1969-10-28

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the comment of the Minister of Finance last evening that he saw very little chance of success at the present time of a program of voluntary price and wage restraints, and thereby seemed to pull the rug from under the Prices and Incomes Commission's program, is it the intention of the government to ask the commission to consider some other approach to the problem of inflation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I did not hear the comment, but of course the Prices and Incomes Commission is considering all approaches. They did not put all their hopes in the proposed December conference but are considering other techniques. Therefore, we remain optimistic and, I must say, very determined to continue the fight against inflation by every means available to the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the comment of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs yesterday in connection with the steel price increase that if management and unions do not exercise voluntary restraint as urged by the government, "then we will have to use less voluntary measures", to use his own words, is the government considering less voluntary measures and, in particular, is it considering seeking a constitutional amendment to enable the government to resort to either full scale or partial wage control methods?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Among the less voluntary measures we include, of course, fiscal and monetary policies, but the matter of price
control is something that the government is considering. I appreciate the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition about the constitutional difficulty. We are also considering it. If necessary, we will discuss the problem with the provinces to see whether, if needed, price and wage controls can be introduced.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and in view of the scorn poured last night by the Minister of Finance upon compulsory price and wage controls, whom are we to listen to, whom are we to regard as speaking for the government in connection with anti-inflationary measures-the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or the Minister of Finance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Both, Mr. Speaker-^-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The conclusion is not very difficult to draw that we are keeping all options open. Of course we would hesitate and regret to embark upon a course of wage and price controls and income controls because of the constitutional difficulties, arising out of the federal structure of Canada, but we are not closing off that option. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs indicated, and I repeat what the Minister of Finance is indicating, that we are hoping other alternatives will be workable ones.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct another supplementary question to the Prime Minister. As the Governor of the Bank of Canada, in answer to a question put to him at a meeting of the Finance Committee last spring, said that the government two years ago should have imposed consumer credit restrictions if it had the power to do so, may I ask whether the government is appealing to the provinces for the power to bring in consumer credit restrictions?

October 28, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are considering the cost of consumer credit restrictions, and we are even in the process of determining whether we would be able to adopt this course without recourse to or cooperation from the provinces. This is a constitutional point which is not quite clear. As the hon. member knows, it may be possible that the federal government could act on its own and, if so, we would envisage that. Otherwise, if necessary we would discuss it with the provinces, as we would other aspects of income and price control.


George Harris Hees: I wish to ask one final supplementary question just to make this absolutely clear. If the government finds out it can impose consumer credit controls without the consent of the provinces, is it the intention of the government to impose these controls?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as asked is hypothetical. The hon. member for Moose Jaw.


George Harris Hees: My question got the Prime Minister off the hook.



INTEREST RATES-CONTROL OF INCREASES

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister tell us whether or not it is the intention of the government to allow interest rates to rise without restraint?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the question as I was being prodded by other members across the way.


George Harris Hees: The Prime Minister was feeling a little ashamed for not answering my straightforward question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Leroy Skoberg: I will rephrase my question. I do not believe the Prime Minister heard it. Is it the intention of the government to allow interest rates to rise without restraint?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, interest rates would be part of the whole approach which would cover controls on incomes, wages, prices and so on. I repeat that we are not anxious to get to the stage where constitutionally, either alone or in conjunction with the provinces-or by prodding the provinces- we would have to embark on these various areas of direct governmental control and interference with the operations of the market, but I repeat that if necessary we are determined to take all necessary measures

available to the government to break the back of inflation.



CHARGEX CARDS-CONSIDERATION OF WITHDRAWAL

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is the government giving consideration to an attempt to persuade the major chartered banks to withdraw their Chargex cards which have been distributed so widely, particularly in view of the great increase in credit which has been extended by these cards?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the suggestion is one for their consideration, Mr. Speaker, but I have been given to understand that voluntary restraint has been exercised by the banks themselves on their advertising and publicity in this area. If this is not the case, then perhaps we might discuss it with them.



PENSIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Last Wednesday when I asked the Prime Minister a question about certain pensions, including the pensions of retired civil servants, he suggested to me that I should wait until I had seen the Speech from the Throne. Since there is nothing in the Speech from the Throne about the pensions of retired civil servants, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board if the government will soon be in a position to announce an increase in these pensions?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that in the not too distant future it would be possible as a consequence of the progress in the general review to make a statement in respect of the pensions of superannuates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is the government giving favourable consideration to making such increases? A statement is of no help unless there are increases.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, perhaps even more than the hon. gentleman I would like to see the current inequities rectified. There are difficulties in the way, but intensive discussions are now going on with a view to achieving the best possible solution.
October 28, 1969



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Could he tell us whether negotiations are now being carried out with the government of the province of Quebec concerning the establishment of a national park in the Bellechasse constituency, more specifically at Mont St-Magloire?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that this question should be put on the order paper. If the hon. member believes that it is urgent to study or discuss it, he could notify me and it would be deferred as a matter to be debated at the time of adjournment.



OILSEEDS-MOVEMENT TO OVERSEAS MARKETS

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt who answers for the Wheat Board. Can the minister assure the House that the Wheat Board is able to have the oilseed crop, mainly rapeseed and flax, moved through the pipe line to overseas markets, inasmuch as this year they seem to be one of the bright spots in the grain situation?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the minister can assure the House that everything is being done that is necessary by the Wheat Board to expedite the movement of the crop to the markets as these markets open up.


William Gordon Ritchie: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have any sales of flax been lost to date because of failure to have this grain in a forward position?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the appropriate amounts of flax and rapeseed have been in a position to meet sales, so the answer is obviously no.



STABILIZATION OF PRICES BY INTERNATIONAL GRAINS COUNCIL

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister report to the
Inquiries of the Ministry House what, if any, progress is being made at the International Grains Council level with respect to the stabilization of grain prices? I do know that negotiations have been going on, and during the summer recess there has been a lot of concern about price stabilization.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member says, there have been meetings, in Washington, in Brussels, and in Buenos Aires. The result of these meetings has been a strengthening of prices and also the development of a monitoring system between the major exporters which I think is reflected in the improved grain situation at this time.



INITIAL PRICE ON DEFERRED DELIVERIES

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt. In view of the fact that prairie farmers who were prevented from delivering the full five-bushel quota last July are now beginning to deliver on their deferred delivery authorizations and are shocked to discover that they are receiving an initial price 20 cents lower than last July, what, if anything, is being planned to correct this discrimination?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, the deferred delivery applications have now been processed or processing is being completed. The wheat delivered on the deferred delivery permits goes into this year's wheat pool. Under the law there is only one initial price at time of delivery for the whole of that pool; therefore it is true that those concerned with that delivery receive this year's initial price. It is, of course, also true, given some hardening of price as referred to by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, that people receiving the lower initial price would be in a position to receive some compensation by way of final payment.


Mr. Baldwin:: Don't hold your breath.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Could he kindly advise the House if there were any consultations between the government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan

October 28, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry before that province entered into an agreement with the government of the State of New Mexico regarding production quotas, North American floor prices and other conditions in relation to potash production?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question when the House resumed sitting after the summer recess. 1 said that on a number of occasions either I or my officials have cautioned the Premier of Saskatchewan against an arrangement that would be dangerous from the point of view of legality, economic desirability and so on. But it is difficult for us to judge this matter before we know what the final arrangement will be. We are keeping in touch with the premier on this subject.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister not take into consideration the fact that the Governor of New Mexico and the Premier of Saskatchewan are between them, setting a floor price for potash all across Canada and that a foreign government is agreeing with a provincial government to fix prices within Canada's domestic market?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will be interested to know that the Premier of Saskatchewan has said that he is not doing anything-I mean with respect to proration- that is not being done now by the government of Alberta, with regard to oil.



HOUSING


Mr. Thomas S. Barneit (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing. Is the government taking steps to roll back interest rates on moneys supplied to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to be used for senior citizen housing projects? Will those rates be stabilized at levels not higher than they were last June?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I missed part of the question but I am afraid I am not quite sure of its import. Would the hon. gentleman elaborate on what he is driving at? Is he referring to section 16 loans?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes, Mr. Speaker. May I rephrase my question and be more specific. Is the

government, under the limited dividend section of the act, taking steps to roll back interest rates applicable to senior citizen housing projects to a level not higher than the 6J per cent charged last June? Also, will the rate be stabilized at that level?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, interest rates under section 16 and section 35 loans must reflect the cost of money to the government. This has been the standard practice in the past. I am afraid I cannot encourage the hon. gentleman by saying that these interest rates will go below a rate that is slightly above the government's borrowing rate.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the Prime Minister. In view of the answer just given, would he consider the idea of subsidizing the interest rate applicable to projects that entail the building of senior citizen homes and the like?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have considered the matter. We feel at this time that our best approach is to make an over-all attack on inflation, and this is what we are doing.



SUGGESTED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM IN SCHOOLS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister about the subject of drug use, because it is now becoming a grave national problem. I had hoped to see the Minister of Justice here. Would the Prime Minister be prepared to have his government consult with provincial Attorneys General and Ministers of Education so as to encourage the setting up of an educational program in elementary schools, high schools and universities in order that the youth of Canada will be informed and become more knowledgeable about the use of drugs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we share the hon. member's concern about the need to have information disseminated on this important matter. That is why we have set up a commission under Dean Le Dain. We are not considering any specific action along the lines the hon. member has suggested until that commission has reported.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that the commission
October 28, 1969

is now investigating this question. But since many high school students and young people in our universities are being charged with possession of marijuana and trafficking in the drug, and many of them cannot afford bail and therefore remain incarcerated, will the government not consider measures to make the law uniform and to make certain that sentences meted out in this country do not vary from province to province? I ask this question because this matter is within federal jurisdiction.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, sentencing is not within federal jurisdiction, unless the hon. member is suggesting that we embark on the unusual course of setting a fixed sentence from which a judge cannot depart and over which he has no discretion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister must be aware that in some cases young people are charged under the Narcotic Control Act, in which case they are liable to sentences of 7 to 14 years, while in other cases they are charged under the Food and Drugs Act where the sentence called for is much less.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member asking a supplementary question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I had to give a preamble in order that the Prime Minister will be filled in on the law. In view of the fact they can be charged under various acts, is the government prepared to make the law uniform so that the youth of this nation will know what they are likely to be charged with?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this too hinges very much on the report of the Le Dain Commission on the recent situation. He is the Dean of the Osgoode Hall Law School. He is looking into all aspects of the problem. There are sociologists and psychiatrists, I believe, on the commission. We expect to have a complete report. I must say the government does share the concern of the hon. member about this area of the law. We have already, in the past session, announced some steps to correct shortcomings, but we do not find the matter is sufficiently dealt with at this time. That is why we set up the Le Dain Commission.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker -


Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might allow the hon. member for Compton to ask his question and then we might go to the hon. member for Edmonton West on his question of privilege.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Would he say to this house if he is aware that the Canadian Steel Car was awarded a $10 million contract by CNR and that this contract will be entirely carried out at Hamilton, Ontario?
Would the minister tell this house why Montreal did not receive a part of this important contract?


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member makes reference to a contract or a situation which requires no immediate action, I think it might be advisable that the question should be put on the order paper or discussed at the time of adjournment tonight.



PRIVILEGE


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is a personal one but it affects all members of the House. In the past we received Hansard promptly by 9.30 or 9.45 a.m. For some unexplained reason we have not been getting that type of service since the resumption of the session. In fact, last Friday's Hansard was not delivered to our boxes until approximately 9.45 a.m. on Monday. In light of the new system of clearing the space below our desks, which I may say is most inconvenient, I think some explanation should be furnished as to why there is this apparent delay or change in procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: I might indicate to the hon. member that I have made inquiries about the situation. I am told this has happened before at the start of a session. There are organizational difficulties at the printing bureau. It is hoped that by the start of next week that department of government will have become

October 28, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry fully operational and will supply Hansard as it has done in previous sessions before eleven o'clock each morning.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Gerald William Baldwin: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the government made any inquiries following the earthquake disaster in Yugoslavia as to the extent of requirements for medical and other supplies in that country? Is the Canadian government prepared to contribute any such supplies as may be required?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will have to take that up with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker; the department will supply answers to any oral questions asked about this matter.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: My
question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the revaluation of the deutschmark, does the government intend to increase allowances to Canadian service personnel in Germany to restore their effective purchasing power in the local economy?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: The director of pay services is looking into this matter to determine to what extent and in what areas in particular the servicemen will be affected by the revaluation. We have not yet reached any conclusions.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: A supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker. When the franc was devalued did the government not reduce allowances paid to foreign service personnel in France to compensate for their increased purchasing power?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative.



ADHERENCE TO GENEVA CONVENTION

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Roy-al: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is Canada's adherence to

the Geneva Convention of 1925, which outlawed chemical and biological warfare, still in effect?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I believe this technical question should be directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. As far as I am concerned, I can say we are not involved in chemical or biological warfare except in its defensive aspects for the purpose of providing our servicemen with the proper equipment to defend themselves and protect the population.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to the decreasing population of cod, whiteflsh and herring off our coast, is the minister giving any consideration to convening an international conference to discuss restrictions on the catching of fish off the continental shelf?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: We
have been in touch with other countries through the usual channels and have expressed our concern about the decline in the Atlantic fish population. However, we are not considering an exceptional conference for this purpose.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Since the minister has planned to meet with the captains of large vessels fishing off the Labrador coast to discuss the development of fishing resources closer to home, may I ask what talks, if any, will be held with the numerous owners of smaller vessels who have suffered equally this year?


John (Jack) Davis: We are going to meet with all the skippers.



INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF SALT FISH MARKETING CORPORATION

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Can the Minister of Fisheries tell the House whether the government proposes to bring in legislation this session setting up a salt fish marketing board? If so, will it be brought in before Christmas?


John (Jack) Davis: certainly hope legislation along those lines can be brought in as soon as possible.
October 28, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the government's declared in'.ention on many occasions to bring down legislation to incorporate a Canada development corporation, will a bill to incorporate such a body be introduced in the present session?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Precisely because this has been mentioned in two or three Speeches from the Throne, I believe, and because parliament has not so far found time to act upon it, I do not wish to make any further commitment. But I hope to see further action.


Gerald William Baldwin: Or further inaction.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: G>r further inaction.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister.
Due to the inertia and bad faith of the Quebec government concerning the development of its territory in the Hull area, is it the intention of the federal government to come to the rescue of the citizens of Hull who are victims of federal-provincial conflicts, by renting the Hull area on a long term basis for the purpose of building roads and new buildings?
lEnglishf



AGRICULTURE


George Harris Hees: I have a question to direct to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister decided on a date when he will meet with the cheese producers of Ontario and Quebec, such a meeting having been requested in a joint letter from the producers on September 12?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: I will check to see whether a mutually convenient date has been determined.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. I brought this matter to the personal attention of the minister by telephone some weeks ago. Has he really not had a chance to consider this important request?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FARM MACHINERY-INQUIRY AS TO BARBER COMMISSION REPORT

Richard Russell Southam: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise us when we may expect the Barber Commission report on the price of farm machinery?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not sure I can give the hon. member a precise date when we shall receive the final report of the Barber Commission. We did receive an interim report as long ago as last March covering certain aspects of this inquiry, and in the last few days we have received a further interim report. This is now in the hands of the translators and printers, and we hope it can be tabled in the House soon-at any rate, as soon as it is ready.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the government giving sympathetic consideration to relaxing, at least in peacetime, the longstanding policy which requires that servicemen who lose their lives at sea or while serving abroad should be buried at sea or in the country in which the casualty occurred? I ask the minister whether consideration cannot be given to this question, particularly in the light of the policy followed by the United States, whose fallen war dead are brought back to the United States for interment?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: As the hon. member has indicated, it has been a longstanding policy that Commonwealth servicemen who die overseas should be buried in a military cemetery especially set aside for that purpose. This policy has been reviewed from time to time but it is still in existence. I instructed my departmental officials some time ago to review the policy once more to determine whether there was not some way in which we could accommodate the wishes of those who would prefer, in
166

October 28, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry peacetime, to have their dead buried in Canada.
There are a good many implications here. This involves a Commonwealth agreement. It would also imply the setting up of a special branch at National Defence headquarters to administer the suggested arrangement. As I say, we are examining all these aspects but a conclusion has not yet been reached.



AGRICULTURE


Albert B. Douglas: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has a definite date been set for the presentation to the government of the final report of the task force on agriculture?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have received an undertaking from the task force on agriculture that a report will be presented by the end of this year.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May I ask the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to answer the question I raised yesterday, namely, what financial provision is being made for the employees of the Harbours Board who have been laid off as a result of the dispute on the Vancouver waterfront?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: I thank the hon. member for having drawn this matter to my attention. Of 50 men laid off, approximately 12 were not eligible for unemployment insurance. This was an obvious inequity and the Harbours Board is arranging to compensate these 12 men to the same level as if they were receiving unemployment insurance.



HOUSING


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. The Minister of Energy and Resources for Ontario has indicated there will be no federal assistance forthcoming in connection with the construction of a sewage plant at Hamilton, whereas the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated in a statement yesterday

that discussions were still proceeding in this connection. Will the minister kindly advise us which of these statements is correct and whether, in fact, an effort is being made by the government to review its entire policy with respect to grants to municipalities?


Robert Knight Andras: The statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare is accurate. Sewage treatment loans to Hamilton and to other municipalities are being studied and are subject to negotiation and review. We have this year extended some $50 million in sewage treatment loans; this represents a very high percentage increase compared with anything done earlier.
At any given time the government must acknowledge some limitation on the resources available for even good programs such as the one mentioned by the hon. member. Right now we are seeking the advice of provincial ministers as to their needs in this and other housing areas. When we have the benefit of the collective results of their suggestions I shall be going to the Treasury Board and to the Department of Finance for our capital budget for next year. I certainly hope all members of the House bear in mind their wish to see these projects furthered when I place my estimates before them. There is no freeze on sewage treatment loans. The budget for this year has been subscribed and we shall be dealing with future applications including Hamilton's, as soon as the new budget is available.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I take it from the minister's answer that I would be correct in saying that the city of Hamilton has not been refused?


Robert Knight Andras: That is correct, Mr. Speaker, there has been no refusal. We will be negotiating with the city of Hamilton in light of the ideas of the responsible minister of the province of Ontario on whether any particular priority will be applied to this community in that province.



URBAN RENEWAL-INQUIRY AS TO REMOVAL OF FREEZE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing whether he can inform the House how long the freeze on urban renewal is to continue?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, another hon. member
Oclober 28, 1969	COMMONS
asked me the other day to make a statement on motions on this matter, and I intend to do so at the earliest opportunity. If the Leader of the Opposition will be patient I will try to do so during the next few days.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether his government is willing to grant the tax exemption requested by the premier to allow the Anglophones of the province of Quebec to learn French?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member is talking about the Quebec premier. There are other premiers in the country.
I think the Secretary of State will soon answer the question. The hon. member probably knows that in the first weeks of November, the education ministers of the provinces will be meeting with the Secretary of State who, at this occasion, hopes to state the government policy in that matter.



INDUSTRY


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Had he or any member of his department any consultation with the Premier of Saskatchewan before the premier introduced the plan to purchase heavy electrical machinery and pay for same with grain?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have talked to the premier of Saskatchewan about this, and so has the Minister without Portfolio. I have now written to him outlining some of the disadvantages to other industrial sections of the wheat bartering system.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question. Did the minister impress upon the premier the very discriminatory effect of this program and how disastrous it would be to Canadian manufacturers of heavy electrical equipment?


Jean-Luc Pepin: As I said that is part of my letter, Mr. Speaker.
21362-12J
DEBATES	167
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



NORTHERN PRAIRIES-SUGGESTED ASSISTANCE TO OFFSET POOR CROPS

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the difficult harvest that the farmers of the northern prairies are having for the second year-in some operations less than half of the crops have been harvested- does the minister have any specific plan for an immediate injection of cash in any form into this economy?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there has been a very substantial injection of cash into the economy through the cash advances system. I am sure that the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan could advise how much has been advanced, but it is a significant amount.


Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question. Do I take that answer to mean that the act will be amended in order to allow advance payments on grain that is still in swath and standing in the fields?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member cannot take my answer as meaning that.



INITIAL PRICE ON DEFERRED DELIVERIES

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board and arises out of his answer to a question about payments on deferred delivery grain. The excuse he gave was that the government could do nothing about an additional payment because this would be contrary to the Act. How, then, does he relate his answer to the action taken by the government in allowing deferred deliveries?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is argumentative.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Since the minister will be making a very important visit to the Mari-times this week in regard to matters connected with transportation, would he like to pave the way by telling us what progress he is making with the study on Atlantic transportation?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this information should be given by way of a statement on motions.

October 28, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



SHIP CONSTRUCTION-INQUIRY AS TO DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. When does the minister propose to bring in his program of direct loans to fishermen to enable them to build vessels for fishing?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, a program of that type is under consideration, but I am unable to announce when it is likely to become effective.



HOUSING


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of housing. Is the minister yet in a position to state the government's decision with respect to the four urban renewal projects discussed with him by a delegation from Manitoba on September 13?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the delegation at the time, we are prepared to consider and we suggested that the delegation accept our meeting a commitment in regard to a certain portion of one of the schemes. There is no further information that I can give the hon. member in regard to the four schemes presented by the Hon. Mr. Green at the time, though I hope to be in touch with him some time before the end of the year.



APPROVAL OF DAMAGE CLAIM SUBMITTED BY SASKATCHEWAN

John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Has the Treasury Board approved the flood damage claim submitted in September by the province of Saskatchewan?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not aware of that, Mr. Speaker. I will make inquiries.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will the hon. gentleman be making an

announcement soon with respect to the development of government in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territory, an announcement that has been pending since 1966?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be visiting Yellowknife and Whitehorse early next mon'h and I shall make statements on those matters.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: While I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer questions asked by the hon. members for Prince Edward-Hastings and Winnipeg-North on Friday, about the situation at Inu-vik. As far as the two million dollar loan requested by the municipality is concerned, the decision rests with the government of the Northwest Territories. Mr. Hodgson, the commissioner, went to Inuvik a few weeks ago to discuss this problem.
With regard to housing in this region, unfortunately there are Whites and Metis who are in the same situation as the Eskimos and the Indians.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received any notice of the request of the municipality of Churchill to leave the province of Manitoba and become part of the Northwest Territories, apparently alarmed at what it sees going on at the present time in the city of Winnipeg?


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I was very interested in his statement, but it was very hard to make out whether or not the $2 million loan-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
The House resumed, from Monday, October 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jack Cullen for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at
October 28, 1969	COMMONS
the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 34).
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there are two sentences in the Speech from the Throne which state a principle with which I am in very strong agreement. I would be very happy if I could be convinced that the government also believes in this principle to the point of acting on it. The sentences are to be found at page 3 of Hansard for October 23, 1969, where the throne speech is reprinted. These are the sentences:
In addition to solving her Immediate problems, Canada must be prepared to face the coming challenges of the post industrial era. This calls for a systematic appraisal of Canadian society and of the basic principles that are to guide it.
As I understand those sentences, they say to us that we must solve our immediate problems but that we must solve them on the basis of principles that will be good in the years and the decades that lie ahead. I thoroughly and very strongly agree. One of the chief complaints my colleagues and I level at the present government is that it is not using methods to solve today's problems that will suffice in the years that lie ahead. Surely we are all agreed that the major problem facing us in Canada is poverty. Formerly we used the phrase "poverty in the midst of plenty". I think what is disturbing our society today is poverty in the midst of affluence. Anyone who would presume to understand and explain all the troubles which beset our day and generation, particularly by any simple answer, would be foolish. I think it is fair to say, however, that one of the reasons there is so much unrest and unhappiness, and one of the reasons there is so much resort to violence and other ways to try to correct things, is that far too many people are poor in the midst of a society and in the midst of an age in which they are given pictures of the kind of life they could enjoy but which they are completely denied.
Poverty in the midst of affluence is sapping the spirit of far too many of our people. In a moment or two, I shall document the statement I now make, that one of the main things that is wrong today is that the gap between the poor and the rich has widened immeasurably. It has become far too wide for our society to hold together. One thing we must do is narrow that gap. We must really take steps to bring up the standard of living of those in the lower brackets rather than just go on adding to the number of those who enjoy being part
DEBATES	169
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles of a wage or salary elite. In other words, I insist that an attack on poverty, an attack that is determined to get rid of it, an attack that it is determined to take us into the kind of day when we will not be forever talking about the poor, about the needy and about welfare cases, is what our government, our parliament and our country should be carrying out.
It is my contention that this government is: talking about poverty and talking about its concern for the poor, the pensioners and so on, but really is not applying itself to this problem, to use its own concept in the Speech from the Throne, by following principles that will be any good ten, 20 or 30 years from now. As I see it, our society in this age of affluence, and this age of technological capacities that are beyond our imagination, will hold together only if people enjoy as a matter of right their share of the standard of living we are able to produce. The phrase "guaranteed annual income" is one that is kicked around. The idea that people should enjoy a standard of living as of right is one that is becoming more and more part of the language of those who talk about these problems. But the government still talks about doing things for the needy and the poor when its job should be to create the kind of society and economy in which there are no poor.
The government says it is concerned about these matters and is showing its concern by an all-out war on inflation. Last night we listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) as he beat his breast and told us how the government is fighting inflation. Why, says the minister, are we fighting inflation; it is because we want to protect the pensions of the pensioners and the position of the poor. If I were to use the sophisticated language my friend the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) sometimes uses I would just say "nuts". This is not a war on inflation that is designed to protect the poor or the pensioners because prices are still going up; the cost of living is rising faster than the pensions, and the pensioners and others who are on fixed incomes are losing their standard of living and will continue to lose it no matter what this government does. The government is using the old age pensioners and those on fixed incomes as an excuse for the kind of campaign that will keep inflation within bounds for the benefit of those at the upper levels.
As the Minister of Finance said last night, those who are strong, those who are in the
October 28. 1969

The Address-Mr. S. Knowles upper brackets, feel somehow they will keep up with it. As a matter of fact, some people gain because of inflation. All those people do not want is for it to get out of hand. So, we have this talk of needing to protect the pensioners to give us a so-called program against inflation which is really just a case of trying to protect those at the top of the scale.
I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for joining some of the rest of us in complaining about the 2 per cent ceiling on the increase made in the old age pension and in the Canada Pension Plan benefit in any one year. Some of us have been complaining about this since it was brought into effect in 1966. But the Leader of the Opposition is perfectly right when he puts to the Minister of Finance a question which the Minister of Finance will not answer, namely, "Is this what you have to do; do you have to depress the position of the old age pensioners in order to fight inflation?"
The position of the pensioners is not improved by having the worth of their pensions devaluated. All it does is make it possible for those who are strong, organizations like the steel companies, to strengthen their position. But those at the bottom end of the stick are not covered at all. The government says-and we heard it again last night from the Minister of Finance-that this government has done so much for the old age pensioners. He started to tell us how there was an increase from $55 to $65 and to $75 and that now those on the guaranteed income supplement are up to $105 or $109 a month. This all sounds very good. But may I point out that the gap-and this is the important thing in social terms-between the pensions of our old age pensioners and our retired civil servants, on the one hand, and those of us, on the other hand, who are on incomes that we can bargain for, or the gap between pensioners and those working, has become so much wider that this increase the government talks about really does not mean anything at all.
[DOT] (12 noon)
Let me mention a case. It will not be very popular within these walls but I shall mention it anyway. The Minister of Finance likes to talk about the pension having gone up. Yes, it has. Twenty years ago it was $40 a month. Now, if one is receiving the GIS he can get about $109 a month, an increase of $69. That sounds good. But in that same period when the pension was $40 a month-and I refer to ourselves because we are typical of what has happened in Canadian society-we were receiving a total income of $6,000 a year. We are

now getting a total of $18,000. I point out that it is not just a matter of proportions, of one having gone up two and a half times and the other having gone up three times, but it is a matter of a greatly widened gap. The gap then was between $480 a year and $6,000; now the gap is between about $1,000 and $18,000. So, let the minister not stand there and beat his breast and tell us of the wonderful things the government has done for old age pensioners. In relative terms, in terms of the gap between them and society generally, the picture for them has become far worse.
I have on my desk a copy of a book called "Taxation Statistics", the 1969 edition, as published by the Department of National Revenue. As hon. members know, we get this book every year. It is full of figures which most of us have difficulty comprehending, and I am included in that group. But I am interested in a table on page 147 of this volume which is entitled, "Yearly Distribution of Taxable Returns by Income". It gives a certain amount of information for the years from 1946 to 1967. It tells how many people were reporting incomes in certain brackets for each of those years. Although those with incomes so low they are not reported are not included, I find that in 1946 there were one and a half million people reporting incomes of under $2,000, and 21 years later one and a half million is still the number of persons reporting incomes of under $3,000. So the position of those at the bottom of the income ladder has improved. In 21 years it has improved from $2,000 a year to $3,000 a year, but at the other end of the scale I find that whereas in 1946 there were only 20,000 taxpayers reporting incomes of over $10,000 a year, there are now 500,000 reporting such incomes.
I know that a case could be made on the other side by those of the chamber of commerce mentality who might say: "Look how we have improved things". That is fine. I am glad to know there are many more people receiving incomes on which they can enjoy the good and just life, and all the other kinds of lives of which mention is made. But while we have moved people of the middle and upper income brackets up to incomes that are in the stratosphere, we have still a million and a half of our people who report their incomes down at $3,000 a year or less. I submit that $3,000 a year in 1967 is less than was $2,000 in 1946.
The point I am making by these figures, and I make it in terms of relating old age pensions to other incomes, is that we have allowed the gap to widen in this country in
October 28, 1969

the last 20 years. Perhaps the thing has been happening since the beginning of time, but that is no reason for us not to stop it. So long as that situation continues to exist, I say our society is in danger of falling apart and that many of the things that happen today, many of the attempts to change things in ways that are not orthodox, many of the revolts and much of the unhappiness, are due to the fact that people live in the kind of age in which they learn over radio and television, as well as in feature magazines, of an affluent and luxurious life that is available but they cannot get anywhere near it because they are still in this depressed condition down at the bottom of the ladder.
It is very much like the picture in world terms. We have done much in the last couple of decades in terms of external aid. We have given tremendous sums of money in one way or another to the developing countries, and the living standards in the developing countries have been raised. However, at the same time we have raised our own average standards in North American and in the western world to such an extent that the gap between those in the developing countries and ourselves is wider than ever. I submit that that fact is one that challenges the world, and that unless something is done about it we are in for trouble. That is another subject that some of us talk about on other occasions. I believe that our government is terribly remiss in not yet having gone up even to the 1 per cent of our gross national product for external aid to which it is committed. I think it should be at least 2 per cent. But at this particular time I am talking about Canada. I think that the most serious problem facing us is the one that I have been trying to delineate, namely that we are allowing the gap between the poor and the wealthy to get wider than ever, that this is unfair to the poor and the needy and that it is dangerous so far as our society as a whole is concerned.
I know that it is very popular to talk about these things and to say that we must do something for the poor, but this is what bothers me about it. We keep on talking about doing things for the poor, but we still leave them out there, a different group who shall always be with us. Even if someone tries to quote the Bible at me, I do not agree that they need always be with us. In my view, what we have to do is to narrow this gap even if it means getting over the notion that it can be done without affecting the rest of us. This is what most people want to do. I think

The Address-Mr. S. Knowles the hon. member for York North (Mr. Dan-son) made an allusion to this yesterday, and I congratulate him on it. He said that we want to help the poor but we do not want it to cost us anything. I think there are ways in which we could bring the lower income people up to a certain level without having to cut into the incomes of those in the middle and upper brackets. I think that increasing employment, producing more goods and services-particularly the goods and services that the needy and the pensioners require-is one way to do it. However, I want to say categorically, even if I am speaking only for myself, that if we have only so much money to spend, if we have to follow this government line with which I do not agree, then we will have to re-allocate some of that money. We will have to impose higher taxes on high salaries and incomes, and on corporate wealth, so that we can increase the pensions of our old age pensioners and retired civil servants, so that we can give a better break to our war veterans, particularly those on the war veterans allowance.
Having made that reference, may I say that one of the things in the Woods report which pleased me in principle as well as because of the people who are affected-and incidentally this is something that the government has accepted in its white paper-is the recommendation that in the case of all Hong Kong veterans who can demonstrate any disability whatsoever, a 50 per cent disability pension will be awarded, which has the consequence of a full widow's pension when any of those veterans die. Actually, we learned in the Veterans Affairs Committee that this provision will cover just about all living Hong Kong veterans. I believe there are only about eight who have not established some disability and the whereabouts of some of them are beyond discovery. In spirit, therefore, what that report recommends is that those men who served in Hong Kong shall be treated as veterans virtually because they were there. Virtually because they went through the experience of those years as prisoners, they should be regarded as deserving of a 50 per cent disability pension, and their widows of a full widow's pension as a matter of right. It is a kind of guaranteed income.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
I like the idea, and we will have to come to the day when we do this across the board; when we stop talking about giving money to people because they are poor, because they
172	COMMONS DEBATES	October 28, 1969
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles
can meet a means or a needs test. We will have to reach the point where we say to people, "You are people; you are citizens; you are human beings. You are here as part of this modern industrial society, or post-industrial society, that can produce all kinds of wealth, and therefore you are entitled to a standard of living that is a reasonable minimum-yes, whether or not you do anything at all for it." I think this is implied in those two sentences I read at the start of my speech in which the government says that we have to make "a systematic appraisal of Canadian society and of the basic principles that are to guide it."
We will not build a new Canada or a just society for the year 2000 if in the year 2000 we are still saying, "We will give you a pension or an allowance if you are poor, if you can demonstrate that you need it." We won't hold this society together that long in that way. We will hold it together only if we achieve that equality among Canadians that says, "Because you are here, because you are Canadian, you have rights."
That is the reason that I make no apology whatsoever, even on the morning after that intemperate speech which we heard last night from the Minister of Finance, and even in the light of the things said in this House earlier this morning, for saying that what should be done right now by the government is to increase a number of these pensions about which some of us talk frequently.
The old age security pension should go up not just $1.58 a month in January; it should go up to $125 or $150 a month. The retired civil servants should have their pensions increased. In that connection, I welcome the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) and the speeches that have been made from time to time by other members of the House. These pensions should be raised in the order of 50 per cent or 60 per cent, without any question. I think that the principle which is to apply to the Hong Kong veterans might also apply to all World War I veterans still living, and their widows. Let us get away from these tests that can be applied. Let us say to people, "You belong to certain groups and you have rights." The day will come when everybody who is a Canadian has certain rights, particularly the right to a guaranteed standard of living, regardless of all other considerations.
I also think, Mr. Speaker, that something should be done about the case of those provinces which have not yet moved over to the

Canada Assistance Plan where people are still on old age assistance, or in receipt of the blind person's allowance or the disabled person's allowance. Those allowances should be increased. We left them behind when we last increased the old age security pension. Previously, when we used to increase the old age security pension we used to increase those other pensions as well. Now, we have brought these disability pensions up to $75 a month, but there is no guaranteed income supplement for these people.
All of these categories should receive pension increases right now. For the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance to say, "We cannot afford to do this because we have an austerity program and we have to fight inflation" is, I think, sheer nonsense. In fact, I think I am entitled to use the word hypocrisy, because it does not solve the problems of pensioners at all to carry on this phony war against inflation. Their position is getting worse by the month and by the week.
In my view we could afford pension increases on the basis of increased employment. I think that is the way to do it. But if the government is not prepared for that and does not have the wit to devise policies that will result in increased employment, and if it says, "We have only so much money to go around," then I say do not ask the pensioners to bear the brunt of the fight against inflation.
If members of the government say they feel for pensioners, then let the government help them out right now. If that means increasing taxes at the higher income levels I am for it. If that means cutting out some of the wasteful, extravagant expenditures such as those on the Prime Minister's staff, then I am for that, too. In fact, I am sure that all governmental expenditures, as with expenditures of society as a whole, have all kinds of fat at the top, with all kinds of affluence being enjoyed by do-gooders who are concerned about the poor provided this concern does not cost them a cent, provided it does not mean a lessening of their privileged position.
I do not think this is the kind of society that will hold together, the kind of society that is satisfied to leave one and a half million people in the position that they report incomes of less than $3,000 a year, while we go on trying to put as many people as we can into a wage and salary elite. To me this is extremely important, not just because of the needs that these people face right now, but it is extremely important if we are to hold our society together.
October 28, 1969	COMMONS
So, Mr. Speaker, I say that I welcome this declaration of principle that the government has given us in the Speech from the Throne, its assertion that we have to solve today's problems in the light of basic principles that will guide us in the years that lie ahead. But I ask this question: Does anybody in this House of Commons think we are going to guide our society ten or 20 years from now on the basis of means tests and needs tests, on the basis of keeping thousands, perhaps millions of our people down in lower brackets while others are away up in the stratosphere?
Surely, the only principle that is going to hold our economy, our society and our people together is one which makes the declaration that we are all Canadians and we are all entitled to a certain share of the wealth we are able to produce. That means a guaranteed minimum income below which no one will be allowed to fall. That means people enjoying and having that income as a matter of right. It means getting away from the day when the best the government can do is to say to people, "We will help out and fight battles for you if you are poor." Let us stop using that language. Let us not divide ourselves between the rich and the poor. Let us all be humans. Let us all be Canadians. Let us devise policies that will make things better for Canadians now, and better for Canadians in the future.
A clear demonstration that the government believes in the two sentences that I quoted at the beginning of my remarks would be given if the government would say, "All right; right now, as a matter of right we will say to the old age pensioners, we will say to the retired civil servants, we will say to the veterans on the veterans allowance, we will say to other pensioners, 'Even though there is an austerity situation, even though there are problems you have rights. We are going to accord those rights to you by increasing your pensions, and we believe that having done so things will be better both for you and for the country as a whole.' "
If the government would respond to the plea that some of us in this House have been making across the years, and give the pension increases we have been urging, it would be a better day for our older people now, and a much better day for all our people in the Canada of the future.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to congratulate the mover and
DEBATES	173
The Address-Mr. Godin the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. members for Sarnia and Lapointe (Messrs. Cullen and Marceau). They performed admirably, speaking with remarkable ease in either of the two official languages.
I have great admiration for them in that respect. As for myself, I am not outstanding in that field, but I hope that someday I shall be able to speak a second language. Unfortunately, I have little time for practice now because t he riding I have the honour of representing includes 90,000 people.
On the other hand, it is obvious that the four members from Prince Edward Island who represent 105,000 constituents are in a better position than I to become bilingual, if they devote their spare time to study.
Mr. Speaker, let us leave for a moment the individual ridings to consider the country as a whole. The Speech from the Throne of Thursday last contains many amendments to the just society proposed a year ago, and the numerous questions we shall have to deal with this year are evidence that last year's legislation has to be done again.
Although we intend to deal with all questions and to amend several laws, we may rightly question the results, in view of the fact that Canadians are still squeezed between a large national output, on the one hand, and accumulated surpluses as well as inadequate purchasing power, on the other hand. In order to divert people's attention, economists contradict themselves publicly about the causes of poverty in an affluent society.
Those quite knowledgeable men, and others who are less knowledgeable as well, take pleasure in classifying objectives of economic behaviour, as they say so well, in the hope of palliating structural and regional disparities and distortions. Everything is allowed to cover up the real truth and to hide from the people the true reasons for the period of unrest we are going through.
For instance, we refer to the chronic period of unemployment Canada has been experiencing for a few years as the cyclic and seasonal fluctuations of employment.
While financing charges and various taxes push upwards the prices of commodities and services essential to our survival, the people responsible for those increases tell us of plans to stabilize prices at a reasonable level.
While computers take the place of accountants and clerical workers, while machines take over from the workers in the plants, we

October 28, 1969
The Address-Mr. Godin still unfortunately find within the Canadian administration some dreamers who say that full employment is still possible.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tries his hand at changing the meaning of words to justify his inaction with regard to the real issues and to be able to launch a mixed attack on problems that do not exist. In my opinion, the most misused word in Canada, the word that does for everything, is "inflation".
Here, I would like to refer to page 2 of Hansard, for October 23, where the following can be found:
There are many obstacles to be overcome if we are to achieve our economic goals, but inflation is undoubtedly the most serious and the most difficult to control.
Mr. Speaker, the word "inflation" was really representative of the situation that prevailed during the war and the following years.
In fact, as most workers were then paid to destroy or to make articles intended for destruction, what was bound to happen happened. At one time there was more money in the citizens' pockets. The purchasing power was stronger, higher than the value of the products for sale. That was inflation.
Today it is different. Inflation may be the problem of the authors of the Speech from the Throne, that is the problem of a few Canadians earning $30,000 or more a year. It is certainly not the case of most Canadians.
Following the proliferation of and increase in taxes of all kinds, it is strange to hear the government make statements like the one we find in the Speech from the Throne of October 23, and I quote:
In recent months, the government has urged both the public and the private sectors to adopt special measures to combat the dangers of inflation.
Mr. Speaker, it is easy enough to forget that taxes add to the price of goods, but we must admit that the Canadian government must have a lot of nerve to inform us of its strategy which consists in uniting all possible forces, both public and private, to fight inflation more vigorously than ever.
Mr. Speaker, can we ask 75 per cent of the families in the province of Quebec whose income is lower than $4,000 per year, the businessmen who are going bankrupt, the farmers who are forced to auction live-stock, goods and implements, the industries which are folding up, the great number of people on relief, the unemployed, to wage war against inflation?
What about the 85 per cent of the Canadian population in that fight? What can they do to prevent prices from increasing?
Unfortunately, this government too often makes us believe that it does not even know why prices have gone up. I think it is time that we show some logic for, as I have already said, the Canadian problem is not one of inflation, but of plenty.
A manpower retraining program was recently launched. Small armament contracts were awarded. Subsidies were paid for winter works. Certain advantages are now given to so-called designated areas, and yet, the economic unrest is only worsening. Some ministers, some hon. members and some economists handsomely rewarded seem unaware of that, and the Canadian population is conscious of that fact and is justifiably concerned.
That is the first thing that needs to be done, and I agree with these words written by a responsible economist in the publication Ensemble on May 15, 1969:
Mr. Alfred Rouleau, president of the Co-operation Council, stated that poverty created more poverty, that the poor no longer accepted to be deprived of essentials and that the mass media tempted them to lead an easy life while they lacked bare necessities.
In Quebec, about 450,000 people (children included) receive public assistance and have a yearly income varying between $1,500 to $2,000, or $35 to $45 per week. Those are the people who live in the slums of our cities or on our unproductive farms. Add to them the low-income workers and farmers and you have one Quebecer out of five living in poverty.
At first a minimum guaranteed income should be ensured to those who are not able to work and employment should be ensured to those who can work.
In Canada, according to professor Henripin, two thirds of the poor would disappear thanks to a substantial increase in family allowances and above all thanks to the increase in the allowances according to the number and the age of the children.
Mr. Speaker, if we want to go further, an adequate policy based on our national production would allow us not to eliminate two thirds of the poor, mais to improve the lot of all the poor in our country.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
Everyone must be able to make use of the advantages of progress because our society will be soundly established only if it can ensure to each and everyone of its members not only a sufficient use of the present goods but also of all those which a truly social organization is in a position to offer them. It is only when everyone's livelihood is properly

October 28, 1969

assured that certain classes may begin to live in luxury and abundance.
The abuse of the right "to use and abuse" the advantages of social production is almost a spoliation and no words are strong enough to brand those responsible for it: the exploiters, the dishonest administrators.
Humanity has the right to live. This is the basic principle. To make it possible a proper distribution of wealth is necessary.
Goods are so plentiful in the world that the temporal needs so conducive to the practice of virtue should be honestly enjoyed by each and everyone of us. In the face of the affluence of goods produced by machines which replace him, man thus deprived of the means of earning his living has but a choice between hardship and affluence.
Pensions, allowances should result from gratuitous rights to a share of the production. Not from the outcome of the work of those who labour to earn their livelihood but only from the social capital made up of the social factors of production technology, and the machines of which we are all the joint heirs.
Mr. Speaker, in the third edition of Warning Democracy published in 1935, Major C. H. Douglas, had this to say about finance and industry:
If we consider the fact that the production of goods of all kinds per unit of mechanized worker used, and if we consider also that such energy in the last 100 years has increased by 3,000 to 4,000 per cent, three things can happen. Each and everyone of us must consume 30 to 40 times more than before and further increase his consumption as soon as the energy allows an increase in the production; or we must get rid, through exports or otherwise, of our production surpluses or else we must admit that the so-called unemployment problem is a result of the progress of applied science to industry and that we must modify thoroughly our distribution system.
Jacques Maritain wrote in his book entitled Humanisme integral, and I quote:
The law of usus communis tends to state that, at least and first for what concerns the primary needs, the material and spiritual needs of the human being, it is advisable that people get for nothing as many things as possible.
Mr. Speaker, we consider that the family represents the vital cell of society and that the real aim of the economic activities is to ensure, from the point of view of the real human good, the resources that are necessary to family life.	.
Besides, if we consider that all men have an equal right to use the earthly goods, and that with regard to the primary material
The Address-Mr. Godin needs of the human being, it is advisable that people get for nothing as many things as possible on the basis of social justice.
We consider that the fruits of production today come mainly from a social capital that has accumulated for several generations, and that the fruits of the social capital should be distributed in a social way to each and every member of society as heir of this social and cultural heritage. We hold the opinion that the guarantee of a vital minimum that would cover the primary needs in food, clothing and housing is perfectly workable today, in view of the economic conditions of production and of the production capacity in Canada.
Thanks to the advent of automation, of cybernetics and the utilization of new production techniques, we consider that the productive work of man is becoming less and less necessary and is replaced by machines in factories where automation is taking over.
Since American economists and sociologists have already stated, in an open letter addressed to President Johnson, that the first condition to avoid economic and social disorder in the present state of production which frees man from work without succeeding to reemploy him usefully is to ensure unequivocally to every individual and to every family a minimum income that would be guaranteed as a right, may I be allowed to move, seconded by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe), the following subamendment:
... that the amendment be amended by replacing the words "of large numbers of our people" by the following; "of all Canadians by the Introduction of a plan of a guaranteed minimum income."
Mr. Speaker, since the guaranteed income does not exist in Canada, the members of the Ralliement creditiste recommend that an annual income be guaranteed through the payment of a national dividend, that could represent one fifth of the gross national revenue, which amounted in 1969 to $67 billion. That would provide for security without the need to increase taxes.
I move this subamendment today because people have been talking about it for over 30 years. More recently, namely in September 1964, the Labour Gazette published the following statement from an economist, Mr. Theobald, delivered at the meeting of the 51st annual conference of the International Association of Personnel in Employment Security (IAPES) and I quote:
The effects of cybernetics revolution will be so far-reaching and so rapid that it will be impossible to provide for full employment. In other words, the efficiency of machines will keep on increasing

October 28, 1969
The Address-Mr. Godin at such a rate that employers in the public as well as in the private sectors will find It more economical to own or rent machines than to hire workers.
At the same meeting, a guest speaker, Mr. Gilles Endicott had this to say, and I quote:
Automation is compelling us to change the basic notion that there is no salary without corresponding labour. While it may seem altogether revolutionary and contrary to the Calvinist ethics on the subject, we have to accept the principle that revenue is not necessarily related to labour.
More recently, Mr. Speaker, one could read in the Thursday, September 11 issue of Le Devoir, and I quote:
The New Democrats have rushed into print in the last few days briefs that are to be used as background material for discussions at the convention which will be held in Winnipeg, at the end of October.
This week, they published, under the signature of economist Marion Bryden, another brief on the possibility of establishing a guaranteed annual income scheme.
Further on, there is an article by Pierre-C. O'Neil, from which I quote:
Marion Bryden gives an account of the conclusions arrived at by the subcommittee of the revision committee on the NDP policies with regard to a guaranteed annual income.
The committee reaches a compromise between the negative income tax, the guaranteed minimum income and what it calls a "demogrant", that is a payment made to all citizens, every month, which would vary according to the area, the age of the individual and other factors.
Mr. Speaker, here also is an excerpt from the magazine Sept-Jours dated March 29, 1969. I quote:
The Leader of the Opposition in the Commons, Mr. Robert Stanfield, also committed his party, during the last federal elections, to the concept of a guaranteed minimum income for every citizen.
But the highlight of all those discussions comes from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), and again I quote from the magazine Sept Jours:
The federal Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. John Munro, takes great care not to commit the government in this regard; however, he does say that, as far as he is concerned, a guaranteed minimum income is probably the normal outcome of the evolution of the Canadian social security and welfare programs.
Mr. Speaker, again I say that I moved the subamendment today thinking of the 13 million Canadians who have no income and yet have to pay all sorts of taxes levied by the governments at every level.
In closing, I trust that all the hon. members who want our country to progress will give me their support.


Mr.   Hyl. Chappell@Peel South: Mr. Speaker, may I first add my words of praise to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne for the high standard which they set for this debate and congratulate those who have spoken since for maintaining that high standard. I hope I do not deviate from it.
I wish to speak about democracy, the need for discipline in democracy, and what we, the members, may be able to do about it.
Many important issues have been raised in the Speech from the Throne and the speeches which followed. Pollution, poverty, housing, drugs, and the cost of living are without doubt important and must be debated and dealt with in a climate of urgency. But related to each specific problem and overriding them all is our guilty realization that the average citizen feels that he is voiceless, that democracy is too remote that individuals are almost meaningless. Today people are immediately informed of the issues which we discuss here, but real participation for the vast majority never comes. This will not do.
[DOT] (12.40.)
During the last decade, we have seen upheaval everywhere. Objection and protest have often descended into violence. This lawlessness has run through labour, university students and other groups. Threats and selfish force are on the increase. Just recently we had a glimpse of chaos in Montreal.
These groups which resort to violence have one thing in common-the theory that by demonstration and destructive activity their demands will be recognized. At the moment their number is relatively small, but make no mistake, they are organized and will con'inue their vicious tearing at the fabric of society until stopped. Taking their lead from tactics employed by some of the large international unions they would have what they want regardless of the cost to others or even the nation. Their lawlessness and disrespect for others, often to the extent of real cruelty, is a bayonet pointed at democracy.
The strength of the protesting groups lies not so much in their physical ability to destroy as in the atmosphere that they create-namely, that they are full of ideals and are the only ones to act on them, that it is honourable to believe that the end justifies the means and that those who do not act violently for some cause are indifferent and Slothful and therefore evil. They have taken advantage of democracy's freedom of speech
October 28, 1969	COMMONS
and freedom of protest, and by adding violence they get news coverage. They have become "the read abouts", the "listened to's" and their protests and activities have become the concern of the nation. Do the leftouts join them or some equally violent opposing group, or do they make themselves heard through direct contact with us?
The ordinary law abiding citizen is coming to believe that demonstration with violence is the only way to make his argument effective. Too many are saying it is the only way to get things done. They are beginning to feel that anything short of this results in being ignored and left out of effective participation. In some parts of the country, they think that their members are far away in Ottawa and might just as well be on the moon.
Violence and disrespect for the dignity of others has always been the birthplace of dictatorship and communism. Democracy as we know it is on the brink of extinction unless we can immediately throw up barriers of effective discipline through the marshalling of moral strength. Laws are really the accepted standard of behaviour for a community, ordinarily enforced by a minimum of personnel, but this balance is upset if organized groups, determined to put their own interests above law and society, are allowed to flourish. Once we arrive at the stage where auxiliary police and troops are required, we know that democracy is embattled.
The discipline which we must produce is not more police or troops but united opinion, of people knowing they are united, and so with sufficient power and moral authority to smother out the fires of these vandals who would destroy our society.
We cannot pretend that 264 members, no matter how hard working and willing, and we are, can alone overcome what in one decade has become a sickness in the western world, but we must attack it by every means possible. One form of machinery is immediately available, the elected representatives from each riding. We must play a greater role and become recognized as knowledgeable spokesmen for this non-belligerent majority.
We call ourselves representatives of the people but are we effectively understanding and dealing with the feelings of resentment of the vast majority who are not heard, partly because of the racket of the noisy few and partly because of our failure to transmit to them what government is doing and receive from them their attitudes toward the proposals? Even ten years ago, most people were
DEBATES	177
The Address-Mr. Chappell content to simply pay taxes and keep quiet, but today's informed public insists upon explanation and participation. Our choice is, do they do it through our leadership or by joining a protest group?
Some hon. members of the House may shy away from what is after all an enormous and pervasive problem, but just because it is so big and there are seemingly more immediate and great issues to which the leaders have addressed themselves, let us not refuse to face it. Time looks over his shoulder and questions our delay.
We must start somewhere to reproduce the sense of contact once felt between the member and his constituency. We no longer have ridings of 5,000 to 10,000 where each member knows his constituents by their first names, and the riding and its problems intimately. We now have ridings with diverse and conflicting problems, many of them international with local connotations. It is not possible to handle these as we did in the past.
The greatness of the democratic system is that we, the government, belong to the people. Increasingly in this day of paternalism and automation people resign themselves to the fact that they belong to us and in their resentment, some would cast aside the system and revert to more barbaric codes. It is up to us to reassert the basic greatness of the system by drawing more from the roots of the system and this must include being in and part of the riding at least one day a week. We have an obligation to go to the people. They have an obligation to come to us. We must hear from them. I want to hear from them and I know other hon. members do also. We recognize some protest is not only good, but necessary. However, we have been hearing the whines of a small minority, composed in part of a few half-baked post-graduate university students who are rapidly becoming professional agitators at our expense, and ridiculous demands from a few irresponsible labour organizers. They consist of a greedy, selfish, little minority. Now, let us hear the deep voice of the majority.
After a five day week in Ottawa, we have Saturdays and Sundays for our families and our ridings. A week end is not enough time to perform the service required, but to make it worse, while in Ottawa we are not nearly as effective as we could be because we do not have proper facilities.
By today's business standards our offices and facilities are archaic. If they were made as efficient as modern business or industry.
October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. Macquarrie we could immediately become 400 per cent more effective in communicating with our ridings. It has always amazed me that democracy will spend so many millions of dollars to elect us and to keep us here, then blunt our efficiency and stifle our activity by failure to supply facilities and services commensurate with the job to be done. We do not ask these services for ourselves, but for the people we serve.
If we spent more time in our ridings we could let our constituents know that government, through their representative, is being brought to them and that they do have a voice, that they are not cut off and removed from the issues which are daily presented to them by television and press. Is it not much better that a member spend more time in his riding taking an active part in the discussion of national and local issues rather than always sitting in the House listening to what are sometimes dull and repetitive speeches, and voting like a puppet? On many occasions our votes could be registered by proxy.
[DOT] (12:50 pjn.)
Let us start with the realization that we should be in our ridings at least one day a week. It would not be our day, but their day. And better the same day for all of us, so that all of the people know that on that day government is in the ridings. If on that day we spoke to several classes of high school students and community groups we could, in a relatively short while, promote a feeling of participation and belonging, more respect for the law and government, and perhaps slow the pendulum of destructive force and, with luck, start it back.
Mr. Speaker, I hope I have sown some seeds that may grow to a new relationship between the members and the people.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, we have already done a pretty good morning's work and I wonder whether we might call it one o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m,
Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address you and the 
multitude of members of all parties who are poised to hear my few words, may I begin with congratulations to the mover and seconder. I listened to them with great interest. To the seconder I should say that in the Tracadie district of Hillsborough we do not grow blueberries so large that one or two would make a pie; we need a dozen or so and thereby, perhaps, enhance a variety of flavor in a blueberry pie which even the Saguenay might envy.
Thus far I have enjoyed this debate. I think there have been some very interesting speeches. But I was amazed to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) last night show his lack of appreciation for what occurred on Friday. Surely, he forgets that his own leader made the longest speech of the day. Should word get to his leader that he thought so little of all the speeches, then the angry spot might glow on Caesar's brow and the Minister of Finance might not be so comfortable thereafter.
It would, of course, be unusual if a member of the opposition stood up and said that the Speech from the Throne was the greatest, and I am not going to say that. It is platitudinous. But so have many of its predecessors been platitudinous. There are some things that I missed in the speech. For example, I waited expectantly to hear something about the Canada Development Corporation, but there was not a word. Methinks it might be necessary to appoint some kind of task force to find it again. I wonder where the former minister of finance is at the present time? Nor did I hear the suggestion that we work again at the harmonic elements of our national anthem. This, too, has been done before. The expression "the government" which was used in 1967 instead of "my government", has returned. The change from the pronoun to the article I do not understand. If it is meaningful, I should like to know what it means. If it means nothing, then why bother with these literary changes?
I notice that the Speech from the Throne tells us that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will announce items of legislation. Does this mean that the throne is being narrowed and the Prime Minister's perch being heightened? Probably it does. I remember that a Speech from the Throne indicated that we were heading for 60 days of decision. At that time frenetic activity was forecast. The founder of my party was a man of another type. They referred to him as "old tomorrow". I suggest this government is not even
October 28. 1969

"old tomorrow" or "old next year". Perhaps in the next three years we might get something done.
The "just society" has in fact become the "just wait society". Meanwhile, we shall be showered with studies, overwhelmed with white papers and deluged with reports. Never has so much study of so many issues been done with so little result. I wonder what statistician would be able to enumerate the number of reports and white papers that are already yellowing with age within the cupboards of ministers or, perhaps, on top of or under the regional desks.
If the government would like to do some studying, I would commend to them two kinds of documents for study and consequent action. These would be the many reports that the Auditor General of Canada and the public accounts committee of this house have made. If the government will follow the recommendations and suggestions contained therein, they will have a more efficient and economic government, something to which they have claimed allegiance.
Do we really need to look further into the question of poverty to be sure of its existence and its prevalence? Is it lack of information that deterred the government from taking measures to grapple with the deep-seated economic difficulties facing the Atlantic area? It is not lack of information, sir, but lack of will. Indeed, while the phrase "regional disparity" has been discovered and lip service paid to it, the government itself to this very day does, and continues to do, things which increase that disparity and make more acute the economic difficulties of the Atlantic region.
I need point only to the city of Charlottetown in the heart of my constituency where, at the present time, the government of Canada is diminishing its operations, thus creating unemployment, cutting back the effectiveness of its governmental role and contributing to a shrinkage of the economy. Can we study our problems out of existence? I fear that the promise of a remote report is no substitute for immediate action. Studied indifference is still indifference, and to this indifference the people of Canada will not pay great tribute.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
It is painful to see such a relaxed attitude in the face of so many challenges which cry out for stirring action. We live in the age of the image-makers, the hidden and perhaps
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie well-paid persuaders. Yet, we are led to believe that the image so dominates the actuality that the people of Canada will like this approach. I have actually read in the press that this is the smartest form of government, that you can consolidate anything you are going to deliver if you deliver it in three years' time. The hope that the people of Canada will go for this yellow-light document pays little respect to their intelligence or comprehension. Do we think that the people of an intelligent, enlightened country like Canada will applaud do-nothingness for three years and then when presented with-it will not be a just society; it will have to be updated-another form of panacea for the distant future will say "aye, aye, this is it". Surely, after three years of do-nothingness a great reservoir of good will will not be built up for those seeking a public mandate.
We have reached the ultimate in the ad man's technique. I read not long ago that the efficiency of the present government was marked by the fact the cabinet was now functioning under a committee system. I have never been in a cabinet, and probably never will be, but I do know that in Sir Robert Borden's memoirs he devotes a substantial portion of a chapter to writing on the division of labour in his cabinet under the committee system. To some people all that is necessary is to say such and such a thing is new to get someone to believe this is indeed the case.
While we are concerned about lack of activity, about studied indifference and about building a wall of reports between human need and governmental action, there are one or two fronts on which the government seems positively electric with activity.


An hon. Member:: Patronage.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: My colleague says
"patronage". I am limited to 30 minutes, so cannot discuss that!
The last session ended and this one began with a zea-oing-in on the Company of Young Canadians. The throne speech referred to the "rising tide of unrest, particularly among young people". The government is now to adopt a policy long since adopted by several provinces, including the province of Prince Edward Island, to extend the voting age to 18. This is right and good. But in what they are doing they are showing contempt for the committee system and the committee of which I was a member last year. The usual procedure is that committees recommend to the House. Now, the government tells the committee
October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. Macquarrie what to do. The vote at age 18 is good. I could not help but be very enthusiastic about this since I was early in my advocacy ol this suggestion. I wonder if it is enough. It will help. But is it an adequate response to the problems which the Speech from the Throne very rightly sets out?
I was concerned when the Company of Young Canadians was brought into the discussion at the last session. There were quotations and references to acts of subversion. I agree profoundly with the leader of the New Democratic party who asks, in effect, what has happened to due process of law and where are the courts. If there are subversives in a group, it is the courts which should be in action and the matter should now be sub judice. I am not at all happy at the suggestion, that when any official casts doubt on any governmental organization young or old, we are then immediately moved into a threepronged, two-pronged or one-pronged inquiry in respect of that organization. There may be in the Company of Young Canadians a lot of people who lack wisdom. A lot of old Canadians lack wisdom. They may make mistakes, but if they do criminal acts it is the courts which should deal with them.
What puzzles me is that here is a group of people containing only 174 volunteers, I am told, all across Canada. I may be an incredulous person, but I cannot believe that these 174 young people constitute such a threat to the 20 million people of Canada or to our political system that everything has to stop and priority has to be given to an investigation of this group. I say this because I am convinced, while there may be members of that organization who are not helpful and who are not carrying out their mandate, there are fine young people doing good jobs among the Indians and elsewhere. Does it help them to have the blanket of investigation thrown over them? The implication of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) is that if an investigation is not enough perhaps a trusteeship is what we will have. "Trusteeship" is one of the operative words of late.
Some of the Prime Minister's recent speeches have won him plaudits in the press outside Quebec. This has given him maximum exposure on the English network of the CBC.
I do not think that portion of the CBC is likely to be threatened with trusteeship. I have seen the Prime Minister on television about 11 hours over the last few weeks. It will be safe for a while. Some of the goals and values which the Prime Minister spoke
IMr. Macquarrie.]

about in his now famous Montreal speech before his own party are goals and values which are universally commended. Even those of us who are nobodies when we are 50 yards away from him cherish the unity of Canada and the preservation of the federal structure. He has no monopoly on this. Nor is he alone in realizing that, while Canadian federalism is a precious value it is also a frail fabric and requires constant support and much harmony and continued good will. We all know this.
So there is much approval for the Prime Minister's posture and his positive utterances in Montreal a week ago Sunday. It made excellent television, although as I watched the Prime Minister of Canada and the leader of the Parti Quebecois I thought that a stranger in our midst might well ask who was the moderate. But the value of the Prime Minister's performance cannot be measured by the intensity of the oratorical lightning or the volume of the forensic thunder. The final judgment will be on whether or not he has aided the forces of unity or by the vigour of his attack and the extreme nature of his suggestions has unwittingly, unknowingly and regrettably I am sure aided the cause which he sought to diminish. This is the question to which the answer has not yet come in. Might he not be enhancing the separatist cause by giving it such prominence? I wonder, I wonder.
I speak of separatism as the cause espoused by a lawful party in the province of Quebec. We have had in Canada many separatists. Joseph Howe was one. He came to Ottawa as a cabinet minister. Mr. Fielding was a separatist and came to Ottawa under Laurier. Mr. Riel was certainly a separatist and we have a stamp coming out next year commemorating him. But terrorism and separatism are not the same thing. On the question of the terrorists who would destroy our social values, the Prime Minister is right in his every utterance. As our leader said on Friday, all of us in this party are with him in his attitude and expressed firmness in respect thereto.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
I think that those who advocate separatism are wrong. Their ideas are wrong for Quebec as well as for the rest of the country, and because Quebec is a part of my country I presume the right to say that they are wrong. No portion of the country can do other than suffer economically, spiritually and in every other way if the creation of our forefathers should be destroyed and if the act of
October 28, 1969	COMMONS
faith which built a united Canada should prove not sufficiently strong for the stresses and strains of the 1960s and 1970s. But while they are wrong, they are not illegal, and the distinction between the separatists and the terrorists must be clearly made. We have had terror and we have had violence while Mr. Levesque was still a Liberal and before the Union Nationale took power and long before the Company of Young Canadians was formed.
Surely, we have sufficient faith in the political processes of democracy to meet those who would divide this country in the marketplace of ideas, and surely it is our task and duty to show the values of confederation and, something which is still more important and sometimes a bit difficult to do, to make an effort to make the values greater and more attractive. I pass no judgment, but I wonder if the slashing and the threatening is in fact the best answer. It is easy to say "we will starve out Radio-Canada and, if necessary, put it under trusteeship", and that was said; I have checked the record. These are very serious dangers. Do we have to kill the patient to root out the tumor? As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) pointed out on Friday in a most able speech-which was not adequately reported, may I say since it is fashionable now to criticize the press. A government operating the broadcasting service is the last thing this country needs in this image-making age.
There are plenty of weapons at the disposal of the government for public enlightenment or propaganda. We do not want the media turned over to the government. That is a great danger which was foreseen many years ago and which was guarded against in free states with eternal vigilance. It is regrettable that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) often seems a little too ready to slip into the excesses of threat and suggestion which of themselves are dangerous to the harmony and unity of the country, even though in the days following he tends to back off, especially if he has to face someone like the president of the CBC who stands his ground. But the explanatory notes do not always catch up with the basic text which in the first place captured the national attention. It is not for me to pass judgment upon the Prime Minister, although I am coming close to it, but I would say that after the tumult, the excitement and the hurrahs of the party faithful die down, there is time for reflection as to whether this kind of
DEBATES	181
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie sortie here, attack there and onslaught elsewhere is in fact the best kind of national leadership for this troubled country at this time.
I read an interesting editorial in the Brandon Sun entitled "Steady, There... ". It reads in part as follows:
Prime Minister Trudeau, who keeps counselling Canadians to moderation in all things, should take a bit of his own advice. The Prime Minister has thrown rather serious charges at the French language CBC, he has rebuked the French government in the strongest possible terms, and he has apparently taken rather seriously the charges that the Company of Young Canadians was involved in disturbances arising out of the Montreal police strike.
As Robert Stanfield pointed out, neither State Secretary Gerard Pelletier nor CBC President George Davidson had given any indication that an investigation of the French CBC was necessary.
Then, I go on to the final paragraph which reads:
Mr. Trudeau, like all politicians, must feel tempted occasionally to come out against sin. He did it over the weekend, blasting separatists and the French government. Maybe it's out of his system now.
I suppose there are those who suggest that the government is hoping through its actions to build up a reservoir of good will which perhaps will put its sister party in power in the province of Quebec and return it to power here three years hence.
In this connection I should like to read here an item on the Australian election. I read it not to make a comment on the Australian election, because I do not know the prime minister there, but because it is written by a very able and outstanding commentator who wrote the following after the near defeat of the government of Prime Minister Gorton. I think this is the kind of thing that our Prime Minister might want to hear, and perhaps officials of one of his regional desks might clip it out and hand it to him. It reads as follows:
... the Sydney Morning Herald said it was due to Prime Minister John G. Gorton's ''slightly arrogant, impulsive one-mand-band style of leadership".
Australia is a long, long way from Canada but I wonder if human nature is all that different, and I wonder if an intelligent electorate is so different that the same result might not be vouchsafed here.
Before I sit down I would like to say a word about the subamendment which was presented to the house a short while ago. I am
October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. Sulatycky one of those who takes these votes very seriously. I remember some years ago when a certain great national party voted in this place for funny money because apparently they wanted to vote against us. This is not my philosophy. I am very interested in rationalizing, making more efficient and compassionate, our welfare structure. All of us should be. We are betraying our mandate if we are not
Assurances against the ravages of grinding poverty are a responsibility of the modern state, but to go on record as advocating a guaranteed minimum income in this manner might escalate, and indeed distort, the expectations of many Canadians. I believe that a thoughtful approach must include a recognition of the important place of incentives in any reformed welfare system. So, for this reason, I cannot support the subamendment. It is not often that I suggest that I carry the judgment of my colleagues on matters of policy. I do not want to burden them with that responsibility. But it is conceivable that in this case I will not be a voice crying in the wilderness or the lone voice of truth in a great and truthful party. While I cannot support the subamendment, I appreciate its presentation in this general debate and I look forward with interest to a further elucidation from the members of the party which presented it. They will probably bring forward some ideas, short of unusual currency variations, which might further inspire us all in our concern for this important matter.
So I feel that it is only right and proper, since we should all take seriously propositions, motions and amendments that are presented to this house, to indicate at this early stage that I must part company with the members of the Ralliement Creditiste who, in my judgment, are not always wrong but have a fairly good average in that field.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, one of the intentions announced in the Throne Speech is the allocation of greater funds for regional development. These are expenditures much to be welcomed. I am sure most hon. members have had an opportunity to observe for themselves the disparities which exist between various regions of the country, and even in pockets within the same region. The government is to be commended for its continuing attempts to bring equal opportunity to all citizens, no matter where they may live. Concern about regional economic disparities is not new in Canada. It has

occupied the attention of previous governments, and this government is placing increasing emphasis on the problem. Some of our developmental programs are almost a decade old. The time has arrived for an evaluation of their effectiveness. In some cases a basic reshaping of organization structure may be desirable.
I understand and accept that it will take many years to bring certain regions to an acceptable social and economic level. In many cases, the time required will be several generations. Those who expect immediate and permanent results expect the impossible. I do not suggest that we search to see if the desired ends of regional development are being attained. It may be too early to make an accurate assessment on this point. However, certain basic patterns are emerging from our various developmental programs. We can see these trends and we can project them. It is important that we make these observations and projections now to ensure that the ends of the regional development program are met in the shortest possible time.
We have had experience with various programs in the province of Alberta. Several of these are located in my riding and I shall concern myself chiefly with them. However, I should say that from discussions I have had with other hon. members, from having served on the Standing Committee on Regional Development during the last session of parliament and from my own research, my conclusions can apply to regional development programs throughout Canada.
I wish to deal first with the ARDA program. It is one of our oldest plans for regional development. It was conceived by a previous government. Large sums of money have been allocated to it and many people who should have been assisted under the program held high hopes for it. The avowed ends of the program are good. It promised an eventual end to rural poverty. In this day, when we are blinded by the magnitude of the problems of urban Canada, the first picture which becomes obscure is that of the poor farm family. ARDA promised eventual relief for such families, through programs designed to rehabilitate and re-establish certain rural people into effective employment and income opportunities.
ARDA activities in the constituency of Rocky Mountain are taking place in the area known as Census Division 14. The main current project is entitled "The Rural Development Program in Census Division 14." As with
Oclober 28, 1969

other ARDA programs, it is a joint federal-provincial program, with provincial employees providing the necessary administration.
The first ARDA activity in Census Division 14 started in 1963. Local people were encouraged to get involved. ARDA planners stated that all projects would be started only by local initiative and that eventually local residents would handle their own plans and devise their own solutions to problems. Many people became interested and did become involved. Many ideas and potential solutions to problems were offered. However, few have been implemented.
The high hopes have turned to frustrations. People no longer wish to be involved; they are disillusioned and dissatisfied. Even those persons who were originally the staunchest supporters of ARDA are now among its most vocal detractors. Today, many people in the ARDA area consider ARDA a giant hoax that has been perpetrated in order to provide employment for a few planners and sociologists. Under these circumstances, when such suspicion exists, the prospect of successful implementation of plans, regardless of their origin, is, to say the least, remote.
There are three reasons for the lack of success of ARDA, wherever such lack of success is evident. The first and most basic of these reasons is insufficient concern for people. ARDA planners often seem to be planning for the sake of planning. They do not plan in order to help people. The individual is lost in the concept of a plan.
The second reason is the failure of ARDA planners to respond to the voiced and demonstrated needs of people, of groups, of communities. The felt needs, when made known to ARDA officials, have been largely ignored.
The third cause of ARDA ineffectiveness is the rapidity with which ARDA officials seek escape from criticism under the shelter which any federal-provincial cost sharing program inevitably provides. Let me describe some of the situations which give me cause to be critical of the operation of a program which, if properly administered, would not or should not attract criticism.
The first of the disquieting cases which has been brought to my attention involves a farm couple, both of whom are nearing 60 years of age. For nine years they had lived on, and operated, a small farm. They believed that if they could clear a small additional acreage they could thereafter maintain themselves in comfort by operating a small dairy herd. An application was made to ARDA for assistance

The Address-Mr. Sulatycky with the clearing costs, but ARDA officials decided that, rather than provide funds for clearing, the small farm which the couple owned would be purchased and they would be relocated on a more suitable site. If that were impossible, then the couple were to be placed on a scheme described as early retirement.
ARDA paid $5,200 for the small farm, and after a portion of this amount was used to clear debts against the title there was appreciably less than the purchase price left in the hands of the farmer. Having now found themselves without a farm, and with only a few thousand dollars, the couple again contacted ARDA. It was then that they were told that the early retirment plan was nothing other than welfare payments. In addition, they were told that ARDA would not relocate them on another farm because they were considered too old to be starting a business. Nevertheless, the couple tried for some time to get established in other areas, but lack of resources prevented them from doing so. What I have described is certainly a case in which ARDA, rather than improving the social and economic situation of the couple involved, has contributed to a worsening of it.
In another instance, a young farmer who held a well-paying job in addition to farming a small farm was encouraged to enlarge his farm holdings. He was assured by ARDA officers that the enlarged farm would be economical and that he would be able to support his family adequately from it, and from it alone. Having received this assurance, and having been advised that ARDA would assist in procuring the additional farm land he required, he left his outside employment to devote all his efforts to establishing his farm on a better basis. Six months later ARDA officers advised him that, having reconsidered his plans, they would not now assist him in enlarging his operation as they thought it economically unfeasible. There is no reason for me to detail further the resulting implications for this farmer.
In neither of the foregoing cases was any thought given to the people involved, their needs or their feelings. There are many other such instances which I could describe. One other case deserves mention.
Some time ago the federal government committed the sum of $378,000 to assist in land clearing operations in Census Division 14. The provincial government was to match this amount. More than two years ago ARDA officials started taking applications from farmers who wished assistance to clear land.
184	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Sulatycky These farmers were encouraged to commence the clearing they desired. Many farmers applied for the assistance, paid the $25 application fee and were told to begin clearing. Hundreds of acres were opened as a result. However, when the time came to pay for the clearing no funds were forthcoming. Farmers were told by ARDA officials that minor details still had to be cleared up, and that Ottawa was blocking progress.
Every opportunity was seized to place the blame on the federal government which, in fact, had nothing to do with the problem. However, because ARDA officials could hide behind the jurisdictional shield they could avoid pressure from the affected individuals. After many months of waiting, some landclearing contractors finally took legal action against a number of farmers for the amounts owing for land clearing, and because farmers were primarily responsible to the clearing contractors many farmers had their existence threatened through seizure proceedings.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Lately Alberta ARDA officials have placed a veil of secrecy around the land clearing program and although I am told that the clearing which had been completed has now been paid for, I have not been able to find evidence of this. Perhaps I should not say that there is no evidence. The farmers who had made applications for assistance have now been approached and are being asked to pay an additional application fee of $25 because, so it is said, the $25 they paid two years ago when applications were first taken was only a deposit.
The land clearing program is to be one of the chief ARDA efforts at improving the condition of agriculture in Census Division 14. It is a program which, in fact, could help many farmers. However, many who could be helped will actually not receive any benefit because the planners who conceived of the land clearing program failed to recognize all the aspects of the scheme, and now having hardened their thoughts on it refuse, in typical bureaucratic fashion, to respond to the sound suggestions for improvement made by the people who will be affected. In order to receive assistance in land clearing, a farmer must provide a small portion of the cost himself. Although this portion is small, to the farmer whom the plan is intended to benefit, it represents in many cases all the capital resources that he can muster. The result is that, having brought more land into a useable

DEBATES	October 28, 1969
state, the farmer cannot use it because he has expended all his capital and does not have any available to invest in the livestock or machinery which may be necessary to make economic use of the new land.
Many persons have suggested that in order for the land clearing program to be fully effective it should go hand in hand with another program to assist farmers, through provision of credit or otherwise where necessary, for the purchase of livestock or machinery or whatever may be necessary, to put the newly cleared land into full productive use. It is pointed out that if new grazing land is cleared, it is of little value if the owner does not have the capital to purchase the cattle to graze on it. However, in spite of such obviously sound suggestions, ARDA officials refuse to budge from their own concepts of the plan.
The local people who still maintain hope for the success of ARDA are doing all in their power to make it work. The advisory council, composed of people from all walks of life and from throughout the ARDA area, are always looking for ways in which permanent social and economic benefits can be brought to the individual and the community through ARDA. However, of late everything is being stalled by what is being described by ARDA officials as a lack of money. Mr. Speaker, this is hard to believe when one realizes that almost $7 million has been committed in this ARDA area and very little of it has yet been spent. Furthermore, no government cut-backs in ARDA spending have been or are likely to be made. The only conclusion at which one can arrive is that bureaucratic inefficiency, tardiness and reluctance on the part of some planners to accept ideas other than their own, are being covered up by allegations that no money is being provided for the ARDA projects.
One other situation causes me concern. In our regional development programs we tend to emphasize what we have done rather than what remains to be done. We have accomplished nothing compared to what remains before us. However, even more disturbing are attempts to hold out as evidence of a successful program, accomplishments in which ARDA was but slightly instrumental. Several days ago I met an acquaintance of some years who is a successful farmer within the ARDA area. He previously farmed a relatively small holding and held other fulltime employment. About two years ago a large corporation purchased his
October 28, 1969	COMMONS
small farm for a proposed pulp mill. As a result, he obtained sufficient capital to be able to acquire a new and larger farm elsewhere. He chose an area within Census Division 14 and approached ARDA for assistance in assembling the necessary land. ARDA provided this assistance but it was hardly crucial. The individual involved could very well have made all the necessary arrangements, financial and otherwise, on his own. Now, however, this farm is a show place for ARDA. It includes a new, modern house and other necessary farm buildings. Anyone, such as visiting parliamentarians, who wishes to see what ARDA has accomplished is directed by ARDA officials to this farm.
Not very far away on another farm is a large billboard proclaiming the ARDA program in the area. It is very conspicuously placed near a large tract of newly cleared land, creating the impression that ARDA is responsible for this progress. There is no sign to rectify this false impression, pointing out that the owner's own resources provided the new land. False fronts may be necessary in the motion picture industry, but they have no part to play in the war on poverty. We must concentrate every effort on doing all that yet remains undone. Energy must not be dissipated in congratulating ourselves on our few achievements, real or imagined.
With that caution, let me now turn to an ARDA program which has proven worth while. I do so simply to support a later argument. Between Calgary and Banff is situated the reserve of the Stoney Indians. It is a magnificent setting, a broad, flat expanse of land lying at the foot of the Rockies. The Trans-Canada highway bisects it. By all measures, it is an ideal locale for a large tourist-recreational development. Some of the Indian leaders saw this possibility and with the aid of ARDA funds, a consulting firm was employed to study the feasibility and devise a plan for a major tourist development. The plan is now complete. It envisages a development which will result in a bright future for the Indian people on this reserve. The residents of the Stoney reserve look forward hopefully to the day when the plans can be implemented. It is to be hoped that ARDA will make substantial funds available for this project, just as it did for the initial study.
The point which I believe emerges in the difference between the expenditure of ARDA funds in the Stoney Indian situation and the expenditure of funds in Census Division 14 is
DEBATES	185
The Address-Mr. Sulatycky that in the former case ARDA simply provided funds but was not involved in the administration. I might note that even in Census Division 14 there are a number of ARDA programs which are producing tangible results. One of these is a retraining program. In this case ARDA is simply paying the cost of retraining individuals to enable them to obtain better employment. Again, the administrative involvement of ARDA in this program is minimal.
It is my belief, Mr. Speaker, if the money we spend on ARDA is to be put to the best use and is to result in benefits to the people whom it is intended to benefit, then the administrative participation of ARDA in these programs, both at the federal and provincial level, must be kept to a minimum. Arrangements must be worked out which will prevent the "buck passing" which now exists, and the ideas and suggestions of the people affected must be implemented by the people themselves.
There is one other phase of our regional development plan which gives me concern, Mr. Speaker. This is the type of development provided for under the Regional Development Incentive Act and which was previously provided for under the ARDA program. It is intended to increase employment opportunities in areas of the country which lack such opportunities. Generally, these are areas where unemployment is high and the average earnings are low. It is hoped that by encouraging industry to locate in these areas the income levels will gradually be raised so that eventually the disparity between such a region and its wealthier neighbours will be erased, or at least narrowed. It is now becoming clear that this is not always the case, and that in fact in many cases the establishment of industry in a designated area or region results in the solidifying or enlargement of the economic gap.
Let me explain, Mr. Speaker, how I arrive at this conclusion. When an industry, with the aid of taxpayers' money, establishes in a slow growth area the wage scales in the area are generally low. Many industries take advantage of this, as they can because of the high rate of unemployment and the scarcity of jobs, by paying wages only slightly above the local level but very much below the national average for the particular industry. Indeed, I know of cases in which the difference being paid to an employee doing the same work is in excess of one dollar per hour. That is, an
October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. Sulatycky employee in a plant in a designated area may be receiving $1.60 or $1.65 per hour, whereas an employee of the same firm doing the same job in a plant located in a wealthier region may be getting $2.60 or $2.80 an hour. Even productivity is not the catch in some of these cases because it can be shown that the plants within the designated areas are equally or more productive than their counterparts elsewhere.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The undeniable conclusion is that many industries have taken advantage of the incentives being provided to locate in slow growth areas and are now doing their best to maintain the lowest possible wage scales. The result is that disparities are not being corrected. In some cases a study of wage settlements show that some employees of industry in designated areas are earning less now, in terms of constant dollars, than they were three or four years ago. Wage increases in some of these plants have been, on an average, only 10 cents an hour, whereas in many cases employees in the same industry elsewhere have received over the same period increases of between 60 cents and $1.00 per hour. The result is that disparities have become greater.
We must begin to realize that industry is accepting incentives and tax concessions but is not always accepting the responsibility of maintaining and providing adequate economic situations for its employees. Often an industry which has been encouraged to come to an area by incentives is the largest employer in the area. Because of this, it has a captive labour force and thereby is able to keep wages to a minimum.
We must take a serious look at some of the situations we have seen developing. I recognize the jurisdictional difficulties in dealing with industrial matters within the provinces. However, it must be our role to point out to industries accepting incentives that they must play a role in the battle against regional disparities by adopting a positive position rather than taking advantage of the situation to increase profits while preserving an inequitable wage structure.
One further situation which I believe deserves comment is the shortage of housing in communities which have attracted industries through one or other of the incentive programs. I have within my riding one industry which was established under such a program and it has given indication that it must

close its operation because there is insufficient or inadequate housing for its employees. While I recognize that housing cannot properly come within the scope of the regional development plan, some avenue must be sought through which those communities which would benefit under the plan do not lose such benefits. At the same time, we must make certain that taxpayers do not lose the value of funds expended on the incentive program through the closing of industries as a result of lack of adequate housing.
I believe the programs of this government are right, Mr. Speaker. They are designed to strike at the problems which this country faces. However, we must always guard against the possibility that in the implementation of policies sight is lost of their purpose.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I have no wish to repeat criticisms already made about the position of the government, as revealed in the Speech from the Throne. To many westerners, the speech was notably lacking in concern for their part of Canada, empty of expressions of confidence in this country's tremendous potential and excessively pre-occupied with matters to which I, as a member of parliament and taxpayer, would not assign top priority.
It is now obvious that, having been in office for one year and a half, this administration is either incapable of recognizing today's major problem or disinterested in tacking it. I believe, together with many other Canadians, that the great problem facing our country right now is how we are to obtain the means to support our apparently insatiable appetite for so-called free services. The problem of Canadians is this: how are they to tailor their tastes to suit their purses. Over the past six or seven years, we have allowed the old emphasis on progressive national expansion and development to die away and have replaced it with a sick obsession. We are obsessed with refinements of the complete welfare state.
However desirable certain social welfare measures may be-and I am thinking of measures like the universal pension plan, hospitalization as well as medicare-they are always and inevitably exceedingly expensive. Not only is their initial cost tremendous, but they follow a historical pattern of rapid escalation in cost. The result is that a plan that was supportable when initiated in one year, becomes an intolerable financial burden through rapidly rising costs in the next year.
October 28, 1969
It seems to me that the path of wisdom and financial responsibility lies in undertaking only that which you are reasonably certain you can pay for without being driven either into bankruptcy or into the position of carrying a crippling load of debt. The average Canadian family no doubt wants a car; perhaps it wants a second car, a new colour TV set, and so on. Perhaps the wife wants a fur coat and the husband new golf clubs. The children may want assorted expensive luxuries. But I am convinced that the average Canadian family, while it may want all these things desperately, will only commit itself to buying them when it has the means at hand. Today, when some member of the family wants a special item, the wife goes out to work to acquire the means of buying it or the husband may moonlight with the same aim in mind. One way or another, through exercising personal decision and initiative, the family decides that if it wants something badly enough it must take steps to acquire more means with which to buy the desired object. My chief criticism of the Pearson government, and the government that has succeeded it, is that they bought everything in sight without taking the precaution of increasing their means. We have been guilty of self indulgence. We went for every brightly packaged scheme the federal government offered, without bothering to remember that not one of them was free and that they were all possible only through vast outlays of tax money.
There are only two or three ways of getting more tax money of which I know: you either raise rates on the existing tax base, which means that you invent new and ever more burdensome taxes, or you do what is most sensible, expand your tax base. The latter point is the one upon which Canada ought to have been concentrating. That is the meaning and purpose of national development. We Canadians must develop our economy so that it will yield more taxes without taxation becoming more burdensome. The great fault of this government lies in its having all but given up a positive policy of national development in favour of firefighting, emergency economic measures.
Canadians want and need greater and more expensive educational facilities and greatly improved health facilities. Canadians want to overcome and need to overcome poverty. These are all estimable desires and are no doubt necessary. But, and it is a big but, all these aims are very expensive of attainment and all must be paid for by public funds.
The Address-Mr. Ritchie
We see today what unnecessary friction and dispute can be caused when vastly expensive schemes grow beyond the point where it is feasible to cut them back or control them. The provinces are charged with the administration of these schemes. Their tax revenue is inadequate and they seek more from the federal government. The federal government must retain the lion's share of its tax revenues for its own particular purposes. The federal government and the provinces wrangle; they argue and exchange bitter reproaches. Even those creatures of the provinces, the municipalities, get into the act because they are at the bottom of the heap and more hard pressed for tax revenue than any level of government. Such an atmosphere makes cooperative endeavours all but impossible and as a result of such bitterness and frustration, regionalism and separatism flourish. The nation as a whole suffers. In Canada today, we must aim at putting ourselves in the position of having our cake and eating it, too. We should develop this nation to the point where it will yield sufficient tax money to carry any tax supported project the majority of Canadians may desire.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
But to do this we need leadership at the federal heart of the country. We need to be given a national purpose, with national goals and a national direction. Today, such leadership is clearly lacking. Canadians are gradually retreating into their regional shells, being suspicious of their fellows, sensitive to imagined slights and ready to magnify any grievance. This atmosphere of suspicion, distrust and inertia is the great sin of this government. It has set party advantage and personal enthusiasms above the national good. It operates on a basis of personal and political expediency. This government is guilty on many counts, but on none so clearly as on the count of neglecting Canada's agricultural industry. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this neglect has reached a point where it has become a very real threat to a part of the national economy that cannot be allowed to die without dealing the whole national economy a devastating blow.
We in this chamber are familiar with the crisis in grain sales. The government has known about it in intimate detail for more than 18 months. The government has been strangely languid in its approach to this problem. However, it did pay sufficient attention to it to set up various task forces, study groups and councils to look into it. In faot, it

188	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Ritchie is this crisis to which the west owes the distinction of a visit from our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It is true this visit was a mixed success but it was free of the hysterical excitement that was a feature of his election campaign trail. Nevertheless he came and, if he failed to conquer, at least he saw for himself.
Unfortunately, the result of all this attention has been precisely zero. The western grain producer has been deluged with advice, laved in criticism, lectured and ignored. He is still waiting for some practical and sensible government action that will give him the hope he needs to enable him to hang on and tough it out. It is a strange attitude for a national government of a country whose agricultural community accounts for about $1 in every $8 of foreign trade and pays about $1 in every $10 of income tax.
If .the social planners who appear to dominate this government regard the agricultural community as passe and something that should be allowed to die out, surely their colleagues among the economists of government-and this government must have some of those around-can see that agriculture and the agricultural community is vital to Canada, both socially and economically. They must realize the number of industrial jobs in central Canada directly dependent upon western grain production. They must know of the railway workers, the dock workers, the brokerage firms and dozens of service businesses who depend in large part for their prosperity upon the health and progress of agriculture.
Yet all we find in the throne speech is a promise to bring in the Canada Grain Aet for amendment at some time, as though this would, by itself, in the twinkling of an eye, rectify everything. What is needed is far more than mere tinkering with the Canada Grain Act. The industry must be examined, as a whole and in all its parts.
The evolution of grain production in Canada is a story of tremendous technological and scientific development at the level of production on the farm within an old, inflexible and unchanging framework of storage, distribution and marketing. The western grain producer long ago graduated from horse-drawn equipment to modern machines but the handling, transportation and marketing line upon which his economic success depends remains in the days of the horse and buggy. Grain handling has become a question of grain storage. This is where the

DEBATES	October 28, 1969
plug is in the line and until we can devise ways of speeding up the evacuation and sale of grain, the farmer will continue to bear the brunt of slack times.
Just today the minister who answers for the Wheat Board stated that the rapeseed and flax crops would be speeded to market. This is one of the few bright spots in the grain economy at this time. As the result of a failure of the crop in Europe, the minister was able to assure the House that the delivery of the rapeseed and flax to the ocean ports would be on time.
A couple of weeks ago, according to some western newspapers, some doubts were expressed by the trade as to whether this could be accomplished. There is some evidence that some small sales of flax may have been missed by not having the grain at the port from which it would be shipped. In addition, on the west coast .there is the problem of loading ships with grain for shipment to China.
The Richardson Weekly Grain Market Letter of October 23, 1969, sets out the terms of the settlement which avoided the holding up of grain shipments to China. It states:
This will not interfere with wheat shipments to China as they provide their own boats, but exporters are having a great deal of difficulty chartering suitable ocean freight for other destinations because of the low repute in which the port of Vancouver is held by vessel owners.
Another way in which the grain industry in western Canada must be helped is to ensure that the port handling facilities can deliver on time. The elevator operators could not care less if the grain moves. They receive a steady income. The railways and the shipping interests can scramble for other business. Only the farmer is tied to the grain and when it does not move, he does not get paid.
As I mentioned previously, Mr. Speaker, this Speech from the Throne is an uninspiring document reflecting an uninspiring government. I notice that mention is again made in it to the necessity of emphasizing the government's bilingual and bicultural program. I will not thresh old straw. Everything that could be said about this program was said at the time of the debate on the official languages bill. I will simply recall my warning given at that time that this program, couched in the uncompromising terms in which it is and backed with untimely and ill-considered vigour, will do more to disunite than unite Canadians.
October 28, 1969
Already it has strained our slim reserve of good will. One need only look at the sort of thing that happened in the tiny town of Willow Bunch in Saskatchewan to realize that the picture of the relationship of ethnic groups within our multi-ethnic society is not either as simple or as easy to resolve as the Prime Minister and his colleagues would have us believe.
In closing, I should like merely to reiterate my belief that the nation's business has been set by this government on the wrong course. We should be looking outward, not continually inward. We should be pressing expansion of Canadian society and Canada's economy in every way possible, not hobbling it with regulations and inhibiting it with non-essential expenditures.
We are still young. Let us avoid being brainwashed into believeing we are prematurely old. Let us behave like a young and vigorous nation with boundless horizons before us, not like a nation that has passed its prime and seeks only to eke out an existence.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Paul Sf. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the question of Arctic sovereignty. I intend to speak generally of the north, particularly the high Arctic, and of pollution, which is a matter closely associated with the question of sovereignty before us today, pollution of water, land and air. These are matters of concern to all men. I must apologise to the House for sounding like a northern raven when I speak; I am afraid I have a cold. I am sorry that my hon. friends in the New Democratic party have not found a cure for colds. They have found a cure for all other ills known to man, so I do not know why they have overlooked the common cold.


Mr. Thomson:: We are working on it.


Paul St. Pierre: Thank you. I should like to consider, in the time available to me, several aspects of the affairs of the north and I intend later in my remarks to make two specific recommendations for immediate government action in this regard. First, though, I wish to take the opportunity to congratulate 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). The hon. member for Lapointe discussed blueberries in his area. One blueberry makes a pie, he tells us. I recognized there the remark of a 21362-13
The Address-Mr. St. Pierre truly honest man. He would do very well in Coast Chilcotin, because we have similar ideas. Whatever we may say, we always adhere to the truth.
I recall one man from Coast Chilcotin who visited Ontario on one occasion and spoke at great length about the height of the mountains, the growth of the timber and the expanse of the lakes in the country from which he came. After some little while his host drove him to Niagara Falls. "I suppose you have something like that in Coast Chilcotin, too?" he asked. As I say, the man from Coast Chilcotin was a very honest man. He thought for a long time before replying: "No, we don't have anything like that. But we have plumbers who can fix it." Always be honest, Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Lapointe.
Before dealing with questions affecting the Arctic I should also like to make a few general comments upon the Speech from the Throne. Last year, when I first spoke in this House, I complained about the careless spending habits of governments in recent years. I said this one had yet to prove itself. I suppose it has still to prove itself, and will be doing so for its whole term of office, however long that may be. But it does seem only fair to congratulate this government on having the political courage to trim its spending to its income.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) told the House yesterday that he expects to keep spending well below government income in the present fiscal year. This is not easily done. It is not easy for a government to trim 25,000 jobs from the civil service lists. But it needed to be done. I am one who feels that the duty of government is to govern, however unpleasant the decisions it must make may sometimes be. I sense that this government is showing the necessary courage and forethought.
I should also like to make a few observations on another aspect of government, one with which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) dealt during the last election campaign. He spoke of the necessity of the federal representatives retrieving some of the power of decision-making which had fallen into the hands of the bureaucracy. As a general observation in this respect I must say that the Prime Minister and his government still have a long way to go. In the long run this government and this parliament may be judged by the degree of success they achieve in taking the power to make decisions back from the mandarins. It is my personal feeling that the

October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. St. Pierre remedy may lie not in the green chamber, where debates frequently tend to be set pieces and highly partisan, but in the all-party parliamentary committees; it is these committees which may provide the instrument for operation against the overweening arrogance of some sections of the bureaucracy.
Now, let me turn to the north. The north is at this moment awakening from a long sleep and we shall not be able to order it back to sleep. Things are happening there which offer great opportunities for Canada, as well as great responsibilities and considerable danger. We cannot wish them away. We cannot say: it is too soon, we are not ready to develop the Arctic; give us 20 years to prepare for this expansion. I believe Arctic affairs entered upon a new era with the discovery of the Prudhoe Bay oilfields in Alaska. No one knows the full extent of this deposit. It amounts to at least ten billion barrels and there are probably fifty billion barrels in the reserve. Indeed, there may be 300 billion barrels, which would amount to more than all the oil ever discovered in the continental United States.
What about Canada's share? The government is involved with private industry in the Panarotic Syndicate. At the Arctic symposium held in Montreal in March of this year, one authority estimated Canadian Arctic reserves at no less than 50 to 100 billion barrels of oil and 300 to 500 trillion cubic feet of gas. To quote Mr. R. A. Hemstock of Imperial Oil Limited, the oil industry generally will then become involved in operations of the following order: the drilling of between 700 and 1,400 exploratory wells and of between 6,000 and 12,000 development wells the construction of 4,000 miles of access road, 4,000 miles of trunk road and 8,000 miles of gathering lines in addition to camps, towns, airfields and support facilities for a working population of 10,000. All this in an environment which was once considered so hostile to man that we more or less wrote it off as uninhabitable. In some of -the areas now under exploration even the ingenious Eskimo cannot survive. So far, Panarctic Development has completed two wells. It is significant that in sinking the second well they hit hydrocarbons, a gas deposit. Those who travelled to the Sabine Peninsula with the standing committee concerned with northern development two months ago are not likely to forget the sight of that gas well blazing out over the desolate tundra of the Arctic.
Here, I might digress for just a moment. It is interesting that most of this Panarctic


exploration is concentrated at Melville Island. In 1820 when Edward Parry wintered his ships at the southern end of this island he built a small handcart and led a group of sailors to the north shore. In his journal, written at the time, he noted that when the iron wheels of the cart struck the shale in some areas the shale gave off the smell of petroleum. This was in 1820. It has taken us a long time to put down the first drill.
There is another interesting feature connected with this exploration by Parry. No European visited the island again for 30 years, in fact, until the search for Sir John Franklin in the 1850's. And there, 30 years later, when McLintock visited the island, the marks of Parry's little handcart were still discernible in the soil. Here, too, there is a lesson for us: the Arctic ecology is very frail.
The United States government is showing an awareness of this fact. The permit for the construction of the pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to the southern terminus on the southern coast of Alaska must contain some of the most stringent regulations ever established in this field. I have the document here and I shall read just a few of these conditions. The company has to post a $5 million bond from which any environmental damage would be made good as far as possible. Any areas disturbed must be repaired as far as practicable. The company must file a detailed contingency plan for controlling oil spills and pipe line leaks. The government may require the realignment or modification of pipelines to meet unforeseen environmental conditions. The pipeline may have to be re-routed around areas with unstable soil conditions. Great care must be taken to avoid melting the permafrost. Passages for fish must be provided in all cases where a pipeline crosses a stream; it must be buried underground, not laid on the stream bed. Construction may be halted to protect key wildlife areas during seasonal nesting activities and fish migration.
o (3:20 p.m.)
There is more, but clearly the United States government is showing an awareness of the dangers of development in the north and Alaska. This is one of the dimensions of the problem which we Canadians will have to consider, and consider very soon. It could affect our own territory very shortly, particularly if, in addition to the Alaskan pipeline, we see a pipeline coming down the Mackenzie to bring Prudhoe Bay oil, and hopefully Canadian oil, to the markets in the centre of the continent.
October 28, 1969	COMMONS
There are other methods of moving oil which are under consideration. There might be a pipeline across barren land to the port of Churchill on Hudson Bay. Canada's Herschel Island might become a sea port for Prudhoe Bay crude. But what has caught our attention most of all during the past year has been the Manhattan project.
I am not going to go into the details because I think hon. members are quite familiar with them. An amount of $39 million has been spent by a consortium of oil companies, headed by Humble Oil, to see whether a specially strengthened United States supertanker could smash its way through the barrier of ice that lies in the Northwest Passage. A subcommittee of our own Standing Committee on Northern Development went north in August to meet the Manhattan and to welcome the initiative taken. As the record shows, we pointedly welcomed them to Canadian waters, with the accent on "Canadian" waters.
At the moment the Manhattan voyage appears to have been a partial success only. The hope and expectation was that this heavily strengthened ship could smash the ice barrier in McClure Strait. The plans of Humble Oil were gigantic in scope. If this experiment were successful, then by the second quarter of next year, 1970, the company expected to let contracts for 250,000 ton supertankers. Their long range goal was to have two of these tankers a week pass through the Northwest Passage, 52 weeks a year.
To what extent their enthusiasm has been moderated by the experience in the north, I cannot say. However, we must note that the Manhattan did not succeed in forcing her way through the polar pack ice in the McClure Strait. In fact, she behaved pretty much in the manner that our own coast guard people predicted; she became beset, and the John A. Macdonald, a Canadian icebreaker, had to free the vessel. She then sailed south through the Prince of Wales channel and, to the surprise of nobody,, got through in that way to the opposite side of the archipelago. But it has been an exploit and will add very considerably to scientific knowledge of ice conditions. Again, we should congratulate the spirit of enterprise of those concerned, and we look forward to the time when this valuable information about ice will become available to us.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, since Canada's attention, as so often, has focussed on the deeds of people of other nations, I do not
DEBATES	191
The Address-Mr. St. Pierre suppose that many Canadians noticed that it was a Canadian ship the Chesley A. Crosbie, which this year scored another notable first in the north by sailing to within 500 miles of the geographic north pole. This is the farthest that any commercial vessel has penetrated north of the North American continent.
The shipment of dry cargo is one matter. Quite another is the shipment of oil. It is this continuing Manhattan project-it is continuing as far as we know-which also poses, in addition to the great opportunity provided if the project is successful, a major danger to the Canadian Arctic. Many ships have been lost in the Arctic, invariably in the same manner. They become beset by the ice. They are nipped by the ice and, when released by the movement of the ice away from the sides of the ship, they sink.
To lose a tanker containing a quarter of a million tons of pollutant in the form of crude oil in the Arctic would be a disaster greater than any man-made disaster of this kind the world has ever seen. But what I wish particularly to draw to the attention of both the members of the government and members in all parts of the house is that we really do not know how bad the situation would be since there has been a complete lack of research into the subject.
The waters of the passage range in temperature from 27 to 31 degrees Fahrenheit. A little closer to the continental shelf the temperature is between 33 and 35 degrees. However, we do not know what will be the action of crude oil spilled into water of this temperature.
It is suggested that oil spilling out into water of this temperature would probably form a gelatinous mass. When it reached the shoreline, where it might be exposed to temperatures of 50 below, it might turn into a hard plastic. The only information that I have been able to find as to its behaviour is that this pollution might last for decades, and possibly for centuries. Most crudes contain poisons, some of which are as lethal as DDT.
I did say, Mr. Speaker, that I had two subjects to which I in.ended to draw the government's attention and urge immediate action, and this is one of them. I suggest that the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources should immediately institute a full program of research in Arctic waters using Prudhoe Bay crude oil to provide us with a body of fact. Since we are the nation most immediately concerned in this matter, ours is the government which should initiate such studies.
October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. St. Pierre This is not a question that we should turn over to other nations or leave to the investigation of private companies. The government should ascertain as early as possible precisely what is the result when crude oil, and especially Arctic crude oil, is spilt in sub-freezing temperatures.
My second point is associated with the first one, and I will make it now. What is the potential of our Arctic fisheries resource? We have known for years that there are a great many species of mammals and fish in the Arctic waters. Many Eskimos have formed co-operatives and are canning some of these sea foods for sale in the south. But how great is this particular resource? Is it over exploited or, as is more probable, under exploited? Might there not be room for considerable expansion of this industry?
I questioned the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) about this in the fisheries committee last year, and his answer was to the effect that, as far as he knew, Canada had never surveyed the fisheries resources of the Arctic. We simply do not know how extensive are these resources in Canada's third ocean. I suggest to the minister that now is the time to make this discovery, and to do so not simply for the immediate benefit that an extension of Eskimo fishing operations would bring. It may be that in this regard Canada will become engaged in debate in the United Nations or elsewhere. Our people will want to speak of the value of our marine resources in the Arctic, and our case will scarcely be strengthened if we have to admit publicly that we really do not know what they are. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, these two departments of government can and should be undertaking this valuable service with all possible speed.
These are just a couple of aspects of Canada's great duty to protect this area of our country, and this, of course, inseparably involves sovereignty. The waters within the archipelago are Canadian waters, and we must make this clear to the world community.
I suggest there are two things we must make clear. First, we must make clear that we welcome commercial shipping in these waters, as we have always welcomed such shipping in Canadian waters. It would be intolerable if it were suggested that this country close the passage to the shipping of the world, assuming that such passage were made possible by modern day technology.


[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
But simultaneously we must point out that this nation will decide what constitutes innocent passage and that we will close the passage to vessels likely to cause intolerable damage to the waters or land of Canada. Perhaps in the United Nations we shall see developed a new regime for oil shipments on the world's oceans. I hope so. It is needed. The Prime Minister has indicated that his government will press for this and I think we should welcome the Prime Minister's statement. However, the possibility of such a development does not relieve the government of its clear responsibility to give its prime attention to Canada's sovereign seas. The prime duty of this or any other government is to act first in what it conceives to be Canada's national interest. Of course, we must have among us who will say, nay. I note in an edition of a Toronto paper for December 16 that the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) is reported as suggesting Canada should declare these waters to be hers. He is quoted as saying:
Our legal experts tell us we wouldn't have a chance before the International Court at The Hague.
When he refers to "our legal experts" I wonder whether he is speaking perhaps of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson who, on October 21 at a NATO meeting in Washington, said:
Permanent ice should be assimiliated with permanent land. The government would be well advised to do the utmost to ensure that Canada has control in the Arctic, especially since it is possible that nuclear weapons will be deployed there.
Or perhaps he was speaking of Dean George Curtis who, on behalf of the Canadian government, made extensive investigations in respect of our land sovereignty in the early fifties at the time the DEW line was being started. When speaking before the Canadian Bar Association in Ottawa he said that Canada had a very strong case for drawing base lines around the tips of these islands and declaring them to be Canadian waters. I could go on to deal with the remarks of Dean Cohen and others who have spoken on this subject. There is no certainty in these matters. There is never any certainty in matters of international law or in any legal matter. I am satisfied, however, that our position is very, very strong.
There is not time for me to review the many theories on international law, but they are numerous. There is the hinterland theory
October 28, 1969
from the Greenland case. There is the Norwegian system which permits the drawing of base lines around the Arctic archipelago. There are the rights of exploration, discovery and continuous and effective occupation. Neither is	the	case of Indonesia comparable with our Arctic archipelago, although we are told the United States leans toward that view. Indonesia is an ocean archipelago. In our case, the Arctic is an extension of the continental land mass. International shipping has moved for a thousand years through the Indonesian islands. International shipping has never moved through the Canadian Arctic without the Canadian government's knowledge and, frequently, with Canadian government assistance as indeed was the case when the John A. Macdonald accompanied the Manhattan.
It is suggested that the United States government would hail us before the international court. They would seem to be in a rather poor position to do so because the United States subscribes to The Hague court with a proviso, the Connolly amendment. I am sure if they chose to take this stand it would not take this parliament long to pass its own reservation, its own Connolly amendment. It is suggested that the United States government might favour using another nation to serve as its running dog in this situation. But what nation? Norway? Hardly, in view of the fact that it has a base line system. What nation then-Japan, Peru? Perhaps. I am convinced it is not only in the Canadian national interest particularly but in the interest of the United States government and all governments that Canada should control these waters. The best and only sure control is to make it clear to the world that they are ours.
The Prime Minister has spoken of a threepronged action-legislation to establish conservation regulations in northern Canada, a statement on Canadian sovereignty and, finally, the inducement of the United Nations to act. Like many members on both sides of this House I eagerly await the details, but since in the last session I was critical of what I considered to be government inaction or even indifference I now wish to express a feeling of gratification at the considerable progress shown to date. I think it is also most gratifying that members of this House, and Canadians generally, are showing keen interest in our vast northern territories.
In closing, I should like to quote from the journals of Warburton Pike, a sportsman who spent much time on the barren lands at the
The Address-Mr. La Salle turn of the century. One of the quotations is this:
A dweller In cities Is too wrapped up in the works of man to have much respect left for the works of God, and to him the loneliness of forest and mountain, lake and river, must ever appear but a weary desolation.
Probably this feeling pervades in much of Canada although, as I say, there have been some encouraging signs of genuine interest by Canadians in the vast northern reaches of our land. The second quotation I believe in some sense might answer those who say that the Arctic is far away; it is cold, inhospitable and really what value can it have. I suppose the answer is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Pike had an Indian guide named Saltatha who was approached by a missionary priest. This is Saltatha's answer to the priest:
My father, you have spoken well; you have told me that Heaven Is very beautiful; tell me now one thing more. Is it more beautiful than the country of the musk-ox in summer, where sometimes the mist blows over the lakes, and sometimes the water is blue, and the loons cry very often? That is beautiful; and if Heaven is still more beautiful, my heart will be glad, and I shall be content to rest there till I am very old.
I thank hon. members for their courteous attention, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieiie):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all warmly congratulate the mover and 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), with whom I am better acquainted.
While listening last night to the laudatory comments on their speeches, I understood that there certainly will be a most valuable pool of candidates at the next convention for the leadership of the liberal party. There is no doubt in my mind about that.
I would also take this opportunity to congratulate my leader for his excellent speech a few days ago. I have read carefully the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and I am under the clear impression that it is full of good intentions.
Of course we would have preferred to find in it very concrete and valuable information. We get the answer that details will be given in the white papers which will be presented

October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. La Salle during the session. So we shall continue to hope for a few months.
At the beginning of my remarks I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister for his recent decision to appoint an ambassador to the Vatican. Indeed I have long realized the justification for such a move.
I have heard or read the speeches of other members whom I would like to congratulate for having expressed their views and presented to the house the needs of their constituents. Some parts of the Speech from the Throne deal more particularly with my area or constituency and I wish to make a few comments about them.
Firstly, I would have liked, as so many others in Canada, to see my constituency included in the designated area program. I thought I had made sufficient representations to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who was co-operative and provided me with a very interesting file. Indeed, following thorough studies and information given me about my constituency, I had thought that would be enough to warrant the designation of my constituency.
Of course some arguments were put forward to me, such as the economic consequences of the vicinity of the city of Montreal. Indeed, that city is 40 miles away. Those consequences were valid while Expo was on, but today, they are not. As for the international airport which could be beneficial to my constituency, I am quite sure that we will only feel the advantages of that project, in three, four or five years.
Until such difficult years are upon us, I would have liked the reasons for our representations to be considered as valid. I still hope that, through further representations, the government and the minister will agree to come back on their decision and to grant to my region this advantage that other regions already possess.
There is something also about housing. The matter was discussed throughout the last session. I am convinced that the measures referred to in this house last year will not be sufficient to give the building industry the push it needs.
Last year, it was suggested to facilitate loans and to set easier terms for repayment. I think that, as long as this loathed 11 per cent sales tax on building material is maintained, the problem is not seriously faced.
This tax is very heavy today for those who want to build a house of their own. Moreover,
[Mr. La Sailed
as long as no serious thought is given to granting loans for housing at a rate of 5 to 6 per cent to workers who earn $10,000 or less a year, the government can dream up a number of measures, publish fine White papers in which it offers ever more attractive loan and repayment facilities that may extend over a period of 40 years, without however giving to those who earn from $5,000 to $10,000 a year the opportunity to own their own house.
I am also wondering if the government is taking these considerations seriously, since I raised the matter last year. Furthermore, other hon. members spoke about it last night and the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) referred to it.
Therefore, I do not see how on a short term basis it is possible to get the construction industry going again. We should think more of the pride that the worker takes in owning his own house. He very often becomes quite another man in the community. To own one's home is at the same time being able to take part in the social activities of his parish or of his riding. That could help the worker to become more useful to society.
I think the government should examine the possibility of granting loans for housing at 5 or 6 per cent interest and, if necessary, of making up the difference between those interest rates and the prevailing rates. Since the building industry affects a large percentage of Canadian workers, a higher employment rate would bring more taxes to the government.
Last year, I had hoped, when we debated a non confidence motion on unemployment, that the people drawing unemployment insurance benefits would become more productive.
Though regretfully I must recognize that this system is now spoiling a generation. It is unthinkable to continue to increase unemployment insurance benefits and to leave those people unemployed when municipalities are in a precarious financial situation with insufficient funds. It seems to me that the government should intervene and that such a proposal could be studied by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). Municipalities could avail themselves of the services of those men who would get a weekly pay without having to spend a cent.
Very often municipalities-in my region as elsewhere-have work to be done. Their main concern is always the same: the budget.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I wonder if it would not be a commendable and profitable gesture for our country to
October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. La Salle
allow our municipalities to put those men to work at no cost at all. Those who would be inclined to refuse work would not deserve to be paid and we know very well that most of those who collect unemployment insurance benefits and welfare allowances are able-bodied and willing to work.
In so doing, we would help our municipalities carry out some projects. In fact, there are in my area several rivers which are an eyesore because their banks are poorly maintained. We could fix them up, perhaps not as well as those of the Rideau canal, so that tourists might be tempted to visit our municipalities a little more often. That would also represent an extra asset for the municipality.
I think this is a suggestion that should be taken into consideration by the government, in order to make a high percentage of our workers more active than they are now, because if the government claims that it is better to pay them for doing nothing, I still think most members would nevertheless wish that such action be taken. I dare hope they will support me in this.
The throne speech also dealt with reforms in the welfare system. I imagine that there are many things to be done. We are told that the forthcoming white paper will bring us the answer. I think every member of my party, including myself would like nothing better than to discuss this matter thoroughly and to undertake sweeping changes.
I must not forget to mention the importance in my constituency of the tobacco industry.
Tobacco growing is a feature of my constituency where are to be found 90 per cent of the cigarette tobacco producers in the province. Many things have been said on the subject of tobacco. The producers in my region are really worried and rightly so. I was informed after the sale of tobacco last Friday that so far prices have declined from 20 to 30 a pound, due to the fact that companies feel uneasy following the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) last year.
The Committee has met several times and some people have acknowledged the danger created by smoking while others have tried to prove the opposite. One thing is certain, we know a lot of people who never smoked as well as smokers who died of cancer. Of course 80 per cent of the people who die of cancer are smokers, as 95 per cent of the Canadian people smoke.
However, the leaders of the Tobacco Growers Association assure me that they are definitely prepared to negotiate, to discuss and even to help the government, in every instance where an improvement could be made. In my opinion, the goodwill shown by the tobacco producers deserves a special consideration from the government.
What has particularly surprised me is the attitude of the government as a whole in this regard. During a trip which I made in New Brunswick with the committee on agriculture, the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Levesque, assured us that he could count on further appropriations to improve the soil for tobacco growing and to extend the lands. I congratulate him on his efforts to promote that interesting industry, which moreover does nothing but benefit the Department of National Revenue.
However, the Minister of National Health and Welfare goes to great lengths to frighten people by telling them that tobacco may produce cancer, and I fail to understand the attitude of the government because it is prepared to allocate additional funds to improve tobacco farming while at the same time advising people to quit smoking.
I wonder what is the opinion of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) about this, especially when earnings of the tobacco industry are reported close to $500 million. Of course, it is a noble gesture for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to stand up for public health. I would agree with him if an attack could be launched against abuses that may lead to cancer.
Tobacco is not necessarily the only form of abuse. It is the case also of alcoholic beverages and so on. It is surprising to note that people singled out one industry which after all represents several millions of dollars. Everyone knows that the Tobacco Producers' Association is prepared to negotiate with the government and to co-operate with it in every way.
Therefore, I urge the government to show a more responsible attitude. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) must agree to continue the promotion of the product, if justified, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare must come to an agreement with the Minister of Agriculture; finally, the Minister of National Revenue must tell us what the Canadian tobacco industry is worth in terms of dollars.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that an important industry in my riding will no longer be
October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. La Salle harassed. If, unfortunately, tomorrow morning tobacco should no longer be in use in Canada, I would want the government to find a solution for all the producers in my area and for those in Ontario who are in greater number.
I hope that the government will accept to deal with this question a little more seriously than it did last year. Co-operation must exist between the Departments of Agriculture, National Revenue and National Health and Welfare.
I will take the liberty to give my opinion after spending one year in the house. As many other hon. members, I probably had to listen to some lengthy and sterile debates in order to bring about changes in our procedure, some of which were excellent. We even limited some debates which had not made me sick anyway.
Goodwill should also accompany those reforms and those measures. As an individual, before coming to parliament, I heard all sorts of observations. The people often seemed to have lost confidence in their elected, because of protracted debates and representative flippant speeches.
In addition, some members reneged on some of their commitments. It is always easy to make promises on platforms, but once in the house it is at times difficult to work objectively. Sometimes, it is difficult for some members to support good legislative measures.
I therefore hope, Mr. Speaker, that in the coming session, the Canadian parliament will regain the confidence of the electorate. I should like parliament to be more practical and especially more objective. I hope that we will all work together in this house as administrators and not as politicians.
What I said publicly I shall repeat here in this house: We must work with objectivity and uphold the truth more often. We will need a lot of courage. I cannot accept that we should limit ourselves to politics in this house. I feel that there is room for politics during election campaigns. So much the worse for those who overdo it, so much the worse for those who deal especially in the political outbidding.
I dare hope and believe that some day we will see, in Canadian parliament, a courageous and serious opposition that can support the good measures which the government introduces. I also hope that the government will respect and accept the suggestions of the

opposition that could improve the proposed legislation.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
If in all fairness, we took that stand, we would make good the promises that we made during the electoral campaign. It is perhaps the great fault of parliament of lacking objectivity at the right moment. Therefore, I venture to think that it will be possible to show such objectivity not only in the interest of the members but also of society.
I wonder if one can go as far as to say that the interest of society must come before that of the party. Personally, I would be inclined to think so and I am ready to devote my time to safeguard, first, the interest of society through a political party which grants me the right to speak in order to defend the aspirations of my constituents.
When I speak about objectivity I do not mean that we must abstain from saying what must be said in this house.
In this speech from the throne, many problems are mentioned. There is one perhaps that was not brought up, through lack of courage or fear of causing disunity in the country. The problem facing Canada is that of Quebec. Perhaps it would be easier not to mention it in order to avoid more or less laudatory remarks, but this would also show a lack of frankness and of courage. There is between Quebec and Ottawa a link which could not be defined during the last session, even with the great promise of a just society.
What is a just society? This concept may be difficult to define, but I think that attempts are made every day to find its true meaning.
The problem of Quebec is surely quite as important as any other. Indeed, it is a constitutional problem which was hardly mentioned in the speech from the throne. We wonder if the time has not come to concern ourselves with the status of Quebec within confederation. We should put to work to the committee appointed to set up the basis of a new constitution. I believe the time has come to settle the matter with objectivity and to discuss it in all good faith here in this house, as well as with our colleagues from the other provinces. People should no longer be led to believe that here, in Quebec, there is only a minority eager to have a new constitution which will define, once and for all, the place of Quebec and its aspirations, as well as the guarantees of its fulfilment within the Canadian nation.
October 28, 1969

No one dares acknowledge that Quebec is in a particular situation. At least, no one seems to be willing to raise the subject in the house lest it should hurt the feelings of certain members. Some venture to say that there is in Quebec a group of independentists or "pequists".
It has often been alleged, in press conferences, for instance, in order to reassure the rest of the country, that they were nothing but a few people of no importance at all. 1 truly believe that what they call in Quebec the third provincial party is something quite serious. This is likely to be a matter of wonder for some, of concern for others.
We have three parties in Quebec and that hostility which might have been due to the question of the new constitution has been with us for the past ten years. One may reproach Quebec-and the federal government through its prime minister, for whom I have much respect, often did so-for not knowing where it is going as far as the constitution is concerned.
The Quebec government, through all its premiers has quite often stated its position on the constitutional question since 1960.
Quite recently, working papers on the constitutional question were made public. Moreover, the Quebec government had the opportunity of expressing its views very clearly on educational radio, pollution, mining rights, international relations and medicare.
Then, why would a storm burst so often on the question which has been asked on numerous occasions during the years 1960-62: what does Quebec want?
Attacking some personalities in the Quebec government, ministers or public servants, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did a few days ago in Montreal, on the pretence that these ministers or public servants are alone responsible for all the federal-provincial problems, is, I think, a major mistake. Such a mistake is all the more serious as it was committed by the Prime Minister of Canada himself, a man whom I would have expected to be better informed and less prejudiced.
We must not forget that the re-exoneration of the present federal system is not done by a few people only but rather by a major section of the population, and this remains a continuing concern for Quebecers, no matter who is in power in Quebec city.
The constitution has been challenged for several years now and it is pure stubbornness to refuse to face the facts and to think that
The Address-Mr. La Salle only a few people in Quebec want a reform in depth of the constitution.
Of course many observers think that the present government won the elections in the rest of the country by implying that it was necessary "to put Quebec in its place".
The only question I ask the government is: "What really is Quebec's place within Confederation?"
A few days ago dangerous words perhaps were said in Montreal in a flight of oratory. Quebec as it is today has been described in somber and tragic colours and everybody has been condemned indiscriminately. The attack on the legally constituted authorities in Quebec and in the City of Montreal has worried more people than it has reassured.
Much publicity was given to those who want to divide Canada while, in the same breath, it was being said that those people represented a very small minority of the population. If such is the case, why does the Prime Minister give so much attention to the matter? On the other hand, if this group is really large, one has the right to ask whose fault it is.
Quebec as it is today definitely refuses to accept the interpretation that is being given to the Canadian constitution. That may be annoying to the government and it has proclaimed throughout English Canada that it would control Quebec and would put it in its place. I suggest that the matter must be discussed in this house, in the most objective manner possible, because Quebec refuses to yield in spite of those comments.
Under such circumstances, I understand the impatience of the federal government as well as that of the provincial government and the citizens of that province.
Allow me to say a few words about the Quebec-France agreements.
The Canadian government is acting today as if it were sorry to have agreed in 1965 to the establishment of direct relations between Quebec and France. Did it perhaps feel then that those France-Quebec agreements would be of no consequence?
We realize today that those agreements have become quite important, precisely because they meet the needs of Quebecers.
The government of Canada is worried about that. It would like to take over the whole matter, while the agreement concluded with France in 1965 aimed precisely at easier and more direct relations between Quebec and France.
October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. La Salle
The government ol Quebec has been accused of picking quarrels over protocol. I wonder how to characterize the attitude of the present government which would like any French minister or official who intends to visit Quebec to go and bow in Ottawa, even when it is not necessary.
I am very anxious to get explanations about this. Could there be one law for one's friends and another for one's foes? I would like to know.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, before closing, I should like to ask again for the drafting of a new constitution in which would be enshrined the guarantees needed if the citizens of Quebec are to prosper. I therefore demand that a special debate be held on this subject during this session and that a free vote be taken then.
I rely, of course, on the support of Quebec members to give a clear and faithful explanation of the particular situation prevailing in the province of Quebec and of Quebec's special needs. Being assured of their good faith-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must point out to him that his time is over, unless the house agrees to let him go on-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for having granted me two more minutes. This is all the time I need to round up my speech.
I therefore request that we hold a special debate in this house, Mr. Speaker, not only for the benefit of Quebec but also for the benefit of the whole of Canada. I feel that we should have the courage and sincerity to discuss quite openly with our colleagues from the other provinces the importance of this constitution in the interest of Canada and of Quebec. To refuse this debate which would be bound to enlighten the minds of Quebecers as well as of Canadians, would be to agree with those who already imagine that Quebec's sovereignty would be a solution to the problems of that province. I hope that those remarks will be of a kind to produce positive and favourable results.
I said that I was relying on the support of the hon. members from the province of Quebec who understand better than anyone here in this House the importance of defining, once and for all, the role of the province of Quebec in Canada.


In my opinion, it would be beneficial to the province of Quebec to remain part of Canada.
I am one of those who believe that Canada will also benefit by it. The province of Quebec will then remain one of the fair provinces of this country. However, one would need courage and objectivity to study that question' and to define it precisely, for the matter of a new constitution has been discussed for ten years. We are growing impatient, and the present situation, for those who dream of the independence of the province of Quebec, is perhaps the result of that too long awaited reply which never comes from the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, I have made those remarks, imbued with great objectivity-at least that is my opinion-in the belief that I was serving not only my province, but also my country.


Mr. David Wealherhead (Scarborough Wesi):: armed forces will be cut from about 98,000 to between 80,000 and 85,000 men and that some bases around the country will be closed. The defence spending cuts will keep defence expenditures within a $1.8 billion ceiling, which represents about 17 per cent of our total expenditures.
Spokesmen for organized labour stated last week that wage restraints would not be acceptable. It is natural that they would be very reluctant to agree to wage restraints until they see some evidence first of a moderation in prices, rents, interest rates and other costs.
It does appear from what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) said in the House last night that the monetary and fiscal policies of the government are beginning to have the desired effect of reducing inflation. However, the inflation psychology is still in evidence and it is certainly to be hoped that a broad form of voluntary restraint of wage and price expectations in all segments of the public will come about. There is no question that wage controls-and you could not have one without the other-are inherently very distasteful and extremely difficult to enforce. However, if the ever increasing cost of living is not soon checked, I believe our federal government will have to consider seriously commencing consultations with the provinces-which have the constitutional jurisdiction over price and wage controls, except in wartime-to decide on the best way of implementing such controls.
With respect to high taxes, the public has a difficult time differentiating between the taxes levied by the different levels of government. In metropolitan Toronto, our municipal taxes for municipal and school purposes are a heavy burden on the homeowner of modest means. Here, our Provincial Liberal party is advocating that 80 per cent of education taxes should be paid from general provincial revenues. Such a policy would reduce school taxes in Scarborough by about two thirds. The 5 per cent provincial sales tax affects people on modest incomes much more than it affects those with higher incomes. On the federal level, the freezing of expenditures in most government departments, as well as the reduction in the public service and the armed forces above mentioned, will reduce the amount of income and other taxes that would otherwise be needed. However, it is expected the white paper on tax reform, to be released on November 7, will contain many proposals which will make our federal tax laws more
21362-14J
The Address-Mr. Weatherhead fair and equitable. We are all waiting eagerly for this report.
The Speech from the Throne also mentioned the issuing of a government white paper on social security in the next few months. In this regard, the future of family allowances has been speculated upon. In my second report to my constituents last June one of the queries in the attached questionnaire concerned family allowances. A great number of constituents replied, and 30 per cent were in favour of cutting off family allowances to those families earning more than $7,500; 30 per cent wanted to leave the allowances as they are now; 20 per cent wanted to abolish them completely and 20 per cent wanted them increased or had other comments. Since some $600 million is spent annually on this program, it is natural and wise that it be reviewed. However, as a father of five small children, I know how my wife looks forward to her monthly family allowance cheque; and from the heavy correspondence on the subject that I received from the riding I firmly believe that most of the moneys now being paid as family allowances are being spent wisely by the mothers concerned for food, clothing and school supplies for their children. At this time I would, therefore, be very reluctant to see any substantial change in family allowances unless new government policies adequately compensate families of modest means in particular.
We have heard much in recent months about various guaranteed income schemes, and I certainly hope that the white paper on social security will make particular recommendations with regard to this. I must confess that a year or two ago it seemed to me that a guaranteed income plan would only be possible at some distant date. However, I now believe that Canada cannot afford to wait long for such a plan. It is absolutely essential that we should provide a sufficiently high minimum to give every Canadian the opportunity of a decent standard of living, along with the maximum incentives to encourage recipients to seek work and training.
A year old experiment in New Jersey with negative income tax using 400 families appears to have been successful and is an improvement over their current welfare system. The experiment will continue for three years and eventually involve 1,000 families. Under that plan, a family of four is receiving $3,000 from the government if it earns no income at all; $2,500 from the government if it earns $1,000, for a total income of $3,500;.
200	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Weatherhead $2,000 from the government if it earns $2,000, for a total income of $4,000 etc., until the point is reached where it will receive no additional moneys from the government at all if it makes $6,000 a year or more.
The recent plan of President Nixon is somewhat more modest. It gives a maximum payment of $1,600 to a family, with aid ceasing after the family's total earnings reach $3,920 a year. As a result of the New Jersey experiment, it is estimated that the cost of a similar plan for Canada will run at between $1.5 billion and $2 billion above our current welfare programs. This is certainly a great deal of money; it is about the total cost of our annual defence spending. A more modest plan would cost less and a considerable amount of money could come from greatly reduced federal government spending on family allowances and Canada assistance plans, which now total about $1 billion.
Accordingly, I believe that as soon as our fight against inflation is won, which one way or another should be fairly soon, we should immediately proceed with a guaranteed income plan that combines maximum incentives to work with obtaining retraining, an adequate income base being guaranteed by the government. At the same time, the proposals of the white paper on social security will give us the opportunity to re-arrange and rationalize our many diverse and overlapping welfare programs. Many of these programs could be eliminated or partly replaced by a new guaranteed income scheme. However, there still would be some Canadians, because of physical or mental handicaps, that would require additional welfare over any guaranteed income base, and so it is not realistic at all to state that a guaranteed income plan would replace all of our current welfare programs.
[DOT] (4:20 p.ra.)
A guaranteed income plan, no matter how good, will not in itself eradicate poverty. The hundreds of millions of dollars the federal government gives to the provinces toward post-secondary education, its student loan policy which give the opportunities of higher education to almost all who can benefit from same, combined with the excellent occupational retraining and manpower mobility programs of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, are additional requirements. The new incentive programs of our Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the underdeveloped areas of our country are also very

DEBATES	October	28, 1969
necessary. However, these various federal policies, combined with a guaranteed income plan, would go a long way toward the discontinuance of the poverty cycle in these underdeveloped areas and among the disadvantaged groups of peoples, including the urban poor in Canada, where it now exists.
The plan indicated by the federal government to transform its unemployment insurance system into a more broadly based income maintenance program, and to add nearly one million Canadians to those eligible for benefits, would supplement and possibly supplant some of the guaranteed income plan ideas. Out of a labour force of 8.1 million, some 6 million are now covered by unemployment insurance and the proposed new coverage would increase the coverage to 7 million. Some 200,000 to 600,000 receive benefits every month.
At present, only workers earning up to $7,800 are covered and are required to pay weekly contributions. Under the new plan, it is understood that the ceiling will be raised to include employees receiving much higher incomes, perhaps all salaried persons no matter how high their pay. As the Toronto Daily Star said in their lead editorial yesterday: This means in effect a new tax on the well-to-do tor the benefit of the poor. Contributions from higher income specialists and executives who are rarely out of work or in need of help will swell the unemployment insurance fund for the benefit of lower paid workers for whom unemployment is a real threat.
The added revenue obtained in this way would make it possible to increase the now too low benefits paid to those who are out of work and would also make it possible to extend the maximum period for which benefits can be received beyond the present period of 52 weeks. The apparently proposed addition of sickness and maternity leave benefits would also be most welcome.
While a general guaranteed income plan will have to wait until the fight against inflation has been won, I can see no reason why the old age security and guaranteed income supplement to our senior citizens cannot at least be increased annually at the same rate as the cost of living. I do not think I am being inconsistent in advocating this while agreeing with anti-inflationary measures in general. The Throne Speech reiterated the necessity of increased government spending in regional development programs and those dealing with our Indians and Eskimos. I believe increased pensions to our senior citizens are of equal urgency.
October 28, 1969
Certainly, we should not overlook the fact that by bringing down the qualifying age over the last five years from 70 to 65 as of January 1, 1970, our government has benefited a great number of our senior citizens. Of course, the Canada Pension Plan is greatly benefiting more and more of those people reaching 65. The old age security pension of $79.58 as of next January 1 is received by some 1,600,000 Canadians and some 780,000 of them receive additional moneys through the guaranteed income supplement which in January will give our senior citizens a maximum of $111.41 a month. However, at present, the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement can only be increased 2 per cent a year, while the increase in the cost of living recently has been considerably greater. Accordingly, I believe that as a minimum the necessary legislation should be amended to allow an annual increase in these pensions of at least the same percentage as the annual increase in the cost of living.
A general guaranteed annual income plan discussed earlier would particularly benefit our senior citizens and this is one of the reasons I believe it should not be long delayed. However, if the dangers of inflation prevent it from being initiated soon, I would think that the present amounts of the old age security and guaranteed income supplements paid to our senior citizens should be reconsidered. An increase in our old age security pension of $10 across the board to the 1,600,000 receiving same would mean $190 million more that would have to be paid from the federal treasury.
While this might have some advantages politically, it would be giving considerable money, in total, to those of our senior citizens who are fairly well off, and who would not really need it. Such an across the board increase of, say, $10 would also make little appreciable difference to those who depend entirely on the old age security and guaranteed income supplement. Accordingly, I believe that along with automatic, annual increases in both the old age security and guaranteed income supplement to completely cover annual increases in the cost of living, the government should increase the maximum of the guaranteed income supplement by $25 a month.
Such an increase in the guaranteed income supplement would cost the federal treasury between $120 million and $150 million a year, but it would be received by approximately a half million senior citizens who are in most
The Address-Mr. Weatherhead need, those who have really no other income. However, it was these people 65 years and over and those approaching that age who did so much to build and develop our great land, who made sacrifices in the two wars, went through the depression and had so much to do with our post-1945 economic expansion. I firmly believe that we have an obligation to more adequately take care of them.
I believe also that the federal government, in its capacity as an employer, has a special obligation to increase the pensions of its retired civil servants, particularly those who have been retired for a number of years and who are trying to keep body and soul together on pitifully small pensions. These people directly worked for the good of our country over long and difficult years. Our government would not only be giving them well-deserved help by increasing their pensions, but would be leading the way, by example, in persuading the provincial and municipal governments as well as private businesses to do the same for their retired employees.
During the summer recess I had the privilege, as a member of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, of taking part for three weeks in the hearings on the government's white paper on the report of the Woods Commission on the Canadian Pension Commission. There are about 950,000 veterans in Canada, of whom about 166,000, including widows, receive disability benefits under the Canadian Pension Act. Of the 148 recommendations of the Woods Commission, the government in its white paper accepted all but 30 in whole or in part. A new and more independent appeal division, the granting of basic 50 per cent minimum pensions to all Hong Kong veterans who have any disability at all, additional payments to the multiple disabled, a broader "benefit of doubt" clause with respect to evidence of disability presented by veterans, are some of the proposals contained in this white paper.
While we have held 23 meetings and heard 57 witnesses from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the commission and all the major national veterans' associations, we intend to hear considerable more evidence before preparing a report or reports. I have been very impressed with the high calibre of these witnesses and their devotion to the needs of their former comrades. I am sure I can speak for every member of our committee when I say that our minds are still open and we will carefully consider all the evidence and representations before preparing our final reports.

October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. Weatherhead [DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
There are very important items in the Speech from the Throne which I shall not have time to discuss in any detail this afternoon. Perhaps a few can be mentioned, however. Water pollution is a subject of increasing concern across the country and though much of the constitutional responsibility for its control lies with the provinces, the proposed Canada water act which would designate as a water quality management area any body of water in which there is a significant national interest and provide fines of up to $5,000 for every offence, will help co-ordinate the fight against water pollution in this country.
In the course of my speech during the budget debate last June I discussed in considerable detail the need for the federal government to continue to take an active interest in policies designed to promote new housing in our large urban areas. I personally praised the many amendments to the National Housing Act which we passed last spring. These, together with the amendments to the regulations, should help considerably in this regard. I was happy to read in the Speech from the Throne of the government's commitment to seeing that one million new housing units are built in the course of the next five years and that particular attention is to be paid to satisfying the housing needs of low income families. Latest figures show that we are presently ahead of last year's pace in housing starts and there is every indication that these will total more than the required 200,000 for 1969 by the end of the year.
The discovery of an enormous oil field near Prudhoe Bay in Alaska and, more particularly, the voyage of the United States Manhattan through the islands of the Canadian Arctic have brought home to us the tremendous potential of our Arctic resources. Some concern has been expressed as to whether we have been exercising our sovereignty over these territories. However, both the Speech from the Throne and the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during this debate last Friday show clearly that there is absolutely no question as to our sovereign rights, not only over the islands of the Arctic archipelago but over the continental shelf which lies under the water between them. The Prime Minister also made it clear that the government is determined to take every step necessary to protect the natural environment of the Arctic waters from pollution by foreign ships.

Nor have I had the time in which to discuss new consumer protection legislation dealing with packaging and labelling standards, the identification of fibre-content in textiles and compulsory safety requirements for autos, including exhaust controls. Similarly, the subject of imminent new legislation having to do with wire-tapping, bail and the Expropriation Act reforms might have been discussed in some detail-and these are only a few of the many important matters dealt with in the Speech from the Throne.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the government on proposing the reduction of the voting age to 18 years. I had the privilege last year of being invited to many of the schools in my riding to discuss issues with the students, and of playing host to many classes from our schools when they visited Ottawa to see parliament in action. I found the students well-informed, inquisitive and intelligent, with a real concern about the problems and injustices in the world. Decreasing the voting age to 18 will mean that some 1,200,000 more young people will be entitled to vote. Classes in civics, political science and related subjects in high school will now become more meaningful and from the age of 18 our young people will, from now on, exert a significant influence on Canadian governments and policies. I am certain this influence will be very beneficial to our federal parliament and to the country as a whole.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: I wish to join those who have offered congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address. They did a good job with the meagre material with which they had to work. It must have been difficult to arouse much enthusiasm for some of the platitudes which are larded throughout the speech. The lead editorial in the Ottawa Journal of Friday, October 24, expresses this very well under the heading: "A smug speech Trudeau gave Michener". I quote:
Poor Mr. Michener will not have felt very comfortable uttering some of the yawn-like statements on the state of the nation which Mr. Trudeau put in his hands to read from the Throne.
''Notwithstanding the fears of people of little faith it was encouraging to find in Canadians in all ten provinces and in the Arctic islands that their sense of identity and of the potential which Canada offers to them and to their children is strong and healthy."
So all who are disturbed about disunity and disparity and disruption of purpose are merely "people of little faith?" They might gain more faith if this government and all gpvemments and
October 28, 1969	COMMONS
politicians showed more concern and determination to deal with the clouds we all see over this country.
Who are these people of little faith? Would they be the unemployed, those who cannot find work even in the affluent society we hear so much about? Would they be those who cannot find decent housing, those who have been waiting so long for this government to provide a housing program not just for the rich but for those who cannot afford down payments and who cannot pay high mortgage rates? Or would they be the civil servants who are being made the scapegoats for this government's so-called war on inflation? The President of the Canadian Labour Congress, in a recent statement in Ottawa, dealt with this aspect very well. I quote from this statement:
The federal government's action in firing civil servants is one of the most brutal and callous decisions ever taken by a government. These civil servants and their families are being needlessly sacrificed to satisfy a government policy of austerity, a policy which at best is highly questionable at this time.
We already have a high unemployment rate in Canada and this latest move by the government will only serve to aggravate our unemployment problem. If the government felt that it was really necessary to reduce the size of the public service, it could have adopted other means of accomplishing this without resorting to outright dismissals. It could, for example, have depended entirely on the normal attrition process of not filling positions as they become vacant. Instead it has chosen a policy which can only lead to the demoralization of the entire public service. The long established principle of security of tenure has been destroyed. The government, instead of displaying exemplary conduct as one of the biggest employers in Canada, has selected a course of action which can only tarnish its image in the eyes of prospective employees who will think twice before joining the public service.
This is not a situation which is peculiar to Ottawa or to one region of the country. I find when talking with civil servants in my area that there is a general disillusionment with the service. There is a real breakdown in morale because no one knows when the next cuts will come, no one knows whose job will be declared redundant. Where is the encouragement or the inducement to join the civil service as a career? In my own city of Moncton, as is the case all over the Atlantic area, lay-offs have been announced in government departments and many loyal workers with as long as 25 years service, including veterans of the second world war, have felt the weight of the government's axe.
I would be the first to agree that inefficiency and waste should be eliminated from the
DEBATES	203
The Address-Mr. C. Thomas civil service. But this process should be carried out selectively, not with the axe but, rather, by judicious use of the pruning knife. Cut out the fat, but don't destroy the lean in the process. Does it not constitute a confusion of purposes for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), on one hand, to recognize that the Atlantic area is one of regional disparity where special measures must be taken to create new jobs, while, on the other hand, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) contributes to unemployment by throwing people out of work?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Where are these people going to find other jobs, Mr. Speaker? Do you fight inflation simply by throwing people out of work? How do you explain to these people that they must make sacrifices when the government itself is making no effort to cut back? How can you explain this move to such people when they know that there has been no cutback in the staff of the office of the Prime Minister? His office costs have jumped to $350,000, compared with $150,000 when his predecessor was in office. His advisers now number 117, at a cost of $1.5 million. It is pretty hard to go to a civil servant who has suddenly been laid off, who has received no compensation other than one week's pay for each year of service, and explain to him why he has been laid off when he knows at the same time that the government has made no effort at all to cut back its own staff.
The editorial in the Ottawa Journal on Friday, October 24, to which I referred previously, continues in this way:
The Government has come belatedly and Inefficiently to the fight against inflation. It was only in August Trudeau announced it was now time to "cut the fat" from Government operations, though Louis Rasminsky and most every other authority in the land had been urging economy for a dozen years. A few days after announcing the fat would now be cut, the Government stated it would spend $600,000 to renovate Ottawa's old station to make nice party rooms for Government conferences-a building that is to be torn down in five or six years anyway.
To tell the Governor General to imply to the country on behalf of the Queen that the Government has done its duty against inflation and now it is up to the public-is to tell Canadians they are fools.
When the cabinet originally announced its decision to eliminate some 25,000 jobs from the federal civil service, it assured us that this would be done without too much dislocation of employees since most of them would be eliminated through the normal process of
October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. C. Thomas attrition, resignation and so on. I, personally was assured by senior officials of various departments that every effort would be made to place redundant employees in other jobs that would become available through retirement. This procedure was understandable and acceptable, but within a few weeks the Prime Minister announced that he was ordering a freeze on hiring in the civil service. Even though there were vacancies in certain departments, these vacancies would not be filled.
This is in direct contradiction to the original policy statement of the government and can lead only to hardship and the destruction of morale in the public service. We now have the anomalous situation in the federal civil service where certain departments that are short staffed have openings, where there are qualified people laid off in other departments-clerk 4's, accountant 3's, whatever they may be-who can fill those jobs, but because of the Prime Minister's directive these people cannot be placed.
On October 17 the gravity of the situation in the Atlantic area became so evident that it prompted me to send the following telegram to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board:
Announced layoffs in Moncton office of supply and services plus rumored layoffs in other government departments and agencies in the Atlantic area are causing great anxiety in the civil service and are a direct contradiction of stated policy that this is an area of regional disparity entitled to special consideration. This action will increase the disparity between Atlantic region and the rest of Canada and is compounded by recently announced freeze on civil service hiring which makes mockery of assurances that these people will be absorbed by other departments. I therefore urge that you honour previous commitments by immediately suspending freeze on hiring in Atlantic area until all affected persons are either absorbed by other federal departments or until the Department of Regional Economic Expansion initiates long awaited policies to provide them with other employment. The gravity of the situation transcends sectional and political considerations and demands that we present a united front. I am sending a copy of this telegram to all Atlantic M.P.'s requesting that they meet in Ottawa within the next two weeks and present the Atlantic case to your government.
Copies of this telegram went out to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) and to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), but I regret to say that up to the present day the only acknowledgement has been from the secretary to the Prime Minister. This is another indication to me of the complete disregard that this government has for the problems of

the Atlantic region. Although they pay lip service to them time after time, when we ask for action we are completely ignored.
I might say that many of my own colleagues replied to invitation indicated their appreciation of the problem and promised their support. I am now appealing to all Atlantic M.P.'s to present a united front to see whether we can get the action our area deserves.
The Speech from the Throne contains this paragraph, as reported at page 2 of Hansard for October 23:
History, geography and economics have placed certain of our citizens at a disadvantage.
We in the Atlantic area do not need to be told that.
Under legislation enacted during the last session of Parliament, the Government is establishing programmes to reduce these inequalities.
I think all members will agree with that and will say "Amen". But we have heard that said so often over the years. We are always given promises for the future. The Atlantic area has been studied and restudied. There have been white papers, commissions,, surveys of all types, to the point where we must now be the most analysed people in the world. White papers and studies are fine, Mr. Speaker, but unless they are followed up with proper, comprehensive action, they are nothing but a waste of money.
All members of the house from the Atlantic region welcomed the formation of the new Department of Regional Economic Expansion. While it was not everything we desired, we did feel that at long last here was a department that would co-ordinate all of the various programs in that area, with the object of formulating a competely new concept of regional development which would bring our area up to some sort of parity with the rest of Canada.
I welcomed the report tabled in the house yesterday by the minister, his first report. While there is not a great deal in the report, I want to congratulate him on assisting in the establishment of the first new industry to be set up in this area. However, we need a great deal more action than this if we are to reduce the disparity that exists between the Atlantic area and the rest of Canada.
I also agree with the concept of growth centres. I think this is a much better approach than the old scattergun approach of granting assistance whenever it was requested. However, before growth areas can attract
October 28, 1969	COMMONS
new industry they must have the infrastructure-a word I do not like but which seems to be a common term nowadays-to encourage industry to settle. I prefer to call this requirement social capital or social overhead. In other words, in order to attract new industry to a growth centre you must provide the roads, the transportation facilities, the land banks for housing the workers who will come into the area, sewage facilities and those municipal services that the municipality concerned probably cannot afford to finance on its own.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
This is the area in which the Department of Regional Economic Expansion should be doing more than it has been. It is all right to attract industry or attempt to attract it. However, the first thing industry will ascertain is whether the area has housing for its workers, whether it has proper transportation facilities so it can ship out of the area and whether there are proper facilities for pollution control and so on. I urge the minister and the officials of his department to speed up action on these problems. I know several municipalities are ready with development plans but, as always, are hampered by lack of funds. One of the most pressing problems in the city of Moncton is the nine level railroad crossings in the city proper. Over the years it has been recognized there must be a complete relocation of tracks in the area to free land for industrial purposes and to eliminate most of the transportation problems. The city has gone ahead on its own and, indeed, in the last week has developed an excellent study through the co-operation of consultants. I appeal to the minister and the officials of his department to give this proposal serious consideration when it is presented to them.
The people of the maritimes for months and years have been hammering at the fact that they must have a completely new and comprehensive transportation policy for the region. We were all quite encouraged in June when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) made the statement in the House, in presenting his new bill, that he would collaborate with the premiers of the provinces in the appointment of a committee to discuss this whole problem and come up with a comprehensive policy on transportation. I, for one, was greatly disturbed, as I believe were all members of the Commons transportation committee, when the minister's statement that he was again suspending the freeze on freight rates appeared in the press. I suggest to the
DEBATES	205
The Address-Mr. C. Thomas minister that this was a breach of faith with the people in the Atlantic area. They were given verbal assurance in this House that changes would not be made in the existing structure until such time as the new committee came up with an over-all program. This has caused a great deal of concern in the area. I should like to read from a recent editorial which appeared in the Saint John Telegraph Journal:
Just within the last week it was learned that the railways proposed to cancel less-than-carload freight service into the region November 3, leaving only the substantially higher express rates for small shipments. Then the Federal Transport Minister said he had asked the railways to defer the action.
But he promptly threw another uncertainty into the situation by announcing that a federal-provincial committee was studying the idea of eliminating general transportation subsidies within the Maritime Freight Rates Act territory-a 20 per cent federal subsidy on the cost of moving goods from point to point within the Atlantic Provinces and eastern Quebec-in favour of using the funds in a concentrated way to assist a limited number of commodity groups or selected geographical areas within the region. That leaves everyone wondering whose costs go up 20 per cent and whose go down.
We need a new transportation policy, without a doubt. The rest of Canada got a new deal in March, 1967, and this region was promised one at that time.
But we also need a reasonably stable situation now and until that new deal is worked out. The present bewilderment harms existing business and hampers development.
I confirm this editorial statement. Shippers in the region are now at a complete loss to know what rates to expect on certain commodities. They do not expect lower rates; they know they will go up. There is complete confusion there now because the shippers do not know what transportation costs will be involved, in connection with the merchandise they have to move. This to me would seem to be another typical example of the way this government has operated over the past year. With all their talk of participatory democracy, consultation with the people, the fact that they will sound out all shades of opinion to get theses and antitheses and arrive at syntheses *-all good phrases-they will show a complete disregard for the wishes of the people and certainly show a complete lack of co-operation with the provincial authorities. Lubor J. Zink, in the Toronto Telegram for October 22, 1969 under the heading "PM shows contempt for democracy" said:
It is the product of the contradiction in Mr. Trudeau's theory and practice of government.
October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. C. Thomas
In theory, he postulates "participatory democracy", i.e., direct and presumably constant involvement of the electorate in the process of Government ...
In practice, however Mr. Trudeau negates what he preaches.
His method of Government shows contempt for any form of democracy; it is secretive and authoritarian.
Far from going to the streets, he does not even go to Parliament with his decision-making process.
A very good example of the way this government completely ignores parliament is the recent action of the Minister of Transport in appointing his Atlantic transportation committee without notifying the House or consulting it. He at least might have had the courtesy to tell us who the appointees were and who the members of the committee were. The press report stated that the committee had met in Halifax and had taken certain action. I think, however, that the Minister of Transport at least should have had the courtesy to let us know what was being done. The article continues:
His policies are hatched behind closed doors by anonymous task forces, in secret conclaves with hand picked technocrats, and they are announced as Prime-Ministerial edicts.
Where Parliamentary approval is still necessary, even after Mr. Trudeau's emasculation of representative democracy, his decisions are presented to the Commons by a docile Cabinet as Government policy, and rammed through by the docile Grit majority.
To expedite the rubber-stamping process, and make it foolproof, Mr. Trudeau wound up his institutional retooling period by putting the muzzle of Rule 75C on the Commons last July.
How accurate a description that is of the method by which this cabinet operates! There are many examples of this complete disregard for parliament and the committee system. The mover of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne made a statement that cooperation among the parties is necessary to get things done. I say to him I am glad there is one member on the government side who recognizes there must be co-operation by the opposition parties if there is to be hope of getting legislation through. But to get co-operation one must deserve it, one must earn it.
How can the government earn co-operation from this side of the House if it ignores completely the niceties of parliament, ignores the work of the committees, and if decisions are taken by the cabinet while the committee is still discussing policies. There are many examples of this. This type of thing happened so often in connection with the work of the

transportation committee that now the members of that committee know their work does not mean anything. It happened in respect of the agricultural committee and the committee on external affairs. Co-operation cannot be obtained unless it is earned. In closing I should like to quote again from the Ottawa Journal of October 22, 15 months after the election. This editorial was written before the Speech from the Throne was delivered, when great things were expected. We have heard so often that this was to be the session of action in which so much new legislation would be introduced. This was to be the Trudeau year. Mr. Pearson was left behind. The Journal, together with other papers, naturally expected great things. This is what it wrote:
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Fifteen months after the election, the glowing Liberal campaign speeches of 1968 are overdue promises to pay on which the government must make good or face the disappointment and scorn of the electorate.
This government is obviously again postponing action which should be taken and they are doing nothing to relieve the hard-core problems of unemployment, under-employment, inflation, lack of housing and pollution. Therefore, I most heartily support the amendment put forth by my leader.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, following the time-honoured custom of extending congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, I wish to join those who preceded me in congratulating the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) for their exceptionally interesting contributions which dealt in part with the history and natural aspirations of their respective constituents. I also wish to take this opportunity to extend my personal congratulations to the two new Ministers without Portfolio and to the two new parliamentary secretaries. In these appointments the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has recognized ability, hard work and dedication.
The Throne Speech reflects the sincere desire of the government to give the people of Canada the best government possible in the times in which we live. The Ottawa Citizen of Friday, October 24, 1969, summed up the real intent of government concern on subjects of primary importance to every Canadian such as peace, poverty, youth, individual rights, consumer rights, pollution, grain marketing, the underdeveloped world, inflation, tax
October 28, 1969	COMMONS
reforms, housing, etc. It is a program aimed at achieving economic and social goals, a program which has never been found in any previous Throne Speech since I have been a member of this House.
In the matter of peace, I doubt whether there is a country in the western world that is more concerned with peace than Canada, and it has been the traditional concern of Liberal governments to promote international friendships as an ideal for peace. The evidence for everyone to see was our action in sending a peace force to the Gaza Strip during the Suez crisis in 1955, action which won for Mr. Pearson the Nobel Peace Prize when he was Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs, and more recently in sending the Canadian peace force to Cyprus. The action we took at that time was generally considered to have averted a possible war.
In the matter of poverty, the war on poverty is not an empty phrase but is a serious attempt which shows that the government means business. This is evidenced in its policies which are designed to achieve a just objective. Perhaps it is not irrelevant to point out that a Senate committee under the chairmanship of my good friend Senator Croll is about to hold across the country hearings on the question of poverty in the various regions of Canada, with the end result being arriving at recommendations to be made to the government on how best to deal with this internal problem which all of us, regardless of party, would like to see solved. I should like to remind hon. members that it was Senator Croll who first suggested the supplementary income benefit of $30 per month to pensioners, who need only fill out a simple income tax form in order to qualify; and this additional benefit is now pegged to the cost of living.
Speaking about poverty, the question of a guaranteed income for all Canadians will have to be examined and studied. The concept of an all-embracing welfare plan which would guarantee a minimum income is a very attractive package if and when we can afford it. Personally, I am not against it; nor is any member of the government. I believe the idea should not be shelved in a remote pigeonhole, but rather should be studied by a competent committee of economists who are removed from political influence. Such a committee could serve the government well in an advisory capacity.
On the subject of youth, I believe that the proposal to amend the Canada Elections Act
DEBATES	207
The Address-Mr. Badanai to lower the age of voters to 18, as mentioned in the Throne Speech, is welcomed. Various reasons can be advanced for lowering the voting age. First of all, I think it is the logical development of a process which has been going on for a long time, especially since the last world war when youths of 18 were entrusted with technical and often dangerous assignments. As everyone knows, originally the right to vote was greatly restricted by one means or another and for many years it was considered the privilege of a few. The age of 21 was presumably selected because it was considered an age at which a person reached maturity; but because conditions have changed greatly over the years, the Prime Minister has wisely decided in this matter, as in other fields, that the time has come to break new ground and lower the voting age to 18. This move is in line with his intention to channel the enthusiasm and energy of our young people into the mainstream of Canadian political life, instead of letting them loose to agitate authority and take part in irresponsible and often subversive activities.
When speaking of youth one cannot ignore the criticisms leveled at some of the activities of the Company of Young Canadians. I have personally received several communications from my constituents complaining about certain activities of the members of the Company located in Thunder Bay. The concept of the Company of Young Canadians and its objectives are worth preserving, notwithstanding the adverse publicity with regard to the activities of a few unqualified people who are probably unfit to serve in this noble experiment.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The Company should not be disbanded, but I would certainly dismiss anyone with subversive motives whenever those motives are brought to light. I believe it is a sound decision of the minister to have the activities of the Company investigated by a parliamentary committee. The minister has promised a thorough investigation and whatever action may be necessary to attract capable and qualified young men and women to make their just contribution to the betterment of Canada.
The inflationary trend of consumer prices in recent years has affected not only Canadians but the people of every country in the western world. Long ago the government took steps to meet the problem, which is not one of easy and immediate solution. As soon as the
October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. Badanai Prime Minister took office, sensing the concern of the nation about the spiralling cost of living he lost no time in appointing a fulltime minister in charge of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. With characteristic zeal and drive the new minister began his difficult task of controlling unscrupulous credit and advertising practices. I am confident that his dynamic and serious dedication will bring beneficial results. I am sure that the protective legislation envisaged in the Throne Speech will be translated into measures beneficial to all concerned. In the meantime, I should like to mention that anyone wishing to offer a suggestion about goods and services should write to Consumer, Box 99, Ottawa. This is part of the service furnished by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Now I wish to say a word about pollution. The Speech from the Throne stated:
Through the United Nations and its agencies Canada is seeking to establish a system to combat pollution of international waters which threatens so many forms of life on this planet.
With public concern over pollution growing steadily, more and more thought is being devoted to the organization of pollution control and to the roles that the various governments must play, because it is not just a federal responsibility; it is also a provincial and municipal responsibility. It is also an international problem. The late John F. Kennedy had the problem of pollution in mind when he said:
The race between education and erosion, between wisdom and waste, has not run its course ... Each generation must deal anew with the raiders, with the scramble to use public resources for private profit and with the tendency to prefer short-run profits to long-run necessities. The nation's battle to preserve the common estate is far from won... The crisis may be quiet but it is urgent.
For several years an International Joint Commission has been studying pollution in the Great Lakes and as a result it is expected that some action will be forthcoming in the near future. Recently statements have been made blaming the pulp and paper industry for polluting our waters. It is my understanding that the industry has been concerned with the problem; indeed, some companies have spent considerable sums of money on efforts to control water pollution. The Great Lakes Paper Company of Fort William has taken a lead in the installation of controls in the district of Thunder Bay and it is to be hoped that its experiments will soon bear fruit. The

Logger, a publication dealing with the woods industry, recently reported:
The Ontario Paper Company Limited will spend $5,000,000 on a three-stage pollution abatement program over the next two years, Company President Robert M. Schmon announced.
However, I would hesitate to advocate measures so strict that they would force plants to close down. I think that in this matter, as with other problems, patience and discretion must provide the guiding line to the achievement of an eventually satisfactory solution. The Department of National Health and Welfare has conducted an extensive program on the evaluation and control of air pollution, the result of which will in all probability be the enactment of a national clean air act. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in a policy statement on pollution at its last annual meeting, made the following recommendations:
1.	That the federal government co-operate fully with the provinces and the United States in investigating existing pollution control legislation and in developing truly effective measures for environmental pollution control.
2.	That since tax incentives are allowed industry regarding expenses incurred to prevent water pollution, suitable incentives relating to air and/or land pollution be accorded industry.
I fully endorse the Chamber's proposal as one of the best means of meeting the problem of pollution. In recent months a great deal has been said about a capital gains tax. The Carter Commission on Taxation, whose recommendations after nearly three years still have to have practical effect, did a great deal to create endless discussion on the pros and cons of a capital gains tax. Canada is a growing: country, it needs a constant supply of development capital. The Carter Report recommended a capital gains tax. It specifically mentioned its value as a deterrent to land speculators who in recent years have made huge profits on the demand for building sites. In that area a capital gains tax would be justified. However, other factors must be considered before we can apply such a tax equitably. The tax structure would have to be devised in a way that would not prevent a shortage of development capital. Perhaps a limited capital gains tax could be devised which would meet present day conditions.
The arguments of NDP members against, the effects of American investment in Canada are typical of that party's attitude toward the United States, an attitude which is consistently hostile regardless of the benefits to-Canada which American capital has brought
October 28, 19G9

by creating jobs for Canadians. Mr. Earl McLaughlin, Chairman and President of the Royal Bank of Canada, is reported to have said in a speech recently that the reason we have so much American investment is that investors have faith in a prosperous, growing Canadian economy. He emphasized that Canada's future prosperity and growth depend on a continuing inflow of investment capital from abroad.
Does foreign investment mean foreign control? Mr. McLaughlin does not believe so. Investment by Americans, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Italians or Germans is not made by their governments; these people are not arms of their respective governments, and Canadian companies owned or controlled by foreign investors are good corporate citizens and must conform to Canadian laws. The business behaviour problem of foreign investment is a false problem and the fear of foreign domination from this source is a groundless one; it is as irrational or neurotic as the fear of foreign debt
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, press reports to the effect that the reserve forces of Canada will be reorganized consistent with the announced proposed changes in national defence policy, and that such reorganization will see a strength reduction of 50 per cent in the militia nationally, with the possibility of larger reductions in Ontario, have sparked a sizeable body of public opinion against such a move. I have received several letters and a brief from members of the Senate and honorary appointees of Thunder Bay militia units, the Lake Superior Scottish Regiment and the Lakehead Service Battalion, urging the maintenance of our militia without curtailment.
It has been pointed out that the militia units suffered under a series of post-war reorganizations and curtailments, culminating in the major changes of 1965 which reduced six units to two in Thunder Bay and restricted them in the Port Arthur armoury. Few other than local residents realize that in essence geographical and transportation reasons confined the militia to the city of Port Arthur as far as the area of Thunder Bay was concerned. With the formal amalgamation of the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur taking place on January 1, 1970, the units will be in a much better position to service the whole community and additional enrolment may be expected.
The Address-Mr. Badanai
From the standpoint of economy, I understand that the savings involved in the reduction would be insignificant. What is more important is that the 400 or more young people who have enrolled in the militia at the Lakehead have added materially to our safety and protection which the very presence of the uniformed force affords in case of need. The militia also provides a valuable place for many young men to profit by their experience; it is helping them to develop healthy citizenship. I express the hope that before any action is taken to curtail this valuable means of citizen protection in cases of emergency, the matter will be re-examined.
Having taken an active interest in immigration ever since my election to the House of Commons, I should like to reiterate what I have been saying for years, namely, that every effort should be made to ensure a continuing flow of immigrants to Canada as a consistent policy. The flow of immigrants in 1966, 1967 and 1968 reached a respectable number. This year, however, the flow appears to be tapering off at an alarming rate. As a matter of fact, it began to drop in 1968.
Some time ago a Toronto industrialist, himself an immigrant, called for the large-scale immigration of unskilled workers in the fields of mining and agriculture. He said that both fields were starved of workers, which meant lower productivity and higher cost. Yet the very area in which this successful businessman observed the greatest need had the sharpest drop in .the 1968, and worse, still, 1969 immigration figures.
I know that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) is very much concerned with the need for filling up our empty spaces by following an aggressive policy of immigration that is consistent with our economy. Speaking in Vancouver a few months ago he stated that since 1950 more than 27,000 business ventures had been started in Canada by immigrants. They have involved almost $355 million in working capital-and these are only the new immigrantheaded firms that are known to the government. There are probably a great many more. Those 27,000 new businesses have provided employment directly for 82,300 workers since 1950, many of whom are also immigrants. Indirectly, of course, the new ventures have created many more jobs. The immigration figure for 1967 was 222,876. In 1968 it fell to 183,974, a drop of 38,902. For the first quarter of this year the figures show a 14 per cent
October 28. 1969

The Address-Mr. A. Lambert
drop in comparison with the same period in 1968.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention a question which for years has been the concern of not only my constituency but the entire region of northwestern Ontario. I refer to the discriminatory freight rates which have had an adverse effect on established industries and are a deterrent to prospective industries. The problem of transportation has not just to be viewed from the point of view of benefit to southern Ontario. Freight rates to northern and northwestern Ontario are unrealistic, and I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) to give consideration to having this matter referred to the Parliamentary Committee on Transport and Communications for a thorough review of every aspect on the situation.
On September 27 last, during a visit of the Prime Minister to the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur-which was part of a successful tour of northern and northwestern Ontario-the mayor of the new city of Thunder Bay asked that the announcement of the advent of the new city which will come into existence on January 1, 1970, be made in parliament. Such an announcement would stimulate and inspire the more than 100,000 citizens to strive to make their new city one of the best in the country. The mayor also suggested that the new city, rich in Indian history and lore, should be considered a suitable area for the establishment of a research centre on Indian affairs. I am very happy to endorse both proposals and I hope that the Prime Minister, whose visit to my constituency was one of the highlights in the community, generating enthusiasm and affection, will give favourable consideration to both suggestions.
Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech has revealed a carefully planned program designed to give Canadians legislation to fit the times. The Prime Minister is to be commended for his determination to listen not only to his professional advisers but for seeking the views of the people in the streets of the nation. This, I believe, has helped translate the suggestions made to him informally by both young and old into the policies outlined in the Speech from the Throne.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in my turn, I wish to congratulate the mover of the Address in reply to the

Speech from the Throne. He took that opportunity to make a very objective review of the economic and social situation in our country and of the main problems with which we have to grapple. He made very accurate comments on our parliamentary system and I support them generally, save as concerns Standing Order 75c, which is quite normal.
I share his view that our first goal should be Canada's development, but I may add that such an objective should include the security and liberty of every Canadian.
My congratulations are also meant for the seconder of the motion, who did very well. He had enough courage to say how high the unemployment rate is in this area of the country. He spoke briefly of the problem of the dairy industry and said that he is far from brushing aside criticisms from farmers against the government dairy policy for 1969-70.
In the Speech from the Throne of the first session we expected the government to talk about agricultural policy.
In last year's Speech from the Throne I had hoped for the announcement of a new farm policy, mainly for changes designed to solve the very serious problem now confronting Canada's industrial milk producers.
I was greatly disappointed in the last session with the way the industrial milk was dealt with. I had hoped that hon. members would have the opportunity to discuss that policy before its application so as to be able to suggest the necessary changes. But alas there again I was greatly disappointed.
On March 31, 1969, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) made known at the very last minute the government dairy policy for 1969-70. It is unfortunate that things are done that way.
The producers were always hoping that we would have the opportunity to discuss this matter in the house, due to the almost general dissatisfaction of the dairy producers caused by a policy that penalizes a number of farm labourers.
Reducing the subsidy from $1.33 to $1.25 per hundredweight resulted in a considerable loss of revenue for the manufactured milk producers. The tax increase on exports to 26 cents per hundredweight, as well as the additional tax of 52 cents per hundredweight on surplus production set by the quota, compared with that of 1968, contributed also to the drop in the farmers' revenues, thus creating more acute problems.
October 28, 1969
In any event, we have been told, rightly maybe, that the reduction of the subsidy and the lowering of the quota, as compared with 1968, were due to a more plentiful production, which resulted in a surplus.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the excess production that we may have, in Canada, is possibly due, I admit, to an increase in production. But another factor has contributed also to this surplus: it is the importation of 188 million pounds of coloured spread and of 47 million pounds of dairy products of all kinds.
These dairy products and this spread have been put on the Canadian market and as the income of the Canadian people has a tendency to decrease, especially the workers' income, I understand why the consumers are inclined to buy cheaper products.
In last year's report, the Economic Council of Canada stated that one Canadian family out of five lives in dire poverty. It would be possible to dispose of a greater quantity of dairy products if the revenue of those who really need them were increased. The amendment moved by my colleague from Portneuf (Mr. Godin), asking the government for a guaranteed minimum income for all Canadians, would bring about an improvement.
I would also invite the government to seriously consider the briefs which have been presented to the standing committee on agriculture by the C.F.U. and the Federated Cooperative of Quebec, when the committee toured the eastern provinces and Ontario.
Those suggestions will probably be examined by the committee, but since time is running short, I would ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) for an early publication of the committee report, in order to find a solution retroactive to April 1, 1969.
It will perhaps be objected that we can only eat our fill. Right, but I will answer that we can only buy according to our purchasing power and when there is only one wage-earner in a family and there are seven, eight or ten months to feed, it is not surprising that the available purchasing power is insufficient.
This is another reason why it would be necessary in Canada to increase indirectly the income of our Canadian families without it having any effect on prices. There are in the country 13 million persons without any income who are dependent on 8 million workers whose income is made up of salaries and profits. One part of the world does not know how to dispose of its production, while the other is destitute. This phenomenon exists in Canada as in other countries.
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert [DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
He had the opportunity to find out during October what Mr. Pearson, former prime Minister of Canada, was asking not only of the Canadian government, but also of other governments, because of the mission that has been entrusted to him. He asked them to investigate the assistance given to the poor countries by the rich ones. In his report, we find the following phrase "Transfer of resources between rich and poor countries".
Canada has an abundance of resources, an abundance of products. I believe that we could afford to increase our assistance to the countries that are really in need. This would be a humanitarian deed which, at the same time, would be of service to Canadian agricultural workers.
My attention was drawn to an article published in L'Action of October 20, 1969. At some function at the United Nations, a former CBC announcer stated, and I quote:
"the real cause of the Nigerian conflict lies in millions of barrels of oil."
and I believe that is right, and I quote further:
"Let us have the courage to admit that no economic interest is worth two million people."
added Mr. Burke who had been invited to speak at the events that took place to celebrate United Nations Day.
The Prince, with head bowed, followed the proceedings in front of a large picture showing a famished Biafran child.
"I ask you to note the expression-
I hope that he was not addressing his question to the Prince but to his audience.
*-on the child's face, this could be your own child, this could be you."
In view of the present situation, I suggest that responsible politicians generally want to tackle the problems facing humanity: poverty and surpluses.
The income of manufactured milk producers has declined in 1969, and we are now coming back to the reasoning of a former federal minister of agriculture who said, in 1965, something extraordinary, as reported in an article entitled "Quebec farmers complain for nothing". I quote:
"Farmers from Quebec and elsewhere are complaining with a full stomach", Mr. Harry Hayes, Minister of Agriculture, indicated yesterday at a press conference. "Those who speak of stagnation are talking through their hats", he categorically stated. The minister applied his remarks both to

October 28. 1969

The Address-Mr. A. Lambert the dairy industry and to agriculture in general. "A Quebec farmer would need, he contended, six dairy cows and two hogs only to net an annual income of $2,400."
Mr. Speaker, the government took the necessary measures to improve the lot of dairy producers and farmers in general. They refused to believe that statement from the minister.
In 1967 also, representations were made by our farm organizations. The situation improved again, and in 1968, it was still much better. I take pleasure in repeating this, because it is true, and I do this to encourage farmers and producers to improve their milk and their herds, in order to meet governments' requirements.
However in 1969 the disaster begins. So I ask myself the following question: Do we really intend to go back to what the minister said in 1965?
In any event it is necessary to face things squarely and to examine the situation seriously. We must recognize that if the province of Quebec has produced the greater volume of industrial milk, losses have been greater there also. Not only have millions of dollars not found their way into the farmers' pockets, but because of the decrease in subsidies, fines and taxes on exports, their income has decreased.
Thus indirectly, without noticing it, the government is supplying with arguments those who are in favour of separatism in Quebec.
Some will say, and rightly so, even if I do not share that opinion, that the federal government is to blame. If we have fewer millions in the province of Quebec, it is again because of the policy worked out in Ottawa, and we are right in wanting to secede.
Mr. Speaker, I know these arguments have a false ring and must be turned down, but, in any event, we have to face the facts.
We sometimes hear too: Those darn farmers, they are never satisfied. The more they get, the more they ask for, and subsidies will have to be cut. If some day they want to get rid of that policy, its phasing out must start now.
Mr. Speaker, the subsidies granted by the government for manufactured milk benefit first and most of all the Canadian consumer. We, manufactured milk producers do not care whether the price of the product is paid entirely by the consumer or if part of it is absorbed by the consumer and the government. The fact remains that the product has its value and the producers are entitled to be

paid for it: this is where the farmers' income comes from.
Because of this policy which should be changed without delay, a great number of farmers have left the farm. There have been auctions by the hundreds. One only has to travel across the eastern provinces to realize the number of farm hands who have left the trade and are now unemployed or exist on welfare.
A very small number have succeeded in landing jobs in industry, in rural centres or in towns, and that has contributed to increase the plague of unemployment. It is for this reason that I urge the government to implement its program of economic expansion and industrial development of rural centres.
In order to decentralize industry, it is not enough to talk about it. Action is called for. And I have found only recently that there are responsible men with drive and the ability to run industries, provided they Eire permitted to breathe, so that their undertaking may prove successful.
The high interest rate, credit restrictions, in short, all kinds of annoyances contribute to discourage those who have initiative and who wish to do something.
In a parish of my constituency, at Saint-Francois, a man had one day the tremendous idea of launching a small industry way out in the country. I went to see it last Saturday and was amazed to realize how this man, whose sons are interested in the expansion of their family undertaking, was successful in building up something fantastic and creating an industry which Americans come to visit and where they place orders. This concern provides employment for our Canadians and, at the same time, a market for Canadian products. There are 65 families earning a living in that industry.
Last summer, the director-this is not even a company-decided to enlarge the plant. After applying to the Economic Development Board in order to obtain benefits offered by the government to those who need them, he received a letter which left him with the hope that he might benefit from grants made in such circumstances. I hope that the problem will be settled but, at any rate, the deal fell through and that man, who could still expand his industry considerably, simply decided to cut the expansion short and even, if it were possible, to sell his business, perhaps to some Americans.
As members of parliament, we ought to take our responsibilities and to see to it that
October 28, 19G9

The Address-Mr. A. Lambert
such measures are really beneficial to rural centres, so that small businesses may develop and provide more jobs for our workers who have given up agriculture and have now to be retrained.
I have before me a table which is an answer to a question I put on the order paper, about the subsidies granted under Bill C-129, in 1968. This is the answer that was given to me: In the province of Quebec, the subsidies granted were of the order of $54 million and the amounts paid out totalled $8 million.
Unfortunately, out of the $8 million, $4.5 million were absorbed by two large corporations and the balance was distributed among small industries.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest we should encourage the development of large corporations, but we should not forget small industries. Besides, we should endeavour to reach an early decision, in order to enable those who have any initiative left, to do something for the development of Canada.
Lately, I read in a newspaper that the Manitoba premier is also his way and wants his province to benefit from industrial development. He is probably using the same arguments as we are. Here is what he said in Montreal:
By keeping for myself the Department of Industry and Commerce, I hope I can give the assurance that we shall keep on encouraging private business to come and settle in our province and to take advantage of the numerous opportunities for investments that are to be found there.
I think that if it is good for the people there to work in this way, it would be equally advisable to do the same in our province and it is high time that this opportunity be given to all those who have initiative and the courage to undertake something and to make a success of it despite the obstacles.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
In the Quebec area, one shipyard employed 2,000 workers. I attended a meeting organized by the C.N.T.U., on September 30, in order to meet responsible people in the area, at the municipal as well as the provincial and federal levels. I was surprised to hear that the Lauzon shipyard has jobs for only 800 people. The situation affects some workers in my riding who are now unemployed since they earned their living at the shipyard.
I would like to draw the government's attention to the fact that in 1880, Canada had 7,300 freighters. We then held the fourth place among the countries of the world. In
1969, we had dropped to the twenty-first, because we have only four ships.
If we do not have any ship nor merchant marine, I understand that we do not need any shipyard. However, we should ask ourselves the following question: Do we have the necessary streams for shipping? Do we have goods to be shipped? Do we have workers to build those ships? Do we have shipyards? Have we all what is required to accomplish something? To that, I will answer yes. We can take advantage of the magnificent St. Lawrence river and the Great Lakes. We have access to the seas. Ore, wood, commodities, etc. must be shipped. If it is profitable to ship all those goods in foreign bottoms, it seems that they could be shipped in Canadian bottoms. It would also enable our workers to do their best, because we have specialized workers in those fields.
What is missing to realize all that? The answer is always the same: money! People say that the Creditistes always see a dollar sign. It is true and it must be said. I mentioned all sorts of necessary things, but where is the dollar sign to make all these things work.
I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government-I do not confine myself to criticism, for what is good. I take pleasure in doing so.
They want to tackle the problem of water pollution. It is an excessively serious one. People may not realize it, but those who care for the future, for the health of mankind, have made studies and in their reports have recommended that the governments, at all levels, take the necessary action in order to check this plague.
Unfortunately, farmers are contributing indirectly, and without knowing it, to water pollution, through the use of various fertilizers and chemicals which are carried everywhere by the streams, the rivers, the Great Lakes.
I therefore invite the government to do a little more research on chemical products in order to find a non-chemical way of activating plant production.
I realize that my time is running out. Unless the Chair allows me to finish my speech, and this is why I hurry, I should like to draw the attention of the house to another problem which is crucial in my region: retraining courses for adults.
Every week, I receive numerous phone calls and letters from individuals who are refused by Canada Manpower Centres and are told: We have no room for you, all places rented
October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. A. Lambert have been taken and we cannot accommodate any more students.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking the responsible minister to inquire while there is still time- it is still only October-to see if it would not be possible to rent student places in greater number in order to meet the requirements of the people who are not too lazy yet to refuse to go to school. They want to do something. It may perhaps not be 200 per cent beneficial, but at least they should be given the opportunity to believe that they are useful and to become useful in the future, because as we develop industry we will require their services
I have read in the Speech from the Throne that the government intends to reform taxation. A study is contemplated in order to assess taxes in a more equitable manner, and I am for it. I would wish that that study will take two factors into account. Indeed there is an area where, in Canada as elsewhere, it is necessary to unite two things to implement a project. I am thinking of labour and capital. When it comes to taxing labour, it is always more heavily taxed than capital and the proof is in the 1969-70 budget. Indeed labour is taxed at the rate of $4,190 million and capital, that is the big corporations, is taxed at the rate of $2,210 million, a difference of $1,980 million.
When the time comes to reward labour and capital, invariably capital is put ahead of labour. Here is proof. According to a table published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for the year 1968, personal savings of workers amounted to $4 billion while those of large corporations totalled $8 billion.
In my opinion, it is imperative to study the situation and attempt to find a solution in order to distribute the fiscal load more evenly.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by saying that there are in Canada very intelligent people capable of great discoveries and great accomplishments in all fields. They are highly qualified managers because they are with it people, people who can do things and initiate reforms. But when it comes to the monetary system, they give up because it is sacrosanct. Nobody wants to touch it, nobody wants to fix it.
Those who claim that major Douglas' proposals for adapting the monetary system to modern realities are illogical, are sometimes people who would have us forget our real economic problems. Their claims serve as
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse) .1

a drug to make us forget the great problems of the day.
To my mind, problems should not be glossed over, truth hidden, and the people asked to deprive themselves, to tighten their belt, when we know not what to do with our production, the wealth accumulated by men for men. According to me, this is truly a drug. It is a drug because it is unrealistic.
I therefore support the amendment moved to provide a guaranteed minimum income for all Canadians, because that is physically possible. It will certainly not be likely to make lazy people out of them, no more than those who are wealthy have become lazy. It has been proved that when one is lucky enough to have the money required to undertake something, one works night and day. We are not lazy people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Vicioria):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respectfully offer you my compliments at the outset of this new session. The way you continue to carry out your important functions entitles you to the esteem and the admiration of all hon. members.
I am pleased to congratulate again in this house the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) as well as my good friend the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau). They admirably carried out their important task and their well informed comments are an indication no doubt of the high quality of the debates which will take place in this august chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I would have a great many subjects to discuss today. Some members of the opposition might find it strange that I do not praise the Speech from the Throne but I want to reassure them immediately because I do not dissociate myself from it in any way. This afternoon I had to tape a radio program
October 28, 1969
and my constituents will know Sunday the support I give to the new legislation proposed in the Speech from the Throne.
During the 30 minutes available to me, I will deal in some detail with some of the problems which confront the potato growers in my area. I hope that these comments will seem to my city colleagues mainly, like a refreshing breeze since last year they were compelled to listen to endless debates on wheat, which no doubt will continue for some time yet.
I am going to deal now with potatoes, which is a matter of concern for me and of great interest to a lot of my constituents.
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks before parliament resumed, I had the opportunity to work at harvesting potatoes in my constituency. At that time, schools are closed for two weeks, not only to allow schoolboys and schoolgirls to earn some money in order to buy decent winter clothes, thus alleviating the burden of the family bread-winner, but also because there is a shortage of manpower at harvest time. In spite of the machinery they have now they still have to hire people to work in the fields. Everybody is engaged in the harvesting of potatoes. It is the main concern of the majority of the people for about a month, from September 15 to October 15.
The growing and processing of potatoes, together with the paper and pulp industry are the basis, the structure of the economy in my area.
The slightest fluctuation on the potato market are immediately reflected, on the Sunday collection in rural areas as well as on the volume of business of furniture and car dealers.
The potato industry is a precarious one. Some influences beyond the control of producers are more often than not detrimental to them.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Of course, there is some appearance of a certain prosperity which seems to impress the people visiting our area; however, in many cases, the buildings conceal serious financial problems affecting farmers.
True, Mr. Speaker, the quality of a product is the first factor that influences a buyer. I dealt with the matter in the course of the first session and I do not intend to bring it up again. Nevertheless, I must say that quality control is subject to rules and regulations
The Address-Mr. Corbin made by the federal Department of Agriculture and to their enforcement. In that respect, the accredited fruit, vegetable and potato inspectors responsible for controlling the quality before a product appears on the interprovincial market or the export market, are faced with some difficulties.
Evidently, our potato shippers apprecaite legal restraints no more than our other citizens. Yet, most of them accept such restraints because they result in a product of better quality and, needless to say, in better prices.
But, to be fair, a legal restraint must apply equally to all.
And yet, in the potato industry, as in others, some people sit on the fence, so to speak, in respect of what the law does and does not allow. Thus, some shippers always manage to evade the rules and, consequently, the inspector and the inspection, by means of subtle wiles.
It is a well known fact that 15, 20 or 30 years after the enactment of a law, a person of average intelligence succeeds in finding ways to evade it. It is also admitted that successive amendments to a law, amendments to provide for exceptions, weaken its intrinsic value and make it so flexible that precedents make its implementation impossible.
What precisely makes it difficult to control the quality of table potatoes or of seed-potatoes for export is first of all that a few shippers do not comply with inspection regulations or fail to honour the confidence placed in them by some rules; secondly, the rules now in effect open the door wide to abuses and thirdly, the government austerity program prevents the inspectors from working overtime so that they cannot claim any additional travel expenses in the course of their regular duties.
I already mentioned human weakness as regards potato shippers. I now want to refer to the weakness of the legislation and rules on marketing. Here is what happens to potatoes shipped to another province, Quebec or Ontario, which are our main domestic markets. The law provides that any shipment ought to be inspected before crossing a provincial border. Normally, shipment and inspection take place before six o'clock in the evening during regular working hours.
Sometimes it is absolutely necessary to load a truck rather late in the evening to meet certain terms of a sales contract. I said "in the evening". It is then impossible to have an inspector due to the austerity program because higher officers have instructed their

October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. Corbin subordinates not to make any inspection after 5 or 6 o'clock. If they do so, they are not paid any travelling expenses or extra salary.
Inspectors are therefore staying home and some shippers, aware of the difficulty they would have in designating the quality of their potato shipment, take advantage of that to contravene the regulations which encourage them to do so. The shipper can, as a matter of fact, obtain a permit, a release at the inspector's home and then get an authorization from the weighing officer of the highways department to proceed to Quebec.
Of course, potatoes are always subject to an inspection at the point of delivery, be it Gaspe, Montreal, Ottawa or London. However, potatoes are so seldon inspected at the point of delivery, that there might as well not be any inspection. If inspections were stricter, surely, some shipments would be confiscated, but we never hear about any such thing. Thus, low grade potatoes finally reach the large markets, to the prejudice of conscientious growers and the reputation of our product.
I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is aware of this practice. I think he would agree with me that the absence of a strict control in the long run can only work against the good standing of our potatoes and give New Brunswick producers a poorer competitive position.
I ignore what is being done in Prince Edward Island or in other provinces in this respect. It remains, however, that most farmers graciously accept compulsory inspection. It is the best guarantee that their product will meet the highest government standards. Our farmers work hard to assure the fine quality of potatoes. They invest annually in the industry they cherish thousands of dollars to buy certified seeds. They take infinite care to control all kinds of contagious diseases.
The harvest is still quite an expensive operation nowadays and as the cost of farm machinery is not decreasing, as we know, profits are finally never guaranteed.
The potato market has experienced disturbing fluctuations during the past four years. This year, we are regaining confidence, because of crop failure in other countries and because apparently, it was not as good as it is usually here.
All this to say that awkward regulations and dishonest shippers can jeopardize the good reputation of New Brunswick potatoes in the province of Quebec and in Ontario as well.

It is necessary to pass more stringent regulations, to abolish those which have become obsolete, or else completely do away with regulations. But then, I think that would mean flirting with disaster.
Nobody, not even the shippers of bad quality potatoes, will lose. On the contrary, all shippers will benefit from the good reputation of a Canada No. 1 product from New Brunswick, and they will get higher prices as an extra bonus.
Another factor which makes it possible to avoid inspection is the allocation by the Department of Agriculture of warehouse numbers. A registered warehouse can ship table potatoes to another province, without inspection at the shipping point, but subject to inspection at the point of delivery. The original aim of this regulation was good, but there is so much abuse-some shippers take this as an excuse to ship goods of inferior quality-that the system of registered warehouses has lost some of its shine, if not all its value.
I do not invent these things and I insist in bringing them to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture.
I had several talks recently with farmers, shippers and federal government inspectors in my region; they all agree that the release permits and the system of registered warehouses must be investigated immediately so as to render justice to farmers and shippers who are careful to abide by all the provisions stipulated in the act in order to market top quality products, something which entails considerable expenses.
Those permits should be cancelled and then the inspectors should be given the tools that they need to do their work properly and completely. They should be paid for their overtime and reimbursed for the expenses incurred by them while carrying out their duties, whether in the day-time, at night or on Saturdays.
A small number of farmers or of potato shippers have obviously no right to endanger the potato market by their dealings or their violations of the regulations. The government has a moral obligation, as long as this act remains in force, to see that it is strictly enforced.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I am under the impression that the Minister of Agriculture is not aware of those problems, perhaps because his high officials themselves are not. If they are, it seems to me that they
October 28, 1969

do not see the disastrous effects of the austerity program, having regard to the quality control program related to potato shipments in a designated area of the Maritimes, which means a lot.
I would not be telling the whole truth if I were to put all the blame on the farmers of my region. I know, from reliable sources, that some Quebec buyers very often buy in our region potato shipments which are never subject to federal inspection.
Naturally, this is mostly done at night. It could also take place during the day as there are never enough inspectors to meet the requirements at certain times.
In this regard I would hardly accept that the following proposal come under the austerity program: that the number of part-time and seasonal inspectors be materially increased to meet the present demand. In normal times, a permanent inspection team would be enough, but when important export contracts are negotiated, there are not enough inspectors to perform the task. Inspection, which also offers the farmer an opportunity to learn, is carried out too quickly in order to look after everyone.
Please note that I am not criticizing the principle nor questioning the merits of the austerity program itself. I am rather in favour of it. I simply question whether this is the right time to apply it to the potato inspection service which is quite essential.
Mr. Speaker, the government and the Minister of Agriculture gave a hand to potato growers last year for the third year in a row. That measure was greatly appreciated and the $600,000 subsidy granted under that program gave some hope to an industry which was beginning to feel the pressures of an overproduction that kept increasing from year to year.
Last year, in the house, we heard a great deal about the problems of wheat producers. I am quite sympathetic to their requests for governmental assistance, believe, me, because there was really a problem there. The assistance program is still and will remain in effect for some time.
The conditions in which New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island potato growers find themselves are strikingly similar to those of western wheat farmers, except that potato growers are far less numerous. The cultivated area is much smaller and the total value of a potato crop will never be comparable to the -wheat harvest of a crop year.
The Address-Mr. Corbin
We should not for all that consider as less important the potato industry, which constitutes the basis of farm activities in the Maritimes provinces and represents, in 1969, a total of many million dollars.
On the national level, the potato's importance is very small but as far as we are concerned in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, things are quite different. And the big difference is that the potato, unlike wheat, is a highly perishable product.
I wonder if the potato grower in the Maritimes, or in Canada, realizes that the potato market is over-saturated, year after year, and that as a result prices barely cover spring investments.
What the potato grower lacks most when planting time comes is a rough idea of the total number of acres that will be planted in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and even out west. Planning should be done in this regard, at the national level.
We also feel the effects of the lack of planning of our neighbours in Maine and other states in the western U.S.A., where huge quantities of potatoes are grown.
None of us have a sure way of forecasting, with any degree of accuracy, what the coming crop will be. Of course, it is difficult to predict, but not impossible. In addition, the first crop forecasts of the federal government are often inaccurate, and when they are revised, more often than not towards the end of December, there is a sudden dip in the price of potatoes on the market.
This means that a better way should be found of assessing the crop, as soon as it comes up, in the fall, so that action might be taken more rapidly and, especially, more accurately, so that the industry will not be dealt an awful blow at the peak of the sales season.
For many years, and even today, the market price the grower gets for his potatoes depends on many factors which often have nothing at all to do with logic.
There is much speculation in that field, and it is true that fortunes have been made or lost through speculation alone.
Still, it seems to me, as it does to an increasing number of potato growers, that the market price should not depend solely on speculation, but should rest to a greater extent on a logical system.

I will give you one example of the highly speculative nature of potato marketing as
October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. Corbin quoted in the latest issue of Fraser's Potato Newsletter, subtitled "Prince Edward Island's only Publication for Potato People", published by Harry Fraser Hazelbrook in Prince Edward Island. It is a good publication. This passage in particular speaks for itself:
Ontario's potato crop is nearly all under cover, we understand and, as we predicted in earlier letters, it was a very light crop. One prominent Al-liston area grower contacted us this week and advised that the Maritimes could have the eastern Canada potato market tied up this winter, if Maritime growers would only realize their commanding position. This is not an independent opinion either as the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association's weekly potato information letter has counselled Ontario growers to "sit back and hold potatoes and let the Maritimes supply the cheap product until they are sold out, then let's move in and take the market".
To say the least, such a state of affairs could be considered by us to be completely unsatisfactory. However, in my opinion it points out quite clearly the need for some kind of controlling body, preferably national in scope, to rationalize the marketing of potatoes throughout the nation, and especially to meet head-on the increasingly severe competition from U.S. producers and European surpluses which slowly but surely are invading some of our more stable and traditional South American markets.
The federal government cannot enter the field of provincial jurisdiction by setting up what would amount to a national potato marketing board without the provinces' consent and co-operation. On the other hand, it would be as a first step the role of the federal government to show leadership in the field by pointing out to the provinces the urgent need for the establishment of such a body and the danger of the collapse of the potato industry generally if yearly surpluses are allowed to continue much longer. I do not know why the application of gentle pressure on the provinces would not lead them to agree to the formation of such a national body, giving it powers with teeth in order to check the degeneration of what was once a flourishing industry.
It is true that the traditional marketing of potatoes is rapidly being overtaken by the marketing of processed products. An announcement was made this summer that McCain Foods of New Brunswick would establish a $5 million potato processing plant in my native city of Grand Falls in my riding. The news was heartily welcomed. It was also announced that the plant would be the first

industrial venture to be considered for subsidy under the new Regional Development Incentives Act. I am confident that under this new act, at least one more processing plant will be established in my riding, thus creating many hundreds of jobs. However, we must realize there is also the danger of the potato market becoming a monopoly of a few. Time does not allow me to develop this idea further but, believe me, it is a matter of growing concern to potato growers throughout New Brunswick.
The processing of potatoes is solving some of our marketing problems, but it will certainly not be the ultimate solution. The traditional way of marketing through brokers may be with us for some time yet, but I am sure it could benefit from more rationalized methods of meeting competition and pricing. I hope our government will take some leadership in this field before potato producers find themselves in a situation similar to that of the western wheat grower.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)

I hope that the present potato selling campaign will have excellent results. Everybody was pleased, for example, with an export contract for 600 wagons of potatoes intended for Chile but first drought had to strike Chile so that we could profit by it.
Potato growing as well as wheat growing cannot and must not rely on agricultural disasters in other countries. I can assure you that the potato grower of my area, at least, is the last man to wish that his activity be subsidized, to the tune of millions of dollars, by the federal government. He would rather leave his farm than accept this.
However, it would be unfortunate to be driven to that because the best potatoes in the world are grown in my constituency.
I am convinced that a little imagination, goodwill and a lot of co-operation between the provinces and the federal government can promote this market on a more solid basis.. This is my present wish.
Mr. Speaker, I know that my time is expired but I ask for the indulgence of the-house so that I can finish my speech which will last perhaps three more minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon member's time has: expired and I gather he j.s seeking the consent.
October 28, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	219
of the House to continue beyond his allotted time. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eymard G. Corbin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion I would like to quote from a publication of the now defunct Atlantic Development Board, entitled "The Competitive Position of Maritime Agriculture," published earlier this year in Ottawa. This is a remarkable study of great value. In connection with potato production it is stated very plainly that not only can potato production in the Maritime be sustained at its present level, but there is also room for expansion. I quote:
The potential for expansion for potato production in the Maritimes is related primarily to increases in demand in areas outside the Maritime region. For Maritime producers this increase could come from three sources: population increase in central Canada, a larger share of the domestic market and increased exports. New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have virtually the entire seed export market for Canada and if their quality can be maintained their advantage will likely continue. Table stock exports and exports of processed products from Canada also originate mainly in the Maritimes. Maritime producers and processors should be able to capture a large proportion of any export expansion in these products. All of these aspects of the potato market (seed exports, domestic and export table stock markets, and domestic and export markets for processed potatoes) need further study and analysis before the potential for expansion in Maritime potato production can be fully and satisfactorily appraised.
So there it is. Who will tie the bell around the cat's neck, Mr. Speaker? May I humbly suggest that further investigation in this field be carried out by the ADC., the successor of the ADB. I would like to see a more aggressive and permanent sales and promotion campaign undertaken in all countries of our traditional South American market. However, it must be undertaken early in the year. I am under the impression that we missed the boat last year in this respect. So far this year things have improved somewhat.
Potatoes should receive at least a tenth of the attention now accorded wheat in respect of negotiating trade agreements with foreign countries. Canada is but a midget in potato production compared with many European countries, but Europeans know that we have one advantage over their produce-that is quality. With quality we can compete favourably with any country in the world for foreign markets. Right now I believe our handicap is insufficient effort in regard to promotion. If the Minister of Industry, Trade
The Address-Mr. Skoberg and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) can convince me otherwise, so much the better. However, other countries have shipping advantages that we do not have, as well as lower shipping costs and greater proximity to foreign markets. This enables them to more easily dump their yearly surpluses.
No wind is a favourable wind to the sailor who cannot decide which port he is making for. So I say here and now, let this government establish goals. To the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who in my opinion is one of the best captains that boat ever had, I say: Head out for these ports with a full cargo of Canada No. 1 table or seed potatoes. If they originate from New Brunswick so much the better.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I can think of no better way of starting my speech tonight than to refer to the Canadian Commission for UNESCO and an article in its bulletin entitled "Man and his Environment." I believe all of us in the House will agree that we have men, women and children in this country and that we do have an environment. The problem we have not yet solved is how to have a society in which men, women and children can live in a proper environment, with dignity and in tune with the times in which we live. The article to which I referred said that the experts had called attention "to the present fact and future danger of serious pollution, degradation, or outright destruction of the natural environment of which man is a part."
I am sure all of us were pleased that the Throne Speech said pollution control legislation would be introduced in this House. Only time will tell whether that legislation will have teeth. I am also sure we agree that all areas of Canada are polluted. Speaking of my own area, the various streams in the Moose Jaw region have been polluted by people who have made use of natural resources. I wish the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) from Saskatoon-Humboldt were in the House tonight. During the summer he visited the west and spoke at a number of Liberal meetings which were not open to the general public. He told the people there that some of their pollution problems would have to be solved by themselves. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that people as individuals do not pollute our streams. Manufacturing plants must bear the prime responsibility for such pollution and should be held responsible for
October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. Skoberg correcting the situation. I quote further from the article "Man and his Environment".
The positive aspects of man's control of his environment will be explored to determine the most effective way to achieve a design for living that would encourage the pursuit of beauty and enhance dignity in human relationships.
Some time ago I received from one of my constituents a letter about pollution. I am sure many hon. members remember the television program "The Way It Is", which dealt with a number of cases of pollution. My constituent dealt with the matter much more succinctly than I possibly could. Referring to logging in Algonquin Park, he wrote:
-I wish to stress that all men of vision must condemn this practice. Surely it is the duty of all such men to constantly maintain vigil to see that the few unspoiled areas preserved in our national and provincial parks be passed on unimpaired to future generations of Canadians. Surely a country blessed with the resources of Canada need not infringe on the few wilderness areas set aside for non-commercial roles. Surely the practice of proper timber resource management... of commercial forest areas should ensure that all future generations of Canadians will be guaranteed the enjoyment of exploring and enjoying the unimpaired beauty of Canada's national and provincial parks.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
He continues a little later, referring to the type of strip mining going on in the Koote-nayS-and I am sure the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) is well aware of the situation there:
... to restore such strip mining areas to a degree as will eliminate the occurrence of acid mine drainage from polluting our rivers and as well enable reforestation of the area thus avoiding undue erosion as well as making the area of some future value ...
Mr. Speaker, the only purpose in raising this matter now is to assure the minister responsible for pollution control that he will have the utmost support if he will put teeth in the legislation he brings before the House. Unfortunately, I believe it will be a watered-down version, a "voluntary" type legislation, which means very little in this day and age. When the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) was in the west recently he mentioned that the municipalities should be asked to initiate programs supporting the legislation. I have brought this statement to the attention of the municipalities that I have visited recently and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister responsible for the legislation will be deluged with letters and information which he will find very useful if he is really concerned about the problem.
[Mr. Skobergl.

I now turn to something in a more serious vein-and I am not suggesting that pollution is not most serious. As one person out in the west said recently, he has two concerns: one is immediate cash in his pocket and the other is survival. He was talking about pollution of our atmosphere and the pollution of our general economic climate. Recently there has come to light the proposed dismissal and firing of many civil servants. The leader of my party has already dealt with this matter. I am sure that we in this House agree that responsible government needs an efficient staff of civil servants. I would like to quote from a speech made some time ago-before I was born, in fact. Lord Dufferin, speaking to the Agricultural and Arts Association in Toronto on September 24, 1878, had this to say, and I think the same holds true today:
The civil service of the country, though not the animating spirit, is the living mechanism through which the body politic moves and breathes and has its being. Upon it depends the rapid and economical conduct of every branch of your affairs and there is nothing about which a nation should be so particular as to secure in such a service independence, zeal, patriotism and integrity.
This government has unilaterally, with very little consideration and very little negotiation with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, implemented changes which should have been brought about by attrition. I supported the comments made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) in this House when he endorsed the Freedman Commission Report which stated that no changes should be made without prior negotiation. It has been suggested that the Prime Minister's magical figure of 10 per cent could be taken care of by attrition in two years' time. This would look after his austerity program. I would ask that the House, and particularly the government, give serious consideration to the matter of attrition, which has of late been accepted in all responsible management and labour negotiations. If the government deliberately releases some senior civil servants it is quite likely that others will leave of their own accord. We will then have the brain drain we hear so much about. This is a deplorable situation.
In the last two days I have had the opportunity to attend the International Labour Organization conference now in session at the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa. I shall also attend it tomorrow. I am sure we all agree with some of the conventions passed at ILO conferences throughout the years, although they
October 28, 1969
cannot be ratified by the government of Canada because of the provisions of the British North America Act. When we realize that the various provincial governments also have to agree to these conventions, we know why it is difficult to actively participate in the ILO and why very few of the conventions have been passed.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that once again we are getting into a situation where the government of Canada is reversing its stand. Instead of trying to achieve a strong central government, the trend is to decentralize and give the provinces much more power. It has been said that we in Canada believe in strong central government, whereas in the United States of America the states have strong central power. It seems that the United States is trying to achieve a strong central government with less power in the states, whereas Canada is deliberately moving in the direction of more power vested in the provinces and less power to the federal government.
Speaking now for myself and not for my party, Mr. Speaker, I say that the people of Canada are fed up with our educational system wherein people moving through mobility programs from province to province results in children being educated under a number of different educational programs. The armed forces are in the situation where their children may have to experience different educational programs because the individual provinces cannot get together and adopt a uniform system of education. This situation, again, exists because of the British North America Act. If a government is not prepared to accept responsibility, nothing is easier than to blame everything on the B.N.A. Act rather than trying to make the necessary changes to the act.
Of one thing I am positive, Mr. Speaker- that the people of Canada from coast to coast believe in one nation. Sometimes it seems that the government is trying to divide this country by saying that the provinces must be given unilateral authority in certain affairs. I do not believe this authority should be given to them. This may be another situation wherein many legal brains in the country are making a fortune at the expense of the individual, and I say that with due deference, Mr. Speaker.
I would now like to turn to a situation that has come to light in the House and this is in regard to Phillips Cables Limited. This matter has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. 221
The Address-Mr. Skoberg Pepin) on many, many occasions. It is a great disservice for the government to suggest that the company has to look after itself and find its own markets for copper; and it seems ridiculous that Phillips should have to buy Canadian copper through a British firm, the London Metal Exchange, when the copper never leaves Canada, just to comply with the regulations. I know that many people in this House and many editorial writers regard our party as one that believes in the nationalization of all industry. Many in our party believe that if we have regulations to control industry it does not matter whether that industry is foreign or Canadian owned. Phillips Cables represent a Canadian industry that could go out of business today because the government is not prepared to pass regulations which would enable it to operate most successfully.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The government is not prepared to pass regulations which would ensure that the Phillips Cables Limited have adequate supplies of copper to keep it in business. I am expressing not only the point of view of labour but that of management when I say this. This government will stand forever condemned if Phillips Cables are forced out of business because they cannot obtain enough copper. The government cannot use the excuse that the strike is causing difficulty. Many years ago this company attempted to obtain copper from another company which will not now deliver to it. The company had to pay more for copper coming via the London exchange even though the copper was coming from Canada.
I am also disturbed about the freeze applied to non-competitive freight rates in the Atlantic region. In a news article emanating from the Department of Agriculture, the minister said-and I hope he is listening-that beyond doubt the adjustments being made will also correct some inequitable situations which now exist between rate zones, and that specific changes in rates will be announced later by the Canadian Livestock Feed Board. The import of those words is that once again those who are most concerned about the matter will be left in a state of confusion. The news release dated October 16 went on to say:
The increase in demand for Western feed grains has been due primarily to poorer oat and corn crops in Ontario and a more attractive price relationship for feed grains for Western Canada compared to U.S. corn than has prevailed in the past.
I ask the minister, whom are we really trying to protect? Are we protecting our own

October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. Skoberg
With regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Speaker, too many people in responsible positions in Canada are deliberately trying to undermine the Wheat Board. I strongly believe that the Canadian Wheat Board can do the job, if given the proper tools. Too often in the past this government and its cabinet have not given the Canadian Wheat Board the tools with which to do the job. I am sure those who remember the loss of a barley sale a year or two ago realize that if the Canadian Wheat Board had been in a bargaining position it may not have occurred. What disturbs me is that international brokerage firms are involved in the marketing and manipulation of our grain. I wonder how many other countries allow international brokerage firms to handle their sales of grain. How many countries are ahead of us in so far as the brochure for trying to sell Canada's grain is concerned?
The Canadian Wheat Board, if given the authority, could handle the complete transaction, but we must ensure that we back them up. There are too many people-there is one in particular in Saskatchewan-who in the press deliberately condemn the Canadian Wheat Board. I can only think this is being done in order to get back to the old hatchet system of the open market and to do away with the Wheat Board. In this way more people would become millionaires.
I am sure the minister has looked fully into the situation at the port of Churchill. I am certain this matter has been dealt with in this House. Many hon. members know Mr. Gray, the Secretary-Treasurer of the Hudson Bay Route Association, and agree that we should extend the insurance which is provided there. Mr. Gray made a very forceful point with regard to the handling of rapeseed and flax. He indicated that we could increase the sale of these grains through Churchill if the port was allowed a more open season. There is no ice at this time at the port of Churchill, yet the season is closed. This question should be looked into. I hope this has already been done.
In today's mail I received a press report from the Calgary Herald dated October 11, 1969. I hope the minister will interrupt and correct me if it is wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired, unless unanimous consent is given for him to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Leroy Skoberg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the House. This press report states:
.. . United Grain Growers Limited in Lethbridge in November, it may be possible to have the delegates inspect a project which has been kicked around in UGG board meetings for some time ... this is the potential purchase of the federal government inland terminal elevator for the purpose of integrating it into the UGG elevator system ... UGG has bought the federal inland terminal elevator at Moose Jaw ...
I wonder if the minister would interrupt me at this time and say whether that is correct? It would be most interesting to know if it is. If it is correct, it has been kept a deep, dark secret until this time. I had not heard of this, and I come from the Moose Jaw area. There has been no indication of this purchase. The minister is nodding his head. I am glad to know it is not correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
was shaking it!


John Leroy Skoberg: Which way? I would like to say in closing that we all realize the name of the game is "change". All members of the House are prepared to accept changes which will benefit the people of this nation. If changes are proposed by the government at this time, they will have no problem getting their legislation through the House so long as it is to our betterment and improves the conditions which now exist.
Many people in this country are living on fixed incomes. This is degrading, to say the least. Pensions should be increased. There is no purpose in my speaking about that subject because it was very forcefully dealt with this morning by my colleague. If we are to have faith in a government that is telling us they believe in a society that is just for everyone, that government should bring in legislation which will do just that.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I was most displeased last night to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) telling everyone that carrying out certain ideas expressed by members of the New Democratic Party would mean the state moving into every factory, every office, every trade union and every household. He was at pains to
October 28, 1969
point out what a terrible situation would be created. Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to have a flourishing economy unless it is planned. No one can tell me that the people of this nation, those who are doing without essentials at this very moment, those who are subjected to interest rates which scalp them, would reject action which is in their interest. The minister must realize that the people do matter and that this is a nation to be proud of-one nation, if only the government would do something about it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, it is customary during the debate on the Speech from the Throne to extend congratulations to all those who have been recognized in a special way since parliament last met-those who have been promoted within the cabinet and so forth-and also to extend congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address. This has been done already by many speakers in the course of the debate and all I intend to add to this traditional aspect of our proceedings is that I heartily endorse those sentiments.
This is not the first debate on the Address in which I have taken part. As a matter of fact, as I look across to my right at the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) I am reminded that it is about 19 years since we were first exposed to the mysteries of this Parliament of Canada; since we arrived on Parliament Hill to conquer new worlds and change the destiny of the nation. I am sure that is the sentiment of a good many members when they first arrive in parliament.
Looking back over that period of Canadian history one realizes that there have been many changes. Some have been for the better and others have been for the worse. I note that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his contribution to the debate on Friday last summed up his remarks by saying, in effect, that it was the government's intention to direct the processes of change in such a way as to ensure they would redound to the general good of Canada. I have the exact words before me as reported on page 43 of Hansard. The Prime Minister said:
We intend in the future as in the past to be the voice of change; we shall not forsake our role as advocate of the great mainstream of Canadians and we intend to listen, to understand, to respond and to lead.
Over the past 19 years I have heard many speeches, as you can well imagine, Mr. Speaker, and I have learned to take many of the
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale sentiments expressed in this chamber with the proverbial grain of salt. I have become somewhat less idealistic than I was when I first came here, and I have concluded that the best way to interpret the earnest of the desire of any administration is not necessarily to draw conclusions from the words which are spoken but to watch the policies of the particular administration or political leader concerned for proof of action in the best interests of Canada.
Tonight I want to deal briefly with some of the changes which have taken place in recent years and which I feel are not in the best interests of this institution of parliament nor in the best interests of the unfolding development of Canada as a nation from sea to sea. I like the sentiment expressed by the Prime Minister in some exalted words at the conclusion of his speech. He said this institution of parliament was designed to resolve differences to which he had referred, and I agree heartily with that proposition. Unfortunately, fundamental changes are taking place in this institution, changes which I feel go in a direction completely opposite to the sentiment expressed by the Prime Minister in his contribution to the debate the other afternoon. Maybe in considering this question of change we have arrived at a point where the change is so fundamental that it is almost as profound as during a period such as the Reformation, which changed the basic perspectives of the society of that time.
Values are changing in the world in which we live today. As the old preacher in the book "Green Pastures" expressed it: "Everything not nailed down am coming loose." We are faced with all the problems generated by a fundamental change in values in the direction of relativism of the new morality, and of tensions created by the advent of the permissive society which are having such a disastrous influence on our basic social institutions, be they the family, the institutions of education or even those of parliamentary democracy. It is the virus of this profound change- perhaps I should use the word "poison"- which is biting deep into the body politic. As has been forcibly brought to our attention, this is reflected particularly in the younger generation of Canadians who were born into the nuclear age, who have been programmed into the computer age and who, more recently, were skyrocketed into the space age. In these circumstances it is not hard to understand why there is confusion, as is made

226	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale manifest in some of the activities which have come to public attention, to the attention of the government and to the attention of all members of the House in recent weeks. I quote, for example, what has occurred with respect to the government's charges against the Company of Young Canadians, the group which was established by legislative decree of this House just a few years ago to be a vehicle whereby young Canadians could participate on a voluntary basis in giving guidance amid the profound social changes which have been affecting Canada so seriously.
I could refer also to the disturbances in our universities which have become the occasion of almost daily headlines in our newspapers and which certainly have been reported prominently by that great public organ of information the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which has itself been facing certain difficulties as a result of the deep-seated process of change which has been going on.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The Prime Minister has responded to these indices of confusion and disorganization in Canadian society and, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said so effectively the other day, has engaged in verbal over-kill in order to make the point that he wanted to make at that time. The situation could be expressed in another way: He was, perhaps, using a baseball bat to kill a flea. In other words, Mr. Speaker, his was a sudden, almost emotional, response to a very delicate situation.
Since the statements of the Queen's first minister in Canada have a profound influence right across the country in view of the prestige of that office, if we are not careful, Mr. Speaker, this sort of thing could result in incipient McCarthyism and witch-hunting which, of course, is not a reasonable approach to the problem of reflecting serious social change. Indeed, it has now reached the point where it is attempting to tear at the very foundations of national unity.
One problem in this House of Commons that does not change from year to year is the basic consideration given to policies that are enunciated and brought forward by government, supported by this parliament, which are designed to bring together Canadians of all ethnic origins from sea to sea in what we like to refer to as national unity. The problem of national unity in a country like Canada becomes more difficult to deal with in periods

DEBATES	October 28, 1969
of rapid change, and we are passing through such a period at the present time.
In another statement that the Prime Minister made recently he said he had solved the problem of national unity, and that in another five years he would perhaps be able to move off the political stage. Having listened to hon. members from all parts of Canada in the course of this debate outlining the economic problem that are facing various sections of the country, it would seem to me that a statement of that kind indicates that the right hon. gentleman is very much out of tune with the prevailing mood and spirit of the nation. Never was there a time when there was more restlessness and confusion in the Canadian body politic.
In recent years that there has been a tendency to concentrate upon the issues that separate us rather than upon those that bring us together. The Prime Minister has this exasperating habit of heading in two opposite directions at the same time, and this makes it very difficult for the Canadian people, who are part of the Canadian mosaic, to understand exactly where the Prime Minister is going. It is almost like riding into the eye of a hurricane. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the problem of national unity becomes increasingly difficult during periods of social change. It therefore behooves all of us, in our observations on the subject, to underline and support some of the fundamental institutions which have been the unifying forces in Canada since the beginning of this nation.
For example, I do not think it is helpful at this time constantly to downgrade and erode such a fundamental institution as the monarchy. I do not want to dwell on this theme at any great length, but even in the official references in the documents of Canada we have had it underscored that the role of the monarchy as a symbolic, unifying force in this nation has been downgraded and eroded. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), in a speech that he made during a visit to London last summer, indicated that Canada will inevitably become a republic. Well, now, that is his belief and his sentiment. For myself I do not think there is anything inevitable about a process of that kind. Actually, the institution of constitutional monarchy has been one of the main sources and symbols of Canadian unity down through the years. Indeed, it has made possible our movement forward as a nation in the midst of all kinds of divisive and centrifugal forces in the Canadian body politic.
October 28, 1969	COMMONS
Another very important example of this technique of moving in two ways at the same time, of downgrading an institution merely because it is traditional and of long standing, is this: At the other end of the scale we find spokesmen for the government, from the Prime Minister down, moving toward a policy of narrow nationalism in recent announcements of changes in defence policy. In the sort of world in which we live, one in which the impact of change is even more profound on the international scene than on the domestic scene, this has caused a spirit of pessimism to prevail at the United Nations. It has also caused the former Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, to state that the affluent nations must be more generous in their support of the underdeveloped nations. I think that any institution that has achieved progress in bringing together a consort of nations as a meaningful international body should be supported with increased enthusiasm by the government of Canada. Regrettably, government spokesmen in recent months have seen fit to downgrade NATO.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was moulded from the challenge of international Communism which arose in the latter 1950's. We in Canada gave until recent times our wholehearted support to this organization. It was regarded, in the first instance, as a co-operative form of military defence on the part of Atlantic nations against the threat of external subversive influences. But it was more than a military force; it was also the nucleus of a political entity.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
It was devoutly hoped it would become the nucleus of a significant political force which might even move forward to become the pioneering experiment in some form of international federalism. Many members of this House have had the opportunity to attend NATO Parliamentary Association meetings. There has always been there great enthusiasm and support for the ultimate objectives of the NATO Parliamentary Association becoming a useful forum that would see the North Atlantic communities grow closer together in the beginning of a new total international co-operation which is urgently needed in the sort of jungle situation which prevails in the dealings between governments at the present time. If we downgrade our military contribution to NATO it
DEBATES	227
The Address-Mr. Dinsdale means that our voice in the political deliberations of that important body will be equally downgraded.
I was overseas this summer for a couple of weeks and was shocked to see the rapid decrease, almost to the vanishing point, of the prestige of Canada in such countries as West Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium and all the other countries which are playing a vital role in the promotion of the NATO ideal both military and political. We have unilaterally, without consultation with members of this House and certainly ignoring the recommendations of the comprehensive study made by the External Affairs Committee, withdrawn our strong support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
This is just one example. Many others could be quoted. Perhaps the main criticism I should like to make is that much of this has been done without parliamentary approval. In fact, there has been a move in the opposite direction. Many of the announcements are made outside this House when parliament is in recess. It would almost appear to be a deliberate device to avoid criticism. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister's version of participatory democracy seems to be to appeal directly to public opinion rather than the slower and more difficult process of parliamentary discussion. I believe that one thing in this process of change which has brought about so much confusion in the nation has been the tendency of the government to an increasing extent to downgrade the principle of responsible government which is absolutely essential if parliament is to continue to play the unifying role that the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech when he said this institution of parliament is designed to resolve the differences that are wracking the Canadian community at the moment.
These topics have been referred to many times. I could talk about the roster system whereby ministers show their lack of respect for the principle of responsibility by indicating they feel there are more important duties to attend to in their ministerial responsibilities than listening to hon. members in this House. The tendency of ministers to make statements outside the chamber undercuts the elected representatives on the government and opposition sides of the House. There would appear to be a tendency to govern through the mass media. In this way there is instant communication with instant solutions for all the problems which change almost as
October 28, 1969

The Address-Mr. Dinsdale quickly as the kaleidoscopic images on television. There would appear to be the assumption of a presidential role without the checks and balances of the presidential system. Announcements are made at press conferences rather than in this chamber, particularly on the eve of the opening of parliament. The distinguished parliamentary correspondent, Charles Lynch, refered to this in a recent article when he said:
In their press conferences, few American presidents have ever covered ground as sweeping as Mr. Trudeau did yesterday-telling off France, Quebec separatists, the Company of Young Canadians in rapid-fire order, plus recognizing the Vatican.
He enlarged his cabinet-already the largest in Canadian history-by adding a wheat minister and an assistant finance minister, and said the cabinet might grow even bigger.
The growth of the power of the executive is one of the disturbing features I have noticed take place surreptitiously and constantly in the 19 years I have been in this chamber. If the Prime Minister, when he refers to the process of change and the necessity of consulting the institution of parliament in resolving differences, really means this there must be more than words; there must be action. This action must be vastly different from the action and the attitude which has prevailed in the executive branch of this government since it assumed office just over a year ago.
Parliament is no longer the sounding board of the process of government in Canada. Some people say that parliament is dead, that this House is dead and that there is no interest and no confrontation in debate across the chamber. It is suggested that as a consequence members stay away in droves. The high court of public opinion, the raison d'etre of this institution, tends to become a legislative treadmill. There is nothing that reveals the real intent of this government in the House of Commons more clearly than its insistence on Bill C-75 in the dogdays of the past session last July.
Another problem that relates very closely to this whole difficulty of maintaining national unity in a situation of growing diversity is the necessity to deal with the continuing problems, in fact the growing problems, of regional disparity. Important as parliament is as a sounding board of public opinion, we will not really come to grips with the problems of Canadian nationhood until we deal in concrete terms with specific economic problems.
One of the few specifics mentioned by the Prime Minister during that confused election

of 1968 was the necessity of dealing with regional disparity and bringing about a more equitable economic situation in the various parts of Canada. Unfortunately, in the changing circumstances the poor have become poorer and the rich have become richer. I am referring not only to individuals but to the underdeveloped parts of Canada. There is lack of diversification in the economy because of the tendency for political power as well as economic development to concentrate in the two big central provinces. I believe it should be mentioned that at the present time there are movements both in the far eastern part of Canada and in western Canada. Discussions are going on with a view to making a united appeal to Ottawa to break up the core of economic power in the golden triangle to which reference is often made.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
On looking at the Speech from the Throne I agree with other hon. members who have referred to its lack of specific policies and its generalities in dealing with the great economic issues of Canada. It almost seems that the present government, as was said by the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent in reference to the lack of interest of governments over the years in the development of the north, is dealing with the problems of the extremities of Canada, both east and west, in a state of absentmindedness. It appears as if the present government regards east and west as colonies to be placated but not to be provided with the economic programs that are needed if we are to really deal with one of the major difficulties of national unity, that is, regional disparity.
I could point out many examples of this kind, but in view of the shortness of time I would just mention in passing-I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) dealt with the subject the other day- that an important event is to be celebrated both in Manitoba and in the Northwest Territories next year when both these parts of Canada will be celebrating their centennial. This underlines the fact that when Manitoba was first carved out of the Northwest Territories in 1870 and when the Northwest Territories as a whole became a part of the Canadian federation, a new dimension was added to the Canadian community which has added a positive and dynamic force to what we in western Canada call the Canadian mosaic. What has happened in western Canada is that
October 28. 1969

The Address-Mr. Otto
a spirit of Canadianism that has been derived from peoples who have come in search of the freedom and opportunities of the new world has produced a mosaic that is as colourful as the Canadian maple leaf in autumn.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. Unless unanimous consent is given to allow him to continue, he will not be able to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you for your generosity, Mr. Speaker, and also I thank hon. members. I would like to have dealt with specific problems, such as the problem of the agricultural community in western Canada. Many western spokesmen have brought this difficulty to the attention of the House, and if the Prime Minister and his ministers are really listening, I am sure they will have the basis of policies which if applied to solving the difficulty will make a major contribution in dealing with what has become a major economic crisis.
The crisis has now been recognized in the appointment of a special minister to deal with wheat. I am sure that we will see some solutions coming out of this particular comer of the cabinet. The minister is a westerner; he understands the difficulties and certainly he has had enough advice to enable him to deal with them.
There is only one further contribution that I would like to make in offering advice, that is to underscore the fact that salesmanship is the real solution to the problem of wheat which has become a glut rather than a benefit to the Canadian economy generally. The farmers have already put forward a suggestion which were it adopted by the government would, I am sure, accelerate the sale of the surplus grain that is piling up in the Trudeau bins as the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) referred to them, and it would not cost the public treasury a penny.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has already been approached about this matter. The farmers want to set up a farmer-financed sales agency to get out and sell grain aggressively so as to get beyond the international cartels that have no particular interest in selling Canadian wheat. They would finance it out of a small deduction from each bushel of grain. It would be something similar to the United States export marketing agency which 21362-16
has recently been set up to deal with their similar problem of surplus agricultural products.
I will not transgress further on the time of the House, but by way of summary I will go back to my opening remarks and say that I agree heartily with the Prime Minister when he says that the fundamental problems of Canada today have been aggravated, if not precipitated, by the processes of change that are striking at the very foundation not only of Canadian society but of the world community. Change can be either positive or negative. It does not necessarily bring about a renaissance in national and international life. There must be positive leadership and there must be concrete programs if a just society is to be established in fact as well as in name. It must be based not on words but on action. This is the major criticism of the Speech from the Throne and it is the major criticism of the government. The words are fine, the music is pleasant, but we seem to be dancing in circles. Let us match action with policies and programs to deal with some of the fundamental difficulties to which I have referred briefly and to which reference has been made by other hon. members. Especially let us stop the erosion of the institution of parliament so that members, instead of becoming ciphers and nonentities or, as the Prime Minister himself said in the final days of the last acrimonious session, absolutely useless in dealing with the affairs of the nation can contribute to this much publicized just society.	,|
I say to the Prime Minister: Give us a chance. Listen to the advice. I am sure that we shall meet in a positive way the challenge of change rather than create greater disunity and division in the Canadian nation, which has been the case during the first few months of this administration's life.


Mr. Sieven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I think I shall have the pleasure of closing off this enjoyable day. First I want to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I expected those hon. members to make laudatory remarks. People will read their remarks and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has taken notice of them.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Of course, they expect to be lauded and complimented. I have listened to all the other speeches, especially those from backbenchers, and I found them very interesting. Indeed, I

October 28, 1989
The Address-Mr. Otto thought that some of them under the guise of flattery were rather critical of the government, I think that is a good thing. From my experience I would like to tell backbenchers that if they are going to be critical of the government the safest place to do it is right here in the House of Commons. Do not do it in the press because then your criticism will get down to the ministers and to the Prime Minister and you will be chastised. Do not do it in letters to your constituents. Do it here in this House where you are absolutely safe. Certainly there are ministers who attend in this house but they very seldom pay attention to speakers; they are busy writing letters so the backbencher can say what he likes. Further, all the members of the Press Gallery leave the chamber right after the question period. For most of the rest of the time there is only one gentleman sitting in the Press Gallery. This has been my experience over seven years. There are two sitting there now, and that is rather usual. I strongly suspect that one of the gentlemen to whom I refer is not even a reporter; I suspect he is a hired man put there to make it appear that the press is represented in this House.
As the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) said, it is sad that this House is no longer an effective House, an effective organ. It is a fact that the parliamentary system does not completely suit this form of government or this country. Most of the time we talk at each other rather than to each other; then the parliamentary secretaries talk to the ministers, the ministers talk to the deputy ministers, the deputy ministers to the establishment, and the establishment talks to God. Nobody really cares what we are saying here. Therefore I repeat my advice to new members. In the seven years that I have been critical of the government not once have I been chastised for being critical of it here in this chamber.
When I approached the bar of the other place to hear the Speech from the Throne I of course could not hear very well because there was no loud speaker system. However, I did catch a couple of words with which I was very pleased.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was on Wednesday. The loudspeaker was working on Thursday.


Steven Otto: Anyway, the words I thought I heard were that we were going to have a Canadian research centre or corporation. This has been talked about for many years. It is
[Mr. Otto.)
something we should have, to advise our government. We should have a comprehensive research organization which will at least diagnose our problems carefully and accurately and provide a base upon which the government can act. Unfortunately, when I read the Speech from the Throne I saw it referred to a Canadian international research centre which is to give advice on our contributions to the newly developing nations. Of course, that will be a good thing also. I have no criticism of it, because in many cases aid given by both the United States and Canada has not necessarily been used to the best advantage.
I recall that some years ago in Turkey I saw a brand new road that had been built with American money, a road which sort of went from corner to corner. It started nowhere and ended nowhere, but certainly took in a great number of zigzags. When I inquired why it served no particular purpose I found that certain members of the government had houses or land in various places and the road went through each of those places. Indeed, a great deal of Canadian money has also gone the wrong way. Therefore if this proposed centre is a good one it will serve a useful purpose. However, it seems to me that we in Canada need such an organization-a "think tank" as it was once called. Last year the Prime Minister said he was in favour of such an organization. I think the quicker it is established the better it will be.
I jotted down some of the points that I thought should concern a Canadian research centre if such is formed. It should not merely be concerned with research for marketing or for government. It should be a composite research project. At present we have research branches in various departments of government. This is something quite new; there were none eight years ago. But these branches do not talk to each other. The agricultural research branch feeds advice to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), and other branches advise the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). Each one is on a different tack. We cannot function in this day and age without a composite basis, a carefully packaged research concept that will encompass all departments and work in conjunction with them. This is not something new.
In 1951 the Japanese government formed the Japanese Trade Research Organization for Japanese industry, commonly known as Jetro.
Oclober 28, 19G9	COMMONS
I recall that one of the first reports compiled for it was commissioned from a Canadian company, Gruneau Marketing Research. It dealt with cameras and how the Japanese could introduce cameras that would capture half of the world market. This is only 1969 but already Japanese cameras, that is high-priced cameras, command half of the world market. I recall another example in connection with Jetro. It concerned luggage. I saw a report which indicated not only the type of luggage that Canadians liked but also its shape, the type of plating-whether nickel or brass-who bought most of the luggage sold in Canada, what clubs they belonged to, what
21362-16J
DEBATES	231
The Address-Mr. Otto religious denominations they professed, and how they would accept Japanese salesmen. We do not have this effective type of research. What we have are research organizations in the various departments, without any common purpose.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it being ten o'clock this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(2).


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 29, 1969