1969-10-31

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1968, be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development;
And that the evidence adduced by the committee in its consideration of the aforementioned matter during the first session of the twenty-eighth Parliament be referred to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister could state the position of his government with regard to the accusation made by Russell Bell, director of research for the Canadian Labour Congress, who has made the charge that the Prices and Incomes Commission had no clearly formed ideas to place before the interested parties, that meaningful discussion in these circumstances became virtually impossible and that in these circumstances the leaders of the CLC and the Confederation of National Trade Unions had really no choice but to reject the voluntary guidelines?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will ensure that the commission takes note of this accusation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, part of the concern of Mr. Bell appears to be in connection with the application of guidelines to other forms of income. Has the government satisfied itself that the proposals being placed before the private sector of the economy by the Prices and Incomes Commission do in fact involve equitable proposals relating to incomes generally? I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the obvious importance to all of us of some system of voluntary restraints being adopted and in view of the obvious interest of the government in seeing that every possible chance of success is attained.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think there is some confusion in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition as to the role this commission is to perform. We have taken the position from the outset, and it has been made quite ciear to parliament, that the commission has an independent operation of its own. It was set up by the government in order to deal with various sectors of the economy as it best saw fit. It has approached the government with certain representations. I understand we have had discussions with members of the commission on certain proposals for governmental action. We have indeed acted on some of them as we showed in the guidelines exercise last summer and since, but we are not second-guessing the commission.
I repeat what I said yesterday to the Leader of the Opposi.ion. We have not asked the commission to report (o us in any detail on what it is doing with either the unions or the management sector of the economy, nor do we think we should. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks (hat the terms of reference might be altered and that we should have the commission reporting every day to the government or to parliament, perhaps he could make a proposition, which I would be delighted to pursue.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it the position of the government that it is appropriate for the government of Canada to delegate to an independent commission responsibility for decision-making in an area that has become of very central importance to the successful government of this country?
October 31, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I suggest that the question is argumentative, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the terms of reference seem to contemplate a rather leisurely unhurried examination of the problem, will the Prime Minister consider discussing with the members of the commission their views as to possible changes in the terms of reference in order to give them an opportunity to point up the urgency, seriousness and gravity of the current problems?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that the commission senses the urgency of the problem, as does every member of the opposition. We are engaged in debating the Throne Speech, so let us hear from the opposition their ideas as to how the terms of reference of the commission should be altered.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: My
question is directed to the Solicitor General. Is consideration being given to referring the royal commission report on penal reform to a committee of this House or a special joint committee of both Houses in order that the views of members may be conveyed to the government through a report to parliament?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I had anticipated that that report would be studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs when the estimates of the Solicitor Generals department were before the committee. However, I would be glad to take any other suggestion under consideration.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Solicitor General's answer to my original question, could I ask the minister whether he would give very serious consideration to reestablishing the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons that was set up two years ago and which, in my estimation, did a wonderful job in studying all questions relating to the penitentiary and penal system?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to take that matter under consideration, but I must add that I was very favourably

impressed with the work done by the new Standing Committee of the House on Justice and Legal Affairs during the last session of Parliament on matters coming under the responsibility of the department.



SENTENCES FOR OFFENCES INVOLVING DRUGS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: wish to ask a supplementary question dealing with criminal reform, Mr. Speaker. I direct the minister's attention to the Narcotic Control Act. In view of the fact that in Calgary, and the same thing is happening in other cities, seven young people ranging in ages from 16 to 21 yesterday received sentences totalling 29 years on charges involving marijuana, is it the policy of the government to instruct federal Crown prosecutors to press for sentences up to five years so that this group of young people so incarcerated may be used as a deterrent against the use of drugs in the universities and high schools, and is this not a misuse of the law?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members will recognize that it is quite impossible for anyone to accept the premises that were added to the question asked by the hon. member. I understand that this question was asked yesterday of the Minister of Justice, within whose jurisdiction the matter lies, and that he answered the question yesterday.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question, since the RCMP comes under the minister's jurisdiction. In light of the answer given by the minister, would he at an early date give a full report to the House on the pressing for these sentences imposed on seven young people in Calgary? Is it also the policy of the minister to instruct the RCMP to act as stoolpigeons, to grow beards and mix with students in order to obtain evidence?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, The question of sentencing is one for the courts. I do not propose to seek to instruct anyone as to what a particular sentence in the courts should be. The courts have responsibility for determining the law and making decisions based upon the law. I completely refute, of course, the suggestion that the RCMP act as stoolpigeons. I do not have personal knowledge of the seven cases referred to and the basis of the sentences, but I assume that the court had some reason for the sentences that were imposed.
October 31, 1969


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. The minister denies that the RCMP act in this way, yet he has not taken the trouble to investigate the matter. I am not criticizing the Minister of Justice because his answers yesterday were sympathetic, but the Solicitor General should at least look into the facts before making dogmatic, categorical statements.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt very much whether this is a proper question of privilege.
[Translation1



VIOLENT DISTURBANCES


Mr. Andre Forlin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.
Has the Quebec government asked for cooperation or assistance from the federal government in view of the demonstrations now being held in Quebec and which threaten to destroy our democratic principles and throw us into anarchy?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, at ten o'clock this morning, when I left my office, we had not yet received from the Quebec government any official request for troops to help maintain law and order. I cannot say whether the Quebec government has any intention of asking for the help of the Army.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Since all Canadians are also concerned about the difficulties Quebecers are now experiencing, does the Prime Minister intend, in his well-known spirit of co-operation and responsibility, to offer the services of his government to put an end to those acts of terrorism and to bring to reason those people who stir up innocent individuals like the students and young people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think there is no question about that. Indeed, I have talked to the federal, provincial and municipal authorities in this connection. The federal government is ready to co-operate with those authorities, should they request it.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to
21362-23a
Inquiries of the Ministry the Prime Minister. Could he tell the house if the laying off, yesterday, of 50 C.B.C. employees in Montreal is part of the government's political goals to check the inflationary trend by creating more unemployment or if this laying off is part of a policy designed to muzzle political opponents?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The member for South Western Nova.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rephrase my question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question has been ruled out of order, and I now recognize the honourable member for South Western Nova. I shall recognize the hon. member later.


Georges-J. Valade: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member on a point
or order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, under the rules and the practice of the house, in the past when a member asked a question which was ruled out of order he has been allowed to rephrase it so that the minister may answer.



ATOMIC ENERGY


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since new federal safety regulations concerning the proximity of the construction of Ontario's Bruce nuclear generating plant to the federal atomic energy plant now mean a change in location for the Ontario site and the lay-off of many employees, has the government agreed to assist in meeting the cost of this shutdown and lay-off?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The decision of the Atomic Energy Control Board in this regard and the resultant change of site are matters which have only recently come to my attention, and no economic arrangements or arrangements in respect of the workmen affected by this decision have yet been made.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Can the minister tell us when these regulations were passed and explain how it is that the facts were not known before construction began?
October 31, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to rule that the supplementary is not in order.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate my question to the Prime Minister about the firing of 50 employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation yesterday in Montreal.
Does the government policy aim at reducing the inflationary trend by causing unemployment in federal agencies?
I would also like to ask the Prime Minister whether that is a general policy concerning the C.B.C., which will apply to lower rank employees as well as to high officials of the Corporation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a very complicated question and I shah try to answer the part that concerns the federal government.
The C.B.C. budget has already been established, along with that of other government agencies and departments. In the case of the C.B.C. even more so than for the departments, it is up to the management to determine how the global policy of keeping in check growing expenses is to be implemented.


Georges-J. Valade: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Could the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State to make a statement in this house as soon as possible concerning the global policy of the Corporation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot see that I should have to ask him to make such a statement, Mr. Speaker. The budgetary estimates will be tabled in the house at the proper time as usual, and the members will be able to ascertain Whether we allocate too little or too much money to a department or to the C.B.C.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieiie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us who will be responsible for the laying off of these 50 employees and upon which criteria it will be based?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have there a Crown corporation, Mr. Speaker; it is really autonomous as regards its internal administration.



FISHERIES


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he is aware that a fleet of East German trawlers is fishing inside our 12-mile limit off the coast of Cape Breton and, if so, what is the department doing about this?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a fleet of 15 large East German trawlers put into a bay on the east coast of Cape Breton island. They came in because of storm conditions. These trawlers were intercepted by our fisheries protection vessel, the Chebucto. They left early this morning and they are now outside our 12-mile zone. They had not been fishing in our exclusive fishing zone but they should not have been there in the first place.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister indicate whether in fact Russian ships and other foreign vessels are in fact fishing off our coast or whether they are involved in any activities which are of any importance to us?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They are fishing for
something.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, most of the reports I personally get on these matters are classified secret.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether the government has had an opportunity to review its guidelines respecting the laying off of public servants under the current austerity drive, and in light of that review is the government now prepared to drop the guideline in respect of laying off persons who are between the ages of 60 and 65?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to elaborate on this in about an hour's time.
October 31, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	353



GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
I have asked his predecessors several times in the past to put more emphasis on publications written in the French language and issued by his department. In view of the poor results so far, may I ask the minister whether or not he intends to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that publications issued by his department are published in French as well as in English.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that this question should be on the order paper or discussed, if he so desires, at the time of adjournment.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he is in a position to tell the house at the present time when he expects to make a definitive statement, probably on motions, in respect of what defence bases the government contemplates being able to keep in operation in Canada?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate my hon. friend's concern about this matter and I am grateful that he has put his question in positive terms. What he wants to know, obviously, is how soon will I be able to announce the bases that will close. I must say that we have been working on this problem continuously, but until final details are known I will have to ask him to be content with the traditional "soon".



SUGGESTED REACTIVATION OF U.S.-CANADA JOINT MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence what action the government is taking to implement one of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, its
Inquiries of the Ministry suggestion that it would be a good idea to reactivate the United States-Canada joint ministerial committee which has not met in five years?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this question would be more properly directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The arrangements concerning the two departments of defence have not precluded frequent meetings. Actually these meetings take place all the time, and so as far as my department is concerned the communication we have with those on the other side of the border is constant and frequent.



PHASING-OUT OF U.S. BASES IN CANADA

John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the defensive Minister of National Defence whether he has had any negotiations with his United States counterpart regarding the phasing-out of United States bases in Canada, and whether he will make available to the House the results of such negotiations.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, there were no
negotiations as such. We were informed ahead of time of the announcement that was planned by the United States Secretary of Defence. There were no negotiations. I do not think we are in a position to negotiate a thing like that. The base at Argentia, to which I assume the hon. member was referring, was a naval operation for the United States. They have chosen to reduce it and there is nothing we can do about it.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I ask the minister whether in fact his department will be moving in respect of these bases so that the void created by the phasing-out will be filled in order to protect our own sovereignty and ease the economic imbalance in different parts of Canada?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I believe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we are now at the stage of debate on this subject. Perhaps we might go on to another subject matter.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we have just this week had announcements of two phase-outs of United States bases in Canada which affect thousands of people. I think this is a national emergency. We did not use Standing Order 26 to adjourn the House because we thought we would have time to pose these questions.
354	COMMONS DEBATES	Oclober 31, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest we must certainly consider the hon. member's sugges-make some headway during the question tion. I might point out that during this period period. There is limited time. Many hon. of negotiations with our friends in the United members are waiting to ask questions. This is States with regard to oil policies a great the reason the Chair must exercise some dis- number of the items under consideration are cretion in giving an opportunity to other of a highly confidential nature and it would members to join the fray and ask questions. If not be in the public interest to have a con-there should be sufficient time, I would cer- tinuing public dialogue at this time. Certainly, tainly return to the hon. member to give him however, I am fully aware of the hon. mem-an opportunity to ask supplementary ber's concern in this area and will consider questions.	his suggestion.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Barry Malher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, who I believe is in British Columbia in connection with the longshoremen's strike, may I direct this question to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister indicate whether any progress is being made in the negotiations leading to a settlement of this very important dispute?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I regret that at this time I am not in a position to make any report. The minister is with the parties. As usual he is optimistic, but there is nothing I can add at the moment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour has any information to give us on the further progress of the negotiations.


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: No more than the Prime Minister has stated, Mr. Speaker.



TASK FORCE ON DEVELOPMENT-REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT

Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On December 20 last the acting minister of that department announced the creation of a government task force to study oil development. Would the minister take an early opportunity on motions to give us a progress report on the work of that task force?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the task force is an interdepartmental task force of officials. It is not customary to make their reports to government public, but I will
[Mr. Lundrigan.l



FINANCE


Mr. W. B. Nesbiit (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which perhaps I should direct to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Finance. Is the government planning to terminate or greatly curtail its financial contributions to welfare programs of the provinces?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



BROADCASTING


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the application of the CBC for the use of UHF channel 19 in Toronto for ETV broadcasting, will the government be dropping the draft bill of last session to set up a separate ETV service?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is my understanding that the Secretary of State intends to make a statement on motions on this subject some time next week. If I am wrong in this assumption, I will have to correct myself.
[Translation1



FINANCE


Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Minister of Finance.
Since he declared a surplus exceeding even his estimates, could he tell us whether he intends to reduce taxes accordingly?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely the hon. member will admit that the question is so wide in scope as to make it impossible for the minister to answer it at this time.
October 31, 1969	COMMONS



ATOMIC ENERGY


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the government anything to report in respect of overtures made to Russia by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for a supply of heavy water?


John James Greene: I have nothing to report at the present time. The question of heavy water is an extremely important one in respect of our nuclear reactor program. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is assessing the possibilities of the various vendors of heavy water, including Russia, but there is nothing to report at the present time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he advise if the announced closing of three more Canadian missions in Latin America is an implementation of the Throne Speech forecast of "intensification of Canadian contact with the government and people of Latin America", or is it an exception to this proclaimed goal?


Mr. Speaker:: I have to rule that the question is slightly argumentative in its context.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware that the Maritime Life Assurance Company, which obtained the group life insurance coverage for the Canadian Armed Forces with a value of between $1 billion and $2 billion, has been acquired by the John Hancock Mutual Life Assurance Company of Boston, Massachusetts? Will the minister look into this matter and report to the House?


Edgar John Benson: would be pleased to look into the matter. I have heard such rumours.


Randolph Harding: Since the government is responsible for choosing this company, should not insurance coverage for the Canadian
DEBATES	355
Inquiries of the Ministry Armed Forces be transferred to a Canadian company?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a question. It is an argument or a suggestion. The hon. member must assume it has been noted by the minister.



NICKEL-REPRESENTATION BY U.K. CONCERNING SHORTAGE

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the Canadian government received any official representation from the government of the United Kingdom with regard to the very grave shortage that has arisen in the supply of nickel for British industry, which represents a very major export for Canada, in light of the fact that they are now turning to Russian sources which are expanding their production in order to take care of the Canadian deficiency in regard to supply?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I am not aware of any formal representation by the British government. I have seen very important articles in the British press where it is said strongly that importers resent being dependent on the whims of Canadians with regard to their nickel supply. I shall look into the possibility that there has been a formal note from the British government, but I doubt it very much.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the minister be prepared to report back to the House on this matter, particularly in respect of the impact of long-term strikes which would appear to jeopardize Canadian trade seriously?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I might do that publicly in a speech because I am concerned about this as much as anybody in this chamber. These strikes in respect of copper, nickel and steel, have a direct negative effect on our exports at this time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister received communications asking him to reconsider his decision to strike off strength the only highland regiment in the Canadian
October 31, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry army, the Black Watch, and has he made any further decision in this regard?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, obviously I received some representations concerning that decision which was, I might say, one of the most painful decisions I ever took. But the rationale that was applied with regard to three regiments of the active forces was that we were going back to the traditional position of three infantry regiments, and we chose the ones that had the longest active service-the Royal Canadian Regiment, the Royal 22nd and the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. We have given assurances to the disbanded regiments that they will not disappear, and I am sure that in the case of the Black Watch in particular there is no problem on that score. They have a very famous reserve unit and I am sure their glorious name will remain in the annals of the Canadian Armed Forces.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I ask the minister again whether he would not reconsider retaining the kilt, as was promised me in the House of Commons when the unification bill was put before the House by the former Minister of National Defence?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, putting the Black Watch in reserve does not eliminate the kilt-far from it. We should not jump to conclusions. The same goes for the pipes. I think I should inform my hon. friend that I am very partial to the pipes and the kilt, so I can reassure him they will not disappear.



POLICY RESPECTING OVER-QUOTA DELIVERIES

['Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Instead of making that kind of remark, will the Prime Minister find out how it is that the Department of External Affairs manages to get these reports out under the heading of "sources said"?']
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio from Sas-katoon-Humboldt, but in his absence perhaps it can be answered by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Now that the minister has announced in a press release a reversal in policy with regard to over-quota deliveries of wheat in exchange for flour for the producers' own use, is the government now prepared to advise the Wheat Board to restore over-quota deliveries in exchange for certified and registered seed?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I know about the first matter but not enough about the second. I will bring it to the attention of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board who will want to report, I am sure, at the first occasion.



Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I admit it is based on the same press report to which reference was made by the hon. member for Hillsborough, but perhaps I might be a little more lucky in getting it accepted. In view of the statement which the Prime Minister made to me on Wednesday of this week that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be making a statement in the House as soon as he comes back from Victoria regarding changes in the arrangements with respect to our diplomatic posts, can the Prime Minister tell us why these sources keep giving out little reports, and whether or not we will soon get a complete statement on the whole picture?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would prefer to ask the hon. member why he keeps on believing in canards and leaks. When the official announcement is made it will be made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I will repeat what I said on Wednesday; he will make a statement when he comes back from Victoria where he is attending the Columbo Plan Conference. As the hon. member knows, he is the minister in charge of the Department of External Affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Instead of making that kind of remark, will the Prime Minister find out how it is that the Department of External Affairs manages to get these reports out under the heading of "sources said"?



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact that, by prohibiting chum salnion fishing in Johnstone and Queen Charlotte Straits, the minister is responsible for desertion of the crews, possible bankruptcies, and unemployment without any assistance, can he now assure the house that alternative work or assistance is being provided for these men and women?
October 31, 1969	COMMONS


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this is no new problem. We have always had difficulties, particularly in years when runs of salmon were very low. We are authorizing a maximum take at sea, but we have to reserve a sufficient stock for future years. This is the problem we face at the moment.



HOUSING


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. In view of the tremendous success of building societies in alleviating housing shortages in Great Britain and in light of the announcement that the minister will be meeting with the trade minister of Ontario who has expressed the intention of seeking amendments to federal tax laws to facilitate the establishment of such societies here, will the minister give a clearcut assurance to the House that he will not allow this excellent proposal to be sacrificed to the detriment of Canadians, as is the continual demand for the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials? I ask this question because I understand that the government has the express intention of reaching a target of one million housing units in the next one and a half years, and the minister's answer would be of some help in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to suggest to the hon. member that his question is more a speech than a question and I do not think it can be allowed in this form.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order. Apparently my question was declared out of order because of superfluous material added to the question. If it pleases Your Honour, I would appreciate it at this time if the minister would give some indication whether the request of the Ontario trade minister will be treated in a favourable light by the minister when the two ministers meet in the course of the next few days?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: A meeting between the trade minister of Ontario, officials of the treasury of Ontario, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and myself is arranged for next Tuesday. Of course we will be very favourably disposed to any concrete recommendations that may be made by those gentlemen,
DEBATES	357
Inquiries of the Ministry and we will have a thorough exchange of views on the proposal to which the hon. member alluded as well as on many others. In concrete terms, we will be receptive to good suggestions without committing ourselves at this time to final acceptance or rejection in any particular terms.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Apparently the minister will be busy in the next few days. However, in view of the advice which he gave to the opposition that he will be making a statement with respect to the policy on urban renewal, I wonder if he can state now that within that statement he will be giving us some clear guidelines regarding the public housing situation?


Robert Knight Andras: I will include reference to the public housing guidelines in that statement when I make it.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I wish to ask the minister whether the government has imposed a quota on maritime housing.


Robert Knight Andras: Not to my knowledge.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Prime Minister when we may expect the tabling of volume 3 of the report of the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will inquire, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. May I ask if consideration is being given to a renewal at this session of the terms of reference of the Defence Committee inasmuch as pre-arranged meetings now being held can operate only on a non-official basis until the committee receives its terms of reference?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I believe I need a few minutes to recover and really understand the question.

October 31. 19S9
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that he has accepted to be honorary president of National Temperance Week and that such a gesture will enhance the event, could he take this opportunity to ask the responsible minister to review his policy concerning the fight against alcoholism in Canada?



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday I directed a question to the Secretary of State, followed by a supplementary question in answer to which the Secretary of State rose in his place and very clearly answered in the negative. My question of privilege is that for some reason or other I see that the minister's answer is not recorded in the official record. I thought that possibly on his return to the house he might wish to make some comments on this matter so that I and the people representing the Indian and Metis centres across Canada will know where we stand on the matter.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the part played by Premier Smallwood in the Prime Minister's election as leader of his party a few years ago, will the Prime Minister be showing his gratitude by going down to St. John's tomorrow to give poor old Joe a hand?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, might I be permitted to ask the Solicitor General, as acting house leader for the government, about the nature of the business of the House for next week. In particular, is the government giving any consideration to interrupting the Throne Speech temporarily to bring forward any measures it 
may have to deal with the current, urgent problem of inflation?


George James McIlraith: No,
Mr. Speaker. We propose to have the Throne Speech dealt with first. As the hon. member knows, there is full opportunity in that debate for hon. members to express their views on the subject of inflation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If they have any.


George James McIlraith: The proposal for the business to be submitted to the House for consideration after the Throne Speech is concluded covers items Nos. 2, 8, 11, 19, 10, 4 and 5 on today's order paper, but not necessarily in that order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, or perhaps to get a point made clear. We passed a motion last night to the effect that the vote on the amendment now before the House be taken at two o'clock today. I wonder whether we can be informed if Standing Order No. 9 (2) applies or whether there could be an understanding in the House that the bells will ring for only 15 minutes for this vote. As we are calling the vote at two o'clock, I wonder if we could not have an understanding that the bells will start ringing at two o'clock and stop at 2.15.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (12 noon)



ADDRESS DEBATE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jack Cullen for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session and the amendment of Mr. Nesbitt (p. 292).
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I will wait until the members leave the House, as they are now doing.
I wish to continue, Mr. Speaker, the debate and hopefully will begin where I left off yesterday, when I was referring to something which happened the day before. At that time
Ociober 31. 1969	COMMONS
we members from Newfoundland were given the greatest compliment of our political lives when we were criticized for working on behalf of the people of the east coast of Canada. I suppose not every member of this House shows the same concern or feels the same need to identify with the problems of people right across Canada. What we need in this House are 264 members who really care about the farmers of western Canada, who have a concern for the fishermen and the Indian peoples of our nation, the underprivileged, the under-educated, people in the slum areas, loggers, miners and the unemployed. Every time I see a member stand up in this chamber and indicate his concern for the people of this nation not in a position to help themselves, then I feel we are heading in the right direction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Lundrigan: In this nation we have something going for us that many nations of the world might envy, but we also have some of the greatest problems facing any nation in the western world.
In view of the roster system, I find it amazing that on one occasion there were only six ministers in the House instead of the 16 who were supposed to be here. This, in spite of the fact there are 28 or 30 ministers in the cabinet. That shows some concern for the people of this nation I must say, when six or seven ministers try to field questions thrown at them by members of the opposition.
I do not worry too much whether a member has a Ph.D., an M.A., or a B.A. or anything else as long as he is really concerned. Many people in Canada are disturbed-and I have to be a bit partisan here-about whether members of parliament feel deep down inside an identification with, and a concern for, the people of this country.
Does the Prime Minister really care? Montreal burns and he is at the National Arts Centre-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Could I ask a question, Mr. Speaker?


John Howard Lundrigan: Oh, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has had his show for today. For goodness sake, let the poor old member for Newfoundland continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has the floor.


John Howard Lundrigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to ask whether the Prime Minister
21362-24J
DEBATES	359
The Address-Mr. Lundrigan really cares when he is at the National Arts Centre watching the ballet-perhaps he is even doing a ballet-while in Montreal there is a riotous situation. Montreal bums and the Prime Minister "ballets".
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has not been in the House for a little while. Is he concerned about the hungry children in Canada? And the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) is he concerned about the fishermen of Fogo in Newfoundland who do not even have a wharf? I do not think he loses any sleep over that.


An hon. Member:: Yes, he does.


John Howard Lundrigan: What about the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEach-en) ? Is he excited and concerned, right deep down in the gut, about the problems in Argentia and Churchill? Do you think he is really concerned about them?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Lundrigan: Now, let us have a look at the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). I wonder if he frets about the farmers who have retired and the pensioners who live on $109.25 a month? Is he really excited about them? I am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is torn apart by the problems of the people in the Gaspe and of course the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) must be snowed under by concern for the snowed-under farmers of northern Alberta. I bet he cannot sleep at night thinking about them. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) must be all torn up over the problems of rural Canada. Has the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) lost any sleep over the plight of the Indians of the Lower Fraser who have to cut the dorsal fin off the salmon before they are allowed to sell it?
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) is not concerned about anything, so we will pass over him. But I bet the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) is worried about the static in CBC productions at Joe Batts Arm in Newfoundland. And I bet the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) sits there worrying about the seals off the Magdalen Islands, whilst the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) gets very excited over the state of homesteading in Vermilion. Is the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) worried about the sale of P.E.I. spuds to Maine or is he at the
October 31. 1969

The Address-Mr. Lundrigan Liberal leadership convention in Newfoundland today? It is your guess.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and talk about the other ministers, too, but I have not got the time.
We have sat in this parliament for over one year, and what have we done? We are supposed to be satisfied with what has happened and to bow down to the great gods of the Government of Canada. But what have we done? We spent a great deal of time talking about the Criminal Code amendments. As a result of six or seven weeks of activity in parliament, the homosexuals have it made in Canada. There are lots of red herrings in our path, and they are not all in Red China. We have talked about the language situation in this country and about re-organizing parliament. For almost half of last year, if I may exaggerate a little, we talked about re-organizing parliament. I have not been here for 20 years, as some others have been, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of the dullest places in which I have ever been. This place has gone to sleep. I think the Prime Minister has been more than successful. By the time another three years have passed we shall be able to write off parliament, because not even the press will want to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Lundrigan: We have in Canada some of the gravest problems facing any nation. Do not talk about separatism in Quebec, Mr. Speaker. There is separatism everywhere in Canada. Even the Premier of Alberta went to British Columbia and talked about the possibility of the union of western Canada. Is there not a possibility that there will be a union of eastern Canada? Everyone in Newfoundland is not happy with the present state of affairs, either. Talk about separatism-we are being torn apart.
We may talk about religious problems, linguistic problems, or this and that. I say that the problems facing Canada are the same as the problems facing most other nations of the world. In my opinion, they are economic problems. I remember a few years ago, when the United States was dumping tractors here, there and everywhere under its foreign aid program, hearing some great world leader say, "Do not talk about ideology and democracy to the hungry peoples of India and Africa. Talk about bread and butter issues." I commend that philosophy to the House.

We are supposed to be all excited about the just society which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) was to introduce to Atlantic Canada. I remember everyone being all excited when there was special consent in the House of Commons to extend the freight rate freeze. There was to be no debate; it was done by consent. The Minister of Transport, we were told, was a good fellow and everybody was supposed to be happy about what was done. Then, what happened? That same Minister of Transport announced early in September that as of September 23, I believe, the freight rate freeze was to be lifted, thereby increasing the cost of living of all who live in Atlantic Canada. This is what he did.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Howard Lundrigan: The Minister of Transport has talked about curing our national transportation problems. He said the government has to remove the bandaid. Well, he removed the bandaid and Atlantic Canada is bleeding to death.
A few years ago the Economic Council of Canada recommended in its Fourth Annual Review that national policies should not be applied uniformly across the nation because of the effect of such policies on slow growth areas. Last year many hon. members in the House reminded the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) that it would be dangerous to apply such policies right across the nation because slow growth areas would suffer. Right now the government has decided to put out the fires of inflation and make sure that everything comes to a standstill in Canada. These policies may benefit the people of Ottawa, Toronto or even Montreal; they may benefit many areas of Canada enjoying a good deal of affluence. But they will not benefit Atlantic Canada. The governments of our Atlantic provinces cannot borrow money left, right and centre. Business people do not like investing in Atlantic Canada. Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? I am not an economist, but I know a little about psychology and I say that people will not invest money in areas where the return is small. They prefer to invest their money in Toronto and other areas of rapid growth. I say that every time we talk about putting out the fires of inflation and making adjustments on a national scale, we are discriminating against areas of slow growth. The Minister of Finance admitted that he has been responsible for increasing unemployment in Atlantic Canada. Right now, on the basis of a national average, 3.1 per cent of our people are unemployed. We
October 31, 1969

have trouble in obtaining statistics for Newfoundland; but when statistics were available, as they were in August of this year, they showed that over 8 per cent of our people were unemployed. Mr. Speaker, in the middle of the summer 8 per cent of our people were unemployed!


An hon. Member:: Last January the figure was 20 per cent.


John Howard Lundrigan: As an hon. member says, last January our unemployment rate was at over 20 per cent. The unemployment rate for the Atlantic region as a whole runs to over 5 per cent. What kind of country is this that permits such a situation? At the same time, we are getting rid of our post offices and seeing certain seasonal employees in our part of the country laid off. Apparently the Department of Forestry refuses to do certain things. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), while all this is happening, has taken a holiday. Actually, I do not blame the minister, because I do not think he is responsible for his department's activities in this respect. But that is the kind of situation we face, Mr. Speaker.
Perhaps we all lack courage. Many problems face our nation and everyone in this House talks about those problems. Members of my party, members of the group to our left, members on the government side-even the Prime Minister-talk about the problems of our nation. At the same time, we do not seem to have the courage to do much about them. What really concerns me, what really raises my ire, is the way 1,800 Labrador fishermen, who failed in the fishery, were treated. Was it not a queen in Europe who told the people to eat cake when there was no bread? That is what the government said to our fishermen. It told them to eat cake, to go on the dole. Is this the just society?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Howard Lundrigan: I see that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) is not here, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that we have about half a million people in Newfoundland and only about 2 million people in the rest of Atlantic Canada, and many of them are leaving for the suburbs of Toronto and other cities. Perhaps they should all move out and create one large suburb somewhere. What bothers me is this: Will the government yield to the great power blocks of central Canada, to the pressures coming from the great population centres? Will it yield to political expendiency? Will it do what will please most voters, at the
The Address-Mr. Drury expense of Atlantic Canada? Will it make decisions that lead to political glory but that do us little good? I do not think the government has the courage to come to grips with the economic troubles facing our nation. This worries me.
I could continue in this vein all day, Mr. Speaker, but I will say this in conclusion. This government must show that it cares for its people. It must show it has deep understanding and some concern. I am not using big words, you will notice. "Care" is a small word, and so is "understanding". If the government does not have the courage to come to grips with Atlantic Canada's economic problems, it will be defeated. That is not very important, Mr. Speaker. The important thing is that if nothing is done our nation may fall apart.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, August 13, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke to the country about actions which the government was taking as a result of a comprehensive review of its expenditure and revenue patterns.
He pointed out that the review had disclosed, in particular, three compelling facts. First, almost without exception, this decade has been characterized by yearly budgetary deficits exceeding $4 billion in total and requiring upwards of $400 million per annum to service.
Second, despite a buoyant economy, increases in taxation and rapidly growing revenues, expenditures have shown a continuing tendency to outstrip revenues. Analysis shows that this phenomenon has resulted mainly from a rapid and larger than anticipated growth in certain large programs which the federal government shares with the provinces. Expenditures for such programs as hospital insurance, the Canada Assistance Plan, post-secondary education, and now Medicare, are projected to grow at a much more rapid rate than the increase in revenues at current tax rates. This means that unless taxes are to be increased further or savings are found elsewhere, the country will be faced with the situation of chronic and growing deficits in our public accounts.
Third, while new programs and activities are being introduced, old programs continue to grow with very little evidence that these were subjected to careful evaluation and scrutiny to see whether they are as relevant

October 31, 1969
The Address-Mr. Drury today as when they were introduced, or whether they have now served their purpose and should be eliminated or curtailed.
No government and no institution can afford to do at once all of the worth-while things that it would like to do and which it is requested to do. This means that governments must plan to ensure that, within the means available, those things are accomplished that are most urgent and most desirable.
Governments must ensure that their scarce resources are being applied to the most urgent and useful purposes. In light of this background, the government concluded that deficits could not be allowed to continue year in and year out and that, in current economic circumstances, the appropriate manner to remove the prospect of a deficit was by controlling assiduously the expenditure side of the budget.
Some high priority programs, including the shared-cost programs which I have mentioned, will require increased expenditure. But the majority of programs and activities cannot be allowed to increase in expenditure if we are to reach our budgetary objectives without an increase in taxation. The government, therefore, has set as its main guideline for preparation of the 1970-71 estimates the requirement that all programs and activities not referred to for specific treatment in other guidelines, would be frozen at current levels of expenditure.
What does this mean in clear, simple terms? This means that all cost increases, including salary increases, must be absorbed within the limits imposed by the dollar levels reflected in the 1969-70 estimates. This will necessitate painful reductions in operating budgets; the items for travel, advertising, use of consultants, supplies of all kinds and so forth. Far more important, it means a reduction in the size of the public service. Because salaries constitute the largest single item in operating budgets, departments will have to cut their work force in order to live within these dollar limits.
There has been a great deal of speculation about what this will mean, and prophets of gloom and doom have been raising the spectre of thousands of public servants being summarily dismissed from their jobs by a callous and unfeeling government. What are the facts?
Before the beginning of this fiscal year, the government reduced authorized levels in the public service by about 9,000 man-years. The government has since decided that, of the
IMr. Drury.]
positions that were vacant at the end of July, more than 10,000 will not be filled. For the coming year, the expenditure ceilings resulting from our hold-the-line guideline will mean, as the Prime Minister stated, from
5.000	to 7,000 fewer people on the federal payroll than there were at the end of July. Taken together, these reductions add up to
25.000	jobs, or a 10 per cent decrease from the 1968 authorized size of the public service.
I hasten to emphasize that this does not mean that 25,000 employees will lose their jobs. Nor does it mean that even 5,000 will be laid off. Normal attrition through retirement, resignations and the like amount to about 10 per cent of the work force each year. This has greatly facilitated the adjustments required in the past year and will facilitate those that will have to take place in the coming months. There will be some lay-offs. This is so because the jobs which become vacant through attrition are not necessarily in those programs where reductions will have to be made and the skills required to fill these positions may not be those possessed, even with retraining, by employees in other programs affected by the guideline.
To give an example, if a doctor leaves the public service and is to be replaced, it would be impossible to fill his position by transferring an employee from a program in which there were some cut-backs unless that employee is a doctor. This task of matching surplus employees with vacancies occurring through attrition is one which the Treasury Board, the departments and the Public Service Commission are dealing with, and the completion of which is fundamental to determining how many employees and of what kind will be able to be re-assigned or relocated.
This process is now going forward and the number can only be determined as departments complete adjusting their programs to these guidelines. I might emphasize here that, while the numbers game captures headlines and provides a certain dramatic interest, our main concern is with the individual.
Given the fact that the expenditure guidelines would necessitate a reduction in the size and composition of the public service, and knowing that the effects of the guidelines would vary among departments and among occupational groups, the government announced its decision immediately it was taken in order that departments would have the maximum amount of time to plan adjustments in their programs; that individual
October 31, 1969

employees would be made aware at the earliest possible date; and so that consultations with employee organizations could begin as soon as possible.
Within a few days after the government announcement in August, consultations began with employee organizations to discuss and develop personnel policies that the government should adopt with a view to, firstly, enabling departments and agencies to adjust their use of manpower to the new financial limits and government objectives and, secondly, to deal fairly with the employees directly affected and keep to a minimum the disruption of their employment in the public service.
These consultations took place over a period of several weeks. Many useful proposals were made by the employee organizations and were incorporated into the policies and procedures which are being applied to the handling of manpower adjustments. While it is perhaps to be expected that the employee organizations would have preferred a policy of no lay-offs, I think that it is correct to say that, in the circumstances, they would agree that the policies and procedures adopted go a long way toward dealing fairly and equitably with the employees affected.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
I mention these consultations because there have been allegations that the government acted in a unilateral way in deciding upon and issuing these policies and procedures. This simply was not the case. Indeed, consultations are continuing with the employee representatives to monitor the results of implementing the procedures and to ensure that the most effective action is, in fact, being taken.
I think it would be well to elaborate the principal measures which have been adopted and which are beng implemented. Surplus employees are being given first consideration for re-assignment to jobs for which they are qualified as positions become vacant in their own or other departments. The Treasury Board has requested the Public Service Commission to take action to restrict or suspend hirings and promotions in affected occupational groups and levels, as required, to facilitate the re-assignment of surplus employees.
Departments having requirements for new employees must seek them first from among the surplus employees reported to the commission. Re-assignment will be made not only within a department or between departments in a particular location but, if need be,
The Address-Mr. Drury between departments at different locations, although re-assignments will be attempted in such a way as to keep to a minimum changes in employees' jobs, occupations, departments and locations. Relocation expenses will be paid to employees who have to move and departments have been advised how to deal with these situations in detail. I might mention that these arrangements were also arrived at following consultations with employee organizations.
Departments have been directed to identify surplus employees as soon as possible so that there will be maximum time to attempt re-assignment and give maximum notification to the employees affected. Employees will be given at least three months' notice that they are surplus to requirements, and in many cases it will be possible to give longer periods of notice. During this period, every effort will be made to find other jobs for the employees affected.
Departments are keeping employees informed of the progress being made in attempting their re-assignment. If re-assignment is not possible, any lay-offs which take place will be according to the merit principles which govern order of lay-offs and which are set out in the Public Service Employment regulations.
It has been alleged that the government was firing all employees age 60 and over. Nothing could be further from the truth. It did seem, however, to make sense for departments to review the situation in respect of employees in this group, having in mind that there could be less hardship occasioned by the retirement of such an employee than by the lay-off of another employee whose length of service or other circumstances might be less favourable. Departments have been advised to take all factors into account, as well as departmental operational requirements.
It should be clear from what I have said that we cannot yet determine in any precise way how many employees may be separated from the public service. Certainly, it is my sincere hope and expectation that the measures adopted will keep the number to a minimum. Nevertheless, I think we must proceed in the manner that we have begun, because not to do so would be to avoid our responsibility to the public at large for greater efficiency in government departments and agencies and higher productivity from each person on the government payroll.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would

October 31. 1969
The Address-Mr. Drury permit a question? In the light of the statement he has just made, can he say whether any employees who are 60 or over but not yet 65 have been given notice of separation? If none has yet been given such notice, are such notices contemplated, or has the review of this whole question softened the government's attitude with respect to public servants nearing the retiring age?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I hope I made it clear that a softening of attitude was not needed. The hon. member is aware, I think, that under the superannuation legislation public servants earn the right to a pension payable at the age of 60 or after. Those who are separated from the public service at 60 or over qualify for, and will receive, an immediate pension. Those who are separated from the public service earlier-and I myself am in that category- qualify for a pension payable only when they reach the age of 60. This means that a man separated before he reaches the age of 60 does not qualify for an immediate pension. Obviously, he would suffer greater hardship than the man who gets an immediate pension on separation.
The age 60 group was mentioned in the light of the fact that the immediate pension is payable in respect of these people whereas those who have not reached that age have the right to a deferred pension payable at the age of 60.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
the government aware that with respect to any of these people who are 60 or 61 and who had expected to con inue until the age of 65, their plans, their complete future, will be at stake? We are terribly aware of the difficulties facing retired civil servants. In view of the fact that a further problem could be created by retiring these people before they expect to be retired, may I express the hope that the government will continue to review these guidelines, especially the one respecting persons over 60?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We are fully aware of the consequences of the interruption of a man's career. The situation in this group, the failure to achieve expectations, is the same for those under the age of 60 as it is for those over 60. In this sense, both groups are in a similar situation. We do not assume that merely because a man has reached the age of 60 he has no further problems or that there are no further problems involved in connection with separation. This is not only understood, but I am sure it will be taken into consideration by
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
heads of departments when designating those who are surplus to requirement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two injustices do not add up to a just society.


Mr. Thomas (Moncton):: Will the minister accept another short question? He referred to the relocation of employees in other departments of the civil service. I am wondering how this can be achieved. As I understand it, a freeze has been placed on the filling of vacancies in the service. If this is the case, how can these people be relocated?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The so-called freeze affects the engagement of new staff from outside the public service until such time as those who are within the public service, but for whom there is no requirement in their present occupation, are first considered. As I mentioned, attrition takes place at the rate of about
25,000	employees a year. In fact, some 25,000 people leave the public service each year because of death, retirement, resignation or dismissal. This means that daily there are vacancies occurring in the service. In the past, we have looked both within the public service and outside to fill these vacancies, but for the time being we shall be looking exclusively within the public service to fill these vacancies-looking at the list of employees who have been declared surplus to requirement in their present posts.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I would like to associate myself with the congratulations that have been extended to the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Mar-ceau) on their splendid addresses at the opening of this debate. I think there was a comment in Time magazine, just after the last election, to the effect that there was nothing that the Canadian people like to do more than to elect a conservative in the guise of a reformer. It is in the light of those remarks that I should like to review some of our progress to date, some of the anticipated progress we are going to make as outlined in the Speech from the Throne, and perhaps I should also say something about our lack of progress.
To begin, let me say that I think that remark in the magazine, to a large extent is wrong. We have been a reform government and have passed, and we anticipate passing,
October 31, 1969

progressive legislation. Some of it will probably be the most progressive legislation that this nation has ever seen. We have changed some of the rules of this institution. Putting the emphasis on committee work has given far greater scope to individual members of parliament than they had before to do a more effective job.
We have also changed some aspects of the criminal law which were long overdue for change. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) are to be congratulated on the omnibus bill they presented to the house during the last session.
Some of the decisions that have been made have taken courage. The decision to exchange ambassadors with the Vatican took courage, though I personally do not agree with what was done. The introduction of the bilingualism bill took courage and shows that the government is capable of exercising courage when required to do so.
We have also moved toward a more suitable constitution for the country, another change long overdue. We all look forward to a new constitution within our time. We have a new, progressive Indian policy which will lift these people up and fit them into society to take the rightful position they so much deserve. We are also doing something about regional development. I note from the Speech from the Throne that the government is considering future policy in depth and hopes to meet the coming challenge of the post-industrial era.
After a little dynamite and shotgunning from the back benches, the government has made a declaration of Arctic sovereignty, probably the first nationalistic step that this country has taken in a number of years. So, taken all in all, I think that we have made good progress.
But if I were to give my speech a theme, I should like to say that I do not think we have moved either fast or far enough, and that I am not so sure that we are always moving in the right direction. We know we are living in a rapidly changing society, one that is changing in many ways. The hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens), in his splendid address last night, showed the house how we are changing to an urbanized society from a rural one.
We are also changing in our private lives. We are changing from the static authoritarianism of the past to the humanism of today. No longer will people permit their lives to be controlled by dogmatic and institutionally

The Address-Mr. Hogarth imposed ethical and moral concepts. The ethical and moral evaluations of modern western man are more and more becoming matters of individual choice, rather than the submissive acceptance of the dictates of religion and government.
Although there are good aspects about this change, there are also bad aspects. Where the good aspects lie are in the fact that man is freer to seek the free expression of his unique personality, the process that psychologists tell us is one of self-realization. The bad aspects result in permissiveness, escapism, alienation from purpose, lack of social responsibility, and refusal to sacrifice for the common good. These evils result in disrespect for authority and for the institutions it represents, of which parliament is one. People are impatient for change.
One bad aspect of humanism is that in many instances people have contempt for law and order and show violence in their expression of dissent. Another bad aspect of humanism is the nihilism and escapism which is symptomized by the common use of drugs in our society today. There is an undue emphasis on pornography and obscenity in the arts and cultural media. It seems that this results in a world in which everybody is out for themselves, and this reflects itself in many of our labour disputes where there is complete contempt for responsibility and the innocent victims of mass strikes.
Politicians at all levels of government must be aware of this changing scene. They must be aware of its good and of its evils. The real challenge that is facing us today as responsible politicians is to be able to recognize the nature of this changing world, to be able to see its true meaning and its essence. In drafting our laws and our legislative programs we must suit the society for which they are designed and provide good government.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that this takes a certain amount of political genius. A reformer in a static society has a relatively easy job to do. But in the volatile boiling pot of the western world, and particularly Canada which is cursed with historical factionalism, with geographic, ethnic and religious differences and with a residual of authoritarianism, it is a very tough job.
There are one or two aspects of the Speech from the Throne that would lead me to believe that perhaps we have not seen this challenge to which I refer in its proper light. Mention is made of the unrest among our young people, with which we are all concerned. This is a symptom of the transition of
October 31, 1969

The Address-Mr. Hogarth which I have spoken. At page 2 of Hansard for October 23 appears this paragraph:
A disturbing element in many countries of the world has been the rising tide of unrest, particularly among young people. It has expressed itself in many ways, in public debate, in peaceful protest and sometimes in violence. Our profound disapproval of the excesses must not blind us to deeply felt and legitimate aspirations. Many citizens in our own country believe that they are entitled to assume greater responsibility for the destiny of our society. Such demands, in so far as they do not conflict with the general welfare, are the expression of a truly democratic ideal. They must be satisfied if our society is to attain its goals of peace and justice.
This is exactly what the activists have been saying. The expression "such demands, in so far as they do not conflict with the general welfare" indicates to me that the government is going to remain the final arbiter of what general welfare is. It is the "establishment" that determines what is general welfare. It appears to me that the inference there is that, unless the young people stay within the framework of those concepts that we have decided shall govern in the future, then reforms and activism are unacceptable.
I do not think this is the way we should look at reform. Neither do I think it is the way we should look at our changing society. After all, what have we done for our young people? Following those euphemistic words in the Speech from the Throne the only provision we made for them was the lowering of the voting age to 18. We must go much further than this, and not only in parliament; we must go further in our political processes. We must encourage our young people to join political parties. Although everyone says we do this, we must make sure we provide the structure that will allow them to voice their requirements. Through their vote they can influence government.
A young person who joins a political party today has a difficult time in getting his views adopted. If he is successful in getting a resolution passed, it is not binding on the government of the day, even if it is his own party that is in power. Modest steps have been taken in our caucus to correct this situation. We are looking forward to reforms that will at last permit elected representatives to have a say in government policy. But that is not enough. We should have our political processes structured from the grass roots to the East Block so these things are acceptable and understood.

[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
Another passage from the speech is most disconcerting. We have put some emphasis on reforms to the Criminal Law and these are long overdue. The speech outlines what we mean by this in the following sentences:
The size, complexity and fallability of the structures that technology imposes on modern societies are often in conflict with the protection and development of individual values. The workings of both private and public institutions may endanger the individual's free expression of his unique personality. He must therefore be protected from anything that jeopardizes his rights or limits his personal development.
What do we do? It appears that the elephant has given birth to a rabbit. The only reforms we have are amendments to the Criminal Code pertaining to bail and wire tapping. We have an also ran from the Solicitor General's department dealing with pardons, which is really only going to have a psychological effect. We have also a bill from the Senate on hate literature. When you consider what is necessary, you must realize that these reforms are pitifully inadequate. Oddly enough, we use the most altruistic motives but you will note that not one of these amendments is going to cost any money. If we are going to have Criminal Law reform and justice, we must be prepared to meet the cost.
Consider what we should be doing. In 1929 the Juvenile Delinquents Act was passed. It was known early in the game that it was not satisfactory, and it certainly is not satisfactory now. In 1965, four years ago, we had a departmental committee set up which prepared an excellent report after travelling all over Canada discussing these problems with sociologists, lawyers and judges. That report was filed in 1965 but nothing has been done since 1965 about that Act. We should have it before us this session, and it should have been before Parliament at the last one. We wonder what the delay is and why it is not before us.
Let us consider the Ouimet report which we received ten days ago. I was pleased to hear the Solicitor General (Mr. Mellraith) say today, and I note he is in the house, that he is open for suggestions as to what to do with it. That very splendid report should have been automatically referred to a standing committee of this house, or we should have a special committee set up to consider it. The reforms in it are far-reaching and if we do not get at it soon, by the time we do get at it the reforms it suggests will themselves need reforming.
October 31, 1969

We need a national criminal legal aid scheme. Provincial legal aid should be subsidized and integrated with a national scheme like medicare. It is disgraceful to see accused persons try to defend themselves on serious charges. This is our responsibility. We give the accused the right to a full answer in defence by counsel learned in the law. The accused then asks where his counsel is, and finds he does not have one. We will provide the judge, we will provide the police witnesses and even in federal cases we provide the prosecutors, but we do not provide counsel for the accused.
At the justice committee last year we disciplined ourselves to considering solely what was in the Omnibus Bill. Time and time again it was pointed out to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) that other sections of the Criminal Code should be amended. The wording of the Criminal Code is disgraceful. We were told these amendments would be made during the next session and that there would be a mini-bill. It is not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. I think it should be before this house now because these things were drawn to the attention of the Department of Justice and agreed upon in some instances.
We need reform of our laws dealing with the criminally insane. We treat them like pigs. We incarcerate them in isolation and wish that somehow this whole matter would go away because it is not a human problem. We need reform. We need extensive research into psychopathic criminal behaviour, we need research in respect of psychopathic sexual behaviour. What is causing it and what can be done to prevent it? We must find out how we can avoid the terrors of this particular type of criminal activity.
I am surprised that after the rape of Montreal we are not giving some attention to a change in our laws pertaining to riots and disorders. These laws are somewhat archaic if you take a good look at them. I am surprised that we have not got an extension to Section 70 of the Criminal Code so that policemen who have a responsibility must obey that responsibility or get out of the police force. I am surprised that we have not extended that section so we might prevent riots and civil disorders. Our judges are not properly paid. This government is niggardly in respect of judges. They are not being properly paid in comparison with the earnings of men of similar experience in the legal profession.
We should abolish corporal punishment. Why do we not meet these challenges? Why

The Address-Mr. Hogarth do we not at least put them up for debate? In any event, we need abolition of corporal punishment. There have been bills before parliament for years providing for the abolition of this prehistoric device which never works at the best of times. These are just a few of the fields we should be dealing with in the area of Criminal Law. Like the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) wished to do, I could go on all day.
I am proud of what the Speech from the Throne says, but I am somewhat ashamed by what it does not say and what it should be saying. If we would be reformers we have to give some attention to what is holding things up and what is the missing cog in the machine. I think one hang-up is our failure to examine closely the mechanics by which this institution operates, by which change could rapidly take place and by which there could be action and reaction to public demands within a reasonable period of time instead of years. I think we are constipated by tradition and fear of action; tradition that is meaningless in modern Canada and fear of action which shows a lack of feeling of national destiny.
Some of the rules of this house are quaint. Rule 28 says that any member wishing to speak shall rise uncovered. We stopped wearing hats in the House of Commons years ago. That is just a trivial example of many of the archaic things in those rules. Some of the trappings of the house look as though they came out of the pages of Treasure Island.
We should never have abolished the committee we set up during the last session to consider changes in the rules of this house. It should be a standing committee so that these rules might be constantly under review. It probably could give attention to some of the problems of the house.
One of the greatest obstructions to change in Canada today is the fantastic bureaucracy of the Canadian Civil Service. The Canadian Civil Service taken as a whole, with some notable exceptions, has not had an original idea since Confederation, and that came from an Englishman. The odd thing is that these public servants never get fired. The rarest thing in the Canadian Civil Service is a rolling head. This just does not happen. These Civil servants are either promoted, put somewhere else or drafted into some research station where nobody ever sees them again, but they are still paid. Some of them show true genius-true genius at making excuses and causing delay. We have all had experience with these people at committee meetings
October 31. 1969

The Address-Mr. Hogarth when considering a minister's estimates. A civil servant, knowing he is going to get into a little hot water and knowing also that a member has only 10 minutes to ask questions, is very good at taking 10 minutes to give his first two names. You never do really find out who he is.
The real fear, however, and the real blame rests to a great extent on ourselves. We have to take a great deal of the blame. We also are afraid to abandon the baby blankets of the past. We are afraid to attack conventional wisdom. We are afraid of what political effect this is going to have in our ridings. That is what we are afraid of. We are afraid to stand up and make statements that we know might not be acceptable, even though we know they are morally and logically sound. We are terribly afraid of political introspection. We have too much pragmatism and compromise, and not enough principle. Compromise is a political device, not a principle at all. This brings about half-baked programs.
Look at what we did finally with the languages bill last year when we compromised. Section 11(1), as a result of a compromise made by this government with the western At' orneys-General, ended up by providing that in a bilingual district an accused person or a witness, has the right to speak either of these two important languages. However, when the accused is addressing the court or a jury, he has no such right. This is left to the discretion of the court. That was the result of the compromise. You can see what compromise can do to principle.
[DOT] (f2:50 p.m.)
We act out of sentimentality fostered by public opinion that can be swayed and distorted by false and fraudulent facts promulgated by the mass media. A prize example of this sort of action was the cancellation of the seal hunt. It was so sentimental I am surprised it was not announced by Mickey Mouse or Smokey the Bear, because those of us who went into that problem in depth found there was no cruelty to animals. We found conservation was being practised and we found it was an economic thing for the people to be doing. I wonder if we will cancel all the trapping and killing of animals in Canada. If we were to follow that principle we would be in serious trouble in respect of many of the industries.
We are too parochial. We fail to see this country as a country which in the existential sense is in the process of "becoming". We lack healthy nationalism. Those of us on the back bench who advocated the proclamation

of Arctic sovereignty last spring were, as reported in the press, referred to as ultra-nationalists. I am proud to be an ultra-nationalist if this results in the announcements that have been made recently on this subject.
Canadians have dealt for years somewhat harshly with their would-be activists and would-be reformers. We have always been very cautious of them. I was wondering the other day what Louis Riel, one of the great Canadian activists, would think if he were here now. He would say, "Today the scaffold, tomorrow the monument, the day after tomorrow the postage stamp".


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since there has been some little doubt concerning what the procedure would be in connection with the order of the House I would propose at this time, if all parties agree, that the question be put, the yeas and nays taken, and if it should then appear from that a recorded vote would be taken, then the bells should ring once at two o'clock for 15 minutes. Thereafter, the recorded vote should be taken. I say this because there has been some doubt about the procedure and this would have the effect of apprising hon. members of precisely what would be done. There is hardly time for another speech to be made between now and one o'clock. If this is satisfactory, Your Honour might put the question and then after the vote has been taken of course the debate would proceed.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what the proposal is. I should like to know upon what I am alleged to be voting. There was an agreement of the house that we would vote at two o'clock. I take it that some modification of that agreement is being proposed.


Gerald William Baldwin: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I might make an explanation because the Chair was involved in the discussion. It is simply a proposal to overcome the difficulty about posing the question and to avoid ringing the bells twice. I understand that if there is agreement, the Chair would put the question now and the vote would not take place until 2.15.


George James McIlraith: My understanding is that it is simply a proposal to clarify the procedure in such a way that at two o'clock we can ring the bells once for the required 15 minutes and then proceed to the recording of the vote. If
October 31, 1969

that understanding is correct, we are quite agreeable on this side.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed; that was the idea.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If it is agreed, I might put the question at this time. The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt).
All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my view the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will call in the members at two o'clock. It now being one o'clock I leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 pun.
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker. I join my colleagues in congratulating the hon. members for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) for their contributions which set the high tone of this debate. I must also express my appreciation to other hon. members who have spoken thus far. They have spoken sincerely and their speeches have been of high calibre. I congratulate those who have been appointed Parliamentary Secretaries. I wish them luck. I wish the two Ministers without Portfolio from urban ridings in Toronto and Windsor well. I earnestly hope they do not become frustrated
October 31, 1969

The Address-Mr. Alexander because of this government's evident lack of interest in urban progress. I will not repeat what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and others have said so eloquently about the Speech from the Throne, that it is full of pious platitudes. I agree with that. It contains good points, however, one of them being that the government has at last recognized the young people of this country and will give them the opportunity of taking advantage of the franchise. Let it be known, Mr. Speaker, that at the Niagara Conference of October 9, 10 and 11, this party laid down the guidelines on this question. This government has not suddently thought of this matter. It has been thought of before.


Harold Edward Winch: It was thought of in Saskatchewan 20 years ago.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I share in the concern of young people who say that they should have the opportunity to run their own affairs. They want to participate in the directing of this country's affairs and to play a significant role. We are privileged and honoured, because in this country we have young people with special talents. I say this with all sincerity, because it was as a result of the vim and vitality of the young people in my constituency that I was elected to the House of Commons. For that I am extremely grateful. Our young people will not remain patient in the face of injustice and will not settle for token measures that only gloss over and do not solve problems. Many of them are disillusioned with "the establishment". I say to them, "You will be part of the establishment once you have the franchise." If they are disappointed with the performance of any elected member, they should kick him out. That is ah there is to it. If they do not know how to go about that, they should speak to the seasoned politician-and I consider myself a seasoned politician since I have finished my one year apprenticeship stint in this House. We will show our young people whom they should back and whom they should not back. They should not vote for those who are incapable of giving proper direction to the affairs of this country.
The Speech from the Throne referred to pollution, a matter of high priority. Having read several articles on the subject and having seen several documentaries in the last two or three years, I have concluded that if we do not begin solving the problem of pollution in the next three or four years we may have nothing at all, literally, to worry about in 25 years time. We must show concern not

only in respect of water pollution but various forms of pollution that affect the earth, the air and our environment. We have all heard about noise, visual pollution and even mental pollution. We know the problems. To discover them we do not need to conduct a great deal of research or intensive study. I think it would be well if this government were to create a separate ministry responsible for pollution, to co-ordinate and bring under one authority the anti-pollution programs of other departments of government. That way the federal government could set standards. Penalties for infractions of the regulations could also be established. We must keep in mind that provincial governments will have set up their own antipollution programs and that local authorities concerned with pollution have introduced specific anti-pollution measures. You know, Mr. Speaker, about 200 agencies are concerned with pollution. Surely, the federal government could step into the picture, give leadership, and co-ordinate the activities of the various bodies in this nation in the fight against pollution. That way we could correlate all the information about pollution that has been gathered, and pass this information on to those interested in the matter.
Although this government may express interest in the subject of pollution, I doubt its sincerity in solving the problem. On the one hand, we have the centre devoted to the study of inland waters at Burlington, where the government will spend millions of dollars on research into pollution; and, on the other hand, we have the case of the City of Hamilton. The city knew what its problem was and decided to call tenders in the early part of 1970 for the completion of a secondary sewage plant, but this government said, "No". I remember asking the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing about this matter, and in a pious-sounding answer he as much as said, "There is no sense in undertaking this project now." I ask, what is of prime importance in our fight against pollution?
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Another area that has been dealt with in the Throne Speech is housing. This government has indicated its desire to see one million housing units built within the next five years. This is commendable, but we have been telling this government all along that there has been a housing crisis. This is an area which we should move into quickly, and I will have more to say about that later.
There are other objectives mentioned in the Throne Speech which are admirable such as
October 31, 1969

those with respect to tax reform and the war against inflation. Whether we are proceeding in the right way remains to be seen. What strikes me as being extremely significant is the fact that Anthony Westall, a man whose ability I can appreciate, sums up the speech in this way:
"The Trudeau government remains today without a clear image-Is it progressive or reactionary?- and without a social message for Canadians".
The latter part is extremely important, "without a social message for Canadians". As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, this government is going through a planning stage. This government spent its first year in power clearing up old business, finding the problems and then attempting to slit the throat of the opposition by the imposition of 75c. That was their main, significant contribution during the first year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The second year, Mr. Speaker, will be taken up with the discussion of solutions; the third year with putting through legislation, and the fourth year with sitting back and gloating over their marvellous contribution. Then, the government will go to the people.
I cannot say anything against planning, Mr. Speaker. Planning is always required. However, there are certain areas in which we must move away from too rigid a stand. There are many areas which this government will now have to take into consideration. They will have to forget they are at the planning stage because they are also at the problem, solution and legislation stages today.
Action is needed, Mr. Speaker, particularly in two areas, unemployment and the complexities of urban growth. This is the great tragedy of that Speech from the Throne. For some reason or other, there was a lack of recognition of these two very important crises in the Canadian economy. If this government promised anything, Mr. Speaker, it promised to govern and create. They were going to create a new Canadian society, but how can you create a new Canadian society without the recognition of the great sprawling urban problems?
A society, just or otherwise, can only develop on a foundation of healthy economic growth and that means job opportunity, decent annual incomes, steady demand, steady production and last, but not least, equality of opportunity to share in national development and prosperity. No society can
The Address-Mr. Alexander be termed just that contains within it the regional disparities that we find in Canada. No society can be truly just that can callously write off, for the sake of convenience, primary industries that happen to have fallen on evil days and whole sections of the population who, through no fault of their own, happen to share this state.
From reading the representations of the Economic Council over the years it is seen that the term "full employment" is continually emphasized. This phrase is coupled with a strong affirmation that it is one of the principle keys in Canada's future. It is really ironic. This nation is spending billions of dollars and taking in by revenue billions of dollars, with an export trade the envy of many underdeveloped nations and not a few industrialized nations, with a standard of living, possessed of space, natural resources uncounted and human resources mercifully detached from the problems created by unfriendly neighbours. Yet with all this, with all our achievements, affluence and potential, we must admit to an inability to gainfully employ close to 5 per cent of our people who are able and willing to work.
Surely, the solution to this problem presents challenge enough for the most imaginative and dynamic government. This figure of close to 5 per cent is bad enough, but what is worse is the regional breakdown. Here we find a rate of 7.1 per cent for the Atlantic provinces; 6.8 per cent in Quebec; 3 per cent in Ontario; 3.4 per cent in the Prairies and 5.4 per cent in British Columbia. This is proof positive of the statement of the Economic Council of Canada and I quote:
The level of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces and to a lesser degree Quebec is persistently higher than the national average at all times.
Such a condition points to the need for flexible policies applicable in differing degrees to regional needs, rather than blanket policies which have no regard for regional needs and only accentuate regional disparity. In this regard, we now have the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which will carry on the policy of giving grants to industries to persuade them to establish in certain areas or to stay in areas where they are already established.
What we should have is a very clear picture of how these powers will be applied in this new department and how it will operate. If we were able to spend very large sums of money in the past few years without securing the desired results, let us not repeat that process. If we are going to simply follow the
October 31, 1969

The Address-Mr. Alexander line of least resistance and go Where growth already exists, where industries are already established, then where is the case for this department and its calls for correlation?
The hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau), took this government to task, particularly the Minister of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand), because there was no liaison between the departments. There is no liaison between that department and the Department of Transport, as well as that of the Postmaster General. The hon. member asked how in heaven's name these slow growth areas are ever to take their place in the main stream of Canadian life when we have ministers who do not even discuss what is going on in terms of relieving the frustrations of the Atlantic provinces.
I am particularly disturbed about the nonrecognition of the complexities of urban growth. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for York North (Mr. Givens) deal briefly with this problem in his speech. It made my heart jump for joy, because I thought I was going to hear a blast against this government that would leave nothing to be desired by the hon. member for York West. This former mayor of Toronto stated that if he were on the treasury benches, he would have ensured that the problems of urban growth would have been included in the Speech from the Throne.
In the 1970's this country will have a population of some 25 million. According to the statistics that have been gathered, the population of this country in the 1980's will be centred in 29 cities. We have heard mention of Toronto and Montreal, and we can even throw in Hamilton. In the next 10 or 15 years Ontario will have a population of 10 million. When we think of these facts we see how significant it is that we should be urban oriented. With all due respect to my rural friends, we have to face the realities.
We have to be concerned about the quality of life being experienced in urban centres. We must be concerned about crime, mental disease, depression, frustration, alcoholism and drug usage. A member of our party stated yesterday the only advice he can give to the youth of our nation today is to "get off the pot". Until such time as I can be shown there is some merit in the use of marijuana and until it is acceptable, I am against it. I also say to the youth of this country, "get off the pot".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We need a recognition that the question of urban growth is one of immediate and profound concern to this nation and to the quality of day to day living in Canada. Yet none of the basic issues of daily life in Canada appears to have moved the imagination of our well-dressed Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or of his less colourful retinue of thinkers, theorists and swingers. In these circumstances, the just society is unobtainable, and its promise is an insult to our intelligence. At the most, it continues to exist as an election slogan which has been almost totally rejected by the farmer, the fisherman, the urban dweller and by the four million of us who are living in poverty today. Let me say, in my own language-and it is language which is becoming increasingly acceptable: this government must stop shafting the poor.
After all, what could we expect? It has been said that the Prime Minister promised
October 31, 1969

nothing. Well, this government, in keeping with that statement has, in the minds of many people, done little or nothing in concrete terms to justify the confidence, plaudits and enthusiasm of Canadians.
In considering the subject of urban renewal we cannot ignore the municipalities. This was made clear by the experience of the government in connection with two airports in particular, one on Toronto Island and the other outside Montreal. The 37th annual conference of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities indicated quite clearly that the Municipalities wished to have a voice in all discussions which concerned urban affairs. These people are concerned about transportation; they are concerned about housing; they want to be brought into discussions at levels upon which their experience can be useful. The Federation expressed a desire to participate whenever possible in the manner set forth at the federal-provincial constitutional conference. If we are to make any headway in this field, we must begin to recognize that because of the rate of urban growth and its increasing complexity we shall have to reach down-and I say that with a great deal of respect-to receive wisdom and guidance from the municipalities.
It has been said that pressures for increased expenditures in urban areas are likely to mount rapidly, and it is to be noted that the real property tax, which is still by far the largest source of local revenue, is considerably less responsive to economic growth than are the revenue sources of the federal and provincial governments. As stated by the Economic Council, the gap between municipal expenditure requirements and the revenue derived by municipalities is likely to increase; in the absence of a continuing increase and transfer of revenue from the senior government or further shifts of responsibility to other levels of government it will become increasingly difficult to maintain, let alone to improve, the quality of the urban environment in which the vast majority of Canadians will be living.
It is extremely important that we become aware of what is happening in terms of urban growth. What about urban renewal? I must have asked 30 or 40 questions on this subject since I came here. We have had a succession of ministers-the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Benson), the former member for Vancouver Centre, Mr. Nicholson, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) and the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing (Mr. Andras). It seems to me they
The Address-Mr. Alexander each gave consideration to the proper way of approaching urban housing problems and that the municipalities were given every encouragement to pursue the plans which were on their drawing boards. The city of Hamilton was no exception in this regard. It was understood and accepted that its scheme was a good one. The local authority undertook to carry on and the government indicated it was behind this project. It seems to me, now, Mr. Speaker, that Hamilton was led down the garden path and then kicked over the cliff. Hamilton had a $14 million project going in its project for York Street urban renewal and it was looking for some $5 million from the federal government as its contribution. Then, government spokesmen suddenly announced: It's tough luck but we have only $2,500,000.
Do you know what situation has resulted, Mr. Speaker? When I go to York Street today the people who own the stores, shops and homes which have been expropriated ask me what is happening. I say to them: Blame the government in Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I tell them to blame this government because the present government has not shown any humanitarian feeling. I listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) talking about the little people. What does he know about the little people? We find this is a very hard pill to swallow. In my opinion, as a result of the attitude the government has taken, it is not possible to secure the trust, the faith and the co-operation which are expected from municipalities. How can you expect these things when you lead them down the garden path?


An hon. Member:: You are talking about John Robarts?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The present minister
responsible for housing stated recently:
Until a more well-defined and logical long term Canadian urban renewal policy can be formulated and enunciated, municipalities with urban renewal schemes presently in preparation, will have to elect either to suspend further study or alternatively to complete their work in the knowledge that additional federal funds for implementation of schemes may or may not be forthcoming.
He made this statement regardless of the fact that some of these programs have been in preparation for some five or six years. The cities need information concerning the guidelines which affect urban renewal. They are interested in knowing why a program which was apparently satisfactory has been cut back. Most of all, they are interested in
October 31, 1969

The Address-Mr. Alexander knowing whether further funds will be forthcoming from the federal government; they demand a statement, in the course of which urban renewal policy will be disclosed.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) asked the minister the other day when he intended to make such a statement. He said he would do so within a few days. Mr. Speaker, I have heard that promise ever since I came here. I asked the minister whether he would deal, in the course of that statement, with the guidelines for public housing. He said, yes, he would probably include that subject. The municipalities are sick and tired of this pussyfooting, this evasion of the issue. I hope that the question I asked the minister this morning about building societies will be given very sympathetic consideration when the province of Ontario moves into this field. If we do not have some sort of means whereby mortgage money is attracted into the housing field, then there just is no way in which the government will complete its one million units within the next five years. I hope the government will lend a sympathetic ear in this regard.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
According to the statistics, in the year 1967 there were 164,123 housing starts; in 1963 there were 196,878; and the estimate for 1969 is 190,000. The government's objective of one million new housing units during the next five years is probably based on the report of task force on housing and urban development, page 23, which reads:
A minimum of one million additional units over the next five years would allow the housing market to keep pace with new demand plus making at least some inroads into the current backlog of overcrowding, obsolescence and general shortage of supply.
In setting a target of one million additional units by 1973-
-which is what the task force report indicated-
-it should be stressed that this is a minimum objective-the task force would earnestly hope that actual achievements would run considerably above this.


An hon. Member:: We will reach the target.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I suggest you tell your minister to approve building societies, and then you may have a chance. Assuming that an estimate of about 190,000 starts for this year is reasonably accurate, the next four years through 1973 would all have to be exceptional ones, averaging close to 205,000 even to achieve the level the Hellyer task force claims is an absolute minimum. With growing demand paced especially by rapid growth in

new family and household formation as the post-war baby boom hits the housing market, the council projected a total increase of about If million new housing units in the eight years from 1967 to 1975.
I am sure you are about to call time, Mr. Speaker, but may I just have another minute to conclude?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. member leave of the house to continue his remarks beyond his allotted time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I shall finish shortly, Mr. Speaker. In order to expedite my remarks I shall read the rest of them, even though my hon. friend in the New Democratic party said that members should learn to speak without the aid of typewritten notes. We will achieve this eventually. You have a new breed of politician in the House now, Mr. Speaker, one who is aware of his functions here and the image that he must project in order that Canadians, as I told some young people here today, will respect this house. I am not afraid that this government will reduce this respect, because it is our function to make sure that this respect continues in the age old tradition of grandeur and understanding.
This government is obsessed with abstract things and has no inclination to tackle the many existing emergencies, some of which I have mentioned. Instead we, as parliamentarians, representing the people of Canada, are asked to treat as urgent matters such as abortion, homosexuality and language rights.
All these may have their importance-there can be no doubt about that; but at the same time it seems to me they should have no priority in a country as urgently in need of action in the economic sector as Canada.
The title of one of the latest reports of the Economic Council of Canada is "Challenge of Growth and Change". This is a challenge that for some reason or another has been continually ducked by this government, even though they continually point out the shortcomings in our economy and what should actually be done to alleviate the many serious situations.
In conclusion, what this country needs is a government that is conscious of the realities. We need a government with policies to alleviate problems resulting from urban growth that are becoming more and more intense. We need a government that can produce instant programs, a government whose first concern is the strengthening of Canada's economy, the
Ociober 31. 1969	COMMONS
reaffirmation of our national identity and integrity, and the maintenance of Canadian sovereignty within our territories. In this respect, the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with regard to Arctic pollution should have been a little stronger. Let us state firmly that those waters are ours, and then we will see how the cookie crumbles.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, may I join in the general acclaim of my colleagues, the hon. members from Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and Lapointe (Mr. Marceau), who so ably moved and seconded the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. In offering this congratulation I must immediately disclaim any implication of surprise, or even remarkability. The quality of their efforts was really only of that degree of excellence which we in the back rows on both sides and in the rump opposite have come to expect of our parliamentary contemporaries.
Last year when speaking in the budget debate I remarked that the Company of Young Canadians was a controversial creation of Parliament. Certainly, nothing has occurred in recent months to cause me to amend that assessment. The Company is currently under assault by some of the most influential political figures in Canada. The Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts has now been charged with the responsibility of looking into its operation. In view of the tenor of some of the charges giving rise to this investigation, one might almost expect the national defence committee to have been given this responsibility.
However, I am extremely happy that a subcommittee of that committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier), will be visiting Calgary to hear evidence on C.Y.C. activities there. Whatever the situation elsewhere, they will have the opportunity to review a C.Y.C. operation that has worked and worked well; an operation that has, with the very limited means available to it, fulfilled its function of bridging the gap between the mainstream of society and some of its alienated elements, and left behind it a residue of ongoing community leadership. It is an operation which, in short, has achieved the objectives its creators visualized.
There are a number of recently, and perhaps temporarily, unemployed politicians in Calgary who must regret profoundly their assessment that the repercussions of C.Y.C.
DEBATES	375
The Address-Mr. Mahoney activity there was a cause, rather than a symptom, of civic malaise.
I had the honour early this month, at the invitation of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, to attend and participate in a seminar sponsored by the John F. Kennedy Institute for Atlantic Studies at the University of Tilburg in The Netherlands. The subject of the seminar was NATO and security in the seventies. Following this I visited, along with other members of this chamber and the other place, the Council of Europe at Strasbourg; the First Canadian Air Division at Lahr, and the Fourth Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group on manoeuvres in the field near Brunswick, Germany.
I then took part with the parliamentary delegation in the deliberations of the North Atlantic Assembly in Brussels, and with a smaller group representing this Parliament at a meeting in Paris under the auspices of the development aid committee of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. This latter meeting focussed its attention on the report on development aid entitled "Partners in Development" prepared for the World Bank by a distinguished committee under the chairmanship of our immediate past Prime Minister, the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson.
I should like to pay tribute to the hon. member for Etobicoke (Mr. Gillespie) who headed our delegation to Brussels. The preparation and advance briefing that we received was extremely valuable, and this was carrying on the tradition established last year by the hon. Senator John Aird. I sincerely hope that this tradition of briefing and preparing of delegations, and of establishing a degree of continuity between parliamentary delegations to the more important international assemblies, will be continued.
[DOT] (3:0C p.m.)
There is no doubt in my mind, in the mind of any informed European, or in the minds of our troops in Europe, that our soldiers are, man for man, the finest, best trained and most effective military force on that continent. They are professionals. They are capable of fulfilling their assigned task better than any other force, but that capability does not necessarily mean that the assigned task is the right task; and just because it was the right task 15, 10, or even five years ago does not mean it is necessarily the right task now. An uncritical perpetuation of the existing role would be tantamount to closing our eyes to some very fundamental changes in the balance of world power.
October 31, 1989

The Address-Mr. Mahoney
There is the greatly increased capacity of the European nations to provide for their own defence in conventional terms. There is the awareness that an incident in the European theatre likely to escalate into any sort of war-the so-called accident-will more likely occur on one of NATO's lightly guarded flanks, Norway, Turkey, the Mediterranean, rather than in the relatively heavily armed centre, Germany where any action would almost immediately bring the aggressors into contact with United States troops and a possible nuclear retaliation. There is the fact that on a global basis the United States and Russia have achieved practical parity in the capacity for mutual obliteration by strategic nuclear weapons. There is the fact of growing Chinese power and ever-increasing ferment in the developing world. There is the evident thrust of Soviet policy to compete with the United States as a global military power. This is implicit in the growing show of Soviet naval strength particularly in the Mediterranean but also in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. It is implicit in the development of the Antonov 22 long-range, troop transport aircraft, the helicopter carriers now at sea or nearing completion, and the expansion of their marine infantry.
Russia is rapidly equipping itself to perform the same global role of which the United States is presently capable. Once it has this capability, and given de facto strategic nuclear equality with the United States, will Russia be able to avoid involvement in distant trouble spots? Is it not likely that opportunities for involvement will be more numerous than in the past?
Canada's defence policy, with the pre-eminent position given its NATO commitment, was formulated before these fundamental changes in the balance of world power at a time when one could with reasonable certainty postulate that the only real peril to Canada was the fact that a nuclear war between Russia and the United States would necessarily involve us; that the most likely cause of such a war would arise in Europe and that Canada's interests were, therefore, best served by a total commitment to NATO. With changing conditions the only real peril to Canada remains, for the time being at least, the fact that a nuclear war between Russia and the United States will necessarily involve us. But we can no longer safely assume that Europe is the only place where a confrontation leading to that war is likely to occur; indeed, it seems more likely to occur elsewhere.
The situation which we face justifies the decision to rearrange our defence priorities and it also justifies the reconfiguration-that is the official word, not mine-which will see integrated, highly mobile air transportable troops forming the basic fighting units of our armed forces. But while the transformation of, if you like, reconfiguration may be the right thing to do, it will not be an inexpensive thing to do. Concern must be expressed that the current economy drive could seriously impair and even delay this process at a time when it is vital that it proceed with all due dispatch. Given adequate resources our Canadian armed forces will continue to be, man for man, the free world's most effective military force, filling an even more valuable role than in the past. A second element of our foreign policy, development aid, is receiving increased attention, and indeed has been exempted from the expenditure guidelines which the government has applied to practically all other areas of activity. This attitude of the Canadian government is somewhat unique in the international community today.
The first pages of the Pearson Commission Report are replete with such terms as "feasibility in question", "disillusion and distrust", "volume stagnant", "commitments declining", "spirit of disenchantment", "misconceptions", "criticism of waste" and "frustration and impatience". The report acknowledges that international support for development is now flagging. Recognition of this fact led the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to call together last week parliamentarians from countries which are members of its Development Aid Committee. This invitation was unprecedented in the history of the OECD which has tended in the past to conduct its affairs quietly and with dignity at the official and ministerial levels, a rather natural reflection of the fact that the OECD is the rich man's club of the global village.
Its member countries account for 61 per cent of the world's industrial production and 65 per cent of world trade, while containing but 20 per cent of its population. They also disburse 90 per cent of its development aid. They called in parliamentarians because they recognize that they are going to have a tough time selling a maintenance, much less an increase, in development aid over the next few years. The Pearson Report enumerates clearly not only what development aid can do but what it cannot and should not be expected to do. At this particular time of disenchantment, a definition of misconceptions is

Ociober 31. 1969	COMMONS
probably as important as a definition of potential.
Development will not guarantee a choice of a particular ideology or value system; nor political stability nor rejection of violence; nor peaceful and responsible international behaviour; nor will it buy dependable friends. So why bother? Of course, there are moral reasons; the feeling that it is right for the "haves" to share with the "have nots". There is the appeal of enlightened self-interest, a somewhat shopworn expression which embraces the concept that improved utilization of the world's resources will benefit the rich as well as the poor. Most important is the fact that we live in a global village; that a war anywhere may affect us all; that pollution in one area may affect the entire world; that pestilence does not stop at national boundaries. In brief, there is no way of knowing where Canada or any other country will be next year, 10 years or 100 years from now, unless we can also know where the world will be. If we want to be secure and prosperous we must try to ensure that the world is secure and prosperous.
One of the more significant phenomena in western Europe today is that of the growing irrelevance of national boundaries. For over a decade young people-and not all of them are still young-have been moving freely from Naples to Oslo and from Munich to Dublin. They recognize themselves as Europeans, not Dutchmen or Danes. This phenomenon is spreading throughout many parts of the world. It has crossed the Atlantic; it has penetrated the iron curtain. There is among the young a conviction that we are a world community and that we must behave like a world community if we are to survive as a civilization. The concept of world community is itself a compelling reason for development aid. Development aid is an act of faith in the future. The poorer nations have made their choice. They intend to develop. The questions are how fast and at what cost. Developed nations can speed their progress and ease their way.
The Pearson Report also tells the story of the first development decade and outlines a strategy for the second. The record of the first is better by far than most of us appreciate. The average rate of increase of gross national product in the developing countries has reached 5 per cent per annum, although the population explosion has held the annual per capita rate to 2J per cent. Remember, these are gross averages. Some individual countries have done much better than average, others
DEBATES	377
The Address-Mr. Mahoney have remained relatively stagnant, while yet others-Indonesia and Uruguay, for example-have actually experienced per capita declines.
However much the western wheat farmer may regret the loss of markets, he must rejoice in the conquest of starvation in many parts of the world as the green revolution gains momentum. However much the textile industry may resent competitive pressures, it must be grateful for the options that are open to its owners and workers in Canada, few of which are open in the developing world.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
School enrolment has almost tripled, although the tools and techniques are too often antiquated and the education too often classical rather than technical, with no suitable productive job waiting for the student. Public health conditions have improved immeasurably, resulting directly in lower mortality, higher birth rates and often critical unemployment and underemployment. The results and experience of the first development decade indicate a need for massive research if the second decade is to produce optimum results.
The amount spent on development aid will not be the only, nor even necessarily the most important, criterion in determining its value. Its form can be vital, as can the purposes for which it is spent. Its effectiveness in stimulating economic growth will be the critical measure. It is, therefore, not surprising that this government's decision to create a Canadian International Development Research Centre, announced in the Throne Speech and followed by introduction and first reading of the bill this Wednesday, is greeted with unqualified enthusiasm throughout the world. Only through research can we contemplate the possibility of optimum value in development assistance.
Mr. Speaker, there are strong indications that a very important segment of the American people are becoming preoccupied with their grave domestic problems. There was little doubt in the minds of the United States congressmen attending the North Atlantic Assembly in Brussels that, barring some unforeseen circumstance, substantial numbers of their troops would be returned to the United States from Europe. Most of the Europeans I spoke to regarded this as inevitable, if regrettable. Outspoken United States proponents of development aid hold forth little hope that the United States will increase its program; indeed, many expect further
October 31, 1963

The Address-Mr. Mahoney reductions. And yet this is no time tor policies to become introverted.
A few days ago I received a letter from a constituent, a CPR employee who had discovered to his dismay that while pension credit would be given to him for time served in either World War I or World War II, no such credit would be granted for Korea. This led me to do a little research. The CPR is technically correct. It may come as a surprise to many-it did to me-that ever since September 2, 1945, when some 500 miles northeast of the smouldering ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan surrendered unconditionally to the allies, the world has been at peace. There has not been a war any place in the world for over 24 years. Not a single war has been declared. Mind you, there have been some 50 conflicts since 1945 that could be graced by the appellation "war" had the traditional formalities been observed. Sixteen of these have been fought between sovereign states; others have been anti-colonial uprisings and civil wars, and in about half of these foreign troops have been involved.
The Korean conflict was not a war. It went under the name of a police action even though soldiers of 24 countries were involved. Almost two million soldiers and uncounted civilians were casualties and three years of gigantic military effort was expended. War was never declared and it never ended. The fighting stopped, not with a formal surrender but with an inconclusive armistice that has yet to be ratified. Today, patrols still clash and the Armistice Commission still meets to exchange insults. Wars do not begin and wars do not end any more; they just kind of happen and they are happening at numerous street corners in our global village today-the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Nigeria. There is still the occasional rumble in Korea and the Kashmir.
As citizens of this global village, neither Canadians nor Americans can divorce themselves from what goes on outside our particular block. We must continue to direct our efforts outward and to avail ourselves of every means at our disposal to improve our village. Notwithstanding the seriousness and immediacy of our own domestic problems, we simply cannot afford to become recluse. Development aid may be fairly regarded as the international equivalent of an enlightened domestic social development program, a program to give the less advantaged in a community the opportunity to share equitably in the benefits of living there.

Nowhere has the most enlightened social program yet devised by man produced conditions which have permitted a community-national, municipal or otherwise-to disband its police force. Nothing in human experience to date indicates that the most enlightened development aid program will justify the entire, or even substantial elimination of armed forces. While we may hope it will, we cannot safely anticipate that result.
I cannot find a better way to sum up my feelings than to repeat one sentence from the Throne Speech:
Our world has become so compact, so Interdependent, that all humanity is wounded by an outbreak of violence in any corner of the earth.
That is a compelling reason for implementing and maintaining an effective development aid program. It is equally a compelling reason for maintaining effective military forces. Acceptance of this fact is a sound base upon which to build foreign and defence policies which could be the models for free and prosperous nations having no ambitions but to live in an increasingly free and increasingly prosperous world.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak this afternoon, I cannot help but make a comparison with the last election campaign. At that time, we were making speeches in large and well equipped rooms, but before few listeners. It is somewhat similar to what is happening today, since it is Friday. Everyone wants to get home as soon as possible and I am not blaming anyone for it.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to join those who spoke before me in congratulating quite sincerely the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) who both performed their task with great talent. This proves that their constituents were right to elect them and they can be proud of being represented by them in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, this debate gives me the opportunity to let the government know about the needs and the aspirations of my fellow citizens.
I regard it also as my duty to let the government know what is wrong in my constituency because I think that my task is not limited to the reporting of what is well. Therefore, I want to draw the attention of the
October 31, 1969

government to certain anomalies, and I do it conscious of fulfilling my duty.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
One would have to be blind and absolutely unaware of the situation to think that labourers and farmers are not steadily facing increasing hardships, due for the most part to inflation and the relentlessly increasing cost of living.
Everybody eagerly wishes for the government to make up its mind at last to act and take the necessary steps to instore on a sound basis the just society the Liberals so insistently promised during the 1968 election cam-paing. Pious wishes on the part of the government did not prevent poverty from increasing and affecting an even larger number of our fellow-citizens.
I deem it my duty to inform the government that in the constituency I have the honour to represent in this house, unemployment keeps on increasing. According to the figures I obtained yesterday from the manpower centre in St. Hyacinthe, there would be at least 3,500 unemployed people there. Those people are asking themselves and rightly so: What is the government doing to improve our situation? What steps is it taking to find us a new job, as we are entitled to?
As for the average Canadian, he concludes that practically no efficient measure has yet been taken to cope with the increasing poverty in this country. I cannot but ask this government to get out of the inaction in which it has been mired for some time and to do something for the unemployed. This is a serious problem, which spreads panic and poverty, sometimes dire poverty, in homes that are entitled to more consideration on the part of our governments.
And why, Mr. Speaker, is there so much unemployment in my riding? Mostly because the plants are up against the unfavourable competition of goods imported from countries where the salaries paid the workers are much lower than those the Canadian industries have to pay.
In St. Hyacinthe, quite recently, we lost a couple of plants which had been in operation for almost 100 years. Those two plants laid off hundreds of employees whose work, until then, had enabled them to meet their obligations towards their families and society.
Our textile mills, for instance, were forced to let several hundred workers go because of
The Address-Mr. Ricard foreign competition. I do not want to exaggerate but, if my information is correct-and I believe it is-another plant in St. Hyacinthe will fold soon, which is certainly no cause for rejoicing.
It is easy to forecast the very serious consequences of the closing down of a mill, first of all for the people concerned and also for the area in which it is located. When you realize that a town of the size of St. Hyacinthe is losing its industries one after the other, there is reason to be concerned and to worry about what is soon going to happen to some of its citizens.
It is therefore the urgent responsibility of the government to stem the tide and to do its best to save the jobs available in our town for the sake not only of the Canadian industry but above all of the Canadian taxpayers.
I was recently provided with information about the Canadian electronics industry. That industry is faced with difficulties for several reasons, mainly because of competition from foreign products. The Canadian electronics industry provides jobs for approximately 60,000 Canadians. During the year 1968, it exported abroad $300 million worth of merchandise. It is now handicapped and finds it very difficult to meet foreign competition, for excise tax at the rate of 15 per cent has to be paid in addition to the 12 per cent sales tax. Such charges leave it almost helpless to fight those countries that deprive it of its natural market here in Canada.
Moreover, the tariff reduction under the Kennedy Round to become effective in 1972 only came into force last June. The Canadian manufacturers find themselves at a disadvantage because they have to pay higher sales and excise taxes than importers. In the interest of Canadian manufacturers and workers this situation should be corrected as soon as possible.
Some industries would like to settle in the St-Hyacinthe region, but they are not doing so on account of the unfavourable position in which they find themselves due to the fact that this region is considered to be part of the Montreal region. As it is not in a designated area, the city of St. Hyacinthe cannot avail itself of the advantages given to the so-called designated regions. To my knowledge there are at least two very important industries which would have preferred to settle in St. Hyacinthe where serious, skilful and stable manpower is to be found, but because of the drawbacks resulting from the fact that the St. Hyacinthe region is not recognized as a designated area, they went elsewhere.

October 31, 1969
The Address-Mr. Ricard
Believe it or not, but St. Hyacinthe has been included in the Montreal area. In the opinion of those responsible for designating areas, St. Hyacinthe has the same characteristics as Montreal. You can see quite readily that it is a gross error of judgment which is detrimental to the whole population of St. Hyacinthe.
The former Lafontaine administration did all it could to make the central government understand that this matter was worth the serious consideration of the Department of Manpower. In the 1968 electoral campaign, the members of the administration now in power jumped on this anomaly and promised the people that once elected, they would come to Ottawa and have the decision reversed. But now everyone knows that the situation remains the same and that the last representations have been ignored, both by the present government and the previous one.
I therefore urge my friend, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), who represents the Drummond constituency, to say in turn a good word when the cabinet next considers the policy concerning the designated areas. In my opinion, the manner in which the areas are designated is unfair to a certain sector of the population, because the citizens of Drummondville, and those of St. Hyacinthe as well, pay taxes and deserve as much attention as other citizens.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question, and not out of idle curiosity, I assure you.
How many people in the St. Hyacinthe region gravitate toward Montreal for economic reasons?
Does the hon. member know the importance which the Greater Montreal economy has on his own city or his own region?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I cannot provide figures in that respect. Had I foreseen that the minister would ask the question, I would have come prepared accordingly. But I am sure there are a great many workers in St. Hyacinthe who have to work outside because they cannot find employment in their home town. Naturally, these people would much rather stay in St. Hyacinthe where they have their families, their friends and their homes, instead of having to drive each morning to Sorel, Drummondville or Montreal to earn a living.
That is what is really bothering a large segment of the population in St. Hyacinthe.

I should like to deal briefly with retaining walls. This can seem strange, but I must say, that the Saint-Hyacinthe constituency, under a Liberal government, has always been neglected. However, before 1957, for example, that constituency had always been represented in the house by a Liberal member. Before 1957, there were very few retaining walls built on the shores of the Richelieu river and strangely enough, when they were built, it was most of the time behind the properties of political friends.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Between 1957 and 1963, when the Conservatives were in office, about five or six times as many retaining walls were built as in the 20 years before they came in to power, whether or not John Smith or his neighbour belonged to the party in power. We built retaining walls where they were needed, where waves caused by maritime traffic eroded property.
In 1963, when the Liberal party was returned to office, the old policies were restored and no more, or practically no more retaining walls were built. Meantime, damages are getting worse because the water level is higher and ships continue to damage property, even causing-


Jean-Luc Pepin: By the waves?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes. Waves reach the shore, causing erosion. Large pieces of land are sliding into the river, and this at times threatens the buildings on the water front.
Mr. Speaker, it would be necessary to keep on making studies in the parishes of Saint-Denis, Saint-Charles and Saint-Hilaire, in order to determine where such works are needed and to undertake them without delay.
I would also like to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) not to carry out the proposed erection of a metal fence around the parking lot behind the Saint-Hyacinthe post office. That would certainly lessen the beauty of that part of the city, and the population would deeply resent it.
Representations were made to the department by the authorities of Saint-Hyacinthe. I myself wrote to the minister asking him not to carry out his plan and I feel that the decision to cancel this project would be well received by the population.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) to give particular consideration to the parish of Saint-Thomas d'Aquin in view of the increasing
October 31, 1969
volume of mail handled at its post office, because the present facilities are inadequate to meet the requirements.
Local people would be grateful if in the course of next winter the minister would decide to erect a new post office building in that municipality and so improve the service to its population.
I was also very sorry to learn about the department's decision to close down the post office of Saint-Louis-sur-Richelieu. It does not make sense, Mr. Speaker, that a municipality should be deprived of its post office overnight. Any populated area is entitled to postal services.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
And if the minister were to decide to close down post offices which show a deficit, I am afraid that several post offices, even in many cities, would also be closed.
I therefore urge the Postmaster General and Communications Minister (Mr. Kierans) to maintain the postal service for the population of Saint-Louis-sur-Richelieu, an agricultural parish in my riding.
Mr. Speaker, it is essential that I inform the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) of the numerous complaints I have received concerning the administration of unemployement insurance, resulting mostly from the transfer of the Saint-Hyacinthe unemployment insurance office.
For a couple of years the citizens of Saint-Hyacinthe have had to go to Longueuil to settle their unemployment insurance matters. In many cases additional expenses and unnecessary delays are the result.
I must add also that some unemployment insurance officers in Longueuil and even elsewhere are a little too zealous and get the claimants tangled up in the tape. Those claimants receive a form and are told to fill it at home and to send it back. If the claimant forgets some detail, even a small one, his form is returned to him for correction. This is a further cause for exasperation to those who are already fed up with being unemployed, without being at the same time continuously humiliated by such things.
I believe that the Minister of Labour, who has a sympathetic understanding of the workers, will give special consideration to such anomalies and inconveniences of which the unemployed are constantly the victims, and that he will put an end to them as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, very briefly indeed, I would like to touch upon a subject of great interest 21362-25
The Address-Mr. Ricard today, and I refer to the problem of Quebec within Canada. We cannot but be aware that Quebec is going through a very difficult period of its history. Many wonder, and rightly so, what will come out of all the protests now being made in Quebec. I am confident that sooner or later, things will calm down and that we will eventually enjoy the peace and quiet which have always prevailed in Quebec.
I wish passionately that we would join our efforts so that the day when we know again the peace and tranquillity we have been used to might come as soon as possible.
I am also one of those who believe sincerely that the place of Quebec is in confederation. Far from considering myself as an expert on the question, nevertheless I base my own observations on what I hear from the man in the street.
It is easy to get people excited, especially when you see which part of the population is being stirred up, but I am earnestly convinced that the population of Quebec wants to remain in confederation and to get the share it deserves.
We have often heard this: "What does Quebec want?"
The answer has been given many times. However, I am wondering if those who were asking this question took the trouble to consider and really understand Quebec's position. To be absolutely frank and sincere, we must recognize the fact that we did not give to a part of the population all the consideration it deserves. As a matter of fact, our Englishspeaking fellow-members have not given us the attention we were entitled to, and this, in my view, is the root of the troubles we are experiencing.
For too long, this attitude of the conqueror and the conquered has been allowed to prevail across Canada, and it is high time that our English-speaking associates make a superhuman effort-if I may use this expression-in order to preserve unity in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Badanai):: Order, please. I regret that the hon. member's time has expired, unless there is unanimous consent for him to continue. Is it agreed that he continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

382	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Harding
I will certainly not waste the time of the house but I would like to say that it is quite possible tor two neighbours to agree. My remarks are made as they come to me. I compare to two neighbours the two entities that make up the people of Quebec. During their life the two neighbours have surely had reasons to disagree; they can even have rather heated discussions. However, if each one wants to be right all the time, to have all the cake there will likely be squabbles and the breach between them will deepen.
The same remark, I believe, applies at the national level. There are certainly differences of opinion between English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians, but instead of withdrawing into ourselves, of constantly harping on the misunderstandings and the disputes of the past, of feeding ceaselessly our own grudges, we should forget the uninspiring things and try to understand one another better, to work together to build a Canada better than the one we have known ourselves, so as to leave that legacy to future generations.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to have the opportunity of speaking during this debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Having read or heard the various speeches made by hon. members since the debate began, I wish to say that the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne did themselves proud on the opening day of the session.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
There are several items 1 would like to raise this afternoon, but like other hon. members of the House I feel I must be critical of what is a lack of proper direction by the present administration and a lack of concrete programming policy for the solution of the many problems which face Canada today. Last year we were giving the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his government an opportunity to find their feet and outline a program. We hoped that with the start of this new session of parliament we would have something a little more concrete than what w:e received on opening day.
I point out that we in the opposition should review quite frequently the program and the progress made by the present administration. This brings home to them and the Canadian people the fact which must be crystal clear to an ever-increasing group of Canadians, that all our problems are not being solved. It is not as though this administration has not
[Mr. Ricard.)
DEBATES	October 31, 1969
been in power for a sufficient period of tune in which to take action to solve some of our problems. It came into power in April of 1963, although I frankly admit they did not have a majority government until June of 1968, when our present Prime Minister headed the administration. We all recall rather vividly the campaign of 16 months ago when the cry of a "just society" rang from the Atlantic to the Pacific and the people of this nation felt that here was a Moses come to lead us to the promised land.
Many of the major issues which faced us prior to the election in 1968 are far more serious now than they were when this administration took office 16 months ago. The disturbing factor is that solutions to many of the problems have not been offered by the government. I believe it is fair to say that from all appearances this government does not have a program or a solution to many of the major problems facing us. We hear a lot of talk about inflation, which I think is the No. 1 problem facing Canada today. The government tried to solve this problem by cutting back expenditures. This caused more unemployment than we should have in our nation. They have been singularly unsuccessful in reducing the alarming rise in inflation which is facing this nation. In fact, over the past year the rate of increase has accelerated, not decreased. This is an indication the government must be on the wrong track.
The result of the current program by which the government has been attempting to fight the inflationary pressures and trends in this country has meant several things to the Canadian people. I mentioned earlier there was a sharp increase in unemployment. Today it stands at roughly 5 per cent, which is far too high for this time of year. In addition, we find that a very sharp incomes restraint and a reduction in living standards through inflation have placed an additional burden on the backs of pensioners, veterans and welfare recipients. The government has told these people it is not good to increase pensions; they cannot afford to increase the veteran's basic pay because of the inflationary tendencies it would cause.
This government has taken other steps such as releasing many civil servants. One of the most unfortunate cutbacks ever made was the unfair blow dealt to civil servants, especially those in the older age brackets, when the government indicated that people in their 60's would be retired from the service. All that these civil servants have done is grow old; they have reached the age of 60 or a little
October 31, 19G9	COMMONS
more. The government decided to take action by retiring them when they could least afford to retire, perhaps at a time when they had accumulated debts which they had to meet out of salaries which they expected to receive over a number of years. I fail to see how this method of dealing with civil servants falls into that of a just society.
I wish to spend a few moments dealing with unemployment. I mentioned earlier that the unemployment rate is now 5 per cent of the labour force, on a seasonally adjusted basis. Forecasts for the coming winter months indicate that it will be an extremely grim time. I do not think there is any doubt that we will see a sharp increase in the unemployment rate all across Canada. There have been forecasts of an unemployment rate amounting to between 7 and 8 per cent, and in some areas which are less favoured economically it is possible that the rate will be 10 per cent. Yet we have received a warning from the Economic Council of Canada over the years that 3 per cent is the limit Canada can afford to carry. The rate has been running much higher than that; in fact, in some instances it has been twice as high. Members on all sides will agree with me that even normal unemployment is wasteful enough because of the tremendous loss of productivity it entails as well as the harmful social effect upon those who suffer from it. Unemployment brought about through the action of the government amounts, in my opinion, to utter stupidity, the more so because it has completely failed in its objective of checking inflation.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Last year the government indicated it was eliminating the winter works program which had been used fairly effectively-at least in my part of the country-by many of the municipalities to ease their winter unemployment rate. We were told at the time that retraining programs would replace the winter works program. In fact, we found that the retraining program covered only a small portion of the unemployed. It was just another example of "too little and too late". Retraining programs are excellent, but more is required; something else must go hand in hand with them. Jobs must be available for those who have acquired new skills, or the retraining is merely a futile and expensive exercise. We have had examples in various parts of the country of cases in which retrained workmen have been unable to obtain jobs.
I should like to deal briefly with the effects of inflation on the incomes and living standards of those receiving fixed incomes. This
DEBATES	383
The Address-Mr. Harding has always been a problem, one which has upset members in every part of this House. It applies particularly to pensioners of all descriptions, to veterans and to welfare recipients. The government has taken no adequate action to even maintain the purchasing power of these groups over the years. As a result they see their meagre and inadequate purchasing power further declining.
In this age of affluence every Canadian-should share in the increasing productivity of the nation. No group, particularly when it includes those who cannot bargain effectively for themselves, should be denied an adequate income. The failure of the government to maintain even the present purchasing power of their fixed incomes is another sure sign that the just society is merely a political phrase used to attract voters at election time. The rapidly rising cost of living over the years has made it imperative that basic pension rates be increased and that a cost of living clause be built into them so as at least to maintain the purchasing power of pensions. Those who helped to build this Canada of ours are surely entitled to share in the ever-increasing prosperity of our nation.
The recent government white paper on veterans pensions must have come as a shock to veterans organizations and to veterans in every part of Canada. As a result of the recommendation of the Woods Committee we had hoped to see adequate increases in basic pensions. This did not materialize. It is another example of the failure of the government to deal adequately with the social needs of this group. Again, the government blames inflation for depriving our veterans of a long awaited improvement in their pension position. I could go on in this vein; there are a host of similar questions which could be raised.
The government has proved altogether inadequate in its handling of the housing situation. I shall not go more deeply into that subject this afternoon because time will not permit. There is one matter I should like to raise in connection with the affairs of my own riding. It concerns air transportation. I raise it this afternoon feeling that in this modern age when air transportation has become so important to every section of our country, effective communication by air is vital to economic and social development.
When one sees air transportation facilities going downhill, and when one finds that air transportation authorities are unable to deal effectively with the situation, I believe the matter must be raised again and again until
384	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Harding something is done. I am aware that the Air Transport Committee is looking into the question of air travel in the southern section of British Columbia, but I am not happy about some of the steps it has taken. While airlines on trans-Atlantic routes are reducing their rates we find the commission authorizing increases in my area of up to 30 per cent, even though the service has been cut to a point which is harmful to the needs of those who will use it.
All this makes me wonder what type of planning is going on in the various departments of government. How many letters does one have to write, how many telephone calls does one have to make, how many individuals does one have to visit before it becomes clear that an area has been harmed? The initial planning done by the Air Transport Committee in this connection was poor; it was ineffective and it has hurt the area. I believe a review should be initiated without delay and that a better service should be granted to the area. We are approaching the '70s when air transportation will be one of the keys to economic success, and we cannot afford to see this service go downhill.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I should now like to make a few observations in connection with pollution. I intend to speak somewhat generally, because time will not permit me to cover all the points I should like to raise this afternoon. Members of all parties are extremely interested in pollution. I am very happy to see the newspapers and various news media giving more and more coverage to pollution problems as they arise. Pollution has become one of the major issues facing not only the federal government but all levels of government in Canada. Indeed, it is a major problem facing all nations.
A few years ago we thought that our fresh waters and oceans were so vast that we could not possibly pollute them. We thought our atmosphere was limitless and could not possibly be polluted. We thought our resources of land so extensive that we could not pollute them. We thought the ecology of this world was so varied and diverse that mere man could do little to harm it. We have gone merrily along, ignoring the danger signs, until today we find mankind has imperilled its very existence on this planet. The history of this earth is full of accounts of animal species and civilizations that became extinct because they could not adapt themselves to changing conditions. This is fact. Today the picture is different. We are slowly but surely laying

DEBATES	October 31. 1969
systematic waste to our environment, and unless we make some radical changes, and make them quickly, we will do irreparable harm.
Even people in Canada are becoming pollution conscious. Perhaps a series of world-wide pollution disasters has alerted us to the danger. For example, Mr. Speaker, within the past few months we have learned of the poisoning of the Rhine River. There were stories in the newspapers and on television about the millions of fish that were poisoned. The water supply of millions of people was endangered. The cause was finally traced to two barrels of insecticide that had fallen unnoticed off a river barge two years previously. These barrels had remained on the river bed until they rusted open and brought their death-dealing poisons to all living organisms in the river.
There was a very fine editorial in the Vancouver Province outlining several areas where nations of the world have dumped surplus and obsolete supplies of possibly dangerous pollutants into various parts of our vast oceans. Nations had no previous experience of the damage that could be done to the ecology of the oceans, yet vast supplies of waste material were just dumped.
For example, the United States has dumped thousands of containers of obsolete second world war nerve gas off the New Jersey coast. They do not know how long it will take for these containers to rust through; perhaps it will take a century, maybe two, maybe less. When the containers do rust through, no one knows the result that this injection of poison into the ocean will have ecologically. The British and the French are reported to have dumped chemical warfare agents off their coasts. There is a report that in Sweden a gold mining company prior to the last world war dumped many containers of arsenic into the Baltic Sea. It is estimated there is enough poison in these containers to kill all life in the Baltic. Some day these containers will rust through, the arsenic will seep into the water and mankind will be hard put to finding a solution to a man-made problem that should never have been allowed to arise. More recently we have had the example of poison-gas being dumped off an island in the Pacific by the Japanese, and today conditions on the island are unlivable. Such incidents as these are examples of foolishness on the part of governments that are trying to get rid of what they consider to be obsolete supplies.
In addition to this we pour gas and filth into our air at an astounding rate. Reports from Los Angeles indicate the seriousness of
Ociober 31, 1969	COMMONS
the air pollution problem there. Officials in Los Angeles have announced a program cancelling physical education activity in schools in the area when the smog count reaches a certain level. This level is attained at least 21 times a year. Studies indicate that the children suffer lung damage during heavy physical activity undertaken in such conditions. Smog conditions not as serious as in Los Angeles exist in all major cities in this country, and every year we add to air pollution. An American, Dr. Sternglass, after years of research has claimed that the result of nuclear fallout, even of minor amounts, has been far more devastating than previously expected. His work on infant mortality and its relation to fallout is both revealing and disturbing.
I should like to spend a few minutes on another aspect of pollution, the use of DDT and detergents. In the event that I am unable to complete my remarks on both, I shall deal with the problem of detergents first. A pollution study of the Great Lakes was made in 1965 for the International Joint Commission. The report, which has recently come to hand, indicates that the most serious aspect of detergent pollution is the use of phosphorous in detergents. We are all aware that phosphorous helps nourish the algae which choke the waters of the Great Lakes system. The report points out that 50 to 70 per cent of the phosphorous in this fresh water supply area comes from detergents. The recommendation of the report is that the use of phosphorous by detergent manufacturers should be banned within the next two years. The point that worries me is this. We in Canada have carried out no study or research into this question. I think we should have done so in past years.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
We might say that we can rely a great deal on what is done to the south of us because in the United States they are doing far more research than we are. However, in reply to questions asked in this House, various ministers have indicated there is today no danger in the use of DDT as far as Canada is concerned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of saying a few words on the Address in
DEBATES	385
The Address-Mr. Latulippe reply to the Speech from the Throne, and of congratulating its movers for having had the courage to describe, in their speeches, the present economic unrest throughout our beautiful Canada.
The government was not praised inordinately. Mention was made of the unemployment and poverty in our ridings, of the various economic problems and financial difficulties with which our municipalities, school boards and provinces are grappling. In this regard, the Prime Minister said that the situation was not logical or normal, and that we should work to improve it.
I should like to quote a few words spoken by the Prime Minister, as they appear in Hansard for Friday, October 24, 1969:
Unemployment is an insult to human dignity, and so is an impersonal welfare system. It is also an indignity to provide insufficient protection to our citizens against criminal activities. Every Canadian should feel proud of himself in the presence of his children and his neighbours and he should be able to rely on every level of the government in this respect. Canadian society does not have an overflow of skills; we cannot therefore afford to waste the smallest contribution that each individual can bring to the country.
One must admit that the present situation is not what it should be.
Our economy is not what it should be. It is stagnating and off balance. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) told us, on Monday, October 27, something that contradicts what was said by the Prime Minister, and the movers (Messrs. Cullen and Marceau) of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
It is said that we should upgrade our strength. That we should do more for society, that we should expand our efforts so that our talents do not go astray-this is what the Prime Minister said-and the Minister of Finance wants to stand in the way of all that when he says:
I have said before and I repeat that the number one problem we face in this country today is the persistent upward spiral in prices, costs and incomes. Other than this, we have a prosperous and viable economy. However, unless and until we bring this spiral of inflation under effective control, all the aspirations of this house toward a better life for all Canadians, all our hopes for continuous high employment, for a rising standard of living and justice for the poor and the depressed in our country, will come to nought.
But why do we experience that spiral of inflation in peace time while we never experienced any in war time? That is what I will try to explain.
October 31, 1969

The Address-Mr. Latulippe
How is it that in Russia, a communist country, there is no inflation? In Canada, we cannot balance our economy in order to settle this problem and due to that inflationary spiral, we keep on making many rich people richer and 80 per cent of the people poorer. Twenty per cent of the people are responsible for inflation and I will say at once that our chartered banks have increased their assets by $6,600 million in one year, which is twice the value of the bank notes issued by the Bank of Canada since 1934, that is since its institution 35 years ago.
Never have the banks made such profits, and not only the banks but other lending institutions which lend money at rates ranging from 10 to 20 per cent. Those institutions are the ones which make profits and create inflation, while the cost of inflation is borne by those who are laid flat, that is 80 per cent of the Canadian population. Because of credit restrictions and rising interest rates of every kind, they can no longer carry on. And they are being asked to pay the cost of inflation.
At the hearings of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, I met the Governor of the Bank of Canada and asked him a question. He was saying that Canadians had been prosperous long enough and that this should cease. But why has prosperity lasted long enough? According to him, Canadians had to tighten their belts to settle the problem of inflation. Then I asked him how come his $50,000 salary had been raised to $75,000? Why had every senior official of the government enjoyed similar increases while the people of Canada had to tighten their belts? The senior officials however loosen theirs. It is quite all right for them to have increases in salaries, increases here, increases there, not to mention expenses paid.
The people have a right to live, for they are the ones who work, who build the country; and not just the executive class.
The government is not producing anything; it is only ensuring the administration and if it is not capable of administering a country that is crammed with riches, where wheat is plentiful, if it cannot succeed in giving the population what they are entitled to, then it might as well resign, because it is a poor manager. That is what we have in parliament and within the Public Service: senior civil servants who are incapable of finding another solution to the problem besides increasing taxes, the cost of living, the interest rates, thus enriching a small part of the population and impoverishing the rest.


This cannot last much longer. We know of much dissatisfaction in Canada. We witness all sorts of phenomenons that we have never seen in the past. We see deplorable strikes. There is dissatisfaction, riots because the people have not got what they are entitled to.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The people are unfortunately no longer able to get the necessities of life without having to kneel before the big financiers and borrow money bearing an interest rate of 15 or 20 per cent. It is impossible to do anything without incurring debts that cannot be repaid, that remain forever. That is the situation which we must bring to an end.
Although the Canadian economy is still the most flourishing in the world, as the Minister of Finance said, although generally speaking the capitalist economy, that of the free enterprise, is still inferior to that of socialism or communism, I maintain, and I have evidence to prove it, that the Canadian economy, our capitalistic, free enterprise economy, involves certain basic deficiencies like inflation, the rise in the cost of living, interest rates, unemployment, numerous strikes, which are only visible symptoms appearing at certain times and at certain places.
The basic weakness of our economy, the only source of all the ailments afflicting our economy today is the increase in interest rates. This single cause of our numerous economic ailments stems from the very core of Canada's capitalist, free-enterprise economy. It would be very easy to eliminate it. Nothing indeed would be easier than restoring the balance between the various elements which constitute our economy.
Be it in any country of the world, subject to any political regime, be it capitalism, socialism or communism, everywhere on our planet, which is called Earth, there are natural ressources. Indeed, it is easy to see that everywhere people cultivate, work, produce, consume, save, finance.
Everywhere healthy adults must carry the onus of production for all the citizens in the world at large including those who are either too young, too old, too sick or too uneducated to earn a living in a society whose duty is to protect them.
In 1969 here in Canada, with the output of 8 million adult citizens, with their capital and labour we have a gross national product of 72 billion for the benefit of 21 million Canadians, including 13 million people too young, too old,
Ociober 31, 1969	COMMONS
too sick or too uneducated too look after themselves in our capitalistic society of free enterprise.
If we divide $72 billion by 21 million citizens we get an annual per capita product of $3,400, or $17,000 for a family of five. Further computations would give us an amount of $65 per week and per person, or $325 for a family of five. I quote those figures for the benefit of our economists who love to base their estimations on averages.
Such figures are very encouraging and such a high G.N.P. is amply sufficient for the 21 million Canadians to be reasonably well off, while enabling the most qualified and most deserving citizens to maintain their income level and enjoy decent wages.
If our national product is so good, what are we complaining about? Let us not be poetical and vague. I will not beat around the bush. I shall mention our problems and our troubles, but, more particularly, I shall search for their causes and suggest a few solutions. Is this not logical, is this not what we all want?
The problem does not lie in a lack of production, but rather in an imbalance in its distribution. This is the basis of all economic troubles which are undermining our national, family and personal life.
Whether we like it or not, our country has 21 million inhabitants, 8 million of whom are producers as a result of their capital and their work and 13 million of whom have no capital income whatsoever. Those 21 million Canadians have the right to draw on the national product of $72 billion, which we owe to the 8 million producing Canadians who get wages for their work and interests for their capital. In the production of goods and services, there are expenses for wages, labour, and capital interests.
Every time the wages of workers are raised and every time capitalists increase their interest rates, the 8 million producing citizens, as well as the 13 million non producing Canadians automatically have to pay more for goods and services.
Here is the basic weakness of our Canadian economy of the capitalist, free enterprise type. Productive citizens have an income resulting from their work and assets, which constitute for them a purchasing power, while 13 million non-productive citizens, unemployed and witout any income, depend on the productive citizens.
All our economists, politicians, administrators and university teachers have refused to
DEBATES	387
The Address-Mr. Latulippe date to analyse this simple matter of the income of the individual, of the citizen in relation with his right to live, and everybody wants to consider only the value of work and capital in terms of production as a source of income giving the right to national production.
Instead of carrying on so much research and so many inquiries into the apparent ills of our economy, poverty, inflation, strikes, unemployment, the cost of living, the increase in interest rates, let us go directly to the heart of the matter. Let us hasten to put some order in the Canadian economy between its various components, and at the same time, we will have resolved all the problems that can be summed up by a lack of balance between the incomes, expenditures and profits of all citizens, families, and corporations that need to be better managed.
Whether we like it or not, whether we realize it or not, with all due respect to Mr. Keynes, there is only one normal administrative formula, whatever the importance of the organization to be administered: it is the formula "Incomes-Expenditures-Profits". One formula for all. Let us not look for any other, because I think nobody will be able to find one.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Every company needs revenues to pay its expenses, make some profit and build a reserve for its development and security. Every private or public company, every community, church, school, university, bank, industry, business or farm needs revenues to its operating and other expenses, make a little profit and provide for its development and security. All accountants are fully aware of that, so long as they deal with their own business or that of their companies, their institutions or the people they are responsible for.
Mr. Speaker, the same formula: "revenues, expenses, profits", the sole capitalist formula, valid everywhere, applies just as well and perhaps even better to the private citizens and their families, to the farmers and the small personal and family enterprises.
Indeed, this same income-expense-profit formula is also needed for the 13 million Canadians who have the right to live in Canada. Even if they do not derive any income from their work or their investments, they all have the right to live in Canada in 1969 on the national production of $72 billion made possible by the 8 million Canadians who are paid for their work and are receiving interest on their capital.
October 31, 1969

The Address-Mr. Latulippe
Let us not try to produce any more or to make bigger profits until we have restored national economic equality among people, families, corporations and re-established a balance between incomes, expenses and profits. All have a right to derive some income from the national production which should prove sufficient to cover their expenses and even to get a little profit, build some reserve, security, capital for themselves, their family or the community.
Everybody can see that I am more of a capitalist than a creditiste. I am not asking for credit or for income, but I am asking for money, for capital. I want to make that quite clear. It is easy to see that I am much more of a capitalist than all the members put together.
I am in favour of profit, of higher income and in favour of citizens, but what I want for myself, for businesses, for companies, for municipalities, for provinces or for the country, I also want it in equal proportions for every Canadian citizen, for every Canadian family.
This is what administration is all about. This is the way to run things. This is the stand we should take, how we must develop our human feelings and also, how we must work to balance our economy which is so much out of balance that the more we apply it, the more we unbalance our system, the more we disrupt to our economy.
Here is the basis of our capitalism. The formula which is so good, so promising, so stimulating for all those who are engaged in setting up private or state enterprises, must be as promising and stimulating for every citizen and family which make up the population of Canada.
In the present circumstances, it is essential to realize that it is not a matter of raising or reducing interest rates on capital, of increasing or lowering salaries in proportion to work, but simply of determining whether to balance the national economy among its various constitutive elements.
Poverty, unemployment, recessions, inflation, wars, revolutions, separatism, protest, higher cost of living, higher interest rates, higher taxes, unemployment insurance, old age pensions, allowances, welfare benefits, all those things obviously indicate a lack of balance in the distribution of a overly large national production.
We are so rich that nobody should be without the necessaries and even luxuries in Canada.

This inward and subconscious feeling of every right-minded citizen seeks to express itself in some way or other through various intellectual, aggressive and even violent means, when the authorities have turned a deaf ear to reasonable arguments and advice.
Let us stop raising interest rates. This is of no consequence at the present time. The inflation will persist until order and balance are restored on the national level among all the components of our national economy, beginning with the individual, the family and all the public and private corporations which make up our Canadian nation.
Is that project not comforting? Is it not the best? Would one rather have a small part of the people experience inflation while most of them would be subject to deflation? Until we decide to throw everything out and to start anew, from scratch, as happened in Russia in 1917, we must apply everywhere and as soon as possible our capitalistic formula: Income -Expenses-Profits, for the benefit of individuals, families and companies.
I would have several things to say, but I shall go on attempting to demonstrate that our economy is far from balanced. Our economy is far from satisfying our citizens.
You only have to use your head to know what it is all about. For example, how is it that a world which seemed almost feverishly prosperous in 1929, capable of offering an affluence of commodities and services, became poverty-stricken in 1930? That apparent change was so fundamental that economic conditions were drastically changed.
Is it reasonable to imagine that, between a certain day of October 1929 and a few months later, the world really went from great riches to dire poverty? Yet, the soil has never refused to bend under the plow and produce.
How is it that after knowing scarce money for ten years, all of a sudden, overnight, the necessary funds were found to wage a war which lasted six years and cost billions of dollars? Many of you are aware of this.
After the war, why did we fail at the same task? We were unable to avoid other recessions and the unemployment they create simply because, once again, we tried to fool around with monetary policies based on a system which creates bank debts. Since confederation, this same bank system has never given other results than the repetition of cycles-prosperity in wartime, recession in peacetime.
The first goal of our Canadian economy must be to increase the standard of living of
October 31. 1969

Canadians, as much as possible, through the full use of our manpower and our natural resources. It is unfairly impossible to try to reach that goal with a banking system under which money, created out of nothing in a proportion of 96 per cent in Canada, is being circulated in the form of an interest-bearing debt, which compels us to reimburse more money that has been issued.
We will never reach that goal with a banking system the prime purpose of which is to make money and by forcing the borrowers to repay both the money loaned and the interests, owing to that ineffable conspiration born of the madness of finance.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
This objective can only be reached by creating a banking system and a banking policy that will ensure a constant flow of money or a sufficient purchasing power not only for producing all possible goods in keeping with our human and natural resources, but also for making feasible the distribution of our national production or its equivalent.
I would very much like to know why the governments, Liberal as well as Conservative, have always refused so far to amend the Bank Act and to require Parliament to issue at cost at least part of the currency which the country needs as far as the public sector is concerned. In the past, governments have failed to assume their responsibilities by granting private institutions the exclusive right to issue credit money which is 90 per cent of our economic machinery.
Therefore, money is in short supply while production is potentially high enough to meet normal human needs and if money starts flowing when producers and production facilities are requisitioned by the military, that is because the present monetary system forces decisions on us instead of simply reflecting the free acts of free producers and consumers.
Nobody would dare say that producers and consumers are free today when they have to creep on all fours through the financial system and over the credit restraints, unable to do anything-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with my colleagues in congratulating the movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
The Address-Mr. Breau

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) that I share his concern for the relevancy of this house. Sometimes we find that Canadians have a hard time understanding why parliament is not more relevant.

Mr. Speaker, it is comforting indeed to see members from the province of Quebec, like the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau), express so proudly in this house their satisfaction at being a part of the Canadian Confederation. I believe the separatist element in Quebec has become a political fact and that it is at the political level that it will have to be defeated. That is why I am happy to see members like the hon. member for Lapointe concern themselves with federalism.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the government of my support for the Speech from the Throne. There is one part of it that I support unreservedly, namely where the government expresses its intention of granting franchise to 18-year-old Canadians. I believe all politicians in Canada, at all levels of government, are now anxious to get active participation from all classes of society. Young people have shown these last years that they could get organized so as to take part in the life of the Canadian society. Members in this house or Canadian people as a whole should not judge well-organized participation of young university students from the few acts of violence that may happen sometimes.
Of course the Speech from the Throne does not solve all the immediate problems. It does not bring any direct solution either to the problems of my constituents, but I believe a government should be strong, that it should do some planning and should not be led into quick solutions.
During this debate, the opposition and its leader seemed to talk a lot about the needs of the little man, of the poor, but they offered no solution other than to say that the government should spend more money on social welfare or other programs to solve the problem of poverty.
Mr. Speaker, I am every bit as concerned as the members of the opposition about finding a solution to the problem of poverty in Canada. There are as many poor people in my riding as anywhere else in Canada, but I believe those people trust this government; the poor as well as the others are convinced that what

October 31, 1969
The Address-Mr. Breau we need is a strong government, one that plans wisely and will, in due course, find solutions to those problems.
In his recent speech, the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau), submitted many problems to the house and drew the attention to many situations that are really disastrous. But he seems to be slightly mixed up. He said, for instance, that the fishermen should cut their own channels. Is the federal government alone to be blamed for that? It is true that it is the federal government's job to deal with the harbours and it is perhaps true that it is the federal government who is in charge of the piers. But must one blame the federal government only if some fishermen, in a given constituency, are badly organized? There are also some in mine.
But it would be unfair to blame the federal government alone. We must take constructive steps together with the provinces, and attempt to solve these problems.
The hon. member was confusing the issue, talking about social welfare, housing, all matters which come under provincial jurisdiction. But he still blamed this government for not finding an immediate solution.
The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) has taken part in the debate and I appreciate the fact that he stressed the plight of the Newfoundland fishermen. But he did not offer any solution to the problem and was satisfied to blame the Prime Minister for being at the National Arts Center while Montreal was burning.
I wonder what relation there can be between the Prime Minister's private life and the problems which might exist in the city of Montreal? That is the type of attitude that we sometimes find in the opposition.
When the question of poverty arises in my area, it is often in reference to coastal fishermen, who are at present living under circumstances that are intolerable from many points of view.
First of all, they have no conveniences of any kind; secondly, they are not organized. When decisions are in the offing, when programs are to be announced, it is impossible for the government to find out the views of the fishermen, because they are not organized. I am happy to see that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) is in the house.
1	hope he will soon give some attention to the creation of organizations for the fishermen in order that they may find some guidance and take part in policy-making both on the federal and the provincial levels, so that such problems may be solved.
I do not think that in 1969, for example, fishermen need to get their boats on the shore without any equipment. It is true their industry is not economically sound but they should not be blamed. It is not their fault if they have been fishing in coastal waters for years. To change the situation, social development programs will be necessary. Fishermen will have to get organized and know where they stand.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, this house stands adjourned until eleven o'clock Monday morning, pursuant to Standing Order
2	(2).


[Stage Direction]
At five o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 3, 1969