been granted.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, September 16, 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, the amendment of Mr. Stanfield (p. 62) and the subamendment of Mr. Lewis (p. 81).
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to add my sincere congratulations to you on your re-election to the distinguished office you have 29180-8i
DEBATES	103
The Address-Mr. Baldwin graced in the past with so much honour and intelligence and such knowledge of the rules. My congratulations are all the more hearty because of the different circumstances under which Your Honour now occupies the Chair. I shall come back to that in a minute.
I also wish to congratulate the Deputy Speaker, the chairman of committees, and the deputy chairman of committees for having received the support of members of the house and having been elected to the positions they hold. I concur thoroughly with the remarks my leader made earlier in this debate. Without in any way disparaging the personal qualities of the incumbent of the Chair I think it is correct to say that by placing the Chair in a position of far greater independence than was the case before, we in this house have taken a considerable step forward. In this regard great credit belongs to my leader since it was largely through his initiative that this step was taken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Chair is the pivot around which this house moves. It is the foundation on which our functions rest. When one talks of the independence of the Chair-and I make these remarks without meaning to cause embarrassment to	anyone-that
independence must be considered in several ways. When a member of this house occupies the Chair he takes himself out of the arena of active political consideration, as he must. Nevertheless, other aspects of his independence must be kept in mind and enshrined in the position of the Chair for the benefit not only of our present Speaker but for those who will occupy his position in the future.
I congratulate the Prime Minister, of course, for his success, as well as the members of his cabinet and their parliamentary secretaries. The people of Canada have come to a decision. We on this side of the house will have to live with the government for four years. The people of Canada will have to live with both of us for the same period of time. During that period it is absolutely essential that there be the greatest measure of co-operation among all members of the house in an attempt to carry forward the business of the country, which may or may not always be the business of the government.
We in this party will undertake to be as co-operative as possible and willing to forward in an expeditious way all business of the house, subject of course to the overriding consideration that there is a duty placed on
104	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Baldwin this party in its capacity as Her Majesty's loyal opposition to protect the interests of the people of Canada. If it becomes necessary to protect those interests we shall exercise all rights we possess to the utmost.
I have been characterized as a kind, gentle and amiable person. I accept that description. Ho doubt the members of my party and my leader thought these characteristics were similar to those displayed by my distinguished predecessors, Hon. Michael Starr, Hon. Gordon Churchill and Hon. Howard Green, all of whom could be termed gentle and amiable unless the occasion arose when they had to fight for the rights of this house, as I shall fight and as all members of this house will fight.
I am sure the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) will agree that I have been amiable, just as I agree that he has been amiable. I suspect that the extent of his amiability is circumscribed by the extent to which he gets his own way for the government.
I congratulate the hon. member for Mada-waska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) for his fine and skilful speech when he moved the address in reply, which indicated that he will become an ornament of this house. I am convinced that we shall hear more from this distinguished addition to the house. I also congratulate the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand). I listened intently and with great interest to his speech. I was glad to hear him say that he comes to this house not solely as a representative of his people, although God knows his people have many wrongs which need to be corrected, but also as a Canadian and as an Indian to help solve the problems of the white man.
[DOT] (12 noon)
One of my opponents in the last election was a young member of the same Indian group, a fine, distinguished young man who had been a graduate of the R.M.C., had served in the air force with distinction and made a great contribution to the election. It was unfortunate, I thought, that so early in his political life he had been seduced by the wiles of hon. gentlemen to my left, because I think he would have fitted better into the contours of the views which our party expresses. But it is very heartening and encouraging to see this come about, and I wish well to the two hon. members who moved and seconded the motion for the address. Indeed, I wish well to all the new members who have come to this house. I
DEBATES	Sepiember 17, 1968
understand very well that having reached a peak of exultation shortly after the election they have come to Ottawa and found that there are various levels of members of parliament, at least outside this chamber.
Let them always remember that this house is the repository of all the powers of the people of Canada, that it is a court of last resort. It may well seem to many of us and to many of those outside this chamber that much of this power has been given away and now resides in the hands of government agencies and of various administrative boards and tribunals which have been set up. If this is the case it is only because we saw fit-in many cases unwisely, in my opinion-to abdicate our responsibility and invest power in agencies rather than in this parliament. If we come to a situation which involves the use of power, remember well-and I say this particularly to the new members-that it flows from an action which was taken in this chamber by a House of Commons which preceded this one. With this in mind, guide well your actions, your thoughts, your votes and your speeches from now on.
My colleagues will be dealing with many other aspects of the speech from the throne. I wish particularly to direct my attention to the question of parliamentary reform and changes in procedure as outlined in the speech from the throne and as more particularly defined by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday when he addressed this chamber. Generally speaking, I have no quarrel with the philosophical position which he took yesterday. Such speeches are made very frequently. Read the pages of Hansard. Examine the history of other democratic countries. Philosophical dissertations of this nature are made and repeated from time to time; the pages of Hansard are filled with them. It is all very well to talk about creating a brave new world but what concerns me is the blueprint, the plans, the specifications, the construction in accordance with which we undertake this course. Here is where we come to the parting of the ways-not in every respect, but in some respects.
I heard the former prime minister make speeches in 1964 and 1965 which, though differently worded, embodied precisely the same attitude toward the manner in which this house should conduct its business and to the reforms required to make it competent to do so more effectively. Nothing came of this. So

September 17, 1968	COMMONS
while I listened with respect and in agreement with the right hon. gentleman to a considerable extent when he spoke yesterday on this subject, I must file a caveat and say that I remain to be convinced. I hope I am wrong.
I trust I am wrong. I should like to think that when this parliament is through the government will have shown that its acts are as good as its words. But so far I am unconvinced.
I wish to make particular reference to two comments made by the right hon. gentleman. As reported on page 73, dealing with the discussions which have been going on the Prime Minister said:
The discussions which have been proceeding on and off for the past fortnight, or even longer, among the representatives of the several parties in the house must not be permitted to continue indefinitely.
With this I am in perfect agreement, but I think there is an implication in that statement which needs to be corrected. There have been discussions, some of them directed to questions of far-reaching reform, which can well be discussed by house leaders but which cannot be resolved other than by this house itself and which, in my opinion, are best the subject of attention by a special committee. Reforms in the rules and procedures of this house are far too important to be left to the leaders in the house. They are and always will be the property of the members of the house. I wish to be very careful, because I must not disclose anything which took place, but I am justified in saying that it was only the day before parliament opened that concrete, specific proposals by the government with relation to the interim arrangements, the whole package of interim arrangements which would come into effect at the beginning and carry on through the first part of the session, were outlined. We have had discussions pro and con. I had advanced my views, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had advanced his, and the representative of the Ralliement Creditiste had stated his position, but it was only the day before that the specific package was outlined.
I am not criticizing the government in this regard but I do say it is quite wrong for the impression to be created-I am not suggesting that the right hon. gentleman was insincere, or that he was attempting to create it-that discussions had been going on for two weeks involving specific proposals which had in any
DEBATES	105
The Address-Mr. Baldwin sense been agreed to prior to that date. As was my right as the representative of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, I had views in disagreement which I advanced. They were not acceptable and it was on this basis that the government finally made its proposal on Friday through the leader of the house. Let there be no doubt about that situation, Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister went on to say:
Nor should they be permitted to lead, either by agreement or in the absence of it, to procedural changes which will upset the delicate and essential balance between government and opposition so necessary to the proper functioning of parliament. [DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Later there is a suggestion that the time has come when this matter should be brought to the floor of the house. I agree with that. I think there has to be a debate, hopefully not on all of the areas which can be covered but on an interim arrangement. We in this party, as I propose to indicate later, have never departed from the position that there must be an interim arrangement to cover the procedures of this house during the first part of this session. But implied in the Prime Minister's statement I see a threat that negotiations on this occasion must mean a reasonable time to accept or reject the government's propositions and, if they are not accepted, the matter will come back to the house and the government, with its majority, will have its way.
I assume that this will be the case. I am *assuming that the characteristics of the Liberal party have not changed since the very well documented publication issued by the right hon. gentleman some five years ago when he had occasion to describe the Liberal party's attitude on their current issues as one of being quite content to accept the views laid down by those at the top. His words were very specific and very definite. No matter what the issue may be I am assuming that when the government determines to have its way it will have it. In my view this is not the way in which negotiations should be conducted. I am hopeful that, as has been indicated, meetings will continue for the purpose of arriving at an interim arrangement to cover the first part of this session, and that we can then hopefully go on to more drastic and more permanent changes. This has been our view. It has been my view. It has been the view of my leader as expressed in the election campaign and it is still our view. It was our view at the opening of this session.
The rules of parliament are important not only because they affect this house but
106	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Baldwin because they are part of the constitution of this land. In its broadest sense the constitution is an aggregate of the statutes, the conventions, the practices, precedents and rules under which parliament is conducted. In my view, as I have expressed it earlier, this is far too important a matter to be left to be discussed and decided at the esoteric level of a few people with a mechanical knowledge of the rules.
I think there should be a greater measure of publicity given to this subject. If a committee is established later I would like to think that the proceedings of that committee would be published. This is the practice in the United Kingdom. Let there be a general debate. Let there be a debate to some extent in the country, in the press and certainly in this house so that when we come to change our rules, when we come to modify and adapt our rules in such a way as to permit members of the house to carry forward the business of the country, the changes will be based on the fullest understanding and on the support which will come as the result of an open discussion.
Many of the problems which have been created are problems which arose because past parliaments were dilatory, but I say quite objectively, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think the government can escape most of the blame for the fact that today there is piled up a large amount or, as the Prime Minister said, a backlog of parliamentary work. In 1965 parliament, with at least half of its allotted span to go, was summarily dismissed after two and a half years by the then prime minister and an election called in order to help him obtain a parliamentary majority. Because of that election and the consequences which flowed from it there was a great buildup of estimates and legislative proposals. These matters still remained to be attended to. Precisely the same situation existed in April of this year.
The Prime Minister occupies a dual position. He is the head of a political party, and he is the Prime Minister and head of the government. At that time in April he had to make a choice. He had to choose whether or not as Prime Minister he should come back to the house, meet parliament, and attempt to put through with expedition and promptness many of the serious and important bills awaiting attention which had been on the order paper for some time, and as well deal with the estimates. He also had to come to a

DEBATES	September 17, 1968
decision, as the leader of a political party, whether the opportunity was propitious for him to go to the country and secure a greater measure of support for his party. The decision he made was a political decision and, as such, for political purposes obviously a wise one. But I suggest it was not a wise decision so far as this parliament and the country were concerned, and today we see the aftermath, we see the results.
Some question has been raised as to what has happened to this parliament, what has happened to this house, and why we have not been able to proceed with changes in the rules. I go back to the period with which I am intimately familiar starting in 1964. The record is a sorry, dismal one. Part of the blame may fall upon the house but I submit the greater part must fall on the government.
In 1963 a committee was established. That committee simply met two or three times and said, "There is a problem; we will meet it by setting up a committee next year." In 1964 another committee was set up, a very good committee on which I had the honour to serve with you, Mr. Speaker. It made some very solid, very reasonable, very forwardlooking, fundamental proposals. Those proposals followed many months of discussion, many months of research, many months of meetings, but the sad fate of many of those proposed far-reaching reforms was that they were washed out. The government rejected them.
Then just before the end of that session the government brought in its own measures, which in many instances were inadequate but which to a great extent provided the foundation of the provisional rules under which we operated during the last two years. However, a promise was made that another committee would be set up the following year. Such a committee was set up which met twice and dissolved.
A further committee was set up during the last session of the previous parliament. But it was set up late. It was only established following continuous pressure from this side of the house. But even in the limited time available to it-I think I am justified in saying this-it made some first rate, very substantial proposals not only with regard to far-reaching reforms of a fundamental nature but also with regard to immediate reforms that could be implemented. Several of its proposals were brought in many weeks before the house was finally dissolved but with the holding of the
September 17, 1968

election they went down the drain. Now we find ourselves in our present position.
Because I anticipated this situation, as did other hon. members on this side of the house, during the course of the election campaign I issued a statement on behalf of our party in which I indicated what our approach would be, an approach to which we still hold. I suggested that because of the summary dissolution the proposals then before the house for parliamentary reform had been neatly scuttled and that the harsh atmosphere of an election which spills over into the immediate post-election session of parliament could easily cause delay in getting back to where we were on April 23. I pointed out that many of the rules under which the House of Commons had been operating in the last few years had been provisional, that some did represent an improvement and others had been found by experience to be unsatisfactory. That is still our position today.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
The majority of the provisional rules have the approval of members of this party. Others are useless, have been found to be unsatisfactory or have not achieved the purposes for which they were intended. I also point out that we were prepared to consider committees constituted for the duration of a parliament. In this way there would be continuity and the opportunity for members to become conversant with particular subjects. They must also know that the representations and recommendations they made would in fact be presented to the house and would not be held up merely because they were embarrassing to the government. Committees should be reduced in number and the membership lowered. There should be a committee on delegated authority.
I do not have too much time but I must stop here for a moment to emphasize this tremendously important issue. Most of the regulations and most of the authorities which affect the ordinary person in Canada, together with the pressure of large government corporations or crown companies, have come about as a result of authority which this parliament has delegated to others to exercise on its behalf. We live in one of the very few democratic countries that have taken no steps to provide an opportunity for the ordinary man and woman, through the medium of a committee such as I have proposed, to ventilate and bring fourth his argument in respect of
The Address-Mr. Baldwin any grievance he may have which has arisen not because of an act of parliament but because of something done under authority given to others to act under an act of parliament. This has a grave effect on our democratic society. I will not willingly, so far as I personally am concerned, pass over the opportunity for parliamentary reform without something being done about this.
Four years ago I spoke in this house to Right Hon. Lester Pearson, then prime minister. He agreed with me and quoted to me the terms of Lord Hewart's book, "The New Despotism." He said that the government was looking into this problem and would establish some procedure such as a parliamentary ombudsman. He said that they would deal with it in this way. That was four years ago. Nothing has yet been done. I suggest that this opportunity should not be allowed to pass without securing from the government an undertaking to set up a committee. It may well be that the government has other ideas as well, but surely a committee could be set up for a limited period which would have authority not to look into the policy behind the exercise of delegated authority but to look into cases of abuse under delegated authority where it has been used far beyond the extent that was contemplated. This is something which must be rectified at this time.
I see that the time is rapidly passing. I intend to conclude in a few minutes. It may well be that the house will see fit, before Your Honour intervenes, to provide a limited time, which I shall not abuse, for me to conclude the remarks I am making.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: I also feel that on an interim basis there must be given to members of the house generally as members, not to the government alone, the right to move that measures be sent to committee before second reading without killing the bill. A feeling is held in many parts of Canada that governments do nothing but govern and that members of parliament are here only to say yes or no to government measures. I disagree with this very violently.
Surely no other body of men and women is better qualified to act as a pipe line or liaison between the people of Canada and the government. Surely the people should have the
September 17, 1968

The Address-Mr. Baldwin opportunity, through the medium of committees, to bring their views before this house and the government with regard to spending proposals being advanced by the government. Governments must initiate and when the time comes take the final responsibility. I do not for one moment differ with that point of view, but as a result of my experience here, not only as a member of this house but outside, I say that there is a great opportunity for the legislative proposals which are advanced to be moulded, modified and adapted to meet the human needs of the people of Canada and not necessarily the views of those who live in ivory towers in Ottawa. I have seen this happen.
One might look over the list of statutes which have been passed in the last four years. Much more than 50 per cent of these are amending statutes. I admit that it is not possible for a government, even a Conservative government, to anticipate fully all the contingencies and vicissitudes in the conduct of affairs of mankind, but I suggest that many statutes have been ill conceived, badly prepared and badly completed in that they have not been properly, adequately and intimately discussed in this house before leaving here in the finished form. Consequently they are brought back for amendment year after year after year.
I speak, I hope, not only for the members of this party but for all private members when I say that we must be far more intimately concerned with the legislative process and that the government must be prepared to accept this up to a point. I repeat what I said before, that the time must come when a government will say that it cannot accept a proposal because of the financial considerations involved. I am satisfied, however, as much as I have ever been about anything, that there is room and opportunity for the private members of this house to be able to make a much greater contribution to the affairs of government and the legislative spending proposals which affect so deeply and intimately the lives and fortunes of 20 million Canadians.
I conclude by saying that I hope, as I have every reason to, that we will continue our discussions in order to arrive at an interim arrangement. This party has always indicated its willingness to make concessions and has made them. I hope the government will take the same position. I hope and expect that we will include many of the provisional rules, as

we have already indicated. Many of the former provisional rules will have to be carried forward. I hope some of the suggestions I have made will be considered by the government as part of the interim arrangement.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I hope also that a select committee will in fact be set up and that it will be directed by mandatory provision to report back to this house by a given date so that the interim arrangement will disappear. The interim arrangement should be for a specific period. There will then be pressure on the government, the opposition and all hon. members to come forward with permanent changes at least by that time. Time is not on our side. I should like to conclude by quoting what I think is a very important comment by a very distinguished British philosopher who also served his apprenticeship in parliament, in the House of Lords. I refer to Lord C. P. Snow who said:
I can't help thinking of the Venetian republic in their last half century. Like us, they had once been fabulously lucky. They had become rich, as we did, by accident. They had acquired immense political skill, just as we have. A good many of them were tough-minded, realistic, patriotic men. They knew, just as clearly as we know, that the current of history had begun to flow against them. Many of them gave their minds to working out ways to keep going. It would have meant breaking the pattern into which they had crystallized. They were fond of the pattern, just as we are fond of ours. They never found the will to break it.
Mr. Speaker we in this house must find a way to break the pattern into which we have fallen.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be words of congratulation to our colleague the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lamoureux) for having, perhaps as much by his own personal qualities as by the mood of the house generally, made it possible for us to move toward a position where we in this Canadian House of Commons will have a Speaker in the chair with that degree of independence which has been enjoyed in the mother of parliaments for many years. I am sure we all share the feeling that this is desirable from the standpoint of our parliament. I should like to congratulate the hon. member on his own personal achievement and on his representation which has permitted movement forward on this particular question.
May I also take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) and the hon. member for
September 17, 1968

Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) on their appointment to positions of responsibility. The suggestion has been made-perhaps it is no more than that-that in some way their appointments to these positions have been something less than this house might wish. I disagree with that suggestion. I have entire confidence in the fairness and open-mindedness of these two hon. gentlemen. I am personally satisfied that they will discharge their responsibilities in these honourable positions in a manner just as exemplary as that of the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas when he occupied those positions.
Let me also express my congratulations to the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) and the hon. member for Kam-loops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) for their excellent speeches in moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Perhaps I should pay a particular compliment to the hon. member for Mada-waska-Victoria. Over the years in this house we have seen many examples of the perfect bilingualism toward which all Canadians should aspire but which so few attain. We witnessed during the speech by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria a perfect example of that ideal. His speech was one of the great oratorical performances I have witnessed in this house.
At this time I rise to continue the thread of debate introduced by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in relation to parliamentary reform. I intend to refer in greater detail to those discussions in which he took part along with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the house leader for the Ralliement Credi-tiste. As a result of proposals I put before hon. gentlemen in August on behalf of the government we have had a series of discussions in recent weeks.
One of the first things that was said to me when I came to this house was that the hon. member for Peace River was indeed an able lawyer. He has been an ornament to that profession in Alberta, a bencher of the law society and has demonstrated a very considerable forensic skill. It has been said that the real measure of a good lawyer is not that he make the best of a very good case, but rather his ability to make the best of a very bad case. I think there is a general feeling in the house today that the hon. member was at his very best this morning during the argument he put forward to convince us that he and his
DEBATES	109
The Address-Hon. Donald S. Macdonald colleagues were the hares rather than the tortoises of parliamentary reform.
I did not wish to commence a debate on the question of the discussions that have taken place among us in recent days, but it does seem to me only fair, since the hon. member made reference to the position I put forward on behalf of the government, that the house should have the opportunity of hearing this position from the government's point of view. Hon. members may then compare it with the viewpoint partially put forward by the hon. member this morning.
As I have said already, on behalf of the government I elaborated certain proposals for the revision of the standing orders of the house. It was intended that these proposals should be adopted during this session of parliament in order that we might attain a better dispatch of public business and a better examination of the public business which, after all, is the purpose for which the electors of Canada sent us here. These proposals were in very large measure founded upon the recommendations of the special committee on procedure in the last session. The hon. member for Peace River as well as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre participated in the work of that committee.
As a result a complete blueprint, although perhaps not an entirely comprehensive one, for the reform of procedures was devised. These proposals were put forward in August and, as the hon. member has indicated, there were a number of discussions during which he and other house leaders talked with me as to the general schema of the proposed rules reform.
The hon. member suggested that only the day before the house met did we give any indication as to how we thought the business of this particular session and more particularly the first half between now and Christmas should be handled. I think that he, upon reflection, will agree that this suggestion is scarcely fair. During the early stages of these discussions we discussed the problem that would occur if we wanted to deal with the 1968-69 estimates under the provisional rules. If we had proceeded under the provisional rules there would be very little time left to deal with the legislative programs which I am sure hon. members would like to see brought before the house.
Perhaps it might be useful at this time to indicate in arithmetical terms what exactly is involved in this question of dealing with the
September 17, 1968
110	COMMONS
The Address-Hon. Donald S. Macdonald estimates even under the relatively advanced provisions of the provisional rules. There is a period of approximately 70 days between the commencement of this session and some judicious date in December shortly before Christmas when the house might adjourn. Assuming all the time available is used, approximately ten days will be devoted to the present order of business, that is to say, the proceedings leading up to and including the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) said this morning, the government intends to introduce a general budget. Under the rules a further six-day period could be taken to debate that budget. If the provisional rules had been accepted the house would also have had the maximum of 38 days to deal with the estimates for the 1968-69 fiscal year. The experience of the house is that the maximum becomes also the minimum. This would have meant that out of approximately 70 days between the opening of parliament and the Christmas recess approximately 54 days would have been used for these debates without any reference to legislative programs.
It seems clear to me, and it should be clear to all hon. members, that some interim arrangement is desirable in respect of the 1968-69 estimates and, indeed, that it is desirable to adopt some interim arrangement in respect of those rules which have been adopted in the last three or four years on a provisional basis for dealing with the other business of the house. The proposal which the government put forward really dealt with four essential elements in respect of this question. If the hon. member wants to tax me for not having finally set this down in writing until the day before the house met, he can do so, but I do not think he can justly tax me for not having made the government's views known in the discussions which took place.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is suggesting that I am charging him with not setting them down before, that is quite incorrect and I did not intend to convey that impression. I intended to convey that the government advanced a number of proposals, we advanced some counter-proposals, and it was only the day before the house met that the government's position was made clear as to where it stood on the entire package.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of the hon. member. I think it will be clear that, far from there being a unilateral diktat on the part of the government that rules, either on an interim or long term basis, should be applied, there were genuine consultations, discussions and exchanges back and forth with hon. members. We arrived at the situation earlier this week where it was found not possible to restore the rules on a provisional basis.
I have made reference to the provisional rules and to the fact that the government proposed that for the period of this session the provisional rules might be restored so that discussions on this question could proceed from a terra cognita, the basis upon which we were proceeding prior to April 23, so we could take advantage of the experience of the last four years. The hon. member referred to the fact that it is his party's wish that a time limit be provided with respect to the provisional rules. I make it clear in public, as I have made it clear to him in private, that the government is agreeable to this, namely, that if the provisional rules were to be reapplied they would be subject to a specific time limit with the result that there would be a clock ticking on all of us to make sure we got down to business and dealt with the provisional rules. This is the proposal, basically, with regard to the provisional rules, since we would hope to arrive at a final conclusion soon.
The hon. member also mentioned that his party would like to arrive at an early agreement this session on reform of the rules. It would seem sounder to continue with the provisional rules for a period of several months, rules which are known, rather than try to arrive at elaborate recommendations on a provisional basis. Other hon. members have suggested there are provisional rules which they do not like. The net effect is that there would have been an initial discussion, perhaps a lengthy one, on rules which would be in effect for only a very short period of time. It seems to me still, representing the government, a most reasonable course of action that we should continue on the basis of those rules under which we would have been operating still if, to the regret of hon. members opposite, the house had not dissolved last April. I have indicated that I would be entirely agreeable to putting a time limit on those rules, and I hope on that basis we might find that it is acceptable to them.
September 17, 1968

There are other matters to which I shall refer in this respect. There is the question of dealing on an interim basis with the business of the house, that is, with the estimates for the 1968-69 fiscal year. Under the provisional rules the time available this autumn for dealing with these estimates would have been a maximum of 38 days. There was a proposal-and I think it is fair to say it was not a proposal which I originated-that we might make an immediate reference of all those estimates to the standing committees of the house.
I will say more later about the framework of standing committees of the house. This suggestion was made so that the departmental spending estimates could be examined in detail in those committees and that the total time to be taken both for motions for supply and for dealing with the reports back from committees might be agreed at a maximum of 19 days. I gather that proposal is not acceptable but, given the arithmetic to which I referred earlier, I suggest this might be the most reasonable way of dealing with the time we have available between now and Christmas. I say "we" and I point out that not we as a government, not we as members of the House of Commons, but the people of Canada would expect not only expenditures to be examined but legislation to be proceeded with.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the minister a question? I do not wish to interrupt the even trend of his thoughts, but has the minister given any thought to the very desirable situation which would have arisen had the government been persuaded to have the house meet earlier, when these discussions could have been initiated at an earlier stage and we would have had more time to consider them?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: One of the
difficulties I had, of course, in initiating early discussions on this question was the relatively late appointment of the hon. gentleman as the opposition house leader.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I can understand the problem because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was, after all, hoping that the former member for Ontario might be returned to this house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is nonsense.
DEBATES	111
The Address-Hon. Donald S. Macdonald


Donald Stovel Macdonald: May I suggest that this discussion has not suffered at all from the timetable. I think the hon. member would agree that there has been plenty of opportunity to discuss these proposals. Had they been proposed in July or August, the fact is that there are certain attitudes, perhaps not representative of the hon. member, but representative of members around and behind him, with respect to parliamentary reform with regard to which there may be genuine disagreement.
The third of the proposals put forward was with respect to the committees system itself. As hon. members know, we have at the present time reverted to an antique committees system under the 1962 rules, one which speaks to us from the 19th century. Even the proposals incorporated in the provisional rules have in some respects been found not to be acceptable. It had been the government's intention, and it still is, to find an area which would receive general support. The introduction of changes in the committees system was to reflect clearly the division of responsibility among departments.
The fourth of the propositions we put forward to the house leaders was with respect to the constitution of a special committee on procedure to consider the government's proposals in areas which we felt were the key areas on this question, which committee was to report back to the House of Commons by December 1 recommending not merely certain general outlines with regard to the rules, as the special committee did last session, but also specific changes to the standing orders. That seemed to the government to be a reasonable way to proceed.
We are, as I have said, entirely willing to accept the suggestion made by hon. gentlemen opposite that we should put a specific time limit on this arrangement. That is completely in accordance with the government's wish to proceed with this question with the greatest dispatch possible. But I suggest to the hon. gentleman and his colleagues that a far more rational way of handling the business between now and Christmas would be in accordance with the proposals we have put forward both to deal with supply and to act under the proposals in the provisional rules.
There was a reference in the remarks of the hon. gentleman to the importance of a committee on delegated legislation. He and I have discussed this question. I share his concern about the over-all question of more effective control of our executive and
September 17, 1968
112	COMMONS DEBATES
The Address-Hon. Donald S. Macdonald administrative processes. This concern is shared by myself and the Prime Minister and was the reason for a reference in the Prime Minister's speech to the specific responsibility of considering and recommending to the government certain procedures which might be followed with regard to the effective review, both legislative and legal, of administrative action.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
There are a great many possibilities here, such as the British institution of a committee on delegated legislation, setting up an ombudsman system, and the French institution of conseil d'etat. I am not suggesting that any one of them should be adopted without consideration and applied in the Canadian format, but I am suggesting the time has come-and here the hon. member and I are entirely in agreement-to provide a better and more effective scrutiny of administrative action, perhaps through a committee on delegated legislation which would look at the whole picture gallery of administrative action or in particular cases to consider the individual picture through the institution of an ombudsman.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask the minister a question? Is the government not one of the principal parties in dealing with this particular problem, and is this not an illustration of a litigant in litigation setting out the rules of the game? Would not the minister honestly feel that a committee on delegated legislation would, among other things, be examining a better and more detailed way to come to grips with the problem? Does he not think that members of parliament as one of the parties involved should be able to make some proposals of their own?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would agree that this is perhaps a more definite indication of the hon. member's notion of the committee on delegated legislation, and it is a useful suggestion, but I took his term to refer to something similar to the British committee which, as the hon. member knows, does not have the responsibility of suggesting further instruments for administrative review.
The government's general principles with respect to the revision of the rules represent an attempt to deal with a problem which is not unique to this legislature but has been dealt with by all parliamentary legislatures in the commonwealth. Indeed, solutions have been found to the problem both in the United

Kingdom and in sister commonwealth countries long before arriving at one here. It is the problem that in this particular institution, which was founded so closely on the evolution of British party politics in the 18th century, we have a set of procedures which never contemplated both the expansion and the ubiquity of the government in society and the increasing complexity of its problems. I am sure that the hon. gentlemen back in the 18th century would have been amazed to see the intervention of the government in many aspects of human endeavour which were entirely foreign to them then. They would have been equally amazed, to illustrate the second point, at the complexity of questions such as those which parliament will be asked to consider, for example, that of a synchronous communication satellite.
What is involved here is the responsibility of putting through a very large volume of legislation and of doing it in such a way that it can receive the full scrutiny of the elected representatives of the people. It seems clear to the government that the only way to meet these two objectives is by an expanded use of the system of functional standing committees. It would be the government's view-and I have already indicated it in the interim arrangements which we proposed-that the spending estimates of the various departments should be referred, either automatically or, if desired, after debate, to the functional standing committees. In these committees individual members would have the opportunity to confront the minister and leading functionaries of the department and inquire not only into the detailed items of the estimates but also into the broader area of local and private but none-the-less important questions which arise in connection with constituency problems.
It is also proposed-and this was the pattern set forward in the report of the special committee on procedure tabled in March of this year-that in view of the fact that there would not be consideration of estimates in committee of the whole, the number of days to be devoted in the house to purely opposition matters would be stipulated and, as proposed by the special committee on procedure of which the hon. member was a member, that these questions would be dealt with systematically throughout the parliamentary year. In the same way, it is the government's view that just as the detailed examination of the spending estimates requires time and
September 17, 1968

effort on the part of individual members, so the detailed examination of legislation which commonly occurs under our procedure in committee of the whole stage should be dealt with in the functional standing committees of the house so that these committees, which we would hope would build up a certain expertise on these matters over a period of time, could, together with the officials responsible and the minister, propose and deal with amendments and at the same time find opportunities to seek outside opinions by way of evidence from other persons interested in the legislation.
One of the examples cited to me of some success in this role was the manner in which the house dealt in the last session with one of the most complicated and far-reaching provisions in our law, the National Transportation Act. It would be hoped that over a period of time the rule could be established that this should become the general procedure, that is, that the committee of the whole stage would take place in the functional standing committees.
However, it is appreciated that the house as a whole must have the opportunity to consider the questions raised in the standing committee and to cast a final decision on whether or not the recommendations should become the law. Therefore it is proposed that we should not go through the committee of the whole stage once again in the house but that there be a full parliamentary debate on the report of the standing committee, either at the report stage or perhaps on third reading. It is hoped that in time it will be established that this would be the time when the house would really commit itself on whether or not the bill should go forward. It has struck me as an anomaly, which I believe has come about as a result of precedents, that the house should make what is virtually a final declaration with regard to the principle of a piece of legislation at the second reading stage. It seems to me far more logical that this fulcrum point should occur later.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River and I have had an opportunity to have a full miniature debate on this question, and I wonder whether I might be permitted a few more minutes when we resume to complete my remarks, bearing in mind our discussion. If so, may I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
DEBATES	113
The Address-Hon. Donald S. Macdonald Mr. Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 6(2) I do now leave the chair until 2.30 p.m.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, when we rose at one o'clock I had given some indication of the government's intentions with respect to reform of the rules and procedures of parliament. I will give a brief precis of what I had been saying up until that time. I indicated it would be our proposal that those aspects of parliamentary business which require the greatest, detailed scrutiny, and therefore are most time-consuming, would be transferred to the functional standing committees of this house under which we have operated for some years, and perhaps as they may be amended during the current session. In particular we would refer the detailed studies of the estimates and the clause by clause consideration of most legislation to the standing committees so that they could be considered fully in the committees.


John George Diefenbaker: Would that be before or after second reading?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In the case of the ordinary legislative process it would take the place of the committee of the whole, that of course would be after second reading.
In so far as the estimates are concerned the intention would be, after having tabled the estimates, to refer the estimates immediately to the functional standing committees. In making these remarks I should also like to make it clear, as the member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) indicated this morning by his question whether the system would be continued whereby broader questions of public policy could still be considered in committee. I am sure the hon. member had in mind the successful consideration by the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons of the question of divorce and other difficult public questions which have been the subject of consideration from time to time. I only affirm it would be the government's intention to have such matters studied. Indeed, it would be the government's hope that, for example, the government's forthcoming white paper on antidumping legislation would be considered by the finance committee.
September 17, 1968
114	COMMONS
The Address-Hon. Donald S. Macdonald
One other change we would propose would be to streamline the procedures in ways and means. A famous English student of the parliamentary process referred to this as being a prime example of parliamentary mumbo-jumboism or a prime example of what, in some circles, is considered the importance of being ancient.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister allow a question before he continues? Suppose a particular matter which is controversial is submitted to a committee. When this committee makes a recommendation, will the government accept the recommendation made? I ask that question in view of the fact that, as I recall, in March or April of 1968 the committee considering the abortion amendment said there was not sufficient evidence to support the claims of the proponents of that legislation. Would the government accept the recommendation of the committee in this regard, and would they start with the recommendation concerning abortion made at the last session?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It seems to me that if a government did refer a subject to a committee and then accepted their recommendation without any further judgment on the part of the government, that government would be really giving up the governing role. The government would have to accept the political consequences of having failed to take the committee's recommendation.
Further questions should be considered by the special committee on procedure, and we think it would be desirable to make arrangements covering the question period, statements on motions and certain emergency procedures. I made some reference this morning to interim arrangements which the hon. member for Peace River, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Sheflord (Mr. Rondeau) have been discussing with me. Perhaps I could refer again to a proposal which I believe is acceptable in some quarters of the house, and which may be acceptable to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) now that he is here. I refer to the suggestion that the provisional rules which were in existence immediately prior to dissolution on April 23 should be readopted for a limited period of time, at least until the commencement of the session in January, 1969.
At that time such new rules as may have been developed in the committee on procedure could then become applicable. After a


debate to be held in the house, the special committee on procedure should be set up with responsibility for reporting back to the house detailed recommendations for changes in the standing orders not later than December 1, 1968. The 1968-69 estimates should also be immediately referred to the standing committees. There should be a stipulated time in committee of supply in the house, both for supply motions and for reporting back from committees, and that period should be limited to a total of 19 days. I repeat that this suggestion did not originate with me as government house leader.
Finally, shortly after this debate has been completed we should make permanent changes in the committee structure of the house so that those committees may more completely resemble the structure of government organization as it now exists. I hope it may be possible after hon. members have been able to consider that proposal, and assuming that my hon. friends in the New Democratic party and the Ralliement Creditiste also find it acceptable, that we might find that this particular recommendation could be adopted and we could get on with those changes in parliamentary procedures which we all desire.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister permit a question? I wonder whether he would also include in his suggestions about what might be done the possibility that any revision of the committee structure might be agreed upon before we refer the estimates to those committees, so that we will not be faced with the necessity of making changes after the committees have started their work?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I apologize for not having made that clear. It would be my intention that the committee structure would be altered and the reference of the estimates would be made afterwards.
I thank the house for its kindness in permitting me an extension of time. Perhaps in conclusion I might refer to a statement by a distinguished British student of political science, the government house leader in the United Kingdom House of Commons. He made this statement in that chamber in December, 1966, on a relatively identical occasion, that is, the introduction of new rules in the house. At that time Mr. Crossman said:
I believe that there are three questions by which the working of the House of Commons can be tested, both today and for future change: First,
Seplember 17, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES
Is the legislative process designed to enable policies to be translated into law at the speed required by the tempo of modern industrial change? Secondly, can our timetable, so long as the finance bill dominates our procedures, leave room for debating the great issues and especially for the topical debates on matters of current controversy which provide the main political education of a democracy? Thirdly, while accepting that legislation and administration must be firmly in the hands of the government, does the House of Commons provide a continuous and detailed check on the work of the executive and an effective defence of the individual against bureaucratic injustice and incompetence? It is by these three tests, I suggest, that we should try out both our existing procedures and the proposals for modifying them put forward by the various schools of parliamentary reform.
I suggest that these three tests may be applied to our present procedures and they will be found wanting. I am suggesting it would be useful to apply the same criteria to the new proposals, and I hope the house will have an early opportunity to do so in connection with the new procedures.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. Jack H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, without hesitation may I congratulate you on your elevation to the position you now hold. I am sure that in the future as in the past you will grace your office with that wit and wisdom to which we have become accustomed. May I also congratulate the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) on being appointed Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the Deputy Speaker will spend many hours learning to perform the duties of his office with wisdom.
I congratulate the mover of the address in reply to the throne speech, the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin). We all hope to hear more from him in this house on controversial matters. We hope that at all times he will give us frank appraisals of problems, and by "frank appraisals" I mean not only of what is good for his party but what is good for the country. I congratulate especially the seconder of the motion, the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand). If I may put it this way, his coming to this house is a first. His responsibilities and obligations are great, and I hope he will take part in many of the debates in this house.
Before launching into my chosen subject I wish to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). He made the right choice when he jumped the fence. Apparently he landed where he wanted to. I know that his
The Address-Mr. Horner knowledge of agriculture will stand him in good stead. We on this side of the house hope to assist him from time to time in trying to find solutions to the challenges facing agriculture.
I am particularly glad that the house has at last been reconvened. The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) may complain that he has only 72 days in which to get the business done but we in western Canada would have been happy if the house had met at least one month earlier.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the house had met earlier perhaps the terminal workers' strike at the Lakehead would have been settled one month earlier and the wheat situation in western Canada improved correspondingly. The striking workers had to meet one deadline only. They had to settle their strike before parliament was reconvened. The strike was settled at great cost. I was surprised to hear the Minister of Agriculture openly blame the elevator companies. Whether or not he likes to admit it, most of the elevator companies belong to the farmers and it is those farmers who will have to pay the additional costs incurred in settling the strike. Those costs may well be borne by some farmers who can afford them but statistics show that most farmers cannot afford them.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) was proud of his intervention in settling the strike. He suggested that the elevator companies had not made a serious proposal and that the onus was on them to settle the strike. It is interesting to note that the terminal workers asked for an increase of $1.06 and received $1.05 over a three year period instead of two years. The elevator companies cannot be blamed. The evidence shows that they went more than half way to meet the demands of the terminal workers.
The cry in our society is for efficiency. As recorded on page 8 of Hansard the speech from the throne says that the government "intends to investigate immediately a number of methods for promoting greater efficiency in the production and marketing of grains." The speech then mentions a number of agricultural acts which are to be amended. When one looks at the legislation on the order paper one cannot help but come to the conclusion that intended legislation will bring about an increase in interest rates. One wonders, is the main reason for including such legislation on the order paper the increase in interest rates
September 17, 1968

The Address-Mr. Horner as they apply to agriculture? Increased interest rates may force small farmers off the land that much more quickly. That may be one way to promote agricultural efficiency. If the government has that in mind it is a surprising attitude for any responsible government to take.
The onus is on the government to create a just society for all our citizens and to provide equal opportunities for all segments of society including farmers, be they big or small, well off or otherwise. The farmer will have to fight for survival even in the just society of which the Prime Minister talks in such glowing terms. Look at the plight of the western farmer and see whether that is not so.
In the present debate the Prime Minister said that the international wheat agreement has not solved the problems that it was thought it would solve. He took a different position during the election campaign when he said, "The United States has now signed the international wheat agreement and this will prevent any falling away of prices." In the throne speech debate he said, "There is a danger that the international wheat agreement will not do what we thought it would."
Wheat negotiators are meeting in Canberra, Australia, to try to thrash out difficulties in grading. Western Canada is in a state of flux. The farmers are having difficulty harvesting their crop. In some wet areas grain has sprouted from two to three inches. We shall have a poor and difficult harvest, and on top of that we are faced with a government that is indecisive and hesitates to act. Because of this a great deal of pessimism exists in western Canada with regard to agriculture.
Legislation outlined in the throne speech, as I see it, represents an effort to increase agricultural interest rates. About 80 per cent of the money which was lent through the Fram Credit Corporation went out at 5 per cent. The objective of the new legislation seems to be to raise that rate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is what they call flexibility.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: For example, look at the legislation on the order paper to do with the Farm Improvement Loans Act. The government allowed the provisions which permitted loans to be made at 5 per cent to lapse. The result has been that farm machinery sales this summer in the province of Saskatchewan have been down about 30 per cent. Let us look at how farmers borrowed money in 1967. Between July 1 and September 30, 1967, 21,000

farm loans were made to farmers for a total of $55 million. During the same period this year the necessary legislation was not in effect. Is the government really concerned about farmers?
It is interesting to note that the report of the Economic Council of Canada says that our agricultural efficiency or productivity is 20 years behind that of the United States. Why should we be 20 years behind the United States? One of the reasons for this difference is the greater use of capital in the United States. What has the present government done during the last three months? It has held back $55 million, practically speaking, under the farm inprovement loans legislation. How can we in Canada catch up when we are handicapped by this kind of negative response from a government which is supposed to be interested in helping the people? We must do better than this, Mr. Speaker, if we are to catch up.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Lest there be any mistake about what is contained in the report of the Economic Council of Canada on agriculture regarding the efficiency of Canadian farmers, let me point out that the report states on page 98:
Canadian agriculture has achieved a rate of growth of labour productivity well above that recorded in any other sectors of the economy.
In other words, farmers have not shown inefficiency; their efficiency has improved more rapidly than in any other segment of the economy. So why does the Prime Minister say that the inefficient farmer has to go, that there is no room for him in the just society which is envisaged? There is no such thing as an inefficient farmer, practically speaking. Here are the facts as they appear in the d.b.s. figures: agricultural efficiency measured in terms of manpower output is rated at 276; in general manufacturing it is 176 and in the non-agricultural commercial sector, 152. These figures give us some idea of efficiency in the agricultural industry compared with other sectors. According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics it has led the way. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister says in the speech from the throne that new means must be found to ensure greater efficiency in agriculture and that farmers who do not respond must go. It is the duty of the government to create a climate enabling all people to reach a standard of living comparable with that enjoyed by the rest of Canada. This is not the case when it comes to agriculture today. Here
September 17, 1968

is what the economic council had to say as recorded on page 82:
However, average farm Incomes have remained significantly lower than average non-farm incomes.
So while our efficiency has increased to an extent far greater than that of any other segment of the economy, farm income has not increased comparably.
Like it or not, the government is the prime marketer of our western wheat and the prime negotiator of tariffs and trade which affect the sale of our commodities. The government has failed to hold farm income at a level in any way comparable with the level which is desirable. The onus is on the government to make room for the farmer in the just society. The present society is practically crowding the farmer out of business.
Lest there should be concern about the situation in which the consumer might find himself, let us see what the d.b.s. has to say in this regard. A year ago an attempt was made in some of the consumer representations to place the blame for high prices at the door of the farmer. In 1949 a family spent 24 per cent of its income on food. In 1965 the average family spent 20.3 per cent of its income on food.
Meat is always the goat, it seems to me, in the question of food costs. Let us see what part of the food dollar is spent on meat. According to these statistics, in 1949 22.4 per cent of the food dollar was spent on meat. In 1965, 21.7 per cent was spent on meat. So we farmers are proving that we are able to produce commodities in exchange for which the consumer has to work fewer hours every year. Our efficiency is not surpassed by any other sector of the Canadian economy.
It is true the council suggests we are behind the United States. This is an interesting point. Why are we behind? We are behind the United States because, basically, we have failed to take advantage of three things. We have failed to make improved and greater use of capital, we have failed to make improved and greater use of advances in livestock technology and we have failed to make improved and greater use of technological advances affecting field crops in recent years.
What have we done to improve the livestock industry? We have turned Canada into a stopping-off place for Charolais cattle. Whatever may be said about this breed I believe it has a part to play in the improvement of our livestock industry. But by making Canada
The Address-Mr. Horner merely a stopping place we have enabled it to contribute to the efficiency of the industry in the United States.
It is true a ruling has recently been made under which these cattle are supposed to remain in Canada for at least three years, but this rule is not being enforced to any extent. Favourable responses to applications-2,200 last year and 1,700 the year before-were given and permits doled out to the very people who send these cattle to the United States. The whole question of the importation of Charolais cattle and the way in which permits are dealt with should be looked into closely. I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that in order to clean his slate of the old brush marks made by previous ministers he should set up the agricultural committee immediately and refer the question of Charolais cattle permits to that committee for study with a view to setting up a new system which would aid the Canadian livestock industry by allowing those cattle to make the greatest possible contribution to that industry and enabling us to take advantage of new advances in technology.
What does the economic council say with regard to this point? At page 86 we find the following:
Inputs related to livestock deals measure purchases of livestock, breeding stock on farm, and feed. Evidently, U.S. farmers have increased inputs in this area much more rapidly than Canadian farmers and to the extent that these purchases have improved the quality of feed and livestock, Canadian farmers have not kept pace with U.S. farmers.
This is one of the reasons for our failure to keep pace. Clearly, the best possible provision is not being made for the contribution which Charolais cattle could make to the improvement of our livestock industry.
What else could we do? We could perhaps make better use of discoveries in the field of hormones. In several parts of the United States experiments are being made in the use of hormones. Some ranchers are averaging 130 to 140 calves out of 100 cows instead of 70 or 90, following a greater use of hormones. Artificial insemination must be developed more in the years ahead so that by the choice of semen a rancher can raise nothing but steers instead of heifers. This would bring about efficiency in output.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Canada has also fallen behind in the development of new strains of field crops simply
118	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Horner because the federal government has not played its part in the development of new cereal grains. Some 50 years ago Canadians developed a number of new wheat strains which contributed a great deal to the efficiency of the western farmer. The Chinook strain and a few others were developed in recent years but this work has fallen behind the accomplishments of other countries. I mention triticale as one new development in wheat achieved by crossing rye with wheat. The University of Manitoba has contributed much to the success of this new grain. Some new strains have not been too successful but other strains should be tried and we should endeavour to close the development gap that exists between this country and the United States in grain yields.
This brings me to the question of what else we can do with respect to capital investment.
I maintain that other policies could be devised that would produce a greater return for the farmer. It is interesting to note the conflict in views between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and his predecessor in office. His predecessor said that he saw no value in a two-price system for wheat. As reported in the Regina Leader-Post of July 27 last the present minister said he wholeheartedly endorses a two-price system for wheat.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That was before he got the word.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sure many farmers will look forward to seeing the minister implement such a policy. I quote from that issue of the Leader-Post:
Mr. Olson agrees with the proposal for a two-price system for wheat, a platform plank in both the Liberal and Social Credit farm policies in the last three elections. He said Canada is about the only country that sells domestic wheat at the same price as exports.
We on this side of the house will do our best to encourage the minister to implement such a policy. It would increase the net income of farmers in Canada generally and particularly those in western Canada.
I note that the speech from the throne forecasts legislation covering interest rates on loans granted for agricultural purposes. We shall strive to improve these separate legislative items because we want farmers to make greater use of their provisions.
A number of years ago we provided that the Industrial Development Hank could make agricultural loans. As a result there was a
(Mr. Horner.)
DEBATES	September 17. 1968
great upsurge in the number of such loans made by that bank. However, recent statistics show that there has been a tapering off in the volume of these loans.
The agricultural industry needs a greater inflow of capital to assist in the marketing of goods, whether those goods be fruit and vegetables, dairy products, or other types of goods. By developing better marketing we can make sure that fanners receive a price that is above their costs of production.
In the past four years the government introduced a system of accelerated depreciation for grain storage facilities, but it is going to end now. Many western farmers would like to see provision made in the coming budget for retention of that scheme. That scheme encouraged them to build and buy storage for their grain. At the rate the government is now selling wheat farmers will have to build and buy more storage in the years ahead and the accelerated depreciation scheme would help them.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is now in charge of the wheat board and I note that the government, through the Speech from the Throne, suggests the establishment of a Canada grains council. What will be the purpose of such a council? Various cabinet ministers have commented upon it. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), who at one time was in charge of the wheat board, has said that the proposed grains council is not a slam against the wheat board and that its main purpose will be to produce new ideas. Has the wheat board been lax in this aspect of its work? We in western Canada would like to know. We think the wheat board has done a terrific job over the years.
A few years ago the wheat board issued a little pamphlet listing 11 of its functions. These basically cover the selling of grain at the highest possible price with the greatest efficiency, and the development of grain exports at the highest possible price so that grain farmers may receive a good return on their product. Is the proposed grains council to act as liaison between the wheat board and the eastern feed board, or is it merely going to be window dressing?
I note that the Minister of Agriculture is not in the chamber, Mr. Speaker. I have no particular axe to grind with him, but I think it is a pity that as a minister from western Canada he is not responsible for the wheat board. Without that responsibility what effect
September 17, 19S8

has he in guarding agricultural prices tor western producers?
The other day we heard that the new Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) from Saskatoon is going to take over responsibility for the wheat board. The wheat board has come under the control of five ministers in less than three years, and such uncertainty does nothing for the western farmer. It should be placed in the hands of a western minister who knows something about western agriculture and who is prepared to do something. I believe it should be placed in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. He is supposed to be responsible for the well-being of farmers, particularly western farmers since he comes from western Canada.
The former minister of forestry condemned the wheat board. Now we see a national grains council being advocated. The government does not explain what it will do, whether it will be window dressing, providing jobs for a bunch of Grits out to enjoy a just society. We want the uncertainty to end. We want the indecision to end. We want confidence restored but this cannot be done when there is indecision about the international wheat agreement and confusion over whether it is going to be effective and enforced.
At present the Minister of Agriculture is in charge of little that affects western Canada. His biggest responsibility is the dairy industry. We in western Canada have milked a lot of cows in our day but are not necessarily noted for that being our major concern. The previous minister of agriculture can chalk up to his credit that he got rid of more small dairy farmers than any of his predecessors. Throughout the election campaign the Prime Minister suggested that inefficient farmers must go. I do not want the new Minister of Agriculture to be charged in a few years time with getting rid of more farmers, and not just dairy farmers, than any previous minister.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I firmly believe that people want to return to the land. I believe people do not accept the thesis of economists and university professors that everybody wants to get off the land and that the only solution to our agricultural problems is to get half our farmers to leave the land. I believe there are thousands of people living in the cities today who would welcome an opportunity to get back to the farm. It is a duty of a just society to try to provide an opportunity for those farmers to
The Address-Mr. McBride return to the land. They should not be pushed or moved off the land.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister suggested that the small farms must go and that some kind of a new board should be set up which would prohibit the sale of marginal land to new farmers. In other words, the land should either be sold to the crown as public land or sold to another farmer to enable him to enlarge his holding. This is not good enough. In agriculture today we see more and more farmers returning to the farm and working part time on the farm and part time off the farm. Certainly this is acceptable. In fact some figures which I read recently suggested that something like 69 per cent of the farmers paying income tax in the United States are actually carrying on part time jobs. Perhaps this is the way we are heading in this country; I do not know. Certainly if a farmer finds it necessary to take a part time job we should encourage rather than discourage him. We should encourage him to live on the land and not force him off it.
I hope we can clear up the confused situation in respect of grain handling and grain marketing. I also hope that before long the Canadian Wheat Board can be called before the agricultural committee so that the committee may study the whole question of whether or not the international grains agreement can be enforced and whether or not the floor prices under the international grains agreement will in effect be the floor prices at which Canadian grain can be sold on the world market.


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark and Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, it is a very humbling experience to have the great privilege of speaking for my first time in Canada's parliament. I wish at the outset to underscore the usual courtesies paid by previous speakers in this throne speech debate to yourself, to the leaders of this house, to the leaders of the parties, to the senior and sophomore members and to the freshmen like myself.
As you know I am the member for Lanark and Renfrew. My riding includes portions of three counties within the Ottawa valley, the county of Renfrew, the county of Lanark and the county of Carleton. I was born in the Ottawa valley and I have lived for 23 of my 33 years within 100 miles of this the nation's capital. As a result I have been privileged on many occasions to sit in the visitors' gallery and gain, by a kind of osmosis, the feel, the
September 17, 19S8

The Address-Mr. McBride cut and thrust, of parliamentary debate. It is thus for me a double honour to be able to take an active part here on the floor of the house itself.
We must always be sensitive to our history. It was a much more brilliant man than I who reminded us many centuries ago that he who is ignorant of what happened before he was born is destined to remain a child forever. I agree. Where we have come from is vitally important in determining where we are going to. Especially is this so if we are to have ourselves, and imbue in our people, any sense of destiny and purpose.
I am well aware also that perhaps everything I say today may have been better said in this house at some earlier date. I do not pretend to have discovered any insights that are uniquely new. Rather, my purpose is to accentuate some of those subjects that I believe need our attention now and in the days and years that lie before us. It seems to me that we are not here to glorify the past but to plan the future. We are not here to reflect the average opinions of the average Canadian but are here to uncover greater possibilities than we have ever yet had.
Our task is one of leadership. I know that Canadians did not elect our esteemed Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) because they believed he would follow them. We elected the right hon. gentleman because we know he will lead us and blaze new trails and set new standards for a new age. Similarly, as I look around me today I am convinced that all hon. members in this entire house were sent to parliament because their constituents believed, through the power of the ballot, that they would be the most creative, the most forward looking persons available to come to Ottawa to sculpture the future forms of our beloved nation.
Allow me to set out in both broad and specific terms what I as a novice in the house consider to be the most urgent problems facing us all. It is a cliche to say that we live in a fast moving age. It is also true. As Cardinal Leger used to say, the facts are also the truth. For many people all over the world, the only constant factor is change itself. Rapid social change creates an inevitable sense of rootlessness at the personal level.
Just yesterday we were reminded in this house that in the immediate future people probably will have to enter three different vocations during their lifetime and be educated all over again three different times. We must be aware of the result. It is too easy in

a life of continuous change for the individual to come to believe that he is dispensable, which in a very real sense is true, and experience an increasing sense of loss of any feeling of personal worth and value. Such lowering of one's estimate of one's own innate ability to count for something is the initial cause of the majority of all mental illness. Thus we will and do need as never before in our history to take definite steps to emphasize personal value and the uniqueness of the human dimension.
It seems to me that we must within Canada create and maintain an environment wherein we not only produce persons to work with machines but also persons to work with people. As I said earlier I do not belittle history. But this is a future-oriented age as illustrated by the emphasis upon youth in our culture and even as demonstrated in this house where I, at 33, am some 11 years older than our youngest member.
I, in agreement with the government, want Canada to be a director of the future and not one of its victims. For that reason I am a member of this house. The future, by all indications, will produce an ever-shrinking world. We cannot be isolationistic. We must think of ourselves as citizens of Canada, but we must also think of ourselves as citizens of the world. The day is very near when mere nationalism, if it is that and nothing more, will have a very parochial ring. It is one thing to say that we are among the most fortunate people in the world. Let me give you a devastating quotation:
The rich can only be happy so long as the poor suffer In silence.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Today in a land like Peru a poor peasant woman goes to market down the mountain trail with her chickens and meagre produce piled high upon her head. She has an intimate acquaintance with poverty, disease and illiteracy. Her parents before her were the victims of povery, disease and illiteracy. They assumed that the whole world was poor, diseased and uneducated.
At first sight nothing seems to have changed. This woman's situation is the same as it has been for others for centuries. But there is one thing different and it affects this House of Commons. As she went to market this morning on that far-off mountain trail she likely walked with a very low-cost "transistor radio pressed to her ear. She, unlike her ancestors, knows that all the world is not
September 17, 1968	COMMONS
illiterate, diseased and almost destitute. Her situation is the same but her attitude is changed. The rich can never be happy again because the poor, in an age of mass communication, will never keep silent again.
What does this mean? Our foreign aid has hovered around one half of one per cent of gross national product in recent years, and since the United Nations has recommended that a minimum level of one per cent of gross national product be the target for developed countries it means that if we are to seek a peaceful world and be future oriented we must in a very hard headed way go out across this land and convince the taxpayers that increased foreign aid is not simply the pipedream of some idealist but rather an essential investment in their own children's well-being.
I hope too that we in this twenty eighth parliament can reflect the fact that we live in a pluralistic society. We must, and I believe we will, revise laws restrictive of human rights, for example, laws restrictive of proper family planning, laws which tend to permit the wealthy to attain what the poor are denied. We must reassess, as the throne speech has committed us to do, the lumping together in a legal sense of such diverse chemicals as marijuana and heroin. In short I want, like the Prime Minister, that this be a parliament for the people.
I would, Mr. Speaker, be less than honest to my own integrity if I sat down without mentioning Biafra. In a family the children belong to the parents just as Biafra belongs to Nigeria. In our culture we have assumed for a long time that if the parents to whom the children legally belong brutalize those children, even if they are disobedient and naughty, then the neighbours must take steps for the children's protection. If the neighbours on either side of the home take no action, is the neighbour in the next block thereby excused from taking the most direct and useful action possible for those children's protection? I think not. Similarly, just because it is my brother, a part of my own family, and in this instance of the Commonwealth, who is brutalizing his children it seems to me I am no less required to intervene.
I am distressed by reports this morning from Nigeria. We in Canada are already doing much and that must be recognized, but we must do more and we must do it now. As a novice in this house I want this opinion to be heard very clearly.
DEBATES	121
The Address-Mr. Coates
Socrates and the ancient Greeks had a definition of leisure to which I wish to draw the attention of my colleagues. To the ancient Greeks leisure was the time a free man spent in pursuit of government, what we might call being civic-minded. The purpose of such effort was to create the great society, a phrase, by the way, borrowed by our brothers south of the border without credits. It seems to me that we in this House of Commons are free men in pursuit of government. I hope and am daily becoming more convinced that the product of our labours will dispel any suspicion among our constituents that we are not, within the modern-day distortion of the original term, using our leisure in the pursuit of government.
My constituents in Lanark and Renfrew have paid me a great honour by sending me here. I hope my contribution in this house will justify their confidence.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be of congratulation to yourself on your re-election to the high office you hold and on your record established in the past in this high office which has allowed politicians to set aside partisan considerations. I must congratulate you for your efforts which have made it possible for you to come back to this chamber as an independent member, thereby giving greater honour and prestige to your position. I believe that you have, Mr. Speaker, taken the first step of many that will eventually place you in the position of being the finest member that has ever occupied your high office and I look forward in the years to come to even greater and more outstanding examples of your non-partisanship and your willingness to serve the members of this chamber.
I should also like to congratulate the chairman of the committee of the whole on his election to that office. I feel certain that in the days ahead he will show this same non-partisanship in carrying out the duties of that position and will serve the members of this house in a diligent and forthright manner.
Let me also offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Corbin) and the seconder (Mr. Marchand) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I was very impressed with both these young men and I am sure they will make a great contribution to parliament in the days that lie ahead. It is my hope they will find it possible, along with other members in all parties in this
September 17, 1968

The Address-Mr. Coates house, to participate often in debates and thereby contribute to the building of this nation.
Before I commence the theme of my remarks I should like to offer my congratulations to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for the the outstanding contribution he made to this debate yesterday. Surely that contribution is a clear indication that the official opposition in this house is ready and willing to place frank questions before the government even though they often produce sterile and barren answers much like the document that is the basis of this debate. I refer to the throne speech.
[DOT] (3:30	p.m.)
I should especially like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for referring to a very obvious omission in the throne speech. I find it shocking to the sensibilities of many Canadians that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this country should ask the Queen's representative to read a document when the Prime Minister does not even acknowledge the Queen. I think many Canadians will find it less than acceptable to hear the Prime Minister of this nation say we do not go around bragging about our loyalty to the Queen, especially when that same hon. gentleman only last spring, when a debate was taking place in the province of Quebec on a resolution to determine whether this country should go forward as a republic or as a member of the commonwealth recognizing the Queen, said he was so disinterested in that debate that he would rather go fishing. I would think he should have been anxious to indicate to all Canadians that he did have loyalty and allegiance to the Queen.
I believe, therefore, that the Leader of the Opposition was right in telling the government that they should say either yes or no when they are talking about loyalty to the Queen. Certainly what the Prime Minister has said to date is unacceptable to me as a Canadian who is loyal to the Queen, and I am sure it is unacceptable to many Canadians in this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote the following words:
Like the diet prescribed by doctors, which neither restores the strength of the patient nor allows him to succumb, so these doles that you are now distributing neither suffice to ensure your safety nor allow you to renounce them and try something else.

So spoke Demosthenes 2,300 years ago; yet no words can better describe the plight of the Atlantic provinces today in the light of this throne speech. It was a bitter disappointment, for it followed in the footsteps of the ill-conceived and unfulfilled promises of the Pearson administration that made our area the afterthought area of this nation. This afterthought philosophy persists with the present administration, as exemplified by the statements of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer).
The government acted quickly and without hesitation in announcing a new air policy that will result in the expenditure of $600 million in the construction of two new air terminals for the cities of Montreal and Toronto but offered only the prospects associated with studies of transportation in the Atlantic provinces, plus the ultra-conservative philosophy that dollars and cents will be the determining factor in passenger services that will be available in the future to the residents of the Atlantic provinces, and more especially to the province of Newfoundland.
It is no wonder that the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) rose immediately in this house and asked when the government was going to start cancelling passenger services in the rest of Canada. What other approach could any new member take after hearing that kind of statement from the Minister of Transport regarding a serious problem facing his constituents?
I recommend to the Minister of Transport the words of a great Liberal, the late Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who said more than 30 years ago:
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.
The voters of the Atlantic area moved in open revolt against an administration that said much but did little. The self-styled despots of the region had little control over the voters, for they had failed to make the federal government recognize their plight. Like Demosthenes, they saw our region as one that could neither survive nor succumb with a government whose every action pertaining to our region was an afterthought.
While the voters of Atlantic Canada witnessed the hysteria that followed the Prime Minister wherever he travelled in this nation, while they heard the words "just society'' and "regional economic disparity" pour forth from
September 17, 1968
his lips when he spoke, they recalled the utterances of other Liberal leaders and were not deceived. The visionary, turned mundane housekeeper, has at least confirmed in the minds of the voters of the Atlantic provinces that they chose wisely. We remain in the position where only one leader in this century has matched performance with promise, and I am pleased the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) still graces this chamber with his presence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: I know that we in my part of Canada can continue to depend upon him. He is the greatest friend we have ever had in politics in this nation, and I know he will continue to assist us in our determined fight for equality of opportunity with the remainder of the people in this nation.
If the leaders of this nation are not concerned about the plight of our area, if they are unwilling to consider the shocking revelations provided by statistics, statistics that tell them that even though we are already underpopulated there is a migration from our region that has reached alarming proportions, statistics that tell them we are continually operating, and have for years, with an unemployment base that varies from two to three times the national average, statistics that tell them we live in an area with a per capita income between 70 per cent and 75 per cent of the national average and that the gap has widened, not narrowed, in recent years, statistics that tell them the region cannot hope to become a viable entity unless a new trans-poration policy is produced for the region, then, Mr. Speaker, we are placed in the position where we must reassess the value of our Canadian citizenship.
Such a reassessment would require that we determine the contributions we make, the sacrifices we make and the benefits accruing from our citizenship. The citizens of the Atlantic provinces stand shoulder to shoulder with citizens in other parts of Canada in our loyalty and dedication to one, united Canada. The rewards for this loyalty and dedication have not been equal in all parts of the nation and we have suffered most from this disparity.
We have never sought charity but only the opportunity to make use of the potential that surrounds us. Like Franklin Delano Roosevelt who said in 1935 that "continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral
The Address-Mr. Coates disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre" and "to dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit", we desire only the kind of philosophy from the federal administration that will guarantee our people the right to equality of opportunity.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
We in Atlantic Canada are a proud people with a determination to remain, even through adversity, in our region. We have long been known as the exporters of brains to the remainder of Canada, and our people serve today, and have throughout this country's history, in the highest offices in government, industry and education. Those who visit our area from other parts of Canada discover a unique beauty, a warm and generous people, and a degree of progress in which we take special pride, for in recent years it has been almost solely maintained by financially strapped provincial governments. Two of the initiators of our drive for industrialization now sit in this chamber. Both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. Flemming) deserve the highest possible commendation for the leadership and the new spirit they instilled in the people of their respective provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: We learned recently that Toronto the good had carried out a special study of the maritimers who come to that great city seeking work. This study group recommended that the city inform federal manpower centres that they require no future citizens from the maritimes. They gave some very uncomplimentary descriptions of those who had migrated in the past. The philosophy which initiated, produced and publicized such a study is reminiscent of that in vogue in Hitler's Germany and is unacceptable and inexcusable in the Canada I know. I say to these Toronto men of warped reason that we are as anxious as they to keep our people in the maritimes and that almost without exception our people desire to remain there. What we require is a drastic change of pace on the part of the federal government, one that will provide the weapons for us to overcome adversity, not the agglomeration which represents today federal government policy in the Atlantic provinces.
We have the great projects which could transform our region from the have not to the have category, but we require action and

September 17, 1968

The Address-Mr. Coates imagination on the part of this government. For years we have spoken of the three C's: The causeway, the corridor road and the Chignecto complex. Already this government is preparing the causeway for the guillotine. The mover of this debate has urged the government to give unfavourable consideration to the corridor road, and the Chignecto complex awaits the same fate from a government which up to now has reacted to one study by setting up another.
The Prince Edward Island causeway would be a self-liquidating project based on present federal government expenditures to maintain a transportation link between that province and the mainland. The corridor road has long been promoted as the means of moving our goods much closer to the markets of central Canada, but because this young man, at this early stage of his political career, cannot see beyond his constituency, he counsels the government to kill a project which might well become the cornerstone of a new transportation system for our region.
Naturally I must hope that the foresight of the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) will allow him, with time, to see the problems of the area on a regional rather than a constituency basis. If the causeway and the corridor road face the guillotine, can we anticipate the same fate for the Chignecto complex?
It is my view that the problems of the Atlantic region are so severe as to require daring on the part of the federal government. This means the undertaking of the harnessing of the Bay of Fundy tides as a source of power as soon as the government has the assurance it is feasible from an engineering standpoint. We cannot afford the luxury of an economic debate but rather need the kind of courageous decision for Atlantic Canada that was displayed for central Canada in the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway and for western Canada in the construction of the South Saskatchewan dam.
We are told by the Prime Minister that the government will approach this matter through its manpower policies. If the government persists in this philosophy, the Atlantic provinces will become the training ground for industry in central Canada. Our people will be trained or retrained for non-existent jobs in the Atlantic region and then provided with one-way tickets out of the region. The ghost of Walter Gordon casts its ugly shadow over our area once again.

A new breed of man must appear on the scene in Atlantic Canada. He must be fearlessly determined to protect our area from the afterthought philosophy and from further economic erosion. The 32 members from the Atlantic provinces must become the vanguard of the army at home which will fight for equality and justice. I have had the pleasant experience of meeting a man in the present administration who might well provide enlightened leadership to this vanguard in Ottawa, namely, the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Jamieson). I will watch with anticipation his words and actions in the days ahead. If he meets my expectations and if his deep concern for our problems continues, progress is assured.
This new breed of man must generate inspiration to the legions at home so they may fight discrimination and win equality of opportunity, thereby guaranteeing that the words of Demosthenes will not be the epitaph on our tombstone.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join those who con-congratulated you and your assistant on your respective appointments. I know that you will both discharge your duties with great dignity, decorum and competence.
Please transmit my best wishes and congratulations to the Speaker of this house upon his appointment. By first sitting as an independent member and then becoming Speaker of the house, he has, in my opinion, created a precedent which does him special honour, as do also his rulings based on other precedents.
I also wish to congratulate the sponsors of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne (Messrs. Corbin and Marchand). In my opinion, they have made an excellent start and need only follow the road they have chosen.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
As for myself, Mr. Speaker, I have been elected for the fourth time. My former riding, that of Quebec South, included the town of Sillery, part of the city of Quebec and all the old historic part of Quebec City. Redistribution unfortunately removed the historic part of the city of Quebec from my new riding of Louis-Hebert. However, it added thereto the cities of Sainte-Foy and Cap-Rouge.
September 17, 1968	COMMONS
I wish to thank all those who took part in my election campaign. I want also to thank all the voters who had faith in me, who enabled me to pass the test rather successfully, and the best way to thank them is for me to represent all Canadians here. I am determined to work to that end.
We will have to study legislation which might prove controversial, but when that time comes, we will have to remember that when voting on any given legislation, we do it as representatives of all Canadians and not only as members of particular ridings.
During the election campaign, I lived through a rather interesting experience: I saw the young take an interest in politics, and that for the first time. Young people from 15 to 20 years of age, who could not even vote, came to the offices of my organization committees, asking me to hold forums, political information meetings. I did so with great pleasure and I gained a lot from the interest shown by these youngsters for public affairs.
I was also amazed by the seriousness of their questions.
We live in a fast changing world whose influence on youth is greater than ever. Still very young, they come down into the street and demand things which never came to our mind when we were the same age. Our students demand participation in the management of universities and in the elaboration of their courses.
I say that this is a modern phenomenon which was perhaps crystallized during the last election campaign by new leaders, and especially by the leader of my party who was able to get the youngsters interested in public matters.
So, I say we must now start a dialogue with the young, interest them in public affairs, make them participate in our debate, in our exchange of ideas-that is what I intend to do with my colleagues-in an endeavour to quietly institute democracy through participation, the participation of all the citizens, at every level and, I would even say, of every age group.
Mr. Speaker, I assure you that this experience, which was new to me, was also very useful for the progress in my way of thinking on public life. This brings me to the address in reply.
The main criticism voiced by the opposition is this. It contains nothing but generalities. Obviously, this is something new. It does not give, as usual, a list of legislative measures, a 29180-9
DEBATES	125
The Address-Mr. Cantin catalogue of laws. On the contrary, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) decided to present a motion to table a list of legislative measures mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.
This speech outlined a philosophy, a policy for the future with general objectives; and we want to have adopted pieces of legislation enabling the achievement of those objectives. We want to establish in a reasoned, sensible manner, according to our means, an increasingly just society. We shall succeed if everyone participates.
As you know, established traditions and an entrenched economy cannot be changed without a degree of rationality, allowing for the time required to effect those changes. However, I think we have taken the right steps in this direction, and all the cabinet ministers have worked hard this summer to prepare the legislation which is to be submitted to the house.
As a member of parliament, I also have to deal with matters in my riding and in my area, and as concerns achievements, I have tried for the last few years to effect certain improvements. Some projects have been implemented, but some others have not yet been carried out.
At this stage, I should like merely to mention the Quebec City airport. We should not forget that Quebec is, after all, a capital. Now, the airport we have at present is not worthy of that city; essential services are completely lacking, from baggage service to the conveniences that could be made available to travellers. I know that a study concerning the renovation of the airport is under way and I am going to ask the honourable Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) to see that it is carried out as soon as possible.
So, with respect to the challenge confronting us, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention my first impressions. Upon coming back to this house last week, I felt like entering a new parliament. I believe there are about 60 new members on the Liberal side and more than 40 in the various opposition parties. Among the new-comers on the government side, I noticed many young and serious representatives, who are really anxious to work and improve our society. I believe we can observe on the opposition side the same concern for progress with respect to all Canadians.
I believe the atmosphere pervading the opening of this parliament is auspicious and that we shall be able to achieve, in the near

September 17, 1968
The Address-Mr. Rose future, the goals set in the Speech from the Throne.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, as a newly elected member from a newly created riding I am pleased, through the courtesy of my colleagues, to be able to take part in this debate at this time. If I were to say that I did not come here to talk, that statement would be both inaccurate and misleading. It is not, however, how much is said but rather the quality and relevance of what is said that will determine whether this parliament can reverse the trend of electoral drop-outism which is found in an increasing segment of Canadians. It will be my objective, then, to deal with matters before this house in a positive, conscientious way.
Other speakers have offered congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, upon your election to this important office. May I be permitted to add mine, with the observation that last Thursday you advanced to your position from the back row of the opposition benches. I will accept this as a good omen for others in my row interested in upward social mobility, although I doubt that our rise will be quite as rapid.
Laudatory words of congratulation to the right hon. gentleman who is our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have also been extended repeatedly. I hope that in adding my voice to the chorus I will be forgiven if I fail to launch myself into stellar flights of oratory of a kind comparable with those words which have come from the government side of the house. There are three major reasons for my ungrudging but comparatively subdued greeting. First of all, I sit in the opposition, so in that sense my mission here is to bury Caesar, not to praise him. Second, my presence here is not a result of this gentleman's popularity in the recent election. In fact, the contrary is the case and I am here despite it. Finally, but most importantly, much of what has been said in reference to the Prime Minister has implied accomplishment of what is but yet potential. Wishes are not facts; sentiments are not solutions. Good intentions are but pavement on the road; they are never to be confused with progress along it.
This brings me to a crucial point in considering the rather dreary document before us, the speech from the throne. One would have

anticipated a 20th century banner of excitement and verve to be unfurled, an imaginative, courageous blueprint for a new Canada. This is what our country hoped for and deserved, but we did not get it. At a time in our history when pride in ourselves as Canadians was glowing as never before we were ready to be challenged, anxious for the new look and famished for idealistic leadership. But, Mr. Speaker, we were disillusioned. We were served with a skilfully vague reiteration of the status quo when we had every right to expect, from advance notices, a ringing manifesto for social change. This speech will send no one to the barricades, sir-more likely to the rail.
Reform in parliament we can all support, I believe, but it does not necessarily follow that reform in government will be the result. Forms are much more easily amended than substance. People may be fooled for a while by what looks like improvement, but if the "just society" turns out to be "just a front" their revenge may be devastating.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I am certain that my constituents, the pensioners, the veterans, the rural poor, the unemployed, the fishermen, the Indians, the educated, the uneducated, the sick, the weary and the discouraged, will all be fascinated to discover how past governments could be accused of concentrating on the distributive aspects of our economy. Only a week ago we received the report of the economic council which sets forth in alarming terms the contradiction that 40 per cent of Canadians are on the short end of the distributive stick. Many people in my riding will give great support to a government willing to give greater concentration to an even better distribution of the wealth of our country. The plain fact of the matter is that, despite our affluence, far too many people in Canada have far too little of the things necessary for hope and happiness and dignity.
The government knows full well that exhortations to work harder, to show more individual initiative, will have little effect on the productivity of the unskilled and unmotivated. Millions of these people struggle now in a circle of hopeless drudgery and inflation is forcing them to run harder just to stay where they are.
Lectures on outmoded economic theories will not help, either. We are short of money to spend on the things we need, like schools,
September 17, 1968

hospitals, universities, research and retraining, because we have squandered millions on things such as Bobcats, Arrows, Bomarcs and Norads, that we do not need or no longer need.


Mr. Cadieux (Labelle):: How do you know we do not need them, or did not?


Mark Willson Rose: No, I think the secret of improved productivity lies in improving the skill of the average Canadian; and this implies a massive investment in the human resources of our country, especially in education. Canada is no longer a rural society, although many look back nostalgically to when it was. We are, rather, a nation where fewer than 10 per cent of our people live on farms and the rest now live in urban centres. When we remember too that over half of the parents in this country have only grade 8 education we can then appreciate the tremendous job ahead in transmitting educational values to the young.
John Porter had this to say recently, and I quote it because I believe it to be of great relevance if one wishes to tackle the problem of productivity with diligence. He said:
If a society as it is becoming industrialized fails to upgrade its labour force ... there is an alternative open to it, and that is to go and get its skills some place else, and that is what Canada has done to a great extent. It is quite fair to say that the high level of industrialization which Canada enjoys today rests not only on the importation of foreign capital but on the importation of foreign skills and professions Canada has failed to produce.
The path seems clear then, Mr. Speaker, as to what might be done to begin to improve productivity. Our people are neither stupid nor lazy; too few have had enough education of the right kind. Far from having too much of this free stuff, many have had too little.
The story of the average Canadian is the story of wasted talent because of inadequate preparation to meet the demands of the technological society- Our lag in regard to education can be seen when we recognize that 15 per cent of Canadians have enjoyed postsecondary training compared with over 40 per cent in the United States. Too often, of course, it is not the most able who go on, because the financial demands of higher education are insurmountable to all the most dedicated of the poor.
It is no longer news that a disproportionate number of the sons and daughters of upper income families are to be found in our
The Address-Mr. Rose secondary schools and universities; yet middle and low income groups have the most brain power simply because they contain more people. I believe that this state of affairs is no longer satisfactory. It is too late for such wastefulness. It is the ability to learn, not the ability to pay, which should determine who is to go on.
Now is the time to renounce once and for all the outmoded and inefficient concept that the federal government has no business in education. The national government has already stuck its toe in the water of vocational, agricultural and university education. Now is the time to plunge right in and come up with a bold program. I agree that there is sound constitutional validity that primary and secondary education remain the preserve of the provinces, but there is nowhere near the historical justification for post-secondary institutions of learning to be exclusively under provincial control. At the time of confederation institutions of higher learning were privately endowed and not state supported. It seems to me, therefore, that provincial claims to exclusive rights here are extravagant.
The products of higher education are a natural resource of prime importance. Their mobility, expertise and contribution to our country's development make it essential that a greater interest and investment in postsecondary education be undertaken by the national government. More and more young people are knocking at the doors of these schools and finding them closed. I suggest that this condition can only perpetuate the teach the best, shoot the rest elitism we have traditionally accepted in Canada. More schools must be built and different kinds of schools developed for the vast variety of talents and skills possessed by our youth and to provide an educational alternative to those not wishing to go to colleges or universities. This is a way to increase productivity. Our neighbour to the south has enjoyed outstanding industrial success largely because it has deliberately broadened and democratized its educational system and produced the most skilful work force in the world. The broader the base, the higher the pyramid it can support.
The lack of federal consideration of education is inconsistent with the objectives of a modern state. A patchwork of ten provincial systems each running off in all directions is an extravagance 20 million people can scarcely afford. I propose that a national office of

September 17, 1968
The Address-Mr. Rose education be established, whose functions would include the following: First, to assume leadership in establishing some uniform grade and subject standards across the land, so that children of our mobile work force will no longer be educationally penalized nor psychologically disadvantaged by moving abruptly from one school system to another.
Second, we need a national office of education to stimulate and co-ordinate educational research in Canada so that we will not remain as dependent on the importation of foreign research as we are on foreign capital and skill. Third, we need a national office of education to administer grants, directly to institutions, if necessary, in order to hasten the day post-secondary training and retraining at public expense are considered as much a right as we now accept education to be in the elementary and secondary systems.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I must express my regret that the government has recently allowed a 2 per cent increase in the Canada student loan interest rate. This regressive measure penalizes those who can least afford it. Why has the government not moved in exactly the opposite direction? Why has it not provided more able young Canadians with the kind of incentives it offers university officer candidates for the Canadian forces? I have no objection to paying young people $187 per month to go to university because I know the whole country benefits in the long run. But it does evoke some comment on our priorities that we willingly pay $187 per month to train young men to kill and be killed while we raise the loan rate for future teachers by 2 per cent.
Fourth, we need a national office of education so that no country in the world will be in doubt that the educational address of Canada is not in Victoria, British Columbia or Quebec city but is in the parliament buildings, Ottawa. We must in future avoid a recurrence of the recent controversy and national embarrassment caused by the attempted extraterritorial extension of provincial educational rights. Finally, we need a national office of education to improve and make more meaningful the cultural life of Canadians.
I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the grim technocratic nature of the document before us. It has little or nothing to say about the quality of life to which many Canadians aspire. It comes through to me as having a clinical, sterile, impersonal quality emphasizing efficiency and muscle in an age when
FMr. Rose.]
technology seems on the verge of releasing man for a new renaissance of creation and re-creation. Campus activists who are demanding a greater share in decision making are but the tip of the iceberg of youthful discontent. Many young people find it no longer acceptable to have their educational systems so completely ordered by adults that they are likely to emerge from schools as dehumanized units destined for industrial and commercial oblivion.
What man does with his leisure is largely dependent upon how he was educated. And one of man's greatest new problems is likely to be how to fill in the time between birth and death constructively. It is inconceivable to me that a cabinet led and dominated by Latins could articulate the Puritan ethic more admirably. May I ask: Oh where, oh where, is your Gallic flair?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I am honoured today, Mr. Speaker, to speak before this assembly. I am deeply grateful to my constituents who have given me the opportunity to work with great Canadians on both sides of the house. I am happy to take my place here along with more than 100 new members and I express the opinion that reform in this parliament will be greatly facilitated by the fact that so many of us have so little to unlearn.
Fraser Valley West is a new riding created from the former ridings of Fraser Valley, once represented by A. B. Patterson; New Westminster, represented by the present member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) and Burna-by-Coquitlam, formerly represented by our national leader, T. C. Douglas, who is temporarily delayed but we expect him here soon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mark Willson Rose: The riding is bisected by the Fraser River from which it derives its name and is approximately two-thirds rural and one-third urban or suburban. This beautiful area includes six municipalities and parts of three others and boasts of well-kept homes, some beautiful rivers and lakes, a seaport, fine farms and much rugged natural parkland.
The Fraser River, of course, has long been a major producer of salmon as well as being a navigation artery for commerce, a gateway to the interior of our province in the early days, and today vital for the transportation and storage of millions of logs each year for this major B.C. industry.
September 17, 1968

On the north bank of the river, between the Fraser and Burrard Inlet, is a hilly area commanding a view of the valley. This is the area served by the Coquitlam school district and is the fastest growing urban area in B.C. This is where I make my home. I grew up on the banks of the Fraser and for 35 years of my life have lived within a mile of its shores. It is not only what you know about an area but what you feel about it that is the crucial thing, and I would like to tell this house in the time remaining to me how I feel about a few matters affecting my riding.
For all purposes, and with apologies to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the Fraser valley provides the only corridor to Canada's west coast. In fact the Fraser delta is Canada's Pacific coast. The two major rail lines, a freeway and the river have sought this natural way to the sea. In addition, the best of the 2 per cent of B.C. land suitable for agriculture is found here. Our planners tell us that the population will double by the turn of the century, and today the pressure of subdivision and suburban encroachment on the remaining farm land is reaching alarming proportions.
Joint efforts on the part of Fraser Valley municipal governments toward the solution of regional problems are worthy but are just beginning. The concept of regional planning received a cruel, if not fatal, blow recently by the intrusion of a third rail line right through the middle of some fine farms. This was done against the advice of the planners, against the wishes of municipal governments, and of large numbers of citizens who feel the presence of this B.C. Hydro and Power Authority line to be largely redundant, politically motivated and an affront to good planning. Many people believe, Mr. Speaker, that this new line for unit trains to the federally-financed Roberts Bank superport was located in the best interests of the railroads alone, ignoring recreational and conservational factors. And so do I. Many also believe that if the federal government is not guilty of complicity with the B.C. government in agreeing to the route it is, at the very least, guilty of a weak, waffling posture on the whole matter. And so do I. To take 100 car unit trains of coal up a mountain, through rich farm land and finally along the best bathing beach and waterfowl area in the lower mainland, when there is a reasonable alternative open, is a decision that appears ludicrous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
The Address-Mr. Rose


Mark Willson Rose: We are pleased in the valley, on the other hand, that at long last some concrete federal-provincial legislation has appeared designed to overcome the devastation of the periodic Fraser flooding. Certainly those who remember the 1948 flood now have better cause to be optimistic although legislation by itself is seldom watertight enough to protect the land. We shall not quarrel either with the timing of the announcement and visit by the minister himself to my riding during the early weeks of the election campaign; we must agree that progress in this problem of flood control is now possible. I do submit, however, that dikes are relatively temporary measures and the permanent solution to Fraser flooding probably lies in controlling the run-off by means of storage dams in the Fraser canyon.
A very serious problem confronting my riding also concerns the waters of the Fraser and its tributaries and Burrard Inlet too. With the pressure of expanding population and the limited means available to municipalities to raise revenue, it is almost inevitable that our waters be gradually polluted. Raw sewage is a distinct problem in Burrard Inlet as is the spillover of sulphur from the Canadian Pacific bulk loading facility. Fraser fishermen at Fort Langley tell me it is now possible to ascertain when the people 20 miles upriver at Mission City have eaten asparagus for dinner. Moreover, the Coquitlam river, an excellent sports fishing stream, is constantly being despoiled by the activities of gravel companies whose depredations along its shores have at places turned it into a Hollywood set suitable for a life on the moon series. Much more federal leadership in the standards and control of pollution is vital if we are to avoid poisoning ourselves, and I await with much interest and anticipation the specifics to follow from the reference in the speech from the throne to conservation of our resources.
I should be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not bring before this assembly on behalf of the municipalities I represent their concern for the manner in which the winter works program was guillotined. The explanation given by the government that the program was not the most effective way of using funds may contain some measure of truth, but to suggest that manpower training programs can immediately replace winter works is a statement which completely boggles the mind. If winter works were to be discarded at a time

September 17, 1968
The Address-Mr. Rose
when municipalities in my riding were seeking a five-year extension, surely an adjustment period of a year or two might have been in order. One can become accustomed, I suppose, to losing one's hair a hair at a time, but it is particularly startling to be scalped without warning.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ask the Solicitor-General (Mr. Mcllraith).


Mark Willson Rose: I wonder whether the government will not later have regrets about the discontinuance of this program before other measures are made available to soften the blow.
I suppose that any speech can be criticized on the ground of what it has left unsaid. I too looked without success for any reference to the Carter and Watkins reports in the speech from the throne. I was particularly disappointed to see no reference in the speech to what government action we might expect on the Watkins report on foreign ownership, for I think that it will be exceedingly difficult for the 20th century to belong to Canada if our country soon belongs to the United States.
Certainly the sin of omissions applies to my remarks also today. I hope to overcome these omissions in the years ahead and work effectively on the issues as they arise. I am determined to do this because this is why I was sent here. I know of no $30,000 government appointments available to the members of my party once they are defeated.
Some Members: Hear, hear.


Mark Willson Rose: But in closing I must bring before the house matters which transcend both constituency and national concerns. The speech from the throne contains this sentence:
My government intends to press forward its plans and programs for international co-operation and development which includes the establishment in Canada of an international development centre.
It is my hope that among the problems which will be brought before this centre are what I consider to be the three P's of world concern and unrest. They are: population, pollution and poverty. If our government is successful in retarding any one of these evils which are steadily pushing the world's people toward the abyss, it will have justified its existence. For as certainly as the gap is growing between the haves and have-nots within our borders, so is the distance that the technologically emerging nations must travel to

catch the industrially developed. If we are not successful in lessening these disparities and solving these problems, we will have lost the race with disaster, Mr. Speaker, and whatever else we may do here becomes irrelevant.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, just as previous speakers, allow me to offer you my heartfelt congratulations on your election. Before I begin my speech, I would like to make a small correction concerning the title given to you. In French, an "orateur" is one who delivers speeches before a meeting or a very eloquent man, while a "president" is the person who conducts the proceedings of a meeting or a court, according to the definition of the Larousse dictionary. I will take the liberty during my speech to call you in French "monsieur le President".
Mr. Speaker, allow me first to congratulate warmly the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste, the member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette).
Since Thursday last, I have experienced my first hours as a member in the House of Commons. And we knew the most serious and pleasant moments Monday evening, September 16, when the hon. member for Temiscamingue took part in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the unusual attention then prevailing in the house was an indication of the good faith of its members and an encouragement for the 400,000 electors who supported the Ralliement Creditiste.
Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues, I approve the subject of the Speech from the Throne: the establishment of a just society. We now have to discuss the means to be taken so as to establish that just society.
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) certainly indicated in his answer to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) that the time for good intentions was past. I am very glad to hear it, Mr. Speaker, but I am afraid it may only be the same old story which all government leaders have told over the years, as the hon. member for Temiscamingue so well demonstrated in his speech.
It is time, Mr. Speaker, to think of passing concrete measures to solve the problems facing the Canadian people. Let us stop talking about problems and find solutions. To make financially possible what is physically possible
September 17, 1968

is not an empty election campaign promise. I am ready, Mr. Speaker, to support any government measure which would put credit or money at the service of the citizen. This system proved itself in wartime. The billions of dollars put into circulation in the form of credit during the period 1939-45 started an era of prosperity which continued even for a few years after the war, in fact until we applied again those famous restraints which result only in making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
As a matter of fact, we simply want a just society. We want every citizen to be reasonably well off. We want a fair distribution of all the riches of our country. We want all Canadians to be equal culturally, while being equal financially, with a vital financial minimum.
This brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the main topic of our times in Canada, and even sometimes abroad, the situation of Quebec within Confederation and the problem of the existence of the French-Canadian nation in this vast country of ours.
To wish for the emancipation and the complete fulfilment of one's nation can hardly be considered as a violation of the national integrity of any country. When I said to the people of the Champlain riding that I would champion the rights of Quebec in Ottawa, I was simply doing my duty as a responsible citizen who wants to contribute to the expansion of the whole country through the complete development of the characteristics which Providence has deigned to bestow upon us.
Quebecers or French-Canadians do not have any animosity or hatred against their compatriots of other origins. It is unfortunate that their sincere desire towards emancipation and improvement is often interpreted as something negative, if not destructive.
The example of the difficulties in Saint-Leonard shows very well the rather odd situation existing in Quebec, particularly in the greater Montreal area, where 90 per cent of the immigrants are being assimilated by the English-speaking community. If I decided to live in Spain, it seems to me obvious that I would have to adopt the Spanish culture, as well as I would have to become Russian if I were to settle in Russia. Why then should the Italian, Portuguese, or German who settle in Quebec not accept to become Quebecers?
The Address-Mr. Matte
Furthermore, the federal government should assist in the integration of those immigrants into the Quebec French-speaking community. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because, if the present pace is maintained, in view especially of the progressive, and even alarming, decrease of the birth rate in the province of Quebec, we cannot be sure that Frenchspeaking Quebecers will still form a majority in Quebec 15 or 20 years from now. It is understandable why we think of self-preservation, when we have to answer the question: "What does Quebec want?'' Canada as a whole should not contribute to that new-style genocide whereby a nation would slowly waste away unnoticed by its political elite which is present here, in this house, precisely in order to safeguard the fundamental rights of the nation.
I am sure, as was so rightly said one day by a certain general, that whatever the problem, time will provide a solution, on condition we stop, as soon as people express pro-Quebec feelings, placing them in a priori categories and interpreting their position as a stand against Canada.
Now, may I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to underline an abnormal situation concerning the very foundation of a just society, namely a provision of the Military Voters Act.
After my election, a judicial recount was held in the riding of Champlain, and I thus had the opportunity to see for myself the anti-democratic character of this vote. I understand, Mr. Speaker-and I congratulate our armed forces officers-that our soldiers are very well trained. They file past in step, they eat together, they follow together a hard and formative discipline. But I would never have believed that this discipline was so strict as to compel all our soldiers to write the same.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


René Matte: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on checking the registered military vote in the riding of Champlain, to our surprise and later to our merriment, in which the astonished presiding judge finally joined us, all the voting papers bore identical signatures in favour of the candidate of the party in power.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the same rules should apply to the vote of the military as well as to that of the other citizens. I would therefore suggest:
(1)	That the list of the military in a riding be posted like the ordinary voters list.

September 17, 1968
The Address-Mr. Matte
(2)	That the military should vote at the same time as the other voters and that those who are stationed away from home not be prevented from voting in the temporary polling booths set up across the country.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
(3)	That they use voting papers identical to the ones used by the other voters and not the small yellow slips on which they write the name of the candidate for whom they wish to vote.
(4)	That all the military vote in a single riding set up expressly for them, or else in the ridings where they have in fact a home.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let there be an end to the vote of the unknown soldier.
Here are a few suggestions which could be applied immediately to improve the lot of the population of the Champlain riding. That huge riding which stretches along the St. Lawrence river, from Portneuf to Ste-Mar-the-du-Cap-de-la-Madeleine, and extends as far north as Parent, that is some 250 miles, has heterogeneous interests.
The southern part of the riding is made up mostly of farm parishes. One knows, Mr. Speaker, that in Quebec, where there are so many paradoxical things, the farmer who is called upon to feed the people is hard put to feed himself. The satisfactory solution would be to guarantee the purchase of all his production, and until that policy is established by the Quebec government, the federal government should be much more generous in granting subsidies.
With regard to the other workers as a whole, it seems rather funny to them that those who strike already make two or even three times as much money as they earn as a rule. Many more municipalities should be considered as designated areas in order to get help that would enable them to improve their economy.
The people of the northern part of my riding are particularly concerned about another problem. From La Tuque to Parent, all the inhabitants or workers-there are a few thousands-are deprived of television coverage. It seems to me that is an injustice, the more so as these isolated people are in greater need than others of excellent information and recreation media.
Radar towers which are now placed 25 miles apart as far as Parent could be used right away. So, with hardly any coats, these

people could enjoy television, which is an indispensable thing nowadays.
The northern part of the riding of Champlain is not the North Pole after all, and it is unthinkable that in 1968, this everyday service has not yet been extended there.
Another suggestion, Mr. Speaker. It is about the implementation of a plan already submitted to the government concerning the establishment of a rehabilitation centre on the former radar base at Parent. I visited the site last summer and I found it disgraceful that such a place which cost some twenty million dollars is left in utter neglect while it could easily be converted into a rehabilitation centre. The establishment of such a centre would enable the development of a whole area.
We can only hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government will consider these few remarks or suggestions, and you can rest assured that I will heartily co-operate in any endeavour leading to a just society.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my first words are to join with other hon. members in extending congratulations to you, who we hope will be our permanent Speaker, and to join with those who have extended congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply.
In rising to take part in this debate I have no desire to burden hon. members with further criticisms of the speech from the throne. I believe the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) dealt with it adequately. He dealt with its shortcomings as did other hon. members. Suffice it to say it was a flatulent restatement of things already done, a poor statement of policy for a just society, and a great disappointment to the people of Canada who expected much more from this new government.
It was only exceeded by the Prime Minister's vain attempt in his speech in this debate to try to explain it. If these speeches, the speech from the throne and the Prime Minister's speech, are to be our first full measure of what the just society is, then we can only pray for its demise.
There is only one more observation I should like to make before I leave the subject of the speech from the throne. I have in mind the fact that this is the first time in the history of our country a Canadian government has been forced to apologize in advance for its failures. Usually they have been able to wait
September 17. 1968	COMMONS
two, three or even four years before explaining or attempting to alibi their legislative and administrative shortcomings. Great expectations have already dwindled to puny expectations.
I would be happy to let the speech from the throne quietly die, were it not for a phrase that runs through it like a refrain-its only distinguishing aspect. That phrase is the one we have heard much of since this debate started. I refer to the much heralded "just society". I find this choice of words by the Prime Minister to describe his new Canada disappointing to the people who look for a bold new approach to government by a government that was to fire the imagination of young Canada.
I find it offensive when I think of my native province, and when I think of my constituents in this context. It is a hollow mockery of the phrase "the just society" when there are Canadians in this country today living in socially and economically unjust conditions, aggravated, if not indeed produced, by the past neglect and the very indifference of the people who now join in the alleluiah chorus and talk about the just society.
In my opinion no political party and no Canadian government carries a greater share of responsibility for the social and economic injustice so prevalent in this country today than does the Liberal party and the government of this country. Ask the people of Atlantic Canada. Ask the people of Newfoundland. Ask the people of my city, my constituency. Ask the 6,500 Canadians who still live without hope and in despair in the mining town of Bell Island. This industrial community, the oldest in Newfoundland and one of the oldest in eastern Canada, was the scene of an iron ore mining operation carried on successfully since the turn of the century. These operations were curtailed in 1963 by A. V. Roe, placing out of work over 1,400 people, their dependants, and those who worked in service industries.
At that time these people looked for justice to the new government of that day. At that time it was not the just society; it was the war on poverty. Well, we still have the injustices of poverty in this country. After the war on poverty we now have the just society. The people of Newfoundland did not buy it. They defeated six Liberal candidates who sat in this last parliament because they know it is too late to try to excuse the neglect of the past five years with empty catch phrases. The people of Bell Island today live in despair.
DEBATES	133
The Address-Mr. McGrath They live without hope. They live under the cruel soul shattering, morale destroying, welfare which is today their lot. They are not permitted to work. They are not permitted to retain their pride by working for a living, because under the provisions of the Canada Assistance Act which grants funds to the provinces for relief purposes they are not permitted to work for their welfare. Our people want work and they want to hold their heads up and work for what is just and rightly theirs.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
For too long, Mr. Speaker, the government of this country has been content to close its eyes to the urgent social and economic problems and needs of the Atlantic provinces. For too long the government has been content to close its eyes to the serious problems facing Canada's tenth province. The government has been content to sit silently in this house and allow Newfoundland to remain the sealed off personal fief of Joey Smallwood, in return for a solid seven Liberal members and supporters.
Times have changed and our people want a better deal. The man who likes to refer to himself as the only living father of confederation is tottering on his throne. The people of my province have rebelled against 20 years of neglect and injustice. Mark my words, they want their place in this just society. They feel they are entitled to a place in this just society, if there is to be one. They looked with hope in 1949 for a just society that never materialized.
I could find no such reference in the Prime Minister's book "Federalism and the French Canadians". I should like to read from page 68, so you can see if there is something missing from my concept of what this phrase means:
-the continued complaints of the maritimes finally won them preferential treatment in 1932-
He writes about preferential treatment for the maritimes in 1932, but this is the key phrase:
-and last, in 1949, Newfoundland made the federal government pay dearly for its entry into confederation.
This is what the Prime Minister wrote. But if this is the just society that we are to expect from this new administration, then the people of Atlantic Canada, certainly the people of my province, want no part of it.
134	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. McGrath
Is it a just society that would allow the Shaheen deal to go through? I refer to the deal concluded by the Newfoundland government with the Shaheen group whereby the government of Newfoundland has deprived the people of Newfoundland from their birthright. That government has made it possible for this New York financier to buy up for a mere $2,000 the entire untaxed profits earned over a 15 year period of a provincial crown corporation.
Who is to speak for the people of Newfoundland in this just society? This financier has accomplished this fantastic deal without risking one penny of his own. The deal has been called many things, two cabinet ministers resigned from the Newfoundland government because of it, and the throne man of Newfoundland is tottering because of this and other abuses. Suffice it to say this is a monument to the folly of unchallenged Liberal power in Newfoundland and is a gross perversion of the intent of crown corporation legislation.
What will the federal government do about this situation? What about the new minister from Newfoundland, whom I congratulate on his appointment to the cabinet-what will he do? The people of Newfoundland look to him for a fair measure and share of the justice we have heard so much about.
In any event the people of my province have been cheated in such a blatant fashion there is a moral obligation on the government of Canada to do something about these things. The people of my province are justly concerned about the abuses that are still carried out in the name of government. The only real evidence we have seen of the just society, if indeed one can continue to term it such, has been the cancellation of programs by this government. In the midst of the fishing season the salt rebate program was cancelled, without even any suggestion of what is to replace it. This has caused hardship to hundreds, yes, even thousands of Newfoundland and maritime fishermen who depend upon this salt rebate as a means of increasing their already meager earnings.
We have seen the evidence following the cancellation of the winter works program. This will result in great hardships to the cities of the Atlantic provinces, indeed to the cities of Canada, but especially to the cities and municipalities in my province which already suffer from the highest rate of unemployment in all of Canada. This program was

DEBATES	September 17, 1968
cancelled without even a vague suggestion of a replacement for it.
What reference is there in the speech from the throne to this very serious crisis facing the fishing industry in Newfoundland today? This is an industry from which 150,000 Canadians directly or indirectly derive their livelihood, an industry which in economic terms represents almost 3 per cent of the gross national product in this country.
There has been no reference to the serious housing crisis in Canada. We have heard about the minister's task force and we are looking forward to being in Newfoundland when it arrives there. There has been no reference to what this government intends to do about the thousands of Canadians who, because of rising interest rates, are deprived of their rights under the National Housing Act, and the effect on those in lower income brackets.
In my city our people suffer from a lack of adequate housing and from a lack of adequate subsidized housing, and a means to buy such accommodation. Yet no reference is made to housing in the speech from the throne. This is a very serious problem which affects all Canadians but which adversely affects certain areas in Canada more than others. When the people of the maritime provinces suffer because of the inadequacies of a particular federal program it means a real hardship to the people of Newfoundland, a hardship which they are expected to bear, and bear silently.
The people of Newfoundland want justice and want to be treated like other Canadians. If a just society means the end of programs which mean so much to Atlantic Canada and particularly to Newfoundland then we want no more of it. We have lived through the war on poverty but we still have poverty in abundance. We have people who still suffer because of the highest per capita cost of living ever, and the lowest per capita income in all of Canada. Hon. members do not know what poverty is and the Prime Minister does not know what poverty is, but his colleague from Newfoundland knows about it. He has seen it on the south coast of his constituency. My colleagues from Newfoundland know what poverty is; they have seen it in every bay and inlet in the province. My colleagues from New Brunswick know what it is; they have seen it in the northern part of that province. Poverty is a real thing, not something you can legislate by trite phrases. It is
September 17, 1968	COMMONS
something that has to be tackled with concrete programs.
One of the real inadequacies of our federal system results from the fact that the implementation of national programs does not give due regard to the peculiar and special economic circumstances of the different regions of the country. The National Housing Act, as it now exists, is fine for the people of urban Ontario, but for the people of Newfoundland and certain other parts of the maritime provinces it means they must be content to remain outside the pale; they must be content to keep their large families in substandard housing and to go without the things they see others having in abundance.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We want justice. If there is to be a just society, we want to take part in it. We want to see an end to the pork-barrel system of politics that we in the province of Newfoundland have suffered from for 20 years, and which we now see evidenced as the first and only step this government seems able to take with any degree of assuredness.
We want to participate in the Canadian life. Our people want adequate housing. They want a fair return for their labours. They want jobs. They do not want to suffer the morally crippling effects of welfare. They want to be able to hold up their heads and earn an honest living like other citizens of Canada. I am sure my colleagues from Newfoundland, as they talk about the fisheries crisis which we have, as they talk about the failure of the Liberal government to live up to its promise to implement the 12-mile fishing limit of 1963, as they talk of hardships imposed upon our people because of the National Housing Act as it is now constituted, will re-echo my words. They will re-echo my words when they talk with feeling and experience of the real poverty that exists in this country and the crippling effects of this poverty, on the young especially. They will say, as I say now, that if there is to be a just society, let it come quickly because we want to be a part of it.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am pleased to join with those who spoke before me to congratulate you for the trust put in you by parliament, a trust which, everyone agrees, you deserve to the highest degree. All hon. members can testify to that in this house.
DEBATES	135
The Address-Mr. LeBlanc
I wish also to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Messrs. Corbin and Mar-chand). It is interesting to note the particular characteristics of those two young members.
The first one, the hon. member for Mada-waska-Victoria, symbolises for us that race of hardy pioneers, the Acadians. In hardship as in the struggle for survival, they always showed tenacity, courage, pride and efficiency and that is an example for all the citizens of our great country.
The second one, member of the great Amerindian family, represents a proud group also, a group which only asks to be allowed to live and progress on the vast territory of Canada. Both, their presence and their influence, make us understand the prodigious mosaic of the peoples who work together towards the development and improvement of our country.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the great hopes set by the Canadian people as a whole on the new team, the new cabinet which now governs our country. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) especially deserves the admiration of the Canadian community. We believe he is one of the most cultured Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to address myself to you once again. I am proud to represent again, in this house, my constituents of Rimouski.
During these last few minutes, Mr. Speaker, I intend first to express to you my humble feelings about the contents of the Speech from the Throne and to deal briefly with a few problems of rather regional concern but also, in actual fact, interregional in scope.
We all remember the platform outlined by the Liberal party during the last election. Based on the fundamental principle of a just society, that platform indicated the measures to be taken in order to achieve four basic objectives: the Canadian unity, the just society, a booming economy and the efficient and reasonable role of Canada in the world.
A perusal of the Speech from the Throne shows us that the government, at the very start of its term, applies faithfully its platform which is for us a source of satisfaction. I know that our colleagues in the opposition behave like disappointed men.
We know that the Canadian people want action, efficiency, results and that the efficiency is always evidenced by tangible results. To act, a program is necessary, planning is
136	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. LeBlanc required. The Speech from the Throne is a program, it is a supplement to the platform of the Liberal party, of the government.
The Speech from the Throne deals with problems which will be the object of our efforts in order to find solutions. We do not doubt that this session, which is at its very beginning, will see at work an active and dynamic government. The projects which the present government intends to present and put into effect during the session will certainly continue to take shape. It must be admitted that the government takes care not to make nice promises, merely election promises, to the Canadian people.
The Speech from the Throne, in our view, truly reflects the principles and statements made by the right hon. Prime Minister during the last election. Drawn up in a spirit of restraint, it takes into account in a constructive, objective and practical way, the social and economic problems of our country. We must first be pleased by the fact that it provides for the improvement and modernization of parliamentary procedure and this will allow the hon. members-the representatives of the people-to discuss freely but rationally the legislation introduced during the last session.
For example, during the last session, several bills remained outstanding because of the chronic slowness with which the house dispatches its business. It is easy to understand why the present government must bring up again some of its bills which are important and assential to the evolution of the country.
Moreover, one can only congratulate the government on undertaking, after dealing with these essential matters, its program intended to provide the conditions necessary for the materialization of the just society of which the Prime Minister has spoken so much, and rightly. It is also not only normal but necessary that the government, having considered all aspects of the building of a just society, should establish a priority list before setting to work. Hon. members have already seen that one of the priority items is the unity of the country, and that constitutional reforms will naturally have to be suggested in order to ensure this unity. Whatever some people may say, it is clear that the government will continue to intensify the war against poverty by asking for close co-operation at all levels of government. We can therefore hope to see a greater co-ordination which will ensure the implementation of the measures taken in this respect.

DEBATES	September 17, 1968
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
We all recognize that a great step forward was taken lately as far as respect for the languages of our two main ethnical groups is concerned. The government has announced that measures will be taken in order to make sure that every citizen will be able to use his own language when dealing with any federal government agency or service.
The Speech from the Throne also refers to problems affecting Canadians in their private life, as for example regional disparities and urban development. The Economic Council of Canada recently advised that the social policy of the government should be entirely reexamined. Both regional disparities and war against poverty are, among other problems, very complex matters, as shown by world history.
It is therefore normal for the government to proceed with caution instead of resorting to hasty solutions, and we understand that. Each component of the Speech from the Throne is a reminder of the over-all picture suggested by the Prime Minister during the last election. Not only is he urging government members to action but also, it seems to me, opposition members.
Along with the majority of people who voted for this, we welcome the Speech from the Throne heartfully and we anticipate at the beginning of this session an era of dynamic evolution for the Canadian people who are proud to follow such a leader as the right hon. Prime Minister. Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would be greatly interested, as I mentioned at the beginning, in touching on a few regional problems, bearing in mind inter-regional interests which are part of the Canadian policy.
I am particularly interested in the regional development policy of this government, as I was in that of the previous governments, because everyone knows that the constituency of Rimouski is part of the lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe regions which have been labelled as a "pilot territory".
During the election campaign, I had the opportunity to mention different facts and ideas about these regional development projects in our region. I did not mention the name or the title ARDA; neither did I mention the title BAEQ (Eastern Quebec Development Board). The reason for this is that I was under the impression those names or designations had become somewhat taboo among people in general. People in our region, as every Canadian knows, are eager for results. They
September 17, 1968

are industrious people, people who want some action. That is why we are sometimes inclined to forget that surveys are necessary. It is obvious, however, that they must not last too long.
That is why, during the election campaign,
I limited myself to speaking about our five-year program. Instead of speaking of planning, I merely spoke of our five-year program while thinking of the government program administered by our Liberal party. Like all the members, I was not ashamed to speak about it as our program, because out of $260 million to be spent in the implementation of this five-year program, $212 million will be paid out by the federal government. We had the pleasure, towards the end of April, of welcoming the present Prime Minister of Canada who came to our riding to preside over the historical signing of the agreement the premier of Quebec on behalf of the provincial government, and by the then Minister of Forestry and Rural Development for the federal government.
The program which will be implemented as the result of this agreement, interests us to the highest degree. That is why the people back home live in hope and look with confidence towards the Ottawa government.
This program is divided into eight points. To sum it up quickly, it is related first to the development, the reorganization of agriculture in our area. It also relates to the rational redevelopment of our forests as a whole, our fishing industries and to the tourist industry. It also concerns the review of wages paid to manpower in urban development, in transport, which are of prime importance in this part of Canada. This program should also provide an incentive for scientific research which is of the highest importance for the economic development of an area or a country.
Our people are mostly concerned with the role played by Ottawa, by the government of Canada, in the implementation of this program.
In view of the responsibility that the federal government assumed when it decided to spend $212 million for the implementation of that program and the rational redevelopment of our region, we all know that it is of the utmost importance that the federal government should exercise very close and adequate supervision.
It is obvious that, on account of our constitution, the implementation of that program is first of all the concern of ARDA-Quebec. But,

The Address-Mr. LeBlanc on the other hand, everyone agrees that the part played by the provincial officials in the implementation of those objectives should be supervised, not because we lack confidence in them, their work, their research and their realizations but because we fear that their scientific or intellectual or theoretical interest in the study of those projects might lead them to forget that we expect results as quickly as possible. That is the area where our people hope that the federal government, with the Prime Minister of Canada, will play a prominent part.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
One aspect of this program in particular attracts our attention, the problem of farmers. Because of the movement of rural people towards the cities-which seems to be at a point of no return,-a movement which is not particular to Canada but is worldwide-our farmers are very anxious and wonder how they will be able to earn a reasonable enough yearly income with the present evolution of our social and economic order.
I would like to draw the attention of the house and the government on two points in particular. Our farmers are specializing in the dairy industry. They have problems of quotas about which we heard so often in recent years. This quota policy is improving every day thanks to the interest taken in that matter by our governments and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). On the other hand, since the lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe area, which is anxious to live in keeping with the Canadian development, has been selected, as I said earlier, as a special development area, the farmers would like the hon. Minister of Agriculture and the Canadian Dairy Commission, to pay a special attention to the allocation of quotas in their area.
If, because of the present legislative structures concerning those quotas, it is impossible to prevent, so to speak, the abandoned quotas from leaving the area, would it not be possible to take a special measure so that the farmer of a pilot area may get an additional quota, so that he too could play his own part in the rationalization of our own dairy industry, our farmers' specialty.
In the program implementing the federal-provincial agreement which followed the report submitted by the Eastern Quebec Development Board, there is a point concerning cattle breeding. In our area, we are not trying to compete madly with anyone; we simply want to keep what we have and to develop it. It would seem that, in our areas, a certain specialization might be developed, even if not on a very large scale, at least on a
138	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. George Muir reasonable scale, and cattle breeding would be that specialization.
For two years, we have been taking steps to develop and promote that business at home that new farm industry, if one may put it so. We encountered many difficulties. In conjunction with the further steps that I shall certainly take in favour of our people at home, I ask in particular the Minister of Agriculture to pay special attention to that problem in order to help us solve it and encourage our farmers to practise breeding rationally, for the good of our area and in the interest of interregional co-operation for which our country is renowned.
Before concluding my remarks, I wish to emphasize the problem of transportation. The district where we live is located in the eastern part of the province of Quebec, and we have air and sea transportation.
Back home, air transportation is operated by a private company. In accordance with the policy and the philosophy of the responsible members in this house which encourages private enterprise, co-operation should exist between private enterprise and government agencies. It seems to us that federal agencies which are also carrying out studies on transportation should give a special attention to private transportation in the province of Quebec, especially in our region. The Crown corporation which ensures transportation in our country is the pride of all Canadians. But we cannot understand that this air company should sometimes enter into very close competition with certain private and responsible companies working for the rational development of our country.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you for having given me once more the opportunity of speaking in this house. I believe that when reading over the last Speech from the Throne, in the light of the small problems I have just raised and for which we hope a solution will be found as soon as possible, the people of our areas, particularly those of my own district, will be proud to belong to Canada. I feel confident that this difficult problem of regional disparities so often referred to in the Speech from the Throne will gradually disappear. Within a few months, we shall all find that our efforts and our work will have brought results and we shall be even more proud to live in Canada in unity, justice and prosperity.


George Robson Muir: For too long the Liberal party has simply refused to admit that an agricultural community exists in Canada. That party has consistently written that community off. They have ignored it. For the past five years they have been content to advance only a token agricultural policy. During the election campaign the Prime Minister pronounced a Liberal agricultural policy. The best that can be said for it is that at least that is something the former leader of the party and the former minister did not achieve. It will be interesting to see whether the policy that was enunciated on the hustings will be carried into government policy. The Pearson government solved the problems of agriculture in its own way: It had no policy. Let us hope that the present administration will not be that short-sighted or arrogant.
Since 1963, I am afraid, the Canadian farmer has become the forgotten man, the expendable man. This I believe is a result of deliberate and calculated Liberal policy, based on the fact that a larger harvest of votes is to be garnered in the urban areas and that larger financial contributions may be expected from eastern industry.
There are, however, one or two points about the Canadian farming community that the Prime Minister and his government will do well to bear in mind. Agriculture earns $1 out of every $8 that is earned by Canadian trade. On the basis of 1965 figures, the latest available, farmers pay about $1 of every $10 paid in income taxes. Disregarding taxes and personal savings, the agricultural community has more than $1.5 billion to spend annually. It spends that money roughly in the proportion of 50 per cent on services, 40 per cent on non-durable goods and 10 per cent on durable goods. These facts surely are of some importance to the rest of Canada.
While it may be true that the farm population and the number of farms have been cut in half over the past 35 years, the actual number of acres devoted to agriculture has increased substantially. The value of all Canadian agricultural products in 1966 approached $3.5 billion. The total capital value of Canadian farms in 1966 was close to $20 billion. Farming, the industry of agriculture, has certainly changed, but only in nature and not in importance. I hope this government will bear some of these facts in mind, since the speech from the throne reflected only a dim awareness of them.
The Address-Mr. George Muir
In the speech I noted with particular interest the sentence concluding with the words: -intends to investigate immediately a number of methods for promoting greater efficiency in the production and marketing of grains, including the establishment of a national grains council.
I shall deal with the first part of that statement later. At the moment the latter part is of concern to me. In the past Liberal governments have been strong for establishing bodies with high sounding titles and sweeping terms of reference. Unfortunately, once set up those bodies have largely been ignored by the government, particularly when the advice of such bodies or their recommendations happened to be at odds with the party political interests of the moment.
The setting up of a national grains council is a most commendable step. Such a body could be of great assistance to the grain industry and the Canadian economy as a whole, provided it is not used as a niche in which to hide Liberal bagmen or defeated candidates. The grain council will be of little use to anyone if its setting up is mere window dressing, if its recommendations are sidetracked and ignored by the Liberal government, or treated lightly, as have so consistently the reports of the Economic Council of Canada over the past five years.
Another interesting part of the speech from the throne was that part dealing with plans to set up national marketing boards to deal with various types of agricultural produce. This part of the speech has a brave and progressive though not new ring. The carefully chosen wording reveals nothing of the constitutional hurdles and other problems that make the establishment of such boards difficult and long drawn out affairs.
The speech also mentions widening the credit term for farmers, increasing payments for farm stored grain, as well as other measures. In their way all these are necessary and admirable. At best they are palliatives, not cures; stop-gap measures, not lasting remedies. The Canadian agricultural community needs more from this government than gestures and token actions. It needs the assurance of the government's genuine and continuing concern. It wants full recognition and fair treatment. Surely one small corner must have been set aside for agriculture in the great, new just society.
On his inspection tour of Manitoba's sodden grain fields, the new Minister of Agriculture saw no immediate crisis. Actually, the crisis in those agricultural areas began last winter
September 17, 1968

The Address-Mr. George Muir from government action as from government apathy. It is a comparatively new industry and one that is vital to my riding of Lisgar. The oil seed industry has been hard hit in recent months by the free flow of cheaper foreign material into Canada. I am one who feels the Canadian farmer was sacrificed to industry in the recent Kennedy round negotiations at Geneva, and was used to buy preference for manufacturing in the agreement subsequently signed by our government. Consider only the plight of the oil seed growers I am talking about.
On September 3 the Altona, Manitoba, crushing plant told its sunflower seed growers that the price of sunflower seed oil had not improved since last May, that it had remained at about nine cents per pound as compared with the average price of about 14J cents over the last ten years. The blame for this condition was placed squarely on the cheap free flow of sunflower seed oil into Canada from eastern European growers, mainly the U.S.S.R. and its satellites.
The report stated that a brief, which was supported by many seed crushing plants and by the rapeseed Growers Association, sent to the federal government had offered the full co-operation of the vegetable oil industry in working out the pressing problems of the industry. To quote the report:
To my knowledge the Industry has received no response from the government as to their intentions regarding our requests.
Here again is glaring proof of the government's indifference to the problems plaguing various sectors of the agricultural industry.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct the attention of the house to a question of particular importance to my area, although I believe it to be equally important to the province of Manitoba and to the country as a whole. I mention it because I received a faint glimmer of hope from the reference in the speech from the throne to the government's concern about the threat of growing pollution of our water supplies.
The question I refer to is known as the Pembina river basin development. It is an imaginative, necessary and quite practical plan to ensure industrial and agricultural expansion, and economic prosperity for a large tract of land both within Canada and across the border in the United States. The Pembina river system lies in the extreme south of Manitoba and includes territory across the border in North Dakota. For this reason, when the idea was first advanced it

was passed as a reference to the International Joint Commission for an opinion. That was done back in 1962. By 1965 public hearings were held in the area by the International Joint Commission, and on October 6, 1967 that body reported favourably upon the development scheme to the Canadian and United States governments.
To Manitoba, as to any other region, water is vital. It becomes more so as the population increases, and as industrial and agricultural development increases. Manitoba is abundantly supplied with water, but unfortunately a great deal of the supply is in the more remote and inaccessible northern part. This makes the control and conservation of water available in other regions, particularly in the south, a matter of utmost urgency. This is even more urgent when those areas are the ones containing the maximum population, and industrial and agricultural potential. Such an area is the Pembina river district.
The great problem, one that increases as development increases, is that the natural supply varies widely in rate and volume with the seasons, and over a cycle of years. Left in its natural state the water supply of southern Manitoba varies from over abundance in the spring to near drought in fall and winter. Over a period of years the area may experience, unpredictably, abnormal supplies of water or practically none at all.
This makes it essential to take steps to ensure a steadier, more reliable year-round supply, year in and year out, from our natural water resources. As with all resources, the key is control and conservation. It is no exaggeration to say that water is the life blood of this important segment of the Canadian economy. Without it agriculture might struggle along on a hit or miss basis. No industry would be developed. The population would progressively dwindle as young men and women were driven elsewhere in search of work, and what could be a rich, flourishing and valuable part of the Canadian economy and of Canada's social fabric would be lost.
When the matter was referred to the International Joint Commission it was asked to look into and recommend on three points, domestic water supply and sanitation, control of floods, and irrigation. In the spring of 1965 the commission reported that they had three plans that were "practicable, economically feasible and of mutual advantage to both countries." These plans were found to be sound on the basis of the three main points
September 17, 1968

that the commission had been asked to consider, supply and sanitation, flood control, and irrigation.
Maurice Western, in the Winnipeg Free Press of May 15, 1965, wrote in part:
The most urgent needs of the lower basin are protection from floods and, paradoxically, the provision of an adequate water supply for urban, industrial and agricultural purposes.
The International Joint Commission study, on which public hearings were held in June, 1965 said in one passage:
If conditions are left as they are, the population of the basin can be expected to continue to gradually decrease ... lack of dependable water supplies has retarded both industrial and urban growth.
I have used these quotations to emphasize a point because it is the most important point about this development, one that has entirely escaped the minister responsible in the federal government, or perhaps been deliberately avoided by him. The point is that the Pembina development is not primarily designed as an irrigation measure or as a measure to help agriculture alone. It is a measure to stimulate industrial and social development for a very large area, an area whose potential could only bring great benefits far beyond its own region and even far beyond the province.
The complaint of the people of the region, and my chief complaint today, is that this project, already studied exhaustively, and approved by a body representing two national governments, has been callously pigeonholed by a new minister without even the courtesy of a full explanation. In Winnipeg recently the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) dismissed the whole Pembina river development as "a low priority" plan whose chief value lay purely in its role as an irrigation work.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member since his time has expired, unless he has the leave of the house to continue beyond that time. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Robson Muir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Pembina development has been assigned the same low priority by the government as has Canadian agriculture and the Canadian west. In the interests of justice, of economic self-interest and of national development, I urge the government, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) in particular, to take another look at this international development project, and to look at
The Address-Mr. McQuaid it in its full implications, not simply from one narrow point of view. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that my people may hope for some crumbs of justice from the so-called just society.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to join with those who have preceded me in extending to you, sir, something more than merely a perfunctory congratulation on your re-election to the high office as Speaker of this house. During my comparatively short experience here I have come to appreciate the dignity, the capacity and the ability with which you have discharged the duties of your very high office. At the same time I wish to extend to Mr. Deputy Speaker my congratulations on his appointment, and to wish him well. He is comparatively young in office and I am confident that he will improve with age. I think we can expect also that he will preside over the proceedings of this assembly with dignity.
I should like also to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both gentlemen have discharged with eloquence the role assigned them in this traditional debate. This speaks well of their ability to perform the duties they will be called upon to perform as members of the house.
In the relatively short time at my disposal as succinctly and as clearly as I can I should like to place before the government and before the house the economic conditions of the Atlantic area today, and of course with particular reference to the economic conditions as we find them in my province. I do this in the hope that the government will act just as quickly as is humanly possible to correct the regional disparity which now exists between this area and the rest of Canada.
We in the Atlantic provinces of course wish to make the fullest possible contribution to Canada's development, but we also want to participate in that development. As the Economic Council of Canada so very correctly pointed out just a short time ago, the ultimate purpose of our economic and social goals must be to provide all Canadians with access to a higher material standard of living and a higher quality of life. That is the recommendation of the Economic Council of Canada.
Therefore I say it is most important to recognize that if all Canadians are to share in higher living standards there must be a strong and stable over-all growth. Nothing else will satisfy. In the past six or seven years
September 17, 1968

The Address-Mr. McQuaid
there has been a sustained economic growth in Canada as a whole. I believe it can be correctly stated that the economy of Canada has been expanding over the last five or six years without too many reversals. But that has not been the case in the Atlantic provinces.
I should like to take this opportunity to place on the record some very tangible proof that our economy is not expanding in ratio with the expansion taking place all across this country. First of all, if we look at total personal income, we find that in Canada as a whole between the years 1961 and 1966 personal income increased by 50.3 per cent. That is an increase of 50.3 per cent in Canada as a whole. In the Atlantic region however this increase was only 42.7 per cent, almost 8 per cent less than the national average.
In 1966 the personal income in the Atlantic provinces averaged only $1,480. What was the Canadian average? It was $2,134. In other words, the average personal income in the Atlantic region during that period has been only 69.4 per cent of the Canadian average. I am sure all hon. members of this house will recognize that this is not as it should be.
Perhaps before I begin to become too involved in figures I might be permitted to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Melvin James McQuaid: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was attempting to point out the economic disparity which exists between the Atlantic provinces and the other areas of Canada. As proof of this disparity I mentioned the difference between the per capita income in the Atlantic area and the rest of Canada. Let me suggest as a very clear example of this that in my own province of Prince Edward Island the average per capita income is only $1,382. That is the second lowest of any province in Canada, and this is only 64.8 per cent of the national average.
Let us look at the unemployment which exists in the Atlantic area as compared with the rest of Canada. Our unemployment rate of 7.9 per cent continues to be excessively high, when compared with the 5.3 per cent in Canada as a whole. This is the situation in spite of one of the greatest periods of expansion in Canadian history. As evidence that

our unemployment rate continues to remain unacceptably high, I would point to the fact that in 1965, for example, the unemployment insurance commission paid $52,500,000 in unemployment insurance claims in the Atlantic provinces. Our rate of population growth is also very far behind that of the rest of Canada. Between 1961 and 1966 the population of the Atlantic provinces increased by only 0.8 per cent per year compared with almost 2 per cent per year for Canada as a whole.
Migration from the area has been a major factor in this small regional increase. This migration comes as no surprise, when we consider the per capita income gap between our region and Canada as a whole. When one considers that large gap, there is naturally a tendency to move from the Atlantic provinces in search of better opportunities elsewhere. The maritime provinces have been losing population since before confederation. Since 1881, with the exception of one ten year period between 1931 and 1941, migration has never been less than 75,000 people every ten years. Since 1961 we have been losing more than 20,000 people per year. If this present trend continues we will have lost about 200,000 people between 1961 and 1971.
Migration on this scale must be examined very carefully, because if it continues at this present high rate we may very well have less than the labour force required to produce the goods and services necessary to provide a level of income sufficient to prevent a widening of the present income gap between our people and those in the rest of Canada.
This trend has left us with a comparatively small number of people in what we like to call the productive age group, that group between 18 and 64 years of age. They are the ones who are most likely to be in the labour force and they, of course, are the ones that are most likely to leave when the income is not sufficient to sustain them. About 30 per cent of our total population falls within the less than 15 year age group, and 55 per cent falls within the productive age group, as compared to the Canadian average of 58 per cent.
I think this situation was pointed out very well some years ago in a report known as the Economic History of the Atlantic provinces, from which I should like to quote:
For years, the movement of population has been out of rather than into the maritime provinces with the result that the population is heavily weighted on the side of the very old and the very young, leaving the number in the now productive age
September 17, 1968

group relatively lower than in other parts of the Dominion; and this, in itself, other things being equal, lowers the average income.
There is one more important implication to this problem of migration so far as the government is concerned. If the number of taxpayers in proportion to the population is relatively low, and it is on this basis that we in the Atlantic area legitimately agree that we are entitled to more help from the central government here in Ottawa, not by way of handouts and not necessarily by the transfer of income to our region but rather through the generation of income within the area. That is what we want, something that will generate income within this area.
I am not particularly knowledgeable about the financial condition of the provinces in the Atlantic region, other than my own, but I do know about the situation in Prince Edward Island. I should like at this time to place on the record some figures which will indicate the serious financial position in which the province of Prince Edward Island finds itself today. We have a population of only 110,000 people, with a per capita income which is the second lowest of any province in Canada. Naturally, therefore, with such a low per capita income our people are not able to contribute to the treasury by way of taxes to the same extent as people living in other provinces in Canada who have higher incomes. However, as citizens of Canada we are entitled to enjoy the same essential services enjoyed by people living in other provinces.
Our provincial government is doing its best to provide these services, but in attempting to do so it has brought the province almost to the brink of bankruptcy. On March 31, 1968 the net debt of the province was $64,490,000, and it is estimated that by March 31, 1969 this debt will be $65,506,000. This is a per capita debt of $595, the highest per capita debt of any province in Canada. This is a province which is not rich in natural resources but is dependant almost entirely on two primary industries, fishing and farming.
In addition to that net debt of $65,506,000 the government has contingency liabilities of $15,500,000 making a total of $81 million or a per capita debt of almost $737. Debt charges alone and this will give an idea of how serious the situation is-amount to $7,817,000 or almost $22,000 per day.
Do hon. members know how much in taxes the taxpayers of Prince Edward Island are able to contribute to the treasury. One member of the provincial government suggested

The Address-Mr. McQuaid the other day that the saturation point had been reached. This year we will collect through taxes only $14,788,000. It is going to cost $7,800,000 just to pay the interest on what we owe. How are we possibly going to finance the departments of government? This is only a small province, but education alone requires an expenditure of $12 million, health services require the expenditure of $9 million and highway maintenance, capital and other expenditures amount to $9 million. This is only some of the money we must have in order to provide our people, as citizens af this country, with the essential services to which they are entitled.
Something must be done to close this economic gap which now exists between the Atlantic area and other parts of Canada. Some action must be taken by this government immediately. I would make one suggestion as to how we might help close this gap, and to do so would be of tremendous assistance to the province of Prince Edward Island. The government should immediately commence construction of the Northumberland strait crossing. This is something that has been definitely promised to us by the Liberal government, but at the present time there seems to be some uncertainty as to whether the government intends to go ahead with the project. There seems to be something hollow about the statement that the project is to go ahead, something disquieting about the mumblings that there will be delays in starting the project. Let me remind hon. members that this causeway is not a gift to Prince Edward Island. Our gap in communications compared with the rest of Canada needs to be effectively closed, as guaranteed by our entry into confederation.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
In 1965, very shortly before the last general election, the then prime minister announced that the causeway would be built. I quote from a newspaper report of July 8, 1965:
Prime Minister Pearson announced today that tenders will be called later this year for a combined tunnel, bridge and causeway between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Construction is expected to start next April, and Mr. Pearson said at a press conference he hopes it will be completed in late 1970.
That, I suggest, is a definite commitment by the government to go ahead with this project. They immediately sent the then minister of mines, Mr. MacNaught, to New Brunswick, put a hard hat on him, put him on a bulldozer and he turned the first sod. However, Mr. September 17, 1968

The Address-Mr. McQuaid Speaker, I suggest that he drove the bulldozer too fast, because he turned the first sod that day, and perhaps the last.
Then an election was drawing closer and the government decided they would definitely convince the people of Prince Edward Island that the causeway would be built. They sent to the island a man who was at that time the champion of Prince Edward Island, the man tagged as the best friend the island ever had, the then minister of transport, Mr. Pickers-gill. Hon. members will remember him. When he was in opposition he was up and down in his seat like a jack-in-the-box, popping questions to the government as to when they would start construction of the causeway. Perpendicular Jack; he was up more than down. He told the people of the island that the causeway would be started. He said, "My heart bleeds for the people of Prince Edward Island." Wasn't that sad. The poor old fellow must have bled to death, because there was an election that year, the Liberals returned no members from Prince Edward Island and we heard no more from him afterwards.
Then they sent over the then secretary of state for external affairs. I suggest that he made history when he came to the province, because for the first time in a long political career he really gave an answer to a question. Somebody asked him if the government were really going to build the causeway, and he said yes, the causeway would be built. Then we had the election. No Liberal members were returned from Prince Edward Island in the 1965 election, and the causeway was apparently forgotten until we again came close to an election. I have here some statements that I should like to place on the record. I think these statements should convince the members of the government that each and every one of them is committed to the construction of this project.
On October 5, 1967, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) said:
The strait crossing will become a reality because the Ottawa government is committed to it.
What more concrete statement than that do you want? The then minister of finance, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) said on July 12, 1967:
What surprises me more than anything is the fact that so many islanders seem to feel that the Northumberland strait crossing will never be built.
He gave the reassurance that the crossing not only would be built but, in his own words, would be built in accordance with the
(Mr. McQuaid.]
original schedule that was announced, namely that the crossing would be completed by not later than 1970. He told Prince Edward Islanders that face to face, right in their own province.
The then minister of public works said on May 31, 1967, as reported in Hansard at page 779:
I would lilce to conclude by reasserting the government's intention to continue with this project. I might add that the causeway approach road on Prince Edward Island will soon be completed, and tenders for construction of a highway interchange at Albany, P.E.I., are expected to be called this summer.
These, I suggest, are very definite commitments on the part of this government to proceed with this great project. Now we have the era of the new society, the just society. This was going to be "it" for sure. Surely now, with a just society, we would get a causeway. They took the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) over, they had a pipe band, the pipers played "Road to the Isles", the Grits cheered, and this was going to be "it"; there would be no delays and we would have the causeway. So far nothing has been done. I think the Prime Minister said this was going to be a jumping parliament. I have not seen much jumping yet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Melvin James McQuaid: The only jumping I have seen is the Liberals jumping in and out of the pork barrel. I suggest that if they really want to jump, they had better jump on their own band wagon and give the people of Prince Edward Island the promised causeway, so that the economic gap between our province and the rest of Canada can be at least partially closed.


Mr. Smerchanski:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Melvin James McQuaid: Yes.


Mark G. Smerchanski: Is it true that the people employed in the ferry industry between Prince Edward Island and the mainland are not desirous of the causeway because it will put them out of employment?


Melvin James McQuaid: They of course represent a very small proportion of the people in the province. We would hope the government would make the same arrangement with respect to these people as they made for the people who were living in the Canso area when the Canso causeway was completed,
September 17, 1968

and that some alternate employment would be provided.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member from the west does not know where Canso is.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset congratulate Your Honour on reappointment to your office. May I also offer my congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) on his new duties. I do not see him in his seat at the moment. I am sorry that my companion member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) is not present, because I very much wanted to say to him that I hope that, with me, he will be able to forward the business of Canada, which I am sure is the main purpose for our being here.
I think it is well that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) went to western Canada recently and looked at the situation which exists there, particularly in southern Manitoba and southern Saskatchewan where we were severely plagued by bad weather during the harvest season. As he quite properly noted, it would be a week or two before we can properly assess the situation. Weather has to take its course, and all of us sincerely hope that we will get the fine weather which is needed to enable these farmers to harvest their crops. As the minister observed, and as I did when I drove through that area, the ground was so wet at that time that one did not see much harvest machinery in operation. I am sure that if these conditions continue, the minister will come to the house with some recommendations on what might be undertaken. However, these are natural factors with which farmers must live. I am sure the minister has learned this during his lifetime, as indeed have I.
What we are concerned with here are the things we can do ourselves and which the government can do to improve farming conditions. We are concerned about the rate of unemployment in the cities and in the countryside; we are concerned about the levels of farm income and about the interest rates which farmers must pay for the loans they must have to continue their operation, just as also do the city dwellers to run their businesses and to build and maintain their houses. We are concerned about grain sales and about prices which affect not only the farmers but also the city dwellers. In short, what we are concerned about is the ability of the individual to survive in the economic jungle of this
The Address-Mr. Gleave society and to make a place for himself and a living for his family. It is well that the government is also concerned about it, as was made evident in the following statement from the throne speech;
My government is deeply concerned to provide and to ensure increased justice, dignity and recognition to the individual, particularly in an age which is characterized by large governments, industrial automation, social regimentation and old-fashioned laws.
I do not know much about old fashioned laws. It seems to me that most of them are old fashioned, because we live in a society which is governed by common law developed through the centuries. However, if we can protect the rights of the individual and if we can enhance the living standards and the quality of life of the individual, this is what we should do. I doubt we can do it, however, by cancelling the winter works program. Very shortly after my election, and before coming to Ottawa for this session I received a number of resolutions from the city of Saskatoon, roughly half of which is in my constituency, and the town of Biggar, which is a small town serving the C.N.R. and the farmers in the surrounding areas. Both of these communities asked that the winter works program be continued and that it be carefully discussed.
As a result of one of those wires, I sought and had a meeting with the mayor of Saskatoon because frankly I felt I needed more information. He explained to me the benefits of the winter works program, especially in relieving unemployment, and the way in which the city and the surrounding communities were able effectively to use it. Very shortly thereafter and before this parliament met-and this may or may not have been significant-the winter works program was cancelled. In the coming winter we will feel the effect of that decision in the communities I mentioned. These communities are carrying a heavy load. The potash industry around Saskatoon is steadily developing, and as it employs a greater number of men it will throw a greater load on the surrounding communities on which it depends for services and for housing for the people who work in that industry. In effect, the city and towns such as Vanscoy, Delisle and Asquith have become the dormitories of the potash industry. These communities must house the people, must educate their children and must provide all the amenities of living required by a fast growing community.
September 17, 1968

The Address-Mr. Gleave
Saskatoon is faced with the installation of a $6 million sewage system to control pollution and to dispose of the wastes of a great city. It seems to me that under these circumstances the government should be moving forward, not backward, in helping such urban communities. As is described by the Economic Council of Canada, these communities must also take care of the manpower surplus which comes from the farms. People are moving away from farms and are swelling our urban centres.
In the last year or 18 months we have been faced with rapidly increasing interest rates which have not only affected the cities and small communities but also our farms. As a result, in the last eight months or so farmers have simply not been able to get farm improvement loans. These loans are essential to the well-being of our farmers because this is the method they have used for keeping and maintaining adequate machinery on their farms. Without such a loans program, farmers will not be able to keep the kind and the number of machines they need to run their farms efficiently. I know because I tried it myself.
Farmers who have gone to banks asking for farm improvement loans have been refused them. They have been told they could have all the money they wanted but had to pay the current interest rate, which may be as high as 71 or 8 per cent. We were told in the throne speech that some provision will be made to alleviate the situation. However, I hope that as a result of such a provision the interest rates will not be raised and that we will continue the same stable interest rates on farm improvement loans which will enable us to obtain the money we need for farming. The Economic Council of Canada has said that it is essential to expand the farming community by increasing efficiency in production. One of the things which will be needed is easily available capital at rates which the community can afford.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
From the information I have received, in a good many instances the story connected with the Farm Credit Corporation is not much better in respect of the amount of money lent than is the case with farm improvement loans. I have received a letter from a farmer in west central Saskatchewan whose son wanted to buy a quarter section of land. He said he approached the Farm Credit Corporation and was told he would have to mortgage two sections of land, including the home
[Mr. Gleave.l

quarter and buildings, and as well agree that the son would have use of a complete line of machinery at no cost to him. This man suggested that instead of such a drastic step he would allow the corporation to hold title to one half section, but the offer was flatly refused. As a result a land company, with finances from outside the provinces, bought the land. I am using this man's experience only to illustrate the situation. He stated that this is a common occurrence throughout the prairies. Here a man is asked, in order that his son may buy a quarter section, to mortgage eight quarter sections or put under mortgage the total land assets he has acquired in probably a lifetime of work.
This man's experience is typical of the assistance we are offering farmers. I suggest that if this sort of policy is continued we will fall far short of the increased productivity and efficiency about which the economic council is talking. It is the practice, and it is the tradition of our farm lending agencies to serve the farmer, not to exploit him. When security of this type is sought, it falls little short of exploitation. I hope that when these policies are reviewed we will correct this sort of thing and that we will maintain a stable interest rate. If necessary, I hope we will subsidize the rate of interest.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that there must be priorities. Well, all of us who are mature know that there are always priorities. We live with them every day of our lives on the farm. We paint the house or we buy another machine. We make a choice. In this society, we are going to have to make a choice. If we are going to have enough houses in the city of Saskatoon, and if we are going to have enough machinery on these farms, we shall have to maintain an interest rate that will make these things possible.
The Economic Council of Canada suggests that in the last decade the prices of farm products have increased much less than the prices of other products. I quote from its report:
With slow growth in demand for farm products, prices of farm products have increased much less than prices of other goods and services over the past two decades. This has meant that the prices of the goods sold by farmers have, on the average, increased less rapidly than the prices of goods purchased by farmers. And this has meant, in turn, that part of the income generating benefits arising from the rapid rate of growth of agricultural productivity have been shifted from the farm sector to other sectors of the economy.
The short term for that situation is the cost-price squeeze. We have been living with
Sepiember 17, 1968

it for a long time in the farming community. The situation has to be corrected by applying price supports and by giving other advantages to the farm sector if we are going to have a healthy agricultural economy. There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to continue with the volume of wheat sales we have and the prices we have had in the last year, we will be in serious economic difficulties in western Canada.
This morning one speaker said that farm machinery sales had dropped 30 per cent in one province. This is the first sign of difficulty. This chapter in the report of the Economic Council of Canada from which I have been quoting also focuses on the need for increased research in agriculture. The economic council believes this to be a matter of great importance. It says that the amount of research conducted, especially in the field of cereal grain, has lagged far behind. Certainly, it has. The last time I checked we had one full-time man doing wheat research in the province of Saskatchewan. We put "the wheat province" on our licence plates, but we devote the time of only one man to the task of getting the best varieties that can be grown in our province. As I said, if we are going to measure up in this field, then we have to increase our wheat sales. I note the government has committed itself to wheat sales amounting to 1.3 billion bushels in the next three years. This will be a little better than 400 million bushels of sales per year, >
which would be about 20 per cent less than the normal production.
If you really want to calculate some priorities, Mr. Speaker, try to calculate them if you are running a wheat farm on a six bushel quota. This really takes some priorities. I wanted to say something about the proposed national grain council. While I do not like to be overly critical about a program that is proposed, because I think we need all the programs we can get to assist us, I did check with two national farm organizations, the National Farmers Union and the head office of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Both of these organizations informed me they had not been consulted about the formation of such a council and had not yet received any invitation to join. I do not place too much emphasis on the fact that an invitation has not been received because the invitations may not yet have been sent out. However, I do consider it important that these organizations have not been consulted. It is almost a tradition by now in western Canada that when we
The Address-Mr. Gleave change our approach to wheat marketing or change the marketing structure, we do consult thoroughly with farm organizations. I think it is important. We face some pretty important decisions in western Canada in the field of grain.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The international grains agreement has come under fire or pressure. News reports have been telling us this ever since it was signed. Negotiations were no sooner completed in Geneva when price cutting began. The United States cut prices, and on that account we were in the doldrums all last winter. According to news reports we are still in the same position. Many people are advocating solutions. We are told by all kinds of people to do this, that or the other, whereas we really need a thorough examination of our entire position.
To date we have failed to use effectively the facilities which we have, such as the excellent laboratory facilities of the Board of Grain Commissioners. We could have used those jointly with the Canadian Wheat Board in an effective selling and promotional campaign such as our competitors make use of. We need a more effective staff overseas and we must know to a greater extent what our competitors and purchasers are doing.
Somebody out west told me that we have no agricultural attache in Moscow. I did not believe this until I came down here and checked into it. One would think that our government would take the step of appointing such an attache so that we might be informed adequately about the volume of grain production in Russia, about weather conditions, the varieties and qualities of grain being grown, and so on. The Wheat Board has two agencies overseas. I do not want to be too critical, Mr. Speaker, but we ought to have a more effective promotional and selling campaign overseas than we have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: And if the minister needs counsel to tell him that-well, that is up to the government.
We need a more effective research program. In its report the economic council tells us that we are spending in research far and away less than one of our competitors, the United States. I have talked to people in Saskatchewan, at the university and experimental station level, and I have found that the best way to describe our research program is
September 17, 1968

The Address-Mr. Fortin that it is just plainly inadequate. We should correct that situation.
I notice that a news report of September 12, I believe it was, said that grain industry men were to be called to a meeting to give the views of the grain industry. I hope that when those ministers responsible for the grain industry call the leaders of the industry to the meeting they will remember that the farmers are part of that grain industry. The farmer's interests and needs must be taken care of and his voice must be heard.
I conclude with a plea to this government to consider seriously the needs of the farmer and the predicament in which he finds himself. The farms of Canada have an immense productivity; but that productivity has not yet been fully developed. If our productivity is to be fully utilized and if our farm areas are to be fully developed then, surely it will be because it is worth while for people to stay in farming as a vocation and make it a way of life.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me today to be called upon to express before this historic house the thoughts, wishes, problems and aspirations of the 67,000 citizens of the riding of Lotbiniere, which is not necessarily behind the other ridings, even though, contrary to all the expert predictions, the majority of its people voted for the Ralliement Creditiste. The honour which has been given to me of speaking on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne is accompanied by the great joy of being able to sit by the side of a great man who has remained true to himself and who fights sincerely to defend convictions more important to him than any material comfort. I speak of the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot begin this first short speech without greeting the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy chairman of Committees, who will, I am sure, show themselves to be most helpful and understanding towards a new member such as I.
Finally, I should like to greet all my new colleagues from all parties, to whom I extend my co-operation at any time for the advancement and welfare of our people and democratic institutions.
It is not easy to comment on a Speech from the Throne such as the one now before us, as


it compels us to go into deep thoughts the like of which are not found in it.
Mention was made, in the Speech from the Throne, of an elaborate legislation in terms of priorities already established. I should like to say, at this time, that the government should take into consideration the suggestions made by the opposition as regards the establishment of priorities. Otherwise, the situation would be very serious. For one thing, Parliament would lose its meaning. For another, if you consider carefully the Speech from the Throne, you soon realize that almost all the priorities stressed by this government are minor ones and relegate the individual to a place of minor importance.
We are told about 47 bills, but the main point does not lie there, and that is putting the Canadian dollar at the service of human beings. As long as money runs the world and crushes the individual, our society will reek with injustice, dishonesty, crime and despair to those who cannot rest at night without worrying about the next day. And there are hundreds of those people in each one of our ridings.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Since I have become a member of this new parliament, I have become acquainted with the reports of royal commissions of enquiry on banks, on government organization, on taxation, including those of the Economic Council of Canada and more specifically the last one.
If, on the one hand, one goes deeply into those reports, which are based on facts, on consultations, hearings and briefs and, on the other hand, one sees the inhuman means our fellow citizens resort to in order to survive and to live, as a young and new member, one could expect a positive Speech from the Throne, that would dig deep and invite the members of this house to tackle the roots of the real problems.
But what do we see?
We are invited in the Speech from the Throne to legislate on some 47 bills, most of them dealing with interests which are very limited geographically, socially and economically.
Of course the debate now going on can only be superficial-just like the speech itself by the way-since hon. members do not know what the various bills outlined in the Speech from the Throne contain or mean because everything is kept secret. That Speech from
September 17, 1968

the Throne reminds me of a man who wants to give his little family a proper home but whose hopes are soon thwarted because the monetary tool is either missing or too expensive; he must therefore be satisfied to dream and wait, which is what the government is doing. As I said a little earlier, we will be asked to consider 47 bills. But what good will they do? Will a governing principle preside over their drafting?
The Prime Minister, with his dream of a just society, will claim that they will be, but it is undeniable that his economic philosophy is based on conservatism, and not on progress and modernism.
At this point, I now refer to the Speech from the Throne where we can read:
We have taken and are taking effective strides toward economic conservation through progressively better use of our resources to achieve a high and long-term productivity.
By so doing, this government is advocating a doctrine of non participation in economic life.
There is a constant theme, a leitmotiv as it were, but this perfectly conceived refrain has a strange sound of status quo. And that is distressing.
I thought that a majority government would not be afraid of putting through reforms in depth and advocating a modern and progressive legislative philosophy.
I say this because as a Social Crediter I am convinced that the greatest problem in Canada is to connect fittingly three things: firstly, economic efficiency, secondly, social justice and thirdly, individual freedom.
Now, to achieve economic efficiency, social justice and individual freedom, the present financial institutions and others must be set at the pace of the human being and the community, because, in fact, institutions exist to serve those who want them, that is individuals. Let us not forget that unsuitable institutions, overtaken by technological development will certainly impair economic efficiency, in a context of social justice and individual freedom.
I would like the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to define his just society in unequivocal terms; I would like him to tell this house what he feels it is in reality in relation to people and things, within our Canadian society of 1968. I should like him to show me the exact relation he sees between the 47 bills he proposes and announces in the Speech from the Throne and his just society.
The Address-Mr. Fortin
In my opinion, the Speech from the Throne and the bills are one thing and the just society of the hon. Prime Minister is another.
We know full well, Mr. Speaker, that social and political conditions derive from and depend largely upon the economy. When the necessary economic controls are missing or blocked by inadequate or too conservative measures, any social, political or even constitutional legislation, becomes practically impracticable or inapplicable due to the restrictions imposed by the economy.
This is so true that the government recognizes it in the Speech from the Throne where it says:
In the complexities of modern society, the effective programs take time to develop and more time to implement. At all stages, they require financial and intellectual resources which are not unlimited and must be used with careful planning and the hard judgment of priorities.
Mr. Speaker, the economic, social, and political concepts are closely related and it is most urgent to restore our scale of values. We must give back to the individual the place which is rightly his, in other words we must put the economic concept and the results which follow to the service of the human being.
We must equip ourselves, as soon as possible, with the necessary economic controls so that we may, as administrators and legislators, fulfil our duties in an appropriate manner on the one hand and in conformity with the wishes of the people on the other hand.
Economic controls are a means and not an end, as is still believed by some of us in this house. They are tools provided to adjust, rectify, step up, restrain not the human being but the whole system or the national economic complex. The legislation submitted to us in the Speech from the Throne is silent about all those economic controls. It is rather obsolete, out-of-date, and inefficient. Frankly, I expected a modem, dynamic, balanced and mainly human legislation which would emphasize consumption and the consumer, in our automated world, and I confess that I am very disappointed.
Since in our modern economy machine takes on gradually the duties of man, the economy, directed by administrators and lawmakers, must be more and more man-oriented. In this field, the government must not shirk its prime and vital responsibilities for the welfare of the nation it administers.
For instance, the idea which gave birth to the Bank of Canada is now outmoded and
152	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Fortin obsolete. In our system of overwhelming capitalism, where the rich get richer at the expense of the poor and where only big financiers can indulge in capitalization, the role of the Bank of Canada has become secondary and we even tend to wonder whether or not it still exists. Its duties are vague, its members are kept in the background, its administration is concealed, its achievements are unknown, and its links with the government of the Canadian nation are illusory.
Yet the Bank of Canada could be one of the most important levers of the economy if only the right decision was taken. But the governments which have followed one another for almost a hundred years have been unable to pull themselves together in order to make such a decision.
Politics must not be the art of making promises but rather the art of doing what is possible. What really matters is policies translated into facts. If the just society is to exist, it will have to be translated into facts, because people judge from facts.
I note that the Speech from the Throne lacks a philosophy of action looking towards the future.
The time for wishes is past; now is the time for determination and concrete action. Governments and parliamentarians should have taken, ages ago, the necessary steps to insure the defence and the promotion of consumers.
The problem of production and of productivity is solved once and for all. Considered in itself, our productivity is unlimited. We are on the wrong track, Mr. Speaker, if we believe the speech from the throne that suggests that the most serious economic problem in Canada is that of production. I declare here, in this house, that the major problem is related to the consumption of products and resources of our country and of other countries. The distribution of resources among consumers: this is the basic problem that is facing us and all Canadians expect us to come up with a fool-proof solution.
That is why several thousands of persons have voted for the Ralliement creditiste during the last election!
The Social credit did not die as some people predicted; it is very much alive and kicking, because people increasingly understand what the problem is.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Something one should never forget and which is at the root of this problem is the fact that income is not equitably apportioned out

DEBATES	September 17, 1968
among the producers, the distributors and the consumers once they are left on their own. The consumers are thus deprived of a large fraction of the assets they had secured in their productive capacity as workers.
The point is therefore, Mr. Speaker, in the first place to protect the consumer from being inevitably taken advantage of on account of his weakness.
I feel really frustrated, as thousands and thousands of Candians do, by the fact that the problem of consuming and distributing our resources, in a fair, non-socialistic way does not appear on the list of bills men-tionned in the Speech from the Throne.
I feel the same way about the very serious housing problem which is not even alluded to and which is related to consumption.
According to the Social Credit creed, there must be a constant balance between production and consumption, that is to say that at any moment of economic activities, consumption must reach the same level as production.
To serve man, to serve the citizen, all citizens, Mr. Speaker, regardless of race, color, cultural heritage and language, such must be the governing principle of the entire economy.
Any economic system that fails to attain this end does not accomplish its vital function and therefore deserves to be condemned. In judging the actual economic system, I respectfully ask the members of this house if it accomplishes its end with regard to the human beings, to each of the provinces and to Canada as a whole?
So that we may have prosperity and not poverty in the midst of affluence, it is therefore essential that the mechanism of production, consumption, distribution, be cordinated and interconnected so as to fulfil its end, which is the satisfaction of human needs, in a word the establishment of a just society in fact and not only in theory.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne explicitly recognizes that poverty still exists in Canada. It repeats thereby the very interesting statement of the fifth annual report of the Economic Council of Canada. But the Speech from the Throne differs from the latter in that it does not suggest any solution.
It is a fact, poverty exists. But shall we be able to meet the challenge?
Mr. Speaker, in order to impart to the people of Canada the knowledge that, in a country like ours, poverty exists in the midst of
September 17, 1968

plenty, an official report of the Economic Council of Canada-the fifth one-has been necessary.
Previously, when the Creditistes urged the government to take immediate steps in order that the needy might receive bread and butter, the party in power always remained deaf and the newspaper did not bring up the subject. Today, faced with the recommendations of the report, several important personalities and leading newspapermen have shown great surprise at the wide-spread poverty here. And yet, Mr. Speaker, this poverty exists, we see it every day in our midst and sometimes in our own families. Many of our politicians have turned a deaf ear when we tried to tell them about it.
Poverty does not occur suddenly. It is the result of a lack of adequate policies on the part of our leaders for a number of years. The way things are going, one can wonder whether it is not almost too late to avert certain misfortunes or catastrophies which befall these poor families. These people have reached the stage where they feel rejected and almost as if they did not belong to our society. For them, poverty is a sort of insufficient access to some goods, services, and way of life available to all others and considered as essential to a decent standard of living.
For the poor, education, labour movements, spokesmen and associations to represent them and express their views, their yearnings, and their needs are things unknown. Why? Because, on account of their condition, they had to stay away from them. Consequently, they retreated into their humble ghettos, where lack of education, illness, want of money, hunger, cold, isolation, fear-and sometimes crime-touched them and left their stigma on each of them.
What was the government doing in all that, Mr. Speaker? As usual it refused to listen to those who tried to advise it. Of course family allowances, pensions, unemployment insurance benefits were being paid. But what was being done to help the poor help themselves to put them in conditions where they could increase their income, to develop their own possibilities, to improve their circumstances through ther own efforts?
The creditistes had remembered the poor, advocating a guaranteed minimum income for every family. The Prime Minister did not invent the minimum income, Mr. Speaker. They also advocated adjusting family allowances according to the cost of living index, a

The Address-Mr. Perrault health dividend, adequate purchasing power for the consumers, a basic income tax exemption of $3,000 for unmarried people and $5,000 for married people, a maximum interest rate for finance companies which exploit the people, low rental housing and, in co-operation with the various departments and industry, helping the students find summer employment, a guaranteed minimum price for the products of a family farm to ensure the sale of farm products. Those are constructive measures which we expected to find in the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker. Those are only some of the points of the creditiste program to create a just society, and we hope that the Prime Minister will take note of them.
To remedy the problem of poverty, it is necessary first of all to maintain a high employment level; secondly, to get the people interested and somewhat committed to eliminating poverty; thirdly, to direct policies towards the people who need help and not towards those who dispense patronage; fourthly, to maintain incomes and increase the ability of the poor to participate; fifthly, to make economic use of funds and skills to get the most long lasting results for each dollar spent. Will that challenge ever be met, Mr. Speaker, since it is still possible unfortunately to say today that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? The just society, if it is to be, must first fill this serious gap and without delay. Will the Creditistes be heard this time with a little more attention? We all hope so, for the fate of millions of those poor people will be at stake.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to detain the house any longer. I should like to thank you, to congratulate you on your election and to offer you my closest co-operation as member for Lotbiniere. I hope this speech and the debates to follow will be useful to the Canadian people.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise for the first time in this house I want to congratulate the mover of the address in reply, the hon. member for Mada-waska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin). The province of New Brunswick has made a remarkable contribution to this nation. The people of New Brunswick have made a contribution totally beyond their numbers within confederation. The province of British Columbia has benefited greatly from the contribution of
September 17, 1968

The Address-Mr. Perrault people from New Brunswick, although I may say that for more than nine years I have been battling one of its more distinguished sons in the legislature of the province of B.C.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the seconder of the address in reply my good friend and colleague the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand). He will be an able member in his own right. The fact that he is a Canadian of Indian origin adds to the richness of this house, to the diversity and representative character of it.
I congratulate you too, Mr. Speaker, on re-election to the office you hold, because your reputation goes before you. Among those who have served in all the democratic assemblies and legislatures of this nation the Speaker of this house has earned an excellent reputation.
My constituency, Mr. Speaker, is made up of two of the most constructive and progressive areas in the country, and I am grateful to them for the support which they gave me in the recent election. I have the privilege of representing several thousand residents of the municipality of Burnaby, which is the second largest urban area in British Columbia, and as well I represent many of the families of North Vancouver.
We are richly endowed with resources in these areas. We have some fine mountains. May I suggest to the government through you, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to improve communications in this country we should schedule a series of federal cabinet meetings from the Pacific coast to the Atlantic coast so that in the years ahead, the cabinet can meet with every section of this nation, and if the cabinet would like to have a summit conference in North Vancouver on top of one of our mountains we would be glad to play host to it.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
There are thousands of families living in my constituency faced with the problems of families throughout the country. They do not have housing. Too many of them are unemployed for certain periods of the year. They need greater assistance to develop their potential. I intend to advocate measures in all these fields during my period of service in this house. I may have difficulty at times in this assembly. Before I left to come to Ottawa they had a going-away party for me at which the chairman said, "Ray, is it going to be difficult, after serving so long in the opposition, finally to be on the government side?"

Here I am. I am with the government in spirit, but my physical location is still in opposition. If I have a conditioned reflex, a Pavlovian reflex, and I am overly critical- and I hope I am not too unfairly critical of the government at times-it may be because of my position in the house.
I congratulate the opposition parties upon their strenuous efforts to attempt to destroy the speech from the throne. I have been in opposition too long to suggest in any way that the rights and prerogatives of an opposition should be curtailed. No party in this country has a monopoly on good ideas. All the parties in this house have made their contribution. Fair and reasonable opposition is necessary if we are to keep our parliamentary system healthy. Anyone who has experience in opposition must be sympathetic with the problems which confront Her Majesty's opposition when they attempt to stand up and be watchdogs of the people. Laurier said:
I here form part of the people's jury and it is my duty to render a conscientious verdict, regardless of pension or party.
With reference to the speech from the throne the question is, has the verdict been conscientious. I have listened with interest and with some bewilderment to the quality of the opposition which has been advanced during the past few days. The suggestion that this throne speech or any other speech from the throne is supposed to be a complete catalogue of the program of a government is a ludicrous and irresponsible suggestion. This definition of a throne speech is given in "Government of Canada" by Dawson, 1963:
The throne speech reviews the state of the nation and recites in fairly general terms the program which the cabinet proposed to submit to parliament in the coming session.
May I suggest to the opposition that in the review that was given in the speech from the throne there is a foundation program for the coming four years and a belief on the part of the government that before we can create the base the foundation must be such that we can support social reform and pay for advances in all areas. If we attempt to finance the just society on the basis of the base coinage of our inflation, we are courting disaster. In that sense the speech from the throne has been responsible and meets the test of the traditional message from His Excellency. The speech from the throne provides a direction, it provides a pattern for the future. It can only suggest a limited number of areas where
September 17, 1968

government action is anticipated. But when criticism is directed toward the speech from the throne on the basis that it is not specific enough, perhaps the opposition should be reminded of the unprecedented action of the presenting of 47 bills on the very opening day of the session.
There has been a suggestion that the government is indifferent to the problem of those without shelter. Yet even now a task force is commencing its journey from coast to coast in Canada seeking the opinions of people from all political parties and vocations in an effort to obtain the best ideas in order to have a program at the time of the building season at the beginning of the year.
I was bewildered by the quality of the attack on the speech from the throne launched by the leader of Her Majesty's official opposition. He said, as recorded at page 55 of Hansard:
Throughout the speech there is evidence of a lack of a sense of proportion, a preoccupation with legalistic matters, an utterly casual approach insensitive toward economic injustice and the blight of poverty in our land.
There have been other speeches from the throne in other forums and not just in our provincial legislatures-and not all in the province of British Columbia. One speech from the throne was delivered in the Nova Scotia house of assembly in 1967, the last year the right hon. gentleman seated to the left of our flanking group was premier of that province. Let me read into the record the kind of defence entered by that right hon. gentleman when his speech from the throne was brought under attack. These are the words recorded in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly, as they are set down at page 107 of the House of Assembly Debates:
I am sure that any member of the house can present a list of projects which are desirable and important. Any member can stand in his place and say that this should be done and that should be done, but our resources are limited in comparison to the needs to be met, yes, inadequate in comparison to the needs to be met.
I ask hon. members to consider the quality of the opposition by the right hon. gentleman the other day and compare his remarks then with his defence in 1967 in his own legislature when he was endowed with responsibility. Then he continued:
We are certainly not meeting all of the needs, but we have tried to allocate the resources that are available toward the most pressing needs in an effort to produce the most beneficial results that we can offer our province and its people.
The Address-Mr. Perrault
Those words are somewhat reminiscent of some of the language in the speech from the throne we have before us. Has the hon. gentleman's philosophy altered during that intervening time?
We have a similar situation with regard to the members of the New Democratic party. I am familiar with some of them. The attack launched by the members of the New Democratic party in this house was an attack by a group enjoying the luxury of an opposition which has the positive knowledge they will never be called upon to form a government in this Canada of ours. But there was a time when they were empowered with the responsibility of government. I had the privilege and pleasure of attending the convention of the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour the last year the C.C.F. governed the great province of Saskatchewan. We are told in this house that today the New Democratic party believes that through planning we can bring about full employment in this nation; yet I have never in my life heard a more bitter indictment of any government than the indictment in 1962 by the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour of the C.C.F. because of their failure to fight unemployment.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Again vested with power and responsibility these opposition parties demonstrated a different philosophy and a singular lack of success in providing neat, pat solutions to the major problems which beset this nation. This reminds me of a baseball manager I spoke with last summer. His team was in a 13 game losing streak. He said it was very difficult to go to the baseball stadium every night when the fans were yelling down to put in a new pitcher, and asking why someone was not getting a hit or why the team was making so many errors. His comment was that, while up in the stands every fan was a 30 game winner with a batting average of 350, and might never make a field error, one could not coax them down on to the field.
I am glad to note that in this throne speech we are anticipating and contemplating parliamentary reforms which will enable any member of the opposition in this house with a good idea to contribute that idea effectively to the standing committees of the house. Not only that, such a member will be financed in the process. If any ideas exist among members of the opposition, and I am sure that there are many, this government will give the members a chance to put those ideas over.
September 17, 1968



COMMONS DEBATE

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Perraulc Some of these 350 hitters will have a chance to get up to bat.
Anyone who listened to the speech from the throne with any degree of detachment heard, first of all, an acceptance of responsibility for the leadership which has been bestowed by the people of Canada on this government. This was not a speech festooned with piecrust promises not possible of fulfilment. We were told we must marshal our intellectual and financial resources and that priorities must be established. We were told that a firm foundation for the future must be established during this first session of the twenty eighth parliament. That foundation is going to include procedural reforms.
We have been told in effect that we cannot run a $12 billion corporation along business lines established in the 1880's, and that is one [DOT]of the reasons the government advocates parliamentary reform. We have been told that procedural reform is a priority matter because the volume of work to be handled by this house is to be such that improved procedures are imperative.
We have also been told that national unity is a priority and that appropriate action is to be taken to strengthen and improve confederation. We in western Canada have made progress. This is one of the most rapidly growing provinces in Canada and we are as concerned .about national unity as we are about economic growth.
British Columbians of all parties love their province and their country, and no one has a monopoly in this respect. Centennial year intensified our love for our nation. We respect vhe commonwealth and we respect the institutions which the commonwealth represents. The 16 members from British Columbia look upon our presence here, at least in part, as an opportunity to strengthen the bonds of confederation and to play a constructive role in building a new and better future for Canada.
The history of our province and its development since we entered confederation is one of a progressive people who have progressed, not because they have been standing unalterably across the highway blocking progress or by gazing nostalgically into the past refusing to act, but because they believe that times are changing and that the nation is changing. We are prepared to demonstrate that this nation has in that specific province a strong western bastion of confederation. We hope to assist in the intelligent and reasoned consideration of

confederation and the constitution, as well as ways to improve both. The vast majority of us want to join every national dialogue about Canada's future because we believe that much of Canada's future lies in this province and in the west.
We have much to offer that dialogue. British Columbia is the fastest growing province in the nation. It is a wealthy province with a great fund of human and physical resources. The settling of our province was accomplished by co-operating, hard-working racially diverse people drawn from every Canadian province and from throughout the world, who came here and together conquered the wilderness. Whether they stepped ashore, or arrived from overland like my ancestors, they were met by individuals like the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo.
In British Columbia we have a diverse racial culture, we are united and we have something to say to the rest of Canada about unity. If we do not understand completely the French-English dialogue perhaps it is because we have been building a future in the most difficult geographical area in Canada. Perhaps we have had insufficient time to ponder this question.
The issue today as far as British Columbians are concerned does not involve French Canada or English Canada but rather an unhyphenated Canada. Our concern cannot be related to the linguistic and cultural future of Canada alone: it involves very much Canada's economic future as well. Without a strong economy, cultural institutions of any kind have little chance of growing and developing.
[Stage Direction]
The province of British Columbia was settled by people of all races, faiths and philosophical tendencies. The first ties binding us to Canada were woven by people coming from Asia. By the thousand they contributed, through their labour and sometimes by sacrificing their life, to the construction of a railway connecting us with the rest of Canada.
These people came from all over the world and from the other provinces, seeking a higher standard of living.
The co-operation of all those groups was necessary to overcome all the obstacles met in the wilderness which was then British Columbia. The citizens of British Columbia are now proud and happy of the progress made.
September 17, 1968
[Stage Direction]
Some of those who claim that they are speaking for our provinces seem to think that there is an impassable stone wall between British Columbia and the remainder of Canada.
I would like to tell the house, Mr. Chairman, that the record number of Liberal members from British Columbia elected to the Canadian Parliament bears out the fact that the people of British Columbia are no introverts, scowling behind a stone wall.
The great majority of citizens in British Columbia believe in the future of Canada and are ready to strengthen the ties of Confederation and make all necessary adjustments which could be required in the process.
Much has been said about the language rights of the two founding races. Some are afraid of being forced to speak English or obliged to speak French; but in Canada as it is today, and more and more in the Canada of tomorrow, I want my children to be bilingual, indeed I would like them to be able to express themselves in many languages, the more so since they will have to live in a shrinking world, a world in which progress will depend upon the knowledge of other languages, other cultures and other peoples. [English]
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian of tomorrow should know English, French and as many other languages as he can assimilate. He will be a better Canadian for it and a better world citizen.
If there is a sufficient number of French speaking citizens in any area of Canada who want their children to be educated in French as a primary language, by all means let us grant them that right. At the same time let us encourage them, for the sake of their children, to develop the greatest possible fluency in English as well as in French.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Canadians have everything to lose and nothing to gain by relying on alleged historical, statistical and legalistic precedents to deny their neighbours cultural and linguistic equality. Canada has made more progress in its brief 100 years of existence than any other nation in the world. We have not made all that progress in this brief period of time by opposing change, innovation and reform.
Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?
Division


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
On motion of Mr. Mazankowski the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government house leader would indicate what business the house will conduct tomorrow.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we shall continue tomorrow with the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


[Stage Direction]
It being seven minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, September 18, 1968