1968-09-16

PRIVILEGE


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I beg your indulgence and I assure you that I shall be very brief.
On Tuesday, February 16, 1965, the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson made, in the house, a rather long statement, and I shall quote only one paragraph or two as follows:
In December of 1964, certain evidence was submitted to me regarding allegations involving the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville. These allegations were in connection with certain transactions in which it was alleged he was a participant during the year 1961. They were not related to his membership of this house or of the government. I saw the hon. member and advised him that the evidence submitted required an investigation. To this he agreed.
I spoke to the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville again on Wednesday, January 20, after I had been shown a preliminary report on the investigation into the matters in question. It appeared to me. as a result of having that preliminary report, that it would be best in all circumstances, and without prejudging the conclusion of the matter, for the hon. member to cease to be a member of the government. After discussing the matter with me, Mr. Dupuis submitted his resignation, which was accepted.
On the same day, the member of the Privy Council concerned stated as follows:
Mr. Speaker, if I have agreed to send my resignation to the right hon. Prime Minister, it is somewhat because I could foresee that some newspapers were ready to indulge in falsehoods about me, as I have mentioned earlier. I did not want those rumours and aspersions cast upon me to reflect on the cabinet, of which I was a member.
After a trial, the conclusions of which were not happy, the hon. Yvon Dupuis appealed the decision and the hon. Justice Montgomery ruled as follows:
Under the circumstances, I would maintain the appeal and acquit Appellant.
Hon. Justice Taschereau in turn said:
I agree with my colleagues and for the reasons they give, I would quash the verdict of guilty passed against the Appellant.
29180-4J
On the other hand, Mr. Justice Owen said-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member be so good as to state his question of privilege before the house?


Mr. Mongrain:: I am coming to that, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I had asked for your indulgence.
There is a question of Christian charity and respect for this house and for the Privy Council. Since this matter was officially reported in Hansard on July 16, 1965, I thought it proper, for the reasons which I have just mentioned, that this house should be apprised of the conclusion of this matter and that it should be recorded in Hansard, in order to safeguard the honour of this house and of all the members of the Privy Council as well as that of the family of the hon. Yvon Dupuis.


Mr. Speaker:: I take the liberty of quoting to the hon. member and all the other hon. members, section 113 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary rules and forms, fourth edition. It reads as follows:
A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in parliament. It should be dealt with by a motion giving the house power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy. There are privileges of the house as well as of members individually.
The hon. member did not follow up his question of privilege with a motion, and it does not seem to me that the privileges of the house or those of members individually are affected in the situation which was referred to by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres. Therefore, I have to tell him that his question of privilege, as such, is not in order.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I should like to table, in English and in French, letters which I received from the presidents of the three most important Canadian automotive companies.
Furthermore, in reply to a question of the hon. member for York South, (Mr. Lewis), I should like to table the press release issued by the Department of Industry, following

September 16, 1868
Business of the House
recent talks with the United States with regard to the Canada-U.S. automobile agreement.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INTRODUCTION OF ALL BILLS IN BILINGUAL FORM

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour will recall that on Friday last the house agreed to an order for the purpose of having government bills printed in bilingual form. In order that the practice of printing may be uniform in the case of all bills before the house, I ask leave to have the following order made at this time:
That, until otherwise ordered, private and public bills introduced by members of this house shall be printed in a bilingual form.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to submit this motion to the house at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there are ten government notices of motion on the order paper today, may I be permitted to introduce a resolution to deal with all ten so they might be approved as a group?


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That the house do go into committee of the whole at its next sitting to consider the several proposed resolutions which have been recommended to the house by His Excellency and which stand on today's order paper in the names of the Prime Minister, the Postmaster General, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister

of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Veterans' Affairs respectively.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether there is any change in the position of the government as announced by his predecessor in refusing to share in the cost of special English language instruction for immigrant children in the City of Toronto.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I should like to consider the decision taken by my predecessor. I shall be happy to give an answer at a later date.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister indicate when we might expect a decision on this matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Just as soon as I have had an opportunity to consider the question I shall bring an answer to the house.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask whether his attention has been drawn to charges made in the publication Canadian Petroleum to the effect that the Shaheen Natural Resources Company and Newfoundland Premier Joseph Smallwood have joined forces to avoid federal income tax.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: This particular question has arisen not only with respect to the company mentioned but with respect to several other companies as well, and we are presently examining the situation to determine whether they are taxable under present tax legislation, something which I am informed is not definite at this particular time.


Max Saltsman: As a supplementary question, can the minister inform the house when his investigations will be concluded? Can we have an answer to that question?
September 16, 1968


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, these will be concluded soon. I should point out, however, that none of these companies have had taxable income to this point, to my knowledge.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the order of the day:
Mr. Real Caouetle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure yesterday of being in the small but most beautiful province in Canada, namely Prince Edward Island, and I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
The government has spoken of a causeway, an access road, from the mainland to Prince Edward Island, but the province is hearing nothing more about it. Does the government intend to proceed with the causeway, and could the Prime Minister tell the house whether this project appears on the list of government priorities?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe I should remind the honourable member that this question was asked last week, and I do not believe it is in order at this time.



INQUIRY AS TO CONSIDERATION OF PROCEDURAL REFORMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as government house leader. Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to indicate the earliest possible date at which the house could discuss interim procedural arrangements to cover the first part of this session, including the means to bring forward reforms of a permanent nature?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, it would be our wish and indeed we would be quite agreeable to the suggestion that the provisional interim rules be brought forward for application at an early date and subject to an earlier time limit as suggested by the hon. member. I have been considering the proposals we have made, and also considering the hon. member's reply to my proposal. I hope to have an opportunity to discuss with him and other house leaders a regime for dealing with both the interim and long range rules.
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: Regime?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, do I take it from what the President of the Privy Council has just said that there will be an early resumption of meetings of the house leaders to deal with this matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am looking forward to that possibility, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, whichever may be in a position to answer it. Has the government investigated the possible serious consequences to the Canadian petroleum industry which will result from the operation of the projected refining complex of the Newfoundland government and the Shaheen company at Come-By-Chance?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has just given an indirect answer to this question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the answer given by the Minister of Finance had to do entirely with the loss of income tax. My question is in regard to the very serious disruption to the Canadian petroleum industry which this could cause.


Jean-Luc Pepin: He will look at both sides of the question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a further supplementary question, if it has been the subject of investigation, what action does the government propose to prevent these serious consequences? Is there no answer?


Edgar John Benson: answered.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a

September 16, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry question to the Minister of Finance. Does the government intend to present a budget to parliament this fall. If so, when may we expect its presentation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to present a budget this fall. The present date we are aiming for is somewhere in mid-October, but I would not like to tie myself down to an exact date at this time.


George Harris Hees: As a supplementary question, is the absence of any mention of tax reform in the speech from the throne an indication that the government has abandoned any firm ideas that it might have had?


Edgar John Benson: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The supplementary question is argumentative.


George Harris Hees: No? Mr. Speaker, please-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have indicated to the hon. member that the question as asked is .argumentative and out of order.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has Canada received a proposal to have him and the Minister of National Defence attend an emergency meeting of NATO ministers in the near future? If so, what is the government's decision regarding such a meeting?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions in the NATO council and among foreign ministers of the NATO countries regarding a series of meetings to be held this fall. Definite decisions have not yet been made as to the time and the place of such meetings.


John Angus MacLean: In view of earlier reports that in the light of the U.S.S.R. invasion of Czechoslovakia NATO countries had given undertakings to the alliance to not reduce their military strength in Europe, I should like to ask the minister wnether any such undertaking has been requested of Canada or given by Canada and, if so, for what length of time.
[Mr, Hees.)


Mitchell William Sharp: After the NATO council met a public statement was made. I do not have it with me today, but I could obtain it and it could be tabled if the house were interested. Canada subscribed to this statement. It did not involve any country giving an undertaking about the maintenance of its present forces.


John Angus MacLean: Perhaps I might be allowed a further supplementary. I should like to address this to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statements about a reassessment of Canada's role in NATO, will the Prime Minister undertake to make a full statement to the house on Canada's position in this regard before the series of meetings to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred take place?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Sir, it would be normal that I only make this statement after the assessment is concluded. We are proceeding with as great haste as is possible but, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs just indicated, our general position in NATO does not compromise any reassessment we might like to make.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: In the
absence of the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for urban renewal, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell us, following the statement made last Friday by the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs, the hon. Robert Lussier, to the effect that he would fight with all his energies the interference of the federal government in the field of housing, if he intends to change anything to the federal housing policy outlined in the Speech from the Throne?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, if the said minister is thereby indicating that he wants to respect the constitution, we are in complete agreement, and we hope that his government will respect it in every field.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
September 16, 1968	COMMONS
Does he not think that it might be in order to offer a house to the Quebec minister through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Arising out of the questions that were asked on Friday regarding the disastrous situation in Biafra and the rather uncertain replies of the ministers, may I ask whether now, after three days of further contemplation, the minister is in a position to advise the house what action Canada intends to take in order to meet a situation that is pregnant with deep danger to the peace of the world. Has Canada been asked by Sweden for assistance by supplying aircraft and, if so, have the aircraft been supplied?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have reviewed the
answers I gave on Friday and I do not think there is any necessity to add to those answers.
I indicated that Canada has been very active and continues to be active both in trying to bring the conflict to an end and in the provision of relief.
As I said at the time, we had been asked to supply aircraft but this had proven to be hypothetical because there was no place to land. As hon. gentlemen in the house know, even the International Red Cross had to suspend its flights. I can assure hon. gentlemen that as soon as it is possible for supplies to be flown into Biafra we will be there to help.


John George Diefenbaker: The uncertainty still continues. I now ask the minister whether at the earliest possible date the government will provide an opportunity to this house to express opinions concerning what should be done in this regard, to put an end to the feet dragging that has gone on on the part of this government.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there will be ample opportunity during the next few days to discuss this question and many others of equal importance. If necessary I would be happy to participate in the debate.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell us
DEBATES	43
Inquiries of the Ministry whether any Canadian relief supplies have reached Biafra as yet?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much whether any of the supplies that we have put into Lagos have yet reached Biafra, but they certainly have been reaching people who are now under the control of the Nigerian authorities. Our supplies are moving forward into areas where former residents of Biafra are now located.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister can give the house some indication of the nature of these supplies, and perhaps their extent.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, they consist in the main of high protein foods, fish and things of that kind, which are very much needed by the people of this area, who have had to get along on a very starchy diet, if any at all.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. In view of its accent on involvement and participation, does the government intend to seek revision of the elections act so that in future bedridden and physically incapacitated people may vote by mail or exercise their franchise in some other way at election time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As hon. members will have noted, there is no provision for revision of the elections act at this session of parliament. I hope to be in a position to announce to the house some vehicle by means of which hon. members can express to the government their views on changes that might be made in the Canada Elections Act.



IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS RESPECTING ELECTION EXPENSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to direct a further question to the President of the Privy Council. In view of this underlining of the fact that there will not be any legislation to amend the election act, could he inform this house whether there will be any legislation at this session to implement the recommendations of the committee on election expenses?

September 16, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Since the menu for the coming session has been set out very completely in the speech from the throne, it is not my expectation there will be legislation at this session to deal with any aspect of the Canada Elections Act. Of course I would be delighted to have the hon. member's views on that or any other aspect of this subject.


David Lewis: Will the minister inform the house whether there is a task force studying the committee report, or whether the committee's report will be referred to a committee of this house so that action on it may be taken soon? We have had the report for a few years.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This question is, of course, under active review.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Souih Shore):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries, and I preface my question with congratulations on his appointment to this position. Would the minister inform the house now, or as soon as convenient, about the progress made in his talks with the fisheries ministers of the Atlantic provinces concerning the serious situation in the east coast fishing industry, and the course of action planned by the government to assist this important primary industry?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: First I should like to thank the hon. member for his congratulatory remarks. Second, I should like to say that the problems of the east coast fisheries are under review. The purpose of my meeting with the fisheries ministers of the Atlantic region was to do just that, review these problems. As soon as there is a statement to be made on policy it will be made in the house.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of the serious marketing problems in the fishing industry, when can we expect a preliminary report on the in depth market research study which is being financed by the federal and provincial governments and the industry?


John (Jack) Davis: I hope we can have a preliminary report early next year. I understand a full and final report is scheduled for early 1970.
[Mr. Lewis.!



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monieith (Perth):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. As the result of a certain amount of uncertainty or lack of clarity in answers concerning rural mail carriers on Friday, I wonder if the minister would mind making a statement on motions in the near future outlining the exact position of the rural mail carriers and the legal support the government has for the position it has taken.


Hon. Eric Kierans (Postmaster General):: am preparing a letter for all members of the house outlining our position.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Is this going to be mailed to all members or will there be a statement on motions?


An hon. Member:: By rural mail.


Eric William Kierans: I am addressing a letter to all members of the house explaining our position with regard to rural contracts in particular.


Jay Waldo Monteith: When will that be
forthcoming?


Eric William Kierans: I looked at the draft on Friday, and it will be going out soon.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colches-ter North):: Will the Postmaster General also consider providing information in this statement concerning the closing of post offices and the cancellation of rural routes which is being carried out by his department at the present time? Will he give assurance to the house that the service now available to rural people will be maintained?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, we are going through a normal reorganization of the services provided by the post office. It is true that we are closing down some revenue offices, but we are supplying in their place rural services that will be better. The revenue offices that we are currently considering closing are obviously those that are running at a considerable deficit and have no economic justification whatsoever.


Robert Carman Coates: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Postmaster General advise whether he considers as normal the closing of three post offices and two rural routes in a very small area?
September 16, 1968


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister will have to give that opinion privately to the hon. member.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PROPOSED RATE INCREASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General. Having in mind the government's declared intention of combating inflation, I wonder whether the minister could make an early statement as to how this policy is related to his proposal to increase the ordinary postal rates by 50 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for a statement that would normally be made on motions.



REPORTED DELAY IN CONSTRUCTION OF POST OFFICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General.
Will restrictions imposed upon government expenditures affect the proposed construction of post offices in various municipalities, among others, those at Saint-Casimir and at Saint-Alban in the Champlain district. These seem to be put off indefinitely. Could the minister let us know the government policy in this matter?


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



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister please advise the house whether he has planned any pilot projects of a research nature with the object of the elimination of the pollution of our air and water resources?


Hon. J. C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, some such pilot projects are now under consideration by the department, along with a general study of the problem.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that a question has already been asked today of the minister of health and welfare in regard to water and air pollution, would he get together with the minister and decide which of them will answer questions of policy regarding water and air pollution?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I understood that the question was directed to the minister of health and welfare. Many of these subject matters cover several departments, and I take it that ministers will answer within their competence when questions are directed to them.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether the government intends to proceed shortly to bring some order out of chaos on the pollution policy?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, any government policy in this area will be announced in the proper manner. As the hon. member knows, the question of pollution was referred to in the throne speech.



WHEAT-STEFS TO MAINTAIN PRICE UNDER INTERNATIONAL ARRANGEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware of the difficulties arising under the international grains agreement with regard to grading, which is having a softening effect on the price of wheat? If he is aware of this problem, what is the Canadian government prepared to do about it, in order to enforce the terms of the international grains agreement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is also aware that there is a debate among wheat exporters as to what is the cause and who is the culprit, and that some countries are accusing each other of selling at less than the price agreed under the international grains arrangement. These accusations are refuted by each country, one after the other, and I understand that it is extremely difficult to assess these prices and to know

September 16, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry whether one country in particular is selling below the agreed price.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the difficulty which exists, as the minister suggests, is the government prepared to guarantee to western farmers the floor price of a year ago of $1.95J, as they did in the past year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is a question of policy, Mr. Speaker, and it will be announced in due course, if it is found needed to do so.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could he tell the house whether the said Mr. Rossillon, recently charged with being an agitator, is now a naturalized Canadian?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question for the order paper.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister intending to bring in the amendments to the Criminal Code under one bill, as formerly suggested by the Prime Minister, or does he intend to divide up the bill as he suggested?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I might say that there is no difference of opinion whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Who said there was?


John Napier Turner: It is the
present intention of the government to bring in the bill as one bill. I will have more to say about that when the bill is introduced.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Justice be prepared to table the recommendations and discussions with the attorneys general of the provinces in reference to these amendments to the code, which we appreciate have been submitted to his department?


John Napier Turner: At the recent meeting of the uniformity conference at the end of August there were meetings with most of the provincial attorneys general. Some of the attorneys general have indeed, as the hon. member suggested, written to the department. I would think at the appropriate time I might well consider that suggestion when the matter is before the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Just one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister prepared to file those statements in the house at the appropriate time?


John Napier Turner: Before doing so, of course, I would have to communicate with the attorneys general, because their consent would be required.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. What steps does the Minister of Finance propose to take to overcome the extreme shortage of 25-cent pieces now in circulation? This matter causes great handicap and inconvenience to businesses large and small.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, we have changed to nickel coinage and there has been some hoarding of silver coinage in Canada. In order that we might have the Royal Mint devote its time to producing 25-cent pieces we recently agreed to purchase 75 million 10-cent pieces which are to be produced by the United States mint. This means that at the present time the Royal Canadian Mint is devoting its facilities to producing 25-cent pieces in order to meet any shortage existing in the country. I should point out that the shortage exists because some people in the country have been hoarding the silver coins which were in circulation.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This two-bit operation that the minister talks about-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Dryden Hales: -is not overcoming the problem. Would the minister consider placing this order for the manufacture of extra quarters in some other country, maybe the United Kingdom?
September 16, 1968


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, at the time we were looking for additional facilities which could produce coins for Canada we explored the possibility of having them produced in mints other than the United States, and were not successful in so doing. I believe that within a reasonable period of time any shortage of coins will disappear as the mint facilities, including the expanded facilities which we instituted a couple of years ago, are completely involved in producing two-bit pieces, as the hon. member calls them.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Sainl-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in connection with the minting of silver coins which have been replaced by nickel coins.
Is the minister aware that the new coins cannot be used in automatic vending machines and parking meters of our cities and does he intend to compensate the companies which own those machines as well as the municipalities affected by that change?


Mr. Speaker:: This question has already been asked in the house.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture of which I have given him notice. Due to the fact that Ontario turkey producers are being forced to sell their products at below the cost of production because of the influx of United States turkey imports, what action is the government anticipating in the way of emergency tariffs or import quotas to help prevent our Canadian turkey producers from being forced out of business? I understand that the turkey federation has made a submission to the minister in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this question should be answered by way of a statement on motions. This is a suggestion I make to the minister at this time.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, this is of very great importance to turkey producers all across Canada as well as to the feed grain producers, and I believe the minister has an answer which is not too long.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the answer is shorter than the question.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I assure you the answer is very brief, but its brevity is no indication of the importance of the question.
I may say that representations have been received from turkey producers, and I met with officials of the Canadian Turkey Federation with regard to the importation of turkeys and its effect on the Canadian domestic market. I have assured the officials of the federation and other interested producers that the government has this problem under active consideration.
Although this question does not deal specifically with the matter raised by the hon. member, it is about all that can be properly said at this time.



CORN-REQUEST FOR PROVISION OF FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the Canadian commercial corn harvest is only just beginning and the price quoted to growers is so disastrously low as to be considered below the cost of production, can the minister indicate whether immediate steps will be announced either to establish a floor price of $1.50 per bushel as requested by spokesmen on behalf of the industry or to ensure in some other manner a just return to the growers for this major crop?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, last Friday a question of a similar nature was addressed to me, and the answer today is the same. This matter is under active consideration.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DAIRY PRINCESS OF ENGLAND AND WALES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: wonder if I may be permitted at this time to draw Your Honour's attention to the presence in your gallery of a very distinguished visitor. I refer to Miss Joan Harland, who is on an official visit to Canada in her capacity as dairy princess of England and Wales,


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

September 16, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF STRAIGHT BASE LINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask whether he would be able to tell the house his views and intentions with respect to the straight base lines under the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, especially in so far as the west coast is concerned.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, in order to answer this question properly I would have to make a general statement on policy. The policy is certainly under review, and I as a new minister from the west coast am very concerned with the subject the hon. member has raised.


Frank Howard: As a supplementary question may I then ask the minister whether he would take the time to make a statement on motions about this very important matter, particularly with reference to the quotations which were attributed to him in the Toronto Globe and Mail concerning his intention to depart from the present policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PROTEST AGAINST WITHDRAWAL OF SALT SUBSIDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the urgent situation caused by the recent abolition of the salt rebate to Atlantic fishermen, what interim action is planned to avoid a serious and immediate hardship to our fishermen so affected?


John (Jack) Davis: As
the hon. member knows, the salt subsidy to the cod fishery on the east coast has been discontinued. Other programs of a broader nature are under consideration. They are being developed with regard to the income and production of that industry.


Mr. James McGrath (St. John's East):: Could the minister tell the house why he chose to do away with the salt subsidy in the middle of the fishing season?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



LICENCES FOR VESSELS REPLACING THOSE LOST AT SEA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Tom Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Fisheries. The minister recently announced that no more licences would be granted to fishing vessels on the west coast. I have had urgent representations from fishermen who are concerned about the loss of their vessels at sea. What does the minister intend to do about vessels that are lost as a result of accidents beyond the control of the fishermen themselves?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member's question is not hypothetical.



PROHIBITION ON SALE OF CANADIAN TURBOT IN U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister tell the house what action his department contemplates regarding the recent prohibition by the U.S. food and drug administration of the sale of Greenland halibut on the U.S. market and the disastrous consequences it has had on the Canadian east coast fisheries?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned by the Secretary of State for External Affairs last Friday, we made representations on this subject to the United States. I have been informed that the food and drug administration will hold hearings on this subject on October 2 in order to receive representations from all parties. We are in touch with the fishing industry of Newfoundland on this subject, and we are doing our best to bring their case before the U.S. authorities.


James Aloysius McGrath: Could the minister inform us what role his department will play when this appeal is heard in the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the supplementary question is in order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure you of the urgency of this question which I direct to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Could the minister tell the house
September 16, 1968

whether the prohibition on the sale of Greenland halibut is still in effect pending the hearing of the appeal to which he referred in his answer to my previous question?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I answer this question tomorrow because I still have a shadow of a doubt as to the actual situation.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Can he provide any facts additional to the announcement he made in Nova Scotia on May 30, 1968, promising a new Saint John-Digby ferry?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I will have to consult the minister on that matter, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO PROPOSED NATIONAL COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the proposal in the speech from the throne concerning the establishment of a national grains council, will farm organizations and those most directly concerned with the marketing of grain have ample opportunity to appraise and submit their recommendations concerning any new legislation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think the answer to that question is a very simple yes; they will be invited to do so.


John Leroy Skoberg: I have a supplementary question. Could the minister say when this legislation may be introduced?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not sure that legislation is required for this. I believe the Prime Minister issued a press release either on Wednesday or Thursday indicating that a preliminary meeting would be held on October 16, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture are now in the process of issuing invitations to various interested parties to attend that meeting.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



PICTOU, N.S.-REPORTED HEAVY UNEMPLOYMENT AT SHIPYARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Cenfral Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Defence Production. I should like to congratulate him on his appointment and to point out that as Minister of Defence Production he has knowledge of the shipbuilding industry in the Atlantic area and of its importance there. May I ask him whether he received representations from the United Steelworkers of America and other organizations regarding the heavy unemployment at the Ferguson Industries Limited shipyard at Pictou, Nova Scotia, and if so what action the government intends to take in this regard.


Hon. Don Jamieson (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I have received representations which I am examining now. A number of proposals have been advanced, and I hope that in the immediate future we will be able to ensure that these yards are given an opportunity to tender on whatever construction is planned.



INQUIRY AS TO ASSISTANCE TO MUNICIPALITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Labour or some other appropriate minister. In view of the fact that the winter works program is being discontinued, does the government plan any alternative direct financial assistance to the municipalities this winter?


Hon. B. S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister and the minister of manpower answered this question quite adequately last Friday.


Mark Willson Rose: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister or the minister of manpower be more specific as to the nature of these provisions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
September 16, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry National Defence. In view of the recent report by the Institute for Strategic Studies to the effect that Canada has a smaller percentage of men of military age in the armed forces than any other western country, is it the intention of the government to take steps through an intensified recruiting campaign to bring Canada's forces to a point where a more realistic number of young Canadians may acquire the benefit of military training and discipline-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -adding substantially to the capacity of this nation to defend itself.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize, I am sure, that the question as asked is out of order.



BATTLE OF BRITAIN-REQUEST FOR MILITARY OBSERVANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence of which I have given him notice. It concerns a matter that is urgent to many thousands of Canadians. Will the minister consider restoring the military role to ceremonies observing Battle of Britain on Sunday at local cenotaphs, in light of a week end resolution of the Nova Scotia command, Royal Canadian Legion?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I realize the importance of the question but the hon. member is referring to a situation which will not be arising for some months yet. Therefore I think the question should be put on the order paper.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED INTENTION TO REVIEW JOINT PROGRAMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of his reported statement over the week end concerning the desirability of holding a federal-provincial conference to consider cutting down the money spent on certain joint programs, can he indicate what programs he has in mind and also whether this will mean reducing any of the amounts received under these programs by individuals?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, officials of the federal government and the provincial governments have met in the last two weeks to consult with each other as to which of these programs they might wish to consider jointly. Their reports will be made to the governments, and the governments concerned will establish the agenda. However, as the hon. member indicated, the general purpose is to re-examine all open-ended programs which are costing more than the federal and provincial governments can sometimes afford.


Stanley Howard Knowles: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister answer the second part of my question, namely whether this will involve the cutting down of benefits or allowances paid to individuals?


Mr. Trudeau:: Of course this will depend on the subjects which the provinces will agree to put on the agenda. These are programs which are established through joint action, and the federal government wants to discuss each of them before making any announcement.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. He is not here and I am not sure who is his parliamentary secretary. However, I shall address it to the parliamentary secretary.
In view of the urgency of the housing crisis in the area of metropolitan Toronto, and in view of the fact that since 1953 the federal government, together with the provincial government, has been the owner of 1,000 acres of land acquired for housing purposes, will the minister state whether arrangements have been made to service the land and how soon it is anticipated it will be available for actual housing construction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that he place this question on the order paper.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a
September 16. 1968

question to the Minister of Finance. Since the minister indicated a few minutes ago that the government has not lost interest in tax reform, does the government expect in the near future to present its views on the Carter commission report on taxation and permit debate in this house on this most important matter?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, although I would not like to be tied to this, may I say our present intention is to introduce sometime early next year a draft bill dealing with tax reform which, after first reading, will be referred to a committee of the house. However, this is subject to change.



REQUEST FOR MAINTENANCE OF DOMINION BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberl Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the responsible minister whether the government will give consideration to the plea of a charter member of the Dominion Coal Board, William C. Whittaker of Calgary, when he said that the board should be maintained with such modifications as these changing times require.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, may I have an answer from the responsible minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not an urgent question.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I read the representations of that hon. gentleman with considerable interest.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I should like to address my question to the acting minister or his parliamentary secretary. Is he aware of the situation that is developing at the potash mine near Esterhazy, Saskatchewan? International Minerals has proposed trucking potash by rail to a United States border point for shipment via rail-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member kindly state his question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I should like to ask whether the minister is aware of this situation, and in view of the situation what does he propose to do to prevent economic damage to the rail centre of Melville?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would invite the hon. member to place his question on the order paper.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the minister of consumer affairs. In view of the strong statement made this week end to the automobile companies in the United States asking them to hold their prices because of their high profits, is the minister considering making a similar statement in Canada?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the operation of the automobile agreement falls under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I think the question should be directed to him.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the responsibility of the minister of consumer affairs for prices to consumers, I was wondering whether he would care to make a statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Max Saltsman: Then I will direct my question to the appropriate minister and ask him whether he intends to make a statement regarding these prices in Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think we should first know what will be the prices of automobiles in Canada. If there is an increase, then I think we should give it some study before making any pronouncements on the subject.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister admit that it would then be too late to do anything?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Stanfield


Max Saltsman: A further supplementary question. In view of the fact that it is frequently more effective to head off this kind of situation by a strong statement on the part of government, will the minister consider making such statement so as to put the automobile companies on notice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, September 13, 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.
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Mada-waska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), who had the honour of being chosen by his colleagues to move the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
It would be ungracious on my part to begrudge certain excerpts of his speech with which the opposition did not agree, but everybody will agree, I believe, that he showed himself a very pleasant speaker, and I am happy to add his name to the list of members I can understand without the help of simultaneous translation.

I do not know, sir, whether that is a compliment, but it is meant to be.

He is proud, and rightly so, of representing the constituency of Madawaska-Victoria. In view of his first participation in the business of this house, I am inclined to believe that his election is not so catastrophic as I would have had the people believe at the time of my pleasant visit to his constituency during the election campaign. I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that the very great discretion which seems incumbent on government members will not deprive the house of the pleasure of hearing the representative for Madawaska-Victoria.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)

I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand)


who seconded the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I welcome him to the house for his personal qualities and for what he represents. He spoke eloquently on behalf of the native peoples of Canada and his presence here reminds us of some of our obligations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I also thank him for his
courteous reference to his predecessor from the constituency he now represents, the Hon. Davie Fulton.
Again I extend my congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, and offer my best wishes to you. By achieving a permanent Speaker we will have taken a first step toward freeing the Chair from all suggestions that it is influenced by partisan considerations. Without reservation I offer my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker and to the Deputy Chairman of Committees. I express the hope that in future the Deputy Speaker may be chosen from a party other than the party in power.
In recent years it has been the practice of the Deputy Speaker to vote when the house has divided. It might be well, in order to enhance the dignity of that office and to render its incumbent even more impartial than at present, if the Deputy Speaker did not in future take part in divisions of the house. Certainly, sir, the steps which have been taken represent important steps toward parliamentary reform.
There has been much public interest, as there ought to be, and much discussion outside the house about the reform of the rules of parliament. It now appears that we may have to enter into discussions which will determine the interim arrangements under which we shall conduct our business until permanent rule changes are adopted. This party wishes parliament to operate as soon as possible under permanent rules that are agreed on by members on both sides of the house.
In the light of experience of recent years we want to make perfectly sure that this time the adoption of any interim arrangements is not used to delay or frustrate progress toward permanent rules.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Once bitten, twice shy. There is no question of being twice bitten. We are determined to surround the adoption of any interim arrangements with safeguards which are as foolproof as possible. We fully realize
September 16, 1968	COMMONS
that it is necessary to include in any interim rules many of the previous provisional rules; but not all the previous provisional rules ought to be included. Under the present circumstances one or two of the previous provisional rules are now unacceptable to us. For example, we are faced during the present session with two sets of estimates. Under suggestions made by the government to the house on Friday last the house would be required to vote estimates for the government at a rate of up to $1 billion per day. The country will not take kindly to any parliament that acquiesces in such a procedure or to any government that imposes it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We shall be, as we have been, a responsible opposition. We must resist any proposal that would fundamentally impair the discharge of our constitutional responsibility as Her Majesty's loyal opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I congratulate the new ministers and parliamentary secretaries who have been appointed to the new government. Also I commiserate with those who have failed to be appointed. I notice that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has declared his intention to change the incumbents of ministerial offices more frequently than has been the case in the past. After the Prime Minister has explained away or rationalized some of his other promises I am sure this particular promise will remain vividly in the minds of backbenchers on the government side of the house.
Incidentally, of the 16 parliamentary secretaries, seven come from Ontario, seven from Quebec, one from British Columbia and one from the Northwest Territories. I hope that when the Prime Minister makes any changes in future he will be able to appoint someone from New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta, since I am sure there are members from those provinces with sufficient talent to serve in ministerial capacities.
Naturally, I extend my congratulations to all members who have been elected or reelected. More to the point, so far as the Liberal party is concerned, are congratulations to those who for one reason or another have not been re-elected. Mr. Byrne, for example, is with the Immigration Appeal Board. Mr. Ma-caluso has followed his distinguished predecessor to the Canadian Transport Board. Mr. Pickersgill showed the way. Whatever anyone
DEBATES	53
The Address-Mr. Stanfield may have said about Mr. Pickersgill's competence in the field of transportation, everyone must agree that he qualifies as an expert in marine matters since he knew when to get off a sinking ship in Newfoundland.
Mr. Matheson has received a county court appointment; Mr. Teillet is on the pension commission; Mr. Robichaud has been elevated to another place; Mr. Tardif is with the citizenship court and Mr. Stewart is giving on the job training to the President of the Privy Council. The most striking anomaly about the just society so far seems to be the uneven distribution of benefits.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It may be that some of these appointments have come about because of the Prime Minister's determination to have decisions made by politicians and not by officials.


An hon. Member:: Like recognizing Red China.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It seems that the Speech from the Throne is not a reliable guide to legislation that is to come before the house. The other night the Prime Minister seemed to suggest on television that the Canada Development Corporation concept was included at least in part in the Speech from the Throne because questions might be asked if such a concept were not included. In mentioning the Canada Development Corporation in the Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister extended a courtesy to it that he did not extend to the Queen.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If he is going to disavow the Queen, let him do so openly. If he has convictions on this subject, let him express them. Let him explain this breach of precedent and courtesy which cannot but help disturb and offend countless Canadians who care deeply about the Queen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So far as our party is concerned, our goal is, as it has always been, a united and strong Canada. We feel concerned about the future of our country and about the future of confederation and we shall do everything we can to strengthen Canada and confederation. We shall resist, as we have resisted in the past, any measure that will imperil national unity. We shall not make national unity a subservient part of partisan politics.
September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Stanfield
Quite properly the Prime Minister places great importance on constitutional reform. The continuing committee appointed at the federal-provincial conference of February last has not met since the conference. Officials have been meeting, but they have been meeting in private. I do not object to that in general. Yet those officials meet in absolute secrecy; absolute secrecy surrounds their deliberations and the country has no idea if any progress has been made, if any obstacles have been overcome or if any consensus has been reached. We do not even know what these officials are discussing. I think Canadians should be told what is going on. We all agree that national unity is a matter of the utmost priority. The Prime Minister may find that keeping the people completely in the dark for long periods of time is not going to help the cause of national unity and, indeed, may very well harm it.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The Prime Minister stated his views in Vancouver on the subject of certain priorities in connection with the constitution-language, the Supreme Court and the Senate. I must say I found it strange that in listing these priorities he should have made no mention of an amending formula for our constitution enabling us to repatriate it to Canada. Surely this is central to the question of constitutional reform. How would the Prime Minister propose to entrench a charter of individual rights? By going to Westminster for permission to amend the constitution? I am sure Canadians hope that when we are ready with reforms and amendments to our constitution we shall be able to achieve those reforms and those amendments here in Canada. Certainly Canadians want to repatriate the constitution. Certainly we want to work out our problems without interference from outside.
I agree with the Prime Minister in opposing outside interference in our affairs. There have been incidents recently involving alleged agents from foreign countries. Outside interference in our affairs is bitterly resented. When I first heard the Prime Minister mention this I thought he was referring to a new development. For example, I thought the activities of Mr. Rossillon were new in Canada. I was surprised to find they had been going on for years, back to 1964, for example, and I cannot but wonder why the people of Canada were not told about this before-told, for instance, of his activities in 1964. I wonder whether there are other foreign agents

operating in our country about whom we have not been told.
The Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, is a failure in every respect. It could and should have been an inspiring document; it should have been a challenge to Canadians from their new government; it should have articulated a Canadian ideal. What we have is a let-down, a disappointment, especially to younger Canadians who thought only a few months ago they saw an exciting, dynamic and even uplifting new government. The Speech from the Throne contained in this flat, pedestrian document fails as an agenda for the new parliament. It fails even to recognize the problems facing the country. It could have listed on a page or two the backlog of business-taken two or three minutes for that purpose. We all know about that backlog; the whole country knew it. But the speech rambles on, resurrecting old items, distributing them through its pages, trying to join them up and trying to cover the nakedness of the "just society" which appears in it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Let me quote just a few lines:
My government is deeply and irrevocably committed to the objectives of a just society and a prosperous economy in a peaceful world.
And in the same paragraph we find listed, among other matters, suggestions affecting national symbols and the financing of the Post Office Department as concrete proposals for the implementation of the just society.
The speech philosophizes about poverty and then leaps eagerly into what it calls "other and broader elements vital to a just society". All of a sudden the former Bill C-186 has become an integral part of the just society. In the last parliament it was merely a controversial bill which sought to regulate the power struggle between rival unions. It has been said by its opponents that it would fragment national bargaining units and lead to serious disruptions in labour-management relations. Now, however, the government has clothed it in the garments of the just society, and I suppose it will be irresistible.
The poor man is to be emancipated as to his conduct in his bedroom. Perhaps he will be able to buy a ticket in a lottery; perhaps he will be afforded better protection if he runs foul of the law. Fine. I do not downgrade the importance of that kind of amendment to the law. But the same man may be living in wretched housing, perhaps without a job-
September 16, 1968	COMMONS


An hon. Member:: Without even a bedroom.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -perhaps one of a family not receiving the necessities of life, food and clothing, deprived of the opportunity for education or recreation and with no chance of enjoying scores of amenities which people receiving middle or higher incomes take for granted.
Throughout the speech there is evidence of a lack of a sense of proportion, a preoccupation with legalistic matters, an utterly casual approach insensitive toward economic injustice and the blight of poverty in our land.
This Speech from the Throne ought to have contained, besides a reference to the backlog of business, a statement of the government's concrete intentions concerning the urgent problems facing Canadians. For example, a real, not a phony war on poverty; an indication of what the government proposes to do about unemployment, the replacement of the winter works program; the problems of students; the intentions with regard to a prices review board to combat inflation, housing, tax reform, western and other agriculture and many other items, including electoral reform.
In the third place, the Speech from the Throne should have gone on to outline the direction the government intends to take and to indicate the priorities which it proposes to establish over the life of this parliament. We are told:
It is proposed during the current session to elucidate priorities and to set in motion new policies.
What are these new policies, these new priorities, and where are they?
The speech goes on, tediously, laboriously and pedantically, lecturing us on every manner of subject under the sun. There is a repetition of the slogan "the just society". It is already becoming almost a parody of itself. Its currency is being devalued. The speech itself is an elaborate excuse for lack of action on the part of the government. Repetition of the slogan "just society" indicates that the just society is like charity in at least one respect: it covers a multitude of sins.
We have had our suspicions about this government for a few months. Now we find our worst suspicions confirmed. During the election campaign we all read advertisements saying, "Come, work with me." Since the election we have seen the establishment of regional desks and the installation of computers. There has been talk about brain banks
DEBATES	55
The Address-Mr. Stanfield and talent tanks, talk about involving people in exciting adventures. A whole sophisticated apparatus has been installed. But it is still the pork barrel where the action is at.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So far as involving people is concerned, Mr. Speaker, many are called but few have been chosen. Even the most ardent supporters of the government must have been disappointed. The promises which were so high are already dampened, and the hope for a reasonable stride forward toward the just society died last Thursday in the first Speech from the Throne.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
In five months in office this government has developed some very bad habits. It is perhaps too early to call this government reactionary, but it is certainly very casual. It is certainly insensitive. It has certainly become the most private government, the most secretive government in the democratic world. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, they really have in mind establishing not a just society but a secret society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In any case it is not just their obsession with secrecy that should raise our suspicions and our defences over the next few years. After all, they have a pretty good reason to be as secretive as possible. They have had no plans and they did not want anybody to find this out.
It is not only their secrecy that is involved. It is their strong tendency to be passive, to be careless and casual about problems that are serious and sometimes urgent-the tendency to let things simmer, to let nature take its course, to let things and people "stew in their own juice". And they play this waiting game with national problems, apparently indifferent, perhaps ignorant of the hurt and the hardship being inflicted on thousands of Canadians. It is an indifference, a carelessness that has already led to serious trouble. If this attitude is persisted in, Mr. Speaker, it will have this country in a turmoil before the government ends its term of office.
Look at the government's handling of labour-management disputes. Look at its handling of the postal strike. I suppose the government is congratulating itself that a settlement was reached within the guide lines it had established, and I suppose a few of the government's apologists are congratulating them on their success in sitting it out. What success, Mr. Speaker?
56	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
Negotiations were under way last January. The unions made their submission. But the government failed to make any money offer to its employees in the Post Office Department until six weeks after the unions had taken their strike vote. This was an incitement to strike. What kind of irresponsibility is this? What kind of example is this to set for other employees? The Montpetit report two years ago detailed shocking conditions and low morale in the Post Office Department, but the government was callous in its reluctance to press for the implementation of that report's recommendations.
So the government let the strike happen. Eventually a settlement was reached. Who says it could not have been reached without a strike? Who knows? The government never tried. Apparently the government was indifferent to the cost to the country, to the small businessman, to the disruption to the public, to the inconvenience to the public through the loss of an essential public service.
The government adopted the same casual approach to the grain handlers' strike which started in mid-July. In August Mr. Tysoe was appointed as mediator. He gave up finally, saying both sides were too inflexible. Then he went back to try to effect a settlement. In the meantime wheat troubles were deepening daily. After 54 days the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) called the parties together. If ever there was a situation calling for prompt and effective action, with vast amounts of wheat in storage and Canada's percentage of the world wheat market slipping, this was it.
I watched the Prime Minister saying in Winnipeg, "Yes, we have done a poor job selling wheat in the past but we are going to do better." They have made a fine start, Mr. Speaker, allowing the strike to continue for 54 days, with the performance of our wheat contracts being endangered and difficulties mounting in regard to making any new commitments to sell additional wheat. There was a back-up of millions of bushels of wheat in the hands of the farmers. At a time when a large, new wheat crop was expected there was every urgency, every reason to act, but the government let the situation ride. The Prime Minister said, "I am watching it." At about day 50 of the strike the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) said, "I think the employers are more responsible for this than the employees." The Minister of Labour finally did something and achieved a settlement.
Consider what this delay has cost our farmers. We in this party have grave concern

DEBATES	September 16, 1968
about all the farmers in Canada, especially the western wheat growers. Others on this side of the house will have something more to say about this matter but I want now to condemn the government as forcefully as I can for its failure to accept and discharge its responsibility in connection with this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One of the main reasons for labour unrest is the runaway inflation we have had for a number of years under Liberal governments. Since this government took office we have seen its failure, through its casualness, to convince the people of Canada of its determination to deal with this question. In addition we have had mounting unemployment which is creating hardship and further uneasiness among our working people.
When you turn to the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, you get another lecture on productivity. Well, we received a number of lectures from the former minister of finance. I myself have emphasized-we all have-the importance of economic growth. The Economic Council of Canada has emphasized it. But the hard fact is that Canada under this government has been falling far short of its goal of economic growth for the past three years and if this continues, Mr. Speaker, far from having a just society we are going to have a stagnant society. Certainly economic growth is a basic, central challenge to the government, growth to produce the number of jobs required, and if we do not achieve this growth then all bets are off so far as the achievement of a just or any other kind of satisfactory society is concerned.
The Economic Council of Canada has pointed out that we need an annual rate of growth of 5.5 per cent in order to develop the number of jobs required for young and new Canadians entering our work force. Since the spring of 1966 the economic growth rate has been between 2 per cent and 3 per cent, although it is a shade better at the moment. As a result we have increasing unemployment. In 1967 unemployment was at an annual rate of 4.1 per cent. This year the rate is 5.3 per cent, and of course it is much higher in some parts of the country. A total of 419,000 Canadians are out of work.
Surely this is a matter of urgency to government, particularly where older workers are concerned, particularly for younger workers without skills, and also for young students who hoped to make enough money this summer to be able to continue their education and who are now faced this fall with very
September 16, 1968

serious and perhaps permanent damage to their careers. When you couple to this the situation faced by the western farmers and the predicted slowdown in the growth of our exports over the final six months of this year, it all adds to the inadequacy of any sense of urgency in the Speech from the Throne.
We know that a large part of the problem in regard to the rate of growth is related to inflation. The economic council suggested that between 1963 and 1970 we should not permit the price level to rise by more than 10 per cent, but already by 1968 we have had inflation to the extent of 16 per cent. This is eating into our growth rate. It is taking a bigger and bigger chunk out of what the wage earner makes. It is bearing more heavily upon our pensioners, upon those with low fixed incomes. Where do we find the concern of the government expressed in the Speech from the Throne?
We know that the inflation to which Canada has been subjected is largely the result of poor management by the government in Ottawa. The former minister of finance gave us a number of lectures on restraint. In that day the government imposed restraint upon the helpless. It chose to tackle inflation by deliberately injecting a little slack into the economy, bringing about a deliberate slowdown. Now the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) wants it the other way. I understand that a few weeks ago he blurted out at a press conference that his principal objective is high employment and if this involves a bit of inflation then he could stand it. So we have this process of backing and filling. What we have, of course, is excessive inflation and excessive unemployment.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
What action is being taken to encourage restraint? As I said, certainly no restraint has been imposed on unemployment. The provinces on the one hand have been lectured and on the other hand blackmailed. What has happened to the prices and wages review board, or something like that, which the former minister of finance talked about last fall? Finally, in the crisis last winter the former prime minister announced that something was going to be done. Now, as I understand it, the present Prime Minister promises a white paper. I really think he is taking this thing fairly seriously. He has had two dinners to deal with this problem. It only took him one to deal with the situation last spring with regard to the question of regional disparity.
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
Seriously, the time for action on this commitment is long overdue. The offhand statement in the throne speech to the effect that parliament will be asked to consider proposals for a systematic and continuous review of prices and costs indicates that the government thinks this is another problem that can wait. We have had strong urging in the last couple of years from the Economic Council of Canada to implement what it calls a whole series of recommendations to strengthen the information base and public understanding which are essential for good performance and responsible behaviour in price and wage decisions. Among other things the council has called for the establishment of a standing committee on economic affairs of the Senate and House of Commons, the creation of an independent economic research institute, the timely documentation of economic trends and the stimulation of broader public debate about such trends, the substantial improvement of statistical information, especially in the field of prices, costs, productivity and income, and the development of greatly enlarged basic economic research. The council adds, "These promising possibilities suggested by the council remain largely untapped". Certainly this government is very casual in its treatment of the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada.
There was a reference to trade in the Speech from the Throne. What has become of the allusion to a dynamic Pacific policy? The Prime Minister was going to mobilize special efforts to expand trade with the nations of the Pacific area such as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South America, Southeast Asia, China and the eastern U.S.S.R. I hope this does not turn out to be just another election speech.
Anyone who is concerned about productivity and about growth in Canada must be concerned about the ability of our provinces to provide essential public services. If we are going to fight poverty and if we are to achieve a satisfactory rate of development in Canada by Canadians, what about the ability of the provinces to discharge their responsibilities? I am not talking about provincial rights; I am talking about the responsibilities the provinces have. This ability is essential to growth and development, education, urban development and highways, not merely local. In effect failure means national failure.
There is no need for me to go over all the reasons to indicate why the federal government should be interested in these matters. In
September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Stanfield effect costs are escalating faster than revenues. The findings of the tax structure committee confirmed this. Last year almost all the provinces had to increase taxes and despite that had large deficits. I suspect that this government intends to stand pat and let the provinces stew in their own juices. But this is not good enough. I say that the government of Canada must stop using the knee and the elbow on the provinces because it is the taxpayer who is getting hurt. The situation is rapidly becoming intolerable. Today we have bigger and bigger chunks of our income going toward taxes. Yet federal taxes increased last year and provincial and municipal taxes increased last year. The average municipal property tax increase across Canada has gone from 8 per cent to 12 per cent in the last number of years and this year will be as high if not higher.
We must ask ourselves when this will stop. The way to begin to stop is by having discussion and agreement on priorities. The provinces want to talk but the government seems to be reluctant to talk with them. The country today is not getting a co-ordinated approach. This is only possible if there is active cooperation. There is only inaction in respect of the request of the provinces to meet with the Prime Minister to talk about tax reform. He said he would not meet with them on that subject.
In this regard the attitude of the government toward the provinces on the subject of medicare, for example, is not only cold but borders on the irresponsible. I believe that the provinces want a program of medicare but nearly all the provinces are concerned about the financial effect and the effect it would have on their other programs of high priority. Obviously the pressure to join in the federal program is mounting because the taxpayers across Canada are paying their share of the cost of the program in the provinces where the program is in effect. Here again the provinces have joined in asking the federal government for discussion in this regard and have been refused. Surely this makes a mockery of the reference in the Speech from the Throne to priorities.
What a piece of cynicism it is now for the government to embark on a federal-provincial study of joint programs as announced recently by the Prime Minister. It is not only the provinces which have concern about some of these things; it is also the cabinet. The Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans), as reported on January 16 by the Globe and Mail, said;
If we insist in going ahead the kind of weight that we put on the economy is going to result-

not by itself, but in combination with measures we take if we even ever take them to resolve our housing problem and our other problems-is going to put pressure on our economy to the extent that we will be facing a devaluation within a year or two at the outside.
This is what the present Postmaster General said in January. Again, in Halifax he said that the extra taxes medicare would require would hurt Canada's export position. Then in Toronto he said:
I want medicare, and I want it very badly, but I don't want it with a financial crisis.
Then we have the new Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) who said that medicare should be postponed until such time as it can be financed without tax increases and that medicare should not be implemented until two-thirds of the provinces with two thirds of the population are prepared to join. We have no less a figure than the deputy prime minister, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), saying, as quoted in the Ottawa Citizen of January 15, that a second look at medicare is needed. Then the following appeared in the Montreal Gazette for January 12:
Government's medicare policy Is "a little inconsistent". This inconsistency comes from the fact that the government is urging restraint on the one hand, while encouraging wide-scale spending on the other. Mr. Hellyer indicated that if he wins the leadership at the April 4-6 convention, he will launch a complete re-appraisal of the medicare plan.
In the light of these opinions within the government and the clear difficulties of the provinces with regard to mounting taxes I ask why the government of Canada will not meet with the provinces to discuss the financial problems pertaining to this program. Is this sort of political blackmail consonant with the "just society"? We on this side of the house said we would meet with the provinces to discuss this matter with them. This surely is obviously right. Many members of the present cabinet obviously think it is right and said so quite freely when they felt free to say [DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The most striking indication of coldness and casualness in the Speech from the Throne toward the poor people of Canada is that there is apparently plenty of room for the poor in the just society envisaged by this government. In the Speech from the Throne we were given a lecture on the difficulties, complexities and the time it takes to do something about poverty. We all know that. We
September 16, 1968	COMMONS
did not need a lecture on that. What we needed, Mr. Speaker, was a challenge to us and to the people of Canada to attack this problem. What we needed was action. Of course, any serious anti-poverty program is complex and requires time. That is why it is necessary to start now. So far as we can judge from the Speech from the Throne, even a start on the anti-poverty program is some distance away.
I have long felt that the extent of poverty in Canada is a national disgrace. I have said here that I have dedicated this party to fighting it now. We realize it is difficult. We realize it takes time. We made proposals which were somewhat twisted and suggestions of irresponsibility were made. The members of the Economic Council of Canada, Mr. Speaker, are not irresponsible and they have thoroughly supported the position I took. Look at the names of the members of the Economic Council of Canada! You will find there some of the most responsible men in Canada. They find that poverty is a disgrace, that it is widespread. They find that present programs are inadequate and frequently trap people in poverty, involving as they sometimes do a 100 per cent tax on any earnings. The economic council finds a need for bold new approaches, both in terms of adequate coverage and in terms of rehabilitation. They suggest an examination of proposals such as the negative income tax now being considered in the United States, since it may play a possible role in getting people off welfare and back into the mainstream of society. Above all, the Economic Council of Canada emphasizes, as we have, the urgency of meeting the provinces and planning a start.
One might ask about costs. Let us consider the costs as they are today, the money cost of present programs as well as the hidden costs in respect of poverty, suffering and frustration, and the harm being done to our rate of growth and productivity. I say, Mr. Speaker, that constructive measures to fight poverty are demanded by any country wishing to use wisely its human resources. We must finance this program from growth, but we must start our planning now. The Economic Council of Canada challenged the Prime Minister, challenged the government. I challenge the government.
So far as the Speech from the Throne is concerned what we have is not a program but a lecture, a pretence, that the projected department of regional development constitutes a measure against poverty. The government of Canada has done precisely what the
DEBATES	59
The Address-Mr. Stanfield Economic Council begged us not to do, that is, confuse the problem of economic disparity with the problem of poverty which exists right across our country, even in our most prosperous cities.
I say that in the light of the report of the Economic Council of Canada the Speech from the Throne is a failure and shows a lack of understanding. This is the same government which recently abolished the program of winter works. Of course there were abuses in the winter works program. Of course there were reforms that should have been made. But the decision to cancel was wrong. We will see just how wrong it was when we get the statistics on unemployment in the course of this winter. There might not be much suffering in this comfortable green chamber but there will be plenty of it across Canada.
The decision to cancel the winter works program was wrong from the point of view of time, wrong from the point of view of the provincial-municipal partners since there was no serious consultation or examination of the effects. The decision was wrong because of the phony case the Prime Minister made to support his decision. The manpower programs are not applicable to many who would have benefited this winter from the winter works program. As the Toronto Star indicated, the critical question is whether the federal government has a better program to replace it. If it has not, there will be unnecessary suffering in Canada this winter and there will, of course, be an additional burden on our municipalities.
I mentioned regional disparity, and presumably I will have further opportunities to discuss this subject when the bill comes forward establishing the new department. I just want to say this to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. A few months ago he created high expectations with regard to curing regional disparity. I want him to know that we are going to hold him to those expectations. What happened to that Marshall plan for the Atlantic provinces? The only action so far of which anybody is aware is consideration of whether or not the Prince Edward Island causeway ought to be deferred. The Speech from the Throne ignored virtually everything the Economic Council of Canada had to say about economic disparity. There was no mention of the problems of transportation, and the findings of the Economic Council of Canada were that the policies of the federal government in the past have probably hindered as much as they have helped in curing economic disparity.
September 16. 1968

The Address-Mr. Stanfield
There is no recognition in the Speech from the Throne of anything like the degree of co-ordination of policy which the Economic Council of Canada recommends. We will hold this government to its commitments. I want to say that so long as the government of Canada continues a stop-start policy, starting the economy up and running into excessive inflation, tightening things up and slowing things down, thus killing any development there may be in those areas suffering from economic disparity, so long as the government does not do better than that with regard to anti-inflationary programs there will be no rapid cure or even substantial improvement in economic disparity.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we come to the problem of housing which is related to poverty but, of course, is a much broader question. There is no need to elaborate on the failure of government policy in recent years in the field of housing. The hardships inflicted on thousands of families as a result of rapidly climbing rents are well known. Even the city of Ottawa has asked the province for the power to control rents. These conditions are directly attributable to economic conditions in the country.
The Economic Council of Canada estimated there was a need for an average of 190,000 new units a year between 1966 and 1970. In order to meet this goal we are going to need over 221,000 homes each year in 1969 and 1970. We can hope for the best but in view of the performance of this government in recent years we really have not too much foundation for hope. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hel-lyer) is going off with his task force. Again, I hope for the best. I am sending a representative to keep me informed and do what he can to help in the development of government policy. They seem to need some help. When the Minister of Transport was asked whether he thought this task force would reveal anything new he said that he had a sneaking suspicion or intuition that it would. I pity the people of a country who must rely on the sneaking suspicions of the Minister of Transport.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
One wonders about this task force, when Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is going to subsidize another, more promising effort, the conference sponsored by the Canadian Welfare Council in Toronto next month, and there will be people representing the official opposition there, too. This task force of the Minister of Transport is a one-shot effort. We have suggested a continuing task force with provincial and municipal

representation, able to take account of different regional needs, different regional problems and different regional opportunities, but this has been brushed aside. The experience with previous regional seminars sponsored by the former minister is not very encouraging; we know that.
Then, of course, we have the question of the phenomenal interest rates that existed a few months ago and have trapped thousands of Canadians into being committed to paying astronomical interest rates for years because of the errors of judgment made by the Liberal government in Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When, in the course of the election campaign, I made a very modest suggestion, trying to afford a little relief to these people who were trapped by the folly of the government, the reply of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was that my suggestion would upset Bay street. If this is the sort of basis which he uses for policy judgments, it is no wonder that his attitude with regard to Czechoslovakia and Nigeria has been so mechanical and insensitive. I am sorry the minister is not in his seat.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And not very sensible.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So far as Czechoslovakia is concerned the attitude of the government seems to be pretty well summed up in the admission of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) last week that it was only a week before-I think on September 6-that he had instructions sent to his immigration people in Europe to render assistance to Czech refugees.


Robert Muir: He is
still trying to figure out Inverness.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It was a long time after Russia had invaded Czechoslovakia that the minister moved. This is a pretty good indication of the detachment of this government with regard to the problems of Czechoslovakian refugees. I say, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians are not at all proud of their government in this regard, and they are not all proud of the government's half-hearted response to the starvation and misery in Nigeria. Far from reassuring Canadians that we are pulling our weight in trying to alleviate this extreme tragedy, with genocide perhaps involved, the response of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to questions asked him in the House of Commons on the Friday last simply
September 16. 1968

confirmed the very widely held view among Canadians that this government has not been exerting itself and is not willing to do so in the face of this great tragedy.
The suggestion by the minister that the Organization for African Unity should be the sponsor of any appeal to the United Nations is completely inadequate, a lame excuse by a lame government. Thousands of members of the commonwealth are dying daily. The O.A.U. nations are not anxious to bring this question to the United Nations. They feel, I suppose, that it would be an admission of the ineffectiveness of their organization.
The O.A.U. opened its sessions on Friday. The Biafran war was the sixth item on its agenda. Four African nations appear anxious to discuss the question. In any case, how can a Canadian minister argue, in effect, that the Biafran question is a strictly African matter when Britain and the U.S.S.R. are so deeply implicated? The statement by the minister that no government is more active in providing pressure for a settlement, or more generous in providing relief, is a typical bureaucratic dodge. Surely Canada's performance is not to be judged by the performance of others but rather by the effectiveness of what we are doing.
I am told that women and children are dying at the rate of some 6,000 a day. They cannot live on comparisons. I say that Canada must lead. Canada must lead where others have failed to lead or are unable to lead. Britain, the U.S.S.R., France and the United States are either implicated or unable to act. We in Canada have a special responsibility. The commonwealth still exists, despite what some people think, and these people are brothers of the commonwealth.
The government of Canada should stop sitting back, trying to avoid its responsibilities, and should get to work. The government of Canada will have the people of Canada fully behind it if, even at this late hour, it bestirs itself to act. The casual attitude of the government has left a bad taste in the mouths of our people and certainly makes us look pretty cold.
There are many items which we will be discussing at another time, matters relating to NATO, NORAD and the whole field of foreign policy. It must be clear by now why we on this side of the house wanted an earlier sitting of parliament. We wanted it in order to get to work and to get the government to work on the backlog of legislation. We wanted to try to stir the government out of its casualness, to wake it up and get it moving.
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
In judging a government one has to be realistic. It would be nonsense for me or anybody else to attack the Prime Minister and his colleagues for not solving in five months all the problems of this country, many of which have been around for a long time. 1 can certainly be this generous: I will not even attempt to emphasize the legacy of failure they left the country under a former and different government in which 16 of them served, 7 since 1963.
However, I want to make the point that the present and future failures of this government cannot be attributed to inexperience. When the election was over, Canadians hoped that the government would achieve the expectations it had aroused and would begin to deal with these problems that have been too long ignored. The throne speech is not merely a disappointment of high expectations. That would be bad enough. The speech signifies a failure of responsibility to deal with problems which cannot be delayed and are not academic.
The excuse has been made that this is the first throne speech of a four-year parliament and therefore the government can be excused for concentrating on old promises and proposing nothing new. That is a very empty excuse. Surely this government is not so isolated from the real problems of the country as to think that the only backlog they have to worry about is on the registers of parliament. If they think there is a backlog of business here, let them look at the backlog of business in the country.
The effect of this throne speech is to commit parliament for at least another session to the priorities of the former administration, priorities which were inadequate even in their own day and which it would be very wrong to continue today. It would be rather as though the late President Kennedy had chosen in his inaugural speech to announce that Harry Truman had left a few things undone and he had a list of them right there. President Kennedy did not do that because his was a government of genuine commitment, a government of the heart as well as the head.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
All around us there is accumulated in the country frustration, dissatisfaction, dissent and protest that has often descended to violence-protests against the failure of society to eradicate poverty, overcome prejudice and discrimination, and to find ways of living at peace rather than in conflict and war. Does this government really think that time is on its side, that it can plod its way mechanically
September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Stanfield and methodically through the agenda of the last parliament, and that Canada will be immune from the forces of dissent and challenge that have erupted everywhere else in the world? There is not a chance. These forces are born out of disillusionment and frustration, and disillusionment and frustration will soon set in in this country unless the government exerts itself to honour the expectations it aroused.
The most serious failure of the Speech from the Throne is the simple failure of commitment. This is not merely a dry document; it is almost inhumane. A stranger reading the throne speech would conclude that we are a country with few problems and not one bit of passion, a country whose most serious business is to listen to lectures about the nature of justice. Men were striving for justice in society long before this government discovered its mission and they will be striving for justice long after this government is gone and forgotten. But the process will not be advanced if we debase the goal of justice by making it an empty promise or an abstract slogan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It will not be advanced by a government which constructs plans and ignores people, nor by a government which, faced with the urgent priorities of poverty and unemployment, lagging growth and serious restraints, chooses to confine itself principally to legal conceptions and the inadequate priorities of the past.
The government warns us in tones of piety that there are no simple solutions. That is not news to anyone on this side of the house. It was not this party which trafficked in the illusion of simple solutions. But if solutions are not simple, they are at least possible. If they cannot be achieved immediately, and often they cannot, they can at least be begun. And there has been no beginning in the Speech from the Throne.
It is bad enough that the first Speech from the Throne tells us nothing of the plans of the government to meet the urgent and immediate problems of the country. What is worse is that we still know nothing of the long term plans of the government. Canadians do not know what the government plans to do with Canada. The ministers had a chance to state their plans for Canada during the election campaign and they chose not to. They had an obligation to do so in the throne speech and again they have refused. On that record

it is fair to conclude that they have no plans, they have no commitments; they are simply not prepared to provide the leadership this country needs and wants.
We are at the beginning of a new parliament and at the beginning of what could still become a new era in Canada. During the celebrations last year this country became alive again and aware of its potential. There was everywhere the sense that Canada could become a nation of excitement and of excellence. We all knew it would not be easy but we also knew that fortune had been good to us. We are a nation unlike any other in the world, rich enough in wealth and opportunity to make the promise of equality come true and rich enough in cultures and in learning to set a high example for the world. There was a sense that we were a nation whose time had come. It was in such a spirit that we entered the election from which this parliament has come. Frequently in that campaign I urged Canadians to elect a government which would be worthy of this country. It is a personal tribute to the Prime Minister that many Canadians believed they had elected such a government. It is a matter of profound regret that default should be so immediate and so grievous. It is for this reason that I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the following amendment to the address:
But we respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have refused to recognize or respond to Canada's current and urgent economic and social problems; and have failed to provide parliament with an agenda of priorities to define and implement the "Just Society''.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by paying tribute to my distinguished predecessor, Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. If he had simply withdrawn to a well earned retirement, I would have wanted to say a few words about the long years of service which he devoted to the international community, to his country and to this house and about the many achievements which history will record under his name. How much more does he deserve our respect and gratitude for continuing his service to mankind on a truly global scale. All of us in this house who have known and worked with Mr. Pearson are aware of his deep interest in what may be the most important issue of our age- the division of the world into rich nations and poor. We can share Mr. Pearson's evident pleasure that as leader of a special task force for the World Bank he has found a way to
September 16, 1968

make an important contribution to our knowledge of this problem and to our search for practical solutions. I am sure that all members of this house would wish to join me in expressing our admiration for this great Canadian of world stature and in wishing him success in his challenging task.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speeches of those who moved and seconded the address in reply. I was very much impressed by those two young candidates when, last spring during the election campaign, I spoke in their respective electoral districts.
Their speeches last Friday expressed clearly and logically their interest in, and I would even say, their devotion to the common weal, generally, and to the rights of minorities, in particular, and confirmed my opinion that they will become outstanding members of this house.
I also wish to welcome all the members who have been elected for the first time and those who have been re-elected.
Looking about me this afternoon, I have the feeling that the members constitute a parliament of extraordinary calibre. It was pointed out to me that the average age of the members is lower than it was in former parliaments, but that does not mean that in certain cases, those who have replaced older members lack experience or maturity. On the contrary, many of the new members have already had extremely successful careers in other fields, and are capable of contributing immediately to the knowledge and judgment on which any good legislation depends.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) claims that the Speech from the Throne rather surprised and disappointed him. He said it was a failure. The contrary would have surprised us.
In my opinion, had the speech been dictated by the Holy Spirit himself to the governor general, the Leader of the Opposition would have deemed necessary to present a motion of non-confidence to the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must say, therefore, that his opinion did not upset me too much. I did not expect him to like the Speech from the Throne, but I did not expect him to be surprised either, nor did I expect him to say of the speech that it was a "failure".
All through last spring he told Canadians that if they elected our government it would
The Address-Mr. Trudeau be disastrous from every point of view. When the new cabinet was appointed, early last summer, he repeated that it was a major disaster. He should therefore not be surprised that the speech fell short of his expectations.
Still, certain aspects of the speech held his attention-we will come back to that later. However, there is one aspect on which I had not, until now, felt the need to speak and which the governor general did not bring up in his Speech from the Throne; namely, that of the monarchy.
I shall merely say that we are not of those who constantly feel the need to protest their loyalty in this regard.
I think that it is the responsibility of the opposition to oppose, but in my opinion there might have been a slight exaggeration when the Speech from the Throne was described as a failure.
I would not be surprised if the acting leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Lewis) should feel compelled to move a subamendment to deplore its deficiencies. But what is important, Mr. Speaker, is what we are going to do in this house-in short what all the members are going to do to contribute to the formulation of a forward looking legislation which will meet the problems, and it is a little on that subject I should like to speak this afternoon.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)

During the life of this parliament we will be called upon to discuss many important issues. But surely the central questions we should be asking ourselves at the beginning of this first session are about the kind of country in which we want to be living and the directions in which we should be moving to build such a country.
Part of the answer to these questions is quite clear from our experience in the election. It is obvious that the Canadian people in all regions feel concerned as never before about the future of the country and the quality of life it will offer to the individual. They are enthusiastic about that future and have great confidence in it; greater confidence, I must say, Mr. Speaker, than the opposition has ever shown or than the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) managed to show in his speech this afternoon.
The people of this country want to live in a land with a rising standard of living, equitably distributed among regions and individuals. They want a social security system which will underwrite the risks and hazards of
64	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Trudeau modern life and provide minimum standards of health and welfare for every citizen. They want a country which is in the forefront of scientific and technical advance and which is adequately equipped with facilities for education and research. They want a society which has not lost sight of man's spiritual values, of his unquenchable thirst for beauty, for the pleasure of the mind and the body, and for companionship and solitude. In short, their expectations are extremely high.
The phenomenon of rising expectations has been observed in all parts of the world as communications and education improve and as the disparities between regions and countries become more evident. In Canada it is intensified by our proximity to the most prosperous nation in the world and by our increasing awareness of the enormous potential of our human and natural resources.
While it is desirable for a country and its government to be spurred on by the high expectations of its citizens, it would be irresponsible for political leaders not to point out the limits of the immediately attainable at any point in time. One obvious limitation to government action is the available supply of resources, not just financial resources but those of intellect, environment and time.
In marshalling its financial resources the government must co-ordinate its policies and actions with the over-all demands of the Canadian economy. It cannot, for example, ignore our pressing need for capital accumulation and investment.
The comparatively large number of young people in Canada creates a high demand for capital in housing, education and training institutions, and in the creation of new employment opportunities. Our national resource industries, which must be developed on a large scale to achieve low production costs, and our transportation and communication facilities, which are so important to the development of the country, require large amounts of capital.
Both our taxation and our borrowing policies must reflect these necessities. It would be self-defeating if the rate or incidence of taxes was to inhibit the growth of the economy or if the amount of government borrowing was to absorb a disproportionate share of avail-ble capital and exert inflationary pressure on interest rates. All these factors impose severe limitations on the size of government revenues.

DEBATES	September 16, 1968
Even if the government were to introduce no new programs, the costs of some existing ones will rise faster than any reasonable estimate of the rates of growth of our economy and of government revenues. Under federal-provincial arrangements which now exist in the field of health services, welfare programs and post-secondary education, for example, developments over which the federal government has little or no control will result in substantial and continuous increases in the demands on the federal treasury. The magnitude of this problem is apparent when we realize that the costs which are shared by the federal and provincial governments in these activities could more than double in the next four years from their current high level of approximately $3.5 billion.
In the case of new programs and expenditures it is not sufficient that they be desirable in themselves. They must be justified in relation to all competitive claims on the limited supply of resources. For example, the undeniable need for public investment in scientific research cannot be considered in isolation from the ever-rising costs of social welfare.
That is why it is an essential and continuous responsibility of government to choose, to plan and to set out priorities. As people demand more services of their governments this task becomes ever more complex. Valid choices can only be based on a thorough knowledge of the alternatives and on an estimate of the comparative costs and benefits of such alternatives. For this reason, we attach particular importance to the establishment of a research institute to assist government in its long term planning, similar to those already operating in other countries. This institute would conduct fundamental research both for the federal government and for those provincial governments who wish to avail themselves of its services. While initially it would be in part publicly financed, it would be an independent and autonomous institution. It would work closely with the proposed international development centre and should provide an important data and information bank which would be readily available to universities throughout the country.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Within the cabinet we have established a committee on priorities and planning whose function is to allocate our present and our estimated future resources according to the urgency of the demands on them. The balance between demands and resources can never be
September 16, 1968

finally established, but in the present circumstances of competing demands and rapidly rising costs we must exercise the utmost restraint in introducing new programs or expanding existing ones. We must terminate any programs which have been replaced by more productive ones, and we must defer any which are not immediately essential.
In the past few weeks we have demonstrated our resolve to implement this policy by our decisions on the winter works program, the freeze on civil service growth, and other cuts in expenditure. We have also issued explicit guide lines to be used in the preparation of the estimates for 1969-70 and we will not hesitate to take whatever other actions may be necessary to restrain the growth in our expendiures.
Another inescapable limitation on the government's ability to satisfy the demands of many citizens results from the federal nature of our state. If federalism is to work, each level of government must restrict itself to those matters allotted to it under the constitution. Thus it sometimes happens that when citizens bring acute social problems or even injustices to the attention of the federal government, we find that the immediate remedy lies in the field of provincial action. In such cases, however strong our feelings on the subject, we have no alternative but to advise them to direct their complaint to their provincial government.
Of course there are complex problems whose many facets do not lie exclusively within one jurisdiction and which can only be resolved by co-operation between federal and provincial governments.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it has been somewhat fashionable for some years now, to consider with a touch of irony that form of co-operative federalism, but if a federative system of government is to operate, it is obvious that this kind of co-operation is not only useful but absolutely indispensable. I want to reassure the Leader of the Opposition who seemed to indicate that I had refused to discuss with the provinces a number of problems relating to the matter of costs and costsharing programs. In fact, I want to remind him what I said again this afternoon in reply to a question put to me just before he rose. For quite some time, and no later than a fortnight ago, meetings had been held between federal and provincial officials preparatory to a federal-provincial conference where all those problems, those cost-sharing programs would be discussed, provided of
The Address-Mr. Trudeau course that the provinces choose to put them on the agenda.
Consequently, let him be reassured, we believe in the co-operation of the provinces and the federal government; we think that many of those questions can be settled only as a result of negotiations which could last for some time. But we are optimistic.
I want to reassure the Leader of the Opposition by telling him that I also wrote to all the provincial premiers during the summer to advise them about the meetings at the official level, in preparation for the federal-provincial conference at the government level. Moreover, I recently invited them by correspondence to find a date-during November or December-in order to continue this federal-provincial conference on constitutional questions to which we attach the highest importance.

Within these limitations, I would like to mention a few of the top priorities for government and parliamentary action over the next few years.
A primary responsibility of the federal government is to represent the Canadian people in international affairs.
Had the world required any evidence that the course of international events cannot be predicted with accuracy, it came forcefully in the latter part of August when several of the Warsaw pact countries invaded another of the Warsaw pact countries, Czechoslovakia. And had Canadians required any evidence that there are very real limitations to effective freedom of action in the international arena, it was provided by this same event.
We in this country are not so immature as to believe that we can, in effect, be the sole masters of our destiny in this changing and challenging world. We know that total freedom of action is not possessed by even the mightiest of world powers; that we live in an interdependent age which creates both its own expectations and its own frustrations. With these facts we are familiar. With these facts we must be prepared to live.
Our objectives must be pursued within the perimeters of our geographical position, of our dependence on foreign trade, of our special relationships with NATO and commonwealth members and those other countries, such as the French speaking states, with whom we have particularly close ties, and
September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Trudeau with those international organizations, particularly the United Nations, of which we are a member.
As we reappraise our place in the world, we need to give careful thought to our relationship with the United States. This government attaches importance to continuing the close and effective consultation we have enjoyed with the United States over the years, and this house is well aware of the numerous institutional arrangements that exist for this purpose. It is essential that this relationship should be pursued with the clear understanding, however, that Canada intends to have a distinctive personality and genuine role in the world separate from that of the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I need not remind the house of the difficult problems that continually arise to bedevil Canada-United States relations. We must approach the solution of these problems with good sense and with a genuine appreciation of where Canada's real interests lie. I am confident that this motivation of our genuine national interest will be understood and, indeed, in the long run, welcomed in Washington. We, for our part, must also seek to understand the great burdens which fall on the United States by virtue of its leading role in the world, even though we may frequently disagree, sometimes quite strongly, with their policies.
One of the primary purposes of our foreign policy must be to ensure the political survival and independence of Canada. Such a policy should reinforce our national unity. Such a policy we propose to pursue. We propose in these respects to continue the consultations already commenced with provincial governments to establish procedures which take account both of the legitimate aspirations and needs of the provinces and the need to ensure that Canada remains strong and united and speaks abroad with one voice. It is intended that greater advantage be taken of the many opportunities inherent in the bilingual character of Canada to develop further our external, political, economic, and cultural relations abroad.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The review of Canadian defence policy commenced earlier this year is progressing, taking into account recent events, and anticipating so far as is humanly possible the course of world events as they may be expected to unfold.

The review of Canadian foreign policy is continuing apace. Among other events, plans are now complete for the departure of a ministerial-level mission to South America in a few weeks' time. This mission will be charged with demonstrating to our western hemisphere neighbours the importance which the government attaches to our relations with them, and with the task of studying how best to promote these relations and Canada's interests in this hemisphere.
It is our deeply held view that despite the contribution which external aid has made, and continues to make, to the betterment of conditions in the developing countries, it cannot by itself provide an answer to the problem of the ever-increasing disparities between the developed and developing parts of the world. For this reason, we feel it necessary, while continuing to expand our aid efforts, to devote ever greater attention and energy to the provision of opportunities for these countries to better their lot through their own trading efforts.
In this spirit we are working with others to secure better trade opportunities and international financial arrangements for the developing countries. For example, we are most active in current negotiations for commodity agreements relating to certain tropical products important to a number of developing countries. As well, arrangements are being improved to encourage Canadians to place their energies and talents at the service of developing countries and to provide incentives to Canadian business and industry to participate in development projects.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to add a few words about the relations between Canada and France.
The Canadian government feels that it is of the utmost importance to maintain and develop the closest ties with France. Those ties are even more important at a time when the government has undertaken to strengthen the rights of the French-speaking Canadians throughout the whole country, at a time when the government has stressed the need to protect the right of the people to get their education and to communicate with the governments in the language of their choice.
We are very happy about the help that France and the other French-speaking countries might want to give Canada to further the French language and culture in our country. But we also want the French government to provide that assistance in such a way that
September 16, 1968

it will improve the situation of the Frenchspeaking Canadians throughout the country and not in a way that might contribute to divide our country. It is because that matter is of fundamental importance and not only a matter of protocol that the government feels that it has the right to be informed, consulted by the French government about activities such as those which made front page news these last few days. The government of Canada has made its position known to the French government.
But before ending my remarks on international matters, I would like to say a few words about the way many Canadians react at times of crisis in international affairs. Whether it is about Viet Nam, Nigeria or Czechoslovakia, Canadians have been less concerned with the political or military consequences of the events than by their impact on the human being. Canadians somewhat identified their interests with those of wretched people in each of those countries. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that such a concern shown by individuals for individuals is a very noble characteristic of Canadian opinion today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This generous concern is certainly the supporting strength for a great many activities in university circles, for instance, and in other spheres, when they protest against the use of force or violence.
Those who want to find excuses are greatly tempted, at the time of a conflict, to hide the sufferings of peoples and individuals behind a surface of patriotism or pride. Reasons of state are often invoked and it is to the credit of all Canadians, especially the young, Mr. Speaker, to have shown that they do not accept automatically reasons of state as an excuse for suffering and death. They think of war in terms of human beings; they think of it in terms of women, children and innocent persons, victims of events. They ask questions which, until now, were primarily a subject of concern for philosophers or poets. Let us recall Pascal who said: "It is a fine kind of justice that has a river for its boundary". One remembers these remarks of a man who told another: "Since your prince is at war with mine, I must kill you".
But nowadays our youth, all our Canadian people are concerned about those problems, are acting as our conscience and for that we are grateful to them. I am deeply encouraged

The Address-Mr. Trudeau in seeing that in Canada such a sense of compassion was shown towards the starving people of Biafra, towards the refugees from Czechoslovakia and the village inhabitants in Viet Nam. That indicates the very deep human qualities of the Canadian people. On the other hand, I acknowledge the feelings of anger, futility, frustration, on the part of many Canadians, on account of our apparent inability to reduce such suffering. I acknowledge those feelings of frustration and anger as I believe we all have a share in them. They were expressed in this house last Friday, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) when, having been asked about our efforts to assist the refugees from Biafra, he indicated the difficulties holding back the efforts of Canadians to assist the parties in the conflict.

It is generally agreed that the most feasible channel of food aid and medical assistance to all the people of Nigeria is provided by the international relief agencies. We have accordingly supplied considerable quantities of food and other relief items to the International Red Cross which is co-ordinating these activities, and have promised additional help, such as the provision of cargo aircraft, wherever and whenever that help can be used. The difficulties which stand in the way of these humanitarian efforts come not only from the federal government of Nigeria, however; they come as well from the authorities in Biafra. The airlift relief supplies organized by the Red Cross and agreed to by the Nigerian government could not proceed because of a refusal of landing rights from Biafra.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I also want to speak about our humanitarian response to the events in Czechoslovakia. Our efforts are concentrated on assisting Czechoslovak refugees to settle in Canada. I think we can be justifiably proud of our record in this respect. Over the week end 280 refugees arrived, 267 of them on government sponsorship.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On Tuesday and Thursday of this week two more flights will arrive, totalling 266 persons. We are continuing to process applications. Our embassy in Vienna is conducting 150 interviews per day. As of Friday last the number of inquiries from Czechs
September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Trudeau totalled 2,374; the number of actual applications for entry to Canada, many of them involving entire families, was 901.
In all these matters, Mr. Speaker, we are limited, but we must never cease trying. We must never accept the view that there is nothing we can do. For these reasons I welcome the evidence of widespread Canadian compassion. I welcome suggestions from any source of ways that we might help our fellow man.
Cynicism and detachment are not part of the Canadian character. They have no place in our foreign policy. I will not accept them as synonyms for realism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Turning to our domestic problems, perhaps the most intractable is the continuing poverty of far too many of our citizens. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) dwelt at some length on this subject. I would like to do so too, Mr. Speaker. I would just add that we did not wait for the report of the economic council to discover this very great tragedy in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This problem, however, is one which goes back into our history and which is made more acute by our geography. Even in a unitary state with unlimited funds and manpower we could not eradicate it in a short period. But if we are to live up to the expectations of the Canadian people we must make the best use of available techniques and devise new and better ones to deal with this cruel and costly blemish on our increasingly wealthy society.
I have often mentioned the responsibility of the more affluent segments of our society toward the less privileged ones. The majority of us have already satisfied our right to a minimum standard of satisfactory living. It is those who have not who need government help.
In order to focus programs on those who need them we must define, with as much clarity as possible, the essential components of a minimum standard for satisfactory living-not a subsistence standard but one which allows for dignity and decency. Defining the components of such a standard is a tremendously complex task. Yet, Mr. Speaker, it is something which must be done if we are to fashion the tools with which to measure, with some precision, social investments. I


The development of more accurate tools of measurement is one of the first tasks which confronts a government determined to improve the effectiveness of its social programs.
Meanwhile, poverty cannot wait. Many of our people need help now. Most Canadians are unaware of the scope and scale of the programs at present available in this field. A recent index lists 159 of them. This is our common legacy from previous parliaments. They range from manpower retraining programs to student loans. In 1966-67 income security payments and health and welfare services cost Canadian taxpayers $5.4 billion. We have recognized that these measures, often devised on an ad hoc basis and never properly co-ordinated, are no longer adequate to deal with our current problems.
As a first step towards better co-ordination-and here again we did not wait for the report of the economic council to discover this-we have consolidated all our regional development programs into a single department. For several months the government has been carrying out an over-all assessment of its social security programs. The conclusions reached will enable the cabinet to consider alternative methods of ensuring that our diverse efforts in this field are concentrated in the areas of greatest need.
While poverty is a condition that exists in all parts of Canada there are particular aspects of the problem of underdevelopment and underemployment that relate to certain regions. While there are local exceptions it is broadly true that those areas of Canada east of a line at about Trois-Rivieres have not shared in economic growth and development to the same extent as areas west of that line. The Atlantic provinces are deeply concerned by this problem and, indeed, at the constitutional conference of last February the premier of Nova Scotia stressed that the reduction of regional disparities must be one of the objectives of a healthy confederation for the future. This government fully shares that view, and it is for that reason that we made a matter of priority the consolidation of all regional development programs into a single department.
Substantial progress has been made since the government took office on the governmental reorganization that is necessary to achieve these and other objectives that I announced on July 5. Since that time 12 special task forces have been at work sorting out all the details of organization, personnel and
September 16, 1968	COMMONS
administration that are involved in these changes of function. Legal provision has been made, in so far as it is possible, under the Public Service Re-arrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, and the new departments are operating in fact although they cannot be fully organized and cannot exist in name until legislation is passed by parliament. That legislation will be ready for parliamentary consideration just as soon as it can be reached in the program of work that I announced on September 12.
No government concerned about either the economic or the human development and future of this country can fail to be closely interested in the northern parts of Canada where so much development is still to be achieved and of which we hope so much. That is why I thought it right that my first major trip in Canada after becoming Prime Minister should be to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. It was not my first trip to the far north but it was by far the most comprehensive. Like all who have travelled there I was overwhelmed by its vastness, impressed by the beauty of many areas, concerned by the human problems of many of its people, and inspired by the prospect of what I feel sure we can achieve.
A great deal has been accomplished in bringing education, vocational training and better housing to the Indians, the Eskimos and others resident in the north, but much remains to be done. The welfare of these people must be a major and active concern of the government, and a vitally important part of that concern must manifest itself in our efforts to stimulate the economic development on which future employment and prosperity will depend.
It was for this reason that the government, under the initiative of the former minister of Indian affairs and northern development, entered into participation with Panarctic Oils Limited for a major oil exploration program in the Queen Elizabeth Islands. This was the first year of that program and already it is ahead of its initial plans. More than 600 miles of seismic work has been done and more than 1,000 miles will be finished by the end of the year. The first drilling, based on the results of the seismic work, is planned for March, 1969.
In the course of my trip it was brought home to me that there is another aspect to the human problem in the north, an aspect other 29180-6
DEBATES	69
The Address-Mr. Trudeau than that relating to economics and development. It is the problem of isolation, the product of enormous distances and sparse population. There are many problems of life in the north that we cannot overcome but this is one we can overcome, not just in the far north but in the remoter portions of the provinces. The sense of isolation can be reduced and the possibility of participation in Canadian life enormously increased by better communications. That is why the government is going ahead actively with the development of satellite communications for this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If Canada were to limit itself to microwave networks and other means of surface communications it would be almost impossible to cover our remote areas. By use of satellites distance can be obliterated. We can bring television to all parts of the country not simply for recreation and entertainment, although these are important in remote areas, but to inform all our people on everything of concern to them in the world and the nation. Since the publication of the white paper on "A Domestic Satellite Communication System for Canada," a publication which came out last April, the government has had a special task force at work on planning a corporation to operate such a system. Study is well advanced on the problems of design and launching the necessary satellites, and legislation to provide the legal basis for action will be ready for introduction in this session of parliament.
Just as the establishment of effective transportation helped to build Canada in the 19th and 20 centuries, the establishment of rapid and effective communications in the future will help to keep it together. The new department of communications will, I hope, help to speed up the growth of effective and up to date communication links everywhere and at the same time provide a measure of regulation and vigilance over developments which can drastically affect the life of every Canadian.
Development in a particular region promotes the general well-being of Canada. For example, in British Columbia we see a continuation of activity which, though regional, has a profound impact on the totality of our country. The expansion of our trade with Japan, which has doubled in five years to approximately $600 million in exports and $300 million in imports, makes Japan our third largest trading partner and emphasizes
September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Trudeau the importance to Canada of our Pacific trade. The growth in this trade and in particular the large new coal contracts with Japan require the development of such enterprises as the Roberts Bank ocean shipping terminal on which the federal government will spend $6 million to develop the waterfront installation while the provincial government will develop supporting facilities. Also associated with this development of Vancouver as the Pacific metropolis of our country is the intensive renovation by the federal government at a cost of $32 million of the Vancouver international airport which will improve our access to the Far East and also enhance our national air transportation networks.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The federal government has also recognized the national importance of the Fraser river and the national consequences of the severe floods which have taken place and could occur on that river. Through a joint program of $40 million, the federal government will provide $18 million with the remainder being provided in British Columbia to carry out a major diking and flood control program on the Fraser.
The long strike of the grain handlers at the lakehead has now been settled, thanks in large part to the efforts of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), and western grain will again be moving in substantial volume through the lakehead to the millers and consumers in Canada and abroad.
However, the western wheat economy still has its problems with which we are very much concerned. The world wheat market is currently characterized by an excess of supplies over effective demand. Canadian wheat production from the current crop cannot be accurately estimated. Weather conditions have recently shown a marked improvement and the crop will probably be in the range of 550 million to 600 million bushels. Both the government and the wheat board are determined to maintain Canada's share of the world wheat market. The objective is to secure 25 per cent or better of the world wheat trade, or 1.3 billion bushels of wheat exports, in the next three years. The government will give the necessary support to the board's selling operations. This will include extension of credit arrangements and continuation of a high level of wheat and flour content in Canada's food aid program.

The Economic Council of Canada has dealt in its last review with the question of productivity in agriculture, including particularly the yield per acre achieved by Canadian wheat growers. We have just announced that preparations are under way for setting up a national grains council in order to mobilize more effectively the energies, knowledge and efforts of all segments of the grain industry to assist in every way in achieving our objectives with respect to the grain trade.
As hon. members are aware, the international grains arrangement entered into force on July 1. The first months of its operation have revealed certain problems in the pricing area. A meeting of major wheat exporters opens tomorrow in Canberra where governments particularly involved will have an opportunity to consider the whole question of wheat pricing. The Canadian delegation is headed by the deputy minister of trade and commerce and includes the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board. In early October there will be a meeting of the prices review committee of the International Wheat Council.
The Canadian government will be making every effort to see that these international arrangements work successfully and that we attain our over-all export targets while being prepared, at the same time, for more fundamental re-examination of the wheat economy. One specific step which the government is taking is to introduce legislation to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. This will make it possible to double the advance payment on farm stored grains.

There is another even more important priority with which the government and parliament will have to deal during the next few years, Mr. Speaker: the extension and the protection of the linguistic rights of all Canadians. Noticeable progress has been made these past months in the extension of linguistic rights in most parts of the country. One of the successes of the constitutional conference last February was the agreement reached by all participants to declare that the rights of French-speaking Canadians in the other provinces should, in all justice, be the same as those of English-speaking Canadians in the province of Quebec. The same federal-provincial conference also approved the appointment of a special committee of representatives of the federal and provincial governments to study the report of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism
September 16, 1968
71'

and to seek together ways of implementing its recommendations.
These decisions are important, Mr. Speaker, but constitutional protection is even more important. Canadians are not only entitled to a just and fair administrative and governmental policy in all parts of the country, but the basic law of the land, the constitution of the country, must guarantee that they and their children will, in this respect, receive a fair and just treatment.
We expressed our disappointment, last February, concerning the attitude of some of the provinces which refused to come to an agreement with regard to a constitutional guarantee of linguistic rights. The federal government, for its part, decided that French and English must have absolute equality in all parliamentary and federal institutions.
For several years, the government has administered an extensive program for the development of bilinguism in the civil service and some 7,000 public servants have attended various language courses which we have made available at public expense.
In addition, as we indicated in the Speech from the Throne, the government has prepared a bill on the official languages based on the recommendations of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. The bill will be introduced at an early date during this session and will put forward the principles governing the use of the official languages as far as the federal government is concerned.
For example, the plan will guarantee that in the different parts of Canada where the minorities using one of the official languages are large enough, the public may obtain in the official language of their choice, some services from all departments, agencies and other federal institutions.
There has also been some progress from the linguistic point of view in several provinces. A year ago, Quebec was the only province where the right to speak in either French or English in the legislature was formally recognized. From now on, the same will apply in the four Atlantic provinces and the two central provinces.
Some substantial progress has also been realized in the field of education. Now, for the first time, in the ten provinces, the use of the official language of the minority as language of instruction in schools is recognized in various degrees. This is important progress towards linguistic equality, Mr. Speaker. But
29180-6J
The Address-Mr. Trudeau it would be tragic if, at the present time, disputes concerning the use of an official language in a province would mean the end of linguistic rights extended to people in other provinces.
The province of Quebec has, for generations, and more than any other province, assured linguistic equality to its Englishspeaking minority. I am sure that the great majority of French-speaking Canadians wish this equal treatment to continue.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)

English speaking Canadians must not allow a single incident to cause them to forget the basic principle that linguistic equality requires all provinces to recognize the right of parents to have their children educated in the official language of their choice. Despite recent developments we are far short of that goal. It will not be sufficient for government leaders or public bodies to declare themselves in favour of bilingualism or even to pass legislation on the subject. Facilities for education and public administration in both languages must be made available in practice. Governments must be prepared to spend the necessary funds and to insist on co-operation at all levels of the civil service. Until there are schools teaching in each language and government services operating in each language in every region where the composition of the population justifies it, our work will not be complete.
I spoke about this requirement for a strong and united Canada before I was chosen leader of my party, and our party continued to speak of it in all parts of the country during the election campaign. The evident enthusiasm of Canadians shows their agreement that a properly functioning bilingual state ranks high among our national objectives. As a government and as Canadians, we must accept nothing less.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that until such practical things are done, we ought not to be surprised that linguistic minorities in Quebec or in other provinces look for support outside of their provincial governments or even the federal government, so that such pious intentions, even the legislation, may be put into practice.
I would be the last one to blame those minorities, especially French-speaking minorities which, for many decades, have had
72	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Trudeau to face declarations of intent and quite often could not count on any agency to which they could appeal effectively. However, at the time when the whole of Canada gives serious, genuine and substantial indications that the country is ready to recognize a bilingual Canada, I urge them once more to keep on developing and making their needs known, and not to retreat, not to get discouraged.

As I stand in my place, Mr. Speaker, I occupy two roles: the one as a member of the present government, the other as a member of parliament. The first of these roles is dependent upon the second. The greater honour, the greater responsibility flows from my membership in this house. It is an honour and a responsibility that we all share. We sit here as representatives of the people of Canada. We do so with pride, pride in this historic institution of parliament, pride in the democratic process which brought us here, and pride in the techniques which have evolved to convert the needs and wishes of society into legislative practice.
But our pride must not blind us to the fact that at this very moment thoughtful questions are being posed in this and many other western countries as to whether our systems of government have outlived their effectiveness, whether new approaches and new institutions are necessary in order to preserve and enhance the human values which our society prizes. We dare not remain immune from these questions or these criticisms.
It would be easy indeed for us in this house to ignore the discontent expressed in some quarters of Canada, particularly from the young, that the institutions of government are not reflective of the demands of 1968. It would be easy to do so, but it would be wrong. There is abroad in Canada and elsewhere a spreading concern that the traditional techniques of governments are incapable of responding adequately and in time to the changing needs of society. This concern we ignore at our peril. We ignore at our peril as well the accumulating evidence that governments in the past have all too often responded to the symptoms of social unrest rather than to the root causes, that they have done so because their distance from the people has filtered out any direct involvement with the daily problems of the individual. We know from our own experience as parliamentarians that from time to time we sense frustration in our seeming inability to contribute to this

DEBATES	September 16, 1968
house fully of the energies and talents which we have brought here with us.
This criticism, this evidence, provides a challenge not just to the government but to parliament. We are given an opportunity in this place, in this session, which may not again present itself. It is the opportunity to prove to Canadians, ourselves included, that a parliamentary form of government is not only capable of meeting the demands of this complex age, but that it is more capable of doing so than is any other form. It is the opportunity to prove to the world that a democratic system is not only representative of the wishes of the majority but that it does in fact protect the minority. It is the opportunity, in short, to illustrate that parliament is both protective and effective, protective of those traditional values which we all cherish and effective in recognizing and dealing with the present needs of our contemporary society.
I firmly believe that this institution of parliament has for centuries proven its superiority over other forms of legislative bodies because it has demonstrated its ability to meet adequately the changing demands made upon it. Neither the parliament of Canada nor the parliament of any other country has every added to its stature by clinging to its past at the expense of its future. When hon. members discuss the need for procedural reform, they do so mindful of the strength which parliament has attained from the wise evolution of its procedures over the years. The problems which now face Canada, and which her elected representatives are dedicated to solve, are not the problems of a Walpole or a Pitt or a Gladstone or a Churchill, nor are they the problems of a Macdonald or a Laurier. Within the areas of responsibility of this twenty eighth parliament of Canada are matters of economic and social consequence of such depth and breadth, and of such complexity and number, as would have staggered the imagination of many of our predecessors.
By common consent the role of government has spread into areas where it had never previously extended. By obvious need, the entire panoply of scientific achievement is now mustered in aid of any legislative solutions. Notwithstanding these increasing demands, the time available to this house each week for the conduct of its business is not significantly greater than it was a century ago, nor have the traditional and proper roles of government and opposition changed. It is the government's function to propose legislative solutions. It is the opposition's task to
September 16, 1968

question these solutions and attempt to improve them or propose alternatives. Neither role can be subordinate to the other.
It goes without saying that any proposal for procedural reform must assist both sides of this house to function more efficiently. Anything less would be self-defeating. Anything less would diminish the very institution which we seek to assist. The discussions which have been proceeding on and off for the past fortnight, or even longer, among the representatives of the several parties /in the house must not be permitted to continue indefinitely.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Nor should they be permitted to lead, either by agreement or in the absence of it, to procedural changes which will upset the delicate and essential balance between government and opposition so necessary to the proper functioning of parliament. Members on this side of the house should not forget the investment of time and energy- the opposition may even think, perhaps too much time and energy-which has been necessarily devoted to the preparation and presentation of legislative proposals. They should not forget this lest they assume that hon. members opposite are somehow able to study and consider those same proposals in a fraction of that time. Good legislation, effective legislation, requires the expenditure of extensive effort on both sides of this house.
It is our responsibility as members to engage here in discussions which are as knowledgeable as possible. Every opportunity to learn more about proposed legislation, and more about the social or economic or other situations which have given rise to that proposed legislation, must be followed by all of us. It is my feeling that the advantage in this respect has too long rested with the government. For that reason a most important concept which has been proposed to members, along with other procedural reforms, is the provision of public funds to permit opposition parties to obtain the services of researchers, advisers and experts to assist them. The government cannot function without expert assistance. For the same reason, neither should the opposition be expected to do so.
Withal, however, we must keep constantly in mind the temper of the people of this country. The public expects this house to be productive, to be efficient, to be wise in its
The Address-Mr. Trudeau deliberations. We must not contribute to any belief that we here are more involved with the sound of our voices than with the good of Canada. I am sure this sense of urgency is fully shared by members of this house.
This concern about the substance of our deliberations, however, may prove of little value should we be unable to break out of the procedural strait-jacket which now embraces us. Conducting business on the basis of the old rules to which we have reverted is not entirely without a certain degree of charm, I must admit. There is, for example, a touch of history revealed in the names of the committees of the house. My favourite is unquestionably the agriculture and colonization committee. But all the colour of its title will not equip that committee to do the work required of it. For one thing, it has 60 members, almost one quarter of the total membership of this house.
Under this system we cannot accomplish a fraction of what this house agrees must be done. The whole structure of committees simply must be reviewed and overhauled as the first step in the process of procedural reform.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There are other contemplated changes that may require intensive study. A possible change, for example, but one which must be examined carefully, is the practice of delegating legislative authority, in terms of ministerial orders and orders made in council, and in the sense of decisions of quasijudicial bodies. Whatever we decide, it should be based on a full knowledge of both the strengths and the weaknesses of our present practices. Accordingly, I have asked the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) to give attention to these particular practices.
We have all had occasion to observe recently the heartening phenomenon in Canada of widespread involvement in political activities by many segments of the community which until now were detached. We have all had the opportunity to note the frightening consequences in other countries, and it is noted in some places of our own, of the alienation of large numbers of people from the mainstream of a country's political life. Like it or not, we in this house bear a heavy responsibility for promoting healthy involvement and for discouraging unhealthy alienation. We discharge that responsibility through our activities here, by projecting throughout this land an image of a parliament aware of its responsibilities,
September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Trudeau alert to its opportunities, cognizant of its traditions, and determined in its role.
These are not easy tasks to perform. Worth-while tasks never are. But should we not reform our procedures, these tasks may prove impossible. In that event, the involvement of Canadians in the political life of this country, through participation in political parties, may decrease, and we the elected politicians will have only ourselves to blame. The benefits of a better functioning parliament will not be enjoyed only by the members of this house; they will extend to all the people of Canada now and in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, during most of this speech I have been talking about problems and solutions, but I would not wish to sit down without referring, however briefly, to the unlimited potential of this country and its people. Whenever our problems begin to look overwhelming or insoluble, we should try to see them in a wider perspective. Compared to most of the other nations of the world, we are fortunate indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Our internal divisions, damaging though they are, must appear minor to the inhabitants of many other regions of the globe. Our treasury of resources, both human and natural, is probably unmatched. We must renew our resolve to prove ourselves worthy of the great bounty which nature and our ancestors have bestowed upon us.
Since this house last sat I have enjoyed the opportunity of travelling in all parts of this country and of meeting great numbers of Canadians of every origin and occupation. I return with increased confidence in the ability of the Canadian people to meet the challenges which lie ahead. As their elected representatives we must demonstrate that we are capable of handling the nation's business in the decisive and orderly manner which is expected of us. We must make this first parliament of our second century the best in Canadian history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF MEMBERS OF CARIBBEAN LEGISLATURES

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before calling on the hon. member for York South may I be

permitted to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a very special delegation from sister commonwealth countries in the Caribbean.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: These special guests include three premiers and one Speaker, or perhaps I should say one Speaker and three premiers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: They are in Canada under the auspices of the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. On behalf of all hon. members I extend the warmest greetings to you, gentlemen, and express the wish that your visit to Canada will be pleasant, interesting and fruitful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Eymard Corbin for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield.
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, of course I am prepared to continue at this time but I wonder whether the other members of the house would prefer, as I myself would, to call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 6 (1) this sitting is suspended until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[DOT] (8:00	p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, because my time is limited-and I do not say that by way of complaint-I do not intend to attempt to range widely over the many subjects which were treated by my predecessors.
It is with very real pleasure that I join the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and
September 16, 1968

the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address. The elegance of their expression and the depth and sincerity of their thought give us assurance that they will make important contributions to the deliberations of this house.

It seemed to me, Mr. Speaker, that in their person as well as in their remarks, they showed the diversity of Canada and drew attention to some of the problems that must be solved to create true unity and a deep sense of justice in our society.
Both are happy about the opportunities offered by our country but each of them was forced to remind us of the great wrongs which make our society much less than just. The Canadian of French origin said that he was worried about the lack of facilities which would enable his compatriots in New Brunswick to learn about their country in their own language. The Canadian of Indian origin, a member of the community which was the first to people Canada, is deeply affected by the degrading conditions in which his own people still live. In short, Mr. Speaker, the two speeches pointed out the problems of bilingualism and social injustice which threaten unity throughout our nation. It seems to me that those questions and many other aspects of our national activity should have been strongly pointed out in the Speech from the Throne, but this was not done. I know that the Speech from the Throne is a traditional formality and it would be useless to try to find therein some grounds for inspiration or even some enlightenment, but during the election campaign, millions of Canadians, young people mostly, had set their hopes in the new Prime Minister. They expected from him a new political style and a new, deeper commitment for the attainment of a richer, more exciting life not only in Canada but throughout the world.

It is therefore, Mr. Speaker, a very great pity that these expectations have not been even partially met. Exactly the opposite is true. Since this government took office we have read of the appointment of numerous defeated and disappointed Liberals to positions in the other place and on boards and commissions, as detailed earlier by the Leader of the Opposition. If I may, I want to remind the Prime Minister, who is just entering the chamber-


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


David Lewis: Apparently, Mr. Speaker, the members of this house still have the expectations for which the people of Canada fell. I want to remind the Prime Minister that for decades this kind of appointment has been the cynical mark of the old politics, riddled with favouritism, nepotism and patronage. That the Prime Minister is following the same line makes a mockery of the alleged "new politics" about which he has boasted.
In the field of economic policy all we have had so far is retrenchment, and emphasis on the irrelevant concept of the balanced budget. This is not merely outdated, especially at a time of sizeable unemployment, but it creates a financial strait-jacket which makes it impossible to deal imaginatively with the problems crushing many sectors of Canadian life.
No one is so naive as not to realize that long term programs require time to develop and to implement. I am therefore prepared to hope that such programs are in contemplation and under study. But if so, I simply cannot understand why the speech from the throne was so silent or so vague about them. During the election campaign, and in one or two places in the speech from the throne, and in the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon, there were and are references to the need for involving the people of Canada in the democratic process, as reflected in parliament and in government. The throne speech gave the Prime Minister and the government the opportunity of speaking to the people of Canada in a way which might fire their imagination and evoke their interest. How else is it possible to involve people in the democratic process, except through full and frank information and the articulation of inspiring national goals and programs pointing toward those goals? But the speech from the throne has nothing of this. It consists of the customary and tired emphasis of the obvious; it is a sonorous collection of little homilies which make Shakespeare's Polonius a model of originality. It lacks intellectual depth and moral concern.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Somewhere, something happened to stop the swinger in his tracks, and to transform the promising modern into the dull traditional. How did this happen? I suggest that it derives directly from an economic and social philosophy which makes it extremely difficult to meet the challenge of the modern age. The intention is no doubt good but it is frustrated by an out-of-date approach.

September 16, 1968
The Address-Mr. Lewis
Somewhere near the beginning of the speech from the throne there is a statement-and it is put in a tired way, if I may say so respectfully to the right hon. gentleman -that financial and intellectual resources are not unlimited. This is the kind of fatherly admonition which is as obvious as it is misleading. Enunciated in 1968, it shows a failure to appreciate the significance of the modern scientific revolution and the potentialities of the age of automation and cybernation. I agree, of course that at every stage of development priorities must govern policy.
But history has rejected the timid, fearful caution that confines policy within the limits of human knowledge available at a particular point of time. The fact is that the limits have been constantly extended by scientific development and by human ingenuity. The capacities to produce goods and services, to develop a rich environment in which the physical, moral, and spiritual joys of life may be available to all, are almost beyond exaggeration in this age of cybernation. The problem before us is not the limit to our capacities and resources, but their efficient use and the just distribution of the fruits of that use.
Our problem also stems from an important difference of opinion as to what constitutes efficient use of our resources. I am not concerned merely with higher productivity and more production, regardless of the kind of product or service that is the result. This kind of efficiency we have known for a long time. It has too often resulted in the production of luxury amenities for a relatively small group, while the large group at the bottom of the income ladder was almost ignored. What is perhaps worse, it has resulted in wasteful expenditures on products and services which are socially unnecessary as compared with the urgent need for houses, schools, hospital beds, parks, universities and recreation centres. We reject this kind of use.
By efficient use of our resources and capacities my colleagues and I mean higher productivity and more production of goods and services which are socially necessary, and which are essential to the building of the just society. This involves careful allocation of resources according to social need. It involves government control of investment, government standards and a degree of government intervention in the economy from which conventional wisdom still recoils. In many instances it will involve public investment on a considerable scale, because private investors will lack '.he courage or imagination or

because they will think they can make a faster buck elsewhere.
These thoughts seem to me self-evident. Yet the throne speech shows no inkling of relevant, modern social analysis. Because the government leans toward the old, traditional economic and social ideas, because it does not seem to be able to adopt policies which can take full advantage of the immense potentialities of the age of nuclear power, automation and the computer, the people of Canada may well be in for another great disappointment.
The likelihood is, and I hope I shall be proven wrong-and I will apologize to the Prime Minister if I am wrong-that we shall wake up four years from now and find the same 20 per cent poor, almost the same regional disparities, a similar crisis in education, in housing and in urban life generally. No doubt there will be a patch here, a repair there, and an improvement elsewhere, because whatever the stripe of the government we always manage to make a little progress. But the major inequalities and most oppressive social neglect will still be largely with us. The just society will still be a political slogan and a seemingly unreachable dream. More, Mr. Speaker, is the pity, because it is so unnecessary.
Somewhere else in the speech from the throne there is another statement of economic philosophy which is equally disturbing. This is the notion that all incomes should be tied to productivity and even that government spending must be so tied. A very little thought shows how false and dangerous this attitude is and how it builds another strait-jacket, hampering the development of useful and imaginative programs.
This typically bureaucratic notion assumes, first, that there is an acceptable measurement of productivity, which is itself very questionable. It assumes also that productivity can be measured in all cases, which is patently absurd. How do you measure the productivity of a teacher, or a nurse, or a researcher, or even a postman?
Second, the throne speech theory assumes that the inequalities in income in our present society must remain, and that the low wage and salary earners must be satisfied to make no more relative progress than the high wage and salary earners. I suggest that anyone who articulates this crass philosophy, and at the same time talks about the just society, suffers either from self-delusion or from heartless cynicism.
September 16. 1968

To tie government spending to productivity-whatever that means-is equally fallacious. It suggests, whether intentionally or not, that in time of low production resulting from a recession or from other causes, government spending should be low, and that at a time of high production government spending should be high. This certainly stands John Maynard Keynes on his head.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Surely it is now accepted conventional wisdom that precisely when the economy is slowing down government expenditures must rise to fill the gap. To speak of balancing the budget when the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment is 50 or 60 per cent, higher than the highest rate of 3 per cent urged by the Economic Council of Canada, presages a policy which will certainly make our society more rather than less unjust as far as the unemployed, the poor, the young and the old are concerned.
Furthermore, and just as important, it means the government accepts the notion that the size of the public sector must remain relatively the same. It must not increase. Yet it is surely clear that increased public spending is essential if manpower training is to be effective, if urban problems are to be solved, if Indians, Eskimos and Metis are to be rehabilitated, if regional disparities are to be eliminated, and if the problem of poverty is to be tackled meaningfully. Indeed, it is surely also clear that public spending on education, on manpower training and on research is the major means for increasing productivity itself.

Mr. Speaker, the fifth report of the Economic Council stresses the necessity of increasing technological research in Canada. It analyses our industrial structure and deplores its lack of rationalization and efficiency. In so doing, the report only dwells on what experts have been saying for years. Since its second report, the council has been urging the necessity to multiply our efforts in the field of education.
There was a time not so long ago when education was sought for itself, when a thirst for knowledge and the study of the universe were very exciting objectives. For many, that still obtains, but the automation age has given to education what might be called a practical dimension. Jobs are increasingly scarce for those who have little education. And the time is gone when one could keep his job for a
The Address-Mr. Lewis lifetime. Most people will now have to learn two or three trades, go through retraining almost every decade. Therefore social investment in education has become an economic requirement.

The industrial society is producing or aggravating other acute problems. Air and water pollution poison the atmosphere in our cities, and not only offend our senses but threaten our health. The pressures of living in the jet age are producing a shocking rate of mental illness, and hundreds of thousands of disturbed children for whom there are no treatment centres and no hope. Crime is on the increase and juvenile delinquency haunts homes in every economic class. As we develop new and more abundant means to meet our material needs, we endanger the quality of our lives. A people that awakens to these dangers must be ready to deal with them collectively. No one can do so on his own.
As Professor Galbraith expressed it, "Nearly all of the investment in individuals is in the public domain. And virtually all of it is outside the market system." Yet our traditions cause us to question public investment in people, whether through cash payments or through the provision of health services, educational opportunities, safe roads, clean waters, fresh air, decent homes, green belts, planned cities, slum clearance, recreational facilities or artistic and cultural activities. All these are essential to a decent, human, civilized quality of life and all of them require public spending on an ever increasing scale. Yet when governments spend money their action becomes immediately suspect, even though without it life would be almost as dismal for the well-to-do as for the poor.
Thus I reject the philosophy which seems to animate this government. The public sector is not expendable; it is essential for growth and justice. It must not stand still; it must and will grow in response to collective needs and goals. In my view, it is irresponsible private power which must be curtailed and controlled to serve the public good.
I do not mean that every public expenditure is right because it is public; not at all. It is necessary to review public expenditures periodically, to change their direction and emphasis. Indeed, we believe there should be a permanent government agency to review expenditures on a continuing basis so that they may be put to the best and most productive use. But in our view it is impossible to think realistically and honestly of building

September 16, 1968
The Address-Mr. Lewis the just society without an ever-increasing role tor public participation, public planning and public control. Because the speech from the throne seems to be timid about this, the pretensions about a just society may turn out to be a mockery.

Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly aware of the fact that it is possible to suppress a good many social injustices which have not been brought about, in part or in whole, by economic factors. We are in favour, as we were during the previous parliament, of the various proposals to amend the Criminal Code, of the introduction of legislation to implement, within the federal jurisdiction, the recommendations of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, and other important legislation of the kind we will wish to support.
We agree in principle with the fact that our parliamentary procedure must be brought up to date. In fact, it is something which we have been advocating for some years now. During the last session, on April 20, 1967, the leader of our party, Mr. Douglas, recorded on page 15141 of Hansard, eight proposals providing for a reorganization of the business of the house. They dealt with most of the main questions under study. Therefore, our party is prepared to support any reasonable proposal which would result in an improvement and modernization of the business of our house.

But I should like to emphasize that in our view changes in the procedures of parliament must not be such as merely to assist the government to increase its power and control over parliament. They must also respect the rights of members of parliament, particularly those in the opposition. A parliament which is completely under the control of a majority governement cannot represent the views of the people as a whole and would be an unfortunate step in the direction of a one-party state. From the words of the Prime Minister this afternoon and from other statements I can recollect, I have reason to hope that the government agrees with this approach. I merely emphasize that while we intend to give active support to changes in the rules which will render parliament more efficient and more up-to-date, we do not intend to support proposals which may reduce to impotence the role of parliament, a role which can only be fulfilled if the opposition has the fullest freedom and opportunity to scrutinize, criticize, propose alternatives and investigate

thoroughly the manner in which the government is carrying out its trust. We feel, Mr. Speaker, that it is important to do so, not only to make parliament work more efficiently, but also to allow us to study estimates and legislation more rapidly and more conscientiously, and above all to make Canadians have greater confidence in parliament and in the democratic process.
I fully agree with what the Right Hon. Prime Minister said this afternoon in this connection.
In this connection, we welcome also the promise contained in the speech from the throne that additional assistance will be made available to the official opposition and to . other opposition parties in order that they may carry out their work with more information, more understanding of issues and more appreciation of the programs with which this parliament will deal. It is unnecessary to emphasize that it is the presence of an opposition in our legislatures which distinguishes the democratic from other societies. And the more opportunity the opposition has to be relevant, alert and effective, the better our democratic system. It is true that the social reforms and the reorganization of government and parliament are important, but they do not impinge on the major areas of economic and social ills in our society.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I could hardly believe my ears when I listened to the speech from the throne and found that there was not a word about housing, or urban development, or the problem of galloping rents,-not a word; and not a suggestion about the mounting difficulties assailing our people in the grow ng urban centres of our society. Yet urbanization in Canada is proceeding at a rapid rate. Some 70 per cent or more of our people live in urban centres now, and in a few years the percentage will be 80, but the speech from the throne contains not the slightest awareness of this fact or of the crushing problems it has produced.
Inside and outside parliament we have had endless discussions about the housing crisis, the growing problems of large urban centres, the traffic congestion, the lack of amenities for decent living, and the growing pollution of our air and water. We looked in vain for effective action from past Liberal governments, and as far as the speech from the throne is concerned-and the speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon did not
September 16, 1968

help-we are still at a loss. Instead of action we have yet another task force.

The relative poverty affecting millions of Canadians to-day has existed in our country for many years; in fact, it has existed since the very beginning of our society. It is obvious that western societies, and Canada is one of them, have done much to somewhat improve the condition of the poor and underprivileged. Certainly it is true that we have made great strides during the past three decades from the time when we had virtually no social security and a small number of laws on social welfare. But those humanitarian measures always were, in my opinion, reluctantly adopted, incomplete and even miserable. They were rather aimed at insuring men's survival and neglected to study the causes of poverty and the factors which made poverty hereditary from generation to generation in a family, community or region.
Some years ago, Mr. Pearson and his government which counted amongst its members several of the present ministers, declared war on poverty. It was a war which was waged on paper and, in the end, the paper itself was discarded for reasons of economy. Today, the Economic Council of Canada has revived the subject and the present government still acknowledges its existence. But the Speech from the Throne and the speech that the Right Honourable Prime Minister delivered this afternoon both emphasize more particularly the long period of time necessary to eradicate poverty, forgetting completely to point out the means to reach this objective. Boldness and determination which we have a right to expect have given way to prudence and timidity.

I am sure that the Prime Minister will be the first to admit that talk about the just society is not new or original. I have been reminded in the last few months of a cry of the Chartists in Britain a century and a half ago, in the following words, "The just society is the only worth while object of political warfare." Apparently the Prime Minister agrees. So do we. So does everyone. Indeed this has been the declared objective of all democratic governments, but progress toward the just society has been painfully and unnecessarily slow.
We have had variations on the theme. In the country to the south of us we had talk of the "great society." Mr. Pearson talked about
The Address-Mr. Lewis the "good society," and the present Prime Minister talks about the "just society." They all mean the same things, and until now they have on the whole been mere political catchwords. I hope that the impression given by the speech from the throne is wrong, that this Prime Minister and this government really means to do something in the next four years, but it is my duty to point out and to underline that so far there is no evidence of this, that the tone and the words are but echoes of the past giving little more hope than in earlier years.
Not only on the domestic front but also in the international sphere the speech from the throne is flat, stale and unfeeling. Imagine, sir, the proponents of what they are pleased to call the just society asking flippantly, "Where is Biafra?" in relation to a conflict which has seen tens of thousands of innocent people mutilated and starved to death. Imagine a speech from the throne which in these circumstances does not even mention the word Biafra.
On Friday the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) uttered, and today the Prime Minister repeated what I can only describe as a shameful half truth. It is true, according to my information, that the first airstrip which was offered by Biafra and agreed to by the federal government of Nigeria was subsequently refused by Biafra because the federal government insisted that nothing else but outside relief supplies land on it. At that time Biafra was using it for landing weapons, which it was buying mainly on the black market simply because the big powers were selling to the federal government.
But surely the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if not the Prime Minister, ought to know-and if they do not know, then we ought to know why-that Biafra has built a second airstrip and offered it for delivery of supplies to the starving people. But the federal government of Nigeria has refused to agree to this second airstrip. Surely the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister ought to know that Sweden has agreed to lend a plane to the International Red Cross. If it did, why can't Canada? I suggest that when one is dealing with so painful a situation as the mutilation and starvation of tens of thousands of people, half truths in this parliament are particularly reprehensible.
Imagine also, Mr. Speaker, a statement about Viet Nam in the speech from the throne which sonorously reminds us that there are

September 16, 1968
The Address-Mr. Lewis unsuccessful negotiations going on in Paris -no condemnation of a war which in my view is legally unjustifiable and morally indefensible, not even a repetition of the government's appeal to our big neighbour to stop the bombing of North Viet Nam. And imagine, finally, a puny reference to foreign aid which merely promises the same inadequate program we have had until now, characteristically embellished by the establishment of a study centre.
In short, Mr. Speaker, there is no sense of urgency in the speech from the throne, neither about the evils at home nor about the threatening events and suffering abroad. There is primarily a technocratic preoccupation with organization and structures as if they alone can solve the social problems facing Canadians and the world.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And appointments.


David Lewis: And appointments. There is no argument about the desirability of building a just, or compassionate, or good, or great society: This has been the goal of human organization for centuries. The argument centres on the elements of a just society and how to achieve it, and this is where we in this party differ from the approach laid out in the throne speech.
We do not believe a society can ever be just or good when it is characterized by glaring inequalities; when effective control of the use and allocation of resources is concentrated in a few centres of private economic power which have no legal obligation and little moral incentive to give priority to the public welfare.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
We do not believe a society can ever be just or good when its system of values places material success, however attained, at the top of human achievement, regarded more highly and envied more frequently than the works of the artist, the writer, the athlete, the teacher or the spiritual leader. We do not believe a society can ever be just or good when fancy office buildings take priority over homes; when doubtful defence expenditures are considered indispensable while the Indian, the Eskimo, the Metis and the poor generally must wait long years before they are given the opportunity to join the mainstream of life; when the social system places competition and conflict ahead of human co-operation.

And we believe that to achieve the just or good society we must restructure our economic system and our social relationships. Admittedly this cannot be done overnight; but it cannot be done at all by those who do not question the basis and values of our present society, who are governed by conventional wisdom and by traditional attitudes. No doubt this government will accomplish some good things, as have all governments in the past. But there is no suggestion of a new approach, of a new life-style, as the modern phrase goes. In the result we will continue to have the basic inequalities, human degradation and injustice which mar the face of our society and haunt the social conscience.
I am of course aware that material wellbeing is merely the foundation of a good or just society, that there are other elements which are essential to an intelligent people eager to shape its own destiny, collectively and individually. There is today, particularly among the young, a feeling of alienation from the social order, of being overpowered by big business, big unions, big government, large schools, large universities, and by rules and disciplines imposed from above. I think that this lies behind the restlessness and revolt on our campuses and in our streets.
I appreciate that we must find new ways of using the modern media of communication and new relationships between the governors and the governed in every sector of our society and in society as a whole. This is why I welcome the reference in the speech from the throne to an inquiry into government information services. But, I must admit, that again I have some fears.
There are obviously two alternative purposes for government information services. One is to provide the people with objectively accurate information to guide their thinking and acts, and to evoke from them a desire to participate in social and political activity and to enrich the democratic process. But government information services can also be used as a political propaganda machine to serve the party in power and to befuddle instead of educating, to confuse rather than to clarify. We shall be on guard, as I suggest all members in all parts of this house should be, to ensure that the first and not the second purpose is served by the consolidation and improvement of information services which this government is planning.
In this general area we also have a duty to provide our people with means of defence against the alienation imposed by bigness. We should establish effective machinery by which
September 16, 1968

the citizen, without cost and without fear may challenge authority when he feels aggrieved.
Mr. Speaker, I am reaching the end of my remarks in which I shall be moving a subamendment to the amendment. I am sure the Prime Minister will be the first to agree that his election first by his party and then by the people shows that Canadians are willing to be challenged, to accept a new approach, to embark on new adventures. I have always believed this of our people. But I venture to suggest that to challenge them, particularly the young, and having reached the pinnacle of power to let them down with a dull thump is the cruellest act of all. This is a sure way of undermining democratic participation and eventually of undermining democracy itself.
This is the disappointment of the speech from the throne: The promise was great, the performance is dismal. Instead of going forward, we are back where we were. The style may be different, but the actions are the same.
I have always believed that the Canadian people can be mobilized for national goals in peace as they have been in war. Expo and the centennial underlined our collective pride and potentialities. We need only imaginative and meaningful leadership to fulfil the promise which is ours. But to reach that goal we must become much more independent and self-reliant. The throne speech ignores the problems of constructive Canadian nationalism, except in the reference to the language bill. The government is apparently satisfied with the foreign control of our economy and with our satellite role in international affairs. These basic problems affecting our future as a nation do not receive even a mention. Nor does the problem of our inequitable tax system, analysed and condemned in the Carter report, the reform of which is surely an essential first step toward the just society.
Perhaps the government will do better in the future. For the sake of our country, I devoutly and sincerely hope so. But on the basis of the throne speech and the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon, it is impossible to have confidence in the ability and intention of this government to deal with the new and old problems crushing so many of our people.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the words "social problems", the following words:
"including housing, urban development, unemployment and poverty;"
The Address-Mr. Caouette
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to extend my warm congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne (Messrs. Corbin and Marchand). They discharge their duty very easily and in a remarkable way.
I also wish to extend to you, on behalf of my colleagues, our most sincere congratulations upon your appointment, without opposition, to the office that you now hold. Indeed you know the satisfaction felt by all members of the House of Commons for the impartiality with which you always treated us in the house.
Mr. Speaker, we listened, last Thursday, to the reading of the Speech from the Throne. This afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition moved the following amendment:
But we respectfully regret that Your Excellency's advisers have refused to recognize or respond to Canada's current and urgent economic and social problems: and have failed to provide parliament with an agenda of priorities to define and implement the "Just Society".
The acting leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) moved an amendment to the amendment reading as follows:
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the words "social problems", the following words: "including housing, urban development, unemployment and poverty;''
Those are very worthy motives, very ordinary reasons expressed in the House of Commons for many years. And it is for that, Mr. Speaker, that at the dissolution of parliament on April 23 last, there were eight members of the Ralliement creditiste and there are now fourteen. You noticed it yourself, Mr. Speaker. I know that is a surprise for my good friend opposite, who interrupts me; it is a surprise not only for him, but for many others, because people were anticipating the disappearance of the Creditistes in the House of Commons.	*
You must admit that the Liberals did not get us elected. You must admit also that the journalists did not get us elected. Nor was it the C.B.C. with its free time broadcasts. An hon. member has just said: It was Johnson. It was not Mr. Johnson, from the province of Quebec, either, who got us elected, Mr. Speaker.
After the elections, a study of the free advertising given to the various political parties in the province of Quebec alone showed
September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Caouette that the Liberals had received 42 per cent of it, and the Conservatives 38 per cent. The latter did very well. They managed to get four members elected in the province of Quebec with 38 per cent of the free advertising. The New Democratic party got 19 per cent of the advertising in the newspapers of the province of Quebec, including the fat Montreal newspaper La presse, the Montreal Journal or the Journal de Montreal, the great patriotic newspaper Le Devoir, Montreal Matin, Daniel Johnson's newspaper, the Journal de Quebec, as well as small weeklies all over the province.
The Ralliement Creditiste was treated generously. We were given 1 per cent of the free advertising granted to political parties. And thanks to all that advertising, Mr. Speaker, we came very close to unseating three ministers. I see one of them not far from me. He expected to be beaten by the big organization of the Union Nationale. While the Union Na-tionale was spending perhaps $100,000 or $200,000 to defeat the Minister of Forestry and Regional Development, the Creditistes came second, the Union Nationale behind them. I admired, that night, the courage of the minister who said on television: I am happy that the second place went to the creditistes. He was happy also to say-and I think he was the only minister who spoke with a little sense that night: The Creditiste vote is a warning to us to propose deep economic reforms in Canada. That is why people voted for the Ralliement Creditiste, and not for reasons alleged or put forward by newspapers such as Le Devoir or Montreal-Matin in their June 27 edition. Listen to this, Mr. Speaker, and tell me if it is not intelligent. "P.S.", which stands for Paul Sauriol of Le Devoir, another intellectual with his head lost in the clouds, wrote as follows:
The Creditiste phenomenon:
While the Liberals made considerable gains in Ontario and in the Western provinces, they have barely retained the number of seats they had in the previous Parliament. In spite of the popularity of Mr. Trudeau, the poor regions of Quebec cast a protest vote which did not go to the Conservative party, as in the Maritime provinces, but to the Creditiste party.
The fifteen ridings won by the Creditistes-
They are now fourteen, because we lost one to the service vote.
-in southern and northern Quebec correspond to the under-developed areas of the province.
That was written by Paul Sauriol. According to him, had there been no underdeveloped areas, we would have won no seats


in Parliament. But look at each on the members of the Ralliement Creditiste in the house, study the economic situation in their respective ridings, and you will see that there is less poverty in the riding of Beauce, for example, in the riding of Bellechasse, where we defeated "Ti-Gus" Choquette, in the new riding of Villeneuve, in Roberval-in fact, there is less poverty in Abitibi, Megantic, Lotbiniere, Portneuf and Shefford than in the ridings of Saint-Denis and Lachine, in Montreal. The greatest number of people who are not only underprivileged economically but mentally backward is found in Montreal, in the province of Quebec. You meet them on the street and ask them:	Who is your
representative in Parliament? They do not even know.
According to a radio news bulletin this morning, 38 per cent of the poor live in the city of Montreal; there are 87,000 unemployed in that city, 26,000 families on welfare. And they vote red. These are underdeveloped people, Mr. Speaker. They do not fight for reform, but I shall come later to the reforms we advocate. I hope, at least, to hold the attention of the Prime Minister on that question, that he might study the possibility of making changes. It is all very well to travel across Canada distributing pecks to 14-year old girls, but that does not change the system.
Yesterday morning, I left Ottawa by plane for Prince Edward Island where I addressed the young students of 18 to 22 of Prince of Wales College. I met the lieutenant governor and other personalities. We talked of the causeway the government has been promising for the last seven or eight years. For perhaps 25 years now the people of Prince Edward Island have been promised a causeway; a carriage road from the mainland of New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island. Two years ago, I heard the former minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tell us that a complete survey had been made, and that the government of the day, the Pearson government, had decided that they would go through with it, that it was decided.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We were talking about the Bay of Fundy at that time, and not about what you are discussing now.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I did not
understand what the minister said.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I said that a decision was reached on a survey of the Bay of
September IS, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES
Fundy and not on the problem the member is now discussing.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, have no surveys been made on the feasibility of that causeway between the mainland of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island? Ministers went to the site during the recent election campaign. The Prime Minister also went there, saying that the matter was settled, that it was decided. Time passes, then we are told: It is feasible. But what is lacking? I shall come back later to what is lacking for a just society.
Mr. Speaker, all honourable members will realize this tonight, or I am no longer true to myself, I can assure them. There is a limit to promises that are only followed by speeches. Every possible subject is being raised, but nothing concrete is being done. They mean well, but that is all. The speech from the throne reads, in part:
In the complexities of modem society, effective programs take time to develop and more time to implement.
It takes years to develop them, then three times as much not to implement them. They forget to implement them. At every stage, governments in power require financial resources; on that point, this government is right. Intellectual resources which are not unlimited and must be used with careful planning and the hard judgment of priorities. It is a simple fact of life that everything cannot be done at once.
This morning, it was announced on radio, that 22 years today, I was elected for the first time to the house of commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: On September 16, 1946 I hardly managed to be elected and I was much more easily defeated three years and a half later in 1949. I came back, nevertheless, but at that time, the same comments could be heard. We have a new Prime Minister. The right hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King was prime minister; in 1948, he was replaced by the right hon. Louis St-Laurent. We kept on reading about the same thing: planning. Nothing can be done right away, everything cannot be done at once. That was 22 years ago and nothing has yet been done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: We also had successive Leaders of the Opposition. While I was here, we have had the hon. Mr. Bracken as Leader of the Opposition, followed by Mr. Drew. Later
The Address-Mr. Caouette on, that is in 1958, we had a Conservative government under the former prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince-Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). The government then had 208 members out of 265, that is, the greatest majority ever granted a political party to administer the country. There was no lack of majority, but what matters were dealt with then in the speeches from the throne? The very same:
-financial and intellectual resources which are not unlimited and must be used with careful planning and the hard judgement of priorities. It is a simple fact of life that everything cannot be done at once.
Mr. Speaker, throughout the country, we have had the opportunity to attend the meetings of the regional economic councils. We have now the report from the Canadian Economic Council, the cream of all the economic councils in Canada. Throughout all our regions, those people have the required intelligence to study the problems, and they do study them. They are part of our intellectual resources and they come out with a planning system. I went to Ville-Marie in my constituency not so long ago in order to find out about the studies being carried out in the fields of agriculture, road maintenance, development of natural resources and others, and the chairman of each committee gave us a report at the end of each day. Mr. Speaker, it was really something to listen to those reports. Therefore, it seemed that it was possible to make wonderful things in our country, according to the regional economic councils. Then, I asked them "When shall we start to implement these measures?"-"What!"-"Yes, when?"-"Well, as it is now, we have not got any money. We cannot do so. We must wait for some help from the governments. We are going to suggest it to the government and they will decide." When we make suggestions to the provincial government, they reply: "We have no money". We then turn to the federal government.
The Prime Minister spent a quarter of an hour this afternoon to tell us that the government has no money. However, during the electoral campaign-it was wonderful-the Prime Minister stated: "Governments have only the money the taxpayers are willing to give them." What we are willing to give them, that is what the government has.
"We are no magicians. We are not Father Christmas. We are just men eager to turn Canada, and the whole world as well, into truly liveable places."
September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Caouette
Mr. Speaker, I agree about the tact that the Prime Minister is no magician, but if he really believes that the Canadian Parliament is indeed a sovereign Parliament, who then is the magician that provides subsidies to wage war while subsidies to enforce peace at home remain unavailable?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: I shall come back to that point in a moment, anyhow.
It is all very well to make us say: we are no magicians. But who are the magicians? After the recession, at the beginning of World War II, the national debt of Canada was around $3 billion. Five years later, after the fighting was over, it amounted to $17 billion. Who then was the magician that raised $14 billion, while the slaughter was going on? The prime minister is well aware that during the carnage, during the war, the government of Canada was never heard saying: "We lack money to dress the soldiers, we lack money to enlist 800,000 young Canadians and to send them to the battle-fields. We lack money to make guns and shells." The prime minister knows it, because we probably fought a bit together against the war expenses during that period. If money was not available during the economic crisis for fathers and mothers to bring up their families decently, how could it be allowed to send our young men to their death during the war? The prime minister knows how things were.
Mr. Speaker, during that war, every Canadian of my generation, those who were a little younger than I or a little older, fared better in Canada than during the economic crisis. Meanwhile, 800,000 of our young men were kept away from the production of commodities for Canada. We dressed them, housed them and fed them decently, and we had them looked after by doctors when they became sick. This cost nothing. Things went along fine. Meanwhile also, Mr. Speaker, we spent billions of dollars to make guns, shells and deadly weapons. Our people behaved bravely, gallantly, on the battle-fields. As for all the bombs that we dropped on Hitler's head in Germany, do you think that the Canadian government sent notes saying: "Do pay C.O.D. Otherwise, the bombs shall not be dropped"? We delivered all the bombs free for the duration. Dividends were paid to the Germans during the war, and today, in peace time, the prime minister tells us: "Well, there is such and such a priority. Besides, we cannot do everything at once."


[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Since June 25 last, we often hear about a just society. Canada has never experienced as many labour strikes. There is a strike going on at the door of an institution at Rouyn. Why? Because the young people are not satisfied, because people want greater buying power, a better standard of living in a country able to provide it. But the Prime Minister or the government, in the Speech from the Throne continue to say: "It is a simple fact of life that everything cannot be done at once." And that is not all.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Speech from the Throne mentions language, priority or respect for languages, politics, religion, and speaks of mutual respect. I shall come back to that later, if my time does not run out.
Here is another excerpt:
-Pensions for the aged, provision for the sick and for the needy have been made more effective by legislation passed in recent Parliaments and by action of the provinces. Notwithstanding such measures, proverty continues to exist in Canada. My Government recognizes that-
-but it also believes that it would be deluding and cruel to pretend that there is a simple, all-encompassing or instantaneously effective remedy.
Here is where we do not agree with the government. That is exactly where the problem lies, Mr. Speaker, if the government thinks that it would be deluding and cruel to pretend that there is a simple remedy. Let us see what the Economic Council of Canada has to say. At the bottom of page 134, an explanation reads as follows:
Various forms of guaranteed minimum income-
The Council suggests the provision of an annual guaranteed income. Here is what it has to say:
Various forms of guaranteed minimum income have been proposed by different writers.
The simplest form would be a minimum income grant paid by the government to all regardless of means.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the national dividend that the Social Credit party wants to distribute to one and all without exception, regardless of their means. And this brings me to set forth the four basic principles of the Social Credit party. It is all very well to listen to speeches, to hear people refer to the Speech from the Throne, but they do not suggest anything as an alternative. That will not bring about a constructive legislation. And what are the Creditistes saying? For once I shall resort to the English language.
September 1G, 1968	COMMONS

The following are the four basic principles of the Social Credit party. First, Social Credit firmly believes that the individual is the most important factor in organized society. Because he is a divinely created being with spiritual, mental and physical needs and potentialities, he has inalienable rights which must be respected and preserved. Because of this belief Social Credit is unalterably opposed to communism, fascism and all forms of totalitarian government which make the individual citizen subservient to the state. It stands opposed to any political organization whose aims are the furtherance of the sectional interests of organized labour, business or finance.
Reverting to the first sentence which says that Social Credit firmly believes that the individual is the most important factor in organized society, let me say that no matter whether the individual is white, black or yellow, whether he speaks French, English, Ukrainian, Italian or any other language on earth, no matter what his beliefs are, he has the right to be respected anywhere in the world and especially in our country, Canada. These inalienable rights should be respected anywhere, as well as in the province of Quebec.
When people ask that their rights be preserved in the province of Quebec because some of them wish to learn English instead of French, it is their right to learn one language instead of the other. We would of course suggest that everyone should learn the two official languages of our country. When I went to Czechoslovakia a few years ago I found there people who spoke as many as six or seven languages. I thought it was wonderful of them to speak so many languages. Here in Canada there are some people who, because they are French and do not understand a word of English say, "to heck with English, I don't want to learn it". We also hear people who speak English only saying "I cannot understand French and I will never learn it in my whole life". Those two people are two kinds of separatists whom we should not have in our country.


David Lewis: That is true.


David Réal Caouette: It is true, is it not? I have the support of the hon. member for York South, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: A hearty one.
DEBATES	85
The Address-Mr. Caouette


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I say there are limits to narrow-mindedness. Canada was not built by people who spent their time devouring one another and it is a country that belongs to all Canadians; we maintain our positions. In the province of Quebec, we were not elected because we talked about of two nations or of a special status, and I am a French Canadian, everybody knows that. There are nevertheless 400,000 people who voted for us in the province of Quebec.

It is said there are two nations, but it is one nation which is Canada. We are Canadian. We have two official languages, French and English, and we have a multiplicity of cultures, such as English, French, Ukrainian, Italian and German. We have all kinds of cultures in our country, and the nation is the richer for them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: We have the Chinese group, and we also have an Indian representative right here in the House of Commons. We are happy that an Indian should sit in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: So this is our stand; and those people who called for a special status for the province of Quebec and for two nations nearly disappeared from that province. They were not accepted. This was so because we do not want to hear these things. During an election we want action-that is what we want. We do not ask for a special status for one province. I do not want a special status for Quebec, a special one for Ontario or one for Prince Edward Island, where I was yesterday. What I want is a Canadian constitution which will permit each province to maintain its identity in this country of ours, Canada.
We have one province in this country, namely Quebec, which is predominantly French. Let us have a constitution which will ensure the fullest respect for the rights of Quebeckers as it will for the rights of the other provinces. I do not think it would be wise for any province to interfere with the rights of the other provinces. However, it would be wise for the Canadian government to give us the assurance that each province will be treated with fairness, and that each province will have the maximum autonomy.
The second basic principle of Social Credit is that the government must serve the
September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Caouette individual. The major function of the democratic government in organized society is to secure for the people the results they want from the management of their public affairs, in so far as such results are physically possible and morally right.
The third basic principle is that the individual must be free and have economic security. The individual can only attain his full stature in a society where his ability to make moral choices is restricted as little as possible. Economic security is a necessary means for attaining this freedom, not as an end in itself to be attained by restrictions. This is the difference between those people who advocate economic security and those who advocate freedom in the hands of the government. We have seen that type of government, Mr. Speaker, in many countries. When we visited Czechoslovakia we found that though some people call them a communist country they do not call themselves communists, but socialists.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
We have also been told that Sweden is an example to follow because in Sweden there is no such thing as unemployment. It is true, Mr. Speaker; there is no such thing as unemployment in Sweden. The men work, but in order to attain a decent standard of earnings the women have to work too. Sometimes a man is on one shift, his wife is on another shift and the children are looked after by the government. When in Sweden I remember boarding a bus. On the bus there was a bus driver, another man whose sole task was to sell tickets, another man to punch the tickets, and a fourth man in the corner watching the other three.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the house allow the hon. member to proceed with his remarks beyond the time allowed by standing orders? Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I very sincerely thank the honourable members for the fine courtesy they have shown me by letting me proceed with my remarks; I shall make no abuse of it. I will be brief. I was speaking about Sweden and since I was speaking in English, I will continue in English.

In Sweden, Mr. Speaker, monthly wages are in the order of $55 to $65 a month. Although they say that the cost of living is


lower in Sweden, if you want to buy a car you will pay twice the price there that we pay in Canada, where wages are at least three times, maybe four times, the level in Sweden.
When I was in Czechoslovakia I visited the Skoda plant where 6,000 men were working at a wage of $45 to $55 a month. This little Skoda car sells in Montreal city for $1,775. In Czechoslovakia where the car is built it sells for the equivalent of $6,200. Therefore no one in Czechoslovakia can afford to buy a car; the people either walk or use a bicycle. I asked the vice president of the plant in Czechoslovakia the reason for the price being so high. He told me: "We have increased the tax portion of the price because we do not want our people to buy cars. If they buy cars we will then have to build some roads".


David Lewis: That is not right.


David Réal Caouette: I hear my hon. friend from York South saying that I am wrong, but I know I am right in this instance because I spoke to the vice president of the plant in Czechoslovakia. I asked about salaries and the production of cars for export only, not for internal use. I also priced refrigerators and T.V. sets. Refrigerators sold in Czechoslovakia for the equivalent of $700.
In Russia, Mr. Speaker, the situation is even worse: They do not have any refrigerators. When I was a young boy we were obliged to use window space as a refrigerator for our quarts of milk, our bread and butter. That is what they do in Moscow today, after 50 years of freedom, of what they call democracy for the people. I have seen men, women and youngsters working in these countries.
I hear my hon. friends from the New Democratic party saying that they have the solution to our problems. They had the solution in England, which can be considered a close parallel to the Canadian scene. For years England was ruled by the Conservative party. The labourer, the workingman, then became sick and tired of the Conservative party and voted Labour. He went "N.D.P.", though that is not what the English party is called. They seem to be associated anyway.
During the election compaign the deputy leader of the New Democratic party in the province of Quebec, Mr. Robert Cliche, was asked on T.V. one night how his philosophy was helping England. He replied: "Well, that is a different situation. There is a bad situation over there which is not easy". So the interviewer said: "Well, you say you are able
September 16. 1968	COMMONS
to keep people out of trouble. If they are in trouble in England, what are you doing to help them?" "Well," replied Mr. Cliche, "never mind about that; let's get back to Canada where it is easier to work out solutions".
There was a socialist government in the province of Saskatchewan for 17 years, following which the government was defeated. The leader of the socialist party in Saskatchewan was defeated in a general election. He was then re-elected in a by-election. Now once again he has been defeated in a general election. This is not because the leader of the New Democratic party is not a fine gentleman; he is definitely a fine gentleman. But his solutions are not going to solve our economic problems. Those solutions are to abolish free enterprise, as do away with personal initiative. I would ask the N.D.P. members to show me where in the world, in countries that have abolished personal initiative and freedom of enterprise, conditions have improved instead of worsened.
In the province of Quebec there is a good friend of the hon. member for York South by the name of Rene Levesque. Mr. Levesque was minister of national resources in the Quebec government and in the 1962 election campaign made an issue of the nationalization of electric power. He stated that this was the key which would permit the people to become masters in their own province. The government was re-elected on the strength of the promise that the people of Quebec would become masters in their province. Electric power was nationalized in 1962. We are now in the year 1968, some six years later.


David Lewis: Are you opposed to nationalization of that sort?


David Réal Caouette: Yes, definitely opposed.


An hon. Member:: Are the Liberals?


David Réal Caouette: That is a matter for them. I am not a Liberal, but a Social Crediter.


David Lewis: They were agreeing with you a moment ago.


David Réal Caouette: They may well agree with me when they understand my explanation.


An hon. Member:: What about the position of B.C.?
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: I am opposed to nationalization even in B.C. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, power in Quebec was nationalized, and
DEBATES	87
The Address-Mr. Caouette look at the situation in which Quebec Hydro finds itself today. In former days minister Rene Levesque was telling the people that the big profits realized by Shawinigan Water and Power would be distributed among the population of the province, that they would benefit in the form of a rate cut. So, after six years we ask ourselves one question. Are we better masters today than we were in 1962? No. Have the rates been cut? No, they have been doubled.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: And Shawinigan is not making any profit-oh, no. The government of Quebec could not even pay Shawinigan for the nationalization cost. So the government made an agreement to pay interest on the money they owe to Shawinigan.
In the last few years Shawinigan had been making a profit of 4.2 per cent on its capitalization. Now, without having to administer anything, without workmen having to climb posts, without having to put up wires, the company is receiving from the government of Quebec 5.8 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: That is the result of socialization or nationalization.
Free enterprise makes profits, yes. Free enterprise will give us results; governments, whether provincial or otherwise, will not give similar results with our own money because no one in government wishes to be responsible. When you fall into the hands of any government agency or bureaucracy you do not find people who are willing to take responsibility. One man will send you to another and this other knows nothing of your problem and sends you somewhere else. You keep going round and round. On the other hand when you go to someone in private enterprise, to someone who owns a private enterprise, he will deal with your problem. He will tell you about the extent of his enterprise.
A man in private enterprise will tell you, "We are making so many millions a year." Where are the men in Canada today who can write out a cheque for $1 million? Where are such free enterprisers? They are not piling up their millions in the corners of their rooms. They are using their money to expand industry, to create more jobs, more goods, to fight inflation and to fight unemployment.
We do not think the government should do everything for us in our society. We are
September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Caouette strongly opposed to all political organizations the aims of which are the furtherance of the sectional interests or organized labour, business or finance.
I come to my fourth point, after which I shall have finished. The physically possible must be regarded as the financially possible. Whatever is physically possible, desirable and morally right can and should be made financially possible, and the Prime Minister need not be a magician to bring about such a state of affairs.
He knows that we have the necessary men with skills, as well as goods and productive capacity to create enough goods and services for all our people. In so far as we have the capacity to use our national resources, credit ought to be provided to make their utilization possible. In other words, we should make financially possible what it is physically possible to carry out.
I have been talking about the government of Quebec and I wish to read something that is in French.

At the National Harbour Board, we have asked the president, or rather the bridge superintendent, what was the cost of Montreal Jacques-Cartier bridge, what amount we had to pay in interests, since it had been built, and what was the amount of our debt on Jacques-Cartier bridge. Well, here is the content of the letter that Mr. J. A. Clement engineer, bridge superintendent, sent to a certain Mr. Chenier, and I quote:
Mr. Jos. A. Chenier Greenfield Park, P.Q.
Dear Sir:
Your letter of May 9, 1968, requesting some information on Jacques-Cartier bridge, has been brought to my attention. I am pleased to supply you with the following informations:
1. Original cost of Jacques-Cartier Bridge: $18,571,308.71.
That is the cost of the bridge: materials, labour, contractors, anything related to the construction of the bridge: $18,571,308.71.
3. Interests paid so far: $20,198,266.53.
The amount of our present debt on the bridge? $14,065,605.39.


An hon. Member:: The just society!


David Réal Caouette: That is what the just society is!


An hon. Member:: Just for the fun.
[English1


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is private enterprise.


David Réal Caouette: There is a distinction. This is not private enterprise; it is the private enterprise system, and the government is responsible for this state of affairs.
The other night on television the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), who now represents the constituency of Hochelaga, said in so many words, "Well, the interest is nothing. You can see all the cars and all the trucks and people which have crossed that bridge. All that traffic paid for it in the end. What is the $20 million when we have made $100 million out of the investment." At any rate, that was his explanation. I want to ask this: If his explanation is right, then the bridge cost us $18 million. Why then have we not built a second bridge with the $20 million of interest so that we can transport more goods, more people and more of everything over it and be $20 million better off?

Mr. Speaker, that is the solution, beyond the shadow of a doubt. If the Prime Minister really wants a just society, let him study these four points; if he does not have the time to study them, he should have the people around him study them, his private secretaries, and let us have first some order in our finances. This afternoon, the Prime Minister told us: we cannot carry out these works, we cannot undertake this other thing, nor can we carry on any longer this other project because we lack money. However, he knows full well that we shall continue paying practically one billion and a half in interest this year alone on our public debt. And that will not be to the advantage of the Canadian people. The monetary system is wrong. I am looking at the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). He knows what I say, he understands it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will have some influence on the Prime Minister, in order to make him understand the importance of monetary reform. We go back to our ridings and we get reelected. We come back here and we have problems. I had the visit of a member of the just society and people like him I receive by the hundreds, Mr. Speaker, every day, between the sessions, because we have to pay for our stamps at the parliament in Ottawa, we the members and even the party leaders. I have myself paid about $800 in stamps, while working for my constituents, for the Canadian people, as a member for the riding I represented at that time.
September 1$, 1968

Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable that we must pay such sums. But to come back to the just society in which we live, and more especially to the famous social welfare that exists in all the provinces, in Quebec as elsewhere, the federal government provides for 50 per cent. That is a joint program. We must get together to decide whether the joint program must be reduced or not. In any case, Mr. Moise St. Denis who is 75 years old and whose wife is 63 presented himself last week at my office, in Rouyn. Mr. St. Denis used to receive a pension of $107.10 and his wife used to get a supplement of $30 which gave them $137.10. Last year, Mr. St. Denis managed to find a small job that enabled him to earn $500. The government learned of that-officials of the welfare office. Then, last week, he was told that $10 of his money will be kept back every month to refund the sum which he received while he was working last year for two or three months. Today he gets $127.10 to live on with his wife. He pays $75 rent monthly. Can one imagine how with $52.10, a man and a woman can live today. That is the just society in which we live nowadays.
Mr. Speaker, we know that poverty in this land is a fact and the Prime Minister might well say it. We know that there are poor people, but we just want to replace their plight by a just society. In my view, only one step needs to be taken if we are to achieve a just society in Canada; that is to put our finances into order and not only our taxation system. The Prime Minister may well introduce programs, as those expected in a mid-October budget, to divert money from the wealthy to the needy, and I shall say in English-

-it is the system by which you take away from the "haves" to give to the "have nots". Finally you will have all kinds of "have nots" and no more "haves" in Canada.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

That is what is going to happen.
So Mr. Speaker, we hold that what is physically feasible-not on the moon but here below in Canada, in our own country-may be financially possible. Once such a system is adopted, other reforms will come about easily. It will not take ten, twenty or twenty five years. Once order is restored in finances, the
The Address-Mr. Allmand rest will come out very easily. Such is the solution, the means, the way to achieve a just society in Canada. If the Prime Minister is serious whenever he speaks about a just society, I hope and I wish he will be serious when introducing the legislation that will bring the financiers to reason and allow the government of Canada to put Canadian abundance at the disposal of Canadians who need it, and at the same time to assist the foreign countries that need our assistance.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, when I put my name on the list of those who wished to speak I did not realize I would follow such eminent speakers as those to whom we have been listening today. Indeed I feel somewhat guilty to be following the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) who spoke so humourously, and who made so many excellent points.
I should like to begin by congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, upon your appointment, and by extending congratulations also to Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) and to the Deputy Chairman of Committees, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard). I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Madawas-ka-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) and the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) who moved and seconded the motion for the address in reply. Both did excellently and I have no doubt we shall hear much more from them in this house.
This afternoon and this evening we heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) list a long litany of subjects which were not referred to in the speech from the throne. This was not in it, they said; that was not in it-and so on. The hon. member for York South spoke about originality. Well, I do not think it would take very much originality for any one of the 265 of us in this chamber-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


William Warren Allmand: -to call attention to matters which were not mentioned in the speech from the throne. I note that the hon. member did not refer to any of the 47 bills which were tabled after the speech from the throne had been delivered, and neither did the Leader of the Opposition. None of these bills was mentioned, although they were a clear indication
September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Allmand o 1 the intentions of the government with regard to legislation. I though this was a strange omission, because in that list were such bills as the bill to lower drug prices and the bill to amend the patents legislation. I recall that when this party was seeking to leave the House of Commons in order to elect a new leader, members of the New Democratic party insisted that we stay here because that bill was so important that they did not wish parliament to adjourn without dealing with it. Yet today the leader of the N.D.P. comes to the house and says there is nothing of value in the speech from the throne.
As I said earlier, it does not require much originality to make statements of that kind. I myself feel there are many important pieces of legislation among the 47 bills listed; for example the languages bill, the agriculture legislation, the legislation concerning the Bankruptcy Act, and many others.
Both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for York South referred very often to the subject of poverty, and drew attention to the statements made about poverty by the Economic Council of Canada. But as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said this afternoon, poverty was not discovered by the Economic Council when it put out its report. The Liberal party has been trying to deal with poverty for more than 30 years and has been doing a reasonably good job.
I would remind hon. members opposite that it was the Liberal party which secured the passage of the Canadian assistance plan legislation; it was the Liberal party which was responsible for the passage of the Canada Pension Plan, the medicare program, the manpower program and many similar pieces of legislation. So we have been trying to wage this war on poverty for a long time. When I listened to the Leader of the Opposition and to the hon. member for York South the question which occurred to me, as it did to the hon. member for Temiscamingue, was this: If it is so easy to eliminate poverty, why did not the Leader of the Opposition, who was premier of Nova Scotia for 11 years, deal with this question in some of his speeches from the throne. The last time I was in Nova Scotia it appeared to me that poverty had not been defeated there, despite the programs put into operation by this government during the past five years. If it is just a matter of putting things in speeches from the throne, why was more not done in the 11 years during which the Leader of the Opposition was premier of Nova Scotia?

Then again, as the hon. member for Temiscamingue put it, if the New Democratic party possessed these magic solutions, if it knew these answers during the 17 or 19 years during which it held power in Saskatchewan, why was there still so much poverty when it left office there? The hon. member for York South spoke about reprehensible actions and half truths. I thought it was very reprehensible for the hon. member to make the statement in this house-and members of his party applauded him-to the effect that other members of this house were making the same mistake as the Canadian electorate had made. Too often members of the N.D.P. take the attitude that when the voters become more intelligent they will vote for that party. They leave the suggestion that the voters are not too intelligent at present, but when they become better educated they will vote for N.D.P. candidates. I find this a reprehensible attitude. The Canadian people know better than either the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for York South who can best handle the business of this country-and it is the present Prime Minister, and the party to which I belong. The people have the good judgment and the intelligence to know it, though they are aware that there are no panaceas, as we pointed out during the campaign. The hon. member for Temiscamingue made a good point when he reminded us that if the New Democratic party or their colleagues in Britain did, indeed, possess magical solutions we might have expected them to embody those proposals in speeches from the throne and proceed to eliminate poverty.
What is wrong with speeches from the throne? In my opinion they are anachronistic, completely out of date in this modern age. Under this system a man who is a politician, a man who knows where he is going, has to prepare a speech to be read in an impartial way by someone who is non-political. I should like to see the session started with a speech from the Prime Minister, and the debate would go on from there. I do not know exactly how it would be arranged. Possibly when we appeared in the Senate chamber the Governor General could say a few welcoming words before concluding: "Now my first minister will deliver the program for this parliament."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Warren Allmand: We should not have to attend here and listen to the first speech in this house being made by the Leader of the Opposition. The first speech should come from the
September 16, 1968

Prime Minister. He should set the tone for the work of the session. As the procedure is now, even if the speech were read by Christopher Plummer I do not think he could come up with anything inspiring, whatever the content. As I say, I believe the present procedure to be anachronistic, and feel it should be changed.
One of the points I wish to bring up this evening concerns the Canada Elections Act. I feel we should not allow our experience of the election to become too distant before correcting some of the provisions in that legislation which in my opinion are unfair, and which denied the franchise to many Canadians.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Today a question was asked of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) by, I believe, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier), about whether amendments would be made with respect to bedridden people, and so forth, and the President of the Privy Council replied that he would be quite willing to hear suggestions. I think we should give him suggestions now, while these things are fresh in memory.
The election was held at the beginning of summer, just when the vacation period had started. Some people had planned their vacations a year ago. They had bought tickets to go across Canada, to go south or overseas. There should be a provision in our election act for absentee voting in such cases, and it should be more elaborate than the present two days advance voting. With all the technical advances we have, there is no reason why people who have been enumerated cannot vote, despite the fact that they are not in their constituencies on election day. Their votes could be transferred to another returning office in Canada, or to a consulate or embassy abroad.
It is also unfortunate that Canadian citizens living abroad, such as members of the foreign service, cannot vote through their embassies and consulates. Other countries have procedures whereby this is done, and we in Canada should do likewise.
Since this is the debate on the speech from the throne I would like to put on record some of my goals for this parliament and some of the goals of the people living in the Montreal area particularly, since my constituency is in Montreal. I know that the poverty program is a matter of priority. I have already mentioned the drug bill which will assist the war
The Address-Mr. Allmand on poverty and help achieve the just society, despite what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) may say.
I feel that in my constituency poverty is felt most by the older people. They suffer more than any other group. I would hope some things could be done to improve their situation. Although this party has done a lot in that regard I think we should do more. For example, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the extra $500 exemption, which is now given at age 70, granted at age 65, particularly because we have lowered pension eligibility to that age.
Montreal is one of the principal transportation centres in Canada, and many people in that city have been wondering when there will be an appointment to the presidency of Air Canada. This important crown corporation has continued for a considerable length of time without a president. People in my area feel there are good men available. They do not believe it is good for the morale of the company that it continue to operate without a new president and I think the government should act on this matter as quickly as possible.
A frustrating experience with air transportation, despite the advance in aircraft technology, is the time taken to reach an airport from one's home. In the Montreal area one can spend more time going from his home to the airport, and from another airport to his ultimate destination, than he spends in the air. Something should be done about this problem, especially with respect to the proposed new airport in Montreal. I understand the government is taking this matter into consideration with respect to that new airport, and I urge that every effort be made to make the best use of fast jet travel.
I also wish to mention questions of security and labour problems at the port of Montreal. Last spring the Minister of Labour did a fantastic job of settling a potential strike at the port. However, I wish to point out to the house that the agreement reached then will last only until the end of this year, and then we will be faced with another situation.
Several things to make life more agreeable for men working in the port should be done by the government, but it appears that these things are not being done as quickly as possible. I refer to the provision of rest rooms, restaurants, waiting rooms and so forth. They have been sought for a long time and the government has promised them. I understand
September 16, 1968

The Address-Mr. Allmand that a pilot project has begun, but I believe the government should act more quickly.
There is also the question of security in the port. The other night I read an article by Bruce Taylor in the Montreal Star, describing the lax situation that exists, whereby anybody can go on to the docks in Montreal and steal goods. This comes at a time when a royal commission is sitting to investigate the question of security of the docks. One would think that the National Harbours Board could do much more to prevent theft and improve security on the wharves.
I hope that within the next three or four years this parliament will do something definite with respect to the pollution problems of air and water. Anti-pollution measures have been adopted in the United States and other countries. We are starting to act on these problems in Canada, and we should adopt a national water act as soon as possible. We are one of the richest countries in the world so far as water resources are concerned, but unless we act quickly these resources will not be preserved in a good state. To combat air pollution better automobile exhausts must be devised, and there must be legislation to maintain the purity of air.
The Prime Minister and the government are to be congratulated upon their intention to introduce an official languages act. It is important that the federal government set an example by introducing that bill as quickly as possible because some extremists in Canada, extremists on both sides, want to try
to eliminate the language of those with whom they disagree. At present in Montreal a group of new Canadians, mostly of Italian origin, live in an area where the local school board is controlled by a group of people whom I call extremists, people who are trying to eliminate the use of the English language in the local schools. I hope that by passing legislation such as the proposed official languages act, a higher level of understanding between language groups will be reached in all provinces of Canada.
I also hope that we will continue to press for the incorporation of a charter of human rights in the constitution, so that no school-board, no municipality, no province can take away the language rights of citizens. Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in the government and I know it will do a good job for us.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: May I inquire what will be the business for tomorrow?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Tomorrow we will continue the resumed debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne and the amendments thereto.


Mr. Speaker:: It being ten o'clock this house stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At ten o'clock p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Tuesday, September 17, 19G8