1969-10-29

Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General) moved:: That the report of the committee appointed September 8,	1965, to survey the organization
and work of the Canadian Pension Commission, tabled on March 26, 1968, and the evidence adduced by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in its study of the aforementioned matter during the first session of the twenty-eighth Parliament, including the white paper on veterans pensions, be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-7, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1969, to the 30th day of June, 1970, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

George James McIlraith: for leave to introduce Bill C-8, to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Edgar John Benson: for leave to introduce Bill C-9, to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


George James McIlraith: for leave to introduce Bill C-10, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: for leave to introduce Bill C-1I, to amend the Railway Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. C. M. Drury (for the Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-12, to establish the International Development Research Centre of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
October 29, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry a question of the Minister of Finance. Did the Steel Company of Canada consult the government of Canada before making the recent announcement of price increases on its products?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that in 1967 the then Minister of Finance told the House that the Steel Company of Canada had consulted the government before the increase which took place at that time, has the government on this occasion protested the lack of consultation by the Steel Company of Canada before the recent price increases?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In the light of existing jurisprudence on this question, would the right hon. and learned gentleman not agree with me that there must be joint action with the provinces and that the assertion of the Prime Minister when he rushed out of the House to say on television that the federal government was considering taking sole action sounded suspiciously like the mouse that roars?


An hon. Member:: The mouse wants to roar. Better let him.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to rule that the hon. member's question is suspiciously irregular. It cannot be received at this time because it is asked in an argumentative manner.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a further supplementary question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that in 1967 the government of Canada requested that price increases be deferred for six months, was there any reason why the government did not ask the Steel Company of Canada to defer the recent price increases for the same period of time?


Edgar John Benson: Immediately preceding the price increase there was a prolonged strike in the steel industry resulting in a large wage settlement. I understand that the Prices and Incomes Commission is going to look into the matter in an attempt to find whether or not there was justification for the increase in prices and wages. I should like to congratulate them for their action in this regard.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the failure of the government

to request deferment of the price increase, even though deferment was agreed to in 1967, can the minister state the significance of the investigation announced by the Prices and Incomes Commission in relation to the government's anti-inflationary policy?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the reason the government did not ask for a price deferment on this occasion was that we did not have the facts and we have not got the right to command these facts from either labour or industry. The Prices and Incomes Commission, as I presumed they would, are looking into the situation. When the facts are reported this House will have the opportunity of looking at them and deciding whether or not the actions of labour and management in this case are inflationary or were justified, and I would hope we would have a great deal more knowledge of the facts than we have at present-


An hon. Member:: You mean more
increases.


Edgar John Benson: -to wage the fight in this matter.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Since the Prices and Incomes Commission is now studying this matter, will the government make it known to that commission that it would welcome an early recommendation on which the government can act?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the things that the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and I have been saying are an indication that we hope there will be an early report on this matter. If it appears that there will be no early report, then we shall have to consider other ways of making the facts known.
While I am on my feet answering a question, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me to correct the misinterpretation inherent in the question asked by the hon. member for Peace River. He quoted me as having said that the federal government would suggest the control of prices and incomes. I said that that is something we are considering; that if a constitutional amendment is needed we will discuss it with the provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. So that the Prime Minister's answer will be clear,
October 29. 1969
may I ask if he wants only a report from the Prices and Incomes Commission or does he want a recommendation on which the government can act? That was my question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance said,, we want to know the facts. It will be up to the commission to present them in any way it wants to, either by way of report or by recommendation. I repeat, it is an independent commission and we cannot dictate to it its terms of reference in a case like this. After having obtained the facts from the commission we shall have to consider what action to take. Alternatively, if we fail to ascertain the facts because of delay, we shall have to consider alternative means of action.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Will he not request a deferment of these price increases until the commission has conducted its investigation. Even though the commission may have announced that it will make no findings of fact, will the minister not request it to do so? In view of the experience of 1967 will the government, in place of this morning's sloppy announcement, not request a deferment of price increases until a meaningful investigation has been conducted by the Prices and Incomes Commission so that some action may be taken?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I regret my hon. friend's derogatory comment about the Prices and Incomes Commission which I think is doing a pretty good job. It has been trying to do something about controlling inflation.


Mr. Hees:: Answer the question.


Edgar John Benson: I will answer the question if my hon. friend will permit me to and stop interrupting. Of course we can ask people to defer potential price increases; perhaps we could ask labour to defer its wage increases. However, we have the power to force neither of these things, and anything we say in this regard would be merely an expression of pious hopes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edgar John Benson: I hope the Prices and Incomes Commission will in a very short period of time determine the facts in these particular circumstances. Then we, both as a government and as a parliament, will have the right to look at them and decide whether these
Inquiries of the Ministry increases are inflationary in the circumstances. Some people in the House may prefer to express an opinion about who is to blame when they have the facts and not express opinions before they know anything about them.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
Would the Prime Minister be more specific about this fundamental matter and tell us whether he or his government has appointed, officially or unofficially, a group of experts who would determine if the federal government is empowered by the Canadian constitution to control prices and wages without encroaching upon provincial powers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This general matter has been referred for consideration to the Department of Justice which, as the hon. member knows, acts as an adviser to the government on constitutional and legal matters.


André-Gilles Fortin: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
Do the terms of reference of the task force provide for this particular aspect of the question, that is the federal government authority in this instance, to be examined?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is the same question. We have asked the Department of Justice for an opinion and their counsels always answer as fast as they can.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answers the Prime Minister has given to other hon. members, will he advise us whether his law officers have advised the government that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to control prices at this time in the light of the inflation crisis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we will receive the advice of the law officers of the Crown and we will decide to act upon it as we see fit.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary. My question was clear. Have the law officers advised the government whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional? Does the Prime Minister have that advice at this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps some time in the past it might have been done, Mr. Speaker, though I am not aware of it. On this specific

23S
October 29, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry issue, we have referred the question to the Department of Justice in recent weeks. There has been no advice yet on that particular point.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, since the government's intention to control prices and wages reveals its failure to stem inflation, can the Prime Minister tell us if he intends to check inflation by bringing before parliament other measures than price and wage controls?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat what I said to the hon. member for Peace River. These questions imply that we have announced measures which we did not announce. We did not say we had failed and were going to control prices and wages. We said-and that is the position of the Minister of Finance and mine-that we would not close any doors before the urgency of fighting inflation. We feel that all means accessible to the federal government will be considered and used if necessary.
I believe the hon. member for Peace River is asking questions mainly because he is looking for an opportunity to be facetious. I find it unfortunate that he should spread inaccurate information through his questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


INFLATION-INCREASE IN GENERAL WHOLESALE INDEX-ADEQUACY OF BUDGET MEASURES
George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics has just announced that the general wholesale index has increased by four-tenths of one per cent during the month of September, which is a rate of 5 per cent a year. Does the government intend to introduce any new initiatives at this time to counteract the steady rise in the cost of living and inflation in view of the proved inadequacy of the measures introduced in the last budget?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the adequacy or inadequacy of the measures introduced in the last budget is yet to be determined. I would like to assure my hon. friend from Prince Edward-Hastings that this government intends to overcome the
[Mr. Trudeau.J
inflationary problem in Canada. It intends to take all the steps necessary and it will not close any doors with respect to actions that might be necessary in the future. However, I would like to say to my hon. friend that there is an indication, both here and in the United States, that the steps taken by our government and by the government of that country are having effect. I hope that more stringent measures are not necessary or that a prolongation of tight monetary and fiscal policies in Canada will have to go on too long. But it would be much easier, as I said the other night, to slow down the rate of inflation in Canada if we had the co-operation of all the people of Canada, including members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Does the government consider that the present rate of increase of inflation amounting to 5 per cent a year indicates that it has been successful in curbing inflation? Does the minister not agree that the two measures he introduced in the budget have completely failed, as everybody connected with them says every day of the week?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for an expression of opinion and I am afraid he is out of order.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the research project announced by the Prices and Incomes Commission this morning is an example of the tough line he and the Prime Minister were talking about.


Edgar John Benson: I am astounded that the Leader of the Opposition, who pressed so hard for the establishment of an independent prices and incomes commission, should stand up in the House of Commons a few months later, when they are trying to do their job, and criticize them.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister not noticed that his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, has stated categorically that the measures introduced in the budget are altogether inadequate to curb inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary is argumentative and is no more acceptable under our rules than the previous question asked by the hon. member.
October 29, 1969	COMMONS


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, could I ask whether the Basford who said that was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, or was it some other Basford?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is getting even more out of order.


INFLATION-INCREASE IN PRICE OF HOUSEHOLD DETERGENTS
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. I note he is not here today but I am sure I can direct it to the Minister of Finance who will, I know, take an interest in this subject. Has the minister made representations to the soap companies or to the Prices and Incomes Commission concerning the apparently shocking rise during the last six months of more than 50 per cent in the price of household detergents? I ask this question because I have evidence beside me which shows that the price of household detergent has risen from $1.39 early last May to $2.13 this October. It is right here.


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind the hon. member that questions are for the purpose of seeking information and not for giving information to the House. In the second place, it is not in accordance with the rules to use exhibits either in the statement of a question or in answering questions. Having said this, I would add that the first part of the question is in order and that the minister may reply.


Edgar John Benson: Having heard the hon. member's soapbox oratory, I will undertake to pass on his question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I ask the hon. member to submit the information in his possession to my colleague.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I apologize to Your Honour if I have in any way offended the House by producing what you have referred to as an exhibit, but I assure Your Honour that it was only for the purpose of quoting the prices accurately as they appear on soap boxes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


TRANSPORT
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the
DEBATES	237
Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister. To the knowledge of the government, is the United States Interstate Commerce Commission sending enforcement officers into Canada to examine the records of Canadian truckers? If so, is this being done with the consent and approval of the Canadian government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is not being done to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I will gladly look into the question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the uncertainties which seem to exist regarding cuts or changes in our diplomatic postings, and in view of reports that this question is under the personal control of the Prime Minister, will the right hon. gentleman make a statement at an early date telling us which embassies are to be continued or cut back, and what changes are to be made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I shall not be making a statement, but the Secretary of State for External Affairs will make one. This is within his departmental prerogative and he will make a statement as soon as he comes back from Victoria.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State. Has the minister or the government appointed a commissioner to administer the languages bill which was passed by the House on July 7, I believe, some four months ago? If not, when may we expect such appointment?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the hon. member is that under the legislative measure that has been adopted and that has come into effect on September 7, I believe, that appointment will in fact be made by way of a resolution of the two houses. It is the government's intention to move this resolution as soon as possible following the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
238	COMMONS DEBATES	October 29. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the provisions of that Act take precedence over any provincial languages bill that may be in force?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is obviously seeking the expression of a legal opinion, or the interpretation of a statute by the minister. This is not in accordance with the rules.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister tell the House how he is able to reconcile the calling for tenders for the new external affairs building to be constructed in Ottawa with his commitment to defer construction of government buildings in those areas where in his June budget he applied deferred depreciation on the construction of commercial buildings?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question asked is clearly argumentative.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the recent report that Panarctic Oils Limited has practically exhausted its development funds and is expected to ask both the government, which has a 45 per cent interest in the company, and the industry brokers for another $10 million by the end of the year, I would ask the Minister of Finance whether any request for additional funds has come from Panarctic Oils Limited and, if so, what has been the government's decision in this matter?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, no such request has come to my notice at this point.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs or for the Minister of Fisheries, both of whom should be in the house according to the roster. Since they

are absent I will direct my question to whoever is responsible for one or other of those departments. Has the government made any representations to the Soviet embassy concerning the operations of 40 or more Russian trawlers within our so-called 12-mile limit near Cape Smoky, Cape Breton, thus causing hardship to the inshore fishermen of this area?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the activities of the Russian fleet have been observed, but there is no evidence that they have come within the so-called 12-mile limit. We are keeping the fleet under close surveillance. If it does come within our boundary, no doubt those responsible will be arrested and the Minister of Finance will be aided in his problem of finding additional revenue.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimoulh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to pursue the last subject but I will decline to do so. I direct my question to the Secretary of State. Has the hon. gentleman ever directed the Canadian Radio-Television Commission to investigate separatism in Radio-Canada?


Gérard Pelletier: No, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can he advise the House what steps are being taken by the Department of National Health and Welfare to control the sale and use of pesticides, this being a mounting problem that is now confronting the public?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that in view of the way the question is asked it should be answered by a statement on motions. If the hon. member feels it should be answered today, perhaps this might be done at the time of adjournment tomorrow.
October 29, 19S9

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS	NATIONAL PARKS



CONSULTATION WITH CONTRACTORS AS TO FORM OF TENDERING

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question, to the Minister of Transport. In view of concern expressed by many contractors who are bidding for government jobs, I should like to know whether any negotiations are being conducted by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Contractors Association in regard to acceptable forms of tendering and the types of contracts to be used by the concerned parties?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am wondering
whether this is a matter that should be placed on the order paper. If I am wrong and there is urgency to the matter, then the question can be considered at the time of adjournment.



NAVIGATION


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. The other day I asked him whether he would make a statement on Mackenzie River navigation and he said he would. I wonder whether the minister could give us any indication when we might expect this statement? This problem is causing a great deal of concern in western Canada.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think I would prefer to make it some time early next week.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Before doing so, would the minister be good enough to examine the private member's public bill that I have placed on the order paper dealing with this issue?


Arthur Laing: I will, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the government given any consideration to the construction of a dam on the Shuswap River, as requested by the Salmon Arm Ratepayers Association when it appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In my view this question should be placed on the order paper.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-INQUIRY AS TO SECOND PARK

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian, Affairs and Northern Development. It is similar to the question he answered the other day from the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. Is the minister able to advise whether negotiations or discussions are under way with the province of Prince Edward Island regarding the establishment of a second national park in that most scenic province?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the House when the second national park for Saskatchewan, which was promised in 1965, will be developed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I remember that during the course of the last session the House reached a general consensus that questions regarding national parks throughout the country should normally be placed on the order paper unless there was a matter of urgency concerning a particular park, at which time verbal questions might be allowed. I suspect that unless we return to that practice we will have questions every day about the many proposed and existing national parks throughout the country. I suggest to the hon. member that any question that is supplementary to the original question should be placed on the order paper.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the many complaints that we are receiving from public servants about the delay in issuing their retroactive pay cheques, some of the delays extending over many months, can the minister indicate the date by which all outstanding retroactive pay cheques will be received by the public servants concerned?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Central Pay Office has been under a very heavy workload recently. This
October 29, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry has been brought about by the fact that there have been so many new collective agreements. However, steps have been taken within the department to improve the situation. We have added 60 additional employees, and my objective is that the pay office will be current by the end of November.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether he will indicate that recent discussions have been held with the province of Newfoundland regarding a program of development for that province, and whether this program will be announced in November as suggested by a friend of the Minister of Transport, the Premier of Newfoundland?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we are having continuous discussions with all the provinces and we hope that in the near future we will be in a position to announce the programs which will come into effect on April 1st next.


John Howard Lundrigan: Will the minister indicate whether this record will be renewed during the current year because we heard the same thing just over a year ago now? I think the record must be stuck; it sounds like it.



NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, has the Secretary of State initiated a policy to reduce the rates for old age pensioners and similar groups in respect of programs at the National Arts Centre in order that they may enjoy performances there?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, this matter does not concern the minister but the directors of the National Arts Centre. As far as the department is concerned, it has often expressed over the last 
year its desire to democratize culture as much as possible and to put subsidized cultural events within easy reach of the people across the country.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, will the Secretary of State indicate whether any such privileges are afforded to certain groups in Canada?


Gérard Pelletier: I cannot answer the question from memory, Mr. Speaker, but I will be very pleased to get the information.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the target date of Bell Canada for improved telephone service in southern Labrador has been set ahead to January, 1970, and in view of the fact that the Department of Transport withdrew its radio, telephone and telegram service from that area on August 1 of this year to coincide with the inauguration of the improved Bell Canada service which did not materialize, will the Minister of Transport arrange for the radio, telephone and telegram service of the Department of Transport to be reinstated and maintained until such time as Bell Canada has completed its installation in 1970 and is capable of providing reasonable communications in that area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made a representation. To the extent that what he has said is a question, it should be placed on the order paper.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, will the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs or his Parliamentary Secretary answer the question I asked yesterday regarding the earthquake disaster in Yugoslavia, and indicate whether the Canadian government has shown a willingness to supply urgently required medical and other supplies which may be needed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not have a report in this regard but one will be made tomorrow.
October 29. 1969



NATIONAL PARKS


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he is aware of the result of a byelection in an area including the townsite of Jasper, and does he feel this is an endorsement of the parks policy in our mountain national parks?



FISHERIES


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to whoever is answering today for the Minister of Fisheries. Would the minister agree to a reference of the whole question of the proposal regarding salmon fishing licences on the west coast to the Standing Committee on Fisheries?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I will bring this matter to the minister's attention. He is in British Columbia today.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to ask a supplementary question on this same subject, and I direct it to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the very serious impact on the Indian people of British Columbia as a result of the proposal by the Minister of Fisheries, does the minister support the idea of referring the whole proposal on salmon fishing licences to the committee on fisheries for consideration and report?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and myself have regular discussions concerning what we can do in order to assist Indians as regards fishing, and our relations are excellent. I am ready to consider the hon. member's suggestion.



INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF SALT FISH MARKETING CORPORATION

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Fisheries or the Parliamentary Secretary. Is the minister meeting today with representatives of the salt fish trade and can
Inquiries of the Ministry he assure the house that such discussions will in no way impede the introduction of the legislation to set up a salt fish marketing corporation?


Eugene Whelan: He is
not meeting with them, Mr. Speaker; he is in British Columbia. He intends to meet with these people in the next two weeks.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. It concerns the west coast longshoremen's strike. I have a telegram in my hand from Sherritt Gordon Mines advising me that five outgoing ships and two incoming ships are held up as a result of this strike. The company feels that unless strong and definite government action is taken soon there will be a very serious loss to Canadian industry. Will the minister get in touch with the Minister of Labour to see what can be done is this regard?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I know of no one who is in closer touch than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the minister is looking into the situation regarding the west coast strike. Both sides have been asked to resume negotiations at two o'clock tomorrow, and this will be done.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion indicate whether his departmental officials have entered into or are at present holding discussions with officials of Fairey of Canada and/or Grumman Aircraft about the future of the Fairey of Canada plant?


Jean Marchand: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Speaker.


J. Michael Forrestall: In view of the fact that the future of 400 or 500 families is very much in doubt and very uncertain, will the minister find out whether negotiations are taking place
Ociober 29, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry with a view to putting some money into an oceanographic study in this area?


Jean Marchand: I will do that with pleasure.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, may I take Your Honour's suggestion of yesterday and invite the Minister of Transport to make a brief statement on Atlantic province transportation matters, hopefully this afternoon during the throne speech debate? I ask him to do so because I know he is sincerely interested in this aspect of transportation and because there is some uncertainty about certain aspects of future legislation.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do what I can in response to the hon. member's request.


Thomas Miller Bell: We could even arrange for the minister to make two speeches.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister to indicate to the House what response he made to the premiers of Atlantic Canada and other people concerned with transportation in respect of the re-introduction of a freeze on freight rates in maritime Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The response, Mr. Speaker, was the one apparent at the time legislation was introduced earlier this year to establish a federal-provincial committee to determine how best to use this money. The committee has met twice, or at least once, and has reported considerable progress. It appears that the members are quite pleased.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether his government has any other such plans to assist Atlantic Canada in respect of regional disparity?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize that his question is of such a scope that it would require an answer by way of a statement normally made on motions.


James Aloysius McGrath: have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister consider the area as one eligible for foreign aid in view of the failure of the government to come up with a reasonable solution?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister advise the house if a decision of the Canadian Transport Commission was necessary to revive the CNR passenger service in Newfoundland in order to accommodate delegates to the Liberal leadership convention which will be held in St. John's this coming weekend?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question seeks either a political or legal interpretation of the facts. In both instances he is out of order.



PAN-AMERICAN GAMES-INQUIRY AS TO FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO WINNIPEG

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Is he yet in a position to answer questions I asked him during the last session and about which I wrote him during the recess concerning the possibility of the federal government assisting Winnipeg with its deficit respecting the PanAmerican games which, after all, were a centennial event for Canada?


Edgar John Benson: have not answered my hon. friend's letter yet, I apologize sincerely and will make sure that the answer goes out very shortly.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jack Cullen for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 34) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Godin (p. 175).
Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, last night I made some introductory remarks about subjects covered by the Throne Speech. I am rather glad I made those remarks last night rather than today because I see the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) sitting here today. Just before last night's adjournment I began speaking about a Canadian Research
October 29, 1969

Corporation. I was very pleased to hear this afternoon the introduction of a bill with respect to the International Development Research Centre of Canada. In other words, the government is not wasting much time in putting forward legislation for the establishment of a centre which they feel is necessary. That is to say that after all these years there is some doubt as to whether all the money we put into external aid has been properly used, and I think the government has acknowledged that we can no longer afford to fly by the seat of our pants in this respect; therefore, a centre is being formed to ensure that any money we contribute to external aid is properly used. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that although we recognize the necessity of setting up a research centre to give us advice with regard to the external aid program, we do not seem to appreciate the urgency of establishing in Canada a research centre for ourselves. But we spend a great deal of money and we run large business corporations in Canada by instinct and by assumption rather than on the advice which such a research centre could give us.
I mentioned last night a research organization which is being used by the Japanese government; it is called the Japanese Trade Export Trade Organization. Today I would like to illustrate Canada's needs at present as compared with what we have done in the past. For example, when the St. Lawrence Seaway was being planned-in fact, when it was being built-Japanese and other manufacturers in the shipbuilding industry had already on the books of their companies the projected construction of giant transports which within the next ten years will make the St. Lawrence useless. We spent a fortune on the construction of the Seaway and nobody bothered to check what was going on in the world of transport. This lack of planning will cost us a great deal of money because the St. Lawrence canal system will have to be enlarged in order to accommodate the new transports and the new cargo-loading ships which will be built in the future.


J. Michael Forrestall: Send them to Halifax.


Steven Otto: Of course, it would require a great deal of research into whether those ports can be used efficiently. I will give another example of what we are doing by instinct or by assumption. Let us consider the assumption which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) made when he put forward the resolution with respect to deferred depreciation. The idea was that this would stop com-
The Address-Mr. Otto mercial construction. Any capable research organization would have advised the government that this would not be so; that indeed this type of legislation will be ineffective. I can speak of other ideas which are assumed by all of us to be accurate today, such as the one that any fiscal measures of restraint imposed by the government will be extremely effective in controlling inflation. Of course, the assumption is based on the supposition that any government policy with respect to the tightening of credit will immediately bring a reaction. The assumption is carried further and it is assumed that if credit is more costly, businessmen will have to pay more for the use of money and they will then say to labour: We cannot pay you $3 an hour; you must accept $2.50. Of course, this is nonsense; it does not happen these days.
There is more than one guiding principle in the minds of businessmen. The government can do what it likes; business works on different principles entirely which are not necessarily in accord with the government's fiscal measures. The consumer also has his own ideas as to when he will buy and when he will not buy. Research for a projection of this type can be carried out efficiently, with the purpose of advising the government as to the likelihood of any reaction to proposed legislation. For example, let us consider labour. I have heard it said many times, even today, that something must be done to solve the problem of labour-management disputes. Questions have been asked as to whether there is such a thing as a labour-management dispute because so long as the businessman and the entrepreneur can make alternative investments and so long as we function under the profit system he must make a profit. Large and very efficient organizations have already stated their doubt as to the existence of such a thing as a labour-management dispute. They should be called, more accurately, labour-consumer disputes, but of course government departments continue to function with old ideas and concepts.
The essential need for a composite research organization lies in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is difficult to imagine the department having an expert staff projecting our export sales, to which countries we will sell certain products, what they will buy, and so on. I will give an example. Some years ago I was informed by the department of trade and commerce that a wonderful place in which to dispose of a

October 29, 1969
The Address-Mr. Otto great deal of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment was South America. The company in which I have an active interest put a great deal of money into this export market with almost no results because, first, the German export people are well entrenched there and, second, our department of trade and commerce did not know where the approaches should be made. Indeed, they did not even know what type of equipment the South Americans wanted. They did not even inform us that in South America a knowledge of Spanish or Portugese is mandatory. I am referring to 1961. Furthermore, they did not tell us that unless one had a good contact with the clergy one's chances of selling there were almost nil.
[DOT] (3:0C p.m.)
A proper type of research organization can do a great deal of work. It can produce the facts and figures that should be presented to all departments. If we are to develop our export trade to South America we must 'know what products we can sell there and at what price, what credit we should give, how long its term should be and how much we should import from that area. At present the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has only a small internal research organization which by and large tells the minister or the deputy minister what he wants to hear and not what he should hear. And so we go merrily on our way with trade, agriculture and welfare; no department has a really good diagnosis of the ills involved in these matters.
It has been pointed out that we have the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. I am not saying that statistical research is not important; of course it is, but statistics are useless unless they are applied. What is necessary is the proper application of statistics, of good research and of knowledge available at the beck and call of every department of government and private industry.
Therefore, I suggest to the government that from now on if we are to move at all in any field we must have research into every phase of it, preferably through a central agency where we can have the equivalent of the Rand Corporation in the United States from whom private industry can obtain information. Our research people should be employed in this area instead of scooting off to other countries. In this way the government itself, the greatest business, the greatest spender, could have accurate information with respect to a project, could receive a projection of

what a dollar spent would bring in, and could be assured whether certain ideas and projects were sound and acceptable.
Our great failing at present is that we embark upon many new projects merely on instinct and not on a basis of knowledge. In today's business world good, accurate diagnosis is essential. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, although I am pleased to note that we are going to apply research to our external aid program, I am very disappointed that we will not have in Canada and agency such as was promised last year by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), that is, a research agency which will serve the Canadian government and the Canadian people.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to speak at this time.
I would very much have liked to see in the house the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) as well as other cabinet members, in addition to the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) and my good friend the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) who are not affected by what I want to say this afternoon, because I want to speak mainly about finance. There are large holes on the government side, and many empty seats in each row. But, the absence of the ministers will not be taken as an indication of their concern for the present economic situation, because if it were, there would be very little hope left for the Prime Minister's policy and the concerns he expressed yesterday would not mean anything, nor would the remarks made by the Minister of Finance.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) on his admirable presentation of the traditional Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. This is always a difficult task, even for more seasoned members. In this particular case one wonders whether one could have applied the description of deja vu to the speech of the hon. member, because he came into this chamber a relatively short time after the Speech from the Throne was delivered in the other place and delivered to us a fully prepared, textual speech. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, this is a practice that I do not commend to hon. members. It is far better that hon. members should make their speeches in a spontaneous fashion even though without such polished grammar.
October 29, 1969

The Address-Hon. M. Lambert
As I have said on previous occasions, hon. members have merited the support of their constituents, not on the basis of textual speeches but on the basis of having appeared on platforms with other candidates and there speaking what was in their hearts and minds. Therefore, let us do away with all these long-winded textual addresses which are made when someone piles a number of Hansards on his desk, places a written speech on top and reads from it. When that happens we do not know whether they are the hon. member's words or the words of someone else.

It is proper, on the other hand, to congratulate the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Mar-ceau) who gave us a speech of his own and who, thank God, has nothing in common with his predecessor here. We are happy to have this new member represent the Lapointe constituency. I congratulate the mover and the seconder for their performance in delivering the traditional speeches.

I wish I could say the same thing for the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) because, again, as a seasoned member of this house I object to ministers coming in here with completely textual speeches from which they will not depart. This is only acceptable in the House if one is reading statistics, if a quotation is being read or if a very closely reasoned argument is being followed and one must refer to a text. I cannot say that the minister's speech was a closely reasoned argument, and there were very few statistics in it. I believe ministers should deliver good, oral speeches without relying upon executive assistants or on speeches put together by departmental staffs.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did not reply to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in any way. The Prime Minister, too, read us a textual speech in which he dealt philosophically with certain matters, but frankly there was no joining of debate. However, I think the Minister of Finance started a debate on the question of inflation, a debate which I hope to continue. Inflation is with us and it is a most important subject. The Minister of Finance devoted his entire speech to a justification of government policy and attitude with respect to inflation. I am not going to criticize all of his speech because I say thank goodness the government is finally concerned with inflation. But having heard the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister
and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) it reminds me of what is said about a convert to some new form of religion, namely, that the convert is far more vocal and far more ardent in support of his new-found philosophy than is the long-time practitioner.
During the summer recess the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs inquired into the subject of high interest rates. That committee was meeting right up to the opening of this session, and I hope it will return to its work fairly soon. I am sure the committee will not be able to arrive at any positive solution, any cure-all formula, but I think it will agree with the proposition put forward by my leader, and to some extent by the Minister of Finance and other members, that the problem of inflation will be better solved, and this in a more equitable and acceptable manner, if it is done on a voluntary basis.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was right yesterday when he said the government hopes that the back of inflation can be broken by voluntary means. To this extent I wish the government well in its fight. Although I think it is going about this problem in the wrong way, I also think that everybody in Canada must support the government in its ultimate aim to beat inflation. I do not care whether this involves the person on a low pension, or the highest income earner in the land; inflation is a most insidious enemy and we must all fight it. Each one of us must be concerned and we must not leave the fight to the other fellow. I think it is rather cheap for the Minister of Finance to say that the opposition is responsible for all sorts of demands to spend more money. Maybe he should put his money where his mouth is, as the saying goes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What
demands? We can show that there are also demands on the government side, legitimate demands. We are concerned with the nonworking poor and the working poor. We are concerned that something be done about welfare. Is that saying that the government should embark on some grandiose scheme of spending? Not at all. The whole welfare scheme should be reconsidered. I will come to that a little later in my speech.
The Prime Minister asserts that there will be a rigorous examination of priorities. Mr. 246	COMMONS
The Address-Hon. M. Lambert Speaker, I wish he could speak to his predecessor who some years ago, when asked about the establishment of government priorities pooh-poohed the idea and said this would not be discussed with the provinces. I wish to God it had been discussed back in 1965 and 1966 in so far as handling inflation in Canada is concerned. If it had been, we would be much better off.
Let us first of all establish that inflation in Canada is not the entire responsibility of Canadians. I should like to read from the Sixth Annual Review of the Economic Council of Canada, page 163, which explains the difficulty that we as Canadians have in rebutting inflationary influences, particularly those from the United States. Neither of these countries can isolate the other. When Professor John K. Galbraith appeared before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs the other day he exhorted Canada to take steps to combat inflation because this would assist the United States to do the same.
I doubt that it would, although it might be of some help. But the influence is rather the other way. The two countries are so inextricably linked by trade that it is impossible to say that problems of inflation in the United States can be isolated from those in Canada, and vice versa.
Yesterday and on previous occasions the Minister of Finance indulged in some back room nit-picking when he criticized the Economic Council of Canada for the statements appearing in the following paragraph of its review:
In Canada, it is difficult to maintain that current inflation is a reflection of excessive demand pressures, for the Canadian economy has been operating with at least a moderate over-all margin of slack since 1967. On the other hand, in the United States the problem of price and cost inflation has been very much one of excessive demand aggravated by the impact on the economy of the war in Vietnam. Until some easing of price and cost increases takes place in the United States, Canadian policies to deal with domestic price and cost problems will be handicapped. Further fiscal and monetary restraint could conceivably result simply in higher rates of unemployment and economic slack with no more than marginal effects on current rates of increase in prices and costs. Moreover, tighter restraint in Canada this year is likely to have its main impact on the economy next year. And if excess demand pressures in the United States are brought under control by the latter part of 1969, the principal result of stringent demand policy restraints in Canada this year might well be seriously mistimed to push the economy into a poor economic performance.
There have been complaints about this paragraph, but I would have held the Eco-
[Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).)
DEBATES	October 29, 1969
nomic Council of Canada lax if it had not posted this warning against embarking on harsh monetary and fiscal measures to contain inflation just because the results will not be immediately apparent. The causes are deep-rooted and remedies may taken one, two or three years, by which time conditions will have changed. According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics there has been a disquieting decline in real domestic products-here I am not speaking of the gross national product-which would indicate that there could conceivably be some unwonted softening in certain sectors of the economy covering manufacturing and service industries, resulting in turn to a diminution of credit. It was quite correct that the Economic Council of Canada should point this out. As the minister indicated, Mr. Speaker, the government is also faced with a credibility problem. It certainly is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is the self-same minister who stood up in this House on Monday afternoon and said, "We will defeat inflation." It is the self-same man who, as President of the Treasury Board, in the spring of 1968 told the House that as a result of the changes in taxation-that is, the increase in taxation in the 1967 budget and the cut-backs in expenditures that were put into force by the government after its defeat on the tax bill-"I guarantee that we will balance the budget for this year." What happened? We had a deficit of over $700 million.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That was his guarantee. At that time I said that when the minister dies they will probably find tattooed on his chest the words, "I guarantee to balance the budget." Now I think we will add a second line, "We will defeat inflation."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have as much faith in the credibility of his statement as I had in the one he made in 1968. In saying that I do not mean that I wish the government to lose the fight against inflation, because we are all in it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: So let no
one say that we are trying to subvert the government in its attempt to fight inflation.
October 29, 1969	COMMONS
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
If we want to see how bad inflation is, let us consider interest rates. The long term government rate as of last week was 7.77 per cent, 1 per cent higher than last year. On 91-day bills it was 7.63 per cent, and on 182-day bills, 7.72 per cent. Both these rates are about 2.25 per cent higher than last year. That is what the Canadian saving public thinks of the government's fight against inflation. It has discounted those intentions, so far as interest rates are concerned, by a further 2 per cent. That, Mr. Speaker, is a measure of the government's credibility.
The cost of living increases. At the end of September, 1969, the Consumer Price Index stood at 126.6. At the end of September, 1968, it was 121.1. It is up, not by four points but by about 4.5 per cent. On the same date in 1967 the index stood at 116.6. Is it any wonder that our pensioners, low salaried people and those who are not in economic power groups are complaining, when in the last couple of years we have seen a ten point spread in the Consumer Price Index?
The wholesale price index was 283.4 at the end of August, as against 271.6 for the same date in 1968, representing an increase of 4.3 per cent. Those who are interested in the Canadian public and housing have only to look at the DBS Weekly report of Friday, October 24, to see the index on building materials. Taking 1961 as 100, the total index for residential building materials as of September, 1969, was 138.9. In other words, building materials have increased 38.9 per cent since 1961. Since last year they have increased by a total of 4.3 per cent. For nonresidential materials the index over the last year went up by 4.9 per cent. I am speaking of building materials only. If one adds to that index the astronomical increases of labour costs that go into building construction, one can see what has been happening.
Just consider the wage settlements of those who can shield themselves from inflation by being members of economic power groups. Consider the building strikes in the city and how they have been settled. Look at the rate increases provided for the next two or three years in Toronto. While the steel strike in Hamilton was being settled, carpenters of that city settled for a wage rate that will take them to over $7 per hour in 1971. Is there not any sense in this regard? Can it not be understood that all this is self-defeating?
The government has placed a great deal of reliance on voluntary restraints. This after-
DEBATES	247
The Address-Hon. M. Lambert noon the Minister of Finance tried to twit the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) about the statement the Prices and Incomes Commission made today with regard to the investigation into the steel price. He suggested that the opposition was not sincere in its concern about what has happened. The Leader of the Opposition and all members on the Conservative side of the House have asked for some form of voluntary restraint. Nevertheless, the events of the last week have shown that the pious exhortations of the Prices and Incomes Commission that business, management, labour and government should enter into voluntary restraints were rejected out of hand by the CLC and the CNTU.
We then asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs what will happen now, because this rejection is a torpedoing of the Commission. I think all members of the House are legitimately concerned about what will happen if the Prices and Incomes Commission, the vehicle selected by the government to fight inflation, must be rescued after being torpedoed on its first attempt at being effective; because that will not be the last time the commissions efforts may be thwarted. Yesterday the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said, "The increase of 6 per cent in the steel price will be looked into", as though there would be some form of examination to see if prices could be justified. Let me read in part what the Prices and Incomes Commission said about this in its first press release:
While the Commission is still engaged in seeking a set ot commitments from private groups and government, it is, therefore, not in a position at this time to render a judgment on what is, or is not, justified in a particular case.
What the Commission can do, however, is to examine particular situations in order to bring the facts before the public, not for the purpose of condemning the parties concerned, but as a way of illustrating the kind of wage and price behaviour which has become very widespread in recent years.
This is what we intend to do in the case of the steel industry.
No one should think of this investigation as a trial leading to a verdict.
The public, Mr. Speaker, has been misled by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, by his attitude and demand for an investigation, has led the public into thinking that the Steel Co. of Canada and other, similar companies will have to justify their price increases, and if
October 29, 1969

The Address-Hon. M. Lambert they cannot justify them great pressure will be brought to bear for those prices to be rolled back. Nothing like that will happen. The Prices and Incomes Commission says it cannot do it. Our dealing with inflation through this commission will take far longer than anyone can possibly foresee. I am disappointed to see the government's selected vehicle being backed too pusillanimously. That is a big word, Mr. Speaker, but the problem is big, too.
There is before this House an amendment put forward by the Creditistes. I cannot speak about their motives for moving it, nor do I intend to. So far as our party is concerned, that subamendment as it stands cannot be supported. In his speech the Leader of the Opposition laid great emphasis on the absolute necessity for a comprehensive review of our whole program of welfare. We must ask ourselves: Is it doing the job of eradicating poverty as a social blight, not only the poverty of those who do not work but the grinding poverty of the working poor? Incidentally, the people in both these groups are about the most helpless victims of inflation.
At our party's conference at Niagara we came to this unanimous conclusion:
Poverty exists in many forms, in many different environments and for many reasons. It is more than an economic problem. The strategy of antipoverty, therefore, must be flexible so that it can be adapted effectively.
Poverty must be fought in many different ways; public welfare is but one weapon in this fight.
We are concerned that the terminology- "guaranteed annual income''-does not adequately describe these principles because it fails to recognize the central place of incentives in a reformed welfare system.
When addressing the closing session of that conference the Leader of the Opposition said as follows:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I am particularly pleased by your commitment to break Canadians free of the poverty which imprisons too many of our citizens. The inadequacy of the present system is clear. You have given definite direction to me and to the caucus, to develop a new and more adequate program, with an emphasis on incentives.
That necessarily implies a fundamental change in the Canadian approach to welfare-to include provision for the working poor, as well as the non-working poor.
The consensus you expressed gives me a mandate to proceed, along with caucus, in developing the kind of program I have been discussing for 18 months.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for this party to support the

amendment to our amendment. There are many other items of which I could speak at this time when dealing with inflation, but I come back to the simple theme that all members of this house must unite in the determination to defeat inflation. We may differ in our methods. For example, I cannot accept the proposals put forward by the Canadian Labour Congress, the Confederation of National Trade Unions and the New Democratic Party that there should be a Prices Review Board but that wages should be a non-negotiable item outside the examination of any such board. This makes a joke of the whole question; therefore, we cannot accept it.
I much prefer voluntary restraints because I believe that we in Canada have an inflation psychosis based upon expectations. Many people are tied to major labour contracts which have annual escalations going forward two or three years. Our public servants at the federal, provincial and municipal levels have similar contracts. Everyone is asking: Can I pay for it next year because I am going to get an increase of so many cents an hour or so many dollars a month; it is guaranteed under my working agreement.
There is this expectation of inflation-it is better to spend now because it will cost more later. After all, the president of the Trust Companies Association of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired, unless he has the consent of the House to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members of the House. I shall not detain you too long.
The president of the Trust Companies Association of Canada, an association whose members have the lion's share of the money that goes into the mortgage market, indicated in his evidence before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs that one of the fiscal measures adopted by the Minister of Finance, namely, the deferral of the capital cost allowance, had not appreciably retarded construction. Why is that? It is due to the expectation of inflation, that by deferral of one year it will cost that much more to construct the building and therefore it is much better to proceed with it this year and perhaps stretch out the capital cost allowance that would have been available this year to next year or the year after. It will never be lost, but the cost next year will be
October 29, 1969	COMMONS
that much more; therefore, it is better to go ahead now.
I doubt whether there has been much effect this year. There might be a little more next year. When experts tell us these things, we doubt the effectiveness of certain measures that have been adopted by the government. If the government can show us a program that is credible in its performance with regard to a program of defeating inflation, it will have the support of this House. Up to the moment they have not done that. Therefore, we want to see the level of government expenditures. We want to see how credible they can be with regard to a number of the measures they have taken. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members to support the motion of the opposition which condemns the actions the government has taken so far in this connection.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I join hon. members who have complimented the mover and seconder of this motion. Some hon. members know I had the honour of performing that task at the opening of the centennial session.
I am very well aware that it is an honour which remains a highlight in the career of any parliamentarian. I think it is safe to say that many members of this House share the concern of the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) when he spoke about the fact that there is perhaps a growing irrelevancy with regard to the public attitude toward parliament.
As a comparatively new member of this House I am forced to the conclusion, albeit reluctantly, that this perhaps is no longer where the action is, in the strict sense of the word. From the point of view of the public, to use a familiar expression, they are off doing their own thing and leaving it to us to mind the store. In other words, it seems that the kind of discussions we have had during this debate and some of the speeches we have heard indicate that we have an almost total involvement with the present and we are not doing enough thinking about the future.
Not enough consideration is being given to goals and objectives for Canada. As a result we are not really tuned in with those we are trying to serve. This is quite an understandable situation. I do not think any of us could disagree that there is an enormous amount of truth in an old expression, if I may paraphrase it, which says that matters that are of immediate concern more or less force .you to move aside the crises. In other words,
DEBATES	249
The Address-Mr. Jamieson we seem to be always preoccupied and concerned with today and do not really get enough opportunity to talk about tomorrow.
The business of running the store, as I call it, is rather important to Canadians. It is very important that we apply our best talents and maximum capabilities to the business of managing the affairs of the nation. I am trying to say-and I would like to emphasize it-that this is not the totality of our job in the House; that in fact what the Canadian public is looking for as much as good management of the here and now is leadership with regard to the definition of goals for the future. They are looking for the clarifying of national purpose, and some indication from us that we have the ability to look far enough ahead to try and shape the structure of this country and to anticipate what the situation will be 5, 10 or 20 years from now. I suggest that is part of our responsibility that perhaps we are not coming to grips with sufficiently at the present time. With the greatest respect to the opposition, I agree that if I were in their place I would probably do precisely what they have done because it is the conventional wisdom to adopt that attitude. But I do not believe that much of what we heard from hon. gentlemen opposite has been of too much value in coming to grips with the immediate problems. It certainly has not helped us to define the goals, objectives and purposes to which I have referred.
We have had a steady and rather good recitation of rather obvious social and economic inadequacies. These are as well known to us as they are to hon. members opposite. They are certainly well known to those people within the Canadian public who are affected by the inadequacies. The opposition has simply said: This is wrong, this is wrong and this is wrong. What is the government going to do about it? With great respect, I say there have not been many concise and explicit indications of what the opposition parties would do under these circumstances. If I can paraphrase a familiar expression relating to another Conservative, when they suggest that there are instant solutions, in their hearts they know they are wrong.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) must surely know better than most that this is so. Despite what the previous speaker said, it is a fact-I am sure it is of concern to hon. members opposite-that the Niagara Conference did not arrive at an agreed and precise program for dealing with poverty, one
October 29, 1969

The Address-Mr. Jamieson that was capable of instant implementation. That conference revealed what surely could have been expected in advance, namely, that there is a wide range of thinking on the subject that there are differences of opinion as to the approach which should be taken. There is no concensus among members opposite or, for that matter, among members of the party to which I belong, as to the precise mechanism which can be employed in order to lick the problem of poverty. Therefore, I suggest it is wrong to pretend that there are instant solutions.
Similarly, the Leader of the Opposition and many other hon. members from eastern Canada recognize that there are no simple answers in the field of economic development; that it is not enough for one's heart to be in the right place. We have witnessed many demonstrations of this, none more revealing than the experience with the heavy water plant at Glace Bay. Can anyone question the fact that the New Democratic Party has no instant solutions? It is apparent at this very moment in Winnipeg that a classic confrontation is taking place between various elements in that party over the question of foreign domination. The leader of the NDP, speaking in this House not more than two or three days ago, criticized the government for being too soft on foreign ownership. But his former colleague in this House, now the distinguished premier of Manitoba, having been faced with the realities of office says he is not one who wants to threaten foreign capital; that far from being any kind of a menace he is a small "1" liberal. In fact, he is wooing that kind of capital.
It is very easy simply to lambaste the government and assume that the shortest route to power lies not in the direct articulation of alternative policies, which are then open to questioning, but rather in a continuous assault on the actions and policies of the government. This is fair ball, of course, and nobody argues about that. It is a perfectly legitimate function of the opposition to adopt such a role. Nevertheless, it is an inadequate role and if it never rises from that level surely what will happen is that eventually- and I am being presumptuous enough to risk giving a little advice to the opposition-the public will realize, as it has done repeatedly over the years, that no alternative is being offered and that those who are merely ridiculing what is being attempted are not worthy of public support.
Let me now say something that is of great concern to me personally in this connection. I 
refer to fishery problems in Newfoundland. I give hon. members opposite full credit for having as much concern as I do for the needs of this area. A year ago there was in this House a tremendous discussion on fishery matters. The kind of discussion that took place was all too familiar. Nearly 500 years ago when John Cabot sailed into Newfoundland waters for the first time he reported that the cod were so numerous that one could catch them in a bucket weighted with stones. I suspect that if hon. members opposite from Newfoundland had been around at that time-and I confess there are occasions when I almost believe they were-the first thing they would have done would be to demand that we give Cabot a subsidy. At the very least they would have suggested that in some way or another we should reduce the price of baskets and of stones.
This has been the conventional, traditional approach ever since. In fact, what happened a year ago illustrates what I have in mind. Because the fishing industry was in very bad shape there were persistent and numerous demands for additional millions of dollars to be poured into the sinkhole of fishing subsidies. To his credit, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) resisted that demand. He took what was obviously a more difficult path in seeking to get at the root cause of the problem. As a result of that forward-planning a special price support program was introduced in order to assist the fresh fish industry which since then has experienced a pronounced strengthening of markets. This situation has almost completely reversed the prospects of many of the fresh fish plants in the sense that while they were near bankruptcy a year ago, a great many of them have a chance to make a reasonable profit this year.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I ask the minister a question?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If the hon. member would not mind waiting until I am through, I will answer all questions then.
There are, of course, serious problems still facing the industry but we have made what I believe to be the most significant progress in 20 years in terms of the outlook for fresh frozen fish. This year we shall be introducing the concept of a salt cod marketing and development corporation. All this is an illustration of the fact that an orderly approach to the solutions of these problems does work.
Another thing this demonstrates-and it should be of interest to all hon. members-is that by obtaining greater co-operation from
October 29, 1969	COMMONS
those whose lives are being affected by various government decisions and the like, this process works even better. It has been my experience that if we talk to the fishermen, for example, it is pointless to expect them in the first instance to do anything other than look for an immediate solution to their difficulties. But when they are invited to talk over the subject they are far more capable than most, in the majority of cases, of appreciating what are the root causes of their difficulties and of accepting recommendations which in many instances were initiated by themselves or by their representatives.
In order to conduct this process, in order to involve fishermen, farmers, students or any other group in our society, it is necessary for them to be in possession of the facts. It seems to me that we in this House must devise a better program to provide a more plentiful flow of information, and more meaningful information to the people. Over the years- and I am not attributing responsibility for this to any one government or party-a tremendous amount of unnecessary secrecy has developed in connection with the business of government. It seems to me, we have done this: Somewhere, way back, we started from the assumption that everything was secret and that only the minimum information possible should be released. Surely a far better and more democratic approach would be to proceed on the assumption that everything is open, and only to withhold information from the general public when this is clearly necessary on the grounds of public interest or for security reasons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let
us begin today.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is the intention of the government this session to examine the whole question of information policy to see whether we can find some means by which we can meet some of the legitimate objections which are now raised, both by members opposite and by members of the general public, by removing unnecessary restrictions on the flow of information to the Canadian people. I would assume that one of the considerations which has always caused governments to move warily in this field is concern about the possible charge of propagandizing. However, I do not believe it is beyond the competence of this House to devise a system of safeguards to prevent that kind of thing happening. In any event, the government is prepared to try, and I hope we should receive the wholehearted co-operation of all parties, not only because a
DEBATES	251
The Address-Mr. Jamieson freer flow of information would result but because it would help to eliminate a greater amount of the mumbo-jumbo which accompanies the information that does reach the general public. Much of it is unintelligible, confused and complex.
[DOT] (3.50 p.m.)
I realize more than most that it is terribly important not only that we make more information available but that it be better information in the sense of its understandability. Of course, the mere provision of information in this way is not of itself any assurance that we will achieve a more viable democracy or a greater degree of the participation that I think we all agree is desirable. A good deal will depend on the public; an enormous amount will depend on our mass media.
Hon. members know of my own background and profession; therefore, I think I can say with perhaps a little more confidence than most that I understand the problems of the ladies and gentlemen who occupy our press gallery and of those throughout the country who are charged with responsibility for the media. They have a tremendously complex job to do. Despite the fact that there is sometimes a general level of irritation among people in public life, on balance I am prepared to defend the proposition that Canadians are served better by their mass media, taken in the round, than people in most other countries. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I know from personal associations and friendships that there still is within our whole media complex a good deal of inadequacy. No one recognizes this more than most responsible members of the media and those who are charged with the responsibility for their direction.
I am not sure how one approaches this problem, because the pressures on the media are enormous. In the first instance, there is now an incredible flow of news and information. As I said a moment ago, despite the fact that there is not as much information of importance as there should be from government sources, there is an almost limitless amount of information pouring out from all manner of sources.


Gerald William Baldwin: Does the minister agree that there is a tendency to give capsule news?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: There is, Mr. Speaker, and I was about to come to that. In the second place, there is a broad spectrum of issues with which the media may deal. Thirdly, and
October 29, 1969

The Address-Mr. Jamieson in answer to the comment of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), there is public anxiety to get virtually all their news in capsule form. This has led to a tendency to compact news almost out of recognition in many respects. In addition, perhaps more importantly and in direct answer to the hon. member's question, there has been the growth of what has come to be called interpretative or personal journalism.
So we have a situation where the media do not report what the hon. member for Peace River said, but what somebody thought he said; or, even twice removed from the fact, what they thought he meant. Not content with that, the media go on to say that what they thought the hon. member meant does not really make sense, and then the bulk of the comment becomes what the writer concerned really feels is the truth about the subject.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the problems. Having practised this intricate art with as much skill as most, I suspect, I do know all the pitfalls. Basically, I think the problem arises not so much from any personal desire on the part of the commentator, columnist, or whoever it is, to do this kind of thing as from the necessity to respond to what is a very fundamental and basic public demand these days for capsule views, for instant opinion and the like.
I think it is perfectly legitimate for us in this house to say that since the media have very carefully safeguarded their right over the years to be recognized as the so-called fourth estate, as an integral part of the democratic or parliamentary process, so is it perfectly legitimate for them to comment in any way that they choose and to report in any way that they choose upon the activities of this honourable House, any members of it or on the government of the day. No one is questioning that right. But I do suggest, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps this is now becoming something of a one-way street and that we ought to ask a little more often than we do whether there is not also a contrary right on the part of members of the House and those to whom and about whom I have spoken to make known when in fact the media are wrong. In other words, is it appropriate for us simply to endure, to a degree in silence, distortion or an obvious and demonstrable error of fact? I do not think it is necessary for us to do this, and it is very unhealthy when it occurs.
Furthermore, lest this be construed as some kind of suggestion of a new imposition on the media, I know from my own experience that

the great majority of responsible journalists would welcome this kind of confrontation. I suggest that within this general challenge to inform Canadians in better manner than has been the case up till now, we collectively and as individual members must find the mechanism and the time to reply to obvious and glaring mistakes which occur in even the best regulated families in the journalistic field. I think that what I am trying to achieve goes even beyond, first, the provision of information and, second, the ability of the public to have total access to this information.
The third and perhaps key point in the whole communications process that enables us to do the second part of the job that I discussed at the beginning of my remarks, namely, to try to define goals and objectives and give the Canadian public some form of leadership, is to enable them to use this information in an effective way; for example, to have the widest possible choice of media. This is the basic protection that we can have in this complex field. It will only work if the public is prepared to examine different points of view through whatever media they receive their information, and to add the still essential ingredient of personal judgment. If they do that, and if they examine the whole perspective of opinion they will probably discover, for example, that the truth lies somewhere between Douglas Fisher and Lubor Zink.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, once this occurs and once there is an interested and discerning public, we must ask whether it too will achieve what we are trying to achieve by way of participation and understanding. I do not believe that it will unless we can also in some way exert influence on all media, and on those who make use of the media, to correct what is now a glaring imbalance in our sense of values nationally.
I think that our market oriented economy, however useful it has been in providing us with a very amazing array of consumer goods and with affluence, has in fact generated a new kind of discerment-not a very deep-rooted kind of discernment of that-among the Canadian public. The media have been much more successful in selling the marketplace than in selling ideas. What people are really being challenged to do far more today than at any previous time is to make a value judgment, for example, between car A and car B, or between the whole range of consumer goods to which I have referred. The result of this enormous impact by the media is that value judgments in regard to those things
October 29, 1969

which might be described as being for the common good are not being made.
For example, Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting things about the television phenomenon-I do not know whether any hon. members have thought about this when viewing different programs-is that television has generated a new kind of social consciousness. That has become perfectly obvious. This it has done rather quickly. A program that is pointing up the neglect of our Indians will probably be accompanied by advertisements, in full colour, for red convertible loans. The program that tells us about the threats and dangers of pollution also has within it advertised invitations to get away from it all, to fly the skies with United to sunny Hawaii and forget the whole stinking business.


An hon. Member:: Why not Air Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, let us say Air Canada. The point made by the hon. member for Edmon on West (Mr. Lambert) is a quite legitimate one and also raises another of those tension points in the whole question of what is the proper and adequate role of various government agencies in these matters. I hope he will not divert me from my central theme because I should like to talk to him about that.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The fact is that in this kind of a complex, whatever the benefits of a market-oriented society-and I shall not go into that question today-there is no doubt that people have been far more successful in selling goods than they have been in selling ideas. One of the challenges we face is how to make a value judgment in respect of programs to correct situations and what is actually needed. It is our intention to declare our feelings to the public on these matters of concern. I came across a quotation from the German writer Dahrendorf who said this about the public attitude today:
Ours is a world of highly individual values which puts the experienced happiness of the individual in first place and increasingly lets the so-called whole slip from sight.
In other words, this is a re-affirmation of the new suggestion being made to people to do their own thing. If that is so, is it really going to make very much difference in the long run if in fact we solve the inflation problem or do any of the other things which have been pre-occupying many of our members and about which the opposition has been criticizing the government for its lack of aotion?
253
The Address-Mr. Jamieson
What I am really saying, without getting too philosophical about it, is this: it is not enough to ask how we are going to solve inflation. What we really have to ask is: To what end are we solving inflation? If you do not have some answers in that connection it is surely evident that the frustrations that have been building up within the Canadian society, and which are symptomatic of much of the world today, will not be any less simply because we have reduced the price of sheet steel by $6 per ton or knocked $100 off the price of an automobile.
These things are important in themselves, of course, but as the history of the post-war world surely demonstrates, what has really happened is that we have increased our affluence enormously and moved ahead economically and socially at a rate unprecedented in Canadian history, but at this moment in time human frustration and uncertainty is greater than it ever was.
So I say we must look for these goals and objectives, and we have to find a way through which we can bring a greater degree of public participation into being. I want to re-emphasize that we are trying to make the information available. We are trying, through the use of white papers rather than legislation, in the first instance, to lay matters before the public on an alternative kind of basis by saying: This is the way we are proposing to move, but we want to hear from you whether it is the right way to move. We might say: This is one choice, here is another-and lay out before the public a whole range of choices. This is what I am hoping to do within the Department of Transport regarding the big issues with which we are engaged.
We within the department are not the repository of all wisdom. It is not the case that we know, better than everyone else with whom we have to deal, what is the best solution. Through these techniques we in the government are trying objectively to achieve a greater degree of involvement. We can only do this together.
I do not believe that on this point any kind of partisan base is likely to cause any friction among us. I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on this point. We can, surely, be united in attempting to define the goals to which I have referred. We must ask ourselves, in the first instance, what kind of Canada we want and then move to a definition of a broad purpose that will give Canadians a real sense of involvement and some justification in answering the question: What does it mean to be a Canadian?
October 29, 1969

The Address-Mr. Southam
This is all terribly nebulous and there is tremendous danger, when one speaks like this, of being guilty of empty rhetoric. But these questions have to be asked.
I came across another quote the other day which members may be interested in hearing. It is so ancient that it could in fact be depressing and at the same time give us cause for encouragement because it indicates that in spite of how bad things appear to be, apparently they are not particularly new. This was a critic writing about the failings of Pelo-ponesian policy making. He said:
Each member presses its own ends which generally results in no action at all. They devote more time to the prosecution of their own purposes than to the consideration of the general welfare. Each supposes that no harm will come of his own neglect, that it is the business of another to do this or that. And so, as each separately entertains the same illusion, the common cause imperceptibly decays.
Without our knowledge, is this imperceptible decay on the way? I suggest that perhaps it is unless we acquire a better sense of balance. I have suggested that we need this within the country. I have tried to point out some of the reasons for the present situation. I think we need combative politics and partisan politics, but I suggest there are issues which override these considerations. It is my hope that we will be big enough to deal with them. If we are, for that reason we will be remembered. If we are not, we will be remembered for simply having done the storekeeping and nothing else. In fact, there is then a good question as to whether we will be remembered at all.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is my duty this afternoon to rise and participate in this Throne Speech debate at the opening of the second session of the 28th Parliament of Canada. Before moving to the topic I have decided to discuss, I wish to associate myself with my colleagues in the House in extending my sincere congratulations to the mover and seconder to the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. While I do not agree with every detail of the comments of these gentlemen, they did give very forthright and commendable addresses and I am sure their constituents will be very proud of them.
I should like also to express my congratulations to the two new ministers and the new parliamentary secretaries. In passing, let me comment on the fact that we in the west are a little concerned about the allocation of some responsibility. I have in mind the removal of


the responsibility for the Wheat Board from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and the allocation of that responsibility to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang). This hon. gentleman is in my estimation a very competent and able individual with a commendable academic career.
These appointments involve qualified men, but none of them have had any experience in dealing with the problems facing western agriculture. When the move was made it was surprising that the responsibility was not transferred directly to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) who is a practicing farmer and a man steeped in western tradition. Surely he understands and appreciates more fully the conditions and problems of agriculture in the west. We now have four ministers dealing with problems in respect of the wheat board. This is perhaps a case of having too many cooks spoiling the broth. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is still involved with problems of wheat sales. The new Minister without Portfolio is charged with responsibility for the Wheat Board. We also have the minister who has just spoken, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) who is interested in moving grain. The Minister of Agriculture would naturally be interested in the welfare of the agricultural industry. At times I am sure we will be confused about where to place responsibility in respect of certain agricultural difficulties.
I should like to make a few remarks on a topic which is of concern to this nation and which significantly underlines the inadequacy of the Speech from the Throne that the government has presented. I intend to focus my remarks on the plight and the challenge of western Canada's wheat economy. This topic has profoundly affected and shaped the temper and consciousness of the house. This is appropriate. The western agriculture industry has been a cornerstone in the quality of life which Canadians have aspired to achieve from the inception of this nation.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The wheat farmer has been a historic and consistent ally of our national development. Often a sector of our society deserves simple applause. However, I have expressed these sentiments with regard to western Canada because I wish to deal with their problems which call for the sympathy and constructive imagination of all. First, we are in the first quarter of a new crop year and a review of
October 29/ 1969

the western panorama is most appropriate at this time. I would like to report a few simple facts, and I ask this house to endeavour to appreciate their human and social meaning.
The essential facts in the 1968-69 crop year were that our wheat and wheat flour exports fell to 304.3 million bushels. In context, this means that our sales level now only equals that of exactly one decade ago. Our sales are down 187 million bushels from the high of 591.6 million bushels in 1963-64. Further, a bitter companion of this truth is that the average price paid to farmers, per bushel, is now approximately $1.50 compared with $1.85 per bushel only a year ago. The direct economic result of this calamity is clear from DBS statistics which I quote as follows: Farm Cash Receipts.
Preliminary estimates indicate that, during the first six months of 1969, farmers total cash receipts from farming operations in all provinces except Newfoundland, reached $1,903.1 million, about 10 per cent below the revised value of $2,134.6 million realized during the first half of 1968. Included in these estimates are cash receipts from the sale of farm products, Canadian Wheat Board participation payments on previous years' grain crops, net cash advances on farm-stored grains in western Canada, deficiency payments made by the Agricultural Stabilization Board and supplementary payments to dairy producers. No deduction was made for the cost incurred by farmers in the production of the commodities sold. Estimates of the expenses incurred in farming operations together with total farm income are published annually in the DBS publication "Farm Net Income".
I will not bore the house further with these statistics. They can be found in DBS catalogue number 21-202. Further, DBS statistics of September 26th state the following, which is of specific relevance to western Canada:
Reflecting the decline in the Canadian Wheat Board participation payments and receipts from the sale of wheat, farm cash receipts in the prairie provinces dropped appreciatively. This was most noticeable in Saskatchewan where receipts fell from $512.1 million in 1968 to $308.3 million this year, a decline of 39.8 per cent. For Alberta and Manitoba, the decline was 20.8 per cent and 13.6 per cent respectively. Cash receipts were higher in all other provinces with the highest percentage increase being exhibited by Nova Scotia with a gain of 17.4 per cent.
This is confirmed in newspaper headlines in western Canada. I have here a number of clippings with headlines such as: "Wheat Economy Deep in Crisis", "Outlook Said Dismal for Export of Wheat", "Agriculture Importance on Decline" and "Few Options Open for Farmers". A simple and very human reality follows which affects the lives of every citizen in the linchpin provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Whole
The Address-Mr. Southam communities and thousands of families are anticipating bankruptcy. The inadequate quota of five bushels per acre, at inadequate prices, means that western farmers are now $65 million in debt to the federal treasury in the 1967-68 cash advances. There is no need to speak of this any further, but there is a need, indeed an obligation-and considering the present government, a challenge-to argue that the crisis of western Canada requires new, bold and successful national responses.
, The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has spoken with some eloquence and with a rare kind of passion about order and unity in our society. I am here to help in my way. However, I warn the Prime Minister and his government that the bedrock foundation of social and political harmony is composed little, if at all, of statutes or rhetoric. For instance, lowering the voting age and legislation on wiretapping is not an answer to western agricultural problems. Frankly, the west will not be a place of genteel and high-minded dialogue that is forgotten while her economy is casually being undermined. A cavalier and shoddy attitude has been the hallmark of this government's approach to western Canada, and what is more important, this seems likely to continue unless the government deserts its oriental fatalism and finds an elan for constructive reform in agriculture. These are my conclusions about the present government, but I do not state them for political advantage. There are no meaningful points to be scored on past behaviour. I am most concerned about the behaviour of the government next year. It is here that I look for reform.
There may well be an economic catastrophe if no change is made. As a citizen and as a politician I do not welcome such a catastrophe. Inadequate sales and falling prices are a cause of trouble. This inadequacy continues to plague us in the House, and it is caused by the fatalism of this government. One has only to quote the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) when he announced on September 25 the sale of 86.2 million bushels of wheat to the People's Republic of China in the following manner:
This sale to China is very gratifying. But I must caution the farmers, and the public, against being overly optimistic about export volume this year. Exporting and importing countries in the northern hemisphere have had good wheat crops. Thus we have no reason to believe at this time that our exports will be much larger than last year.
Ociober 29, 1969

The Address-Mr. Southern
Further, the Canada Grains Council stated the following on September 28:
The decline of the Canadian share of wheat exports started in 1968, extended into 1969 and under present conditions the horizon appears dim.
If all this were an unalterable truth, I suppose I could accept the implied invitation of the government and rally around the flag to teach the west something about accepting one's fate with a generous and forgiving heart. However, I disagree that we should take such a pessimistic stance. Furthermore, I say most emphatically that the single most damnable and divisive act of this government has been its withdrawn approach and defeatism with regard to the future of western Canadian agriculture. I would like to give a clear example. The Winnipeg Free Press of September 5 reported the following:
Agriculture Importance on Decline-Olson Makes Known Results of Government's Sponsored Studies. Agriculture will decline in importance in the Canadian economy in the next ten years, studies made by three federal department economists show. Their findings were released Friday by Agriculture Minister H. A. Bud Olson.
I have here a copy of the press release. I am sorry that the name of the Minister of Agriculture is associated with the pessimistic and fatalistic tone of this report. It says:
1.	In 1966, about 10 per cent of the population lived on farms. By 1980 this will drop to 6 per cent.
2.	In 1967, about 5 per cent of Canada's gross national product came from agriculture. In 1980 this will be about 3 per cent.
3.	The agriculture and labour force will decline from 559,000 (7.6 per cent) in 1967 to about 386,000 (4 per cent) by 1980.
I emphasize the point that despite the mechanization of our farms and the reduction of our farm population, the volume of our agricultural products has increased, and the fact is that exportable agricultural products are the second largest source of income of Canada. Therefore, we in western Canada are unable to understand the mentality of this government which associates itself with the very pessimistic views of some of its economists. It seems to me that this study is largely a waste of time and is harmful to the necessary recovery of western agriculture. To publicize a hypothetical project which generates in a responsible press a headline such as "Agriculture Importance on Decline" is immensely damaging to western Canada.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The minister has not released a series of guidelines for action, but a projection of withdrawal. Is this an invitation for Canadi-

ans to ignore the present plight of western Canada and its future contribution to the Canadian economy? Considering that the government has only one constructive legislative proposal to make in response to the plight of western farmers, it is an understatement to suggest that the Minister of Agriculture could have better employed his experts. Are the forecasts of these studies of much importance? Do we have to live within them? Is it right that the minister should popularize them? The assumptions underlying this report are probably complete. However, to be credible they must remain considerably static. I cannot accept, for example, that production and marketing policies must remain the same and that our share of international markets will not change and can be predetermined.
I do not agree that it is good enough for long-term planners or cabinet ministers to advertise the proposition that if trends continue and a particular share of the market is obtained, sales volume will be at a predictable and predetermined level. Shares of market and markets are not predetermined but are established by competitive positions, the price and services packages and by promotion efforts in other marketing instruments. In today's world it is not good enough to share developed markets. Such assumptions do not pre-occupy energetic governments. Aggressive and modern selling practices could not have been part of the assumptions of these projections. We do not have aggressive or modern selling practices. Compared with our largest competitor, the United States, we spend very little on such a basic task as marketing research. To conclude this point, there is no proper case to be made that we cannot achieve prosperity for the population of western Canada. The pessimists have not a complete case, and considering the dictates of history and immediate experience our assumptions should be optimistic. Our resilience, technology and energy argue the point.
Mr. Speaker, I have said this because I want to be constructive. However, I have had to assert that the positive is appropriate, that optimism is required, because the government would wish it otherwise. Since this House recessed this summer my party colleagues and many others sat down together for three days at Regina and for three days at Niagara Falls to assess the extent of the western agricultural crisis and what policies should be developed by the federal government. Some of our conclusions I would like to quote, and of one I would like to speak. The Regina conference on western agriculture stated as
October 29, 19G9

follows on the question of future markets and the demand for western products:
We reject the pessimistic view of the present government and the federal task force on agriculture on the future of cereal sales for the next decade.
We do not disagree that there will be a static position for future markets of high grade wheats, but we say most emphatically that the future demand for lower grades of wheat for both domestic and feed grains consumption have not been fully exploited.
Today wheat surpluses in the world are only sufficient to cover one year's total demand. This means if there is to be a drought or a crop failure in any part of the world the world cereal picture would shift from one of surplus to deficit in a very short time.
In the meantime, western agriculture is suffering from an income gap which is having serious effects upon the economy of the whole nation. Since we should expect future increases of demands for cereal grains to make our present surplus a real asset, the nation should assist in carrying the costs of this reserve.
Because of the growing opportunities for low grade and new cereals immediate programs should be applied to assist proper adjustment.
We see the future demand for livestock products from western Canada as being good. However, we must warn that a rapid shift from wheat to cattle could mean a disaster to the stable growth of that industry.
The government, in the Speech from the Throne, offers amendments to only one agricultural act. We recommend much more. I quote the Niagara Falls conclusions as follows:
It was felt that a Canadian grain-selling agency was necessary to give grain the type of aggressive salesmanship necessary in international markets.
Until now the Wheat Board, in co-operation with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, has been depending on international commission houses, of which there are a number of multi-million dollar concerns spread over the world, to handle the actual mechanical transactions involved in international sales. All they are interested in is getting a quarter per cent or a half per cent of the selling price arranged for each commodity. I think we are on the right track when we advocate the establishment of a Canadian grains selling agency. Dealing with the International Grains Agreement at the Niagara conference, we stated:
The repudiation of the International Wheat Agreement and the creation of the International Grains Agreement has meant that the five major wheat exporters have essentially lost equal bargaining power with consumers in establishing price levels of sales that would be tolerable to their own producers. The exporters' responsibility is still to seek export prices compatible to the production costs and fair returns for their own
The Address-Mr. Southam producers. But our acceptance of the International Grains Agreement has made this very difficult for those five major producers.
We condemn the government for repudiating the International Wheat Agreement which was, unlike the present International Grains Agreement, an institution which could protect the interests of the Canadian producer. Furthermore, this government took this step without consulting the Canadian wheat producers themselves.
So now we recommend:
1.	We should now make it our immediate and priority aim to re-establish an unanimity among these five major producers to once again establish international prices tolerable to their own wheat producers.
2.	We should try to establish with Russia and other in and out exporters of wheat a working agreement on these basic prices which are to be established again by the five major producers.
3.	We should develop within these international agreements greater flexibility so that lower quality grains can more properly contribute to the incomes of western farmers.
4.	We ask that during the next meeting of the five major producers before the next International Grains Agreement conference to establish new price dimensions, the costs of goods and services of the farmer due to inflation be considered as a factor when those new prices are established.
We also took a look at the growth of the cattle industry and we had this suggestion to make:
In co-operation with the provinces we would promote a moderate and steady expansion of the beef industry in all parts of Canada by:
(1)	encouraging better use of pasture in conjunction with water and grain,
(2)	establishing and developing co-operative and private feed lots, and
(3)	encouraging conversion of high yield, low quality Wheatland into pasture and forage to allow for expansion of beef-cow numbers.
Dealing with the role of food aid in international development we had this to say:
Our position is that Canada should meet all requests for food by the World Food Program. We are disappointed that governments have failed to supply areas of extreme crisis such as the Gaza Strip and Biafra. If multilateral agencies are unable to act then our government should stand willing to work a bilateral agreement in relieving distress.
The essence of using food in international development is to give highest priority to the development of food supplies in the newly developing nations. Realizing this objective will require decades to achieve, Canada should take the lead in persuading other nations to build up inventories of strategic food items. This should be undertaken within multilateral agencies such as the World Food Program or F.A.O.
Dealing with the subject of floor prices we stated:
We recommend that the Agriculture Prices Stabilization Act be brought up to date by bringing into play the increased knowledge that we have of production efficiency levels in the products covered by the legislation.
258	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Southam
The subject of acreage payments was discussed and we said:
Acreage payments are like cash advances; not final answers to the farmer's fundamental problem. However, they should be considered as a proven technique of bridging the income gap while allowing maximum freedom for the farmer to choose the diversification program most suitable to his own needs.
On the matter of transportation we said:
We recommend that in view of problems consistently arising in the movement of cereal grain in western Canada, which bring hardship, inconvenience, and financial loss to individual farmers, an over-all co-ordinating authority be established to direct the movement of cereal grains.
Storage has been a major problem this fall for farmers in western Canada. It is hard to estimate the cost to farmers in their efforts to borrow money to provide storage to protect the grain they have taken off their land this year. On the question of storage we stated:
We recommend that the money spent by the federal treasury on the Temporary Wheat Reserve Act for grain storage be divided between commercial storage and farm storage on the basis of six cents per bushel per year.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
These tasks must now be pursued by the government if it is to claim it has done what was possible, what was required. But more specifically, I appeal to the government to establish a manly, practical and essential understanding with our greatest competitor, the United States. The history of the present crisis calls for this action as a basis of recovery. I think this puts the finger on the crux of one of our biggest problems. We have a great deal of unsold grain in western Canada and have lost markets because of the temporary lapse of the International Grains Agreement. When our officials returned from the Kennedy Round talks in Geneva we in western Canada were met by the headlines in the Regina Leader to the effect that the Americans had dumped wheat into the Japanese market at 22 cents a bushel below the floor price. I can understand the reaction of our competitor countries such as Argentina, France and Australia. When they saw a major nation such as the United States taking advantage of the lapse in the wheat agreement, they immediately did the same.
However, Canada remained honest for another 18 months, but last April the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) advised the House that he had instructed the Wheat Board to start cutting prices in world markets. This sent a shudder through western members who felt it was the last straw. It
DEBATES	October 29, 1969
was exactly what our friends across the line wanted us to do, and within two weeks they were pointing the finger at us. Canada and France were named the culprits, when actually it was our neighbours to the south who started the baU rolling.
I would make a suggestion and draw on my experience of a few years ago when I had occasion to deal with similar matters. Perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) or the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) with responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board should make a private visit to the United States and talk to their counterparts behind closed doors with no radio, press or television coverage. We are not antiAmerican, but I think we should be proCanadian. Perhaps before the next conference they would be able to reach a decision on what should be the floor price under the International Grains Agreement. If $1.95J is not a realistic floor price-and I have talked to many farmers who feel that possibly it is an excessive price-perhaps something more realistic, say $1.75, could be set as the floor price and we could start from there.
Importers know that Canada grows the best wheat in the world. Under the old wheat agreement we have for 18 years satisfied our customers because of our reputation as honest brokers who bargain fairly and who produce good quality grain. If we set a good example to the exporting and importing nations of the world we should get our fair share of world markets. As I stated earlier, Mr. Speaker, this is not party policy; it is a suggestion of my own which I think is practical and I think our friends to the south would respect us for it. Again, I appeal to the government to establish a manly understanding with out greatest competitor, the United States.
This present crisis had much of its origin in 1966. The federal government has had the responsibility since then to develop policies to meet the common crisis, but it has failed. In 1966 the United States made a number of changes in her wheat policy which adversely affected Canadian growers. They were obvious at the time but our government did not act. The United States wheat acreage allotment was increased by about 30 per cent, a modified two-price system was introduced using domestic milling certificates and aggressive selling in commercial markets supplanted much of the earlier emphasis on food aid. As a result in 1967-68 the United States was the only major exporter to increase wheat

October 29, 1969

exports while total world exports declined by about 15 per cent. Because of our indecisive response to the new challenges our wheat exports declined by almost 40 per cent.
In closing I should like to say this, Mr. Speaker. In the short term, government policy has probably averted a cash shortage which could have been ruinous to a viable industry. An assessment of marketing difficulties and opportunities must now be rigorously and frankly undertaken. This economic area must harmonize supply and demand for two reasons. First, the kind of assistance the farmer is now receiving in terms of cash advances can only be repaid by sufficient acreage quotas in the future, otherwise western agriculture will become hideously indebted to the federal treasury; secondly, the wheat economy cannot, and historically should not become a burden to the financial capacity of the government. If we are to make any progress in meeting the hurtful and chronic poverty of agriculture in the regionally depressed areas of eastern Canada and the maritimes, western agriculture must again become a contributing cornerstone of our economy.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, every so often in this debate in which the House is engaged I find myself thinking of it as a state of the nation debate. In other words, in the traditions of this parliament we come back from the far corners of our big country and give to those members of the House and the government who take time to listen some report of the state of the nation, as it were, in our particular corner of it. In the last hour or so we have heard something about the problem of marketing wheat from the member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) and we have heard about the problem of marketing fresh and salt codfish in Newfoundland from the Minister of Transport. But I suppose some of the matters on which I shall speak this afternoon will not have come to the particular attention of either of those hon. members.
I found it quite interesting that in the spirit of this debate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) spoke to us as a member from the Province of Newfoundland rather than in his capacity as the Minister of Transport. I think his speech could give us some food for thought. He gave us a picture of the true tradition of debate in reply to the Speech from the Throne, where one can be reasonably expansive about one's own viewpoint, at the same time recognizing that other members have something to contribute to the progress of public life in this country.
The Address-Mr. Barnett
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as I listened to him I wished that his colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), who appears to be in a rather panicky and near hysterical state these days, had been in the House to absorb something of the spirit and the approach taken by the Minister of Transport. When I listened to the Minister of Finance on Monday I began to feel that the state of the nation must be much worse, at least from his point of view, than I had found it during the time I spent in my own constituency. I wonder if the minister has read his remarks in Hansard. He seemed to be almost hysterical and in a trigger-happy mood. I should like to draw some of his remarks to the attention of the House. He was referring to capital investment policies, priorities, and proposals of the NDP for controls in our economy in terms which reminded me, a member from British Columbia, of the tone of voice adopted by the Premier of British Columbia in the provincial election of not too long ago when, on being panicky about his prospects of returning to power, the Premier pulled out all the stops and pushed all the political panic-buttons. When referring to the NDP proposals the Minister of Finance said, as reported on page 147 of Hansard:
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
-the inevitable consequences are arbitrary judgments, gross inequities, rationing, and for the first time in Canada since the war, a black market. Worst of all, the state will have to move into every factory, every store, every office, every trade union and every household. Perhaps this is the kind of communist control that the NDP wants for our society-
In his election campaign the Premier of British Columbia talked of the heavy hand of the Marxist socialist state, but I did not expect that the Minister of Finance, when discussing the seriousness of the state of the nation and what can be done to overcome inflation, would display such shattered nerves. Considering some of the remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the question period, about the imposition of certain controls if certain voluntary measures do not work out, I am inclined to think that the Minister of Finance is more worried about his colleagues in cabinet. Perhaps by his remarks he was lashing out at those colleagues indirectly, since he could not lash out directly. I am afraid that the minister has been speaking about imagined comments emanating from our party, because remarks he has attributed to members of this group bear no resemblance to statements made by our spokesmen inside or outside this chamber.
October 29, 1969

The Address-Mr. Barnett
As the Minister of Transport said, in each session the Canadian parliament deals with the immediate crisis that lies before us. I agree that at the same time we must try to look ahead. Having been in the chamber somewhat longer than the minister has been,
I think I can say that in each session of parliament we look at the future of our country and try to determine in which direction we ought to move. Commenting on the radio the other day on the particular characteristic of this session, I said that this may become known as the session of the great inflation debate. It will be a watershed in our attempt to come to grips with the realities of inflation.
Earlier in his Monday night speech the Minister of Finance spoke of the great problem of our deep-seated inflationary expectations, meaning no doubt the expectations of people who believe that inflation will go on forever. They want all they can get out of it. The minister said this:
I should like to assure the House that it is the intention of the government that this shall not happen, and it will not happen for the benefit of the little people in our country.
Some people in this House have for many years been trying to say that the little people of Canada are endangered by inflation. This session may become a watershed inasmuch as for the first time in my experience a Minister of Finance in this chamber appears to be taking inflation seriously enough to do something about it.
In the period since the end of the second world war-and during the war we had some controls-a certain trend has been followed in our economy. That trend, with the exception of one or two brief periods of so called recession, was one of inflation. During most of this period there has been sitting on the treasury benches a government that calls itself Liberal. We had a Liberal government after the war which deliberately turned its back on any kind of orderly control in our society. It abandoned all wartime controls almost overnight, encouraged the formation of an inflationary price spiral and ignored the pleadings of the labour leaders of the country who asked the government not to abandon controls completely. They said that if the government was prepared to take this course they were prepared to recommend to the constituent unions of the labour congresses that they hold down the lid on demands for wage increases unless those wage increases could be tied to increases in productivity.
Today when a Liberal Minister of Finance says, "I should like to assure the House that it

October 23, 1969
The Address-Mr. Rondeau should be dealt with. The Government of Canada, however, refuses to recognize that such claims have any substance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired-unless, of course, there is unanimous consent to his continuing. Is that agreed?


An hon. Member:: Go on.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am content to let the matter rest there, Mr. Speaker. I can pursue it again if necessary. There will be other opportunities.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cullen) and the seconder (Mr. Marceau) of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Those hon. members thus had one of their first opportunities to express their views in the house and, above all, to point out to a certain extent the needs of their respective constituencies.
I wish to call the attention of the house to two problems that I consider extremely serious and which were not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.
On several occasions, since 1967, I have addressed oral or written questions to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) concerning fraudulent bankruptcies in Canada.
If you refer to the official documents tabled in the house, you can see that a revision of the legislation on bankruptcy was promised. Mention of it was made in the Speech from the Throne and in the legislation introduced for this purpose. Up to now nothing in the government attitude leads us to expect an early inquiry into or revision of the Bankruptcy Act.
This problem is worsening from day to day. In the province of Quebec alone during the first three months of 1968 $32 million were lost in fraudulent bankruptcies and the figures we have for this year are even more alarming.
This loss of $32 million in three months represents an average of $11 million a month for the province of Quebec alone. This means also a loss of about half a million dollars a day because of really fraudulent bankruptcies. These figures spread fear and shock in industrial and trade circles, but it seems that during the last three years the federal government did not carry out its promises.
According to The Gazette of Friday, October 3, 1969, one of the officers in charge of fraudulent bankruptcies in Montreal claimed, and I quote:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
[English1
Fraudulent bankruptcies in Quebec have accounted for a record-breaking $32,000,000 in commercial losses in the first three months of 1969, a Montreal Police Department expert said yesterday.
"The illicit trade has grown to such proportions in recent years that I'm convinced the revenue obtained in fraudulent bankruptcies is used to finance organized crime projects," Lieutenant Leo Talbot told the conference . . .
Lt. Talbot said he finds it difficult to explain why efforts to contain this type of crime have not been more intense.

Our police forces are wondering how it is that the federal government has done nothing in the last two years, at least, to carry out its promise to introduce a new measure in respect of the Bankruptcy Act.
In spite of the promises made in the house, nothing in the bills tabled last week by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gives us any hope that such a review will be undertaken.
Although I cannot discuss it at length during the time allotted me, I want to raise another problem which is extremely important, in my view. It deals with another sphere of the economy and has to do specifically with our young people.
It is about the drug problem which is as frightening, if not more, as that of bankruptcies. In the newspaper La Presse, on May 14, 1969, this is what one could read:
North Americans consume 25 tons of aspirin daily.
Each year, Canada imports legally 33 tons of barbituric powder, that is an average of 7.4 tablets per Canadian.
Canadians buy legally each year 71 million tons of stimulating amphetamins.
-These facts have been revealed by Mr. Keith Kincaid, a journalist who has done research in this field and published the article from which I just read an extract.
I go on with the quotation.
It is obvious that Canadians live with chemical products intended to make them forget their worries, ease tension, bring sleep, improve their dispositions, flight weariness and stimulate energy.
It is somewhat frightening to see how many doctors prescribe drugs they hardly know, combine incompatible products which could have a dangerous effect...
Dr. S. J. Holmes, psychiatrist from Toronto, explains this as the symptom of a sickness deeply rooted in socio-economic conditions which produce dissatisfaction, conflict and tension.
October 29, 1969

The Address-Mr. Rondeau
On May 22, 1969, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) addressed a convention of the American Pharmacists Association in the following terms:
Speaking about the increasing use of marijuana and other hallucinogenic drugs in a first speech before the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, I said I was worried about the alarming way the number of marijuana users was growing. I quoted the figures that were available then: 54 cases in 1964; twice as many in 1965; more than 400 in 1966; almost 1600 in 196V. We now have the 1968 total,-
At the present time, according to the statistics provided by experts in that field, about 20 per cent of the student population are addicts and use all kinds of drugs.
In my opinion, this is an extremely serious problem. Our youth take large amounts of drugs and barbiturates. The federal government in its Speech from the Throne does not even mention it. Another Montreal newspaper reported the following and I quote:
Adiction to heroin costs $1 billion to the community. The traffic and consumption of heroin throughout Canada costs about $1 billion per year to society as stated this wekend by Dr. Houssein Mog-hadam of the School of Hygiene at the University of Toronto.
I could continue to quote statistics and comments to give you some idea of the importance of this problem.
One piece of news made a particular impression on us last year. As a matter of fact, there appeared in the newspapers-and the federal government did nothing about the matter-the following news item:
Sixty million dollars worth of drugs are seized: Scotland Yard implicates the Defence Department and the RCMP exonerates the number one suspect.
A certain quantity of chemical products used to manufacture LSD, which would have netted sixty million dollars on the black market; a technician of the CBC in Toronto poisons himself with cyanide while being questioned by the police.
The first concrete fact rests in the revelations made this morning by a Scotland Yard spokesman, who stated that this famous British police department has broken up a vast international drug ring which literally flooded with LSD the west Coast of Canada and the United States ...
The ring, by selling this product on the black market, would have made $60 million .. .if Scotland Yard had not intervened ...
.. . But a Yard spokesman had just said yesterday morning again, that documents and letters found in the home of Kussner, in Toronto, had made it possible to arrest two men in London, then to dismantle the ring. The Yard spokesman had then revealed that documents had been seized with the LSD, indicating that the drug was sent to Canada for refining ... in a laboratory of the Canadian Department of National Defence, before being put on the market in Vancouver and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, following that report, nobody here, not even a committee of the house, succeeded in getting to the bottom of the charges made by a very important Scotland Yard detective.
Everybody knows that the problem of drugs in Canada is getting worse and worse. As a matter of fact, a Montreal school now buys for $5,000 worth of barbiturates or drugs of all kinds every week.
The situation is getting more and more serious. Our young people show an ever stronger tendency to use the most harmful drugs. They go from marijuana to hashish, methadrin, LSD and, finally, heroin. The situation keeps deteriorating, and exemplary convictions only will put an end to that mad craze.
Since the beginning of 1968, only 200 pounds of marijuana which sells retail for $1,600 a pound have been seized.
At the present time, Montreal is flooded with barbiturates. Hashish has become popular and for the first time heroin has appeared on the market.
According to certain newspapers, 1,000 barbiturate addicts would be waiting for admission at the Joliette hospital.
Some time ago, Detective Sergeant Jacques Durocher gave examples of trips and the noxious effects caused by the use of this drug in our society, particularly among the young people on whom depends the future of Canada. These are his words:
-Under the influence of LSD, they think they are traffic lights; they plunge amidst the stream of cars at peak hours trying to stop them. In certain cases they have caused crashes in which people were injured;
He further states:
A youth thought he was the Iron Man. Totally gone on a "trip", he lay down on a bed and plunged a kitchen knife into his heart. He was 17.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
In my constituency, a young 19 year-old man attending a technical school in the Eastern Townships took his life 12 hours after having taken a dose of barbiturate.
I could give hundreds of such cases.
I could even mention the case of a 27 year-old intern, who went into the operating room chuck-full of LSD 25. In his "hallucinatory" state, he forgot three surgical instruments in the abdomen of the "female patient", and while at it, removed the ovaries, the gallbladder, the pancreas, and threw everything through the window.
October 29, 1969
Now, Mr. Speaker, this seems exaggerated, but it is true.
These facts are alarming for our society and I think that the government should have taken special notice of it and put an end to the harm caused at present by that drug. As one knows, it is very easy nowadays for anybody who wants to use drugs to get them from recognized agencies, and especially from physicians.
Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude my remarks by commenting on the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) and seconded by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) and dealing with a guaranteed minimum income for each Canadian.
For several days, this house has been discussing the fight against inflation. I wonder where the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the government experts found their definition of the word inflation, in their efforts to fight it. Surely, we should know what it is before we fight it. The best way to find the right definition is to look in the Larousse or Quillet dictionaries, both give exactly the same definition.
At page 543 of the Larousse dictionary, the word inflation is defined as follows:
Economic imbalance characterized by a general increase in prices-
Up to this point, I think that we all agree, but the definition indicates also the cause of this evil and I continue:
-and which stems from the excessive purchasing power of the body of the consumers (individuals, corporations and governments) in relation to the quantity of goods and services available to them.
This means that inflation implies that there is too much money in circulation. Is it that the minister now intends to fight inflation on the basis of this definition and that we all agree with the Larousse definition? Of course not, the minister does not care about the definition. On the contrary, I think that in Canada, at the present time, there is not much money in circulation.
One look at the statistics of the federal, provincial and municipal governments and the school boards, at the needs of the Canadian people, at our production and at the unemployed, the families who need that production, to conclude that the problem in Canada is not one of production, because the Minister
The Address-Mr. Rondeau of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) tell us that the production should be increased. The Minister of Finance, on the other hand, tells us that we should produce less.
Thus, restraint on one hand and increase of the productivity on the other. We, the members of the Ralliement creditiste, say that our problem is one of distribution and all the newspaper articles which tell us of the problems of our municipalities are capable of giving quite another definition which leads us to believe that we do not live in a period of inflation.
On September 17, 1969, the newspaper L'Action said about the city of Montreal, and I quote:
The population of Montreal has only tripled since 1900, but the city's budget has increased a hundredfold.
In the meantime, interest charges on the debt have increased sixfold, from $13,400,000 to 1948-49 to $77,100,000 in 1968-69.
The city of Montreal pays at the present time more than $85 million per year, in interest charges only, and the largest city in my constituency, that of Granby, showed in 1957 a debt of $2,750,000-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being 5.30 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 of Standing Order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question necessary to dispose of the amendment to the amendment now before the house. The question is on the amendment to the amendment. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Call in
the members.



October 29, 1969
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost. The question is now on the amendment. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members that we proceed with the division without the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. This house stands adjourned until 11 o'clock a.m. tomorrow morning.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

		
		
		
		
		
		
[Stage Direction]


Thursday, October 30, 1969