1968-09-23

Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-102, to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SPECIAL COMMITTEE-PROCEDURES RESPECTING INSTRUMENTS IN VIRTUE OF STATUTES

[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motions:
That a special committee of 12 members, to be named at a later date, be appointed to consider and, from time to time, to report on procedures for the review by this house of instruments made in virtue of any statute of the Parliament of Canada.

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
That a special Committee of twelve members, to be named at a later date, be appointed to consider and, from time to time, to report upon the advisability of making changes in the orders concerning the business of supply, the business of ways and means, the stages of the legislative process, and the operation of the standing committees of this House; upon the advisability of making permanent, with or without amendment, any or all the several changes in the procedures of this house that were in effect prior to the dissolution of Parliament on April 23, 1968; and upon the advisability of such other changes as the committee may deem suitable to promote the more expeditious dispatch of the business of the House; and
That this special committee is hereby instructed to make its reports to the house prior to December 1, 1968, and to include in its reports drafts of proposed standing orders drawn to give effect, if adopted by the house, to any change or changes that may be proposed by the committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21, these notices of motions are transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement made outside the house on Friday regarding the cancellation of the ING project, and the climate of uncertainty surrounding Canada's scientific policy and the widespread concern that Canada is losing any scientific initiative, does the government intend to make a positive announcement shortly on alternative science projects and on the future role of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the science policy of the government is being studied in a continuing way by the government. These cuts came in areas where they were needed for economic reasons, and they do not detract from our intention to have in Canada a science policy that is forward looking.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this is the third Canadian scientific project from which government support has been suddenly abandoned-the others being the HARP project and the Queen Elizabeth observatory-will the Prime Minister undertake to table the scientific reports upon which these decisions were based? Also, will the Prime Minister, with a view to reassuring the country that scientific projects will not be the scapegoat of spending in other fields, make a clear statement at an early date as to what is Canada's science policy?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, the decisions to stop these projects were of course partly scientific in origin but also largely economic. Earlier on, the minister stated in the house that we will consider whether the report on the telescope will be tabled, and I hope it will be tabled as soon as all the other matters dealt with in this report have been made the objects of government policy.

September 23, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry



SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the house expect shortly a statement on the satellite communications project, which was generally considered the alternative expenditure of funds?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this satellite project has been the subject of a report by a task force and it is being considered by the Postmaster General. It will be a matter of policy taken up in the new department under his authority.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. Could the minister indicate whether it is the intention of the government to introduce at this session of parliament legislation to establish a Canadian space communications satellite corporation?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, we have every intention of introducing legislation during this session establishing a satellite corporation.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development and ask him whether he has received a letter from a committee in Lauzon regarding the situation of the 800 or so unemployed as a result of the closing of the shipbuilding plant there, and if so what steps he is taking to ensure employment for most of the 800 who are still without work.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I read in the newspapers about that letter having been sent to me. Unfortunately, I have not seen it and I do not know if it has been received. I will check this morning, and as soon as I have read the letter, I will be able to tell the hon. member for York South what steps we intend to take.


David Lewis: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can he tell us whether, as a result of the continuing unemployment of approximately 780 men out of the 800, he has recently taken any steps to deal with the situation there, or is the old organizational work just being continued?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minisler of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the services of the Canada manpower centres are available in these circumstances as are the other services of the department. I should not like to associate myself with the hon. member's description of these as being old programs. In fact they are relatively new, and proving effective.


David Lewis: I have a further supplementary question. In view of the fact that to date the availability of manpower services has not been sufficient to find work for the 800 men affected, is the minister giving thought to any new approach or any new program to deal with this particular situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Fronienac):: Can the
hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development tell us whether the courses-


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that the minister wishes to answer my question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I did not realize the minister was rising for the purpose of replying to the supplementary question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure my hon. friend that we have different approaches under consideration at all times.


David Lewis: I am sorry I drew your attention, Mr. Speaker.



DAVIE SHIPBUILDING-OFFER OF RETRAINING COURSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
September 23, 1368	COMMONS
Can he assure us that retraining courses were offered to all the former employees of Davie Shipbuilding?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker,
retraining courses were offered to all the employees. Some of them did not show up to meet the representatives of the Department of Immigration.
On the other hand, when the figure 800 is used in the house, it had better be checked. There were never 800 permanent employees at Lauzon. The average was 500 employees and most of them were not permanent.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to put to the minister. How many temporary employees worked in the shipyards at Levis?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The member is asking information much too detailed in nature for the question to be allowed now.



REQUEST FOR PLANS TO STIMULATE INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasl-ings):: My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics on Friday that
72,000	more people are unemployed in Canada today than were unemployed one year ago, is it the intention of the government to announce in the very near future plans to stimulate industrial activity in the country as a means of countering the growing tendency toward increasing unemployment?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, all our fiscal and monetary policies are aimed at reducing unemployment. As to the figures, I understand that unemployment has fallen by one tenth of 1 per cent in one month, which is a step in the right direction.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister not concede that the kind of statement he has just made is identical to the kinds of statements his colleagues have made during the past two years during which time this country saw unemployment growing steadily?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
DEBATES	3ig
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN CONSTITUTION



POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING REPUBLICAN SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister in connection with the coming constitutional conference. Has the federal government received from the Quebec government or indeed from any other provincial government a suggested formula for the setting up of a republican system of government?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the continuing committee of officials which has met already twice and which will be meeting again later this week has received from various governments in Canada briefs stating their position. I have said before that these briefs were submitted by the various governments in confidence to this committee of officials to be the basis of discussion. I do not know of any government which has released any brief such as that referred to by the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the Prime Minister at this stage state whether he and his government would entertain any formula along the lines of a republican system of government as suggested by some members of his party.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, when I refer to the subject of republican government as it appeared in the press this morning and referred to by the hon. member, I do not wish to talk of any position of a specific government. I know of course of the briefs which have been submitted by the various governments to us and the positions they take. These positions are for discussion by governments, and these discussions at this stage are still private.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact that parts of the subject matter under discussion seem to be leaking out and in view of the danger that the Canadian people might perhaps get a garbled and distorted view of the proceedings, despite the best efforts of the press, would the Prime Minister reconsider his refusal to give a progress report on what is going on and seek the permission of the respective provincial governments to make such a report to this house.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: At the meeting of the continuing committee this week we intend to

September 23, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry raise with the officials the question of publicity to be given to the debate which will be taking place we hope late in November or early December between the heads of governments. But the position taken by the officials themselves on instructions from their governments was that the continuing committee was not to be the subject of any publicity. We have no reason to believe that any of the governments wish to change their position on that.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this matter of republicanism, in the light of the view expressed by the Prime Minister on the very fine show the other night, and when the Liberal convention was before the people, when he was asked about the Queen and stated, as I recall it, that he does not give a damn about the Queen, and in view of the fact that the Secretary of State voted for the abolition of the Queen in a motion before the Liberal association of Quebec, would the Prime Minister tell us what the attitude of the government of Canada is on the preservation of the monarchy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would be very happy to make a statement on this subject. I must preface it by saying that the memory of the right hon. gentleman is incorrect when he says that I said I did not give a damn about the monarchy. My position. . .


John George Diefenbaker: What did the right hon. gentleman say?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The other night on television-if this is your request, sir-I said we were not the kind of government that found it necessary to make a parade of its loyalty every once in a while. My position, sir, as I stated during the election campaign and many times before, and which I have even put in writing, is that I do not believe in attacking the symbols which are important to other people. I believe the monarchy in Canada is an important symbol to many people. I think more energy would be lost in Canada by debating this subject than would be gained by our institutions. This is my position, Mr. Speaker. I can say that our government has never considered this a subject for debate. Therefore, we will continue to respect the institutions that we have until such time as the people of Canada wish to change them.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, particularly in relation to what my leader said. Admitting the need for governments to consult and experts to consider the details, does not the Prime Minister feel that it is now time to drag this matter out of the secret corners where it has been hidden, and to consider establishing a parliamentary committee so that the nation and parliament will have some say in connection with this very important issue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, more than a year ago I said that there would be some disadvantage in having a parliamentary committee debate this question, until the opposition parties had made up their minds whether they were for one form of federalism or another. I think that as a result of the election we were not able to see very clearly what was the position of the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Churchill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. The chair has recognized the hon. member for Churchill.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the statement made by the minister of health of the province of Ontario, as reported in the Globe and Mail this morning, to the effect that the federal government is trying to unload its traditional responsibility for health care of Indians and Eskimos on to the provinces without discussion or consultation, can the minister say whether there has been consultation between the federal government and the provincial health ministers in regard to this matter?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation. Having also looked into this matter as a result of the publicity given it this morning, the hon. member will understand that I would prefer to make a fuller statement later on.
September 23, 1968


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the directive sent out by his department last April indicating that traditional health services to our Indian citizens were being cut back or discontinued as part of the government's austerity program has been rescinded, and replaced by a more positive statement on this matter, as promised by the then minister?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, we are going to maintain our present level of services, but again I should like to take this aspect into account as well in the statement that I am going to make with regard to the whole matter later on this week.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the minister to make his statement in the house, in view of the tendency of ministers to make statements outside the house where they cannot be discussed or debated.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister indicate whether the original order has been replaced, as promised last April, by a more positive statement on this matter? I am referring to the order that went out to all Indian chiefs across the country.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that my predecessor did indicate to the house that this matter was being reviewed and that the present level of medical health services to the Indians would be maintained. So to that extent, the answer is yes, it has been rescinded.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In his reply to my question the minister said that there had been consultations. Can he now say with whom those consultations were held, whether they were held with the health ministers or with the Indian people themselves?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there has been continual discussion between officials of my department and officials of the respective health departments in the provinces. As to the number and type of such meetings and consultations that have been held, I intend to deal with that matter in a statement which, I assure the hon. member, I shall be prepared to give the house later in the week.
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



AUTOMOBILES-INCREASED PURCHASING AND PRODUCTION IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Cenire):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Considering the minister's previous answers regarding Canada's share of north American auto production in the 1969 model year, and considering that no special undertakings have been given by the three major auto producers as to the extent of any production increase, will the minister insist that the industry give undertakings similar to those given in 1965 to increase its purchasing and production in Canada by a specific dollar amount?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, that is a long question and I hope I shall be given the opportunity to make an equally long answer. I have already reported at length on the negotiations I have had with the automobile producers. I have also referred to letters from the industry in which they show themselves to be not only totally in agreement with the pact but willing as well to continue and improve on it. I have also referred to reports that the companies have made available to the government, under regulations in the agreement, in which they have indicated their plans for the coming year. I have also indicated that I shall be in touch with the companies in January in order to discover their further plans for the next years.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We have heard all that before. Will the minister say whether he will insist on an increase of a specific dollar amount?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. I understand that this is not wise and that it puts the companies into the kind of strait-jacket that is not in the best interest of the development of the agreement, of the Canadian consumer or of the production side of this industry.


An hon. Member:: Some people don't think so.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Malher (Surrey):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Considering the controversy which has arisen as the result of the sky

September 23. 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry line of our national capital being threatened by private building schemes, I wonder whether the minister could take steps to expedite the establishment of the parliamentary committee on the national capital, the setting up of which was approved in the previous parliament?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered this question on Friday when I said I would look into this matter quickly. I hope this week to be in a position to make a report to the house.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON EXPORT SALES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his capacity as reporting to the house for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the extremely low grain delivery quotas prevalent in western Canada at the present time and the resulting economic hardship facing farmers, can the minister advise the house if any major export wheat sales are in sight that might help to alleviate this serious situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that negotiations will be held before long with the Russian and Chinese governments and that extreme efforts are being made to develop markets all over the world, as well as to avail ourselves fully of access to existing markets.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Has
the minister received a report from his officials who attended last week's meeting of the major wheat exporters in Canberra, Australia, and if so would he indicate to the house the nature of this report?


Jean-Luc Pepin: On Thursday afternoon at the end of the question period I received a telegram containing a communique issued at the end of that meeting and I read part of it in the house. I will send the full communique to the hon. gentleman if he so wishes.



DUMPING-REFERENCE OF WHITE PAPER TO COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I wish to put a question to the acting minister or to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Last Friday a white paper on anti-dumping was given out to us. As it seems that a deadline has been set for the passing of the antidumping legislation, I should like to ask the minister when the bill will be introduced in the house and when it will be referred to a committee of the house for consideration?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Perhaps I might reply to that question. It is the intention of the government at an early date to refer the white paper to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, and, when the committee has reported its conclusions on the white paper, to submit a bill to the house based on those conclusions.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to put a question to the Minister of Transport but, in his absence, I should like to direct it to the Minister without Portfolio who is responsible for transport.
As a partial solution to the housing crisis and particularly to the lack of mortgage funds, could the hon. minister ask Canadian union leaders to grant mortgage loans to their members instead of sending money to the United States, as they are doing now?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will surely understand that his question is too general and should not be asked at this time.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to
September 23, 1968	COMMONS
the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
I wonder if the hon. minister could table in the house a copy of the so-called guide lines issued on three successive occasions, May 3, July 24 and last week, to Canadian corporations with regard to their investments abroad?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I shall be pleased to table them tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he is prepared to take the house into its confidence with regard to the general tenor of the talks between himself and some of his colleagues and Mr. Brosio, Secretary General of NATO, particularly with regard to Canada's participation in a forthcoming discussion at the ministerial level concerning NATO problems?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must thank the hon. member for his question because it gives me the occasion to say that the distinguished Secretary General of NATO is present in the gallery this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Brosio has himself
described this meeting as routine; it is his policy to visit member states every so often, especially to make contacts with members of a new government. Several ministers and I will be meeting Mr. Brosio later today.


John Angus MacLean: Is the government yet in a position to make any statement on its policy having to do with reassessment of Canada's role in NATO?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, certainly not before our meeting this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In connection with the belief in many circles that the government of Canada has in mind cutting down its forces in NATO, would the Prime Minister advise us whether
DEBATES	323
Inquiries of the Ministry there is any basis in fact for the statement made by Mr. Mackie of the Winnipeg Free Press-a very reputable writer-


An hon. Member:: Explain.


John George Diefenbaker: -I am glad to see the
approval over there-that strong notes of protest have been received from the British government and from the United States government against any proposal to reduce the strength of NATO forces at this time? What has been the reply of the Canadian government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I might mention that it is not in accordance with the rules of the house to ask that a minister confirm or deny statements appearing in the press. However, the Prime Minister may wish to make his response without reference to this aspect.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought the name Mackie might strike a warming note over there.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: I would have thought that after all his years in the house the right hon. gentleman could frame his question with greater ingenuity.
Since the Soviet military intervention in Czechoslovakia, we have been in consultation with our NATO partners both bilaterally and in NATO context. In the course of these consultations the view has been expressed by the British, among others, that there should be no reduction in NATO's forces in the present situation. This is clearly reflected in the NATO communique of September 4, whereby NATO members-
-affirmed the necessity ot maintaining NATO's military capability and of taking into account the implications of recent developments in eastern Europe in the planning of their national forces. The over-all capability of NATO's forces, including their structure and levels, will be kept under constant review in the light of changing political and military circumstances and will be re-examined at the next ministerial meeting.
So we have received representations about the general level of NATO forces but they have not been directed specifically to Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Now, would the minister answer the question: Did the British government send to the Canadian government since September 4, the date of the communique, a note of strong protest against any suggestion that Canada might consider a reduction in its NATO contingent, in the light of the uncertainty of the statement made by the minister?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer is, no, Mr. Speaker.

September 23, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of massive slaughters going on in Biafra, could the Prime Minister assure the house that he made strong representations to Great Britain in order to have stopped the sale of arms by that country to Nigerian federal troops?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I will only say that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already answered that question.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy Royal: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can assure the house that he will not suspend discussions with other nations as to a possible initiative regarding Nigeria-Biafra until he receives an answer to his somewhat extraordinary letter to U Thant?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that we are continuing our discussions in the United Nations looking for some way that would assist in dealing with the humanitarian aspects of this terrible tragedy.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the house would permit me to suggest that we should revert to motions so that I could table copies of the letter I wrote to the Secretary General of the United Nations.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The house having reverted to the order for motions:


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table the document in question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of

State for External Affairs. Would the minister not agree that in the case of the Biafran question the objective of placing it on the agenda of the United Nations should not be primarily to demonstrate support for Canada's views but to force other nations to take a stand on this question?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I felt it desirable to address a question to the Secretary General of the United Nations was to try to find some way of bringing this matter before the United Nations that would not result in a sterile debate on the future government of Nigeria and would concentrate instead on the humanitarian aspects of this tragedy.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: As a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell the house whether in the various consultations he has had he has discussed this matter with the Scandinavian countries and the government of Zambia, all of which have shown a tremendous interest in practical humanitarian solutions to the problem?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it was largely as a result of our consultations with like minded countries, such as the Scandinavian countries, that we decided to send this letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has his department received any requests for assistance from Canadian nationals who were visiting Czechoslovakia during the recent Russian invasion and, if so, have all requests for assistance been taken care of?


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, the earpiece must not have been working for the minister so I should like to repeat my question. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate whether his department has received any requests for assistance from Canadian nationals who were visiting Czechoslovakia during the recent Russian invasion and, if so, have all those requests for assistance been processed?
September 23, 1968	COMMONS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take that question as notice in order that I may make a full and accurate reply.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister any statement to make on the presence of Soviet ships along with our ships at the present NATO exercise in the north Atlantic?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: The only report I can make is that we know the ships are there and following us. I think they know that we know that they know.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Perhaps we could have joint exercises! Have we ever shadowed Soviet ships on their exercises?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I hope they do not know, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the hon. gentleman advise the house whether, when he met with the Premier of Saskatchewan on his recent trip, there was any discussion regarding outstanding land commitments to the Saskatchewan Indians under treaty, and if so what were the results?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I met the Premier of Saskatchewan last Friday morning and I am happy to inform the house that he has assured me that he intends to respect all the Indians' treaty rights.



ESTABLISHMENT OF LAND CLAIMS COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In
the light of the minister's statements at the 29180-22
DEBATES	325
Inquiries of the Ministry Indian-Eskimo Association meeting over the week end in London, Ontario, can the hon. gentleman indicate when the Indian land claims commission is to be set up?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we intend to table the bill in the House of Commons in the weeks to come.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development if he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the disposition of the outstanding Indian claims for reserve land in the province of Saskatchewan?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, that is a question that will be discussed during consideration of a bill to set up an Indian claims commission.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact that there are only three or four veterans in Canada who are triple or quadruple amputees, and in view of the fact that the Woods committee has recommended that such disabled veterans be granted substantially more than the 100 per cent pension, will the minister look into this matter in the hope that action can be taken on this recommendation at an early date?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport, and may I say we are sorry that the minister is again away from his important portfolio today. In view of the recent unexpected Exchequer

September 23, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry Court decision which holds the federal government wholly liable in the St. Lawrence river collision between a West German ship and a Dutch ship on April 10, 1965, what immediate precautions is the government taking to prevent a recurrence?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is very general in nature. If the hon. member knows of some urgency that is not clear to me, he now has a right to have this matter debated and considered at the time of adjournment.


Thomas Miller Bell: I refer it to the late show on the first day the minister is in the house.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the situation of continuing conflict concerning British Columbia Hydro's rail route to Roberts Bank, and in view of the fact that the provincial government controls a sole and vital link between two federal facilities, the port and the national railway system, what action does the federal government intend to take in regard to the problem of constitutional jurisdiction that is involved?


Mr. Speaker:: This question should be
placed on the order paper but again, if it is a question of urgency, the hon. member may give notice for debate at a later hour.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, which relates to the announcement of the abandonment of the intense neutron generator program. Would the minister advise the house why this very important announcement, which was made on Friday while the house was sitting, was made by means of a press release rather than by a statement in the house?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative. I suggest to the hon. member'
[Mr. Bell.l
that his question, to my way of thinking, is not in order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order. It relates to the practice of making these statements by press releases, when in fact they are very important government policy statements. I think it has always been admitted that statements of this type ought to be made in the house when the house is sitting. Certainly if the house is not sitting press releases are the obvious answer, but in this particular case the house was sitting on Friday afternoon when this statement was made, and the minister chose not to follow the usual practice.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made his protest but I still suggest to him that it is not a regular point of order.


John Angus MacLean: Is it the
intention of the minister to answer this question by press release?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I wonder whether he is now prepared to give the house an answer to the question I directed to him on Friday when I asked whether the federal government had any plans to confer with the provinces with a view to setting up joint financial assistance in the field of Metis housing, a question which the Prime Minister did not answer at that time?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: If it is a question of housing, sir, I probably did not answer because I feel it would be best answered by the Minister of Transport, who is also responsible for housing. I will ask him to consider giving an answer.


Robert Simpson: Where is he?



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that
September 23, 1968

the office of president of Air Canada has been vacant for several months, and in view of the fact that the former president has made a very strong recommendation for a replacement in that post from within the ranks of Air Canada, could the Prime Minister advise the house when we may expect an announcement regarding the new president of Air Canada?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the question could be answered in this way, that there is a minister who is making a recommendation to the government after having studied this question very deeply and I hope that very soon-the eternal "soon"-we will be able to name this gentleman.


George Harris Hees: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that this matter is being considered would the Prime Minister assure the house that the decision will be made on the basis of the man's qualifications, rather than political patronage?


Mr. Speaker:: That question is argumentative.


Thomas Miller Bell: As a further supplementary question, would the Prime Minister give a firm assurance that there will not be a division of the responsibilities formerly carried out by the president of Air Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. It is possible that we will want to consider the matter of restructuring the line of authority in Air Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is the Prime Minister suggesting he is considering a two president policy, something like the two flag policy of the Liberal government?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson) . Will the new government take up with the Canadian National Railways the question of increasing the pensions of retired employees of the C.N.R.? I think the hon.
29180-22J
Inquiries of the Ministry member for Winnipeg South would like to reply to this question.


Mr. Speaker:: I assume the hon. member is directing his question to the minister, not to the hon. member for Winnipeg South.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right. I was just identifying which minister I meant. If the Minister without Portfolio does not wish to reply now, perhaps he would be ready to answer my question at ten o'clock.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
DANGER ARISING FROM DISPOSABLE BOTTLES On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution of the city of Kitchener which points out the danger to the public arising from disposable bottles? If this serious matter has been drawn to his attention I would like to know whether he intends to conduct an investigation?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member's very interesting question ought to be placed on the order paper.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Since the Toronto Star is acting like the Pravda at the present time, can the Prime Minister assure the house that there will be no leak of highly confidential information from the R.C.M.P.?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Bernard Dumont: Could the Prime Minister not order the R.C.M.P. to keep silent as he does his ministers?
[DOT] (12 noon)



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, September 20, 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.
[Stage Direction]
September 23, 1968
The Address-Mr. Bigg
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my first words during this debate on behalf of the people of the district of Pembina must be of congratulation to yourself on your re-election to your high office. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) and welcome him to this house. On the last occasion I spoke in the house I said I hoped very shortly that we would have a man here representing those people of the great Indian nations in Canada. From the contribution he has already made I know that we can look to him to be the champion of these first citizens of Canada.
The problems facing the Indian people are many and the hon. member's task will not be an easy one. For hundreds of years his people have been the neglected and forgotten people of Canada. The hon. member's chore for many years in this house will be that of bringing forward their problems. I assure him there are many of us in the house who will wait for his contribution and will be only too pleased and ready to give him all the assistance we can.
Let me also congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), who made such a statesmanlike speech on behalf of his people in this chamber. He was positive, confident, balanced and optimistic. We are fortunate to have a man of this calibre representing his people. This is a man who not only has a different colored skin, he is a man who is already a great Canadian and we welcome him to this chamber.
I wish I could continue in this vein, Mr. Speaker, and spend the next few minutes in congratulating others, but what I have to say now touches on a note of sadness. We have as Prime Minister in Canada today a completely bilingual young man who came from favoured circumstances. He is a man who never experienced personal poverty and has had the advantages of higher education. As a result I expected that this speech from the throne would be a notable one in Canadian history. I thought that perhaps by putting aside any political feeling in these matters we might have with us again a new Laurier.
This speech from the throne is more notable for those things which were left unsaid than as a blueprint of a new, dynamic program for Canada. It appears to me to be a good example of the difference between a great deal of knowledge and little wisdom. The speech has been widely publicized and, unless I am mistaken, there has been a great deal of disappointment expressed even by those members of the press who were ready
[Mr. Dumont. 1
to give this man great kudos. This disappointment has been expressed by those who expected a change comparable to the conversion of Saint Paul.
I have heard from the Prime Minister's own mouth, and have read from what has been written by his own pen, certain things I never expected to hear or to see printed in Canada. There has been a direct attempt to create a division between the two great cultural peoples of Canada. He has not fooled anybody when at times he has slapped the face of his own people in order to get support from those he thought were not ready to support him.
There is hardly a member of this house who is not ready to follow a positive, loyal and dynamic approach to Canadian affairs. It is not good enough to say that we take for granted those ancient loyalties. It would be easy to say, about a man like the late General Vanier, that his past record of service to this nation left nothing to be desired. We do not have to look at or question his loyalty. However, when there is and has been a long period of doubt as to where one stands, it is necessary to make positive statements and to take a positive approach and stand in respect of loyalty to our Queen. Nothing less can be expected in this country of ours.
We have the right of free speech, even to the point of revolutionary free speech; I would not deny this to any man. When the Prime Minister of Canada speaks, whether he likes it or not he speaks for me and for my constituents. When he expresses loyalty to this nation, he must speak for all those with whom he does not agree politically.
Having regard to that part of the speech from the throne which has relation to international affairs, it is very important to me and to every other Canadian to know exactly where we stand on international affairs. It is not good enough to say, "Oh, we meet in conclave. I discuss with my ministers where we stand in NATO, where we stand with reference to Red China and the Soviet union." The predicament of Czechoslovakia, the situation in Rhodesia and Biafra and any other matter which impinges upon the rights and liberty of Canadians should be made clear to our citizens. We have a right to know. We are going back some 250 years, in the history of the British people at least, if Star Chamber tactics are resorted to. When Prince Henry IV kept company with such men as Falstaff and spent his life in pubs and
September 23, 1968

in riotous living he had an excuse. He said: "Some day I will come out from behind the clouds and shine in regal splendour."
I want to know when the clouds are going to disappear and when we will see the real leadership which we have a right to expect. I am tired of guessing and waiting. Obviously the people of Pembina constituency are too because there can be no doubt that they sent me here with a mandate to ask such questions as: Where do we stand today with reference to these matters? Where do we stand with regard to our loyalties? Where are we going, and how are we going to get there?
I hold in my hand a small pamphlet put out by the national Catholic weekly newspapers, a respectable organization. They want to know whether our broadminded attitude in international affairs may not be asking of the people of Canada too high a price. What did Czechoslovakia mean to us in 1938? A great many people said, "Nothing".
I do not speak for the prime minister of 1938. I was ready to do something about it when the great French culture was tottering to its ruin and the great de Gaulle was without a home, a country and an army. I think I have a right to speak. I was within 30 miles of Paris defending that great culture, and I defend that culture in Canada also. Don't think for a minute that the defence of a bilingual culture in Canada is the prerogative of any one party or person. We are all for it. When the tumult and shouting dies down, will there be anything positive in that wonderful dream, the new hope, the just society?
I spoke intentionally of our native Indian people. We cannot start to have a just society in Canada until we begin to deal with this question. I have in my hand a letter dated September 17, 1968, from the Saddle Lake band of the Cree Indians in northeastern Alberta. To make a long story short, they want to know whether the people of this country are going to live up to their treaty obligations. The Indian people of Canada have lived up to theirs. I do not believe this is any time for us to become legalistic regardless of whether we have been to Harvard and are able to interpret treaty No. 6 which gives these Indians their rights and makes it abundantly clear that we intended to give them medical treatment equal to that received by the white man.
We took away their Indian ways. We took away their medicine man and offered them equality with us in the white man's terms. To my mind, with my limited legal knowledge,
The Address-Mr. Bigg this means we intended to give them the same kind of treatment as that given to our own people. There is a paragraph in the new directive which says that the doctors will decide whether or not Indian people are indigent. I presume that if they are not indigent they will not receive anything. The figure is set at $2,000 a year. The just society, in my opinion, means something more than merely attacking poverty at the lowest level. Let us start right here. To provide only $2,000 a year to any family in Canada is maintaining them at the poverty level.
We must provide medical attention if these people need it. It is being provided for the rest of the people of Canada-in fact we are forcing it upon the provinces-and surely to goodness we can give medicare to the Indians, that group of people in our country which can least afford to pay for such treatment. Is this what is called the white man's square deal? We talk about international affairs. Let us start our square deal at home.
We worry about the Biafrans as much as anybody else. I worry about these people. I am told we cannot get to the Biafrans in order to help them. There is nothing to stop us carrying out an airlift to Saddle Lake. There is a great deal of room for the Red Cross to touch down there and at the 31 Indian reserves in the district I used to represent, namely, Athabasca. Let us start at home.
Are we going to recognize Red China? That is a good question. Are we going to recognize Red China before Red China wants to recognize herself, according to the charter of the United Nations? Red China has made it abundantly clear that she does not want to sit in the United Nations until we banish nationalist China. We speak about countries that have a de facto government. There is a de facto government in Rhodesia and we did not hesitate to impose sanctions upon that country. Some of the more militant in this country suggested the imposing of military sanctions against Mr. Smith's government. His is also a de facto government. Let us be consistent. Is it possible that we were thinking about tobacco?
There is a de facto government in Czechoslovakia. I used to think there was a Czechoslovakian government but the friends of Red China-and they are not all in the Soviet union or Albania-seem to think the de facto government of Czechoslovakia does not mean a thing. If we live up to our obligations under NATO, we will be forced sooner or later to take the same stand as we did in 1939. I

September 23, 1968
The Address-Mr. Bigg believe that it we are firm now we could save perhaps millions of lives.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
If we stood beside our allies in West Germany, the United States and Britain and showed there was no doubt whatsoever where we stood in NATO everybody would know where we stood. I am begging for consistency all the way through from the treatment accorded the Saddle Lake Indian reserve, to the United Nations and NATO. I want clearcut policies. I do not suggest that they should be decided in public but I believe the public has a right to know where we are going.
On June 25 we signed a huge, blank cheque which would appear to be valid for perhaps four years. What is the government going to do? I expected the Speech from the Throne to tell me some of these things. I know what the attitudes are. I have heard all the cliches. The just society is nothing new; Plato spoke about it 3,000 years ago. There are many members in this chamber who have read Greek authors. We know the old story, a square deal for everybody, but what are we going to do about it? We have the power to do something. I suggest that our plans for the immediate future-never mind 15 years from now-are picayune. Instead of trying to clean up poverty we should be seeking an affluent society for every Canadian. It will be difficult enough, with this type of program, to attack poverty. It will be a great deal more difficult, challenging and satisfactory to bring to Canada an affluent society. If we did this on a solid basis, and I think it could be done, we could be so strong at home that we could afford to be generous abroad. We could raise the standard of life in Canada to the highest in the world, because we have the resources both natural and human to do so. We have in this country people willing to work in order to achieve this goal.
To talk about supplying aid to other societies to the extent of a decimal point is not good enough. We can be of much more assistance to the rest of the world. If we doubled our own capacity for the good life we could give 10 per cent of the increase and never miss it. Instead seeking a 20-hour week under which we would share greater and greater poverty among more and more people, why not make our 40-hour week work? Why do we not challenge the people who are asking for consideration from those who are making money to help us earn it? I think they will want to do it. They do not do so because they

lack leadership. If leadership is wanting because of a lack of personal experience, let me say there are 265 members in this house who are ready, willing and able to co-operate. I suggest that so far as we are concerned this parliament is not going to be a negative one.
Having pointed out the weaknesses in the Speech from the Throne I say that during the next four years we are going to press ahead and tell the people of Canada what this party stands for in the way of positive steps to bring about the affluent society. Let us stop concentrating on the negative, on poverty, and on those who do not think they fit into the Canadian society. Instead, let us give them good reasons and good opportunities to fit in. This will need the co-operation of both the young and the old.
While I am on this subject let me say that a great deal has yet to be done to repay our old people for the contribution they have made. When we ask the young people to make their contribution, let us remind them of their duty to the old and of their duty to the old standards. We can give them an education, but it will not be free; education is never free. If it is free, then it has to be made up for in effort. Young people in Canada today have never had such an opportunity. This house, the provincial legislatures and the municipalities are digging deep into the taxpayers' pockets to pay for education. I think it is high time that we, both in and out of the house, stopped telling the young people how badly they are using this money and instead tell them that we are willing to go hand in hand with them in helping them build an affluent society.
I am disappointed in the throne speech because it contains very little, if any, mention of the deplorable lack of housing and says little, if anything, about the high cost of mortgages. It says very little about the difficulties of transportation and the complete lack of transportation in the great northern and hinterland districts of Canada. It seems to me that it concentrates mostly on philosophical problems which, like poverty, will be with us always. I think we can take great steps forward in developing the natural resources of Canada with the roads to resources program.
We can do a great deal in housing if we make funds available to the right people. Of the hundreds of millions of dollars which parliament has voted for better housing in Canada, how much has gone into high-rise apartments, how much has been concentrated in
September 23, 1368

the hands of the already affluent, and how little has been given to those people who need housing the most, those in the low income groups and those living in rural districts? Housing is just as important to a person living on a farm or in a village as it is to those living in penthouses. Unless my information is wrong, most of the money has been going into mortgages for the building of high-rise apartments where money was not required in the first place. The affluent have always been able to build themselves penthouses and villas on the edge of great cities. It is to the medium and low income groups that this money should go.
Not only is money needed but much can be done in setting down regulations to stop the explosion in the price of land. We should have looked into the question of the sudden increase in the price of land long ago and should have prevented this disgraceful gambling with people's lives by way of mortgage money. When I lived in Ottawa 20 years ago many a lot could have been bought for $200. Today similar lots are selling for $7,000 or $7,500. This kind of money is not available to people with small incomes, to people living on civil service pensions, nor to our old people generally.
If we believe in a just society, this would be a good place to start. Let us stop worrying about whether or not Quebec will turn into a ghetto. I cannot control this. But I do stand here and beg the government to do something about housing, about mortgage money, and about transportation to and from our resources areas. Let us take a proper stand in NATO and in the United Nations to defend, support and protect the kind of just society which I was raised to respect and admire.
I remind the government that they received only 43 per cent of the total vote in the election.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is a minority
government.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: In the minds of the people of Canada, this government does not have a working majority. It is a minority government and the leadership of the Liberal party is a minority leadership.
I warn the Liberal party that it will take much statesmanship to hold that party together and for it to receive the co-operation it needs. We have all been lectured on our delinquency in this regard, and there is some reason for it. But let me say that a minority leader of a minority party should give heed to
The Address-Mr. Bigg the finer instincts of the Canadian people because the same press which worships him today may not do so tomorrow. The press is alive and alert and wants to keep in touch with the Canadian people up to a point. But when the government and its leader go beyond a certain point let me assure them that the gentlemen of the press will continue to be the greatest security of the Canadian people. The fourth estate is not there by chance and when the breakdown occurs its members will be ready to interpret to the 43 per cent what the 57 per cent think. The 57 per cent are not thinking right now the way they did on June 25. They are looking for action and, as I said, they are not looking for this unknown object to appear from behind the clouds and indicate exactly what coul-oured light he will flash on the Canadian scene. It will not be good enough just to say:
I know you all, and will awhile uphold the unyoked humour of your idleness:
We can all quote Shakespeare if we want to, if we want to know how Prince Hal became Henry V and stood in the breach himself. Never mind telling me what my duty is to the crown. I want to know what kind of leadership the leader of the Liberal party will give to the country. Let him tell his party of their duty to the crown. Today the crown does not mean some obsolete institution across the ocean. Queen Elizabeth is the Queen of Canada by our choice, and at least 57 per cent of Canadians still feel that way about her. Make no mistake about that. It seems to me also that a great many in the ranks opposite feel exactly the way I do, and silence is not enough to convince me otherwise. We do not want silence. We want a clearcut stand on this matter. I do not think it is too late for the Prime Minister himself to take a clear stand, not in the offhand way he is so used to adopting as if he did not think it mattered much. I am telling him it matters a great deal.
I would be very pleased if he would add a postcript to the Speech from the Throne and send it to Her Majesty the Queen telling her that his loyalty, the loyalty of his party and the loyalty of the whole country are so immense as to be lost in blindness of devotion. I would be more than pleased to sign that document. Then I would go on into the next four years assured that one of the anchors of our very freedom would be upheld by a man worthy to be the successor of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

September 23. 1968
The Address-Mr. Cafik
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), leaders of the opposition parties, and hon. members on both sides of the house: May I join with previous speakers in offering my congratulations to the Speaker of this House of Commons on his unique election to this high and distinguished office. I should also like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker, who happens to come from my area. I affirm that the people of that area are justly proud of his achievement in being appointed Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. May I also congratulate the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), who moved the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and the seconder, the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand).
I wish also to take this opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister upon his electoral success which enabled him to form the first majority government since the election of 1958. This accomplishment, which has eluded so many since that time, is a certain indication that the people of Canada expect great things from our new Prime Minister. It has been said that the people of a country receive the government they deserve. I think the people of Canada deserve the very best and I believe they have it.
It is with a deep sense of pride and honour that I address myself to the House of Commons today in the throne speech debate. At the outset I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the people of Ontario riding who have given me the privilege of being a member of this twenty-eighth parliament. I wish also to assure them publicly that I shall do everything in my power to be worthy of the confidence they have placed in me.
In this debate all three opposition parties have moved non-confidence in the government. As a direct result they have tied up this house for seven days in what I consider to be a ceremonial debate which in my view does not further the cause of parliament or of the Canadian people whom we are here to serve. I realize it is traditional to go through this ritual, but if it were dispensed with perhaps parliament would be held in much higher regard by the Canadian people.
I feel that we would perhaps behave a little differently if in the galleries of this house all the Canadian people could be present and see

us acting on their behalf and doing the job for which we are being paid. I do not believe that by going through this debate we are serving any useful purpose. I wonder whether the opposition in moving its want of confidence motion really wished to defeat the government which the Canadian people elected on June 25. I do not believe they did. I really do not think they are willing to go back to the people at this moment of time to seek a mandate for themselves. I believe that the whole debate and their approach to it are an indication of their lack of regard and respect for the decision the Canadian people made on that date.
It is interesting to note that these seven days, by my calculation, have probably cost the government and hence the Canadian people approximately $1 million. What have we done? The opposition parties say that we must get to work. They say that the throne speech was a disappointment. They say that we have unemployment and a housing crisis. All these things are true. If we are genuinely concerned about serving the people we should dispense with this debate and get on with the business at hand so that we can deal with the problems which everyone on this side of the house wishes to deal with effectively.
If I might turn for a moment to the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), he included in his remarks a statement that the government of this country is unworthy of the great confidence the Canadian people have placed in it. Personally I would rather rely on the collective wisdom of the Canadian people, as exercised at the ballot box, than I would on the judgment of the Leader of the Opposition who has a vested interest in being critical for criticism's sake.
Second, for some unknown reason which I do not understand he related this government to that of the beloved John F. Kennedy and found it to be lacking in comparison. We all loved Kennedy, I believe, but I do not think the leader of the Liberal party and Prime Minister of this country needs to take a second seat to any man, including that man whom we loved so much.
The Leader of the Opposition went on to point out that during the last election his party did not traffic in simple solutions. I do not know what justification there was for that statement, but there must have been some psychological reason for his using the word "traffic" in the first place. Perhaps it was because he was envious of the crowds and the traffic that surrounded the Prime Minister
September 23, 1968

during that campaign. The Leader of the Opposition speaks of the just society as merely an empty slogan and then goes on to use it as a meaningful one. I do not think it is an empty one. It is an ideal of the highest priority which I do not think can be overemphasized. I believe every member on this side of the house genuinely wishes to achieve this goal.
I believe that the just society means protection of individual rights, sharing of individual responsibilities, equality for everyone and privilege for none. I believe we can strive for this ideal but that we can never attain it. If this house sat from now until doomsday I believe that on that last day we would still be justified in seeking a just society because if one were achieved at this moment we would, since we live in a rapidly changing society, be causing injustices accidentally in various spheres. So there is always room to move forward toward the achievement of this objective.
The Leader of the Opposition said that the Canadian people and he personally have lost faith in our Prime Minister. Frankly I never knew he had any faith in him. I think it would be a good idea if he were to be fired with the kind of enthusiasm that we have for the future of this country and got away from the negative approach he seems to have employed.
During the last election campaign the Prime Minister of Canada was attacked by the Conservatives for being a radical socialist and accused by the New Democratic party of being a reactionary Conservative. This brings to mind a statement by G. K. Chesterton when at one time he spoke of the ideal man and said that the ideal man would appear too tall a man to a man who is too short, too short to a man who is too tall, too fat to a man who is too thin and too thin to a man who is too fat. The fact is he was just right. I think that is the problem the Prime Minister of Canada has; he is just right for this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Far
to the right.


Norman Augustine Cafik: May I comment now on what the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) had to say. I am glad the members of his party feel the way they do but what they say is not quite true. They seem to feel they have the exclusive right to represent the working man, the common man, but they do not have any such exclusive right. They have never governed this nation. This nation has been
The Address-Mr. Cafik governed since Confederation by the two major parties. We have done a great deal for the common man of this country and plan to continue to do so. I do not think it is fair, right or just to be critical of the two major parties at one stroke, as if we all suffered from the same sickness and none of us really cared for the ordinary man of this country. We do care and care deeply, and this is why we want a just society and are willing to work in order to achieve it.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
The hon. member for York South spoke of the need today for a diverse system of education in order to enable people to find work in the rapidly changing society in which we live. I think the hon. member is right. However, perhaps he should listen to his own words, move on to the second stage of his education and get rid of some of the old 19th century concepts of economics which are completely outmoded today.
The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), whose colourful remarks I enjoyed very much, mentioned four principles of Social Credit. I agree with the first three but with regard to the fourth, which we would all love to have, may I say we are not living in the world of Dr. Pangloss where all things are as they ought to be and if a thing is physically possible it is financially possible. It would be wonderful if that were so, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I could bring to the hon. member's attention a statement quoted some time ago in respect of money and its use, that if one's outgoing is greater than one's income, then one's upkeep will be one's downfall. This is one aspect that has not been recognized, that we just cannot create money out of the air. We have to work for it. We have to produce it before we can put it to work.
I should like for a moment to take note of some of the problems that I feel are of greatest concern to me as the member of parliament for Ontario riding and representative of the people of this area. I do not want to pretend in any way that these problems are confined to my area alone because many are national in scope. However, the people of the area in which I live, which suffers to some extent from being outside metro Toronto yet is a bedroom for it, have some very unique problems, and something must be done about them. Unfortunately, all of our problems cannot be settled at the federal level, but surely there is some way whereby, with co-operation and good will from those at the provincial

September 23, 1968
The Address-Mr. Cafik level, something can be done to alleviate the hardships of the people of my area.
First of all, there is the problem of housing. We have all heard a great deal about the housing situation today. Most of the members on the other side have indicated that we have not recognized the problem and are not moving on it. One of the problems for some of my constituents is that we are moving too fast. The task force on housing which has been set up is meeting in the Toronto area on the last day of this month and the first two days of the following month. Some people would like more time to prepare their briefs to this task force, but they do not have the time. Surely the reason for this is that we are so anxious to solve the problem that we cannot give them sufficient time. Housing is a great problem in our area. People desperately need homes, but those in the lower income brackets cannot afford them because of high land cost. Many of the people in my area cannot even afford to pay the property tax on their present homes.
I should like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that land taxes in southern Pickering township per $5,000 assessment are roughly $75 a year more than anywhere else in Canada. This is a burden that cannot be tolerated and must be overcome in some co-operative way. In addition, the present high interest rate on mortgages is a depressive factor. However, the government is doing something about this and interest rates have begun to fall. I hope that we can do more.
Many ordinary working men and women in my area are concerned about income taxes and particularly that such taxes be more equitably applied than is the case today. The Carter report has suggested some ideas that we could use in order to correct some of the injustices of the present tax system. I believe it would be in the interest of the nation thoroughly to study the Carter report and to implement as many recommendations as we can to equalize the tax burden on all the people of this country, so that none are privileged and none are taken advantage of.
Since half of my riding is an agricultural area, I should like to say that I believe much more can be done as well in this field. I should like to relate, if I may have your indulgence, a story about two farmers in order to illustrate the plight of the farmer today. These two farmers had bought sweepstake tickets. One farmer said to the other: "If you win the $100,000, what are you going to do with the money?" The other farmer

gave the usual answer, which was that he was going to buy himself a boat and a cottage and might even tour the world. When he had concluded he turned to the farmer who had asked him the question and asked him what he would do with the $100,000. The first farmer replied: "Oh, I think I would just keep on farming till it had all gone". This, Mr. Speaker, illustrates the plight of many farmers, and something must be done to assist them.
I think something should also be done for the elderly people in my riding, as well as all across this great country, to offset the effects of inflation on those such as the retired who have to live on fixed incomes. They are caught in a cost-price squeeze that they really cannot get out of. An injustice is, I think, being inflicted upon these people about which something must be done.
I should also like to say a few words in connection with labour. This summer we have seen many strikes, though God knows I defend the right of labour to strike. Certainly I would do nothing to try to upset the balance of power, as it were, that exists today. But I think that with proper study we should be able to come to a solution which would settle labour problems in the interests of both sides and thus avoid any suffering by the Canadian people as has been the case in recent years.
I have the privilege of having two Indian reserves in my riding and I wish to add my comments and convictions to those of the previous speaker who so eloquently spoke on behalf of Indians and the need for justice to be done.
On the national scene I believe there are some basic and important issues, one of which is parliamentary reform. I think we must do something to give this parliament a system that will meet the needs of the 20th century. I do not think we can live with the rules of 1962. I believe that the Canadian people expect parliament to be able to respond quickly and energetically to meet their problems. I earnestly ask that all members of this house bring to bear what pressure they can on their leaders to bring about the achievement of workable rules for this house, rules that will allow us to move quickly in the interests of the Canadian people.
The primary challenge, in my opinion, is to feed the hungry of the world. This is the most important international issue. If we are to have peace we must eradicate the causes of unrest. I think the chief causes of unrest are lack of education, lack of food and lack of development. Since we are an agricultural
September 23, 1968	COMMONS
nation with so much food that we cannot use,
I hope we will be able to find some way of using these resources to the benefit of people throughout the world who are starving.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say I believe that the twenty eighth parliament will truly meet the high expectations of the people of this country. I sincerely hope and pray that God will guide us in our deliberations so that we too will learn as a nation to give to others as God has so generously given to us.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member participating in the proceedings of this house I am deeply impressed by the high regard in which Your Honour is held by members on both sides of the house and by the genuine pleasure with which Your Honour's re-election as Speaker was welcomed. I add my congratulations to those already extended to Your Honour. I also congratulate the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of committees and all those who have been appointed to discharge heavy burdens of responsibility as ministers of the crown or parliamentary secretaries.
May I also congratulate the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) on his appointment as Minister of Agriculture. I feel he is well qualified for his post and I hope in the future to work with him in order to solve some of our problems to our common advantage.
My constituency, Battle River, is primarily devoted to Agriculture and its related industries, and I know that when one rides over the prairies, watches the snow drift like sand and listens to the coyotes howling at night it is possible to divorce oneself from the reality of the times. I think it is also possible to divorce oneself from reality in this House of Commons by reason of the clash of conflicting personalities or some members' search for personal acclaim. In our questions and debates we must remember, surely, that the four parties represented in this house are striving for the same end, the betterment of the life of all the people of this nation. We differ only in the means to that end.
The people of my constituency are perhaps not overly concerned about the political stripe of their federal representative in Ottawa. On the other hand, they are very much concerned about their livelihood, about the mortgages on their farms and about their mounting debts, as well as about the diminishing net return they obtain for their produce.
DEBATES	335
The Address-Mr. Downey
For years governments and economists have told farmers to become more efficient, and the farmers have answered this call. In 1949 the cost of the wheat in a loaf of bread was slightly over 3 cents; in 1967 that cost was a shade over 3 cents, and in 1968 it may be even less. How many in Ottawa today realize that if the farmer gave his wheat away a loaf of bread would still cost 26 cents?
The productivity of the worker in agriculture is far higher than the productivity of the worker in any other segment of our economy, with the result that the percentage of our net income which goes to feed us is today smaller than it has been at any time in our history. Canadian farmers have continued to sell their wheat at agreed world market prices at a time when almost all other wheat exporting countries have paid their wheat producers a support price.
When it comes to the manufactured goods that we sorely need and must buy if we are to become more efficient, we buy those goods at extremely high prices, in part brought about by the organizational strength of big business and labour. Tariffs protect industry, and we bear the expense; labour unions increase their demands and are given what they ask, largely at our expense. When we complain we are told to become more efficient. I ask the Prime Minister, where is our place in the just society?
When we examine figures that are available and look at the capitalization of the average farm, it appears that farmers as a class are fairly wealthy. I say that it is little consolation to live your life in poverty and die in affluence. Farmers are showing an increase in net worth only because land values have gone up, partly because of inflation and partly because more people are on this planet.
Many believe that the answers to problems facing farmers and businessmen are to be found by making money available cheaply by way of farm improvement loans, cash advances through the Farm Credit Corporation, and so on. Some ask, does that sort of thing not prolong the agony? For the good, efficient operators, yes, cheap money may be the answer. But it can also be a trap for the unwary and those unskilled in the use of capital. I ask, is there any point in forcing all but the exceptionally efficient operators off the farm? Men must live somewhere, and a problem farmer may well become a problem city dweller.
September 23, 1968

The Address

Mr. Cullen
What our farmers need is a greater return in terms of real, net income for their produce, no matter where that increase comes from. The voices of agriculture-the people who represent farming, are not now and are not likely to be again a major political force in Canada simply because there are not many farmers. Nevertheless, may I remind the house that the agricultural segment of our population, small though it may be, is the leading purchaser of manufactured goods in Canada. If the purchasing power of our agricultural community is curtailed we shall be faced with the greatest depression in the history of our nation. With the productivity of workers being what it is in this country, the bulk of our industry is unable to compete in world markets. Our industrial complex needs the captive market that it has in the agricultural community. My greatest fear is that if the farmer, and particularly the western farmer, does not achieve his rightful place in the just society, separatist movements will arise in parts of the country other than Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member of the house I feel singularly fortunate to have been given the opportunity of making my maiden speech so early in the session. May I add my congratulations on your re-election to the office of Speaker. I do not think any finer tribute can be paid to a man than his election to a position of responsibility by his peers. I take it to be the consensus in this house that the time has come for the appointment of a permanent Speaker, and I can think of no man more appropriate to fill this post than Your Honour.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
I also wish to express my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker. I know this appointment was warranted. I must say I watched this appointment with more than a casual interest because as a result of the hon. gentleman's elevation I too was elevated, from the second floor to a much larger office on the fourth floor.
I wish to pay tribute to the mover (Mr. Corbin) and the seconder (Mr. Marchand) of the motion for the address in reply. As teammates of Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita must have said in the past, I am happy they are on my team.
I represent the riding of Sarnia, before redistribution the historic riding of Lambton

West. In addition to the City of Sarnia, the heart of the chemical valley, located on the southernmost tip of lake Huron and along the beautiful St. Clair river, dominated by the international Blue Water bridge, my riding also includes the townships of Moore, Sarnia Plympton, plus that proud-as-punch village of Point Edward, and lastly-and I place it last only because I wish to give it special emphasis-the Sarnia Indian reserve which lies wholly within the limits of the city of Sarnia. Members of the Chippewa nation reside on this reserve and I am proud to count myself an honorary member of the tribe. My Chippewa name is Pa-Mi-Noh-Ding. When given this name I was told of the reason and of the history of the name, and I must say it was most flattering, but when I tell you its translation I am certain that members of the house, more particularly those seated opposite, will be able to devise a more appropriate reason for my being given this name which means, "Travelling with the Winds".
New members sit here feeling humble but not too humble because we represent 60,000 to 70,000 people, in some areas more than this, and we have an obligation to speak, be it to make a maiden speech or to speak up in caucus, and when new members, without betraying the secrets of caucus meetings, speak in the house I trust that they are heard and listened to.
I read with considerable interest and delight Mr. George Bain's column in the Globe and Mail of June 28 headed, "Advice to the New Boys". Well, Mr. Bain, we were under no illusions that if elected we would end up immediately as members of the cabinet but I would have preferred, and I am sure other new members would have also, if the title of your excellent column had been "Advice to the New Boy's Constituents". Incidentally, two people in Canada were convinced that I had become a member of the cabinet. I was sorry to have to inform these two hopefuls that it was Bud Olson and not Bud Cullen who had become the Minister of Agriculture.
Listening to some of the addresses over the past few days it has occurred to me, as it may occur to other hon. members after hearing my address, that we could dispense with a great number of these speeches and get down to business sooner, and this would be my recommendation for rule change No. 1. Second, if I am to take up the time of this house I feel it is incumbent upon me to make
September 23, 1968

a few suggestions or to express a few ideas in the hope that one or more may be taken up.
The other day I heard a comment from an hon. member which indicated that the Liberals had placed no questions on the order paper. May I say, to him, Mr. Speaker, that this member and others have posed several questions directly to the ministers or to the departments involved. For example, I have directed to one of the ministers the question: how much revenue would the government lose if we were to increase the basic exemption for income tax for a married man from $2,000 to $4,000? That is, can we afford it?
I want to know if retired civil servants will receive an increase in their pensions. If so when, and if not, why not? I am not asking this question in the belligerent manner of the opposition but my question and my concern are no less sincere.
The Department of Public Works in a news release at the end of August, 1968, indicated that soil erosion tests had been taken with respect to the banks lying along the shores of the St. Lawrence and the St. Clair rivers and suggesting that some of this erosion might have been caused by heavily laden lake boats. I was interested because of soil erosion on Indian lands fronting on the St. Clair river. The news release indicated that subsidies would be available if erosion had been caused, to some extent, by these heavily laden lake ships. I toured in the R.C.M.P. boat and walked the full distance personally to observe the damage in this area. I then met with the Indian council and the Sarnia city council at a general meeting to hear their views. Following this I contacted the local inspector for the Department of Public Works, Mr. Dunphy, in London.
I wrote a letter to him and sent a copy to the Department of Public Works. I wrote directly to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing). I spoke directly to the Minister of Public Works outside caucus and explained the problem to him so that he would be fully informed when the soil boring tests have been completed. Soil boring tests are a must, of course. I am happy to say that the Indian council has given permission to the city of Sarnia to conduct soil boring tests, that the city commissioner in Sarnia will make a report and a recommendation as to the type of construction of seawall which will be required to save the Indian lands in this area, which will then be submitted through appropriate channels for a decision. So questions are being asked and action is being taken.
The Address-Mr. Cullen
As to my approach to questions affecting veterans, I would only say that I was 18 when the war ended but my father served in both world conflicts, in the Royal Naval Air Service in world war I and in the R.C.A.F. as a Squadron Leader in world war II. He then served as district administrator for the Department of Veterans Affairs in North Bay until his retirement. I know the plight of the veterans. In me they will find a sympathetic ear. I wrote to the president of the Royal Canadian Legion to let him know this-and when a lawyer and politician puts something in writing, you know he means it!
Prior to and after my election I had many discussions with Chief Fred Plain of the Sarnia Indian reserve. I had heard about consultation meetings to be held in Toronto and at my own expense and in my own time I attended the three-day session held there. I followed this up with discussions with the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) and subsequently directed questions to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals may not have put their questions on the order paper and may not get the credit that such public notice often gives, but I would have you know that we are busy asking many questions, getting answers and, more important, getting action.
I indicated earlier that prior to redistribution the Sarnia riding was the historic riding of Lambton West. Canada's first Liberal prime minister, Right Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, came from my historic riding. Shortly-I believe on October 15-a memorial is to be unveiled in his honour in the city of Sarnia. I am also proud to report that my former associate, Mr. Ross W. Gray, Q.C. served in this house as a Liberal member from 1930 to 1945. For a considerable number of years he served the Liberal party as whip. Afterwards the area was represented by Mr. J. W. Murphy, a Conservative. I must say that notwithstanding our differing political views Mr. Murphy was good enough to contact me and give me some direction with respect to practice and procedure in the House of Commons. In 1962 Mr. Walter Foy was elected and thereafter contested three elections successfully. He retired because of ill health and is now enjoying his retirement in Florida.
I mentioned earlier that the Sarnia riding was known as the chemical valley. Rightly so, because situated along the St. Clair river are
September 23, 1968

The Address-Mr. Cullen such industries as Imperial Oil, Polymer Corporation, Dow, Dupont, Canadian Industries Limited, Ethyl Corporation and many other large oil and chemical industries. But the economic strength of the community does not rest solely on the base provided by heavy industry. Credit must also go to the farmer and to the small businessman who unfortunately receive little, if any, credit in an address such as this.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: This morning during my opening comments, Mr. Speaker, I was unfortunately interrupted by the clock. I note there are some clock watchers on the other side of the house. However, I now wish to continue my remarks. I had mentioned that Sarnia riding is famous for its oil and chemical industries but I would also like to say that the economic strength of the community does not rest solely on the base provided by heavy industry.
In my area credit must also go to the farmer and to the small businessman who, unfortunately, receive little if any credit in an address such as this. It is easy to cite the larger and more well known industries and ignore the small businessman. Under the liberty provided by a maiden speech I would like to commend Manley's Bookstore; Keelan's, Phippins, Kirks, Lampel and Zierler furniture stores; Pauls T.V.; McKellar Flowers, Doug Keddy Shoes and Walker Brothers stores. In a list of established small businesses in our community it is impossible to name all the thriving small businesses, but by naming just a few I hope to honour them all.
A Liberal member is, of course, concerned with heavy industry and small business alike, and with the conditions of employment and the improvement of same. I submit that this is also the joint responsibility of the employer and the employee. It is the obligation of the numerous unions in our area to see to it that not only are these conditions set but that they are maintained through proper grievance procedures. I believe that working conditions in our area are second to none but I would hope that the labour unions and larger indus-

tries would work toward their improvement. As a touring campaigner, and prior to that as an ordinary citizen of the community, I have looked into many of the industries and I recognize that there is definitely room for improvement.
I think it is unfortunate that the man in the street all too often takes exception to the chip on the shoulder attitude of labour unions and as a result much of the good work of a labour union is lost because of poor public relations. I am pleased to state that in my area this image is improving steadily. Recently at a Labour day parade a member of the provincial parliament and myself, both of us having been members of labour unions in their early days, expressed the opinion that a Labour day parade should contain not only members of unions but should be a tribute to labour and should be a parade of employer and employee.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, as a new member I wish to make two comments. I think that most new members were caught up in the recent election with a sense of responsibility for our communities and the people who live in them. This is applicable as much to other parties as to mine. I should like the Canadian people to know that we are not down here in Ottawa as retired businessmen. We are down here as working men prepared to do a job. We are also intelligent enough to realize that our contribution must be small at the beginning. But we would hope that by doing a small job well we will be given an opportunity to perform larger tasks at a later date.
Second, and on a more partisan basis, as a member of the Liberal party I am convinced that the government of this country is in capable hands under outstanding leadership. There are too many people today who would say that the Liberal party with its great majority should take the bit in its teeth and press on, but I would remind these people that a horse that takes the bit in its teeth soon loses all sense of responsiblity and direction.
We have an obligation to lead. We will lead. We will put our legislation on the order paper and that legislation will be debated as it should be debated. Changes will be made where they should be made, and it will ultimately become the law of the land. It will then be for the people of Canada to speak out in four or five years time and they can be the ultimate judges of whether the legislation has been good or bad for the country. I am proud
September 23, 1968

to have been given an opportunity to play a small part.
I wish to make one apology to mes amis Canadiens qui parlent frangais: je ne parle pas frangais. When I lived in Northern Ontario and worked in construction and underground, I had many supervisors who spoke only French. I spoke only English, yet we were able to communicate one with another and get on with the job. Most of the French directed at me was of a dialect type, and many times I heard the expression "hurry up-depeche-toi." I say to both sides of the house that with respect to the business of government all Canada is saying, "hurry up-depeche-toi."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be those traditional ones, not in any way perfunctorily conveyed, of congratulation to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply. I congratulate them on the manner of their delivery. If I at any time question the content of their remarks they will realize I have no personal motivation at all.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I am so happy, Mr. Speaker, that we in this parliament have achieved the enviable situation whereby we have a continuing Speaker presiding over our deliberations. I was never one of those who had any sympathy for the artificially contrived suggestions as to how we should arrive at a permanent Speakership. I have always believed that the Speaker should be one of the members and that when a given member received the accolade of trust and confidence of his fellows then in fact we would be dealing with this situation as it should be dealt with. I am quite happy this time has come.
There is much that one could say about the throne speech. It is an old canard, of course, that the opposition maintains there is nothing in it but finds opportunity to discuss it for a good many days. I would like to support what my colleagues from the Atlantic provinces have said so far. They have mentioned the burning question of regional economic disparity. Let me say that some of us from that region did not need the words from the Economic Council of Canada to know that disparity existed, that poverty was prevalent and that there were many areas of need. I do say that the whole question has been brought to a new and high level by the immense fairness and, indeed, the brilliance of the discussion

The Address-Mr. Macquarrie which the Economic Council has produced. I hope that the government, which I trust will be more sensitive than I feared, will listen, heed and follow the advice and the suggestions of such an eminent and important body.
I suppose in a way we are all new members here in that the process of the changes in representation has caused nearly everyone to represent a new constituency. I should like to say a word of gratitude to those people in the constituency of Hillsborough who have entrusted their affairs in this sphere to me. I am in one of the unique situations in that my colleague and I from a former dual riding find ourselves representing neighbouring ridings. I now try to represent alone the people whom the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) and I represented together for 11 years. I want to say here in this arena how much I appreciated the opportunity of serving jointly with him in one of the last two remaining dual ridings in this country, and how as a neighbour now I wish him well as he represents with distinction the riding of Malpeque in this assembly.
I have been concerned since I came to this house, Mr. Speaker, with the role that this country plays and should be playing in the outside world. As one goes back over the debates of the Canadian House of Commons he sees a gradually increasing degree of interest and a broadening involvement in the question of Canada's international personality. I have always regarded this question as one which should be as devoid of partisanship as any issue of public policy could possibly be. We have not had many ministers of foreign affairs, and none of them in the discharge of this portfolio has been the kind of person who has evoked extreme partisanship. Indeed, it was said here to be almost a miracle that the preceding minister was capable of appearing to have dropped a quarter of a century or so of partisanship. None of the remarks that I now make on some of the burning questions in respect of external affairs are motivated by intense partisan feelings. In fact, I am often accused of being not sufficiently partisan in this grown-up league of politicians.
I have watched with concern in recent weeks the discharge of our international obligations and the exercise of our leadership on the world scene. I have watched in particular what has happened since the present minister assumed this most important portfolio. I have watched for leadership in many areas of potential possibility for Canadian leadership. I still look for some fulfilment of our role in
September 23, 1968

The Address-Mr. Macquarrie the West Indies, one of the few areas where we need not be troubled and traumatized by our relationship with big powers but where we can move effectively and efficiently to accomplish something in the range of our own power which will be meaningful to many people.
I look too for something more in our hemispheric relationships. I also look for a rationalization and reorganization of our external aid program. I cannot believe that a country like Canada can mount a meaningful program of external aid to 64 countries scattered all over the world. The more I look at what has happened through our external aid program the more convinced I am of the correctness of that appraisal.
I now come to one subject, and because I refer to it primarily I do not want to imply that I think it is the only area of anxiety and concern to our external approach. For a long time we have been watching developments in that great Commonwealth state, if I may use that phrase now, Nigeria. Month after bloody month we have seen a shocking increase in the number of deaths, an appalling spread of suffering and a widening of devastation, something which should touch the hearts of the least sensitive people in any civilized community.
The trouble in Nigeria is not new. Open conflict itself is months and months old. The records of this house indicate that the house had its attention drawn to this question on more than one occasion. In March of last year the then Prime Minister indicated to me that continuous communication was going on with the Secretary General of the Commonwealth organization. In the same month he indicated that this was one of the important subjects for discussion when Prime Minister Wilson was to come to Ottawa the following week. A discussion about Britain supplying arms was also entered into in this house in the very same month.
At the last meeting of the standing committee on external affairs we were privileged to hear perhaps the outstanding Canadian expert on this question, Dr. E. H. Johnson. He is a man whom I call very carefully an outstanding ecclesiastic statesman, indeed a man who has been received by both sides and whose intimate knowledge and profound concern should have guaranteed an immense and immediate response to his message. I was sad at the time and I am even more sad in retrospect when I think how little was the ripple which his poignant and pointed story aroused,


and how few from the external affairs department, from the press and from the public heard his words or were stirred by them.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Now we are at a stage where the suffering of the Biafrans has become hot news. There can be no moralizing on this aspect. I am happy that finally we are stirred, rather than filled with recrimination by the fact that it took so long. I believe we are at a stage where our government reflects not the concern of the people. Surely, Mr. Speaker, in a matter of such vital importance, if the government cannot lead its people it should at least reflect the views of the Canadian citizen.
I say that the Canadian people are deeply disturbed by the suffering in Biafra. They are questioning what this country is, and is not, doing. I think perhaps I reflect the attitude a little better than the minister when I say frankly that I am ashamed, I am embarrassed, I am disappointed and I am dejected by the reaction which this government has shown to one of the most shocking crises in humanity that has faced us.
We know that thousands are dying weekly. There has been eminent testimony to the sad truth of these statistics. We know how widespread is the suffering; yet we have a great country like our own seemingly tied up in diplomatic niceties and able to do nothing more than write the kind of letter which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) wrote to the Secretary General of the United Nations under date of September 21, calling for suggestions.
Canada, a charter member of the United Nations, the senior member of the commonwealth, a country which produced a former and distinguished president of the United Nations general assembly, having, according to the government's own statement, studied the matter for month after month, now writes the kind of communication which was addressed-God help us-in our name, the name of the people of Canada, to the Secretary General of the United Nations. One expression in this letter makes my usual ruddy complexion a little redder. I quote as follows:
I realize that to raise the situation in Nigeria in general terms before the general assembly could be divisive.
I repeat, "Could be divisive." It would be a shocking thing to have division while thousands die! This is the kind of utterance which would make Neville Chamberlain appear as one of the most vigorous and aggressive men
September 23, 1968

of all times. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is perhaps the most mealy-mouthed and pusillanimous document that students of international affairs will ever be able to lay their hands upon.
What in the world was the United Nations created for? Was it created to avoid division, to avoid debate, or to assist humanity? If ever there was a clearcut case where action is called for and aid must be rendered, it is now. I do not like to criticize even people whom I oppose, let alone people whom in a personal way I like very much, such as the present minister. But I am wondering how he can justify his correctitude in all the niceties of diplomatic parlance, which is an evasion of the humanitarian challenge. It was popular in this house to jest with the former secretary of state for external affairs, now Senator Martin. But I wonder whether his circumlocution, about which we made a bit of fun on occasion, has been substituted by that clearcut, precise evasion that leaves the question undealt with.
Nor is it only this minister. Government policy, of course, must be accepted by all ministers as well as the Prime Minister. I think we should recall one of the first applications of the brilliant mind of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to this question. I quote from an article which I commend to all hon. members. This article appeared in the Montreal Star of September 16, written by perhaps the finest scholar in the country on international relations, Mr. Eayrs. He writes that on July 10, at a press conference, the question was put this way to the Prime Minister:
"There's (criticism of) the government for not sending aid to Biafra. What is the government doing here, and what should the government be doing?" To which the Prime Minister replied: "You have the funniest questions". Pressed for an answer, Mr. Trudeau remarked: "I think we should send aid to all needy people, but we can't send it to everyone, and I'd have to see what priorities are prior to the Biafra people".
I would suggest that perhaps anyone with a modicum of sympathy and a grain of intellectual acumen might suggest that life would be at least the first priority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I think hon. members are aware of the details of discussions. We know that the Organization of African Unity has had a part suggested for it. We know what has happened. We know what the international committee of the Red Cross has been
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie doing. We know what certain religious groups in small countries of Europe have been able to do. We know that the suffering is there. We know that foodstuffs have been made available, and we know it is not terribly far from Sao Tome and Fernando Po to Biafra. And we know there is danger. But are we in this new generation of such little faith that we as a nation and as a people are afraid of division and afraid of danger?
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Where are the Canadian aircraft which could carry the food to the suffering and dying Biafrans? Have they been offered? Has it been said to the Red Cross, "take these aircraft? We will be proud to have them fly with Red Cross markings to aid the suffering in an area of the world where the suffering should cry out in eloquent terms which need not be documented in letters to the UN authority." I think the people of Canada would like that to be done. I do not think we want to stand on the niceties of correctitude, protocol and propriety. I think we want to aid suffering humanity where we see it at its worst, and where would that be but in Biafra? We have put up over a million dollars, and that is fine. We are trying to play our part in this organization and in that one according to this letter, but as day follows day the number of deaths of Biafrans mounts, the area left to them diminishes, and I am afraid that the day may not be far away, alas when the subject will become academic.
I appeal for action. I do not think the government is aware of the degree of commitment and compassion which the people of this country have. I say, forsake your fears, discard your technical niceties, throw off your protective coloration of protocol, and assist the people in Biafra whose suffering is indescribable, although a few brave people have gone in and tried to describe it. I think the government will have the support not only of political parties but of people all over this country. We do not want to stand shamefaced. We as a great country do not want to be doing less than a few churches in West Germany and in Scandinavia. When I think of a few Christian people being able to find an aeroplane while we with our integrated and updated craft cannot get them moving, I say, shame. Let us move on this issue. There will be no just society without compassion.
I make no apology for devoting my time and hopefully directing the thoughts of all to this matter rather than to appeals on behalf of my constituency and my region-and good-
September 23, 1968

The Address-Mr. Brewin ness knows there are many that I could make-but speaking on an issue of conscience surely we do not ever wish to lose our ability to react as a humanitarian nation. We do not want to have another 1935 when for a moment Canada gave leadership at the League of Nations and then, for small, petty, partisan reasons, that leadership was self-repudiated. Let us not be afraid to follow the dictates of the hearts of our people. History shows that this is not only a matter of compassion. If you turn your back upon your obligations in any part of the world, if you forget at any time that the questions which face mankind are directed to you, you will suffer thereafter. I appeal very simply for an end to equivocation, an end to evasion, and an end to passing not even resolutions this time but responsibility.
Let us give the Canadian people a little leadership in this matter. Let us find one avenue of action which will not divide our people and not be subject to partisan bickering, an avenue of action in which Canadians as humane and decent people can say that they, being led by their government, are doing something which in modesty and in justice they say is good for us to have done.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The Address-Mr. Brewin is a very serious problem for pensioners who have to divert the money required for food and other necessities to pay the increased rentals.
I know that in our province-and I hope this is so in other provinces-the Ontario Housing Corporation, with assistance from the federal government, has made some public housing available. I say, more credit to them. But it is not nearly enough. The Ontario Housing Corporation is swamped with long waiting lists. They have been forced to establish stringent priorities. In some cases they cannot act until the sheriff is at the door ready to throw a family and its belongings out on the street. Families are breaking up and nerves are breaking down.
Someone may ask how I know this. I know it because in my riding the provincial member and myself maintain what we call a service centre. Day after day desperate people come to see us. They ask for help in getting high priority on the Ontario Housing Corporation list. There are excellent senior citizens public apartments where an old age pensioner pays $65 a month for congenial and attractive public housing. But another old age pensioner, not fortunate enough to obtain this type of accommodation, will be lucky if he can find similar accommodation for $135 a month.
When pensions are as low as they are one can imagine how difficult the situation is. When applications are submitted these people sometimes have to wait seven years before they can obtain accommodation. The need for shelter is basic. The failure of our technically competent civilization to provide it has created an emergency which requires vigorous and early action by governments at all levels.
It seems to me that the Speech from the Throne evaded this issue. There was a reference in the speech to keeping within constitutional limits. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether that is an indirect way of saying that the provinces and not the federal government must tackle the housing crisis.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
It is true, of course, that the provinces have a great share of the responsibility for housing. But if there is any field in which joint action and partnership are required, it is certainly the housing field. The federal government has for many years accepted responsibility for using its financial powers to stimulate housing. It is obviously not in this time of urgent crisis that this responsibility should be abandoned.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in our view federal intervention has often been misguided. Since the war the federal government has provided vast sums by direct loans or guarantees to encourage construction of housing for the well to do under what is known, I think, as the "trickle down" theory. This theory has not worked. There is no effective demand on the market for housing that is within the reach of 75 per cent of Canadian families. I suggest that the federal effort must be redirected, in partnership with the provinces, to the provision of public and rental housing, housing within the capacity to pay of the average wage earner.
This can only be done, Mr. Speaker, by federal control over investment or through tax incentives to channel Canadian savings to meet this basic need. The first priority in housing is for the federal and provincial governments together to assume a comprehensive commitment to assess the needs for housing in the whole of Canada, to establish priorities and to take action to meet these needs. What we need is not so much a study or studies by peripatetic task forces but the calling together of federal and provincial representatives with regional and municipal representatives in order to work out plans for action.
I want to make one more point, Mr. Speaker. We must pay more attention to maintaining the existing stock of housing. Home owners of moderate means are having to pay increasing municipal taxes. They cannot afford home improvement loans. They cannot afford to pay for the repairs and renewals which are necessary to maintain and improve their houses. They need incentives by way of income tax exemptions and direct low interest loans in order to enable them to maintain the present stock of housing.
I want now, Mr. Speaker, to turn to international affairs and defence, which are rightly linked together. I welcome the fact that in the Speech from the Throne there was the promise of a review of our policies and commitments in both of these fields, though I did note that the proposal was extremely vague. I plead with the government for a thoroughgoing and radical look at our present policies in this field. As they now stand they are quite inadequate for our times.
We all know that there is student unrest throughout the world. I do not wish to identify myself with all its manifestations, but I do suggest that the younger people in the world are right in their rejection of the direction of

September 23, 1968

and the priorities in our conduct of international affairs. In a world that has been made small by technology, a world which is urgently crying out for international planning and order, we are rushing toward chaos.
I read the other day a little book published by the Institute of International Affairs that referred to 270, I think it was, though I may not have the right figure, conflicts that had arisen during the last 70 years, a great many during the last few years of this century. The gap between the two-thirds of the world's population that is in abject poverty and the affluence of the western world is growing and not diminishing. Yet, Mr. Speaker, it is reckoned that the western world is spending $120 billion a year on the weapons of war. A very small fraction of this figure is being spent on the constructive building of a newer and just-er international order.
I say that the young people are right to criticize our sense of values and direction when in almost every country of the western world this state of affairs is allowed to continue. In a nuclear world we see the great powers pursuing by military means their own ideas of security, piling up fantastic weapons of mutual destruction. For example, we now hear talk of anti-ballistic missile defence systems and that these are going to be countered by decoys, multiple re-entry vehicles, larger and more accurately delivered payloads, as the jargon goes, all producing not more security but requiring vastly increased expenditures and less security in the long run.
We pay very scant regard to the United Nations. We do not furnish it with the forces necessary for it to act. We do not give it the means necessary to plan internationally. In other words, we do not allow it to work. Even within such an organization as NATO, which is designed, according to its authors, to defend democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law, we find nations such as Portugal, and Greece maintaining military dictatorships and preserving their regimes by wholesale suppression of human rights and the rule of law. Throughout the whole world racism sows the seed for continuing conflicts.
What, then can Canada do to reverse the direction of events? Our policies, of course, Mr. Speaker, must be based on a modest and reasonable assessment of our potentialities and our influence, a recognition of the facts of geography and history. Our policies, of course, must be rooted in reality. But reality in the second half of the 20th century is itself

The Address-Mr. Brewin rooted in the necessity for strengthening international institutions such as the UN, and a rigid rejection of directing nearly all of our resources into wasteful expenditures on so-called security which is no security at all.
What I propose first and foremost to the government is a reallocation of our expenditures as between what is sometimes called external aid or international development and what is strictly military expenditure. At the present time, as the members of the house well know, we are spending roughly $1.6 billion a year on defence expenditure. At a generous estimate we are spending about $400 million on international aid and development. Accepting for one minute that this is the limit of our resources that we can direct to these purposes, and accepting that we can justify the directing of $2 billion of the Canadian taxpayers' moneys to these purposes, I propose that there should be a rough parity of expenditure between moneys used strictly for defence purposes and moneys used for international development.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we cut our defence spending to $1 billion. I say that we can do this without adversely affecting our contribution to security. This can be done by cutting out some of the roles that we perform and which at the present time are obsolete. At the same time, we should step up our contributions to external aid to $1 billion annually. If the other western nations were to do the same, and if they used United Nations agencies such as the World Bank as the instrument of their international planning, then a very real impact could be made on the immense problem of human poverty throughout the world. I think we would be proud if Canada were the first country in the western world to give at least equal priority to the construction of a just world society as against the maintenance of a purely military means of seeking security.
The question may be asked, Mr. Speaker, whether we can do this without endangering important contributions to security. I say the answer is yes. Some of our present contributions are hardly worth the money spent on them; indeed, they are a waste. I want to give an illustration by referring to our contribution to the system of defence against manned bombers, through NORAD. The Canadian government talks of Canadian sovereignty and Canadian independence. It talks of expanding the role of parliament and of involving people in the process of moulding their own destiny. Nevertheless, since the
September 23, 1968

The Address-Mr. Brewin former parliament was dissolved the government has renewed the NORAD agreement without referring the matter to parliament and without public discussion.
I ask, what are the terms of the renewal? What is the purpose of the renewal? Against what real threat is the defence system to be maintained? Who recommended this step other than those in the Pentagon? The people of Canada have not been told about this and neither has their parliament. We have not had a white paper on defence, something which every modern country in the world puts out regularly each year in order to set out its strategic concepts. Yet a commitment has been put before us without it having been discussed in this house.
I have tried to study this problem, Mr. Speaker. I have inquired diligently to see whether the threat to the United States from manned bombers is a real threat. Are manned bombers a real threat to the North American continent? In this age of missiles, when the Russians have at their disposal possibly 1,000 intercontinental ballistic missiles, attacking this continent with manned bombers would be insanity, especially when one considers that the Russians themselves are the potential targets of an even greater number of United States missiles-Minutemen in concrete bunkers, Polaris missiles with nuclear warheads which can be fired from submarines lurking in the oceans of the world. In these circumstances the Russians would be crazy to launch a manned bomber attack on North America, and I have no reason to believe they are crazy. For one thing, manned bombers telegraph their punch in advance. It would take them between two to three hours to arrive here and warning would be given long before they reached their targets. Yet suppose, in the face of all these arguments, the Russians launched themselves into such a suicidal policy. Would it not be possible for a few of their rockets to take out the static defences which we have established to stop manned bombers?
In 1963 when the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), who then was minister of national defence, produced the last white paper the government produced on defence, he clearly envisaged the obsolescence of our present system of defence and made vague promises to phase it out. The former Secretary of Defence of the United States, Mr. 
McNamara, has not concealed his conclusion that the system is obsolete.
We in the New Democratic party do not object to our planning the defence of our air space in conjunction with the United States. Nevertheless, I implore the government to take a long, hard look at the entire question and see whether it is any longer sensible to pay a substantial premium to defend ourselves against a risk that is no longer real. I urge the government to produce a white paper on the strategic consequences of various forms of action.
I have little time left in which to speak. Before finishing I must say something about our position in international affairs. Notwithstanding what has happened in Czechoslovakia, I think we must take a long hard look at the question not of whether we ought to be in NATO but of the role we ought to play in NATO at the present time. The use by the U.S.S.R. of military force in Czechoslovakia clearly indicates the willingness of that country to use force, where its leaders think they can get away with it. I think that this is no time to break up the unity of NATO. I happen to believe that in the confrontation between the massive material might of the Kremlin and the passive, nonviolent unity of the Czechoslovak people, the ultimate victory will go to the Czechoslovak people.
By the same token I think we ought to evaluate our present role in NATO. Suppose that to help Czechoslovakia we had used the air division we have established in Europe. What would have been the result? Europe, including Czechoslovakia very probably, would have been wiped out and a nuclear holocaust provoked.
I conclude by hoping that in matters of foreign policy the government will look at fundamentals. I hope it will not be content with accepting conventional wisdom. I hope it will look beyond departments of government and make use of the knowledge and experience of the students and scholars of our country. Also, I hope the government will permit the committee on international affairs to be active and to look into the matters I have raised. We are entitled to expect from this government a totally new approach to the entire field of international affairs.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimault-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your election to your office. Because of your past experience as well as the qualities you have
September 23, 1968

displayed so far during this debate, I am certain that all members will be well satisfied you have been elected.
In common with many of my predecessors in this debate I shall begin by saying that I shall be brief, but unlike most other members I shall restrict myself to one subject and, I hope, avoid talking of the glories of my riding and other irrelevant subjects which have consumed so much time in the speeches of previous members.
In this throne speech debate I submit we have perhaps spent too much time on general debate, which will not leave us enough time in this session to talk on specific legislation, in particular, private members' bills and motions. I therefore take my cue from the previous speaker, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), who said that it is right for young people to question the values of our society. I, as a new and young member, would like to question the value of our devoting eight days of valuable time to debating matters that, in my opinion, are largely irrelevant.
The election campaign ended on June 25, and I think we have now more valuable matters to attend to. I submit we have no need to hear any more warmed-up election speeches, given, perhaps, to entertain visitors in the gallery who may happen to be from our ridings. We should remember that we nave been elected to this house on the understanding that reforms will be brought about, and this is particularly true of the younger members of the house. We have not been sent here to spend four years learning how the house operates; we have not been sent here to acquire the traditions of the house. We have been sent here to carry out the program of the government and, equally important, to put forward our own views in private members' bills and motions. It is important for this house to realize that we, the younger and newer members, have not been satisfied with the performance in this chamber which we have witnessed during the throne speech debate.
If a throne speech debate is considered necessary, and I concede that it is, let us devote only four days of our time to such a debate. It is quite unnecessary to carry on as we have been carrying on. We all know how little time is at our disposal for private members' business. There is insufficient time to discuss fully all private members' bill or motions. This stems, it seems to me, from a deliberate policy on the part of older members of the house, including the government

The Address-Mr. Anderson house leader and the house leaders of other parties, who encourage backbenchers to speak in this debate as they know that no vote will be taken on any specific matter. Later on, I expect we will be told we "had our chance" during the throne speech debate. This is not good enough.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I feel they should be aware that we shall not continue to tolerate this tokenism which allows us to speak but does not allow decisions to be made on the basis of what we have said. It is a system which does not permit us to contribute materially to legislation.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: More brave words.


David Anderson: I hope I have not been too blunt in my remarks. I realize that the traditions of this house are important but I feel it is equally important to serve notice on the government and the leaders of the opposition parties that we, the junior members, have no intention of continuing with rules and formulae which, although perhaps applicable in the past, are not applicable today. We feel we have been sent here to discuss specific legislation, to put forward our ideas and to contribute toward a better Canada. We trust this is the case. It is for these reasons that our electors sent us here: it is on this basis that we have come.
I hope, therefore, that all members of this house will pay attention to these remarks which I am presenting not only on my own behalf but also on behalf of many other younger members on both sides of this chamber. I trust that in future, when legislation and changes in rules are under consideration, it will be remembered that we are not satisfied with what we have seen here during the past ten days. We feel we have not been sent here simply to carry on as was done in the past, and thus I hope that soon in the future we shall hear of changes in the proceedings of this house which will make it more satisfactory.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this first opportunity to congratulate you on the appointment which this great house conferred upon you at the beginning of the session. Indeed, the honour fell to you by right for you fully deserved it. I had the opportunity of getting to know you in 1963, 1964 and 1965, and I am sure that the judgment and impartiality you showed in the
September 23, 1968

The Address-Mr. Rondeau past caused my colleagues and myself to choose you unanimously.
I should also like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, (Messrs. Corbin and Marchand) for the way in which they performed their task.
At this time, I would like to congratulate in particular the honourable members who are now sitting for the first time in this house. Their talents and perhaps also their initiative will be an asset to the country and the people as parliament is looking forward to benefit-ting from their ideas.
Personally, my re-election to this house reminds me of the events of the years 1962 to 1965. It was through some unforeseen circumstances that I was defeated in the 1965 election. Most of the members will remember that during that election, Shefford constituency experienced a closely fought contest when, among the three candidates, two of whom represented the two old parties-I may be forgiven for using this suitable description of them-the overall difference in the number of votes amounted to 47. That experience taught me something that I was not aware of at the time and that I have learned about since: the legislation governing the military vote.
This year, the voting in Sherbrooke afforded me the opportunity to see and compare a situation which prevailed in Shefford in 1965. I say that the military vote is actually helping the Liberal party at election time when it so happens that results are doubtful in two or three constituencies, and that party does not want to amend the related legislation.
In 1965, the Shefford constituency recorded 60 military ballots bearing the same signature. Had the name of the Liberal candidate been typed on the ballot, the result would have been the same. No difference was recorded in the handwriting when the military vote was accounted for.
The same thing happened this year in Sherbrooke as 169 votes went to the Liberals, and out of this total, 160 votes were written out in an identical manner. After trying to make a check, after asking the judge who was presiding over the judicial recount to give us the list of the servicemen who were eligible voters in the ridings of Sherbrooke in 1968 and Shefford in 1965, judge Evender Veilleux, a man I respect because I made two judicial recounts with him, was refused the list of the servicemen who would have had the right to vote in Sherbrooke in 1968. After we had

conceded the election, we were told that we could have obtained the list of the servicemen who had voted in Sherbrooke before conceding the election, but that it was impossible to get it afterwards. I was on the phone with judge Veilleux when he was refused access to the lists of servicemen before conceding the election in Sherbrooke in 1968 and I say that the hon. member for Sherbrooke who now sits in this house does not represent at all the majority vote of the people in his riding.
I know servicemen in the riding of Shefford who enrolled at the Sherbrooke regional office in 1939 and whose names were still on the lists of servicemen for my riding in 1968. These soldiers had moved to Ville-d'Anjou, Ville-Saint-Michel and Montreal more than twenty years ago, and yet they can still vote in the riding of Shefford. Under the automobile registration act, one is liable to a fine or some other penalty if one neglects to inform authorities of any change of address. It seems to me that a soldier should lose his right to vote if he does not have his address changed and, the more so, if his name still appears on the list of servicemen for Sherbrooke, Shefford or other ridings or if he is no longer in the service.
I have been able to ascertain those things in 1968 and in 1965, and I challenge anyone in this house to prove that there are actually in Sherbrooke, 250 servicemen whose names appear on the electoral lists of Sherbrooke riding who are now on the pay roll of the Army, the Air Force or the Navy and who are residents of Sherbrooke riding. The same thing happened in Shefford county. It is also impossible that there should be 150 men whose names appear on the electoral list of Shefford riding.
Mr. Speaker, this brings me to say that during the electoral campaign that ended on June 25, we have seen one Santa Claus at work and we will see another on December 25, 1968.
e (3:50 p.m.)
Kisses were distributed from one side of the country to the other. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to visit my constituency, he distributed hundreds of kisses to young girls of 9, 10 or 12 years of age. We also learned that the Prime Minister knew how to dance, that he knew old, modern and go-go dances. This is why he reminded us of Santa Claus. Indeed, he brought a bag full of kisses, he had to dance and he arrived in the
September 23, 19G8

various cities by helicopter, landing in a supermarket center, where he was always sure to meet a great number of people; it was just like Santa Claus around December 15 when he lands down in a supermarket and distributes kisses galore.
But the time of kisses, of go-go dances, of landing in supermarkets is over. It is now time for the members of this house to act, and if we consider the Speech from the Throne, we note two things:
First, our government set itself the goal of a just society and of a just government. Secondly, it realized that war had to be waged against poverty. However, I remember that in 1962, 1963, 1965 and 1968-history is repeating itself-the objective of the governments of the time was also to fight poverty.
In the 1968 Speech from the Throne, I believe it is stated that we must fight poverty. This to me is the very acknowledgement of the fact that both parties have failed to reach their goal for the last 100 years, since if we have needy people in Canada it is obviously through no fault of the members of the N.D.P. or of the Creditistes party.
Administration has not been rejuvenated in the last 100 years and it is the two old parties which are responsible for our present predicament. It is the two old parties which have allowed poverty to take root in Canada and I do not believe for a minute that they will be able to eradicate it nor to find better solutions, though they claim to be a just government.
I think that within two years, and maybe even before then, the Canadian people will realize that we do not have a just government, but a government just for fun. Why? Because the poor have multiplied, they have been forced into debt, they have been mass-produced.
We have only to look at our economic situation to realize it. We have only to consider educational, municipal and provincial debts, for example the debt of the little province of Prince Edward Island. I was there during the election campaign, when the Prime Minister said that it was impossible to sell provincial bonds because the public had lost confidence in those of Prince Edward Island.
Let us take time to consider the provincial, municipal and school debts, our federal debts, the loans and also the interest rate on the bonds which the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has just set for a period of 14
The Address-Mr. Rondeau years, when he will pay 250 per cent in interest.
I have here an article from the newspaper La Presse, issue of September 18, 1968, which states, and I quote:
The Minister of Finance sees life through rose-coloured glasses-
He too takes the liberty of dreaming in colour. "To see life through rose-coloured glasses" with 250 per cent in interest after 14 years. In 14 years, our children will have to pay over four times the amount of the debt for bonds which are issued now.
We did not see anything in the Speech from the Throne on family allowances. They were not even mentioned.
Nor was any legislation mentioned to stem strikes in Canada, or at least strikes which concern the federal government; nor any measure to prevent unemployment which is a constant problem since automation, equipment and science have come within our daily reach; the Speech from the Throne proposed no solution. Nothing was foreseen to encourage the spread of automation or to allow people to live with it.
Moreover, there was absolutely nothing in the Speech from the Throne concerning bankruptcies in Canada. The present Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) said, in 1965 when he was Minister of Revenue in the Quebec provincial government, that bankruptcies in Canada, that is fraudulent bankruptcies, in 1968 represented losses of $73 million for the government.
In 1963, those figures had tripled compared with 1958. Losses in 1963, as a result of fraudulent bankruptcies, reached $195 million. This was under the administration of the hon. Davie Fulton, Minister of Justice for the Conservative government, and of the hon. Guy Favreau, then Assistant-Minister of National Revenue and later on Minister of Justice for the Liberal government.
With regard to bankruptcies in 1961, the index was 100 per cent. In 1963, the same index had risen to 163.4 per cent. Over that same period, the G.N.P. had increased by 40 per cent, while bankruptcies had multiplied three times as much and increased by 120 per cent. There's a "fun government" for you!
All those figures were published in the report of the present Postmaster General which was submitted by the commissioner of the inquiry, Mr. Lucien Mercier. In addition, those figures rose steadily under the administration of Mr. Guy Favreau, and reached $500
350	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Rondeau million in losses lor Canada in 1965. Those figures include the famous bankruptcies of Atlantic Finance and Prudential Insurance Company as well as those of their subsidiaries.
In 1965, the present Postmaster General denounced these facts publicly but, immediately afterwards, he was transferred to the Department of Revenue, and the situation has remained unchanged. Since that time, what promises the federal government, and the Minister of Justice had made concerning revision of the bankruptcy act have remained a dead letter.
In 1966, the hon. Pennell, then Solicitor General of Canada, stated before the bank committee for the Senate that, within eight months, that is some time early in March 1967, a new bankruptcy bill would be tabled in the house and that it would alter beyond recognition the old act. Where is that bill.
In the last two years, we have not seen anything. There was no mention in the Speech from the Throne of the bankruptcy problem which, at the present time, costs Canadian citizens over $500 million a year.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Nor is there anything in the Speech from the Throne about a method of financing our public funds. Whereas today our investment capital amounts to billions of dollars per year, the Minister of Industry of the province of Quebec announced yesterday expenditures of $5 million in Farnham for the construction of access roads to the projected airport. I think it will be decided to build the international airport in Farnham. An investment of $5 million. Yet the federal government must allow the provinces to have a source of capital, a source of investment funds to enable them to build bridges, roads, to provide for the operation of their school system and their sewer facilities.
In Granby, for instance, we have a water problem. It would cost approximately $3 million to get water a few miles from Granby and to store it, but that is out of the question for the time being because the city has reached its maximum borrowing capacity. However, thousands of families have to fetch their water in a jug, in the middle of the twentieth century, in 1968, when there is drinking water at a few miles from there. But the water available to our town is not fit to drink at the present time. We are unable to carry out these projects because the city's finances make it impossible for the municipal council to borrow $3 million refundable in fortv or fifty years, which would amount to

DEBATES	September 23, 1968
an expenditure of $7 to $8 million for taxpayers. Therefore things have to remain as they were in the past, and people have to fetch their water in a jug. Right in the middle of the twentieth century.
What is lacking in this contry? Is there a shortage of manpower? Is there a lack of materials? Is there not enough wealth in Canada? There is no such shortage. What is missing is a financial system, and this august house never did tackle that problem. All the other problems are reviewed except the one relating to finance. Whether it is a financial problem concerning municipalities, schools, the federal or the provincial governments, it is not discussed. Although the Speech from the Throne mentions a just government, it does not deal with a financial system that would be instrumental in bringing about this just government. That is why we say it is a government "just for fun".
On reviewing the agricultural situation, it is noted that eggs were selling 52.3 cents a dozen in 1951 and 33.8 cents in 1961. According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, they were selling at 32.2 cents a dozen in 1965 and 30 cents in 1968. Broiler fowls were selling 35J cents a pound in 1951, 20J in 1961, 19 cents in 1967 and 19 cents in 1968. The same goes for young turkeys, chicken, pork and dairy products.
Agricultural products have increased by 17 per cent since 1951 whereas production costs for farmers have increased by 60 per cent since 1951.
In 1951, the price of a tractor and plough was $2,000 whereas nowadays it is selling for $5,000. Eggs were then selling 52 cents a dozen, whereas they sell 30 cents in 1968. And the Liberals are trying to convince us that we live in a just society. I say to you that we live in a society "just for fun". We have a government "just for fun". Why? Because the Speech from the Throne does not point out solutions that would enable the Canadian people to solve their financial problems and the farmers to enjoy a decent standard of living.
Within the next few days, there will be a statement by the Postmaster General regarding an increase in postal rates for the working class. We will have to pay more again. In what way can we reconcile the principle of a just society with increases in taxation and indebtedness at all levels?
There is also a housing problem in Canada. In the Speech from the Throne, there is no indication of a solution. An investigation is taking place at the present time. The hon.
September 23, 1968

Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) who is responsible to the house for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is going now to listen to the complaints of the tenants and landlords all across the country, in an attempt to understand the problem. But the housing problem has been brought about by the government itself, by the Liberals themselves, when for instance, they put a 12 per cent sales tax on building materials. And that is why the best way, in my opinion, to go back to better times, from the housing viewpoint, is to remove from our legislation everything which adversely affects housing, and in particular the 12 per cent sales tax. There was no mention thereof in the Speech from the Throne. However, there is reference to a just society. At the present time, some dwellings are rented for $150 a month while ten years ago, the rent was $60. Landlords make less money today than they did then. Why? Because the difference is included in and absorbed by the tax rates at every level.
If this government was really keen, it would abolish at once the 12 per cent tax on building materials which was the main cause of the present housing crisis. A 12 per cent tax on building materials had been forced on us and those who were in this house when legislation was passed, know that a $500 bonus was promised, and was indeed given for a couple of years for houses built during the winter. Then, we had to fight officials and to battle through all the technicalities of the law before being entitled to this bonus. Most of the time, we were not entitled to it. Anyway, we had to pay the 12 per cent tax.
After the Speech from the Throne, and even before, we were also told that the winter program was to be abolished. And now we are beginning to feel-having heard this and that minister-that social welfare is to be dispensed with too. Everything is cut down, but no proposition is made. Mention is made of a just society, but the government is still going on just for fun. This is why on June 25, to the general surprise, many citizens, especially in the province of Quebec, voted for the Creditistes. Why? Because they asked themselves the following question: Where are we going with our governments? What solution do they suggest? The right hon. Prime Minister himself did not have any to offer.
I have here a newspaper clipping from an elector who stated why he voted for the Creditistes.
In the first place, Trudeau, the Liberal, made no promise, except to repair holes in the roof, to strengthen it where it was too thin, to level out 29180-23 J
The Address-Mr. Rondeau poverty and mediocrity; on the constitutional level, he poured scorn on our yearnings by putting us all in the same melting-pot; monetary field, nothing new, no reform; he merely asked us to be happy with shackles around our ankles in a just society (for fun).
Conservative Stanfield was not much better, except that he achieved the same results by going about it differently.
As for the N.D.P., they wanted to nationalize everything except the most important thing, banks.
There remained the Creditistes. Caouette was not perfect either, but it must be said to his everlasting credit: he struck at the root of the evil. Being more sincere and less quackish than the other candidates, he extolled an irrefutable monetary policy which, at the same time, brought to light the monumental fraud of the present monetary system which the old parties have always clung to: a basically corrupt system which allows a small privileged group of eight chartered banks to provide the credit for the nation in a ratio of 92 per cent of the money supply against 8 per cent for the government represented by the Bank of Canada. Eight per cent can never buy off 92 per cent; it is impossible; it is what might be called retrograde progress.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
-A state within a State, gangsterism on a national scale, which easily explains our ever growing debt, our continuous loans to pay interest to bankers; an upside-down, dishonest system, which clean sweeps our country, shackles progress, warps our mentality and allows us to live only by getting into debt.
We now have banking social credit at the banks' disposal. The big shots belong to it. They share handsomely in the profits of the nation by accumulating secret reserves which income tax does not touch. Why should the same credit not be good if it were granted by the Bank of Canada for the benefit of the government?
-Then, money would cost nothing to the State, which would be normal and logical. Interest-free loans to the provinces and municipalities would be possible, as well as dividends, seeing the company would be wholly-owned. It is not a question of getting rid of banks, but let them do what credit unions do: let them merely deal in money and not create it; that is the difference.
That is what every Creditiste knows and why he votes as he does; not so much for the man as for the policy, contrary to the old-line parties who seek the best man to defend a bad cause.
This, to my mind, is what constitutes a logical vote, which aims at the cause of evil. As for the rest, those who proclaim that this policy cannot be implemented, that it is utopian, they completely deny logic in economy. It would be better for them to study it, without prejudice, before condemning it, and parroting the world of finance. It is useless to attempt to understand the present system; we have had enough of living under it; It was born of injustice and error, and will return to its abject condition.
This article is signed by one of the most important real estate agents in the eastern townships and the town of Sherbrooke.
Following the Speech from the Throne, we received the report of the Economic Council of Canada, in which it is said that in order to
September 23, 1968

The Address-Mr. Rondeau solve our problems, we must increase our productivity, as if we suffered from a lack of commodities in Canada. True, there is a lack of commodities, but not because we are incapable of producing them. Rather, it is because producers do not have a guaranteed income. That is the reason why our production rate per capita is decreasing.
Increase productivity. That makes me think of the gardener who grew cabbages and would go to market to sell them. At first, he only had a small garden, and could take his cabbages to market in the basket on his bicycle.
Having bought another piece of land, he increased his cabbage production but still went to market on bicycle, carrying his cabbages in a basket. A time came when he was travelling all day long from home to market to deliver his cabbage.
But the day came when he had no time to sell his cabbages because of an inadequate transportation system. He put his problem in the hands of experts who told him to increase his productivity. Confident in the experts' advice, he bought another farm, doubled his cabbage production, but kept on going to market by bicycle to deliver his cabbages. As a result, one day, his crop rotted in the ground and he went bankrupt.
Later on, a Social Crediter bought his farm, and instead of increasing his productivity, he exchanged his bicycle for a large truck and, from them on, he had no trouble taking his cabbages to market or distributing.
In Canada, the situation is the same.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Unless the hon. member for Shefford has the unanimous consent of the house to carry on, I shall have to recognize another hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. members of this house.
To conclude, I say that today it is not our production system that is at fault, it is our distribution system.
I am still thinking of this poor gardener who was keeping his old bicycle to take his cabbages to the market.
In Canada, our production is not at fault, but our distribution system is bad. That is why the Ralliement creditiste advocates that our means of distribution and financing be adopted in order to distribute on a wide scale


the resources of our country and what our Canadians are able to produce.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, as a newcomer to this house but no stranger to Your Honour's great reputation, may I add my congratulations on your reelection as Speaker. I would like also to add my congratulations to the newly elected Deputy Speaker and to the mover (Mr. Corbin) and seconder (Mr. Marchand) of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. In the case of the mover and seconder I must mingle my congratulations on their efforts with commiseration for the problem they faced in trying to be enthusiastic about such a shoddy and empty thing as the Speech from the Throne. Previous speakers on this side of the house have already dealt with its shortcomings. I do not wish to be repetitive. I would simply say of this speech that it missed a golden opportunity to excite the imagination of the Canadian people; it failed in perception of the real problems facing this country; it was vague, windy and depressing.
We from the Atlantic region had looked forward to the Speech from the Throne in view of the promises made in our area by government spokesmen during the recent election campaign. We had been led to believe that we stood on the verge of a great new era of development and progress. Today we feel let down. There is nothing in the government's outline of legislative intention to indicate that there is any awareness of the basic problems, the real needs of the Atlantic region. We have again been bypassed, as we have been ever since 1963.
This may be not so strange, however, when one considers the results of the election in the Atlantic provinces. It may be, as one western member has already suggested, that Liberal concern and Liberal action will be confined to those areas which returned a larger percentage of Liberal members. On the basis of the evidence so far it seems that the just society, as another distinguished colleague so aptly put it, is just for Grits.
I am not alone among residents of the Atlantic region in being suspicious of many of the instant schemes put forward. We have suffered too long from a proliferation of boards, commissions and departmental agencies set up to solve various regional problems. This is an approach that experience has shown to be wasteful and ineffective, a shotgun approach. As the second annual report of
September 23, 1968

the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, just released, puts it:
The response on Ottawa's part has been inadequate, unimaginative and lacking in a real understanding of the nature of Canadian society.
Among the consequences, out-migration at a rate incompatible with the closing of the income gap between the Atlantic provinces and the rest of Canada has not been slowed, and APEC proposed development goals of a year ago are far short of fruition. What we need first is a sober reassessment of our basic problem, a lack of job opportunities for our people, and a real determination to do something about it. This must be followed by a common sense approach to solving the problem, utilizing the simplest possible organization. We need co-ordination of effort, not centralization of control.
Many of us have been alarmed and disillusioned by the emphasis given by this government to that hoary old solution for all our problems, the department of regional development. Let me call as witness on this point someone whom the government must consider impeccable because he is a former Liberal member of parliament from Nova Scotia, a former parliamentary secretary and at present a key official in the office of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). I refer to Dr. J. B. Stewart.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In this house on April 13, 1965, he made some very astute observations on this very point. They may be found at page 342 of Hansard for that date. I will not quote him extensively but he said in part:
-I am glad that the government has resisted the temptation, an almost inevitable temptation, I suppose, to set up a ministry lor regional development. That would have been a mistake. What is needed is the ordinary departmental approach to this problem, co-ordinated by the minister whose job it is to co-ordinate the works of the several departments, namely the Prime Minister.
I echo those sentiments, Mr. Speaker. Proper and adequate bodies already exist to do the things that are necessary for the betterment of the Atlantic region. The last thing we need is a rash of new ones. One of the principal, and perhaps the most valuable, of the existing bodies is the Atlantic Development Board. If only it were allowed to do what it was set up to do, free of hobbles, interference and red tape, we might expect progress. My great fear is that in the enthusiasm to paint over old problems with new names, the Atlantic Development Board may be rendered useless, lost in the shuffle.
The Address-Mr. Charles H. Thomas
In this, my maiden speech, I want to avoid appearing too local or parochial. This should not be too difficult because the matters with which I as the member for Moncton am concerned are common to the entire Atlantic region, such as antiquated and inadequate transportation facilities, lack of job opportunities, high cost of living, lack of adequate housing, chronic unemployment, running in our area often at twice the rate of the national figure, lack of a practical system for welfare and social assistance, underemployment, industrial starvation-the list is endless. The main reason I speak of my home riding of Moncton is that the city of Moncton, because of its location, is a natural and inescapable hub for the Atlantic region in such matters as transportation and hence industrial development.
Moncton has been cast in the role of the transportation and distribution centre of the maritime area. Changes in the economic picture of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia or much of New Brunswick are inevitably reflected in the economy of the Moncton area. So you will understand, Mr. Speaker, that if now or in the future I plead the cause of Moncton I am in effect pleading the cause of the Atlantic region as a whole, and vice-versa.
I was more than a little perturbed to hear the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) mention his views on the corridor road proposed to link Quebec with the province of New Brunswick through the state of Maine. He dismissed it as unlikely to be of much economic benefit to his particular area because its proposed junction with the Canadian section would lie in southern New Brunswick. This, I suggest, is a narrow, shortsighted view. It reflects the type of thinking that makes attainment of true regional, social and economic parity so difficult of achievement in this country.
Such projects cannot be looked at simply in terms of the interest of one municipality, one small section of one province. It is generally conceded in the Atlantic region that such a corridor road would bring economic benefits and hence social benefits not only to southern New Brunswick or the province of New Brunswick but to the entire area of Canada's Atlantic territories. I am sure the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria would be among the first to admit this, were he to give the matter honest consideration beyond the restrictions imposed by purely local thinking.
September 23, 1968
354	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Charles H. Thomas
There are many things that could be done to help the Atlantic region, such as new national park development served by good modern highways to stimulate and increase tourism, the bettering of existing and very popular tourist facilities, the provision of a better road, rail and air network generally, not forgetting, of course, such vital links as the Prince Edward Island causeway. But at the heart of the matter lies the problem of producing within the four provinces of the east coast a sound industrial base, capable of regular and natural growth, free, when possible, of subsidy or other public assistance and able to hold its own in the markets of central Canada, North America and the world.
Only by creating such a base can we begin to solve the pressing social problems such as poverty, unemployment, poor health, inadequate educational facilities and a gradually wasting population. In this we must think nationally in terms of turning areas of national liability into sources of national asset. One of the first steps that must be taken in establishing a healthy industrial climate in the Atlantic region, I believe, is to tackle and solve the problem of excessive transportation costs. It would be idle for us to talk of just societies, regional equality and a united nation if this question is not solved. The ruinous cost of transportation is the single greatest cause of Atlantic region backwardness today.
We do not want handouts. We do not want to live on the dole. We want help to be able to help ourselves. All we ask of the rest of Canada is an understanding that our problems are not ours alone but the nation's and that the sooner we can look after ourselves the sooner will all Canadians benefit.
As things now stand, federal government assistance puts a premium on destitution. Their measures, however well-intentioned, have erected unemployment into a way of life for many. No able-bodied person can qualify for relief unless totally unemployed. This leaves a great segment of our population underemployed, working, but earning below a human subsistence level, and completely unassisted. They should be helped. They must be helped. But such help as social welfare in the form of relief payments must be strictly a stopgap emergency measure. What we want is a plan to provide the work that the people of the Atlantic region are willing, able and eager to do. Let me paraphrase the late Sir Winston Churchill by saying "give us the jobs and we'll turn out the tools", and by tools I mean the goods, the services, the abilities and


the brains which the Atlantic region is capable of producing in abundance for their own advancement and the advancement of the whole nation.
However, Mr. Speaker, I must come back to what I said before, namely that in our region the key to everything is transportation, complete, efficient, fast and economical transportation by road, by rail, by water and by air. This means only one thing

a new, comprehensive transportation policy.
I was startled the other day in the house to hear the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), in answer to a question from the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates), avoid the problem of formulating an adequate transportation policy by saying he was hoping to receive some useful suggestions from the premiers of the Atlantic provinces. Surely the minister has been long enough in office to know that there are more than 80 extensive and thoughtful briefs on file from various municipalities, provinces and other bodies setting out practical suggestions in great detail.
Of course, these briefs were filed last session with the standing committee on transportation and communications. Unfortunately the committee never got around to hearing these briefs on their home ground because they were impeded by the notoriously bad transportation bottlenecks in the Atlantic provinces, stuck in the ice of the Northumberland strait, snowbound on Prince Edward Island, where there is still no all-weather transportation route, and subsequently recalled to Ottawa by the party whips.
I should like to suggest to the minister that this standing committee be immediately reconstituted, that it meet as soon as possible and set up a series of meetings and public hearings on the ground where the chief transportation problems exist, namely, the Atlantic provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Humbert Thomas: May I quote the following from the Moncton Times-Transcript in connection with this suggestion:
It is clear to Atlantic residents-having suffered from transportation shortcomings for years-that there is little hope of any constructive action coming from Ottawa as long as those whose task it is to make the required changes try to do so from the comfort of the Commons chamber.
I agree wholeheartedly with this observation. I believe that what is required is on the
September 23, 1968	COMMONS
spot investigation of transportation conditions by members of the committee in person and in the locality.
The same editorial goes on to speak of the blow to maritime industry struck by changes in the freight rates. This is a complex subject and one on which I will not attempt to elaborate at this time, but it is one to which I will return at a later date. Suffice it to say that this is one of the aspects of a poor transportation picture which grows worse daily and is continually militating against efforts at industrial development.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Then, too, there is the newest concept in transportation, which is actually a revival of the old idea of North America acting as a land bridge between Europe and Asia. Changes in transportation technology indicate that goods can be shipped between Asia and Europe more cheaply and faster over a North American land route than through the Panama Canal. The freight is trans-shipped in standard sized containers on special trains that are never uncoupled and are used only for this purpose.
But we must move quickly to provide a deep-water superport on the east coast, capable of handling these huge new supercarriers. The United States is all too aware of the potential involved and is already negotiating with the land carriers to use United States ports. The maritimes area has several possible sites, any of which can be developed, and such development should be an integral part of the over-all transportation scheme.
In my initial address in this house I have tried simply to highlight some of the problems that face the people of my own constituency, and the Atlantic region as a whole. There is a great deal more to be said on all these subjects, but I believe individual topics can be dealt with more appropriately when various special pieces of legislation come before the house.
If nothing else, I would like to feel that members, government members in particular, have caught something of the urgency of the situation in the Atlantic region and that they now more fully appreciate that this is not merely a regional problem but a national one.
I trust, too, that they are not under the impression that we of the Atlantic provinces are seeking more hand-outs, more money or begging in any sense. We are not. We are seeking more effective forms of assistance in
DEBATES	355
The Address-Mr. Kaplan order that we may become self sufficient and play our proper and full role, as Canadians, in making our country prosper and grow.
One tangible way in which the government could show that they appreciate the urgency of our position would be by activating the transportation and communications committee and having it visit the area of greatest concern. We from the Atlantic region came to Ottawa expecting much, Mr. Speaker. We were promised much, if not by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on his fleeting election campaign visits, then certainly by his spokesmen. So far, we have been disappointed. The Prime Minister frequently takes public pride in not having made any election promises. He may not have made many explicit promises, but he made one gigantic implicit promise. His whole election pitch was one great promise to the Canadian people that, under him, things would be changed; things would be done; things would be different. He was elected to head a majority government. He is now Prime Minister of Canada. Let him now redeem the promise that brought him to office. Thank you.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to join the other hon. members of this house in congratulating you on your election as Speaker of the house? We wish you full success in the discharge of your duties.

It is a great honour for me to join in the deliberations of this chamber, an institution which, in the tradition of the mother parliament, has fought for and created popular political democracy. It is a forum in which is presented the government's policies for Canada and a forum for expose, criticism, and the presentation of the policies of the opposition. The many voices of the people of Canada echo in this chamber. These historic walls remind one of the long history of meaningful controversies which have been fought in Canadian parliament: our Confederation; the opening of the west and our transportation policies; free trade and tariff protection; war, peace and conscription; the opening of the north. Canadian identity and nationality have been forged in large measure within these walls.
I regret to say that this rich and meaningful tradition of the best in parliament stands in marked contrast to the aimless debates of the past days. I do not mean to be critical of
September 23, 1968

The Address-Mr. Kaplan those hon. members whose eloquence has been no less than that of other days. On the contrary, we have been doing honour and lip service to a tradition of debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. This is a tradition which is as much a part of our proceedings as is the high tradition of sharp debate, of meaningful expose and of controversy to which I have just referred.
Let me for a moment examine our traditions in the spirit that the best be preserved and enlarged and that the worst, in which I include the very one which I have risen to celebrate, be abandoned. My theme comes from the answer of the right hon. Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) when he observed that the Speech from the Throne has always been criticized in identical terms and would be so criticized even if it were written by the Holy Ghost. In this reply the Prime Minister revealed a state secret little known throughout the country because many Canadians believed in fact that this time the Speech from the Throne would be written by the Holy Ghost. It is exposed to us, therefore, as the handiwork, of mortal man.
In a similar vein we can expect that the government's legislative program, which will soon be introduced, will be the work of mortals. As such, the government's detailed proposals when presented will bear due praise and some valid criticism. No doubt much of both will be forthcoming. However, I suggest that the criticism and praise which have been offered during the past few days are premature. As in the case of every Speech from the Throne, irrespective of the political party which inspires it, there is not yet enough material for debate. The government's programs are not yet sufficiently before us. They are not before us because we are celebrating, indeed we are revelling in, a tradition which I hope will die with this parliament.
I have the honour to represent a new and great riding in Toronto. It is a riding which greatly admires the Prime Minister. It is also a riding with great expectations of this government. In fact, I am here in place of a distinguished Canadian, Mr. Dalton Camp, who would have been an ornament across the aisle, one of the few. My constituents supported the Liberals because they believed that a fresh approach and a critical review to rationalize all our institutions would be of benefit to this country. As the hon. Prime

Minister observed on leaders' day, our responsibilities here increase while our time for deliberation remains constant. Every hour, indeed every minute, of the time of this house is precious. After nearly two weeks of debate we have not yet begun our significant business, and tradition precludes the commencement of government business until Wednesday.
If government business is to be postponed for a given number of days from the beginning of each session, let these days serve some useful purpose. I agree with the observations of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson); that is, there are over 100 private members' resolutions and bills before us and we might have tackled these. We might have approached this formidable list. Surely, all of us are sorry that we did not.
Our great democracy finds its shield within these walls; but what would the people of Canada think of parliament if they knew what has been going on here lately?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to join with previous speakers in extending to you my sincere congratulations on your election to the high office of Speaker of this house. I should like also to extend congratulations to the mover (Mr. Corbin), and seconder (Mr. Marchand), of the address in reply. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, both men did an excellent job, one which should make their constituents very proud of them.
I know that my constituents would want me to extend to His Excellency the Governor General and Mrs. Michener a sincere expression of our love, loyalty and respect and our heartfelt thanks for according us the honour and pleasure of visiting our province a few months ago. I can tell all hon. members that Her Majesty's representatives were warmly received by the people of Newfoundland and they left behind them a renewed sense of loyalty to the crown as well as a genuine feeling of pride in belonging to this great Canadian nation of ours.
It goes without saying, sir, that I am deeply honoured to have been elected by the people of St. John's West to represent them in this parliament. It is an honour that comes to few men in their lifetime, and needless to say it is one that I shall treat with respect and dedication during my term of office.
September 23, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	357
My province, sir, having as it does a centuries old tradition of loyalty to the crown, also has a deep and lasting loyalty to Canada. Although we have been a province for less than 20 years, I can tell this honourable house that all but a very few of my fellow Newfoundlanders are extremely proud to be part of this great Canada of ours. The people of my province are desperately anxious to make their contribution and to play their part in the building of a strong and prosperous nation. I repeat, sir, that my fellow Newfoundlanders are anxious to play their part in the building of a strong Canada and to contribute to this union of ours which took place in 1949.
I make that point because I suspect that as a result of the utterances of certain Newfoundland politicians the average Canadian citizen may very well have the impression that Newfoundland is getting the best of the bargain, that our union is a one-sided effort. This, Mr. Speaker, is not true.
In 1949 when my people elected to become part of Canada I was too young to vote. I did, however, favour Newfoundland's confederation with Canada while at the same time entertaining certain doubts as to the method by which it was brought about. Like all of my fellow countrymen I was extremely proud of my heritage and of our centuries old tradition of independence. But yet-and again like the majority of my fellow Newfoundlanders-I knew that we could not continue to pay the price we were paying for our independence. I also, knew, sir, that the only hope for Newfoundland was to throw in its lot with our Canadian neighbours.
I am happy, Mr. Speaker, that the people of my province took that bold step in 1949, and it was a bold step, and became part of this great nation. I am proud to be a Canadian. My fellow Newfoundlanders, with very few exceptions, sir, are also proud to be Canadians.
Here, Mr. Speaker, I have a confession to make to my fellow members and to the Canadian people. I must confess that in 1949 I was conceited. I was a young fellow 20 years old and could not see past this Newfoundland of ours where we would stand to attention and sing the "Ode to Newfoundland". I was conceited enough to think that Canada was getting the best of the bargain. I have another confession to make, sir. I think that in this respect my opinions have not changed.
For our part, Mr. Speaker, in terms of national resources we brought to this great
The Address-Mr. Carter nation one of the most wealthy land masses in North America. We conveyed, as it were, to this Canadian nation North America's last great frontier, Labrador. In terms of human resources, which I think all hon. members will agree is the greatest of all resources, we brought to this nation of Canada more than a quarter of a million industrial, Godfearing, hard working people of good British, Scottish and Irish ancestry. Do you blame me, Mr. Speaker, for getting the impression or for becoming conceited enough to think that Canada got the best of the bargain in 1949? And do you blame me for maintaining those views?
Newfoundland, as I have pointed out, is part of this great nation of Canada, and I repeat that we are very proud of it. Our province, sir, is separated from the mainland of Canada by approximately 90 miles of water. This is the distance between North Sydney and Port aux Basques. Those 90 nautical miles have a profound effect upon the economy of our island province.
The sea, which is the source of Newfoundland's prosperity, is also a kind of extra tariff that has been imposed upon the people of Newfoundland, I suppose as the price that we must pay for living in the best province of Canada. The price that we are paying results from this very expensive 90 miles of water that separates North Sydney from Port aux Basques. This tariff, that is imposed is in the form of transportation costs on all products that we must import from the Canadian mainland. It applies, of course, to machinery, equipment, building materials, eggs, produce of all kinds, milk and many of the things that the average Canadian citizen takes for granted in almost every other place in Canada.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in many respects the province of Newfoundland is a province of extremes. We have the highest, I repeat the highest, cost of living in Canada. Our average per capita income is the lowest. We have the highest rate of unemployment in Canada and we have the highest building costs. Newfoundland's per capita debt is soaring to a dangerously high level. Keeping pace with our rising capital debt is the tax burden that is being imposed upon our people. Therefore, putting all these factors together, I am sure all hon. members will agree with me when I say that we have our problems in Newfoundland.
Another very important fact that we must not froget, and of which Newfoundlanders are proud, is that for some strange reason that I
358	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Carter cannot explain Newfoundland has the highest birth rate in Canada and the lowest death rate. So, throwing all these considerations together, Mr. Speaker, what do we have? We have in Newfoundland today a very serious economic situation, one which we are desperately trying to solve and are looking to the Canadian government for help in solving.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The fact that, historically, Newfoundlanders have turned their eyes to the sea rather than on land resources may explain the imbalance of our trade. From the bountiful depths of the sea surrounding our province the major part of our subsistence is derived, and therein lies one of our major problems. At best it is a subsistence and no more.
We have a college of fisheries in Newfoundland, and I ask the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) to consider my request to provide a deep sea dragger for our fishing college. In this way our Newfoundlanders who are learning to become expert fishermen will have a chance to gain some actual experience in their trade. I am calling this matter to the government's attention and, especially, to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries who, I am sure, will appreciate the need for such a dragger. I repeat, I ask the government to provide a deep sea dragger for this fisheries college in Newfoundland. I have no hesitation in bringing forward my recommendation since I am aware that $100 million a year is being spent on external aid. I would consider the government's action, if it should equip our fisheries college with a dragger, as a little bit of internal aid which is as important to this nation, and to Newfoundland, as external aid is to other nations.
I take issue with the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson), Newfoundland's cabinet representative, for remarks he made in the house on Friday last concerning the federal government's decision to discontinue the salt rebate. We are aware of the hon. member's delicate position as the member for Burin-Burgeo and as a minister of the crown. Since he was talking about matters pertaining to our province, I should have expected him at least to take a position sympathetic to the needs of our province.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Hear, hear.


Walter C. Carter: I am sure the minister didn't intend to mislead this house deliberately. Nevertheless, in his usually eloquent way, he succeeded in misreoresenting completely the

DEBATES	September 23, 1968
views of hon. members representing Newfoundland who sit on this side of the house.
At no time did we take the position that the salt rebate ought to continue. What we did say, and I repeat this, is that the salt rebate should be allowed to continue until the government is in a position to decide upon a substitute program. We find it difficult to understand why the government would discontinue the salt rebate, which is of vital importance to Newfoundland fishermen, in the middle of the fishing season when the salt fishermen were in the process of prosecuting the Labrador fishery. At this crucial moment the government, with my hon. friend's consent, decided to discontinue this important salt rebate program. That is shameful, and I am disappointed in my friend and colleague from Newfoundland for taking the position he took in this house on Friday in defending the government's position.
God knows, Mr. Speaker, the life of a fisherman is hard. It is a life demanding the utmost of those who engage in it. Newfoundlanders and their counterparts in other Atlantic provinces are not afraid of hardship. Our people have suffered hardships and borne the fury of wind and weather for generations. We are bred to it and we have not changed. Our Atlantic coast fishermen, including our Newfoundland fishermen, are accustomed to hard times, to hardships and to braving the elements. Our people have not changed, and I suspect they will never change. Our fishermen, not unlike their counterparts in other industries, want to be employed, want to fish. At the same time they want to be assured of a market for their fish, as well as a decent price for their fish.
Today our fisheries are in deep trouble, Mr. Speaker. This is another area where the government announces paper programs which do not go into effect or, if they do, make the situation worse than it was before. The fishing industry is basic to the economy of the Atlantic provinces. I might ask, what has happened to our fishing industry? I think most hon. members know the answer.
Prices have dropped and foreign competition is eating into our traditional markets for salt and frozen fish. As a result of technological advances, eastern European countries have placed in our waters floating fish factories with which our fishermen are expected to compete on equal terms. Surely, if the government means business, it is time for it to take action on a massive scale to maintain the competitive capacity of the Canadian fishing
September 23, 1968
industry in the catching, processing and marketing of fish.
The fishing industry will not cure itself of its ills. Our fishermen are competing against foreign interests supported and subsidized by foreign governments. In order for the Canadian fisherman and the industry in general, to compete on equal terms with others in our waters, it is vitally necessary that we have the full support of the federal government and the benefit of all its services. I am referring now to something more than the kind of lip service we have had.
Fish products ought to play a greater part in external aid shipments. This would be one way of maintaining our traditional markets. Also, we must have more research in the uses of fish. We must have more modern, up to date equipment and the assurance of being able to fish in our own waters unmolested within the 12 mile limit. That may be impossible, but let us try to impose that limit. If the limit cannot be imposed, the government ought to inform the fishermen of that fact. It ought to be honest with them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter C. Carter: I am sorry the Minister of Fisheries is not here. I say it is time this government stopped pussyfooting around with the 12 mile limit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter C. Carter: Under the policies of successive Liberal governments, we have watched the encroachment upon our industry by United States interests. We are watching the encroachment of foreign shipping on our fishing resources on a scale that will deplete these resources in a short time. Also, we are watching our markets dwindle away.
I say to the government, if it has a policy let us hear about it. If it has no policy let us not go through the farce-I repeat-the farce of having a Department of Fisheries that is unable, apparently, to suggest or produce a policy.
The marketing of fish constitutes a major problem, and in order to save the Atlantic fishermen there may be no course open except the establishment of a federal fish commodity marketing board which would operate very much in the same way the grain marketing board operates.
The Canadian Wheat Board imparted stability to the economy of western Canada. Perhaps a fish commodity marketing board, 29180-24i
The Address-Mr. Carter under federal government auspices, could provide a measure of stability to the economy of the Atlantic provinces.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I would ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) this question, Mr. Speaker: where is the just society when a man with a family fishes all the summer and is forced to endure hardships almost beyond human endurance and as a result of a disorganized fishery policy which means that the rock bottom prices he receives barely provides enough to keep body and soul together? Is this the just society? I do not think so and I wonder whether the Prime Minister is naive enough to believe that the lonely, forgotten Newfoundland fishermen of Cape St. Mary's will be fooled by his promise of a just society? Our fishermen well remember other slogans, other promises which have been offered them in place of action. They will remember the war on poverty, the Company of Young Canadians-meaningless words manufactured by some coin-operated word factory in the back rooms of the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter C. Carter: Low incomes, high costs, exploitation and hard work; that is the story of Canada's Atlantic coast fishermen. It is the story of our Newfoundland fishermen. In my riding, which contains a large number of fishermen, it is almost embarrassing to see what is happening-to see men who struggle, who work hard, who face the perils of the north Atlantic, come in with a look of desperation on their faces. These are the men who are suffering as a result of low incomes and high costs, men who have been exploited for centuries. It is a situation which should make a lot of people ashamed to look their fellow men in the face. The exploitation which is imposed on the average Newfoundland fisherman is incredible; words cannot explain the situation which has resulted from this exploitation of his hard work. This is the story of the Atlantic coast fishermen and the story of the Newfoundland fishermen.
I said that in Newfoundland we face high living costs and high costs of building. The birth rate is high and the death rate is low. Taxation is high, and so on. All these things are related to the desperate housing situation which exists in my province today. I regret the roving Minister of Transport (Mr. Hell-yer) is not here to hear me say that the provisions of the National Housing Act are totally

September 23, 1968


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. Unless unanimous consent is given to the hon. member to continue, I will recognize another hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Walter C. Carter: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and other hon. members for allowing me to carry on.
I would be a traitor to Newfoundland and afraid to go back to Newfoundland if I ended my speech without making reference to the great train robbery now taking place in Newfoundland. In my opinion, the people who schemed the great train robbery in Great Britain a few years ago were a bunch of kindergarten kids compared with the people who have schemed the great train robbery in Newfoundland where rail passenger service is being replaced by buses.
I could scarcely believe my ears on Friday last when I heard the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Jamieson), the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, advance his weak argument supporting the decision of the Canadian National and the Canadian Transportation Commission to abandon rail passenger service in Newfoundland. He confirmed what we in Newfoundland have known for a long time, or at least what we have suspected, that there has been a deal made between the Liberal government in Ottawa and the Liberal provincial government in Newfoundland to cancel this important service in return for the fulfilment of a political promise. I refer to the federal government's decision to pay 90 per cent of the cost of completing the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland.
September 23, 1968	COMMONS
I am sure hon. members know there is not a rail passenger service in Canada, at least I do not know of one, that is paying its way. So, Mr. Speaker, why pick on Newfoundland where there is a greater need for transportation than in any other province in Canada? Why pick on us? Why not do this in the other provinces? I am sure there is no rail passenger service in other provinces that is making money.
I serve notice on the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), I serve notice on the government of Canada, and I serve notice on the people of Canada that the people of Newfoundland are not going to sit by and see their "Newfoundland Bullet", if you want to call it that, taken away. We are going to fight this to the last man and I hope we will have the support of this house, and of the Canadian people, in our efforts to retain that which is rightfully ours, an adequate rail passenger service across the province of Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter C. Carter: We Newfoundlanders want to be partners in this great and wonderful confederation. We are not asking for special status. But let me tell you, sir, and let the word go out today to all of Canada, that we will not accept anything less than equal status. We are not asking for special status but we will insist on equal status.
My fellow Newfoundlanders share my vision of a great and glorious Canada. They share my vision of a Canada where our children will stand tall and walk straight, where they will weep with pride as they sing "O Canada, our home our native land," as did their forefathers when they sang their national anthem:
When sun rays crown thy pine clad hills And summer spreads her hand.
When silvern voices tune thy rills,
God guard thee Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, even though I have been sitting in this house for the last three years I feel like taking the floor this afternoon to make my maiden speech. As you know, during those three years I was relegated to the other end of the chamber and did not have the opportunity I have now to work with a team, a strong team and a good team, one that impresses me a lot.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
DEBATES	361
The Address-Mr. Mongrain [Translation]


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of this debate, flowers, I should say heaps of flowers, fragrant, bright and perfectly well-deserved have been showered upon the incumbent of this position and all those appointed to assist him in his functions. I would not want to repeat everything which was said, but like many of my colleagues, I join in the praises offered to the Speaker and to those appointed to assist him in his task.
Mr. Speaker, I would like also, while I pay you these compliments-

I would like to make special mention of the Assistant Clerk of the house, Mr. Dubroy, who presented us with a magnificent performance as a result of his facility in remembering the names of new members, whom he has probably never seen before, as well as the names of new ridings. I think he deserves the highest congratulations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Usually, Mr. Speaker, the mover and the seconder (Messrs. Corbin and Marchand) of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne perform their duties with great seriousness, that is sure, and spend a great deal of time preparing themselves. Usually, they make speeches which attract the attention of the whole house. But I think that this year, the mover and the seconder (Messrs. Corbin and Marchand) performed their task in a more brilliant way than those I had the opportunity to hear in the past, and I should like to congratulate them for it.
For those who, like me, start to grow old, it is comforting, Mr. Speaker, to see that such fine young people, bright, conscientious and quite well-informed, with a sense of responsibility will continue in the furrow which we ploughed for 20 or 25 years in various aspects of the public life. Therefore, I offer them my congratulations.
Of course, I should like also to congratulate the leaders of the parties, first for their reelection and then for the seriousness with which they carry out their duties.
It is comforting I think, Mr. Speaker, for a member interested in the welfare of his country, to realize to what degree of responsibility-I mention the opposition only because, I will refer to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) soon-the Leader of the
September 23, 1968

The Address-Mr. Mongrain Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) carries out his duty, which is to oppose, naturally. On the government side, of course, we think sometimes that he opposes a little too vehemently, but it is his job and that of his colleagues, and we can say that he does it very conscientiously and quite seriously.
The same is true of the leaders of the other opposition parties, the NDP and the Rallie-ment creditiste.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I would wish that the members of the Ral-liement creditiste were as sincere and serious as their leader when speaking in the house. Although his humour and wit sometimes surprise some of the members of this house, his comments are always basically serious.
Mr. Speaker, the winners of the last election have been congratulated. But I have a complex. I am thinking of those members of all the parties who bit dust on election day. I realize that that happens in all elections, but I am thinking in particular of those who worked for years in Canadian politics and did their best and who were disappointed. I am also thinking of those who were running for the first time and who felt on that day rather like one feels the first time one is disappointed in love. I should like to offer my sympathy to those Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I had first risen on a question of privilege in order to vindicate someone who was a member of this house. A member of the opposition objected, though I knew I was interpreting rather loosely the Rules of the house. But I had risen on a question of privilege pertaining to a matter of humanity and Christian charity, and I had hoped that the house would let me get on with it. As the opposition objected I was unable to finish my statement. I would like to have a couple of minutes now, to conclude what I was saying the other day about the hon. Yvon Dupuis, who was wrongly accused and who lost the first law suit. Three learned judges of the appeal court, the honourable Montgomery, Owen and Tas-chereau granted him leave of appeal and unanimously agreed that he had not been given a fair trial. Therefore, he appealed and I shall now quote an excerpt from Le Devoir, dated April 19, 1968, reporting the conclusion that was reached on this unfortunate situation:
Counsels Raymond D'aoust and Paul Martineau [DOT]were acting on behalf of the accused, now exonerated after three years of legal proceedings. The second trial began on March 12th and lasted but six minutes as both parties were agreed to submit to Judge Mare-Henri Blain some 6,700 pages of
IMr. Mongrain.]

evidence making up 33 volumes pertaining to the first trial and to the documents that were later transferred to the Appeal Court.
In his judgement contained in about forty pages, Mr. Justice Blain asserts that in his opinion Mr. Dupuis had never received the $10,000 and that, consequently, he must be cleared of the accusation.
I felt it was important, Mr. Speaker, that this unfortunate and nauseating story which started in this very house, with the resignation of a most promising young man be recorded in Hansard so that at least his acquittal be given as much publicity as the country's newspapers gave to the false accusation which was such a terrible ordeal for his family during three whole years.
Mr. Speaker, I have noted everything that has been said by the opposition about the Speech from the Throne; I like to listen to all the speeches, though they are not all equally good. For instance, I have observed that many members of the opposition find that the Speech from the Throne is rather meaningless, because it leaves certain things unsaid. It outlines only those measures which were high on the priority list. Had the Prime Minister decided to insert in the Speech the full details of all his projects, we, the poor members of the House of Commons standing at the rear and sometimes unable even to hear His Excellency, would have been waiting there, I think, for fully 24 hours. One must be reasonable however and not demand such a feat. I think that the main points of this government's program are very clearly stated for anyone who can read between the lines.
Mr. Speaker, it has been said and repeated many times that people would like to know how the Prime Minister and his colleagues will create that just society. Of course, I understand the members of the opposition and I have much sympathy for them who are in the dark about so many things. In fact, I have so much sympathy for them that I feel like offering them my condolences for being on the wrong side of the house. But we, who are on this side, know where we stand. The Prime Minister and his colleagues have told us where they are going and we are very pleased to see that they know where they are going, that they have taken positive steps to bring about a just society and our minds are fully at rest on that point.
I will go further, Mr. Speaker, and I will say that the concern shown by the opposition from the very beginning of the debate, in saying over and over again: "How is it that we do not have this just society at once", is an indication that even the opposition has
September 23, 1968

been deeply impressed by the Prime Minister, that it came out of this election as enraptured as the rest of the Canadian people and that it expected, right after the opening of parliament, that our extraordinary Prime Minister, with a magic wand, would have created the just society overnight.
We are more realistic than that on the government side. We know that it takes nine months for a child to be born; we know that a tree grows during a given number of years, and that reform of society like the one we want to set up in Canada will take some months at least. Furthermore, those in the opposition who were here under the former government know that there remains more than 47 or 48 bills to be dealt with, or else the opposition would say: Well, you are not going on with the business under way.
Since the opposition is so anxious to see a just society, I hope that it is not going to put a spoke in our wheel. We are going to expedite these 47 bills and tackle the most urgent phases of the reform of our society, in order to create a just society.
Mr. Speaker, the former government has been blamed. Of course, those who are observing the political scene know, because it is as clear as daylight, that we have a new Prime Minister, we have a new government. We have a large number of talented new members. We have a new Liberal party adapted to the 1968 circumstances. If we had to criticize all parties which have formed the government in the last 50 years, we would find many weaknesses. We would find some in the Conservative party but not in the New Democratic party. Of course, we would never find any in the Ralliement Creditiste, as they will never come to power. However, I think it would be more intelligent to proceed as the Prime Minister has just said: "Let bygones be bygones" and let us prepare the future. This is what is being done on the government side in a quite serious way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: While waiting for the
applause on the other side, Mr. Speaker, I will take the liberty of making a quite unpretentious suggestion, especially for the information of the hon. members opposite. Instead of grouping the Liberals together on the other side of the house, it would perhaps be advisable to scatter them among the members of the Opposition so that they may inform those who are unaware of what is going on here.
The Address-Mr. Mongrain
Mr. Speaker, I heard this afternoon the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) but I regret that he is not here. He spoke about the kisses and the eagerness of the Canadian ladies for the right hon. Mr. Trudeau. There were also some references during the election campaign to trudeaumania and to the Trudeau myth.
One did not realize, Mr. Speaker, that the Trudeau myth, or Trudeaumania, that is the cult of the right hon. Prime Minister, is probably something which cannot be explained. It probably cannot be analysed as one would do of a mathematical problem. In my view, Mr. Speaker-and I have seen the phenomenon happen in several places, especially in my own riding-it is the people of Canada who have in a way created it. After ten years of uncertainty-because those who were responsible for the management of the country were in a difficult predicament-the people of Canada did not take any more interest in their governement. They seemed to think that nothing ever happened in their country. They did not believe any more that their country was capable of doing great things and suddenly the people of Canada realized that they had discovered a leader, perfectly prepared to fill that role exactly cut out for it, capable of shouldering the terrible responsibilities of our times. The Canadian people was enthralled, from Victoria to St. John; the phenomenon appeared spontaneously and not because the thing had been cooked up or reasoned. That is the way people respond when they discover a providential man. I have seen it in my constituency, Mr. Speaker. I have been in politics for almost 25 years. I have seen enthusiastic crowds of 30,000, 40,000 and
50,000	people and when I prepared the coming of the right honourable Prime Minister in my constituency, the members of the central organization were saying to me: Take all the precautions you can, because you will have trouble holding back the crowd. You will lose control. I said to them: Listen, I have seen some of that before.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Well, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what happened at the air terminal where I had let in carefully selected people, staid, middle-age people, serious persons, dignitaries from associations of all kinds, from the municipal government or from the school board. As I was walking about and looking at that crowd, I was thinking that there would be no trouble whatsoever, that everything was going to run smoothly, and remain under control. Mr. September 23/ 1968

The Address-Mr. Mongrain Speaker, I had the surprise of my life when the terminal door opened and the Prime Minister walked in. I was walking in front of him. The crowd exploded; there was a terrific burst and all these people surged toward us. I like to think that I am rather strong and well used to taking care of myself, but the crowd swept us over the Prime Minister and myself at least ten feet, inside the air terminal. It was the same thing during the whole trip, at Trois-Rivieres-Ouest, at Trois-Rivieres and at Cap-de-la-Madeleine.
During that whole evening, I dreaded accidents and I am still amazed that, miraculously, the Prime Minister's caravan did not run over some of the pedestrians surging in a crowd near the cars, throwing themselves in front of them.
I have seen something still more extraordinary-something I had never seen anywhere, Mr. Speaker. We had organized the beginning of a soft ball match at Cap-de-la-Madeleine and the right hon. Prime Minister was to be the batter; the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) acted as pitcher and I was the catcher. I had asked the police to let nobody come in on the field. A four-foot steel fence surrounds that field and the police had succeeded in keeping away the crowd that was spreading out in the adjoining streets, up to the moment when the Prime Minister struck the first ball, sending it into the field. Then I saw 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 and even 20 year old boys jump over the fence to shake hands with the Prime Minister.
I witnessed an even more extraordinary sight. I saw some respectable matrons of 40, 45 and 50 years of age-perhaps they were Ladies of St. Ann-leap over the fence just to shake hands with the Prime Minister.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that such a spontaneous, enthusiastic and genuine outburst, from Victoria to St. Johns, Newfoundland, is indeed a proof that Canadians, truly and sincerely feel that they found the leader they needed, and who will be able, together with his team to run the country in its best interests.
How will the just society come about? I will say it again to the gentlemen of the opposition: by and by, as circumstances permit and provided the opposition does not cause obstruction, legislation will be introduced by those entrusted with the task. However, co-operation will evidently be required from everybody and everyone will have to do his share.
In my view, the idea being spread around that everything should come from the government is childish and is not serious. I have tried, Mr. Speaker, to make an analysis of some sort, to find out what it would cost the government if it granted everything that members of the opposition have requested since the beginning of the debate. The total I have come to is of the order of $2 billion and a half to $3 billion. I am sure that if the government were to grant all that, the members of the opposition would be the first ones to say: it does not make sense, taxes will rise. I understand that the opposition feels that such and such a thing should have priority over others, but priorities are not all alike. Apparently all requests claim first priority. Therefore, when there is no consensus, it is up to the government to make a choice, because it carries the responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I would like this afternoon to touch on one or two subjects more specifically. We hear comments about a just society and the suggestion that one basic condition is necessary to achieve a just society: that is increased national productivity. What is the meaning of productivity? I will venture my own definition: it is the output of manual or intellectual effort by all Canadians who can and want to work. The sum total of all these efforts constitutes the national income with which people can live and pay taxes.
Now I would like to quote from a speech made in this house by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) the hon. member for Verdun. These very words are to be found on page 252 of Hansard:
Both parties-
That is management and labour.
-must understand that the prosperity of this great country depends on the productivity of our secondary industries; and productivity, I repeat, depends on co-operation between management and labour, and a mutual respect for each other's particular problems.
I should like to emphasize this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that our productivity has declined for all sorts of reasons. First of all, of course, there was the unemployment problem, which the government is now trying to solve by measures which seem to me quite realistic and which should give results sooner or later. Then there was also the great number of strikes which are being blamed on the government but which occurred in most cases without the government being able to intervene; it is precisely this point to which I should like to draw the attention of all my colleagues and of the whole Canadian people.

September 23, 1968	COMMONS
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to repeat it even though I may seem to over-emphasize this point, that strikes, for the most part, represent an obsolete way of solving labour disputes and that in our modern society we should find quicker and less unpleasant ways for workers to manifest discontent than to go on strike.
On this subject, I always quote someone who is an expert in labour matters and certainly can not be accused of anti-unionism; I am referring to Mr. Walter Reuther, the American labour leader who has often said: "It is high time the unions stopped settling their problems at the expense of the community". He also said-and I think this concerns us directly-"It is time also for governments to give them such means of settling their problems which will allow them not to depend on strikes alone".
Just to show, Mr. Speaker, how much the strikes cost the country, I will give you the 1967 statistics. For example, I see that in 1962 Canada had 290 strikes; in 1963: 318; in 1964: 327; in 1965: 478; in 1966: 582; every year the number of strikes increases; in 1967: 958. It is a constant progression. Those 958 strikes in 1967 involved 419,942 workers which represented a loss of 4,044,660 workdays.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that every time a worker is on strike, two or three others will inevitably find themselves out of work. If a firm ceases its activity, carriers will lay off and merchants will feel the pinch. Therefore, to go on with my argument, I shall simply say that for each striker, there is another worker who finds himself idle. I shall not magnify facts and I shall try to be conservative, in the ordinary sense of the word not in the political sense. If 419,942 workers striked in 1967, it means that double that number, or 839,884 Canadians, have wasted time in 1967 because of strikes: 8,089,320 work-days would have been lost. Imagine the fantastic loss of 8 million days of work. Productivity would be affected. Workers would be deprived of part of their earnings, the Canadian economy would be short of that much money. If those workers earned $1.50 per hour-you will notice I am being reasonable because there are not very many workers in this country who still work for $1.50 per hour; some earn up to $4, $4.50 an hour but I do not want to look as if I am exaggerating-and if they worked an eight-hour day, that means that in 1967, Canadian workers were deprived of an income of $97,071,840; and the same goes for
DEBATES	365
The Address-Mr. Mongrain the Canadian economy. That certainly did not help productivity. Please note that I speak only of the strikers. I do not refer to the whole economy which suffered because certain sectors were brought to a standstill for one month, two months, six months. I only mention the strikers because otherwise the money the workers or the Canadian economy lost would amount to hundreds of millions of dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that I say this in a constructive way. I do not want my comments to be interpreted as a condemnation of the government. Far from it. I know the government is now taking steps to improve the worker's lot. I also hope that an agreement can be reached between the three parties, the worker, the employer and the governments and there can be some kind of a truce.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Here is where I would like to make a constructive suggestion. As I said earlier, since we have a new government, a new team, I could say that we have a new Liberal party with a new program. We are in a difficult position in international affairs. It is not only in our country that there should be, between the representatives of labour, management and the government some kind of tripartite agreement to declare a truce, for a period of at least one year, maybe two, to give the government time to put into force new measures which will give more justice to the workers.
If, each time the government is tripped up-to use an expression which is not out of Bossuet-by drawn out strikes which keep half, if not all, our ministers busy, they have no time left for the constructive policies we need in this country to create a just society.
It seems to me that that should interest all Canadians who concern themselves about the common weal, especially the lot of the wage-earner, the people with low incomes. Mind you, I do not necessarily blame trade unions as being responsible for the strikes. There is probably a responsibility at the three levels and that is precisely what leads me to say that there should be an agreement between all three with a view to a truce. And I think that the first to benefit from that would be the wage-earners and the workers precisely.
Mr. Speaker, evidently there will always be in our country people who take pleasure in making demagogic statements for all sorts of reasons: electoral perhaps, selfishness, promotion of certain unions. I would like to appeal
September 23, 1968

The Address-Mr. Mongrain to the conscience oi Canadians and tell them that they do not serve their country in such circumstances. It is too easy to blame the government for the unrest in the country. But if we look at the situation in all the countries of the world, we realize that things are going even worse than here.
With no partisan afterthought whatsoever,
I submit that everybody would be better off if we forgot these selfish, mean, often childish considerations, and say: Well, our main concern will be Canada's welfare, the welfare of all those people whom we pity because, precisely, they are among the very people we call the poor whom we want to help.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to make another suggestion? I do not claim to be an authority in labour-management matters, but I think-and I intend to bring this up again in a more specific fashion in due course -we should study the advisability of setting up labour courts throughout the country. Some circles are frightened of this compulsory arbitration, as it is called. However, all democratic thinkers have always thought that the simplest and fairest way to settle disputes was to have recourse to competent courts of justice.
If labour courts were set up, composed of competent economists and sociologists and people who know the labour code, 90 per cent of our strikes could probably be prevented.
This privilege could be left to workers in some sectors, but I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the great majority of workers, even organized workers, are absolutely fed up with these unending strikes. They would be only too happy to find ways of settling their disputes without having to be unemployed and getting into debt for weeks and months on end, with the result that they are always the losers and that the general economy of the country is almost always being jeopardized.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to insist again on my trust in the present government. This is for the guidance of the opposition which is worried and which betrays its concern. As for the opposition, it makes me think of the religious communities, Mr. Speaker. A member of the community goes to the front of the room while his colleagues at the back say of him: He is a liar, he walks badly, he has this or that fault; it is sometimes possible to find some. As for him, he has not even got the privilege of saying that it is not true.
On the government side, we can at least say to the opposition: You are wrong, you are


deceiving yourselves, you exaggerate, you are going a little to far.
We have confidence in the legislation presented to us by the Prime Minister precisely because the Prime Minister is a perfectly competent man, whose studies were somewhat extraordinary. He has travelled all over the world. He is free from all personal considerations as to family or any other considerations. He has selected ministers known for their prestige and dynamism. He has chosen also some very good technocrats and I would add modestly, that he is surrounded by a good team of members, which reminds me of the following teaching of St. Paul who said: If I do not brag about myself, who will? Surely, the opposition is not going to brag about us, so we take the liberty of doing it ourselves.
In fact, I think the Prime Minister is setting up the necessary machinery that will enable him to realize the constructive program which will produce a society that is as just as possible. There is no use pretending that it will be paradise on earth, that poverty will disappear as well as our problems and that there will not be any more sickness or death or defeat on election nights. No, there are more trials to come. I should add that one of the reassuring things is that we have a good opposition, and I say this without any reservation. We have a conscientious opposition which lost some good elements but which has also acquired good ones amongst the young. We, of this party, find their work edifying. Even when their duty as members of the opposition makes them exaggerate slightly, they perform their duties well and one of the conditions of the success of this government will be the constant watchfulness of a good opposition.
I would even add, for the interest and guidance of our friends opposite, that there are, on occasion, some small oppositions within the party. With all those constructive elements and those well-intentioned oppositions, all those who want to understand clearly can hope that, within a relatively short time during the term of office of four years this government will have, we will know what a just society is in Canada.
I reiterate my invitation to the representatives of labour and employers and I ask them to comply with the invitation of the government for the common good of this country and put an end to the strikes which threaten our economy.
September 23, 1968	COMMONS


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, in opening may I say that the official opposition has made many of the points which it intended to make in this debate. Some of the hon. members on the government side have been saying today that it is time we went on to something else. Perhaps that is a good indication that this debate has been worthwhile. We are prepared, if other parties wish it, to close off this debate tonight so that the government may proceed with its legislative program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: However, there are two qualifications; First, we do have members who are ready, anxious and willing to speak and if the debate does proceed we will be putting up speakers until it ends. Second, we do have a lot of points yet to raise against the government's handling of the affairs of the country and its legislative program as outlined. We will take up these items at some later opportunity.
The throne speech debate is one of the few opportunities left to the opposition to raise questions of policy on its own initiative. I want to take some time to discuss what is becoming an obvious failure of this government. I refer to its failure to tell the Canadian people what it is doing and what policies it is following, if indeed it knows itself. Efforts to use the question period have failed to obtain information on the government's policies on many matters, most particularly the government's policy on foreign affairs, whether it be NATO, Czechoslovakia or Bia-fra. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) have managed to bluff their way through the question period whenever these matters have been raised. They have brought down on their heads a good deal of criticism for failure to outline what lies behind the day to day decisions which the government is making. Nowhere is this lack of policy more evident than in the matter of a clear science policy for this country.
Last year the government withdrew financial support for HARP. Within recent weeks there has been the cancellation of the Queen Elizabeth observatory project on which four and a half million dollars had been spent. Over the weekend, and not in this house but by way of a press release, the government announced the ending of the intense neutron generator project which had been undertaken
DEBATES	367
The Address-Mr. Aiken and was in an experimental stage for some time. We have not heard exactly how much money has been spent in the initial stages but we know it has been substantial. Now, Mr. Speaker, when mistakes are made or when projects are found to be unnecessary it is easy to understand that they should be abandoned. But in this particular instance we have not had any indication of what lies behind the decision to withdraw from the intense neutron generator project. It is very easy for us to say that the reason was financial, and this is the only one which the government has put forward, but this decision has caused uncertainty, confusion and a climate of pessimism in the scientific community of Canada.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The decisions in all these cases I have mentioned were made without any explanation except that other matters have a higher priority. Furthermore, these decisions were announced without any attempt to relate them to an over-all science policy for Canada. There was no effort whatever to reassure the country that the government does have a science policy or that its decisions on where to spend or where not to spend the money are made with the best scientific advice available. We have it on the word of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) that the decision to abandon the ING project was made because of its relationship on the priority scale to the very many other demands on the national treasury, and the necessity the government faced to curtail expenditures." This does not say anything. It is about time the house and the country were told frankly by the government what these so-called priorities are. If we are to have cancellations on the basis of some scale of priorities, let us know what these higher priorities are so that the house and the country shall be in a position to judge the effectiveness of the government's decisions and the validity of the government's judgment.
In addition, the minister must make a statement immediately to reassure Canadians generally, and the scientific community in particular, that the Science Council of Canada and the science secretariat have not been shunted into a back seat in their relationship to the apparatus of government. The minister will have seen the comment of a senior research scientist on the decision to cancel ING. Here again, I quote:
Regardless of all this new policy-making machinery, it seems to be clear that decisions are being made by the Treasury Board as they always were.
September 23, 1968

The Address-Mr. Aiken
The house and the country must have a statement immediately on the future of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. There is a feeling that the decision to cancel ING marks the end of our lead in pure research in the atomic energy field. There is the feeling among scientists, particularly in Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, that this project was one of those things which would maintain our impetus in the world of science and which would keep Atomic Energy of Canada Limited going forward.
There is the feeling that cancellation of this project has marked the beginning of the end for the effective work that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has been doing for so many years. There is this feeling, and I think the minister ought to immediately take the opportunity of assuring us and them that the government has other projects of a higher priority within the scientific field to take their place.
The decision to cancel the ING project seems to have been irrevocable. It is a decision requiring Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to discontinue its work on this project. The government should let the house and the country know what its policy is with regard to the satellite communications system. The caucus committee on energy, mines and resources of the Progressive Conservative party made a trip to Chalk River in March just before the house adjourned. The members of that committee went there to have a look at this ING project to see what its possibilities were, to find out as laymen at least what benefit it would be to the country and what the alternatives were.
We understood there were several projects in the wind and that the government intended shortly to make a decision with regard to the priorities involved. We also understood that the satellite communications program might take a priority over this ING project, but that it would not be abandoned.
We have heard nothing from the minister today or over the week end concerning the future of the other project. Is the government going ahead with the satellite communications program which seemed to be an alternative to Atomic Energy's ING project? I cannot emphasize too strongly the gravity of the situation. The feeling must not be allowed to catch on that the government regards scientific projects as scapegoats for overspending in other areas. To date, we have seen nothing

but a negative attitude. We have the cancellation of programs already begun and no indication of what new projects are to be started.
I believe that the government is taking too lightly the corrosive effect of the decision on the scientific and university community, because there is this feeling-and once it starts to develop it will be difficult to stop -that the country is no longer interested in maintaining the advances it has held in the scientific field since the end of the second war.
Above all, the government must act at once with a clear statement of policy that will reassure the scientific community, the universities and industry, that scientific progress does indeed have the priority it deserves in the policy planning of the government. Surely, the minister and the government do not need to be convinced of the importance of such a statement.
I should like to refer the minister to the fifth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada under the title "Strengthening the Country's Indigenous Effort":
Canada cannot rely entirely on imported technology; there must be a strengthening of the country's own capabilities. Without a strong and indigenous effort, a country cannot attract and hold the scientific and technical manpower which permits it to adapt and exploit technologies originating abroad, or which it needs to train its future supply of scientists and engineers.
Again, I quote:
Canada must maintain a high potential for technological change by ensuring that there is an adequate supply of scientific and technical manpower to serve as a basic source of invention and innovation.
What all this means is that if the government and the parliament of Canada appear to be taking an indifferent attitude toward science, scientific research and progress in this country, we will lose our scientists and research will be retarded. We will jeopardize any hope for the development of a true Canadian technology.
Mr. Speaker, I see it is six o'clock. May I call it six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I will now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was berating the government for the secrecy
September 23, 1968

with which it has shrouded many of its decisions, particularly the decisions in connection with the scientific policies which the government intends to adopt. The government must outline, not only to parliament but to the people and the scientific community of Canada, the direction it is going to take in the matter of scientific development. This is one area in which the government's inclination toward secrecy, its tendency to withhold information and its aversion to explaining anything to anybody will have terrible results for Canada.
Scientists, I think are no less realistic in this matter than anybody else. I am sure they are prepared to accept the fact that there is a limitation on the amount of money that a government can spend in any particular field, be it the scientific field or any other. They are prepared and must be prepared to accept the need for priorities, priorities in public spending and priorities in scientific development.
The scientists will understand and accept, as we will, Mr. Speaker, reasonable explanations of reasonable positions in these matters. But I believe that we have the right to insist that the government make such explanations. The scientific community wants to know, and parliament and the country are entitled to know, on what basis the recent decision to abandon support for three particular scientific projects was made. We think that the government should lay on the table the scientific reports on which its decisions were based, and it should relate in some detail reasons for its policy in each of these three matters.
As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, no one in the scientific community has ever said that the ING project was a bad one. In fact, there is unanimous agreement that it has great possibilities for Canada in the field of nuclear energy. The objections that have come from the scientific community have arisen from the knowledge that there is a limit to what the government can spend, and that the government does intend to cut back on its spending for scientific projects.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the question was one of priorities. There are dozens of excellent development projects on the drawing board vying for government support. Consequently, it was a very delicate operation to settle the priorities that the government intended to adopt and to maintain the balance of scientific progress. This operation called for a detailed and clear explanation of the factors involved in making the decision to drop the ING project, of the factors that
The Address-Mr. Aiken might lead the government to adopt some other project and to proceed in some other field. The community should have been given some idea where the government was going.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, this was a delicate operation that should have been carefully explained by the government so that the whole scientific community would have had some indication that the government really did intend to proceed with scientific projects, perhaps in another field. The government's secret decision to drop this whole ING project was like dropping a rock into a basket of eggs. The attitude of the government was a negative one which demolished the project. I fear that unless the government makes some explanation very soon damage will have been done to our country.
Two or three ministers seem to have been involved in this matter, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) made the announcement because of his responsibility for atomic energy. But there are one or two other ministers who have some general responsibility for scientific matters, and it was for this reason that questions this morning were directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Unfortunately, these questions brought forth no response and we are left without any knowledge of where the government intends to go.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that the government must not let another day go by without a full statement on its policy and intentions in the scientific field. The dark cloud that now hovers over scientific effort in Canada must be removed, and there must be a clear statement of our goals in this field. I urge the government to make a statement so that the house will know, first, why ING was dropped; second, what is intended to take its place; and third, into what other field of scientific endeavour the government intends to move. Finally, I ask the government to give some assurance that it will begin to explain what it is doing to the people of Canada.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, on rising for the first time to take part in debate in this chamber, I am happy to join with other hon. members in extending congratulations to yourself, sir, on your re-election as Speaker. I also extend congratulations to the Deputy Speaker and to the mover (Mr. Corbin) and seconder (Mr. Marchand) of the address in reply. As the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) resumes his seat I want to compliment him on his
September 23, 1968

The Address-Mr. Burton speech, which I thought made a great deal of sense.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
My election in the newly formed constituency of Regina East came after a hard fought campaign in which real issues were discussed-at least, they were discussed in the local campaign. My campaign was based largely on the New Democratic party policies with respect to medicare, Saskatchewan style; adequate housing; reasonable interest rates; the cost of living and the need for a prices review board; and a sound agricultural program. These are the things for which I intend to fight. Some of my colleagues have already discussed some of these subjects and I support their stand.
While I am still close to the subject of elections, I should like to urge the government to reconsider its position, as stated by the government house leader the other day, and suggest that consideration be given to up dating and improving the elections act at the earliest possible opportunity. Changes are required in the elections act and in order to produce the best possible changes, time will be required. Members now have before them the report of the representation commissioner in respect of a permanent voter's list and absentee voting. Members should be given the opportunity of studying in committee the recommendations of the commissioner, with the hope that such scrutiny will bring forward a plan that can form the basis for an improved act.
From my own experience in a number of campaigns, I feel that the elections act as it presently stands has not kept pace with the needs of the times and with the changing society in which we live. There are a considerable number of small and technical improvements that might be considered. I should like to draw to the attention of members three major areas in which I feel improvements are essential. First, there is the need for improved enumeration of voters. The present system is simply not good enough. Thousands of people have their names left off the list because of the present outdated enumeration machinery. In urban areas the usual result is that people left off the preliminary list are disenfranchised on election day. Second, there is the need to provide each voter with the greatest possible opportunity of exercising his franchise on or near election day. We live in a highly mobile
fMr. Burton.]

society and the present election machinery simply has not been able to keep in step with the situations confronting people at election time. I have come in contact with many cases in which people have been disenfranchised through circumstances completely beyond their control.
Third, there is the need for greater uniformity between federal and provincial election acts. A great deal of confusion is caused by differences between the provincial and federal election acts in Saskatchewan and, I am sure, all across Canada. While it will not be possible to achieve complete uniformity, I think steps could be taken to avoid some of the needless confusion which occurs at present as a result of mechanical differences in the operation of provincial and federal election acts, as well as differences in poll boundaries.
Regina East is now a constituency of over
90,000	people. It comprises all of the city of Regina east of Albert street, extends east of Regina for some 50 miles to the vicinity of Fort Qu'Appelle and north for well over 100 miles to the vicinity of Wynyard and the Quill Lakes. Over 70 per cent of the people in the riding live in the city of Regina.
Regina, for a considerable number of years, has been one of the fastest growing cities of Canada. It now has a population of near 140,000 and it is certainly destined to continue as one of the major cities of Canada. Its distinctive characteristics and history make it one of Canada's great cities. A great deal of the rural area of the constituency is a mixed farming region. While there are some areas where the growing of wheat predominates, through much of the constituency mixed farming involving joint grain and livestock operations prevails. Near the city of Regina there, of course, is considerable concentration on dairy production. The historic Qu'Appelle river valley also runs through the rural area of the constituency and provides a considerable potential for irrigation, recreation and other development.
The east half of the city of Regina, which is in my constituency, is populated by people with a wide range of ethnic backgrounds. People from almost every European ethnic group, as well as some people with an Asian ethnic background, are living in this part of Regina. Many of these groups have made a significant and distinct contribution to the cultural and social life of Regina. Many people have moved into Regina from the surrounding rural areas. Similarly, the people in
September 23, 1968

the rural area of Regina East are capable, industrious and diverse in their backgrounds.
It is a great honour for me to have the privilege of having in my constituency eight Indian reserves with a resident population of some 3,000 people. In addition, there are also several Metis communities and there are a significant number of Indian and Metis people living in the city of Regina.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words with respect to the problems faced by Indian and Metis people and our responsibilities as legislators in dealing with these problems. I have had a good deal of contact with some of these problems over the past few years and it is my conviction that we need to approach them with a sense of urgency and a sensitivity for their basic nature.
I have visited a great many of the homes on the Indian reserves in my constituency and, as many other members have also experienced, have been appalled by some of the living conditions encountered. I have also been disturbed on many occasions by the attitude and response of people in the rest of the community. References have often been made, Mr. Speaker, to the need for greater education of Indian and Metis people. I think we also need to be reminded of the very great need for educating the non-Indian community to the nature of the situation.
I have seen many examples of Indian and Metis people who have made an outstanding success of their lives, by any standard. On the other hand, I have also seen many cases where these people have experienced a great deal of difficulty in coping with present day problems under the circumstances which have prevailed.
Many of the people in the Indian and Metis communities in the rural areas of Saskatchewan have joined the rural-urban trek and have taken up residence in the city of Regina or other large urban centres in our province. Some of these people have coped quite successfully with the transition from rural to urban living. Others, however, have faced very serious problems. They have come into a city such as Regina with very little resources, limited education and have had to face a community attitude which still results in many subtle forms of discrimination in spite of progress made in legal safeguards of rights. Consequently, many of these people have been shunted from pillar to post and have found a great deal of difficulty in
The Address-Mr. Burton achieving any sort of a stable life in an urban setting. A potential problem exists in that these people will naturally tend to look to each other for companionship and security in the face of community attitudes. They will tend to congregate together in the same houses and apartment blocks. This, Mr. Speaker, I am sure will be recognized as the beginning of a ghetto. This is the type of thing we must avoid if we are to prevent some of the problems which have been faced in other places.
It is good to know that the present Indian Act is under review and I hope that some useful results will be achieved from this review. However, I hope that what is achieved is something more than just an ironing out of some of the present administrative red tape or the removing of some of the legal disabilities under which Indian people presently live or the making of some improvements in social and economic opportunities. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because I feel that what is needed is a fundamentally new approach to this problem. All of us in Canada have to face up to the responsibility that Indian people are a group of people who were essentially dispossessed of the land they once knew as their own. They have been regarded as second class citizens in our society for many years.
If we are to achieve any sort of fundamental change in the situation, we must clearly establish some of the principles that will apply to future policies.
First, it must be recognized that Indian people have the right of self-determination. The implications of this principle are that not only does it give Indian people the full right of integration into the community and society as we know it, but also that it gives them the right to live their own existence as they wish to live it. The right to make their own decisions must be recognized. Second, we must recognize commitments made by Canada as a nation to Indian people. This involves full recognition of commitments regarding land, health, and other services. These rights need to be honoured as long as the Indian people collectively and individually wish to retain them. Third, we need to get away from the centralized control and administration which has for too long featured our Indian affairs programs. Many hon. members will be aware of some of the incredible stories involved in the centralized control and bureaucracy which Indian people encounter at every turn and in almost every day of their life. It is
372	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Burton certainly no wonder that the ambition and incentive of some Indian people to progress with the times has all too often been stifled by the smothering paternalism of Indian affairs administration over the years. I fully recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there are dedicated people in the Indian affairs branch who are working hard to do a job as best they can, and I also recognize that the branch has in theory produced many plans which were very laudable and commendable in their concepts and objectives. However, it seems that many of these plans and ideas have been stifled in implementation.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Transportation problems and policies have been a matter of concern for legislators and governments throughout Canada's history. The people of Regina East are concerned as well with many aspects of transportation policy. A major concern of my constituents and of all Canadians must be to keep abreast of changing and advancing transportation technology. New developments are taking place in transportation technology today which have the potential of outdating accepted forms of transportation within a very short period of time. One of the most exciting prospects at the present time from a long run point of view is the possibility of new developments in pipe line transport.
At the same time, comparative costs, total cost factors and investment in transportation facilities are also critical. The lack of planning in the development of transportation facilities in Canada in the past has imposed a severe burden upon our economy. Surely, we can now learn from the lessons of the past and decide that transportation is to be dealt with in a sensible and planned fashion. This must involve the co-ordination and integration of all means of transport and decisions must be made with respect to the most economic means of transport in both specific and total situations.
One example where planning is needed at the present time is with respect to the transport of potash to markets, as was brought out in this debate by my colleague, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). Over the past several years rail facilities have been developed to handle the transport of potash from Saskatchewan mines to the west coast for trans-shipment and also transport to United States markets. This has involved a large investment in facilities by the railways and in addition it has meant a considerable

DEBATES	September 23, 1968
investment in both financial and human terms by the people involved in the movement of potash. Specifically, I refer to railway employees at a point like Melville where I lived for several years. Railway employees there, on the basis of the facilities developed, have invested in homes and sunk their family roots in this community. It would appear that the railways are now attempting to exploit their monopoly situation and exact the greatest possible revenue from the movement of potash. On the other hand, it could be that the potash companies might attempt to play two forms of transport off against each other. While there are some people who feel this is the way the economy should be operated, there are many others who feel this is a senseless and wasteful way in which to deal with our economic problems.
Both federal and provincial governments are going to be involved in this situation sooner or later. I would urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) to acquaint himself with this situation and to take action to ensure that the policy being followed by the railways is in the public interest. On the other hand, I think that the provincial government in Saskatchewan will have to take a close look at the question of truck transport, since the provision of roads and some part of road transport falls under their jurisdiction. This situation is a test which could indicate whether the government really intends to take a new approach in dealing with economic problems.
The city of Regina also has some transportation problems which I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Transport. Air travel connections from Regina to eastern Canada leave a great deal to be desired. Some trips to eastern Canadian points involve a travel time of nine to ten hours of which only some four hours are spent in the air. I would like to urge the Minister of Transport to take action to ensure that Air Canada provides direct flights between Regina and an eastern Canadian point and if possible link such a flight with a direct flight to Canada's west coast.
The main line of the C.P.R. passes through the city of Regina. However, it is a matter of regret that the only passenger service made available to the people of Regina by the C.P.R. involves train stops in the early morning hours. Several years ago, strong representations were made by many people in Regina, including myself, to the Board of Transport Commissioners to ensure that there was a
September 23. 1968

daylight passenger train service on the C.P.R. main line. However, the C.P.R. point of view prevailed and the existing daylight passenger service was cancelled. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I have almost given up hope of any improvement by the C.P.R. in dealing with people and passenger traffic as long as this huge corporation is in the hands of owners who place the profit motive above all other considerations. Fortunately for Regina, the C.N.R. does have a railiner connection with Saskatoon where passengers may transfer to the C.N.R. main line. This, however, involves considerable extra travel to and from eastern points. I would urge the C.N.R. to overcome this problem by giving consideration to the establishment of a railiner service to Melville on the C.N.R. main line and other eastern Saskatchewan points. In addition to serving local traffic needs, such a service could be tied in with the transcontinental passenger train service. It should be possible to provide a sleeping car service originating at Melville which would enable passengers from Regina and eastern Saskatchewan points to entrain at Melville with comfort and convenience.
The absence of a C.B.C. television station in Saskatchewan is regretted by many people in our province. Saskatchewan people see only those programs which can be arranged through affiliated stations. I believe Saskatchewan is the only province without a CBC-TV outlet. A comparison of programs shows that Saskatchewan people cannot see many programs viewed in other parts of Canada. In spite of this, C.B.C. programming is rated very high among many Saskatchewan people. The C.B.C. is now preparing to instal television facilities in some remote areas of Canada. To this I have no objection. All I ask is that Saskatchewan have one C.B.C. station.
There are, of course, some items in the Speech from the Throne which I welcome. The long awaited federal co-operatives act will be welcomed by most people in Regina East. This act, which has been just around the corner for so many years, will enable co-operatives to play a more adequate role in the national economy. I trust that the promise of such legislation in this session will not meet the same fate as similar promises for such an act on numerous occasions in the past.
Similarly, I welcome the proposal to increase the cash advances available to grain farmers. The amendments proposed to the
The Address-Mr. Burton Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Farm Credit Act will at least make this legislation operative again after the Liberal government allowed it to fall into disuse earlier this year. Judging from the wording of the resolutions now on the order paper, I may, however, have some reservations about the specific terms of the amendments.
Other than the cash advance proposal there was nothing in the Speech from the Throne to indicate that the government intended to act with respect to the serious problems facing the wheat economy. This is very disappointing to those people affected.
The executive of the Saskatchewan New Democratic party wired the Prime Minister urging that the agriculture committee of the House of Commons hold hearings on the prairies immediately in order to obtain a full picture of the present situation. The executive also urged the formation of a special sales commission with wheat board officials plus farm representatives to promote sales. I certainly commend this proposal for consideration and would urge that it be followed by action very soon.
Furthermore, it is to be regretted that the Speech from the Throne suggested no approach to the broader and long run problems facing people engaged in agriculture. It was my concern in this regard which prompted me to inquire a few days ago about the report of the special task force on agricultural policy. Certainly, it is to be hoped that the task force will set out adequate guide lines and that the government will act on its recommendations promptly. True, the Prime Minister made some reference to agriculture in his address which at least recognized the seriousness of problems facing prairie agriculture. However, if the only proposal the Prime Minister can make to deal with longer range problems is the national grains council, with all the questions this raises, then I am afraid we are not making much progress.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
My colleague, the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), has already outlined the situation facing farmers in western Canada much better than I can, and I join with him in his plea for sound agricultural policies. In my view, several factors demand the urgent attention of the federal government.
First, there is the difficult marketing situation, especially with respect to export markets. These problems demand government
September 23. 1968

The Address-Mr. Burton action to ensure stability, especially price stability. For wheat, in particular, adequate government price guarantees are required. Only in this way can those agencies responsible have adequate power to deal with those factors in the world market situation beyond Canada's immediate control.
Second, there is the lack of bargaining power possessed by agriculture. In an economy where power in most sectors is controlled on a block or corporate basis, the farmer is in a hopeless position when he has to continue operation as a small entrepreneur in the classical market situation. The cost-price squeeze is a reality for the farmer.
Third, there is the technological revolution. New technology and developments have profoundly affected agriculture. Science has literally made possible two or more blades of grass where only one grew before. At the same time, new machinery and techniques now enable one man to do what it once took many to do. These changes have already drastically altered the organization of agriculture and have resulted in an upheaval for many people. Still more changes appear to be in the offing. At the same time, the demands for skills required in agriculture are increasing, making adequate education as much of a must for the farmer of the future as for anybody else.
Fourth, there is lagging productivity. The economic council underlined the fact that Canada is not keeping pace in agricultural productivity compared with other countries, largely due to deficiencies in research programs. In addition, I must note that the absence of programs and the misdirection of programs have prevented farmers from obtaining the tools necessary to increase productivity.
The government's reference in the Speech from the Throne to clearing up the backlog of legislation is welcome. Many of these items have long been awaited. No one will quarrel with the particular value of many of the items. But the fact that reference had to be made to these items is surely a severe slap to the previous Liberal government. While the importance of much of this legislation is not questioned, the logic in giving it top billing is curious in view of the references to new priorities. It is like saying that we'U sweep the house before starting the renovations.
Much has been said in this debate about disappointment in the Speech from the Throne, disappointment in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) elaboration, and indeed in

recent days disappointment about the lack of vitality in this debate. It is disappointing that to date only three ministers, other than the Prime Minister, have participated in this debate.
All of this is a direct consequence of a basic mistake by the government. The government, as it has stated, raised the expectations of Canadian people. But then, as was evident in the Speech from the Throne and in statements by the Prime Minister in recent weeks, the government lost its cool. It realized that it did not have the plans and programs necessary to make these expectations a reality. Thus, it had to undertake a crash effort to produce acceptable programs. But somehow it had to fill the gap. What better solution than to occupy parliament with unfinished business? This may be smart tactics but it is not good government.
I say this for two reasons. The first is that the type of programs required today need time for implementation. If they are not given first priority now, they will not be developed in time to do the job. The people of Canada will judge the government harshly on this score.
The second reason is that by choosing this course of action the government has irretrievably lost much of the momentum generated in Canadian affairs by the raising of expectations. This has happened because when the moment of truth came the government chose the old, traditional style of politics rather than the new politics of action and dynamic leadership.
We are living in a dynamic society and age. The pace of change and the demand for change accelerate. New knowledge, and new awareness that is universal in its impact, act as a catalyst. People want changes now. They are not prepared to tolerate unsatisfactory situations as was once the case. They know, as a result of new knowledge and awareness, that they do not have to put up with unsatisfactory conditions. The growth in communications is bringing the world closer together. Injustice near at hand is not tolerated in the same way as injustice far away. All the world is now near at hand.
New technology and new knowledge can quickly make a shambles of existing institutions and of the existing economic and social order. People have now experienced the benefits of technology. At the same time, the unrest and disquiet in the world are obvious. People are questioning values. Many, especially the young, see through the shallowness
September 23, 1968

and hypocrisy of what they see about them. They are searching for values that will give some meaning to the material side of life. They are looking for quality in life.
Governments, churches, all institutions, must take full cognizance of what is happening. This means not only recognizing the existence of these forces but also acting positively to deal with them. I am certain that the government and its advisers are fully aware of the forces present in society today, but it is clear that this recognition has not been translated into programs and action.
As I stated previously, injustice will no longer be tolerated. Inequalities in society represent a large segment of what might be termed injustice. Inequality in Canada will not be eliminated just by tinkering with the existing order. Surely, the economic council finding that regional disparity has not lessened over decades in spite of significant public efforts demonstrates this fact.
The elimination of inequality in Canada will require a major overhaul of the Canadian economy. The task involved is compounded by the impact of technological change. The degree of economic control now in the hands of the corporate sector, both domestic and foreign, contains the germ of much of our present inequality. The task is unfinished until the economic power held in this private sector is wrested away and restructured to enable people not only to enjoy the good life but also to participate fully in deciding on the good life. The accomplishment of this task involves a host of actions including overhaul of the tax system, action to ensure economic independence, reorganization of many aspects of the economy, adequate housing and a well thought out regional development program. It is because the government's approach is tinkering and timid rather than profound and courageous that I cannot support the motion before the house.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the many new members of the House of Commons in this first session of the twenty eighth parliament I am very pleased to have the opportunity of taking part in this debate.
I, too, would like to congratulate you on your election to the office of Speaker of the House of Commons. I am sure that the many favourable comments that were made at the time of your election on September 12 were well deserved, and I look forward to working under your direction for what I hope will be
The Address-Mr. Douglas a long time to come. I promise that you will have my complete co-operation in complying with the rules of the house. I also wish to extend the same sentiments to the Deputy Speaker.
Permit me also to compliment the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) and the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand), on their excellent presentations in moving and seconding the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
My constituency of Assiniboia is the centre one of the three southern ridings in Saskatchewan. It is 200 miles long and up to 90 miles wide, being one of the largest constituencies in the settled parts of Canada. It is mainly an agricultural area, producing some of the highest quality wheat in the west. We also produce other grains, oil seeds, cattle, hogs, and many other farm products, but on the whole our average rainfall is such that wheat is our best crop.
In the Assiniboia constituency we have some very important oil fields, some sodium sulphate mines, and some small but thriving manufacturing plants. We have a population of about 70,000 people of divers backgrounds, including several communities that are predominantly French speaking. I am indeed grateful for the honour of representing such fine people and such a great area here in the House of Commons. I am also proud to share with the hon. member for Saskatoon-Hum-boldt (Mr. Lang) the honour of representing the province of Saskatchewan on the government side of the house.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I believe that this is the first time since 1930 that the Assiniboia constituency, which now includes the former Weyburn constituency, has sent a representative to sit on the Speaker's right. This is a tremendous responsibility, especially in view of the fact that I am one of the few members of this house who is a practicing, active farmer, and one of the even smaller number of such on this side. I serve notice here and now that I intend to bring the problems and needs of my constituents and my part of Canada to the attention of this house, and to the attention of the government, at every opportunity.
I was born and have lived practically all my life in the Assiniboia constituency. I have been farming on my own for 38 years and I think I know the viewpoint of the residents of my area. I have seen bad times and good times. The worst times were back in the dirty
September 23, 1968

The Address-Mr. Douglas thirties, and the best times were probably during the four years from 1963-64 to 1966-67. In those four years the value of wheat exports averaged well over $1 billion a year. We farmers were shocked at the drastic reduction in markets and sales in the 1967-68 crop year when the value of our wheat exports dropped less than $700 million, and the same experts who predicted an almost unlimited demand for wheat a few years ago are now far from optimistic about the market outlook.
The farmers of this country, and especially the wheat producers, are worried about the future and with good reason. For several years we were told by agricultural authorities, both Canadian and international, that there would be such a big demand for wheat that it was doubtful if we could produce enough to meet requirements. On the strength of this forecast many farmers borrowed money to expand their operations and produce more efficiently. We bought larger machinery and made heavy investments in fertilizer, expensive farm chemicals, and the equipment to apply them.
As a result our yields and our total production have risen tremendously. Let me illustrate by saying that 1967 was a very dry year. It was even dryer in Saskatchewan than it was in 1937. The average wheat yield in 1937 was between two and three bushels per acre in Saskatchewan, whereas in 1967 it was well over 15 bushels per acre. This dramatic increase was mostly due to improved efficiency and better farming methods, which included many expensive items such as fertilizer and weed chemicals. Better machinery has been an important factor in rising yields and production, but machinery costs are high and represent a heavy annual charge against our cash income.
The point is that western farmers, or a large majority of them, have geared their operations and their financial commitments to an expanding market for farm products. We are told that the recent downturn in effective demand for wheat and other grains is of a temporary nature, but many of us are not so sure that we can depend on this. It is somewhat reassuring, however, to hear that the wheat board is redoubling its efforts to sell wheat, and apparently with some results. In the first five weeks of this crop year our wheat exports were 32.6 million bushels, which is up substantially from the 27.5 million bushels exported in the same five weeks one year ago.


It is in the interest of all Canada, and all Canadians, that the agricultural industry be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition. It is one of the most important segments of the national economy and has usually made an enormous contribution to our export trade and toward keeping a balance between exports and imports. A depression in agriculture would be magnified many times throughout the economy, and would set off a serious recession, the effects of which would be felt in every part of the country.
I should like now to outline some of the steps I think are required to restore the confidence of our farmers and to avert the dire effects of a lagging farm economy. First and foremost, an expansion of our markets is required. The wheat board and the government must be very aggressive in searching out, developing, and maintaining reliable outlets for our products. The United States has shown us the value of aggressive salesmanship in the past year or two. It is imperative that we do the best possible job of advertising and selling our produce. Unusually high world wheat production during the past two years has made it necessary to adopt new sales methods and I feel confident this can and will be done. Grain prices have gone down somewhat in the past year. The best hope we have for improved prices is to increase the effective demand. In recent years we have learned that when the demand for our grain equals or exceeds our supply, the prices will improve. So, developing markets will have the twofold benefit of allowing us to sell more bushels, and at better prices.
I note references in the Speech from the Throne to a federal co-operatives act and to an export development act. I trust that both of these measures will contribute to more effective marketing of wheat and other farm products. I was also happy to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say that the government and the wheat board are determined to sell at least 1.3 billion bushels of wheat in the next three years. Farmers will not be satisfied with anything less. Of interest too were the Prime Minister's remarks about a high level of wheat and flour content in our international development program. I am sure that Canadians are fully in favour of a maximum effort to ship our surplus food to the unfortunate peoples of the world, who need it, but do not have the funds to buy it. It seems to me that this is one of the better ways in which Canada can serve the interests of peace and world brotherhood.
September 23, 1968

Another urgent need in agriculture is more and better research. We need more research in many fields in respect of such things as higher yielding crop varieties, better livestock, better handling, storage and marketing methods, and greater knowledge of consumer requirements. There are tremendous possibilities in all these areas and it is urgent that they be fully explored.
Credit facilities for agriculture need attention. I welcome the references in the Speech from the Throne to a new Farm Improvement Loans Act as well as amendments to the Farm Credit Act and the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act. The previous Farm Improvement Loans Act expired last June, but few loans were made under that act in the latter months it was in force. As most hon. members will know, the interest rate was fixed at 5 per cent, and the rising interest rates of the last year or so made that rate so unattractive to the lending institutions that they had practically stopped making loans under the act. In spite of the fact that interest rates have dropped, the 5 per cent rate is still not a realistic one.
I agree with the proposition that the cabinet should be given the power to set a rate which may be varied from time to time as changing interest rates may dictate. I suggest that the rate set can and should be considerably less than bank loan rates, because of the additional protection the lenders will get as a result of the government guarantee. I was pleased to see that the new act will allow credit unions and many other institutions to be authorized lenders under the act, in addition to the banks. Many communities in Saskatchewan are served by credit unions only. The town of Assiniboia has one of the largest rural credit unions in the world.
With regard to the Farm Credit Act, I am glad to hear that it is planned to increase the capital of the Farm Credit Corporation and to broaden its use. I am somewhat disturbed, however, by the announced intention of applying what can be termed a "floating interest rate" to these loans. This is quite a different situation from the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
I believe that the Farm Credit Corporation was set up to provide an opportunity for farmers to attain economic units, and it is restricted to those who actually need the help and can qualify. Once a farmer has reached a certain size of operation he can no longer qualify for a loan. Those who do qualify at present do not necessarily get the full loan
The Address-Mr. Douglas required at 5 per cent. In many cases the first $20,000 required and approved is at 5 per cent, and the balance will be at very close to commercial rates. I hope the interest rates under this act will remain undisturbed to encourage the creation of economic farm units, and to encourage young men to stay in farming by making it a little less difficult for them to get started. The act has been very successful in doing this in the past, and I would not want to see anything done to reduce its effectiveness.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I will include the subject of cash advances in the category of farm credit. In the light of the lower delivery opportunities in the last year, farmers are more short of cash than usual at this time of year. I am quite sure that more use than ever before will be made this fall of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. The Speech from the Throne indicated that there would be amendments to that act. Farmers will welcome the announcement that the proposed amendments will double the rates and the limits of interest free cash advances on farm stored grain.
I wish to point out, however, that these cash advances will not help those farmers who have no grain to sell. There are areas in the Assiniboia constituency, and in other parts of the prairies, where the crop was poor last year and there has been no carryover from the 1967 crop. Many of these areas have been hit hard by a variety of natural calamities this year including drought, hail, frost and, more recently, excessive rainfall that is playing havoc with the harvest, which in some cases might otherwise not have been too bad. I urge this government and the provincial governments to watch these disaster and potential disaster areas, and to be prepared to render whatever special assistance may be required.
Another step that I think is needed to stabilize the farm industry is an improved system of all risk crop insurance, which would be available to farmers at rates that would make it possible for all to participate. The federal and provincial governments have recognized the benefits of a crop insurance program and I believe it is operating in most provinces. The federal and provincial governments' share the operating costs, and the federal government contributes 25 per cent of the premium. The cost to the farmer is still so high that only a fraction of those eligible for insurance actually participate in the plans.
378	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas
I think it will be necessary for governments to increase their rate of support for crop insurance so that these plans will be universally accepted. If that happens, farmers will be more adequately protected against the many hazards we face every year, and which have been especially prevalent this season. The benefits of such a widespread crop insurance program would be great indeed, and I am convinced that its sustaining and steadying influence on the national economy, would far more than compensate for the cost. There are various proposals for bringing about these changes in the application of crop insurance, but I will not attempt to go into them at this time.
The Speech from the Throne referred to a national grains council. I believe this is a most welcome proposal. At the present time we have many different organizations purporting to speak for the farmers. For example, I am a member of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and also the Saskatchewan Farmers Union. Both these organizations make statements from time to time, and sometimes they disagree. I hope a national grains council will have representation from producers, farm organizations and all interests involved in the production, handling and marketing of our grain. Such a council should be able to arrive at solutions for the very serious problems facing farmers at this time, solutions that would find ready acceptance by the federal government because they would represent the combined thinking of all groups concerned.
I hope the national grains council, or the government, will examine the merits of what has come to be known as the two-price system for wheat. This system would raise the price of wheat used for domestic consumption by perhaps $1 a bushel above the export price which is chronically depressed by world trading conditions. This domestic price increase would be financed, not by government subsidy, but by increasing the price of bread by approximately two cents a loaf. The price of bread has gone up a great deal in the past 20 years, but the value of its wheat content has changed very little. It seems to me it is only fair that farmers should receive an increase in respect of the basic ingredient of bakery products, when all others concerned in the business have received more for their efforts. The price of everything used by farmers in the production of grain has risen by leaps and bounds, and there should be some way to relate the price of wheat used in

DEBATES	September 23, 1968
Canada to the general price levels of other goods and services. I am told that Canada is the only major wheat producing country which does not give its farmers the advantage of a better price for wheat used at home. I urge early action to investigate these proposals. I know there are difficulties involved, but I am sure they are not insurmountable.
I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that I intended to bring the needs of my area to the attention of the house. I hope I have made a start on that project in the past few minutes. I want to say also that I am interested in the problems of every part of Canada, and I have listened with interest to the speeches of others participating in this debate. However, like many other members, I am dubious about the wisdom of using so much valuable time in discussing the Speech from the Throne, when there is urgent legislation waiting to be considered. I believe that Canadian people are watching very critically to see if this new parliament can change its old fashioned ways and become an efficient and dignified institution which can deal effectively and quickly with the nation's business.
The Speech from the Throne forecast reforms in parliamentary procedure. It is quite apparent to most Canadians that very drastic reforms are required. I hope that we will get on with this job as quickly as possible. Undue delay will not be tolerated by our constituents, who must have their confidence in our parliamentary institutions restored. I will do everything in my power to help bring our procedures up-to-date.
There is another subject on which I would like to comment briefly, Mr. Speaker. It is the subject of labour-management disputes. Several disputes in recent months have been of great concern to western Canada. It was reassuring to hear from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) that the strike of the lake-head grain handlers has not, in his opinion, caused any loss of grain sales or markets. Might I add that his efforts and the efforts of his department, which finally resulted in a settlement of that strike, are very much appreciated by most western people, even though we farmers know we will eventually have to pay the shot.
It does seem to me, however, that strikes such as the ones we have endured this summer should not be such a constant threat. Surely, in this day and age some method can be found to settle labour-management disputes before they reach the strike or lock-out stage. Reference was made by the Minister of
September 23, 1968

The Address-Mr. Ritchie
Labour to the desirability of improving communication and co-operation so as to facilitate the peaceful settlement of these matters. In this regard I anticipate concrete action during this session.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my general satisfaction with the Speech from the Throne. I look forward to the early implementation of the many progressive programs it forecasts, not only for agriculture but for all this great Canada of ours.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, as a newcomer to this house I have listened over the past few days to the various views expressed by hon. members on a wide variety of subjects. I find that while I am not entirely in agreement with much that has been said, I can subscribe wholeheartedly to one sentiment that appears to be universally shared, namely, the pride and pleasure of this house in the re-election of Your Honour as Speaker. I would like to add my congratulations to you, to your new deputy and to all those who have been appointed to various tasks in this new parliament as well as to the mover (Mr. Corbin) and the seconder (Mr. Marchand) of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I congratulate the mover and the seconder, but at the same time I feel sorry that they had to work so valiantly in support of such a poor thing as this Speech from the Throne.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
If it truly represents the legislative plans of this government, then I can only describe it as disappointing and disillusioning. It will be particularly so to the people of my riding of Dauphin where agriculture is such a vital factor. As the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir) pointed out in the house the other day, 60 per cent of prairie residents are directly or indirectly dependent upon the grain industry.
The Speech from the Throne, as a reflection of government plans, was woefully deficient in the area of agriculture. At a time when there are great and urgent problems in agriculture, particularly in the wheat sector, this government appears to be blissfully unaware of them: Merely adjusting farm credit upward or tinkering with existing programs falls far short of what is needed at this time.
While our attitude to the whole agricultural industry in Canada needs complete rethinking and a radical and entirely new approach, the truly pressing problem lies in the area of
wheat production. Canada's wheat channels today are choked with a tremendous carryover. Piling up behind this is another bumper crop. By the time the current harvest is completed, this country will be faced with a disposable amount of wheat totaling well in excess of one billion bushels-some estimates place this figure at one and a quarter billion bushels.
What are the prospects of disposing of this huge amount of wheat? From the best available reports, the prospects are dim. Canada is caught between the inexorable pressure of wheat production and the increasing constriction imposed by dwindling foreign sales. When we consider that only about 10 per cent of our wheat production is absorbed by the domestic market, it can easily be seen what even the smallest dwindling of sales abroad can mean.
It is true that the wheat picture has been complicated by the crippling two-months strike of the grain handlers at lakehead ports, by unnaturally wet weather in the west, particularly in Manitoba, and by frost and other factors. These things will increasingly in the months ahead make much more difficult the movement of wheat from the farms to the elevators, to the terminals and to the final shipping ports. But these are temporary difficulties that have been experienced and overcome in the past.
What is much more serious and what is much more difficult to solve is the problem of maintaining the flow of wheat through sales to foreign customers. The whole wheat marketing picture has changed and is changing. The international wheat picture is chaotic. If we cannot adjust to changing circumstances, Canada is going to be left with her wheat with disastrous results, not only to the wheat producing areas but to the Canadian economy as a whole.
Right now Canada's traditional wheat export channel is like a garden hose in which the water has been fully turned on but on which the nozzle has been turned until the jet has been reduced to a fine spray. The restriction in this case is our inability to sell.
What is the situation in the world market place? For almost all of last year the uncontrolled buying and selling of wheat which followed the lapsing of the old international wheat agreement and the regulations imposed by the new international cereals agreement brought wide scale price cutting, cutthroat competition and the necessity of imposing
September 23, 1968

The Address-Mr. Ritchie
emergency measures to maintain a fair price for the Canadian producer.
This chaotic state of the market was supposed to be ended by the implementation of the provisions of the international cereals agreement last July. Canadian wheat producers were led to expect that things would return to normal, with Canada automatically picking up her old markets and customers at the new minimum price of $1.95J per bushel, a figure 21 cents above the old price of two years ago.
What Canadian wheat farmers and the officials of the Canadian wheat board who are responsible for marketing our wheat found out, however, was that there was no easy way back to the old conditions. In the year of freely changing prices and lack of international agreement, conditions have changed greatly. The new world wheat agreement came into effect, but it failed to work either smoothly or effectively. In fact, things have now reached such a pass that many experts are predicting a total collapse.
In the past two years, Canada has grimly attempted to maintain a decent minimum price for wheat in the face of unrestricted dumping and price cutting, even by such ethical exporters as the United States. Since last July when the new world agreement came into effect, she has valiantly attempted to maintain the new world minimum of $1.95J, but apparently with little success. We have the satisfaction of sticking to our international bargain, but we are not selling wheat.
We are in great danger of being isolated. Our customers are changing, our competitors are changing, and only we remain the same. Can we survive by clinging stubbornly to traditional patterns in a world of such swift change? Under the old international wheat agreements, the international market was fairly orderly. The subscribing nations, both the importing and the exporting nations, abided by the terms and conditions laid down. Today, barely three months since the new type of international agreement came into force, there is widespread bickering and increasingly bad blood between countries. France and Australia have been accused of price cutting. The United States has so far abided by the agreement, and so has this country. However, she has sworn to move 750 million bushels of wheat abroad this year, and if her competitors have found a way around the international minimum price, we can be very sure the United States will also.

Now, let us look at our customers, the traditional markets abroad for our wheat. India aims to be self-sufficient and to cease importing wheat within three years. Pakistan is striving toward the same goal. The Japanese market has been largely lost to France, mainly on the basis of a price which we disdained to meet or were too proud to try to meet. In Great Britain, Holland, Belgium, and also Italy to a certain extent, changing tastes have dictated changes in the types and grades of grain that will be purchased. The high quality wheat for which Canada is so justly famous, and which forms a large part of our exports, is in less demand. Then, too, the importing nations are attempting by every possible means, and very successfully in some cases, to improve their own agriculture in order to provide their own needs and conserve foreign exchange.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the ominous picture we must face now and in the foreseeable future. I do not think we can face up to it successfully if we only do those inconsequential things suggested in the speech from the throne. We expend far too little in the way of research money and effort in support of our grain industry. When we consider the vital role the grain industry plays in our national economy, the amount of money expended is trifling. So far as I can determine, and judging from recent discussions among western agricultural representatives, we have done nothing at all in the field of marketing research. In any other industry, particularly an export industry, a very large proportion of the annual budget goes to supporting marketing and market research. In the wheat industry, the individual producer is not in a position economically or technologically to undertake this tremendous task. It must be done by the federal or the provincial governments, together and singly.
I should like to see our new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) bring in a measure to ensure such vital basic support to the industry. I hope he will not procrastinate and put off doing anything on the excuse that he is waiting for a recommendation from the new national grains council yet to be set up. These are remedies that are needed quickly. If he waits for an as yet unestablished body to be set up, to consider the problem, make studies and finally come up with recommendations, he will find that Canada has ceased to be an exporter of wheat and has become an importer instead.
September 23, 1968

I believe that at this critical period in our agricultural development we must be prepared to act swiftly and boldly and we must not allow ourselves to be bound by past practice or traditional methods. I believe we must be prepared to be bold, radical innovators, to scrap the old grain legislation if necessary and start from scratch with new ideas and new techniques to meet new conditions.
Views on a two price system for wheat vary. Much can be said both for and against it. But, since this government has promised it to the wheat producers during the past three general elections, I think it only fair they bring it forward for our consideration. If it did nothing else, such a close scrutiny of wheat producing, shipping and marketing problems would undoubtedly produce a great deal of useful information.
As I see the situation, we need to work on two levels: One is immediate, emergency type legislation to tide our agricultural industry over a difficult period, and the other is to provide a long term solution to the basic difficulties and provide a policy base for future expansion and development.
Before leaving the subject of agriculture entirely, I should like to say a word about the great difficulty which faces the young man who wants to farm but finds today's conditions all but prohibit him from following his chosen calling.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I feel that one of the greatest hurdles to a young farmer in attempting to establish himself is the tremendous difficulty of acquiring and carrying the capital required under modern conditions. The accumulation of adequate farm capital is a very great problem in all parts of Canada. Even if a government or governments jointly provide part or all of the initial investment necessary to establish a modern, mechanized farming operation, the young farmer is handicapped by the heavy annual costs involved and by the uncertainty of returns. He must service his debt, pay income tax, meet the steady rise in the cost of living, and make provision for emergency and necessary annual improvements. In addition, he faces fluctuating prices and uncertain markets. He is at a grave disadvantage in comparison to his counterpart in the urban areas. A young man, in an urban area, must face taxes, the cost of living and other expenses that are perhaps a little higher. But, in most cases, he is drawing his living from a
The Address-Mr. Ritchie plant, the capital cost of which, and the annual cost of servicing that capital cost, is borne by someone else. The result is that at year's end the urban young man will be better off by several thousand dollars compared to his rural counterpart.
I think that much closer study must be given to ways of ensuring that those who wish to farm and are capable of adding to Canada's economic development through competent farming, are able to establish themselves in conditions of fairness and justice. Let us not be hasty in writing off agriculture. In Canada, it remains a large and important part of our national economic life and will do so throughout the foreseeable future. I apologize if I appear to have laboured the point of agriculture's problems. But, together with many other Canadians, I am genuinely alarmed and concerned at the lack of appreciation of agriculture's importance to the whole nation and the dangers of not taking immediate action to assist this basic industry. I would urge my colleagues, whose primary concern is with the problems of urban, industrial areas or with other aspects of Canadian life, to give close consideration to the interdependency of all sectors of the economy and of all regions of the country. I urge them to look at agriculture as a major factor affecting all those problems with which they are chiefly concerned.
I would have liked to deal with many other topics today, such as the proposed legislation on prescription drugs, the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, and many other things. I would have liked also to have said something about the implications inherent in branding any society "just" or any other vote getting catch-word, a practice that in my estimation amounts to the equivalent of false advertising. I believe that such sloganeering is misleading and that it does a disservice to Canadians. The men who coin and use such catchy phrases know as well as anyone else that no society yet known to history has been capable of being perfected suddenly and dramatically. Society, and man himself, are not susceptible of overnight change. Yet such a phrase as the just society subtly implies that in the twinkling of an eye everything is to be made the best in the best of all possible worlds. Many people, too many people, can be convinced against their better judgment by such methods. Faced with national conditions as they are, with the fact of human nature, with limited national resources and circumscribed by time, no government can
382	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Ritchie produce instant miracles, no government can recreate the world. To suggest that it can, even by the subtlest inference, is misleading and unjust.
Honesty dictates that any government study the needs of its people, assess the urgency of each and then ascribe to each a place in the order of priority. Tax dollars are limited. They should be put to use on the basis of greatest good for the greatest number. It is not a question of what we would like to have but of what we can sensibly do. I think the priorities approach is long overdue in facing up to Canada's national problems.
There are many other points, particularly in the field of health and welfare, upon which I would like to have touched. But no doubt there will be ample opportunity for me to speak of them in greater detail at a more appropriate time. In the meantime, I do hope that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), and the cabinet as a whole, will give the most urgent consideration to dealing with the rapidly deteriorating situation in regard to wheat handling and marketing.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Corbin) agreed to.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, at this point it has been traditional to move a resolution asking that the address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the hon. Privy Council. It is the thought this year that that procedure should be changed so that the motion would ask Mr. Speaker to present the address to His Excellency. The address is, after all, not a communication coming from the government or from a privy councillor. It is a communication from the house. It is therefore appropriate that you, as spokesman for the house, should present the motion.
I, therefore, move:
That the said Address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

DEBATES	Sepiember 23, 1968

[Stage Direction]
APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council) moved:
That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council) moved:
That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to.

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the hour is advancing, perhaps at this point the house might be agreeable to calling it ten o'clock.
I should like to suggest for the business of the house tomorrow that, after completion of the routine proceedings, the government order to be called be the second of the two resolutions standing in my name under government notices of motions on the order paper which were transferred today; that is to say, the resolution in respect of the twelve member committee to study the procedures of the house.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the procedure outlined by the President of the Privy Council is quite satisfactory. We are also quite agreeable that ten o'clock be called, in view of the fact that the government on our initiative very wisely co-operated in bringing this debate to an end.
Possibly the government house leader, at this stage, might be prepared to go a little further and clarify the answer he gave the other night concerning what the business of this house would be in relation to government orders after we have dealt with the question to which he referred on Thursday. Is he able to be of any greater assistance now in outlining what business there could be, and will be, after the three measures, which I think are numbers 5, 6 and 7 on the order paper under government orders have been dealt with?
September 23, 1968
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It would depend on whether the house, before Thursday, has dealt with the resolution to which I have referred and also the companion resolution with regard to a committee on delegated legislation. If after the completion of the application for interim supply on Thursday next, or so soon thereafter as it may be passed, the two resolutions standing in my name on the order paper have not been passed, then it would be the intention to call them. First, I would call the resolution to establish the procedure committee and then the resolution to establish the committee on delegated legislation.
The government's intention after that would be to call the three resolutions which are Nos. 6 and 7 standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture, and No. 5 standing in the name of the Minister of Finance, the latter with respect to the Farm Improvement Loans Act.


Gerald William Baldwin: Can you go beyond that?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that at the moment I cannot go beyond that. However, it will be my intention to inaugurate the practice on Thursday next,
Business of the House and on every Thursday thereafter throughout the session, of making an announcement at the time of questions preceding the orders of the day, of the government's intentions with respect to the forthcoming week, and then responding to questions from hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River has asked my question, but I wonder whether the answer could be put a little simpler. Do I understand that we shall be on the procedure committee resolution tomorrow, then on the one about delegated legislation, to be followed by interim supply and then the farm legislation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the house has not dealt with the procedure resolution and the committee on delegated legislation resolution by Thursday next, that debate will be interrupted to take the application for interim supply. Then, the other debate will be taken up again until it is completed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister moving the adjournment of the house?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would so move, Mr. Speaker.
On the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), the house adjourned at 9.24 p.m.

29180-25i

Tuesday, September 24, 1988