1969-10-27

Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will recall that during the last session an abridged version of the order paper was produced on an experimental basis. The primary purpose of the experiment was to reduce the very high cost of the printing of parliamentary publications without reducing the information provided to hon. members. After consultations with the house leaders of the various parties it appears that hon. members would agree that the abridged version of the order paper only should be published for a further experimental period. Should the short version prove unsatisfactory the regular version would be reintroduced.
Hon. members noticed, I am sure, the great volume of Hansards, order papers and other papers which accumulated under their desks in the past session. Following consultations with the several house leaders it has been agreed that the filing of such papers under members' desks could be discontinued. It is therefore proposed that the day-to-day papers and publications will continue to be placed on hon. members' desks but that those papers will be removed at the close of each day. An adequate supply of back issues in both languages will be maintained in both lobbies. The ordinary distribution to members' offices will continue as in the past.

I hope that hon. members will find such arrangements acceptable. I shall be pleased to receive suggestions and they will be given due consideration.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean Marchaind (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41, I wish to table the first report on the administration of the Regional Development Incentives Act.



JUDGES ACT


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-2, to amend the Judges Act.


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


John Napier Turner: for leave to introduce Bill C-3, to amend the Criminal Code.


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


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-4, to amend the Canada Corporations Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[DOT] (11.10 a.m.)


John Napier Turner: for leave to introduce Bill C-5, to provide for the relief of persons who have been convicted of offences and have subsequently rehabilitated themselves.


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


Hon. H. A. Olson (for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-6, to wind up the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition and to authorize the writing off of certain costs and the deferral of certain payments connected therewith.


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

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Robert L. Slaniield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement last Friday about pollution control and international agreements, is it the position of his government that Canada now exercises and intends to assert full sovereign control over all the waters of the Canadian Arctic and particularly over the waters between the islands of the Arctic?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I can say yes, Mr. Speaker. This government does take the position that it exercises sovereignty over all the waters of the Canadian Arctic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Prime Minister received the recommendation from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development that the government take action as quickly as possible to declare Canada's sovereignty over these waters, which, incidentally, was a unanimous recommendation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not received this communication yet but I will look into it.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the right hon. gentleman take some time in the next two or three weeks and possibly table a map showing what in his opinion is the Canadian Arctic and the related seas?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, I could take some time to consider it, and in the meantime, if the hon. member would draw some lines on a map, they might help me.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a further supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In. order to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, am I to take it from what the Prime Minister said that Canada does claim jurisdiction and sovereign control over all the waters between the islands in the Canadian Arctic?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is talking about the Canadian

Arctic, then I repeat, yes, we do exercise jurisdiction and we intend to exercise our sovereignty over that part of the world.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In order to avoid any misunderstanding, would the Prime Minister directly answer my question whether or not the government of Canada claims jurisdiction and is going to exercise jurisdiction over all the waters between the islands of the Canadian Arctic, for example, all the waters in the Canadian archipelago-the waters between the islands?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer once again is that the waters which Canada claims as its own will be the object of the exercise of sovereignty by the Canadian government, but I am not prepared to state at this particular time where the lines will be drawn.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a further supplementary question, am I to take it then that the Prime Minister has not yet made any statement with regard to Canada's claim over the waters between the islands and, if so, how does Canada propose to exercise pollution control with respect to the waters between the islands?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is asking me to anticipate the bill which we have said we will introduce in this session of Parliament. That bill will indicate how we intend to exercise control over pollution of these waters.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the bill also indicate the areas and define the waters over which Canada intends to exercise pollution control?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I repeated during the debate on the Speech from the Throne that if there are any constructive suggestions from the Opposition, if they could indicate where in their opinion the lines might be drawn, this might permit us, before introducing the bill, to alter our projected drawings.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the increasing impact on the British Columbia economy

resulting from the waterfront dispute in Vancouver, with an additional 2,400 employees being laid off today by one company in the forest industry, can the minister bring the house up to date and report on any progress made in his or departmental officials' discussions over the weekend with both parties to the dispute?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday afternoon I met with representatives of the union's negotiating team and last night I met with the representatives of the BCMEA, the management organization. I shall have a further meeting today with the BCMEA. We have succeeded in clarifying the particular points in the proposed collective agreement to which the unions felt they had objection. I do not think the difficulties are insurmountable, and if progress were to continue today as rapidly as it did yesterday this strike could very well come to an end.
I am very pleased to answer the hon. member, who is so knowledgeable about labour aims, and I am sure he would be the last one in this House not to recognize that this strike could be settled tonight if the union were to ratify the agreement Which their negotiators thought desirable. If the hon. member is suggesting that I should bring in restrictive legislation, perhaps he could help me draft it, but in the meantime I am trying to settle the strike in the very near future by collective agreement.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the minister suggested that I am recommending restrictive legislation because he knows I am not. That was a statement he made, not an answer to my question. As a supplementary question may I ask whether in the discussions he held with the union negotiating committee and the employers the point was raised that as the result of a subsequent dispute there might be a further hold-up caused by the threat of dispatchers to place picket lines around the port if they are not recognized as a collective bargaining unit?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



HARBOURS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question which arises from the
Inquiries of the Ministry huge mining developments now contemplated for the northern part of New Quebec and which follows up earlier questions.
Would the Prime Minister tell us whether talks have been held or are now going on with the Quebec government, in connection with the building of harbour facilities at Wakeham Bay, in the Bay of Ungava, or elsewhere in the Hudson Strait, in order to guarantee to those mining companies that they will be sure to ship their ore?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such talks, but I shall inquire, probably of the Minister of Public Works who must know something about it, since harbours are involved.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State far External Affairs. He is not here, although this is Monday, but I presume there is an acting minister. Can the minister advise if the government of Canada has received through official channels complaints from the French government that the senior counsellor at our Paris embassy interfered improperly with the conduct of the recent French national elections in an effort to force a French official to visit Ottawa as well as Quebec? If so, what has been Canadian response and attitude thereto?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have been notified of this claim and my reaction is that it is preposterous. Nevertheless, I am asking that a report be made to me about the details.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister giving consideration to any discussions or conversations which might seek to forestall a further cooling off in the relations between France and Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Am I giving further consideration to conversations which might help to forestall a further cooling off? Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what is intended by the question, but we are in the process of discussing with the French government the procedure that French ministers will be expected to follow in the future when visiting Canada.


Inquiries of the Ministry NIGEBIA-BIAFRA-INQUIRY AS TO INCREASED CONTRIBUTION TO INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance attached to the International Red Cross in the Speech from the Throne in respect of the Nigerian-Biafran situation and in view of the announcement by that agency of a cutback in aid to the victims of the Nigerian-Biafran war because of financial difficulties, is the government considering an increase in its contribution to that agency?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Did I understand the hon. member to say, Mr. Speaker, that the International Red Cross said they were cutting back aid? I am afraid I did not understand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that was the basis of my question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, this
assumes that they have ceased to believe that they can find a working arrangement for flying relief to the Biafran population and-


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
order to clarify the matter, may I put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As I understood it, the announcement was that the cut-back was being made because of a shortage of funds; hence my question, is the government considering increasing its contribution to make up for this shortage?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we believe that the International Red Cross is now in the process of trying to establish procedures whereby it will be able to fly further relief into Biafra, and the government is prepared to continue its support if these endeavours are successful. I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated that if these efforts are not successful, if we cannot get authority from Colonel Ojukwu for the Red Cross to fly by day and if arrangements cannot be made for flights to be made safely at night, then we shall have to look at other arrangements. But these are hypothetical questions. We still hope that either Colonel Ojukwu will let daylight flights take place in order that the starving population may be relieved or that, alternatively, they will be given safe conduct for flights at night.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the urgent protest by the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture over the Minister of Agriculture's recently announced reduction of feed grain freight assistance rates to eastern Canada, is he now reconsidering that decision?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make clear the announcement we made last week. There is not to be a reduction in the over-all amount. In fact, there is to be-with approval of this House-an increase in the amount of over-all feed grain assistance. Because of the substantially increased volume, if we are to stay within the limit of the estimates passed by the House, we have to reduce the rates somewhat.


Harold Warren Danforth: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister knows that between 75 per cent and 80 per cent of all feed grain used in Nova Scotia is imported from western Canada, does he not feel that as a result of this policy we run the risk not only of discouraging western export to the east but also of undermining the competitive position of western farmers at this very grave period in agriculture?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the supplementary is argumentative.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When will the Minister of Agriculture inform the public of the extent to which feed grain assistance will be reduced?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that has already been done by the Feed Freight Assistance Board. However, I will check to make sure that the exact amounts have been made public so that changes in each zone will be known. I believe, however, that this has already been done.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the
October 27, 1969	COMMONS
government reconsidering as a matter of policy the refusal of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to lend funds for a sewage control system for Hamilton?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this matter is now under consideration but I am not aware of the final decision of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I direct to the Prime Minister, about the funds that are being made available for municipal loans to be used for sewage treatment plants. In its cut-back of funds generally being made available, is the government reconsidering its policy with respect to municipal sewage treatment plants?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think this question might properly be addressed to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing who is responsible for that aspect of the matter.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, may I clarify the question. As a result of a general policy statement I take it that the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing does not have the necessary funds from the government. All I am asking the Prime Minister is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might ask his supplementary. I think it might be easier to consider the matter that way. I do not think we should hear an explanation from the hon. member.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is: Is a general review of policy being made with regard to making more funds available for municipal sewage treatment plants?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, a general policy review is being conducted on the whole question of housing.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the announcement by the Prime Minister last Friday that the government does not intend to give specific powers to the Prices and Incomes Commission to deal with the particular case of the steel industry, has the government requested-not instructed- the Prices and Incomes Commission to investigate the steel price increase in order to
DEBATES	9i
Inquiries of the Ministry ascertain if it is justified? Also, has the minister or any other member of the government made representations to the steel industry requesting that the increase be justified?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with the members of the Prices and Incomes Commission from time to time, yes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not doubt that ministers have had discussions with members of the commission. But did those ministers request the commission to investigate this matter? Also, is the government considering ordering the steel industry to roll back its prices in the light of information now available?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as to the first part of the question, the Prime Minister made the government's position clear on Friday. As to the second part, I think it would be more properly answered by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I ask the minister whether he is taking enough interest in this question to know whether in fact the Prices and Incomes Commission is conducting an investigation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the question in this form is unacceptable. The Leader of the Opposition has asked if the minister in fact has taken enough interest, and in this way the question is not acceptable.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps I might rephrase my question. With proper respect for the minister, I ask him if he knows whether the Prices and Incomes Commission is in fact conducting such an investigation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: With proper respect to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, some discussions have been held. I do not think the commission has yet made a decision on this matter.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.


Inquiries of the Ministry
Could he inform the house as to the present stage of the construction of the new C.B.C. buildings?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Insofar as I know, Mr. Speaker, the work is proceeding according to plan.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasl-ings):: I wish to address my question to the Prime Minister. The government has made it clear it intends to carry out its reduction of the civil service by 25,000 partly by attrition and partly by dismissals but has not indicated the proportion of each. Because of the great uncertainty in the civil service about this matter, will the Prime Minister now indicate approximately what proportion of the 25,000 people will involve dismissals?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did that, Mr. Speaker, early in August. I made it clear that the total figure of 25,000 was a reduction of the establishment figure for next year compared with that of last year. With respect to that 25,000, we gave instructions to departments to apply the guidelines. It is up to each minister to say how the guidelines apply in his department and how much program cutting or personnel cutting he will have to undertake. I indicated also that it was my assessment it might mean between 4,000 and 6,000 layoffs, the rest being either posts which are not filled or which become vacant as a result of attrition. The figure of 4,000 to
6,000	was an outside figure. Since then I believe officials of the Treasury Board have indicated it might be lower.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. As it is the government's intention to cut down wherever possible on civil servants, and particularly in the Department of External Affairs, has the government given consideration to having the task of envoy to the Vatican performed by our present ambassador to Italy who lives in the same city as the Vatican, as the Prime Minister well knows, can be in constant touch and would be able to carry out this task very well?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is unusual for any country to be represented at the Vatican by its ambassador in Rome. My understanding is that if we are going to have a double accreditation the Vatican prefers to have
(Mr. Latulippe.l
some other ambassador from elsewhere rather than the ambassador in Rome. This matter has been considered and we decided on balance that it was important enough to have an ambassador at the Vatican.


George Harris Hees: A further supplementary. As the Prime Minister has always prided himself on being a man of intuition, is the fact it has not been done before the reason for not doing it now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Perih):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the light of evidence that certain baby foods may contain substances likely to cause brain damage, what steps, if any, has the minister taken to investigate the properties of baby foods produced in Canada and to ensure that any harmful substances are omitted from the preparation of such foods?


John Carr Munro: I can advise the hon. member that the Food and Drug Directorate in Canada has been conducting studies on baby foods for three years. We have not come up with any evidence at all to suggest that any harm of the nature the hon. member suggests is caused to babies or human beings generally. I also add, in view of alarm over this matter as well as about cyclamates the other day, that the Food and Drug Directorate is reviewing the over-all policy with respect to food additives generally to decide whether there should be more positive criteria to ensure that they have some tangible effect rather than just not do any harm.
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister satisfied in view of recent experience that his forces and staff in connection with this kind of investigation are adequate for the purpose of protecting the Canadian people?


John Carr Munro: I am advised that the Food and Drug Directorate indicated earlier they need a substantial increase in staff and this is one of the areas where the government has not taken action to drastically reduce the manpower allocation. In fact, the Food and Drug Directorate are now hiring additional people.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps I might return to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker, and ask him whether he meant to indicate that the staff of the Food and Drug Directorate had, in fact, been increased, or whether it had simply not been decreased? If he meant to indicate that there had been an increase, can he tell us the extent of the increase which has been authorized?


John Carr Munro: Yes. The number of positions has been increased compared with the previous level. I cannot give the Leader of the Opposition the exact figure now, but I believe it is somewhere between 150 and 200 positions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkion-Melville):: My
question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the house of the Canadian position toward the further proposed United States nuclear tests on Amchitka Island in the Aleutians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not informed of that-I am sorry, the further tests?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are two more coming.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In a couple of years' time. If it is the Aleutian Islands, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I misunderstood. If that is the question, I understand that the preceding test will be a subject of lengthy assessment by the United States government and there are a couple of more years to go before they contemplate proceeding with their next test. Anything can happen between now and two years hence.


Gerald William Baldwin: You might not be around to protest.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the Canadian government intend to make our position known to the United States before they decide whether to go ahead with these tests?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We did make our position known before the last test, and I think, it is a fair assumption that, when we know about the results of that one, we will make our position known again prior to any future tests.
Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My
question is for the Postmaster General. Has the hon. gentleman imposed a moratorium on the expansion of house to house delivery in our rapidly growing urban communities? If so, for what reason and how long will the moratorium continue?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: Because of the guidelines and the financial restrictions laid on the department we are not extending letter carrier service to new areas, but within areas which are now provided with letter carrier service there will be a continuing increase in services.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary. Is this a part of the improved services under the recent increase in postal rates?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. He is not here but in view of the importance of the matter I would ask whoever is replying for him to answer the following question. In view of the urgency of the situation which is affecting some 65 Harbours Board employees in Vancouver and many others in British Columbia, has any decision been reached to assist them in view of the lay-offs occasioned by the waterfront dispute? Federal employees are not now entitled to unemployment insurance, welfare or government salary.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There will be somebody to answer for the Department of Transport tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last Wednesday I asked him two questions with regard to the Prices and Incomes Commission. Your Honour suggested that the answers would be better incorporated in a statement on motions. I now


Inquiries of the Ministry ask the minister if he is prepared to make a statement on motions shortly with regard to the future activities of the Prices and Incomes Commission and the position of the chairman?
Kon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I do not see why a
statement should be necessary. There is no question as to the position of the chairman; he is the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission and he will from time to time be making statements as to the work of the commission. I am not sure that I understood the question fully.


Mr. Lamberl (Edmonion West):: Perhaps the minister would read the questions as I phrased them last Wednesday. He would then be in a better position to judge them, as would Your Honour.



HOCKEY CANADA


Robert Simpson: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the uncertainty and concern of sports commentators and Canadian hockey fans about the operation of Hockey Canada and, indeed, the very fate of Canada's national hockey team, will the minister take the earliest possible opportunity to make a complete and detailed statement to the House concerning the activities of our national hockey representatives in future months?


John Carr Munro: I am advised that a complete statement will be made by Hockey Canada in Winnipeg on November 18 setting out their approach and their plans for development so far as hockey generally throughout Canada is concerned. The announcement will also include the names of many of the personnel who will be serving our national team. I think the hon. member will be pleased, indeed, when he sees it.



MANPOWER


Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: My question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister investigate reports that his department has been encouraging Indians from northern Saskatchewan to move to southern Alberta to

work in sugar beet fields under deplorable conditions-and I emphasize the words "deplorable conditions"?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I shall be happy to investigate the situation.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


George Harris Hees: In view of statements in the press and over the radio during the weekend to the effect that the Canadian government considers its application to the United States government for the extradition of Hal Banks to be a closed book, will the minister assure the House that this is not the case?


John Napier Turner: The last time the hon. gentleman asked me a question about that gentleman was on May 15. I informed the house then that inquiries were being made at my request by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, of the Secretary of State's department in Washington to ascertain the position of the State Department on this matter. In September the State Department indicated to the Canadian ambassador in Washington that the Department of the Secretary of State of the United States did not intend to reopen the Banks matter or to take any initiative in respect of it. The department did indicate that while it was open to the Canadian government to start all over again in an attempt to obtain a new extradition order from the courts, there was no suggestion that such an application would meet with success.
Indeed, it was pointed out by the legal adviser to the State Department that since, apparently, there were no new matters of fact and no new questions of law bearing on the extraditability of Mr. Banks the courts might well decide, on an application for habeas corpus, that the case should be put to rest. This advice accords with the view, which I have related to the House, of our own adviser in New York, counselor Richard Kuh, who had represented the Ontario attorney general at the earlier extradition proceedings, that the matter could not be reopened before the courts and was exhausted. This being so-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I assume the minister is reaching a conclusion to the statement he has been making. He appreciates, I am sure, that according to the rules a statement of this kind should be made on motions and should


not be made to the House by way of an answer to a question.


George Harris Hees: Perhaps I could ask a supplementary question that will give the minister another kick-off. Is it not true that the negative attitude now being adopted by the United States government is due precisely to the fact that the Canadian government let it be known in United States quarters that it would be most happy if the Hal Banks case could be quietly dropped because it would be very embarrassing to the Canadian government if he were to come back here and tell his story?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's supplementary is obviously argumentative and cannot be considered as a kick-off for a further statement by the minister.


George Harris Hees: It was a statement of fact. SOCIAL SECURITY



INQUIRY AS TO TABLING OF WILLARD REPORT

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the government considered tabling the Willard report or reports, if there are several, in order that parliament as a whole might participate in the decision-making with respect to any changes in our social welfare and social security program?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. The government has not arrived at a decision as to tabling or not tabling the Willard report. I would point out to the hon. member, however, that the Speech from the Throne does refer to a white paper on social security which will be brought before parliament in the course of the next few months.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
the possible tabling of the Willard report still under consideration by the government?


John Carr Munro: It is under consideration, but no decision has been reached.



APPROVAL OF DAMAGE CLAIM SUBMITTED BY SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works or whoever may be answering for his department. Can the minister tell us whether the federal government has approved the flood damage claim submitted by the province
Inquiries of the Ministry of Saskatchewan and, if so, did it allocate the full $3,500,000 claimed by the province? May I direct my question to the Prime Minister? Has Treasury Board approved this flood damage claim?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I heard the supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, but I did not know to what it was supplementary.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister use the good offices of his department, which was established to protect consumers, to investigate the reason most Canadians are paying more for their health services under the national medicare plan while receiving less protection?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am not sure that the allegations contained in the question are not true at all. It seems to me that because of the action taken by this government we have exceedingly good medical care in Canada.



MANPOWER


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister have any plans, such as the provision of improved counselling, to overcome what is reported to be a serious dropout rate among students enrolled in manpower retraining and upgrading programs?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member would not agree that his question asks for the kind of information which ought to be given to the House, if the minister agrees, by way of a statement on motions.


Mark Willson Rose: Might I rephrase my question, then, and ask the minister whether he will investigate this particular problem?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be happy to do so. I would say in a preliminary way, however, that I do not believe the dropout rate is as reported by the hon. member. As a matter of fact, the record is extremely good-


The Address-Mr. Hees SPEECH FROM THE THRONE



CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, October 24, 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. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) (p. 47).
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before we proceed with the order of the day called by the Clerk I must say that a little earlier I saw the hon. member for Comox-Alberni rising. I assume he wished to ask a question. In view of the fact that we have now moved on to the orders of the day, perhaps he would wait until tomorrow; I shall make sure he is recognized in good time tomorrow.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commence by doing what those who have preceded me in the debate have wisely and fairly done. I should like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address. I think each did a very excellent job in bringing his views to the attention of the House, and I sincerely add my congratulations to those that have already been expressed.
I was particularly interested in what the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) had to say when he devoted a great deal of his time to his ideas for speeding up the processes of parliament in order that we might be better able to handle the very large work load which is being piled higher and higher on parliament each year. All of us in this House, I think, would agree with what he said. Certainly I agree, and I spoke in this regard in the House last July 14.
At that time I outlined three steps which I suggested could be taken to speed up greatly the processes and the business of the House. This would cut down the time required by parliament to handle its business by no less than two-thirds. It would not in any way interfere with the democratic process of parliament or the rights of any member to express himself fully in the House.
After I concluded my speech on that occasion several Liberal members rose to speak. They agreed with what I had said. In fact, I do not know of anyone in parliament or any member of the press who disagreed with what I said or the suggestions I put forward, their practicability or their effectiveness.

Therefore it seems strange to me that a government which found it necessary to introduce the guillotine measure has shown no interest whatsoever in these measures.
The hon. member for Sarnia will get an answer when he talks to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about his ideas. He will find out that the Prime Minister is simply not interested in speeding up the processes of parliament. The Prime Minister wants to control parliament. He wants to computerize parliament by putting legislation in at one end and having it come out on a certain date at the other end, exactly as he put it in, without being interfered with in any way by parliament. That is not the parliamentary process. This will be perhaps one of the first but not the last disappointments or disillu-sionments to be experienced by the hon. member for Sarnia in respect of both his Prime Minister and the government under which he serves.
On Friday we were treated to the Prime Minister's speech during which he took some time to describe the conditions endured by people in various parts of the country who are living today in poverty. However, there was not one word in his speech about any specific policy the government proposes to bring forward to deal with this very serious matter. In fact, his speech and the throne speech simply deal with this matter in pious platitudes of hope and general intent.
Let me remind the Prime Minister that the poor people of this country cannot eat pious platitudes; they cannot clothe themselves with pious platitudes and they cannot shelter themselves from the cold, the rain and the wind with pious platitudes. What they want is a cessation of task forces and cabinet committees such as those which have been sitting now for a year and a half without producing any visible results.
As a member of a former government I sat on many cabinet committees, and set up task forces. I have never known of a cabinet committee or a task force which, if properly set up and instructed by a minister, could not produce specific and good solutions well within a year. These task forces and cabinet committees are simply blinds covering inaction and the fact that this government does not know where it is going or where it intended to go when it promised on the hustings to produce a just society. The government had no idea how it would do this and today it still has no idea how it will do it.
October 27, 19G9

Why is it that the Prime Minister and the government are adopting a negative attitude toward this very important matter of poverty which the Prime Minister agreed was a national disgrace? The answer was given by no less a person than the former deputy Prime Minister, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), when he resigned a few months ago. He said very specifically that the Prime Minister was not interested in the ordinary problems facing the poor and less fortunate people of this country. He told us that the Prime Minister was really interested only in questions such as constitutional law, a subject he taught at the University of Montreal. This is a very important question, but I say to him that the people of this country cannot wait for the completion of his philosophical discussions before he attempts to deal with the practical problems now faced by the less fortunate people in Canada.
These are the people of Canada the Prime Minister said he was going to help when he created his just society. Let me invite the Prime Minister and the government to create this just society and bring the task forces and cabinet committees to a conclusion. Let them produce specific policies and then announce those policies to the House and to the country. Let us get on with the job of creating a just society and stop just talking about it.
We must not be too harsh on the Prime Minister about his speech because it was a rather gentle and platitudinous one which accomplished one very important thing. I should like to compliment him for that. It is well known that there are a number of members of the Prime Minister's party who suffer from insomnia. As the Prime Minister spoke, we on this side of the house could see that those gentlemen were gradually overcoming their malady. A strange silence and peace descended on the House like a blanket. Members of the press gallery quietly left, and parliament slept.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Look at them now.


George Harris Hees: When parliament opened a year ago I spoke during the debate about this matter of poverty. That was on September 20th. The situation had been outlined by the Economic Council of Canada in its report published the previous month. At that time I asked the government to increase the federal minimum wage to compensate for the 13 per cent increase in the cost of living which had taken place since the federal minimum wage was last increased in July, 1965, some three
The Address-Mr. Hees and a half years ago. I suggested this as a first step toward overcoming what the council had described and the Prime Minister had agreed was a national disgrace.
During the past year the people of Canada have been treated to a number of very interesting performances on television. In each case the principal actor was that self-styled Babe Ruth of the bargaining table, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). He really is an awfully nice fellow, but he has succumbed to that which even athletes and other people suffer when they start to believe their own press notices. Unfortunately the minister has started to believe the great number of press releases he instructs his publicity people to issue on every possible occasion. It is nothing new for Canadians to see him before the television cameras.
On several of these occasions we heard the Minister of Labour announce that he was pleased to have been able to serve the strong and powerful unions which were in a position to cause the government great embarrassment through work stoppages. In any event he was pleased to have been able to assist them in coming to an agreement with their employers, and to announce increase in wages and fringe benefits of between 8 per cent to 11 per cent a year. This is just twice the increase that has taken place in the past year or so in the cost of living. During that same period and during the previous three years this government has done absolutely nothing to ease the situation of those living in poverty. In fact, during the past year the cost of living has gone up by another 5 per cent, making the situation of these unfortunate people that much worse.
[DOT] (12 Noon)
The Minister of Labour in Toronto recently said to certain press men-and it was published in the press-that he believed the minimum wage should be either $1.50 or $1.75 an hour. But have we seen any indication by this government that it intends to increase the minimum wage to any such figures? The answer is no. This wage has been increased for four and half years. Why? Simply because the people living on minimum wages today in all parts of Canada are, because of their lack of education, lack of health and lack of training, unorganized. They are not strong; they are not able to bring pressure to bear upon industry or the government and embarrass the government by a work stoppage. So the government pays absolutely no attention whatsover to them. It has allowed their cost of living to go up by no

October 27, 19G9
The Address-Mr. Hees less than 18 per cent during the past four and half years with no indication whatever that it intends to increase the minumum wage at this or any other time. It has become painfully obvious that the just society exists only for the strong, the well organized and those able to embarrass the government with a serious work stoppage.
As the government obviously has no intention of laying before parliament at this or any other session in the future a plan for ameliorating the very serious situation which faces those who live in poverty today, I intend at this time to present to parliament a plan which I think will be both practical and effective. First of all, let us ask ourselves, what is poverty and where it is to be found? We learn from the report of the Economic Council, which has become accepted as the authoritative study on this subject, that there are certain income levels which the council claims must be attained by the following categories of our citizens if those poeple are to live above the poverty level. These are the categories: single, with no dependants; single, with one or two dependants; married, with no children; married, with one, two, three, four or five children.
According to the report, the majority of the nearly five million people in Canada who live in poverty today work for the minimum wages set by the federal and provincial governments for the industries which come under their particular jurisdictions. These minimum wages vary between $1 and $1.30 an hour. The federal minimum wage today is $1.25 an hour. As I said earlier, this was raised last in July, 1965. At that time it raised the recipient's wages just above the poverty line. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics tells us that, in the intervening four and a half years, the cost of living has increased 18 per cent and has gone up by 5 per cent during the last 12 months. Therefore I believe it is obvious to everyone that if people receiving the federal minimum wage are to be able to provide a living for themselves and their families above the poverty level, we must raise that minimum wage now by at least 25 per cent.
Now let us have a look at such a raise from the viewpoint of the income standards set by the Economic Council of Canada. The Economic Council takes as its average family one with two dependent children, and says that if such a family is to live just above the poverty line it must receive an income of at least $3,500 a year. If a man receiving the federal minimum wage works a standard 40-hour week he earns $50 a week, and if he works
IMr. Hees.]
for the full year he earns $2,600 in that year. Because he has two dependent children he receives an additional $200 in family allowances during the year, which brings the total up to $2,800. Therefore, for this family to live above the poverty line, it is obvious that the breadwinner must earn an additional $700 during the year, or an increase of 25 per cent. Therefore I believe the first step in combating poverty in this country is for the federal government to raise the federal minimum wage by a minimum of 25 per cent.
The second step should be to call a federal-provincial conference to persuade the provinces to follow the lead given by the federal government. I believe that if the Prime Minister would point out the need for following the federal lead, both clearly and forcibly, and if the conference is given full television, press and radio coverage, the provincial premiers would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to refuse to follow the federal government's lead and would raise their minimum wages by a similar percentage. I think they would find it difficult, if not impossible, not to take this action whereby they would allow the people living under their jurisdictions, and working for minimum wages, to emerge above the poverty line.
I believe it is important that we realize that raising minimum wages would not increase federal or provincial expenditures by one penny, and therefore would not require any increase in taxes. It would simply require that employers who are paying poverty wages should pay a living wage which would enable their employees to live above the poverty line.
The third step in this fight against poverty, I believe, should be for the federal government to amend its present social security legislation, which discourages a recipient of social security from working at a part-time job to augment his or her assistance by reducing the payment by the amount the person earns from a part-time job. Those who receive pensions and other forms of assistance are kept from living in absolute want and privation by these pensions and assistance, but they are required to live below the poverty line because they are not allowed to supplement their pension or assistance by working at a part-time job.
The majority of those who receive social security benefits because of age, mental or physical disability, or inability to find a fulltime job, are able to work at a part-time job, and most of these people are anxious to do so.
October 27, 1969	COMMONS
For this reason,, 1 believe our social security legislation must be amended at this session to allow the recipients to earn the difference between their pension or allowance and the poverty level set by the Economic Council for their particular category. Once this poverty level has been reached, I believe the assistance can then be cut back at an increased rate as their income rises above the poverty line.
Many of those who receive social security because of age, disability, or some other reason, are unable to do even part-time work and will always be completely dependent upon the assistance they receive. These people really need help. The assistance we make available to them should be sufficient to enable them to live above the poverty line.
To make this possible, I believe our social security structure must be overhauled right away so that those who now are receiving an adequate income, and therefore do not need social security, should cease to receive it. In this way those who really need social security may receive adequate payments which would enable them to live above the poverty line. This would not require the imposition of the means test but could be done, both easily and painlessly, through income tax returns. Such a social security overhaul is long overdue, and should be started by the government without further delay.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
As a great deal of our social security legislation is within provincial jurisdiction, there is a great need to amend provincial legislation to permit part-time work to increase the income of those receiving social security at least to the poverty level. This matter should be discussed at the federal-provincial conference on poverty which the government should call, and the provinces should be urged to follow the lead of the federal government. Once again, I am convinced that a strong and logical presentation by the Prime Minister, together with full publicity by press, radio and television at the conference, will persuade the premiers that it makes good sense to amend their present social security legislation to permit those able to do part-time work to do so and thereby lift themselves out of the poverty cycle.
Finally, I would like to suggest some steps for the government to take to enable our farmers, our businessmen and our other producers to expand their production, and thereby increase the national income and make
DEBATES	99
The Address-Mr. Sullivan more good jobs available for our people, which is the only real social security. I believe that this can best be done by offering tax incentives to induce our producers to increase both their productivity and the industrial research which they either are, or should be, carrying out. I believe that this is the most effective way to enable our producers to lower their costs and turn out more new, attractive and lower priced products which will sell more readily against foreign competition both in the export market and here in Canada.
Such tax incentives, which we ail know are only paid after the desired results have been obtained, will pay for themselves many times over in the form of more income taxes, because there will be more people working and paying income tax rather than living on social security. There will be more commodity taxes because more commodities will be sold and more people will be paying commodity taxes, and there will be more corporation taxes because there will be more production and more corporation profits to tax.
May I say in conclusion that I believe that if the government will take the steps I have outlined, we can go a long way toward lifting our people out of the poverty in which so many of them have been forced to live for so long.


Mr. Gordon Sullivan (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, let me first extend my congratulations on the presentation of the throne speech which indicates we can expect a most interesting and, I hope, productive session. As indicated in the legislative outline, we shall again be considering format changes which will significantly influence the conduct of business in this House. Among the proposed changes I hope we shall find that members will be given the right to file speeches for the record without orally delivering them in the House. There is ample precedence for this step as this practice is now followed by, among others, the British House of Commons. There is an obvious saving in time and the purpose of the member as well as the official record are well served.
It is safe to say that every member of this House sought and accepted election with a view to serving his country by effectively representing his constituents. We came here believing that we could make a contribution. We came here believing that a parliament selected by the people should govern this country. We came here with the approval of the people. We came here not only prepared


The Address-Mr. Sullivan to listen to our constituents but expecting to find a forum wherein our constituents through us could and would be heard.
While casting about for ways and means to make this contribution we, first year members, have made some remarkable discoveries. All too often parliament does not govern this country. All too often members, regardless of their dedication, are expected to be seen but not heard. We are asked to listen to the nation but we are seldom asked to tell anyone what we have heard. The fault lies with the members of this House.
Under the present system-and this is true no matter what party is in power-a backbench member of the government, because of the party discipline, is expected to vote with his party regardless of his researched opinion. His integrity may well have to be compromised. Only in exceptional circumstances is this practice not followed. It is true that under the present system there is ample opportunity for discussion and consultation. However, after this consultation and discussion, if a government member cannot agree with the government's proposal he is nevertheless expected to vote in favour of that proposal. Why? Because of party discipline. It is absolutely necessary that there be party discipline for the party to operate under our system; our system is completely dependent upon party discipline.
I suggest, first, that there is the possibility that under our present system a cabinet minister could become a captive of the civil service. There is a further possibility that the civil servants, not being responsible to the people or to Members of Parliament, could formulate the policies which could result in the adoption of these policies by the government.
I suggest also that much of the talent in this House is being wasted under our present committee system. For some reason, almost unbelievable in the modern concept of efficiency, members are assigned to a large number of committees dealing with very complex and diverse subject matters and are expected to absorb enough to make a meaningful contribution at the committee level. I submit that we cannot even read, never mind research, all the evidence before all the committees upon which we are asked to serve. The result does not even reach the level of knowing a little bit about a lot of things; it stops somewhere near the area of being quite thoroughly confused about nearly everything. Some members have avoided this particular trap by concentrating on one or two subjects or


committees and merely giving lip service to the balance of their committee assignments.
Systems are allowed to develop, but if they do not serve the intended purpose those operating within the system must bear the responsibility for the deficiencies or shortcomings. There is an old homily that says: "Grant us the courage to change those things which can be changed, the strength to accept those things which cannot be changed, and wisdom enough to tell the difference." I take those words as good advice and most applicable to any discussion of rules changes or governmental reform as it applies to this House.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
As a new member of the House, and as a government backbencher, I have come to appreciate the effort made by the government to include all the members of all parties in the decision-making process. As I see the cumbersome nature of this process, even the improved model, it is easy to understand the frustration of earlier parliamentarians, the sometimes annoyance of present members, and the impatience of those we represent.
This House has occasionally taken steps to improve its methods of conducting business, legislative or otherwise, and has even made motions toward striking a more presentable listening pose for the benefit of our constituents. Such change is admirable, and is indeed necessary if this institution is to remain a viable force or even a reasonable influence within a rapidly changing society. It is ironical, therefore, that each step, no matter how timorous, is greeted with bleats of delight by the reformers on the one hand, and with charges of creeping republicanism on the other.
During the last federal campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) summed up participation with these words:
No man alone and no party, even a majority party, can solve these problems if it does not constantly have recourse to the people, if it does not constantly involve the people, not always in the solution of these problems, but in the examination of them.
This recourse to the people is the basic, in fact, the only justifiable reason for even having an elected Member of Parliament. Recourse to the people is the aim and the purpose of better research facilities, regional desks and expanded committee involvement. As two students of political science, Mr. Ian McConachie and Miss Susan Jones, have said, "The ultimate goal is government which is not only responsible but responsive." The


steps taken by the present government have assisted us toward this goal but the steps already taken are, I hope, only a beginning.
There can be no true recourse to the people until such time as each member of this House is better able to reflect the views and positions of his own constituents. This can only become a fact when each member of this House can, in conscience, submerge his concern over the fall of the government and turn his mind directly to the issue at hand and its effect on his people. He must be allowed to bring his acquired insights back here and be heard.
Consideration must be given to a form of government where the executive branch presents its legislative program statute by statute; then after full discussion on all possible amendments the matter is voted upon and, if the proposal brought in by the executive branch is not passed, the government should not fall. I am one who believes that the executive branch is not always correct. I am one who believes in a system that permits the elected Members of Parliament to have the obligation to assume the responsibility of forming their own opinion in the last analysis and of voting accordingly. Surely this is what the electors in our constituencies want us to do.
I propose that there should be a fixed term of government. I propose that election to the office of Prime Minister should come by popular vote. In my opinion we should establish an executive branch of government which is independent of the legislative branch and not responsible to it.
In my opinion the legislative branch should not be under the discipline of the executive branch of any government. We have already come close to acknowledging the existence of an executive branch but we just refuse to accept the responsibility of control. Call it galloping republicanism if you will, but if it might mean more effective or more representative government it should not be rejected simply because it is new to us here in Canada.
I know there are difficulties and disadvantages to such a system but these, to my mind, are outweighed by the greater flexibility afforded by such a change. For example, government by department or government by the civil service would be greatly curtailed and the temptation to dictate, which must sometimes be very real, would be eliminated. The power and the control would be diffused not 21362-8
The Address-Mr. Sullivan only throughout the government side but throughout this House.
As a further example the Prime Minister, as head of the executive branch of such a government, could select his subaltern executives from either within the membership of the House or beyond, if he should so desire. There are many circumstances under which a Prime Minister could reach to those who could not or would not dedicate themselves to a political career and invite these special talents to head government departments without joining the civil service.
I suggest that the public and this House would be better served if the need to give lip service were eliminated and members were assigned to one committee only and thereby given an opportunity to become expert in this assigned or selected field. The result would be smaller committees, more thorough examination of proposals and views at the committee stage, and a more direct contribution to resulting legislation. The great advantage would be the emergence of Members of Parliament who are at least equally expert as the civil servants upon whom we now must depend so heavily.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that some of the changes I have described could be made through legislation which will come before us during this new session. Other changes will require further consideration, but such consideration should take on a greater air of urgency at the hands of the existing standing committees.
I would like to make it clear that in my proposals there would be no change in the status of Her Majesty the Queen in relation to the people of Canada, and that we remain firmly committed as members of the Commonwealth.
Change is always fraught with some difficulty and can seldom even be described as comfortable, but it is necessary. It is especially necessary if we ever hope to have the members of this House speak for the people and really "tell it the way it is."
No matter how much some of those who have been members of this House for a long period of years would like to cling to an out-of-date system, these proposals will bring the people more in touch with legislation, would be a truer form of democracy and, in my opinion, a more satisfactory form of democracy for Canada. This must be our prime consideration. As the member from Sarnia in his speech said so well, "Canada must come first."


The Address-Mr. Downey


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my congratulations to those offered by other hon. members to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. It was apparent to all of us that they had a great awareness of the current problems facing the country. I also wish to congratulate the hon. member who preceded me. I must say I am in sympathy with a great many of the views he expressed. I believe we should do more thinking along the lines he suggested.
The Speech from the Throne espoused many laudable aims. It would be difficult for anyone to disagree with many portions of it, and if its intentions are carried out with integrity and fairness this Canada of our's will be a better place in which to live.
However, so many of the urgent issues of the day were omitted from the Speech from the Throne that it is very difficult to speak to that document and still remain relevant to the state of the nation as it really exists. Take, for instance, the tremendous national problem of Canada's agricultural industry. I speak now of the whole industry from coast to coast and not just of western wheat production. All that is to be found in the Speech from the Throne on this problem is a suggestion that a crisis indeed does exist in relation to wheat sales, and that Parliament will be asked to consider some amendments to the Canada Grain Act. This is equivalent to tackling a blazing barn with a cup of water. What Canadians have a right to expect from the government is recognition that one of this nation's great resource industries is in desperate need of fundamental overhaul and that speedy and comprehensive action must be forthcoming or there will be a disaster.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
If anyone doubts that I speak only for the western farmer let him consult the potato grower in the Maritimes, the dairy farmer in Ontario and Quebec or the mixed farmer in British Columbia. And if anyone doubts the national aspect of wheat production on the prairies let him consider the market where the agricultural machinery manufacturer of central Canada sells his product, where the automobile manufacturer of central Canada sells his cars, where the appliance maker, the tool marker, the steel fabricator and all the other makers of goods and services, largely concentrated elsewhere in Canada than the west, sell their products. Let him ask the railway worker, the trucker, the elevator worker, the longshoreman and the seaman,

not to mention the broker, the clerk and all the service businesses attached to those involved in moving grain across this country, how they are affected.
As an example I have here a few figures on recent sales of farm machinery in the west and the lay-offs among skilled Ontario workers that the cut-back in these sales has brought. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics' figures indicate that sales of farm equipment in 1968 declined 14 per cent from those of 1967. Figures for the first five months of 1969 show that sales of new farm equipment in the prairie provinces declined a further 17.2 per cent from 1968.
I have here a request by the Saskatchewan Implement Dealers Association in relation to the situation in the west that I would like to read:
The seriousness of the western situation is illustrated by a recent request from the Saskatchewan Implement Dealers Association that farm equipment manufacturers set up moratoriums on the interest payments dealers must make to manufacturers for new farm equipment.
The association says that, if dealers are required to pay interest ranging from 10 per cent to 14 per cent on new machinery in their lots, 50 per cent of its 450 members will be forced out of business this year.
The dealers receive farm machinery from the manufacturers on a past-due note and assume money from machinery sales in the summer can be used to pay off the note when it falls due.
But this year, with new machinery sales in Saskatchewan down 30 per cent to 50 per cent, the dealers must pay interest for machines they still have not sold.
"The present cash shortage of farms and the resulting reduction in new farm machinery sales will create a marked and serious decline in the number of farm equipment dealers," Richard Jensen, president of the association, says.
Leo King, secretary-manager of the association, says if manufacturers do not suspend the required interest payments the dealers will ask the provincial government to pass legislation setting up moratoriums.
If this service is to be continued in the west, help must soon be forthcoming. Machine sales figures do not tell the whole story inasmuch as dealers, besides increased inventories, are carrying two or three times as much in overdue accounts as they ever have before. This applies not only to machine dealers but to all businessmen operating in agricultural areas at this time.
The figures for International Harvester show that profits were down in 1968 from 1967 by something like 30 per cent in the western farm equipment area. Average employment in the International Harvester

plant in Ontario was down by 1,000 in 1968 from 1967 and the cuts are liable to be much worse when the 1969 figures are complete. Last week Massey-Ferguson laid off 250 men. The Cockshutt division of the White Motor Company has closed its combine plant for three months with a lay-off of 450 men. This is all in the industrial heart of Canada, right here in Ontario. During the summer Massey-Ferguson extended the vacation period for something like a month, affecting 1,200 employees, because of slow sales. The only reason the disastrous agricultural situation has not had a more adverse effect on our whole national industrial complex is the nullifying effect of our industry in many areas producing to near capacity for the U.S. military machine. But this situation will not continue too much longer.
The problem of wheat production was brushed aside with a few lines in the Speech from the Throne. The government has been well aware of the situation for more than a year and a half. It has sent out task forces, had surveys made and even had the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) take a first-hand look at the situation. So far the only action has been criticism and advice-criticism of the farmer for growing so much of a product no longer in high demand and advice to diversify.
This may be the answer, but to carry it out will require massive government assistance, expert technical advice and a follow-through by way of helping to establish new markets. It will require massive financial assistance to carry out the necessary capital expenditures involved in this change. A grain-producing plant cannot lightly or easily be switched to producing another crop any more than a plant manufacturing tanks can be cheaply or easily retooled to produce motor cars, tractors or brassieres.
The Canadian farmer and the Canadian agricultural community deserve much better from this government than a supercilious nod, and this, I say, is all that the Speech from the Throne gave in this area of agriculture.


An hon. Member:: It was uplifting.


Cliff Downey: The Speech from the Throne acknowledged that pollution is a problem and that something must be done. But the implication this government has always left when talking about pollution is that industry is the principal offender. My suggestion to the
103
The Address-Mr. Downey government is that it should set an example in pullution control, as it claims to have done in austerity, by attending to its own backyard before pointing a finger at its neighbours. One has but to go to the national park at Banff to see an example of this attitude of "Don't do as I do, do as I say." There an establishment directly under the control of the federal government continues to dump raw sewage into the Bow River. What sort of basis is that for discussions with provincial administrations designed to make a co-ordinated attack on pollution?
It was interesting to hear that the government sets so much store by the new Department of Regional Economic Expansion and that the sky is the limit there. Austerity is not to be applied to that department's budget. This is all very fine if the public moneys to be spent on overcoming regional disparity are spent fairly and equitably. But I become suspicious when I see that my riding in central Alberta is excluded from the designated area and the Liberal riding that happens to be represented by the Minister of Agriculture is included. So far as the need for new industry and regional economic expansion is concerned, both ridings are identical. Decisions such as this tend to cast some doubt cn the integrity of the whole program.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
Even greater doubt arises from the announced priorities within the area designated for expansion. As I recall it, these priorities list Quebec, the Maritimes and Manitoba in that order, with the rest trailing a poor fourth. I suggest to the government that they should take another long look at the area designated, with a view to expanding it to take in areas that stand in equal need of industrial assistance. They could well expand to include areas that lie beyond the immediate area of the large, booming metropolitan areas.
The list of issues barely mentioned or passed over completely in the government's legislative program as outlined in the Speech from the Throne is almost endless. For example, consider the question of pensions. So far the government has paid only lip service to the multiple recommendations contained in the Woods Report. It is true that they have done something for the Hong Kong veterans, but they have made only a token gesture or no gesture at all in other important areas. The old age pensioners and retired federal public servants have been ignored and left to

The Address-Mr. Downey be crushed between their pitifully low fixed incomes and the steadily rising cost of living. It seems to me that the time is long past for some method of providing an automatic supplement to enable the fixed incomes of old and retired people to meet the bare necessities of life in a supposedly affluent society. Present automatic increases being considered in this area are hardly realistic. I have heard our society described as both affluent and just, but there seems to be evidence that the contrary is true.
The newspapers have been filled with stories about the Company of Young Canadians being a hotbed of seditious activity and about their having links with subversive and terrorist organizations round the world. The front pages have been covered with headlines about the French network of the CBC being controlled by separatists. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself was pictured throwing down the gauntlet to separatists and advising the English element in Quebec to get out, compete, and not allow themselves to be stepped on. Yet there is no hint of these problems in the Speech from the Throne.
I must confess that I was puzzled by the Prime Minister's advice to English speaking Quebeckers. When he said "compete", he did not say how. Should they make larger bombs? Should they take to the streets with bigger and better riots and overturn statues in Quebec? What did the Prime Minister mean when he said "compete"? After all, in a society of violence one can only compete by resorting to even greater violence.
As to the Company of Young Canadians, my solution to the problem is quite simple: abolish the outfit. This would be, to my mind, an admirable economy measure as well as a step toward restoring tranquility in areas of trouble.
The Prime Minister has indicated that he will no longer tolerate violence and lawlessness in this country. This matter must surely be of great concern to him as we cannot help but note that the forces of crime and anarchy in this country have blossomed well during his time in office. That charge, however, is true not only of Canada. The lawmakers of this nation have been so obsessed with human rights that we have ended up with a definite xrend that supports the criminal element instead of supporting a victimized society. Our police have their hands tied in this legal jungle. Crime is one of the largest businesses in the country today. Criminals have the

money to hire the best brains and to develop and use the best systems devised by education and science. We send our law enforcement agencies against them with one hand tied behind their backs. Our law enforcement agencies cannot use the latest and best techniques because that might infringe on somebody's rights. There is even talk in some areas of the country of taking away the guns from our policemen. Our police are not supposed to shoot until they are shot at. They are supposed to take verbal abuse, sticks, stones and the like, and if some rioters lose a little blood our police may be hauled into our courts and the hue and cry of police brutality goes up.
What a mockery we are making of our law enforcement agencies. To be a policeman today you have to be either a damned fool or damned dedicated. From a practical standpoint the rioter and looter have more rights than has the storekeeper, whose rights are infringed upon. The murderer or criminal who beats and robs honest citizens has more rights than has the policeman who might injure the criminal in the course of subduing him and taking him to the station.
In this vast penal hotel system that we have in Canada, with its central heating, television, recreation and balanced diets, it is more of a penalty to be on the outside and have to put up with taxes, pollution, traffic jams and bill collectors. It is more of a penalty to be on the outside looking in. I see that now we are considering letting the girls in with the boys in our penitentiaries. After a few years our criminals will be beating down the doors to get into one of these educational paradises of crime. What we need in this country are shorter and fewer prison sentences but much more access to the bullwhip and the rock pile, and a few hangings thrown in. I do not think that would be too much. Dignity of the individual seems to apply only to criminals. For the law-abiding citizen or the policeman, there is little dignity in the rapes, beatings and murders that we see in this country today.
Another subject much in the national news is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Many Canadians appear to be perennially unhappy with the performance of this taxeating monster. Instead of closing down one of its services, reducing its funds or firing employees, why not put it to some national purpose?
Everyone by now is familiar with the crowded universities of this country where

bodies of students ranging from 10,000 to
20,000	no longer permit personal attention in teaching. We seem to see nothing except a mass production technique. A body goes in one end with a high school certificate and comes out of the other with a degree. It seems to me that the CBC could be utilized to provide lectures every bit as personal as those now available in most of our universities. The corporation could be converted into a single, huge, national university at least for instructional purposes. This step might help to solve the grave problems of overcrowding, student financing and expensive facilities, and bring into the national educational net many fine young brains now unable, for one reason or another, to acquire a higher education.
Another matter which I was disappointed to see omitted in the Speech from the Throne deserves to be mentioned. I am speaking of our national oil policy which, of course, is in serious danger. May I now read some comments made by the president of the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada who, in an address on October 11, 1969, said:
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Refinery expansion in Ontario has not kept pace with growing needs in that province, imports are now coming in from further east and will grow in volume simply because no refining capacity is under construction. A proposed 100,000 barrels daily refinery for the Toronto-Hamilton area, dedicated to Canadian oil, can't yet start because of local opposition to zoning for a $100,000,000 plant. The plant, when finally site is approved, will take two years to build. It would apparently have no federal or provincial tax concessions to help it compete.
Yet, in Quebec and the Maritimes, massive refinery construction has begun or has been given clearance that would raise capacity by several hundred thousand barrels daily, far in excess of needs of the Canadian markets served by overseas oil. Result will inevitably be new harsh pressures on markets for oil produced in Canada. AH of these refineries have been given either provincial or federal tax benefits, or grants in aid. One, on which construction has started in Newfoundland, was recently granted by federal Order in Council a 100 per cent capital cost allowance which gives it substantial advantage over other refineries.
1 have no quarrel with government assistance to upgrade the economies of less favoured regions in Canada-but can the concept of aid justify excessive construction of one type of manufacturing plant, to be subsidized by all Canadians whose local benefits will be far less than the burden they will impose on the over-all economy, reducing markets for Canadian production, and increasing the foreign exchange burden of oil imports?
An even more serious defect in present Canadian oil policy is the ignoring of the vital question, security of supply. Canada, in effect, assumes that foreign oil will always be available, at low cost and in adequate quantity, even if emergencies occur; at least until such time as domestic oil from
The Address-Mr. Danson
the Atlantic basin or the far north becomes available, hopefully in a few years. The assumption is dangerous, for it fails to take into account the trends of oil supply and demand affecting the major sources of eastern Canada's emergency supplies; and the rising insecurity of oil originating in the Arab nations of the Middle East and Africa.
Again I say we must review the entire matter of oil policy in the coming year.


Mr. Mahoney:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure this is a proper point of order but will the hon. member consent to identify the document from which he was just quoting and give its author?


Cliff Downey: Carl O. Nickle. This is a speech by Mr. Nickle.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Could the hon. member give us the date, time and place or something that we might-


Cliff Downey: I do not have the date, sir.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is a recent speech. It is a good one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I might rule it is not a point of order. It is a question, and the hon. member does not have to reply to it.


Cliff Downey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will endeavour to find this out for the hon. member for Calgary South.


Mr. Bell:: It is by one of your predecessors who sat in your seat.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Yes, it is a great seat.


Cliff Downey: I have very little further to say on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker. I have attempted to outline but a few of the major problems that I feel need consideration in the coming year. I only hope that the pious hopes held out in the throne speech will indeed be realized in the coming year.


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: It is a
pleasure to rise in this throne speech debate, Mr. Speaker, and particularly to follow my respected colleague from Battle River. His address was most interesting. If his party ever takes power in the lifetime of the hon. member I look forward to seeing him serve in either the role of Solicitor General or Minister of Justice. I think the prison system would then be quite consistent with the philosophies he expressed and we would see a return to

October 27, 1S69

The Address-Mr. Danson the rack and dipping in icy water. Otherwise I think the hon. member has made some very interesting points which have been well received by the House.
In rising I also wish to compliment my colleagues, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen),-my seatmate, and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) for their fine addresses in this throne speech debate.
As a Liberal I speak with particular pride about the Speech from the Throne and the subsequent speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in this debate. It was not full of pious platitudes, as the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) suggested, but was a very specific speech and dealt with very specific policies for action and action now during this session. In reply to the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey), may I say I think they are articulated with a degree of clarity and courage that is rare. The leader of my party, the Prime Minister, is known for laying it on the line clearly as he sees it. He speaks as clearly in this House as he has done on television and as he did when in Vancouver and Montreal. He is reaching the people with his clarity and good sense. He has also brought to us some genuine new forms of participatory democracy. I refer to the practice of introducing so many white papers or policy papers which give the public and the members of this House an opportunity for discussion and for thought.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker? I will be delighted to continue after lunch.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
Barnett Jerome Danson: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, before I was so politely interrupted just before lunch, the policy of the government in presenting white papers and policy papers represents a departure which I believe has considerable merit. It is very disturbing. It is disturbing to us as members of the house and it is disturbing to the public because it has a tendency to make us think. It disturbs us. We shall be getting a lot of mail from people who are upset, and those of us who serve on committees will be holding long hearings and listening to the views of interested parties and
[Mr. Danson.1

groups from across the country. It is an interesting process. When we realize what is really happening I think we shall be pleased, indeed, because the whole nation is being allowed to participate in the legislation which is finally passed by this house. I am not quite sure it is good politics, since it upsets people so, but I am convinced it is darned good government and very good for democracy.
We shall see this borne out most clearly, I think, when we come to consider the white paper on tax reform which is to come before the committee upon which I sit. No one really likes to see tax changes. They affect us all in one way or another; we all tend to think that the right taxes are those which the other fellow pays. Nevertheless, we must all carry our burden in this respect, and, realizing this, we fear a change; we prefer the devil we know to the devil we don't know. But if we really believe in this country of ours, if we really want to see a united Canada, as we say, if we really want to cure regional disparities, to do something about pollution and so on, we had better be prepared to put our money where our mouth is, in a fair and equitable way. I hope and believe that this is what the proposed reforms outlined in the white paper on the tax structure will do.
I enjoyed listening to the speeches of the leaders of the opposition parties in the house on Friday. It was entertaining, indeed though a little sad, too. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is a good man, a responsible man and a man respected greatly by everyone in this house-no more so than by myself. He criticized our priorities, as he should, and as do we on this side of the house. But decisions have to be made; everything cannot be done at once, and there is so much to be done. He criticized our policy in relation to inflation, but as far as I can see he proposed no viable alternatives. The leader of the New Democratic party also criticized us on this score. I must say I did not stay for the whole of the speech made by the leader of the Creditistes (Mr. Caouette). I believed I had heard it before-that I could go back through Hansard and find it all set out there as reported in earlier years. It was something like a manifesto from Marx-Groucho Marx. The leader of the New Democratic party dealt with inflation, and talked about the slack in our economy. When I heard his proposals, his solutions, I realized that he had been caught with his slacks down. He listed government expenditures which were supposed to be contributing
October 27, 1969	COMMONS
to inflation but I noticed that only one of them had been incurred by the 28th parliament.
He listed a number of solutions, such as increased pensions, guaranteed incomes and expenditure to remove regional disparities- which we are presently making-but all of these proposals really do not affect the challenge presently facing us; I really do not believe they have any bearing on inflation whatever. Then, of course, he talked about anti-ballistic missiles, because they come in everywhere, and he once again outlined proposals for dealing with the effects of foreign ownership. In this regard, I find myself in agreement with some of the points he made. He went on to make mention of the advantages of a floating exchange rate, but before long he floated off across the horizon where I was disinclined to follow him. He quoted the sixth report of the Economic Council, criticizing the government for not following its recommendations, but he made no reference to the testimony given before the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs by Professor Neufeld of the University of Toronto or by Governor Rasminsky of the Bank of Canada who put forward proposals inconsistent with those contained in the economic review-proposals which are consistent with government policy. And government policy in this regard seems to be taking effect at the present time.
* (2:10 p.m.)
I do not think even the N.D.P. members of the committee, with all their simplicity, would accept the simplistic distortions presented in this House on Friday. I am fairly sure they are embarrassed as a matter of fact, because this is the sort of irresponsible fudging of issues that misleads the uninformed they pretend to represent so ably.
The leader of the N.D.P. did, however, mention the increases in the price of steel. His party feels it is all right to raise wages but that these increases should not be reflected in prices. They say that wage increases should be absorbed by productivity increases, not realizing or not admitting that productivity comes not only from dedicated and skilled workers but from skilled management and from profits which are intelligently re-invested in most efficient plants to keep abreast of new technology.
Labour groups regrettably have refused to co-operate with the Prices and Incomes Commission. To date they have been stalling
DEBATES	107
The Address-Mr. Danson about appearing before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, which is studying interest rates and inflation. I do hope they will appear before our sittings are ended.
For some reason I fear their leaders, with all their easy criticisms and pat answers, are afraid to be exposed to their own membership -the hard-working union members-who, I am sure, are just as anxious to reduce inflation as any other group in this country. There is absolutely no value to a steel worker's pay increase when it results in a further inflationary spiral which negates the increase won after hard weeks on the picket line. Furthermore, an inflationary spiral of this type hits the very vulnerable, unorganized worker and, worse still, the defenseless pensioner, the unemployed, the handicapped and the aged whom the hon. members of the N.D.P. selfrighteously pretend to champion and for whom they almost drown us in crocodile tears. This is irresponsibility, I suggest, of the most cruel type.
As a concerned Canadian, I am fearful about the chain reaction the announced steel price increases can produce. The steel industry in Canada is cne of the best managed and most productive in our economy. It pays high wages, as high or higher than those south of the border; it is competitive even on the export markets, is as technically advanced as that anywhere, is profitable and pays dividends. It is also largely Canadian owned, which is an interesting fact. Its decisions are reached in Canada, in its own selfinterest, which is also Canadian self-interest. Its research and production facilities are oriented toward our resources and our markets and are eminently successful.
It is because of this success that I appeal to all segments of the steel industry to pause and to continue to show responsibility in the national interest. There is now talk about further increases in the prices of cars, always a direct consequence of steel price increases. Even the Ontario Hydro is using increased steel costs as an excuse to raise electric rates because of the large quantities of steel used in thermal plants. The results of this increase will undoubtedly spread to other sectors of the consumer durables field which has had a remarkable record of price stability over the past decade. Other manufacturers will follow suit.
It is critical to the success of our increasingly effective anti-inflation policies that the


The Address-Mr. Danson line be held, and held firmly. I appeal to the steel companies to take a position of unprecedented leadership at this time and rescind or moderate their announced increases, at least until the present measures in our fight against inflation begin to have a greater moderating effect on our economy. Then, hopefully, they will be less necessary. This will not be easy, but easy measures will not cure our present problems.
If some increases appear to be unavoidable I would urge the steel companies to sit down with government and labour, perhaps with the Prices and Incomes Commission, to negotiate any essential increases. This course will call for a degree of courage and responsibility of the very highest order, but if no one has anything to hide or fear, they could do themselves and all Canadians a great service indeed. Such an initiative could be the key factor, in addition to continuing government restraint, in breaking the back of the cancerous inflation psychology.
This action could also immediately and firmly establish the Prices and Incomes Commission as a truly effective instrument that could attack other areas of danger, most importantly the exploding services sector of our economy which now accounts for some 70 per cent of our gross national product. This is an area that is difficult to nail down and one to which we have been paying all too little attention.
As I mentioned before, there is disagreement sometimes about our priorities, and even disagreement within our party. In many cases I do not agree, but if we waited for unanimous agreement nothing would be accomplished. Nevertheless, from my orientation, I do not believe we are giving sufficient priority to the question of urban problems, a neglect that could well come back to haunt us. Canada is now 70 per cent urban, and in the 1980's it is predicted it will be 80 per cent urban. By the end of the century, it will be 90 per cent urban. In the urban area of greater metropolitan Toronto, from which I come, we have some 10 per cent of the population and almost 10 per cent of the membership of this house, with some 17 per cent of the membership in our party which sits over here. This is only one of the great urban areas of our nation.
My constituency of York North is especially affected. It sits on the northern edge of Toronto, although some of it is projected into the Metro area. We cannot isolate ourselves
[Mr. Danson.l
from Toronto anymore than the general Toronto region can isolate itself from other regions of the country. What happens in Cape Breton, Rimouski, the Indian Lake area of Manitoba, the Arctic or Roberts Bank is our concern. We are blessed in our region. We have expansion going on daily that would create headlines anywhere else. This hardly ruffles the surface. It is almost routine. I have in mind a 4,000 man increase in employment in one aircraft plant, of which most people in the area are not even aware, which puts additional pressure on the economy of our region. There was a $32 million development in one corner of my riding about which I read in the local suburban newspaper. So, we enjoy success and prosperity beyond measure. This prosperity results only because we are part of Canada and it will not be sustained if all regions of Canada are not prosperous. By the same token, we have very serious problems just as the wheat farmer in the west and the fisherman in Newfoundland have. If they are not prosperous we are not prosperous. Their concern has become our concern.
We can leam from problems in the United States. We can learn about those problems we might anticipate in our own urban centres. We are not immune to them. We have seen indications of these problems in one of our largest metropolitan areas. These problems are accelerating. They must be anticipated and handled. There are economic and social pressures. Living in the biggest city in the country is not necessarily, for me, living in the best. Our region is big enough, with a viable economy and all the important things that make it possible to have a good life, but it could be so much better. It will grow of its own volition without force feeding. We in the Toronto region have a responsibility. Without being parochial we will fight for that which effects us. We ask for your support in fighting these problems we think we must be solved now.
We are delighted with the appointment of a new cabinet member from our part of the country. He is a man with integrity and ability, a man of whom we are indeed proud. We from the greater Toronto area will be diligent in looking after the interests of our region and we ask for your support in this regard. We will not be parochial but we have a responsibility which we intend to assert, and we are asking for the support of our cabinet ministers in this regard to an extent not heretofore forthcoming.


The Address-Mr. Danson
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
The talk of expanding the metro region of Toronto to the townships of Markham and Vaughan, the largest geographic section of my constituency which as I said is on the northern fringe, could be the thin edge of the wedge in the formation of an uncontrolled megolopolis. It would expand the metropolitan Toronto region or the municipality of Metro Toronto from 240 square miles to 700 square miles, and by the end of the century it is predicted the population increase will be from the current figure in excess of 2 million to something in excess of 5 million people. This situation is not really very far away. What will happen to the towns in this constituency of mine like Markham, Unionville, Richmond Hill, Woodbridge and Thornhill which have their own identity and their own community spirit. In addition, they are semirural in their surroundings. What of the villages of Maple and Gormley? I am concerned because we might end up with solid concrete right from Lake Ontario to Lake Simcoe and then we would be faced with problems of transportation and pollution such as we never thought possible. However, these problems are predictable and they will put pressures on the economy of this region which will add to the inflationary pressures.
I suggest that the cost of planning and for the services necessary will be insignificant compared to the cost of neglecting this planning. The cost is incalculable in human terms but I think it is really quite calculable in economic terms. The long term economic and social advantages I believe can at least be equated with the regional economic expansion program, so we must weigh these priorities. The priority at the moment is in terms of regional economic expansion. This, I think, is an excellent program but I hope it does not mean we have to exclude attention to our urban areas. If the sixth review of the Economic Council, to which I referred earlier, tells us anything it tells us that we have much going for us in this country, that our potential is so great, our incomes will increase 50 per cent, I believe, by 1985 and we will have a 30 per cent increase in our standard of living. The Economic Council said all these things are ours "if", and then it listed a lot of things which really in essence boils down to, if we are not stupid, and there are no guarantees of that.
Neglect of urban areas and of the urban fact could be considered stupid. I think we
must watch this possibility and deal with it soon. So far as answers are concerned, I do not have the answers. Nothing is certain. I have suggestions, I have viewpoints and I have ideas. The experts in this field have proposals. We cannot be certain of anything but we can be certain that if we wait for absolute assured success, nothing will be done. If we do nothing, chaos is certain. The problems have been greatly aggravated by the neglect of the provinces' rightful responsibility in this field. This brings us back to our constitutional problems. There is a lack of communication between the federal level and the great urban municipalities of this country. In our province of Ontario, the government refuses to bring the Metro Toronto region and the municipal governments into consultations respecting matters directly affecting them. We are making decisions affecting airports around Toronto without consulting the metropolitan Toronto authorities. The provincial government will not let us get through to them.
In the provincial government, there is a minister of everything. He is the minister of just about anything one could name. He has announced a harbour city on Toronto island without consulting the Toronto people. Sure, he comes from Toronto or thereabouts, but this is arrogance of the worst kind. I think this must stop because we cannot accept it. I suggest that we seriously consider establishing a national institute of urban planning or perhaps urban and transportation planning because I think the two are closely interrelated. There is in the United States a committee, the national committee of urban growth and development, which serves this purpose. Such an institute could be associated with our universities, which could have excellent schools of urban and transportation studies. We would have the benefit of expertise there which would not be readily available to the government. Also, we would be training the people in universities to man the urban mechanisms that would be developed as a result. At the federal level, I could envisage Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation being represented as well as the Department of Transport, the Canadian Transport Commission or possibly the Department of Communications which would be vital.
Then, there are the concerns of provincial bodies such as housing, transport and the municipal boards. Most important, the urban centres themselves would be represented, the major urban centres per se, and the Canadian
110	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Danson Council of Mayors and. Municipalities. They should be part of the participating groups within such an institute. We are facing an awakening in our municipalities with the introduction of political parties into municipal politics. It is rather interesting that, for the first time, our party has selected as a mayoralty candidate a young man, a professor of political science of the University of Toronto, who everybody thought was a quiet academic from nowhere. He has come forth with the most thoughtful proposals that have ever been put forth in a municipal election in the history of our city. I think the voters of Toronto are beginning to wake up and realize that intelligent people and intelligent proposals are not excluded from municipal government and that there will be responsibility with a responsible party which will have a program. There is some hope now that action will be taken instead of everybody running off like scorpions, doing their own thing. You try to keep away from them and they try to keep away from you, but if you get near them they bite you.
With a responsible, well-led municipal political party I think we can make great strides in our large urban areas. As I said, the problems are certain. Many of them axe actually predictable. We have the opportunity and the responsibility, I believe, to plan and anticipate. "Anticipate" is my favourite word.
I believe in participatory democracy but I like anticipatory democracy better. In this way we can make decisions for future generations and many decisions for sane development of our urban centres. But if we fail, and if we hesitate or if we are shortsighted or, worse still, blind, future generations could well look back on us not as the just society but as the irresponsible society.
There are other priorities, but there is a long range priority about which I should like to speak which would divide our energies in two directions. One is to the senior citizens, the older people of this country, the people who are vulnerable and have no one speaking for them. There certainly are exceptions in this Home. I do not say that anyone is unconcerned, but really the fear people face in their old age is something that cannot be imagined, except by many of us who have lived with it in one form or another. This problem will affect us.
I think we should establish a system in which we make certain there is security and dignity in old age. We do this for very selfish

DEBATES	October 27, 1969
reasons. The most selfish reason is that there is nothing in it for us; it is just a good thing to do and makes us feel good. This is a sign of maturity. They do this much better than we do in what we consider to be less sophisticated societies. Another reason for action in this area is that with some degree of luck, we, too, will be old. I do not mean that the future should be looked after to such an extent that we just live for today and discourage savings to supplement whatever we do as a society for our senior citizens. However, our system should mean that we do not have to fear living with children in a garret or in homes for the aged which are undesirable. Fortunately, many of these homes for the aged are becoming more desirable but as yet there are not enough of them. We should look to the present and future, and direct our energies to those things which are productive, so that we use our . productive years productively.
We in this House have really awesome responsibilities to the people of this country. We may make mistakes. We will not solve all the problems, and when we solve some there will be new ones that we did not dream existed. In making mistakes, we will be criticized by the new generation but the members of the new generation will make their share of mistakes, too. However, they know a great deal more than we did at the same age and they are picking out our mistakes a lot more easily. We will not do everything, but we must not be guilty of not trying.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Souih Shore):: It is
with pleasure that I rise to participate in the throne speech debate. My first words will be to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau). They both spoke well and in a spirit of sincerity and frankness which does credit to the constituencies which elected them to this house.
I also wish to congratulate the two new ministers without portfolio and the two new parliamentary secretaries. There is no question about the fact that the appointments were made to well deserving members but, quite frankly, there are mounting doubts among many Canadians about the over-all capacity of this cabinet to deal with Canada's problems.
I have read and re-read the throne speech searching for the key which will open the


door to the fulfillment of the promise of a just society, but I have searched in vain. The throne speech reminds me somewhat of the eye of a tornado which is almost still, almost without motion, while the destructive gale force winds whirl ever faster and faster until they form a cone between heaven and earth which destroys everything that comes in its path.
By its inaction and indecision, this government is permitting the winds of division and inflation to destroy our economy. These are not my views alone; they are endorsed in very brief words in today's editorial in the Financial Times which read as follows:
.. .the objectives of the legislative program are reasonably clear, but there is still a good deal of mystery surrounding the means.
I cannot understand the apathy of this government. Its pious platitudes about the state of the nation, as indicated in the throne speech, show that the present Liberal cabinet is living in an ivory tower, insulated by their smugness and protected by their own appointed army of executive and special assistants from the economic problems facing Canadians. It was these economic problems that brought mass violence and riots to the city of Montreal, and these economic problems which brought us a summer of strikes in our major mining and industrial complexes, strikes which have continued into the fall. All the while, the vast numbers of self-employed Canadians have suffered grimly, and quietly tried to carry on, but at the same time wondering: "How long, O Lord, how long will my tax burdens keep increasing?"
We find the following words in the throne speech:
There are many obstacles to be overcome if we are to achieve our economic goals, but inflation is undoubtedly the most serious and the most difficult to control. If we fail to control it, the consequences could rapidly prove disastrous especially, but not only, for those whose incomes are already low.
Why did you not do something about inflation while there was still time? I remind the Liberal government that they have been in power since 1963 and the Governor of the Bank of Canada, in each of his annual reviews, warned them each year that inflation must be stopped. However, each year the response was the same and the warnings have been ignored. In 1963, following the election, it was a Liberal program called "60 days of decision" which aided inflation, followed a little later by a program entitled "let us get

The Address-Mr. Crouse the economy rolling again" while the economic signs at that time indicated that what the government should have been doing was putting on the brakes. But there was an election to be won in 1965, so the Liberal attitude seemed to be not to worry about the state of the economy. Following their return to office, we soon learned about the new method of ending strikes which was called "the Pearson formula or 30 per cent". This formula was unnecessary and inflationary and it set the pattern for all future demands.
When our currency was devalued in 1962 to 92.5 per cent in relation to the U.S. dollar, in an effort to stimulate and increase our exports, it was to be a temporary measure. This move brought considerable economic benefits to Canada but the Liberal government of the day dissipated the advantages through government extravagance, and the present government is still doing this. Again, these are not only my views.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I advise him to direct his remarks to the Chair.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These are not my views alone. They are endorsed again in today's Financial Times in the following words:
There can be no doubt about the contribution of former government wastefulness to the present inflationary problem. The rolling of the money presses caused by government over-spending was central in getting the economy into the mess it is in now.
The strains which the free-spending policies of the past created should be sufficient proof that governments at all levels can no longer afford to waste a penny...
...the past few years have shown that, if the economy is to be kept under control, governments must choose their priorities with the knowledge that there is a strict ceiling on the amounts they can spend.
The trouble with this government is that they say one thing while they do another.
Let me return to the throne speech, and to the following words in it:
In recent months the government has urged both the public and the private sectors to adopt special measures to combat the dangers of inflation. These measures, which the government has itself adopted, must be applied by all if further restraints are to be avoided.
What hypocrisy and what arrogance! The government asks the public to follow its example, but I say: heaven forbid, or we will be in national bankruptcy and West Germany or the United States, which have the strongest currencies, will buy up this country.



University in Nova Scotia and from Memorial University in St. John's, Newfoundland. The subsidy for the construction of wooden ships has been removed, resulting in some shipyards closing down while others have reduced their work force by 90 per cent in the last two years. You have taken away the inshore sealing rights.
This action of cutting down the subsidy for wooden ships has stopped the modernization of the wooden fishing fleet. If this course is continued, the present fleet could become obsolete within a few years. How can you justify paying a 35 per cent subsidy on a steel hull without paying the same amount for a wooden hull? Is this the just society as applied to our wooden shipbuilders? The 35 per cent subsidy should be paid on wooden ships as well as steel, since the fishing equipment installed in these ships is identical.
Having removed practically all the fishermen's bandaids, what are you planning to offer them in return? Surely, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), when he was studying for his black belt-I am sorry he is not in his seat- learned that if you wish to push someone forward you first act as if you wish to push him backward. This brings opposing forces into play on your behalf making the push forward a simple matter. Surely, our fishermen have been pushed backward far enough and the time is ripe to offer them some incentives to go forward. The record will show that the market value of the fish landed in Nova Scotia this year exceeds $100 million and it is reasonable to assume that at least 10 per cent of this amount will find its way back into the tax coffers of the nation in one way or another. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that 70 per cent of this money is new wealth, as that is the percentage of the catch exported to the United States. This amount must certainly help to meet the balance of payments on imports. I would therefore suggest that you give some of the money that you are taking from the fishing industry back to that industry.
In my native province $1 million a year in subsidy funds for wooden ships would enable Nova Scotia to maintain a fleet competitive with the highly subsidized fleets of other countries operating in the Grand Banks area. However, if you plan to cut out subsidies altogether, we will watch with interest to see if this same policy applies to the CBC and the National Arts Centre. Surely, if our productive industries must stand or fall on their
The Address-Mr. Crouse own efforts, the same rule of thumb must apply to entertainment fields. Having provided a $47 million Arts Centre for our national arts there would really be no justification for an annual subsidy toward entertainment in excess of $2J million, which I notice is the amount listed in the estimates for 1969-70.
Since our fishermen will need new ships, I would suggest that the government provide an incentive for their construction by permitting the cost of any new ship to be written off as an investment allowance, without payment of taxes on earnings, over a three-year period. I would point out also that any nation that has cut out assistance to the fishing industry, such as the United States and Sweden, has noted a decline in the over-all catch landed by that industry.
Since the men engaged in the fishing industry are exposed to many hardships-and young men today are not training to become fishermen-I suggest that they be placed in a special category for income tax purposes. This could take one of two forms. At present, if a citizen is over 70 years of age, he may claim a $500 age exemption on payment of his income tax. I suggest that fishermen should also be permitted this exemption. Alternatively, in view of the fact that their fishing operations are depleting our fishing resources, a fact which has been brought to our attention by scientists, a fisherman's income should be treated in the same manner as taxable income from some Canadian corporations for which a 15 to 20 per cent depletion allowance is accep'able to the government. I believe this special recognition would encourage more men to become fishermen. It would constitute a recognition of the hazards and uncertainties associated with the occupation, while assisting in the future growth and expansion of this important east coast industry.
Speaking as a member of parliament from Atlantic Canada, I believe that improvement in the transportation links between our area and central Canada could go a long way toward solving problems of regional disparity. We had hoped, through area incentives, that Atlantic Canada would have something extra to offer when seeking new industries, but this cabinet has changed all that. This same provision has been extended to a wide area of Canadian territory, taking away our special advantages and enabling the richer provinces to further widen the economic gap between us. However, maritimers are immune to adversity by now and almost numb from the
Oclober 27, 1969

The Address-Mr. Benjamin beating given us by some of your programs. However, we still keep fighting, we still keep trying.
Since our railroad system is not the shortest route to Montreal, and we have not had any serious disagreements with the Americans in recent years, I should like to propose that the present government take a real step forward by advocating to the government of the United States a joint construction program on a corridor road through Maine. This road, linking the trans-Canada highway of the maritimes with Sherbrooke and Montreal, would cover some 180 miles of American territory but it would shorten the route between our area and central Canada and enable us to deliver our products more quickly. I realize the responsibility for constructing this road would rest solely with the United States but surely, with the new oil finds on the northern slopes in Alaska and the need for the rights-of-way for pipe lines through Canadian territory, some suitable agreement could be reached between our government and the government of the United States. In this way the needs and aspirations of our citizens could be met and we would be able to ensure the "progress and greatness of Canada", in the words of the Speech from the Throne. In Atlantic Canada we are still waiting for some sign of the Prime Minister's just society. In my view, a new transportation link between Atlantic Canada and the vast markets in central Canada would go a long way toward making the just society a reality in our area.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, before embarking on the main part of my comments I am tempted, and will yield to the temptation, to comment upon some of the matters raised in the Speech from the Throne. First, I was struck by the lack of attention in the speech to the critical problem of Canadian economic independence. It seems to me that only when the Government of Canada, and the nation as a whole, have greater control of the ownership of this economy will we be able to really do a job of directing our economy and controlling inflation. To my mind, the casual reference in the speech to farm marketing and income is most outrageous and I shall have more to say about that later. The much talked of Canada Development Corporation, which previous Liberal governments put forward, however weak and anemic it might have been, has again been

shelved. The Liberals either are not concerned about this- or are so completely enmeshed in the webb of outside corporations which own an ever increasing share of Canada that this government has been frozen into inaction.
The speech also forecasts extensive reform of our taxation system. We shall have to see what this entails. I suggest that the main needs are these: We must have a better redistribution of the tax load, a capital gains tax, a tightening of depreciation and incentive allowances for the mining and resource industries and the provision of higher exemptions and increased tax allowances for families with children. The speech also mentioned that the voting age in this country will be lowered. Mr. Speaker, in Saskatchewan we did that 25 years ago; our response to this measure therefore is automatic. As in so many other things, this Liberal government is 25 years behind the times.
On the matter of housing the speech seems to indicate that the government plans for the future more of what we have had in the past. If that assumption is right, then the Liberals again have missed the point. What we need is not just more houses, but houses at prices which more people can afford, with mortgages carrying interest rates which any of us can afford. Also, on the subject of inflation, unless moves to control inflation include more vigorous action with respect to the corporate sector of our economy, the results of action taken will continue to be disappointing. I suggest two moves the government can make. I suggest the control of profits through taxation, and greater influence by government on how corporations spend and re-invest profits accumulated in Canada. I shall have more to say about that in a few minutes, Mr. Speaker.
While the fight against inflation has been mentioned, we have heard about this government's expenditures on ministerial offices. Reference has been made to the Prime Minister's staff and to the renovation of ministers' offices. There are to be larger ministerial staffs and all kinds of expenses are to be undertaken which show that this government is as arrogant as other Liberal governments have been. Something that was drawn to my attention a few weeks ago illustrates how arrogant this government is. You know, Mr. Speaker, many great things, some of them quite justifiable, have been said about the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). It now appears that his worth can be measured. His
October 27, 1969	COMMONS
worth is equal to four ounces and $6.50. Why do I say that? On September 22 the minister made a speech to the annual convention of the Canadian Airline Employees' Association. On Thursday, September 25 the text of the speech arrived at the editorial office of the Regina Leader Post. The speech weighed four ounces and had cost $6.50 to send by air express. I should like to know if the Minister of Labour makes a practice of sending copies of his speeches to all newspapers and radio and television stations in Canada? I should like to know that, because I do not think the action taken was proper. I do not suppose the minister sent the speech, but I should like to know what idiot in his office authorized $6.50 of the taxpayer's money to be spent on sending a four ounce speech by air express.
As I said, I was shocked to see that the Speech from the Throne made such casual reference to problems of farm marketing and income. Two paragraphs in the speech referred to the subject. Finally, after being prodded for many months, the government has made an admission. The Speech from the Throne reads in part as follows:
One of Canada's most valuable assets is undeniably the richness and variety of her material resources. In some cases, production has increased substantially and outstripped demand; grain is one of the commodities of which reserves have piled up,-
Everybody else in Canada knows that, and now the government has admitted it.
In the throne speech the government indicates that it will amend the Canada Grain Act. In my opinion this action is long overdue since very likely it will improve our position on world markets. Yet there is not one word in the speech about strengthening and enlarging the Canadian Wheat Board, and there is not one proposal about farm incomes and the marketing of farm products.
The throne speech also mentions the agricultural crisis through which we are going. We already know that. My party, members of the official opposition and of the Creditiste group, have advanced many proposals during the last year; farm organizations have come up with all kinds of specific proposals, yet the government has not chosen to act on any of them. Few members of the government seemed to listen to proposals made about farm incomes in western Canada. Members of the official opposition recommended a system of acreage payments, as did spokesmen for farm organizations. Our party
DEBATES	117
The Address-Mr. Benjamin recommended the implementation of deficiency payments, as did members of farm organizations. Almost all in this house were unanimous in recommending a two-price system for wheat in conjunction with these payments, yet the government took no action. The government has not said why the adoption of the recommended course of action would not be appropriate.
In my opinion, the government's policy, as outlined in the Speech from the Throne, will be to take advantage of the farm crisis, to cause further tens of thousands of farmers to be eliminated from the agricultural industry. That suits the government's purposes. It suits the government not to help farmers with their cash income problem because it wants to speed up the process under which the number of farms is reduced. A small further reduction in the number of people farming is probably inevitable; but surely this process can be carried out over a long term and in a more civilized and humane manner. Too many viable, economic farm units will fall victims to the grand design of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the government of Canada which seeks to eliminate more farms from the agricultural industry. The government has not as yet properly researched the social and financial loss accruing to the entire community as a result of the further drastic reduction in farm population. I submit that this cost to the community far exceeds any cost that might be involved in maintaining the present number of people on farm units.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I wish to say a few words about the Canadian Wheat Board. I congratulate the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) for Sas-katoon-Humboldt on his appointment. I was under the impression that he held his present job last year. He acted, I thought, in his present capacity in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) who was ill and who has now returned to work. In any event, I congratulate him. The conditions under which the Canadian Wheat Board can operate are the same as they were one year ago. We still face the mess we faced one year ago with respect to the need for box cars, the fair allocation of cars and the delivery of grain to the elevator of the farmer's choice. May I say in reference to the allocation of railway equipment that the DBS figure for carloadings of wheat and other grains on western lines in an 11 week period


The Address-Mr. Benjamin from August 1, the beginning of the crop year, to the 14th of this October shows that some 2,700 fewer cars were loaded in this period compared to a year ago and almost
7,000	fewer than loaded in the same period in 1967.
A week ago, Mr. Speaker, I met with representatives from the eight wheat pool committees in rural Saskatchewan. Each of them submitted reports to me on the situation in their particular area. Each of them confirmed that they are in a worse position than they were a year ago. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) also met with some wheat pool committees in an area close to that which I represent. I am certain he can report receiving the same kind of information from those committees.
The reports were unanimous in pointing out these areas were still on the unit quota and had not yet delivered 400 bushels per farmer. Some still had not delivered the extra one bushel they are entitled to deliver as a result of their inability to complete the five bushel quota a year ago. All of them reported the desperate financial position of every farmer. All of them felt that cash advances were just another loan that partially postponed the problem and made the day of reckoning all the more horrible to contemplate.
I am going to put on the record a policy statement adopted by my party in the province of Saskatchewan. I am immodest enough to claim some part in the authorship of this statement because there have been speeches made by other spokesmen, from both the federal and provincial Liberal governments in Saskatchewan, laying blame on the Canadian Wheat Board for the position we are in regarding our export markets. I would like to submit that the blame for the situation the western farmer is in rests solely and completely upon the federal Liberal government, aided and abetted by their counterparts in Saskatchewan. Their attempts to shift blame on to the Canadian Wheat Board must not be allowed to succeed.
The Wheat Board can only operate within the limits of federal government policy. The policies of the present government have served to effectively handcuff the Board and prevent it from doing the best possible job for western farmers. These policies also serve to perpetuate the operations of the private grain trade, at the expense of western farmers, and at the same time to undermine the principle of orderly marketing through a central public agency.

For example, the fact that the Wheat Board must deal through foreign, privately owned grain traders cannot be in the best interests of western farmers or the Canadian nation as a whole and serves as a stricture on Canadian sales in world markets. The turning of a blind eye to provincial and interprovincial trafficking in grain at firesale prices is further evidence of the Liberal government's failure to act in the interests of farmers.
My party, Mr. Speaker, reaffirms its support for the Canadian Wheat Board. Our provincial council calls for an even further enlarging of the responsibilities and activities of the Board, backed by the government of the whole nation. If Liberal governments really do believe in, and support, the Canadian Wheat Board, and the principle of orderly marketing through a public agency, it is time they put their action where their mouth is.
We call on the government to act immediately to, one; bring flax, rye, rapeseed and feed grains under the complete jurisdiction of the Board; two, authorize and pay for the expansion of the facilities and operation of the Board into market and product research, sales offices and staff in importing countries; three, empower the Board to have complete control and direction of grain handling including all transportation facilities needed for the grain movement.
The mess in the railway industry in particular, that part designated to handle our grain and grain products, is as bad as ever and still continues after many years. We have previously suggested the appointment of a controller. This did not seem to suit the government. We now suggest the entire responsibility and authority necessary for the movement of railway equipment for the transportation of grain be placed in the hands of, and under the direction of, the Canadian Wheat Board. As a fourth point, we urge that the government authorize the Board to establish its own grain brokerage agency in order to bypass domestic and foreign private grain trade speculators and, fifth, embody in Wheat Board legislation the principle of the right of farmers to deliver their grain to the elevator of their choice.
This principle has been expounded and pleaded for by political parties, farm organizations and individual farmers since the days of the Bracken Commission-perhaps even before that. There have been some attempts, on paper or in theory, to implement it. When one sees shipping point after shipping point
Ociober 27, 1969

at which the farmers' own elevator companies are outrageously discriminated against in the allocation of railway equipment, resulting in the percentage of their market dropping from 65 and 75 per cent to 40 and 45 per cent, one finds an indication this government is more interested in the survival of the private grain trade which has been a parasite on the back of western farmers since Canada began.
A sixth point we would like to make is that there should be provision for added farmer representation on the Board. In addition to these six points I have mentioned, and there are many more I could go into which would strengthen and widen the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board, there is a further measure I think many people in this country feel the government should take. We call on the government to institute a system of guaranteed prices based on costs of production and at the same time give the Canadian Wheat Board the freedom to sell in the export market at the most advantageous prices. Whenever those export prices are below the guaranteed price, the national treasury should make up the difference.
Reference was made last Friday by the leader of my party, and by the two previous speakers, to inflation, the steel industry and steel prices. I would like now to dwell a bit on this point if I may. The government's concern for inflation is somewhat justified. All of us must have some concern for it, but when that concern develops into a pre-occupation that goes to the lengths of perpetrating hardships on hundreds of thousands of Canadians while privileged corporations and individuals go merrily on their way, then this or any other government is guilty of the grossest of governmental malpractice.
This government, in the classic old line party so-called free enterprise style, is waging war on inflation by attacking the very people who have in no way contributed to inflation and in fact are the first victims of it. This government forgot about the old age pensioner, old age assistance recipients, veterans on pension, retired R.C.M.P., civil service pensioners, fishermen, unorganized workers and small businessmen. Surely, these are not the people who caused or who are contributing to inflation. Surely, the government's failure to act in their interest is a backwards attack on inflation. The government, in its cutbacks, is hurting its own employees and striking at sections of the economy which are already depressed. According to the DBS summary of

The Address-Mr. Benjamin interest-the country and the public interest be damned.
Apologists for the steel industry, who include some hon. members in the old parties on both sides of this House, will frantically point a finger at wage increases as justification for the increase in steel prices. As has been the case on previous occasions it is certain that most of the cost of wage increases, and, probably, all of the cost, will be more than offset by increases in productivity. When the final figures are published I bet the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a new bat that this will prove to be is the case. Let me quote from a letter addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) by Mr. William Mahoney, the Canadian director of the United Steelworkers union. This letter is dated October 22. It deals with this question of steel price increases, and states, in part:
We want to make It very clear that, in the opinion of the United Steelworkers of America, the settlement terms just approved by our members do not justify any increase in prices. The wage increases and benefit improvements outlined in that settlement can be completely met out of the improvement in productivity achieved by our members over the period of the previous collective agreement.
Government and industry figures on the productivity of our members employed by the basic steel industry were recently analyzed by our union. We sent the details to you, to members of your government, to members of the House and to editors of all major Canadian publications well in advance of this year's negotiations. Figures for the first six months of this year which were not available at that time, confirm that our members' productivity has continued to grow.
We want to emphasize that despite the fact that our members earned their wage increases and benefit improvements in advance it was still necessary for them to go through negotiations, government conciliation, government mediation and finally, go without pay for over eighty days before they could secure those wage increases and benefit improvements. Furthermore, unlike the steel industry, our members will not get special tax treatment, enabling them to use their income loss this year to offset higher earnings in other years.
The letter goes on:
In contrast, the steel industry can simply announce price increases after a unilateral management decision.
This is a dramatic example of the basic imbalance between government treatment of wage income and government treatment of investor income in Canada. This is the imbalance which must be corrected before your recently-appointed Prices and Incomes Commission can be accepted in good faith by Canadian workers. This is also a dramatic opportunity for your government to correct the imbalance.

We suggest that your government ask the industry to withhold any increase in steel prices until such time as the steel companies can justify such price increases to their customers and to the general public before an appropriate government-appointed Board of Enquiry or the Prices and Incomes Commission itself.
This letter underlines more forcibly than I can, the need for these corporations, particularly those associated with basic industry, to justify the price increases they place on their products. Incidentally, this time I have not heard the steel industry using the old chestnut that wage increases have brought about these increases in price. The only justification the industry has put forward so far, to my knowledge, is that many of the products to which these increases apply have not been increased in price for two and a half years.
Upon examination, this becomes the most spurious excuse of all. There sure as hell was no justification for an increase during the last two and a half years. If one looks at the profits made by tiie Steel Company of Canada one finds that in 1964 they amounted to $43,630,000, in 1965 to $45,454,000 and in 1966 to $42,774,000. Now, we come to the period in which the industry says it did not raise its prices. In 1967 the profits were $46,733,000 and in 1968 they were no less than $67,971,000. By the way, these are profits after taxation-net profits. I maintain that having made a profit in 1968 amounting to almost $68 million the government and the country could more properly have expected a price decrease of 6 per cent rather than an increase; the Steel Company of Canada would still be doing extremely well. The ratio of net profit to shareholder's equity in this company was 10.5 per cent in 1967. This was not bad, you will say. Well, in 1968 it had risen to 14.1 per cent. How's that for a fat return? Surely, it is more than can be considered fair and reasonable by comparison with what the big majority of Canadians received as a result of salary and pension increases. And, as we know, farm income actually dropped.
I would point out that corporations such as the Steel Company of Canada are virtually immune to inflationary pressures; they are little affected by tight money and high interest rates. From their large reserves of retained profits they can easily lend themselves the necessary money for plant improvement and expansion at zero per cent. They are also-obviously-not obliged to respond to anti-inflationary measures which the government calls upon itself or upon the


private sector to take. The tragedy is that the multiplier effect of an increase in steel prices, as the products pass through the hands of the manufacturer, the wholesaler and the retailer, will mean that the consumer must pay many times more than the 6 per cent increase I have mentioned. The increase in the basic price will provide a neat cover for automobile, truck and farm machinery manufacturers, enabling them to add an even greater increase to the price of their products, since it opens a beautiful opportunity to make bigger and better profits which can all be blamed on higher steel prices. At the end of the line is the victimized consumer and the private enterprise government which has egg on its face for allowing aid and comfort to privileged friends. Meanwhile, inflation rolls merrily along.
Surely, this is one area in which the government should require restraint. Surely, the government ought now to force a roll-back of an unjustifiable steel price increase. Will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs act, or has he just been talking a good fight? It is apparent, or at least its is to most of us, that the minister is still talking a good fight. Will the Prices and Incomes Commission act or is it, too, just a paper tiger?
e (3:30 p.m.)
Let us look a little further into this whole area of the private sector to find out whether it has shown any restraint. Again, let us look at corporate profits. In the quarterly summary of corporate profits after tax published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, we find figures that are most illuminating. The very industries which are the largest contributors to increased prices and the rising cost of living, as well as to inflation, are the ones which show the greatest gains in profits.
The food and beverage industry, in the first six months of 1969, showed a net profit after taxes of $115 million. That is $27 million more than it showed for the first six months a year ago. The textile industry showed a profit of $45 million in the first six months or $20 million more than a year ago.
The chemical and chemical products industry, our friendly polluters, showed a profit of $82 million in the first six months, $8 million more than a year ago. The wholesale trades-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.

The Address-Mr. Dionne


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: May I have a moment to conclude?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I so enjoyed hearing what I was saying I forgot to watch the clock.
May I close by saying that the government has attacked inflation from the wrong end, as, is usual for Liberals. Until such time as the government exercise some control-and this will not be obtained through voluntary action-over the size of profits made by the private sector and in the direction of investment made by this sector, they will not in fact be able to do very much about inflation.
I find the Throne Speech sadly lacking in measures of this nature. It provides promise that in the future we will have more of what we had in the past year. I, for one could not support such a speech.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I read with great attention the traditional Speech from the Throne which depicts existing conditions and sets in uncertain terms the government's attitude towards the present economic situation.
A rather lengthy list of new bills has also been tabled and I presume that more details can be expected during this session concerning what the government intends to do about measures taken to reduce unemployment, that social ailment whose ravages must be restricted by every means at our disposal.
In agriculture, the government will have to define its position in order to boost the morale of farmers who are still faced with nearly insoluble problems which will force a great many of them to sell their land or declare bankruptcy.
Many other problems will require definite legislation and I wish that we may be able during this session to pass practical legislative measures in the interest of the population which expects from the government more comprehension and action than useless debate.
I have listened with interest to those who have participated in the debate until now. The mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne have performed very well considering the circumstances. The representatives of the various


The Address-Mr. Dionne parties all deserve congratulations. I do not doubt that each one of them has expounded his point of view according to his convictions.
I hope it will be recognized that many problems could find a solution if everyone made an effort to understand the ideas expressed by the members of the various parties and to ascertain as wisely as possible to what extent each one really works for the welfare of the country, rather than to promote the interests of one's own party.
In this century of materialism, it is too often forgotten that ideas are at the root of any improvement, however small.
The author of the best editorial for 1968, according to the Canadian Association of French Weeklies, which comprises 107 newspapers, simply headlined his article with these two words: "Good Idea."
He was speaking with much common sense, and I would like to quote parts of that article:
Ideas are as invisible and airy as electricity. Yet, it has been possible to pick up the electric fluid with wires and aerials. Why should it not be possible to pick up the "intellectual fluid" by more sophisticated means like silence, study and meditation. Let us open our mind still more to new ideas. Let us find them in the jumble oi thoughts that beset our mind at every moment.
He ends his article on these words:
Do not tell me that an idea is worthless. There is something good in every idea; there are only men not willing to take advantage of ideas. Any idea as a whole can bring forth a better one. The needle was invented before the sewing machine. Any idea is the road to a sure development.
I hope the ideas expressed during this session will not be misconstrued nor wrongly implemented, in order to lead to a better understanding of the causes of the difficulties experienced by Canadians. We must also wish that we will find through the exchange of good ideas practical solutions to the numerous economic problems of today.
If we consider long enough the principle that production is aimed at consumption, we shall realize easily that the purpose of production is not reached, and we shall be more prepared to look for the causes of this in the distribution system.
Several economists contend that amortization is now part of the purchasing power. However, it is very difficult to assess its lag and to determine its influence and scope on the immediate availability in terms of purchasing power in the hands of consumers. One or two factors of this kind are enough to reverse the position of recognized experts.

Besides, daily evidence shows us that the purchasing power available to consumers is undoubtedly inadequate.
I have before me an article published in Le Devoir in October 1962, following a television broadcast of October 4 during which two different theories had been explained by members of parliament on the problem of wealth distribution. Mr. P. H. Lavallee, an engineer, called the readers' attention to an idea originating with Major C. H. Douglas, also an engineer and the founder of Social Credit, who explored this field through differential calculus (in which time is considered as an operator. One may well wonder whether his position is not closer to reality.
Mr. Lavallee stated, and I quote:
Where experimental science is concerned, when a system cannot be based on facts, one uses an hypothesis. On the latter one builds a theory which must bring one to the solution one is seeking.
For example, Copernicus Galileo assumed that the earth could rotate around the sun, as the result of which many astronomical problems were solved. Christopher Columbus assumed that the earth was round, and we know what happened. On the other hand, Pasteur went on from the hypothesis (current then) of the infinitesimal. Modern atomic science is based wholly on a hypothesis-that of the structure of the atom. When a hypothesis is inconsistent with the facts, only once, it is rejected and a new one is used.
As for the problem which interests us at the present time, it is fair to proceed in the same way.
Let us state a first hypothesis: The purchasing power provided by production is sufficient to dispose of the latter. How can we explain then that in a normal period, we are often faced with overproduction or rather acute sub-consumption? Great numbers of people would like, in vain, to buy the goods which pack warehouses. There is also unemployment. In short, we are faced with the problem of abundance.
How can we explain that this uneasiness diminishes or disappears in wartime or when the economy is in full progress or, even, when the trade balance of a country is favourable?
Second hypothesis: Production alone cannot finance consumption. If we still want to balance our economy, we must make up for a shortage of purchasing lower. The supplement could take different forms.
Having said what happens in wartime:
(1)	With regard to the wages of soldiers and workers employed in war factories (unsold production which cannot be bought);
October 27, 1969	COMMONS
(2)	Massive capitalization for important projects;
(3)	Favourable trade balance. Realizing that the last two methods are not sufficient to fill the gap between prices and buying power, Mr. Lavallee adds that another method must be used, and I quote:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The distribution of additional purchasing power to the citizens of the country so as to sell the whole production.
It is always argued that this measure will lead to inflation as if there was no middle term nor any middle course between a chronic shortage of purchasing power and inflation.
If the issue of additional funds is strictly and scientifically controlled, there should not be more inflation than when the Aluminum Company took the decision to invest several hundred million dollars at Kitimat or when the Iron Ore and Quebec Cartier Mining decided to sink more than half a million dollars in Labrador; nor when the St. Lawrence Seaway or the Dew line were built; no more than when it was decided to pay family allowances or old age pensions. But it might be possible to find there a means to balance and stabilize the economy.
Considering the remarks I have just made, the classic economists' position does not seem to me to be unassailable, and I am wondering if the second hypothesis has not at least as many chances to be valid as the first one.
It seemed desirable to me to submit this idea at the beginning of the session and I think I have used wisely the time allotted to me, by promoting the concept of the distribution of abundance rather than praise the government on its achievements or criticize it for what it failed to do.
I shall undoubtedly have an opportunity to take part in the debates on some of the bills we will have to consider during this session. However, I am convinced that if we could direct the legislative work towards this idea of a more equitable distribution of goods, most Canadians would be satisfied with the administration of their country and would be better prepared to respect the government's authority that needs to be strengthened.
Before closing, I should like to say that the Speech from the Throne mentions the government's resolve to achieve linguistic equality. The Official Languages Act constitutes a pressing invitation to all the provinces to take that course which will help save Canadian unity.	.	.
DEBATES	123
The Address-Mr. Dionne
This legislation may prove to be interesting training for citizens of good will and most Canadians belong to that category. There is no provision in the act which compels Canadians to speak English and French. But it recognizes existing facts. This gesture has an important symbolic value which should help bring about true bilingualism at the federal level.
Canada is a federation of ten provinces and constitutes a country. In matters of general interest we must act as Canadians and not only as residents of a province.
English is known throughout the world as the commercial language and French as the diplomatic one. Therefore, there is some advantage in having both official languages on an equal footing in Canada and in having them in use in all parts of the country where conditions permit.
The development of interprovincial co-operation could become easier and greatly help to achieve the desired goal; makes a new Canada that will recognize in fact the equality of the two founding peoples.
I would urge all those who are not yet won over to read a speech given by Mr. Douglas How, editor in chief of the Reader's Digest, on October 16, 1963, at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel, about "The Canadians that we could be".
On the first page Mr. How states, and I quote:
What French Canada is asking for would, in a large measure, correspond to what we, Englishspeaking Canadians, consider necessary in Canada.
And later on he adds:
Through and in spite of this resistance we have created the Canada of today. In making its inventory, English Canada would do well to remember that the miracle of the survival of French Canada played a leading part in the survival of Canada as an independent state.
On the other hand, it would not be a bad thing for French Canada to remember that such a miracle was only possible on account of English Canada. We needed one another. What remains to be seen is whether we can convince one another to maintain that kind of co-operation.
Otherwise, should this country break up, we will have to conclude that we were not strong enough to make the best of our opportunities and to take up the challenges inherent in them. Therefore the tragedy then would not consist in such a division, which would be but the logical result of a matter of fact. The tragedy would consist in not having been able to become what we could have been. Such is the essence of our history, of the present crisis, of our future. We can overcome such a difficulty and add to our size. But if we do not overcome it, we run the risk of losing ground-and even worse.

October 27, 19G9
The Address-Mr. Osier
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that Canadians will be able, at the right time, to come to decisions that will enable everyone to live in harmony and to make of this country what it should be, namely a united Canada working in harmony towards her destiny.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of representing the people of the Winnipeg South Centre constituency, in this parliament of which so much is expected. To me, it is a great honour as well as a great task.

As we come into our one hundredth year in Manitoba, which is a province that has featured both languages so strongly in its history, I think it is only fitting that I should try, in my own small way to accept that fact by struggling slightly to begin my speech in French.


An hon. Member:: Why not continue in French?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Edmund Boyd Osler: I would love to be able to do so. I guarantee that six or seven years from now I shall be able to do so.
Some hon. members may have noticed on the front of my car a distinctive looking licence plate bearing the number 100 and saying "Manitoba-The First 'In' Province". This is a sort of gimmick adopted by the province of Manitoba this year to draw attention to the fact that on July 15, 1970 we will be celebrating the hundredth anniversary of our entry into confederation. Although we were not a party to the original negotiations which resulted in the Dominion of Canada, we joined the dominion three years and 15 days after it had been born. So, we were the first "in" province, as my licence plate declares to all and sundry, and we are very proud of it.
It was in Manitoba that the separate thrusts of English and French penetration of this continent collided, and in Winnipeg, where the Red and Assiniboine rivers meet, where these two peoples resolved, after an initial clash, to bed down together and, with the native Indians of the area, build a distinctive little colony of their own. It was here that the good faith of the new Canadian confederation was first put to the test.
As the centennial of Manitoba draws near, the name of Louis Riel looms large in my home town. Like myself, he was a member of

parliament. He was elected to this House three times but he was never allowed to take his seat. Yet, he retains a claim to a place in history, for it was he who insisted that the colony of Assiniboia must only join Canada on negotiated terms acceptable to the people who lived in it. He was not a French Canadian; he was a French speaking citizen of the Northwest. Just as W. L. McKenzie and Joseph Papineau had insisted some 30 years before in Ontario and Quebec, he insisted on representation by population for the west.
Probably Riel should be considered Manitoba's Father of Confederation. He was not its sole founder-I do not think it is right to call him the founder of Manitoba as some people want to do today-although assuredly he was one of the founders. Others would include Chief Henry Prince, who signed the first treaty between Canada and the Indians of the Northwest

it was treaty number one signed in 1871-and who spoke for his people as their elected delegate in the troubles of 1869 and 1870 in which Riel first featured. He was descended from Chief Peguis, who in turn negotiated and signed the original treaty with Lord Selkirk in 1819.
The Earl of Selkirk was another person whom we should consider as another founder of Manitoba. He established the first permanent settlement in the Northwest by bringing Irish and Scottish dispossessed crofters to this land and setting them up on the banks of the river.
Then, there was Alexander K. Isbister, a native of the Red River region, a man of mixed blood, who headed a delegation to the British government in 1846. His- efforts resulted ultimately in some measure of local representation on the Hudson Bay Company's governing board.
Then, we have Louis Riel senior, the father of the man who was more famous, who helped to establish free trade and break the Hudson Bay Company's monopoly in the entire Northwest.
Then, we have a Nova Scotian, Adams George Archibald, the first Manitoba lieutenant governor. By his insistence on "keeping his cool" on all questions and by his determined fairness to all factions he guided Manitoba through its first difficult years and set the pattern for tolerance and justice of which we are all so rightly proud. After Archibald there were many others, many natural leaders who emerged from the countless immigrants who flooded into our land


and made it what it is today. So, I suggest that Riel is our Father of Confederation, and many more people share my view regarding his claim to be founder of Manitoba.
What has all this to do with us here and now? I suggest that if we want to know where we are going, we must sometimes pause to look backwards to see where we have been. It is useful also to note that although Manitoba's boundaries have expanded greatly since it came to confederation as the postage stamp province, and its population now exceeds one million people, we still consider ourselves to be a region, or part of a region, distinct and unique from all the others.
Confederation is attractive to us now, as the idea of Canada was attractive one hundred years ago, only to the degree that it allows us to contribute in our own way to Canada as a whole. We came in voluntarily one hundred years ago and we remain in the confederation voluntarily as the beginning of our second century looms ahead; but now, as then, we have our own distinctive ideas about how some of Canada's remaining problems should be solved.
In the Speech from the Throne I noted many subjects of interest to us all. We are all interested in the reform of the United Nations; we are all interested in the idea of a Canadian international development research centre; we are all interested in helping our Indian and Eskimo peoples to help themselves; we are all interested in the subjects of social security, amendments to collective bargaining laws, the enforcement of measures to fight inflation, the fight against pollution, further amendments to the Criminal Code, consumer protection laws, etc.
But there are some items that to me will test the government's seriousness of intent in so far as regional equality is concerned. I commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for his continued efforts to revise our constitution and for his statement that the federal constitution must always provide for the integrity of the regions or provinces making up the state. I am intrigued by his suggestion that the four Senate divisions of Canada might be used as the basis for developing a consensus on certain matters. In this connection, it is interesting to note that Sir Alexander T. Galt, one of the more able Fathers of Confederation, wanted a Senate in which some approach to federal equality between the various sections of the country would be 21362-9
The Address-Mr. Osier secured, and felt very firmly that we should have an upper house elected on a territorial basis to give some weight to the legitimate differences of opinion between regions which would otherwise be swamped in a legislative assembly elected on the basis of population.
It is good to see that the federal government proposes to increase funds to reduce regional disparities, and it will be interesting indeed to discover whether the white paper on taxation aimed at achieving a fairer distribution of the tax burden has any features in it that might provide a sort of built-in compensation for those of us who live in parts of the country that appear to offer less glamorous opportunities than the central provinces. It is gratifying to see that we will have amendments to the Canada Grains Act. While no one can hope to sell a commodity such as grain as easily as it used to be sold in the good old days, it is only common sense to bring our system of grading and marketing into line with the systems that prevail among our competitors.
In housing, and particularly in urban renewal, I hope to see some formula adopted that is not a simple freeze. Just as the government intends to emphasize measures to help low income families in housing, I hope they will consider measures to help in a special way low income regions to catch up with the more affluent parts of this country.
This is not a land where all can be centralized; it is too vast, too complex and too diverse for that. The glory of Canada will be found in the quality of the lives of the people living in all sorts of places, in all sorts of styles. We are not enamoured of the melting pot theory, thank God. We should rejoice as much in the achievement of Didi Woolgar, who runs an art shop of quality on the ground floor of a Yellowknife hotel, as we do about the National Arts Centre across from Parliament Hill. Perhaps we should rejoice more over Didi's achievement, and others like her, than over the ones that are so finished and final.
My fellow members from Winnipeg-of whom I see one across the House right now- will no doubt remember, as I do, the seeds that have grown into our own magnificent centennial hall and the cultural achievements of Winnipeg. When I was a boy the people of Winnipeg heard concerts in the old Grace Church and the old Board of Trade building, where the performers had to compete with the noise from shunting engines in the Canadian National yards nearby. What was


The Address-Mr. McIntosh developed in these unlikely places was art indigenous to the skills of our own peoples, so that what we have today in Winnipeg is founded firmly and is not imposed upon our people from on high. This is as it should be because the exciting truth is we are a "becoming" nation and we must build for ourselves as we go along, and seek our own solutions.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
We hear a lot about the search for a Canadian identity. Professional panelists make their livings searching vainly for this elusive thing before the beady eyes of television cameras-in colour, yet! They search in vain, for the thing they look for is already there, had they only the wit to see it.
Not long ago I attended the marriage of two young friends of mine. The bridegroom's heritage was Scots-in-Canada for 170 years, plus French-in-Canada for 300; the bride's people had been living in Canada since long before the middle of the nineteenth century. Why search for an identity here? Why look for things that all 20 million of us should now be taking for granted, and working as hard as we know how to improve?
There are some among us who dissent loudly and clearly about many things they think are wrong with this country today. Thank God they have the right to do so, so long as they respect the rights of others in the process. Things can be improved ;they ought to be improved; they must be improved. But as we go about this process of improving the quality of life in Canada today let us remember the monument to Jacques Cartier on Gaspe's rugged coast, and also the memorial to the bush pilots of Canada that stands on the summit of a harsh peninsula jutting out into Great Slave Lake beside one of the most isolated capital cities in the world. For more than 400 years men have been striving to make of this a great country. We must continue to do the same.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to congratulate the two government members, from Sarnia and Lapointe, who moved and seconded the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Maybe I should add that I regret they are not present in the House to hear my congratulations.
There are many shortcomings and inadequacies in the Speech from the Throne upon which I might touch. Generally speaking, it was a sorry document, long on ringing

phrases but woefully short of hope for the average Canadian. If this speech presents, as some commentators friendly to the government have said it does, the skeleton of the long awaited just society, then God help Canada because the bones are the bones of a monster.
The speech is studded with references to the individual, his rights, his privileges, his protection. It fairly breathes concern for the individual Canadian.


John Napier Turner: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Unfortunately, Mr. Minister, it fails to inform us how this concern will be translated into action. There was passing reference, too, to the bogey of inflation. But again any suggestion of action on the part of the government was exceedingly vague. All in all, the speech was most notable for what it did not say, for the areas that were untouched, for the problems by-passed or ignored. Whether this was intentional or not, we are not at this time prepared to say.
I have in mind one particular group of Canadians who, apparently, were entirely overlooked. This is the large number of solid Canadian citizens forced to subsist on fixed incomes. Forgetting them is crime enough, but to emphasize their chief enemy, inflation, without giving any hope of remedial action, is unforgiveable.
Pensioners, particularly retired federal public servants, are a ghost army that must haunt any government with a conscience, but one which the present government has obviously deliberately excluded from the fabric of the so-called just socie'y. I believe they constitute a spectre that will torment the government in the months ahead.
These retired persons do not enjoy the general benefits that flow from rising incomes and improved living standards. They are the helpless targets of inflation. With fixed incomes and diminishing purchasing power, they suffer most. Some of them have some measure of flexibility, through personal initiative, to try to off-set the ravages of inflation. Others are dependent upon pension plans or superannuation schemes, provincial or private, that are more modern, more effective and more humane than is the federal system. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to confine what I have to say to the plight of the superannuated public servants of Canada.
For a long time now, through their chosen bargaining agents, public servants have sought to have superannuation included as a
October 27, 1969	COMMONS
bargainable point during collective bargaining sessions. They have described the present system as inadequate and antiquated and feel, rightly I believe, that they should be allowed to contribute their ideas to modernizing it and making it adequate to the times. In an excellent brief presented to a joint committee of parliament in January, 1967, the Professional Institute of the Public Service made this point strongly. They hold this view even more emphatically today in the prevailing economic atmosphere.
Some of the figures advanced in support of their case before that committee bear repetition today. For instance, experience indicates that federal public servants who retire at age 65 live, on the average, for another 14 years. Those who retire at 60 live for 17 more years. About 20 per cent of public servants live 20 and more years following retirement. In view of the advances continually being made in health and medicine, this period of life may be expected to increase, not decrease.
In 1949 a pension of $150 a month was considered reasonable, if not princely. Today, 20 years later, it barely pays the rent. Many of the 20 per cent of pensioners who retired in the 1949 era are still eking out an existence on pensions too often well below even the $150 figure. Surely, Mr. Speaker, social justice and common decency demand that the real value of the pension, in terms of current purchasing power, should be maintained for these public servants. They should not be penalized by society for having been born 20 years too soon nor, I believe, should their career of service to the country be set so cheap as to condemn them to degradation and want.
What justification can there be for denying them all the benefits of all the advances achieved since their retirement? As a good employer, and as the exemplar of the rights and protection of the individual within a just society, the government should ensure that their retirement benefits are automatically adjusted to the increased costs of Canadian life.
The old system of adjusting government pensions has obviously failed to meet the need. We should now consider some means of making post-retirement adjustments that will achieve the objective of the superannuation plan, which is to provide retired public servants with a standard of living related to the standard enjoyed prior to retirement. Whatever means we choose to accomplish this, it cannot be of the periodic review type where 21362-9J
DEBATES	127
The Address-Mr. McIntosh action can come only after need has far outstripped the remedy. To help reach this desirable objective, those most intimately concerned with it, the public servants covered by superannuation, must have a voice. That is why I claim superannuation must be negotiable at the bargaining table.
In a number of other countries pensions are a proper topic for negotiation. The federal civil service retirement system of the United States has a cost of living increase formula linking pensions with the consumer price index. Our aim must be to provide the same justice to Canadian public servants, to ensure that there is automatic adjustment to meet changed economic conditions. I realize that such a formula would entail additional cost, but this cost does not necessarily have to be an additional burden on general government expenditure.
I was pleased, Mr. Speaker, that I was in the House this afternoon to listen to the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) when he tried to explain the reason that this session of parliament might be called the "white paper session". He said that we in the opposition criticized but offered no alternatives, and he also implied that our suggestions would create additional expenditures. I had intended to deal at length with some of the statements he made, but I was pleased to note that immediately after he sat down the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) rose to his feet and answered all the statements that I had intended to answer.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I was amazed when I heard the statement, which has been made several times during the course of this debate, that the cost of the present Prime Minister's staff is twice that of his predecessors, $350,000 a year compared with $150,000 a year for Mr. Pearson and $50,000 a year for the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). The number of elite advisers to the government has reached the astronomical figure of 117, at a cost of $1.5 million.
These are some of the things, Mr. Speaker, for which we criticize this government. It is not our position to tell them how to run their business. We offered alternatives to the general public in 1968 that were not accepted. The solutions offered by the present government were accepted, and what does the public of Canada find today? They find the government has no answers, that they want a session full of white papers by means of which


The Address-Mr. McIntosh they can study today's problems. What have they been doing for the last 18 months? They were supposed to know the solutions. The Liberals told the people of Canada that they knew what the solutions were before they took office. All opposition parties, and quite rightly so, criticized them for the inaction that will become apparent during the next 12 months, the term of this session. They say now they do not know what the answers are but will study the problems. I would say that those members of the general public of Canada who put their cross on the ballot for the present government will long remember, and one wonders whether they will do it again.
I want to say that the problem I am dealing with at the present time does not entail expenditures for the present government or the public of Canada. There appears to be sufficient earning power within the fund itself to offset any additional cost. This additional cost could be offset to a large extent, if not entirely, if the government were to bring the superannuation account into the economic world of today. Civil servants have advocated this course since 1967 when they presented their last brief.
The government should credit the superannuation account with interest at rates somewhat closer to those prevailing elsewhere throughout the economy. Private employers can invest pension funds in a manner calculated to offset increased payments and adjustments. The government cannot. But it could increase the superannuation account interest rate from 4 per cent to a more realistic figure. As things now stand, public servants are forced to lend money to the federal government through superannuation payment deductions at a rate of 4 per cent. In view of conditions prevailing outside this captive fund, this is little short of highway robbery and, I am certain, would not be condoned in any other joint venture unless one party had dictatorial control over the fund, such as the government has over the superannuation account, superannuation account.
Even the latest issue of Canada Savings Bonds yields 8 per cent at maturity and interest rates on other investments sold in the open market are even higher. Today, reference has been made to outside groups which are paying 9 per cent on borrowed money. Savings accounts in chartered banks constitute a far better investment bet today than does the federal superannuation account, yet

public servants have no choice. It is this to which I object. Civil servants have no voice or control over this account.
Funds are borrowed from the Canada Pension Fund at rates approaching 7 per cent- last year it was 6.92 per cent-and the unemployment insurance fund sells bonds at comparable rates. Yet the superannuation fund, fed by a compulsory flow from a captive army of public servants, yields a pitiable 4 per cent. The province of Ontario pays 6 per cent on a comparable fund. Why can the federal government not do the same thing?
In the 11 years to 1968, the superannuation account increased nearly three times to close to $3 billion. This was $3 billion which the federal government had at its disposal at the bargain rate of 4 per cent-$3 billion that, in effect, public servants were forced to lend to the government. They had no alternative. They were forced to lend this money to the government which, in its wisdom, saw fit to pay them 4 per cent when the government would have had to pay at least 8 per cent, according to the last bond issue, to borrow money from the general public. What made the phenomenal growth of the fund possible was the fact that in every one of the 11 years contributions exceeded payments-certainly an indication that these payments did not keep abreast of the rising cost of living. In 11 years the account earned over $648 million dollars in interest, at 4 per cent. Had a rate similar to Ontario's 6 per cent been effective there would have been $324 million more in earnings available to meet pension adjustment payments. In other words, 50 per cent more would have been put into that fund if the federal government had paid the same rate of interest on their superannuation fund as the province of Ontario.
The account paid out $509 million over 11 years, while taking in $531 million over the same period, without touching any of the original investment. What would $324 million additional have meant to retired public servants in those years if it had been paid out as an adjustment on the cost of living? In other words, taking these figures roughly, if there had been an adjustment clause in this account, civil servants on pension would have enjoyed at least a 50 per cent higher standard of living.
The superannuation account consists of public servants' own money, but it is at the disposal of the government, and entirely controlled as to earning power and use by the
October 27, 1969	COMMONS
government. Little wonder that public servants today are crying out for some voice in the handling of their own fund. On the face of these figures I have quoted, the government may have been smart in its own, narrow field of financing but it has been guilty of gross mismanagement of the fund in the interests of its contributors and in neglecting the best of interests of public servants. The least we can do now is to adjust the superannuation account interest rate to something like the government's long-term bond yield.
We must act to make sure that provisions are made for automatic adjustment of the pensions of retired public servants to the cost of living. In order to arrive at an acceptable and fair method of doing this, the superannuation system of the federal government should be made negotiable between employees and their employer.
There is a wider field of possibilities lying beyond this basic need, Mr. Speaker. They are possibilities that any government genuinely interested in people and professing concern, such as this government does, for the individual Canadian in a just society would be wise to explore. For instance, there is the question of making funds available from the superannuation account for housing loans to public servants. There is the urgent question of improvement in widows' pensions. There is the question of control of the fund by joint committee of representatives of the employer and employees, and the possibility of investment beyond the present narrow confines imposed by the present Act.
I think this House should be given the opportunity of overhauling the Public Service Superannuation Act thoroughly, if not in all its particulars then, certainly, in a few specific instances. I am not interested at the moment in trying to apportion blame for the past "victimization" of Canada's public servants, but I do believe that they have been victimized by the arbitrary nature of the legislation and the operation of the supperan-nuation account exclusively by the government. Let us now have a little participatory democracy. Let us allow the public servants of Canada to have a little say in how their money is handled and how their retirement position can be improved. I would ask that the Prime Minister give meaning to some of the words he uttered in this House on Friday when he stated that his government's primary responsibility is to the people of Canada. The figures offered by some other members of this House have shown him how the cost of
DEBATES	129
The Address-Mr. G. LeBlanc operating his office has risen since 1963 from $50,000 a year to $350,000 a year. I wish he would give the same consideration to the Public Servants who have served this country well and whose costs have also increased, although not in the same proportion. I think in this regard he should practice what he preaches.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Referring to another group in our society, the Prime Minister said this on Friday: There is no need anywhere in Canada for misguided or misinformed zealots to resort to acts of violence in the belief that only in this fashion can they accomplish change.
He went on to say:
Those who would defy the law and ignore the opportunities available to them to right their wrongs and satisfy their complaints will receive no hearing from this government.
I ask the Prime Minister, the members of the cabinet and, in particular, the minister present, what opportunities will be given to our public servants to right their wrongs and satisfy their complaints in connection with their superannuation fund. I hope there is some plan of action. If there is any substance to the Prime Minister's speech, and if he is genuinely concerned with unrest and discontent among certain groups in our society, I suggest this is one area where he can immediately demonstrate that there are other means that can accomplish change, right wrongs and satisfy complaints. This is one area where one word from the Prime Minister will rectify this injustice.
Many of us in the opposition are only too well aware that it is unwise to listen to what the Prime Minister says. We are much better informed if we watch what he does. I am sure that many thousands of Canadians who once had faith in the just society will be watching for immediate action to be taken by this government on this issue.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give my modest appreciation of the Speech from the Throne and to indicate what I believe to be the views of my constituents as regards the policies expressed therein.
While listening to His Excellency the Governor General last Thursday, we could, once more, observe that the ultimate goal sought by the government is always to provide more happiness to every Canadian citizen. In fact,


The Address-Mr. G. LeBlanc the government, the Liberal party, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) give more and more importance to the respect due to the human being. Their primary concern is the welfare, security and liberty of each citizen, and they have expressed that concern with remarkable clarity and vigour in the Speech from the Throne.
During the first session, before beginning to carry out its program of justice, the government thought it advisable to revitalize its proposed legislation and to improve its working tools, particularly, the parliamentary procedure. Although it was not an easy thing to do, and of limited interest to the general public, this has nevertheless been completed.
All the legislation passed during the first session as well as the preliminary work done to prepare this new session, have been summarized in a Speech from the Throne of a new type. We consider this speech as a most happy initiative taken by the government, an initiative that deserves to be praised.
All the realizations listed in this speech, whether the Official Languages Act, the reorganization of the government, the measures to control inflation and to protect the consumer, to name only a few of them, are for the government the assurance of a successful session to come.
Now, it is generally anticipated that because of the austerity program which is going to prevail for an indefinite length of time in order to reduce the threat of inflation, the government will insist on a certain stability of the administrative structures, on simplifying the administration to ensure greater efficiency within the federal departments, services and programs. This concern for efficiency seems to be, at present, the government's top priority. We can but approve because it is wise nowadays to be very cautious before launching any large scale undertaking.
There is, however, a very happy exception to this austerity program, namely the projects of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion whose budget is to be increased, which would make this department the main weapon in the fight against social, economic and regional disparities. We are delighted, my constituents and myself, that the Rimouski constituency, which I have the honour to represent in the house, is in the pilot regional development area of the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspe peninsula. This is why we have set our hopes on the hon. member for Langelier (Mr. Marchand), in charge of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion

which he heads with efficiency and in a masterly way.
That is why the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) surprises me a little, as it must surprise many among us. As I read it, it says that the government intends to stall action to eliminate what I would summarize by the word "poverty" in some areas of our country.
It seems to me that this priority, as spelt out in the Speech from the Throne, is an answer to the question of the Leader of the Opposition.
Some members of the opposition along with those who are against the government and the Liberal party may criticize the Speech from the Throne, saying that, like all government programs, it is insignificant and does not contain anything spectacular to draw public attention and prompt editorialists or radio and television commentators to engage in written or oral analyses. Yet, it was not so long ago when major statements were made and, rightly or wrongly, they were described as shattering. About two months ago, the Prime Minister explained his position on austerity and efficiency measures taken by the government to streamline administrative structures and fight inflation. He also explained, on October 19, the attitude that the government might take in connection with the management of certain Crown corporations, for instance the C.B.C.
Following those statements, I believe that the majority of Canadians approved the Prime Minister, while admiring his qualities of true leader, and especially his great frankness, and, particularly, that integrity of mind peculiar to him.
The Speech from the Throne is nothing but a preamble, a foreword characterized by its brevity and its clarity. Some will perhaps say that it is not complete, that it gives a very vague idea of what the legislation program of this session will be.
I think it is the opposite considering the list of the titles of the bills that the Prime Minister tabled in the house before the moving of the Address in reply. According to me, the list is the practical complement of the legislative program outlined in the Speech from the Throne. Indeed, is it not an appropriate answer to the questions some could ask? Is it not the concrete expression of our program of activities for this new session? Does not each


title of those bills relate to Canadian priorities?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
During the parliamentary recess-although the word conveys the wrong impression because members from all parties undoubtedly saw to their duties during that period while members of the Cabinet continued to govern the country-some people have been working, judging from the list of bills and the impending publication of White Papers on most important matters, such as fiscal reform, social security and foreign affairs.
This indicates that White Papers will be increasingly used to inform Canadians in advance on priority questions of interest to them and to invite them to make their views known. Anyone can see that there are priorities in Canada and that the government has undertaken to determine them quite accurately.
As for reforms concerning individual rights, we have noted the proposal for lowering the voting age to 18. If it is implemented, it will hopefully result in encouraging more people to take an interest in federal politics.
We have also noted the government's desire to amend again the Criminal Code in order to restrict the use of wire-tapping and other eavesdropping devices for a better protection of the rights and privacy of the individual.
The government is still concerned with the problems that interest the people to the highest degree, like housing. This seems to be the third priority set by the government. As a matter of fact, in spite of the threats posed by inflation, and the need for an austerity program, the government has set as its objective to build in a five-year span one million houses and dwellings likely to meet the needs of low-income families.
With the same principles underlying its programs, it plans to protect the consumers even further, to undertake an in-depth reform of the unemployment insurance scheme, to improve labor-management legislation and to check water pollution.
If it cares for the problems confronting the people, the government does not care less for those where the people are less directly involved, as, for instance, the revamping of the Constitution which is one of its priority projects.
Far from forgetting this problem of the Constitution, the government is giving it greater importance and will spare no effort to
The Address-Mr. G. LeBlanc make this important revision successful. Therefore we have here a fourth priority.
We also see that the government remains mindful of international politics, to take stock on these questions, to put things in order. The session has scarcely started, but we will all have many opportunities to come back on the plans outlined in the Speech from the Throne.
At this point, I am pleased to join my colleagues who have approved and congratulated the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Both have discharged their duties with much thoroughness and grace. The hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) stated brilliantly his views and those of his fellow-citizens concerning Canada's main problems, our role as members of parliament and the question of poverty in our affluent society.
On the other hand we noted very enthusiastically that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) recalled to us the importance of the Saguenay, his region. Talking with much spirit and verve he described the region and told us of its history in a very colourful style.
These two members have certainly done justice, not only to their constituents but also to all of us who sit in this house. That is why, falling in stop with several other hon. members, I wholeheartedly, support and congratulate them.
Many people in Canada where very much interested in the Speech from the Throne, and so were, I am sure, my constituents. The citizens of my area, Mr. Speaker, cannot but develop a keen interest in our activities and welcome the program announced in the Speech from the Throne, mainly because of the priorities stated in it, namely, those related to the budget and to the projects of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. However, I am sure that they have their own views on these programs to which they will contribute constructive criticism.
A few months ago, the citizens of the pilot area of the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspe Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands to which belons the population of the Rimouski riding I have the great honour of representing, decided to engage into an era of planning. In the meantime, the latter was high lighted by two historical dates; May 1967, in the course of which was set up at Chandler, the Regional council for the development of Eastern Quebec and May 1968, during which the representatives of both the Quebec government and the government of Canada, signed


The Address-Mr. G. LeBlanc at Rimouski the general agreement on Canada-Quebec co-operation, an agreement which has to do with the first five-year plan of the expansion program drafted by a nonprofit corporation, the Eastern Quebec Development Board.
My fellow-citizens in the pilot area were happy to see, in 1967, the setting up of a body which would become their spokesman with the Eastern Quebec Regional Development Board and in that capacity a valuable inter -locuter, ready to accept their representations; but all the happier in 1968 when the federal-provincial agreement was signed which provided for some $260 million to be spent over a five-year period on developing their economy and thus improving their lot.
Since then, that is in the last 17 months or so, under the terms of that agreement, things have been done, steps have been taken in various fields such as agriculture, fishing, forestry, tourism, urban development, transportation; the national park at Forillon is not the least of those measures. In fact, it represents quite an accomplishment in which all will rejoice when the time comes to really develop tourism in that huge area of Canada.
I must, however, take this opportunity to say that the local people and the Regional Development Council have been quite concerned with regard to the setting up, the improvement of the infrastructure of the services and other instruments essential to the industrialization of the pilot area; and I believe that they are becoming increasingly concerned, and rightly so. The chairman of the Regional Development Council has stated repeatedly that the development project for eastern Quebec would be a complete failure unless everything was done to ensure the growth of existing viable industries and to promote the establishment of new industries capable of creating new employment, social and economic staibility and progress.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I believe that those words were both sensible and timely. My fellow-citizens know that it is incumbent on them, first of all, to see to it that such words are constantly translated into action, both by them and by the government. That is when they rely more and more on the assignment given the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and his officials, on their vitality and vigilance.
The traditional tasks and undertakings should no more be financed through the special appropriations provided under some

agreement. Nor for our own good and that of the country, should the role of the pilot area and its people be that of a Guinea-pig only. It should evolve normally, all the experiments should be carried out within the pilot area and the local citizens should be allowed to share in them. Speaking about the necessary infrastructure of industrialization one normally implies urbanization, housing policy and services as well as functional industrial parks, adequate seaports, railway and air services and industrial promotion.
Recently, some joint intermunicipal urbanization boards were established, in order to urbanize specific areas selected by the Eastern Quebec Development Board. In my opinion, the first commission, or one of the first to have been established in the area, is the one covering Rimouski-Mont-Joli-Prince in the constituency which I represent, the most highly populated community in the area.
This commission has quite a heavy task to perform, and it is agreed that it will be unable to discharge it without the financial assistance of the government.
As for functional and modern industrial parks equipped with all the necessary facilities and sidings, it is obvious that it is in the first place a municipal and provincial responsibility, but following newly adopted legislation, the federal government has a great responsibility in that field, whence the importance of the most perfect accord in that regard between the three levels of government.
A federal-provincial committee on transport was recently formed to determine the necessity and ways of improving the transportation system, in order to answer the needs that will arise when other programs of the plan are carried out. It aims at preparing a program for the establishment of an integrated transportation system and at judging the impact other programs of the plan had on communication networks.
It has been said recently that this territory has numerous harbor facilities and even excessive equipment in that field, without a rational utilization. Let us hope that the study of the commission will rationalize those structures. People in my riding are somewhat worried about this and are greatly interested in the commission's work. We all hope we will keep intact what we have acquired in nearly a century.
We want a rational improvement of what we have and here I refer especially to the


Port of Rimouski-wharves of Pointe-au-Pere and Rimouski East-which until now has been the most profitable one in the area. That modern seaport is a multi-purpose one. It may serve industry as well as agriculture. I refer here to the transportation of goods in general and to the ferry services. Year round navigation is relatively easy in our area, in the lower St-Lawrence, along the coasts, where ice is broken easily during winter time.
Seaports in industrial and urban areas must be kept in working order at all times and ready to play their part fully, especially in the industrial field.
Air services are also important. The existence however of a regional airport in the pilot area-the Mont-Joli airport-should not bring about the closing down of local airports already existing but provide for their continuation for the benefit of local transports in the Gaspe peninsula, in the lower St. Lawrence and on the north shore. The Rimouski .airport should in this field remain the local (airport.
The difficulties faced by farmers in my constituency are not too different in principle from those faced by the farmers in Canada as a whole, except that farmers in our area have to put up with the various options resulting from the intensive development of our territory.
First, there is their low income, a very hard problem to solve. Our farmers are worrying more and more about agricultural or semiagricultural concerns, too small to be economical, about the unsteadiness of price yield and hence of the agricultural income, about regional disparities which seem to be increasing. Perhaps their greatest problem is the increase of the production cost, which goes hand in hand with the reduction of the selling price.
The marketing problems, the continuing decline of our rural communities, the problems raised by our markets and our international exchanges our frequent surpluses in farm products affect them also to the highest degree.
We should help them find other skills; it might be in this area that a better use of our agricultural research is most necessary for them. They too produce or can produce more than the demand requires. Finally, in spite of the praise-worthy effort in that direction for the past few years, they would have an increasing need for retraining. In fact, they would have an increasing need for means of 21362-10
The Address-Mr. G. LeBlanc improving their knowledge of the agricultural technology and their general training.
While a systematic effort was being made in order to reorganize our farmers in their main specialty, the dairy industry, and while it was decided to increase their production to such a level that their operation would become economical, the government at the same time had to legislate on the production quotas at the national level. However, it would have been very useful to our farmers to enjoy then a regional quota. That would have been logical and reasonable, I think even in the framework of a national policy, in view of the fact that those farmers lived in a pilot area recognized by the government.
In any event we can indeed say and think that the government has a very well thought out agricultural policy. However, because of the very serious problems of the agricultural class, it will ensure that next year, following the report that must be presented shortly by the Commission of Agricultural Planning, be a year of careful examination of the status of the farmer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Unless there is unanimous consent of the house, the hon. member cannot continue his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis Guy LeBlanc: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will use this time to end my speech as soon as possible by summing it up.
It is obvious that by referring to the wishes and the opinions of my constituents, I could have presented a much longer list of problems.
I confined myself to territorial planning and, especially, in the end, to agriculture. My constituents, I know, are interested in all the problems that are discussed in this house, that is, parliamentary procedure, the role of the members, international politics, in short, in all the problems concerning the well-being of all our fellow-citizens.
Before ending my remarks, I wish to say that I am proud of the people in my area because they wish above all to play their part in this vast country of ours. They understand, as we all do, that parliament is first and foremost the expression of their freedom, the freedom of the people expressed through the mouth of their member, that the government organizes and must organize itself in order to


The Address-Mr. Baldwin become more efficient and more dynamic, and that all the people of Canada must live in brotherhood and unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate in the hush of expectancy in this great chamber with a large and attentive audience. I am pleased to note that in the last five minutes five more members on the government side have come in, increasing their total membership in the House by 50 per cent. I congratulate them on their perspicacity, as mentioned by the Minister of Manpower, and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen), who is here at this particular time.
Let me also congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. As my friend the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) said, I am sorry that the mover was not a sufficiently powerful advocate to persuade more of his fellow members to pay attention to what he said. I hope, however, they will read, inwardly digest and take some encouragement from his remarks.
I want to congratulate the seconder. I had the pleasure of serving with him on what I considered to be a very important committee which dealt with statutory instruments. I am satisfied that his committee made a very momentous advance in dealing with parliamentary traditions in this House. It brought forward a revolutionary document. This is something for which 1 and some other members have been working for a number of years. I was very happy that my advocacy, coupled with certain pressures a year ago, was effective and I was successful in persuading the government to set up this committee. I am firmly of the opinion that it will have a very considerable impact on the workings of this parliament.
I believe that far into the future, beyond that time when the impact of many bills to be placed before us and considered will have diminished, the effect of this committee's work, in the sense that it brings a real measure of participatory democracy to the people of this country, will continue. This will assist members of this house in dealing with these tremendous problems which face all of us in western democracies. More than 90 per cent of the measures which affect the people in a

democracy are those that are not seen in the form of legislation but rather in the form of orders-in-council and regulations. I do not intend to use this occasion to establish my position in this debate. As was indicated by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), we will have an opportunity to do so later on.
I should also like to congratulate the two hon. members who have become Ministers without Portfolio. This increases the number of cabinet members to 30. In passing, I note that it is of some interest that this matter of inflation has finally reached the cabinet.
Let me also congratulate the three hon. members who have been promoted to the position of parliamentary secretary. They have now taken one step closer to the real position of power. I am sure they will distinguish themselves in the particular areas of responsibility to which they have been assigned.
It is my intention to say something about this matter of the Speech from the Throne and this debate. In view of the fact that we are at this time enjoying a parliamentary siesta, hon. members are not here in large numbers. In my opinion, this should continue to be a very important debate. Hon. members in all parts of the house have now returned from their constituencies. They should be bringing here the sense of the urgency they felt in respect of certain problems during the course of their peregrinations.
It has been my experience in the almost 12 years I have been here that this is the time when problems should be put to the house in order that, through the processes of democracy, solutions can ultimately emerge on to the legislative assembly line. If, as a result of discussions with the people at home, an hon. member has an idea he feels should be ventilated in this House, it is during the throne speech debate that he has the first opportunity to do so.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
While I do not expect all ministers and government backbenchers-nor for that matter all the opposition members-to be here, I think this is a time and place when members should be present in much larger numbers, particularly government members, to take heed of what is being said. Some hon. members on the government side have suggested that the backbenchers, particularly those on


the opposition side, are not offering any constructive suggestions. I suggest to these hon. members that they read between the four corners of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, where they will find suggestions advanced from time to time as a means to alleviate some of the distress which hangs over this country and as a means to deal with some of the problems which we all know exist. There is a multitude of proposals, all of which cannot, of course, be accepted by the government but which could be considered, properly refined and some of them used. If this is not to be the case, we might well consider doing something else with the time now being used in the Throne Speech debate.
Let us think of something important. For example, I have on the order paper a proposal that some means should be found by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to deal with private members' bills. I think probably the most flagrant hypocrisy we have in this house is that members public bills are advanced year after year, debated for a time limit of one hour and then sent back into the limbo from which they emerged. In my view it should be the practice here, as it is in the United Kingdom, Australia and most democracies, that for a limited number of such bills there should be an opportunity to test the feeling of the House. A vote should be taken on some of them-I do not suggest on all of them-so that we can evaluate the efforts of hon. members who have laboured, made an intensive study of an idea and brought forward a private member's public bill. They should have the right, at least during the course of a parliament, to have their bills put to the question in the House. This does not, of course, mean that the government must accept them. The government may not be ready for them. Some bills may involve a point of view that is repugnant to the philosophy of the government-if one can find a government which has a philosophy-or they may involve the expenditure of money which the government may feel is not within its scope at the time. But at least the government would be put on the spot and would have to take a stand. I would have to use the Whip to call in its members to vote against bills which some government members have introduced.
If we cannot make better use of the time spent on this type of debate, I suggest this as an alternative. I say, in answer to those members on the government side who have been
21362-10a
The Address-Mr. Baldwin critical of the opposition for not offering constructive suggestions, that they should read well what has been said by opposition members during the debate on the Speech from the Throne; they should read the amendments which opposition members have put forward from time to time during the course of the debate, and they should read the private members resolutions Which are advanced. If this were done, I believe there would be all kinds of opportunity for the government to consider useful and attractice means to deal with the problems of our country.
There have been suggestions that the Speech from the Throne is part of a carefully planned scheme of this government. In order to erase any doubt as to my position may I say that I agree wholeheartedly with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in his description of the speech from the Throne as nothing but a stalling device. The apologists for the government, those who attempt to rationalize its position and the plodding, pedestrian passage of this government, turning the Prime Minister from a go-go dancer to an exponent of the Hesitation Waltz during the course of 18 months, have their explanation for this. I understand those members of the press who are in reality really an extension of the Liberal propaganda machine which have a duty to do and have performed it well within the limits of their ability. They have rushed with loud whinnies of explanation into a rationalization of this conduct. What has dumbfounded me is the less irresponsible part of the media which has bought this doctrine.
What is this three year doctrine or plan? The first year it was to carry out the mandate of the Pearson administration, follow the program and put into effect all the pieces of chewed-up legislation which were not completed. My answer to that is simple; I could say "nuts". I shall go further, however, and deal with it. I tell the people that 14 members of the present cabinet were members of the previous administration, and I believe, 24 members of the cabinet were supporters of the previous administration. The programs, policies and legislation advanced by the previous administration must have had their support; they must have supported them both in and out of the House. It is quite irrational for them now to say with an appearance of reluctance that they were compelled to do this. Even if you do not accept that point of view, in June, 1968, an election was held and the Prime Minister secured what he had asked for, namely, a majority government; the first majority government in this House
136	COMMONS
The Address

Mr. Baldwin for ten years. Since the Prime Minister had this mandate there was no necessity for him to carry out any part of the program of the previous administration if he did not believe in it, if his supporters on the government benches did not believe in it and if his ministers did not believe in it.
I suggest there were many other things which should have had priority, and there was no reason at all for the Prime Minister, his followers and the people in this cabinet- the professional procrastinators who follow along with him-not to go ahead and deal with the problems and priorities which now have come into focus. That was the first year. In the second year, what do they say? The second year is the year of white papers, the year in which they will bring forward suggestions and set wheels in motion through the machinery of government to find out what the people are thinking. We do not have very much time left to deal with some of the very serious and difficult problems which we face. I am an advocate of the use of white papers. There is a time and a place for submitting to the legislative examination of hon. members of this House ideas which at a later date can be incorporated into the policies and financial programs necessary to make life better for the people of this country. But there must be a time element involved. A period of at least two years must be involved in this process. A white paper must be submitted at least two years before the legislation is required obviously, the white papers of this year may become the legislation of next year, and that will be the last year of the three-year program. The third year will be the year of legislation. Then we will be ready for an election, when the legislation is still fresh on the statute books and not yet brought into effect to a degree where it could have any apparent benefit to the people.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
This is not the way in which a responsible, democratic government should be acting. It is more in the line of a classical Liberal pattern of deceit, delay and confusion. There are those who say that the Prime Minister is not really a Liberal. I say he is, and I think he and the Liberal party deserve each other. I make the point that there is no doubt that the right hon. Prime Minister is a Liberal. It is rather a question of the date of the Liberalism which he follows. Some of my friends suggest he is a Mackenzie King Liberal; others take him back as far as Gladstone. But I

DEBATES	October 27, 1969
think you have to go back a little farther than that. I would go back to the time of Genghis Khan and fit him into those times.
It would be bad enough if all this procrastination, delay and confusion took place in normal times, but these are not normal times. Today we have face serious, difficult problems such as inflation. It is just called inflation if you are in the carriage trade, but if you are of the class of people who are really hurt by it-the class of people to whom our amendment is addressed-inflation means a rise in the cost of living, a rise in the price of milk and bread and an increase in the cost of renting accommodation. All these are problems which bear very seriously upon men and women of below average income. They are the ones who are the sufferers. They are the people who are being hurt desperately and to whom inflation is not something which you can absorb, not something you can pass along to customers and to people with whom you deal. They are the people to whom inflation is, in fact, a major tragedy. This, of course, compelled our party to move the type of amendment we did.
There is also the problem of welfare and social adjustment, the problems of housing, of transportation and of the urban sprawl which has now confronted us. These problems compelled the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hel-lyer) to part company with his leader and the cabinet. He did not think that the position being taken by them could in any sense provide reasonable and rational solutions. There is the problem of industrial unrest. There is the problem of unemployment, 'and social problems such as the use of drugs, pollution and civil disorder. There are also problems connected with our native peoples, problems of regional disparity and those of agriculture.
I could speak for some time on the problem which affects my constituency and all parts of northern Alberta and northern Saskatchewan, that is, regions afflicted by the inability last year to market the grain which the farmers produced and the difficulty of harvesting this year because of incredibly bad weather. In many oases less than 25 per cent of the crop was harvested. The government was unable to offer any reasonable suggestion which would be of benefit to these farmers.
There will be other opportunities to speak about this problem in the House, but I take the time now to indicate to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), to the Prime Minister and to the Minister without Portfolio charged with the responsibility of the Wheat
October 27. 1969	COMMONS
Board (Mr. Bang), that I and members of this party will not rest until the government has done something to solve the problem. Each day these matters will be brought to the attention of the government, and it will either act or stand exposed to the people of Canada in all the nakedness of their legislative program.
These problems exist. They exist, of course, in many other countries in the western world, but I think they are aggravated here because we have a federal system. A federal system is brought into existence because of geographic and economic diversities in the country. It is therefore essential to have a central government and regional governments. But the federal government structure and the problems which exist in that structure are exaggerated in Canada because of ethnic, cultural and linguistic distinctions.
It is not good enough, as this government would have us believe, to delay and to stall for three years. In three years it will be too late. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that many of the problems which four years before loomed a little more than a cloud on the horizon have now become a great storm hovering over us. In 1972 they will have dissipated their energy and destruction over the whole country. I very much fear that if the government intends, because of the three year plan, to delay taking serious action in regard to some of the problems I have indicated, the people of this country should take heed of the consequences.
There is the question of our national unity. The other day the Prime Minister made a speech which he has followed on one or two occasions. He has been praised by some members of the press and by other people. He has been praised by his own party. I go along with him when he says that there should be no place in democracy for violence, that there should be no place in our system of working out our problems amongst ourselves, in complete, for taking to the streets with bombs and devastation. However, unfortunately, when people have been denied for so long many of the things to which they consider they are entitled, they resort to the power of protest. We have seen this in the United States, in France and in Germany, and we are beginning to see it in Canada. So while I agree with what the Prime Minister said in this respect, I do not think that this alone is enough. There will be protest, and people will take to the streets; there will be demonstrations until the problems which cause the
DEBATES	137
The Address-Mr. Baldwin demonstrations and protest have been, if not eliminated, at least the subject of meaningful attention and a reasonable attempt has been made to deal with them.
There is talk of separatism in the province of Quebec. All of us deplore separatism, whether it is in Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta or any part of this country. We all believe that we have made in the northern part of the North American continent a rather unique attempt to bring people from various countries together with our two founding peoples and with the native population. We have attempted to work out a means of living together in peace and harmony with a common national interest. It is difficult, even under the best of circumstances, when these distinctions exist. Last May I was in Strasbourg attending meetings of the Council of Europe. I was fascinated by what I was told by my colleagues, by officers of the commission and the Court of Human Rights. I was told by the registrar of a case which had been dealt with by the commission and then tried in the court which dealt with the problems of language rights in Belgium. When you have these racial and cultural distinctions in a country you are bound to have problems, and I do not think you will ever completely eliminate them.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Added to these problems are those of economic disparity, of unemployment, of the inability of people to find housing and all the concurrent difficulties which crowd into great urban metropolitan areas such as we have in Toronto and Montreal. When we consider the difficulties in connection with the process of education and these are added to the other problems which face us, we realize it will take a great deal of hard work and effort to reach solutions. The effort must be made in a way that will convince the people who have these problems that they are known, that their problems are being attended to, or at least that a serious effort is being made to do so. I do not think the Prime Minister's speech affected one person in the province of Quebec who believed that the way for Quebec lay in separatism. That is not the way to do it. The way to deal with it is in this House and in the council chambers of the cabinet. If the Prime Minister thinks otherwise, then I think he is completely wrong. Deal with the serious economic problems and you have dealt with, separation.


The Address-Mr. Baldwin
Oftentimes the Prime Minister and the government remind me of a doctor sauntering along a lane to attend a patient, exchanging philosophical quips with the people on each side of him, and by the time he gets to the man's house he finds the patient is dead. I fear this will be the situation here. It is all very well to take a tough line; it is all very well to talk as the Prime Minister talked, but by itself it is not enough. Quite sincerely I urge the Prime Minister, the members of his cabinet, and other supporters of the Prime Minister and the government to ensure that before this session is over we get away from some of the trivia on the order paper. I am not saying they are parts of a legislative program which are not needed-probably all of them are needed-but there is the question of urgencies and priorities.
There is the question of the cost of living. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) has at least five bills to introduce, including a uniform packaging and labelling bill. What will we have from that? Will we have the minister on a television program telling housewives how to order goods, stressing to new mothers the virtues of standard size Flush-a-Bye disposable diaper? Is this the legislative program with regard to consumer problems? Something more than that is needed, Mr. Speaker. These problems require a concerted effort. Time has stolen from the federal government the opportunity to act. Time will not permit this government, this parliament and the provincial legislatures to work out in a calm, deliberate way methods of changing the constitution whereby we will have a better division of powers so that each sector will in its own tidy way be able to deal with the problems. There will have to be concerted action. This means that the government and 11 legislatures will have to say, "We must accept a concerted, pragmatic attack on specific issues." This involves a measure of harmony amongst the legislatures and the government which does not exist today.
When the Prime Minister goes to Montreal and makes a political speech at a political dinner, savagely attacking the government of Quebec and the administration of the city of Montreal, when the president of the Liberal party goes to the province of Nova Scotia and makes a scurrilous attack on the government of that province, when the federal government before the end of the last session successfully forces down the throats of provinces such as Alberta and Ontario a type of medicare program which was not acceptable to

them, and when the federal government fails to deal with the problems of agriculture in western Canada, how can there exist the harmony necessary for all the government officials involved to sit down and say, "These problems are urgent and essential. We must get together. We must forget the constitution. We must in a constructive way attack the problems of pollution, the problems of inflation and the problems of the large cities"?
This is the only way progress can be made, but I suggest the government has not established the necessary climate or mood. Time is running out. Time is not on our side. Therefore, I urge the government and its supporters to understand the priorities and urgencies exist today; that these problems confront the people of Canada and they must be dealt with now-they cannot wait the expiration of the three-year plan.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to congratulate very warmly my hon. colleagues from Sarnia and Lapointe (Messrs. Cullen and Marceau) for moving the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
It is fortunate, Mr. Speaker, that at the opening of a new session, the hon. members may discourse as they like on important subjects of the Canadian life and draw the attention of the house ot the existing or eventual problems that the members will have to face or, again, who know some regions with which they are very familiar.
I suggest that the eight appointed days for the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne are intended to draw the attention of all citizens on certain problems, as I mentioned a moment ago, and to receive suggestions with respect to means of improving the laws in order to remove some disparities that are, in my view, social injustices.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The democracy in which we live makes available to us this important dialogue technique and those who took advantage of it have reaped great benefits.
Bearing this in mind, Mr Speaker, I shall try once more today to draw the attention of all the members in this house and of the government upon the problems of an urban area which lies at the feet of the national capital, that is the Hull area. As a representative of this region, if, in this house, I have


already dealt many times with its economic stagnation, it is for the simple reason that nobody seems able to understand that our problem is due to our being near Ottawa and far from Quebec.
Everybody knows that Hull is in a particular situation owing to its geographic position and its demographic composition. While we have repeated many times in this house that the Ontario-Quebec border excludes the city of Hull from the direct scope of federal authority, nobody will question the fact that Hull and its surroundings are part of a whole commonly known as the national capital area.
That is the cause of all the economic and social stagnation affecting our region since the establishment of the capital of Canada. As I said earlier, at a short distance from the capital, there is a flourishing city, a town proud of its origins, caught between two giants, the federal and provincial governments who have decided lately to wage a long-drawn constitutional war against each other.
The people who are faced with all the normal problems of a region, in addition to those coming under federal-provincial jurisdiction, incur the odium of all the fruitless quarrels that divide politicians and governments. This has prompted some fools in the province of Quebec recently to compare the city of Hull to that of Strasburg and to say that, in an independent Quebec, Hull, like Strasburg would lie at the border of another country, that is, of Canada.
Is it possible to be so narrow-minded, Mr. Speaker, as to dare mislead such an intelligent people with such a ludicrous hoax? One has only to study the history of Strasburg to realize that the population of Hull will never agree to play such a part.
I repeat that the problems which face our region are due to our proximity to Ottawa and to our distance from Quebec. Since the outbreak of this sham fight and exchange of letters, Quebec is reported to be very sensitive on the matter of territorial integrity, especially in our district located near the national capital. But while saying that territorial integrity must be preserved, this territory being in the province of Quebec but also in the national capital area, Quebec has never done anything to promote its development. Rather, they have tried to pick quarrels, and to discourage investors. Thus, no benefit is derived from the natural resources to be found in abundance in our region.
The Address-Mr. Isabelle Instead, a great many administrative structures, for which Quebec has great fondness, have been created, which, essentially, only contribute to weigh down the normal process of regional government. Through all such structures an attempt is made to solve the problem fully.
The entire problem stems from there, but it is actually only last May that the federal government announced its intention to invest large sums of money in the centre of Hull. This will promote an extraordinary economic development on the Quebec side.
It is then that ministers and high officials of the Quebec government first came to Hull in swarms as large as on the occasion of the St. Jean-Baptiste parade, in order to calm down the dissatisfaction which keeps increasing in our region. But I think that we touched the sore spot by announcing that on April 1, 1970 will be erected the first of several federal buildings in Hull. It will be built in the section which we designated as the centre of Hull. But the city of Hull and its surroundings have never been known to the rest of Quebec.
I quote at random a few examples which struck me and which I have taken down for the information of the house.
When the Quebec Professional Golfers Association held its annual tournament two years ago at the Rivermead Club, Montreal's Le Devoir, which is an extremely serious newspaper, wrote this in its sports page: Hull, Ontario.
I thought that maybe this was a mistake, but some time later a Quebec minister came to Hull and congratulated the new mayor on having defeated Miss Whitton who was then running for the Ottawa mayorship. This shows you how well people know our region.
And, on top of that, during federal-provincial conferences, the Quebec delegates and the ministers have rented luxury suites in Ottawa hotels, even though they are so proud of their province. Why did they not spend then-money in Hull, in the province of Quebec, since they brag about Quebec's know-how?
More recently, in the daily column of my good friend Henri Laperriere, of the newspaper Le Droit, it was reported that a Quebec minister of Agriculture-who once sat on the other side of the house-sent him an invitation written in English only. Quebec knows how to do things. Perhaps he thought that because the newspaper Le Droit is located in Ottawa, it must be an English paper.


The Address-Mr. Isabelle
That is how well our region is known. And that is why we are today the victims of those useless disputes over federal and provincial jurisdictions. In the province of Quebec, they court the English-speaking people in their presence, but back home, they crucify them.
In France, they act as Quebecers to show that they are independent and do not represent Canada.
In the United States they hoist the Canadian flag to make Americans believe that they are Canadians so that they can obtain capital investments, but once they return to Quebec they crucify Canada.
It is a hide-and-seek game, a drawing-room war, a match of hanky-panky and literary contests. It is in this context that our region lives and it is in this light that we have come to be known nearly everywhere in Quebec.
I would also like to say a word about the transportation system with which we must be satisfied. In fact, people from our region must pay double fare to get to work, as 50 per cent of them are employed in Ottawa.
We also suffer from various disparities, precisely because we do not enjoy the same jurisdictions on the Ontario side as in Quebec although we belong to the same economic region.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In the province of Quebec, the laws are different, which prevents many Ontarians, who are nevertheless living in the same area, to come and settle on the Quebec side. I mean the Estate Tax Act.
Outside the problem of transportation, many others prevent us from making the strides that we should have made as residents of a same area.
I believe it is the responsibility of the National Capital Commission to develop the whole district of the National Capital both on the Ontario and the Quebec sides.
If we are to establish a separate corporation to develop the district on the Quebec side in order to preserve the integrity of the territory, we will create administrative problems that will engulf us in useless debate.
In my opinion, it belongs to the National Capital Commission to develop the district, following consultations with the interested governments, and I mean the municipal authorities. In my opinion, we do not need other administrative structures to develop the district on the Quebec side.

The National Capital Commission has already been most useful, and it can still be useful if the province of Quebec is not in a position to develop the Hull district. If they lack funds as we believe it to be the case- they should rent the Hull area just as they did the area of Forillon in the Gaspe Peninsula to establish a national park.
I think that the people of Hull are tired of all those sterile discussions and that they want to live, at last, not as second-class citizens, but as equal partners like the citizens of Ottawa.
People are unhappy with the disparity in the sales tax, the transportation utilities and the estate tax between Hull and Ottawa. There is also the psychological factor which prevents people from coming to live with us because, in the province of Quebec, the unemployment rate is 7.2 per cent as compared with 3.1 per cent in Ontario and 4.9 per cent for Canada as a whole.
As to the possibility for our students to undertake university studies, it is limited to enrol at the University of Ottawa. Even there, the doors are not wide open. When vocational college graduates from the Hull area want to enter university in Quebec City or Montreal, they are told simply that there is no room except for students from the Quebec City or Montreal area. Vocational college graduates have no choice other than attending the University o>f Ottawa.
This is why ministers are mistaken when they tour our region to say it is their responsibility to develop the Quebec side, in the best interest of the province and the region. When they fail to include the Ottawa area in that region, they forget that it is one and the same economic region which cannot be cut off by a boundary, even an interprovincial boundary.
This is where I think the federal government should intervene, because the boundary is interprovincial. The government is duty bound to implement projects prepared earlier for developing the Hull area.
Today, we have to cope with technological evolution. Right now, at this very moment, there are huge traffic tie-ups at the entrances of Highways 8 and 11 leading to downtown Hull. Conditions are similar on the approaches to the Cartier-Macdonald and Chaudiere bridges simply because no traffic is allowed on the Champlain bridge which has been used for 40 years. It is just like someone who would wait to buy a new suit because the one


he is wearing is falling apart. It is normal that bridges be closed for repairs but, meantime, there are bottlenecks and motorists grow impatient.
I hope that such conditions will never be seen again, particularly if we keep in mind the magnificent tourist attractions of which our region is so proud.
I need not comment on the ski centers: Vorlage, Edelweiss, Camp Fortune, Mount St. Marie, which require better roads of access so that they may contribute to the development of Western Quebec.
In the name of the integrity of the land the federal government and the National Capital Commission are prevented from building roads. At the time the Gatineau Park was developed, we had to ask the City of Hull to expropriate on behalf of the federal government in order to prevent the Quebec government from objecting. That is the way it goes, but it is certainly no way to encourage progress and development.
In my opinion, Quebec should wake up to the tru h. Hull's situation is a case of long term agony for the Quebecers who live in an area they are so proud of. They should allow the federal government to service the land in order to improve the everyday life of the people of that area.
Mr. Speaker, the subject of bilingualism was brought up together with a lot of other things but in Quebec they are adamant in their efforts to have us accept a kind of unilingualism. Representations are made everywhere and, in my opinion, Quebec will find itself turned into a ghetto with, perhaps, civil revolution as the outcome.
Some people are not quite mature enough to realize that bilingualism is the key to a fantastic economic power. Good ideas have nothing to do with the language in which they are conveyed. Travel broadens the mind and after a while we start to wonder why we should hesitate to learn a language other than French or English since we feel the need to learn several languages.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The economic power of bilingualism opens doors in many more places than one would imagine. In Canada, we should take advantage of the fact that the national trade is split up in a proportion of 73 per cent for the English-speaking sector and 27 per cent for the French-speaking.
The Address-Mr. Isabelle
If a business in the English sector did not have French on its labels, it would lose 27 per cent of its market; on the other hand, if a business in the French sector does not have English on its labels, it runs the risk of losing 73 per cent of the Canadian market.
The Canadian market is a fantastic training ground for doing business in a language other than one's own. In addition, Canada is the only country endowed with that advantage, that of having the economic power of bilingualism, which gives it access to French-speaking and English-speaking countries throughout the world without the burden of adaptation.
The United States, the United Kingdom and France do not have that advantage.
Our education, our products, our domestic markets give us this opportunity; we should therefore take full advantage of it on international markets.
At the present time we cannot benefit fully from the exceptional power of bilingualism for various reasons; I shall not go into them now. A country must have a balanced economy throughout the land. Canada has two cultures but it must have only one economy. In a speech one of my friends made recently, he said: It is easier to build a united Canada through economy than through culture. The flag of a nation represents its culture. To fly a flag, we need a mast to represent the economy of the country.
You can easily fly two flags on the same mast but it is impossible, without tearing it up, to fly the same flag on two masts.
The key characteristic of money is that it can serve as a vehicle for understanding; to have money is less important than to know how to use it.
Trade is the common denominator of all social and political factors, of traditions, religions, cultures and languages. It is that which makes a political society.
I think that we will never make a good French Canadian out of an English Canadian just as we will not make a good English Canadian out of a French Canadian. But with both of them it is possible however, to make a very good team. Besides, we could perhaps remove from our heritage the Anglo-Saxon subtleties and the whims of Jean-Baptiste. We would then discover a common interest: the building of Canada. In my opinion, what we lacked, here, is national pride. We do not have a patriotic soul.


The Address-Mr. Isabelle
When we visit our country from one constituency to another we can only be moved by contemplating these vast territories, these fantastic national resources which are only waiting for man to put them to use. We must farm the land because this country which we love so much, we did not make people love it enough.
This is the reason why, for a few years, and despite dissensions, as we remember, we managed to endow Canada with a flag. We have got one, but we did not have time-the members of parliament being very busy as well as the governments-to generate among all Canadians, whatever their mother tongue, a national pride by showing them the beauties of the country. In my opinion, if the Canadians, between themselves, held diverging views, it is perhaps because their country was very big or because the means of transportation were lacking. Indeed, who could devote ten days to tour Canada?
Today, in the jet age, we shall know and appreciate one another much better. This is where lies, I think the whole problem of today's Canada.
With regard to economic disparities, we must be careful that our country does not get bogged down through division, whether the province of Quebec or other provinces are the cause of the splitting up because those upon whom will rest the responsibility for that division could say, as is mentioned in the Bible: "Let his blood fall upon us and upon our children." I think that in Quebec at the present time we are a little dazzled by a sort of progress which may not have been experienced for some years, thanks to men who were energetic at the beginning of the sixties but who ran out of breath because they had probably progressed too far. I still believe that Quebec will rise up again with dynamic men who will ring together again all those who want this province to remain within Confederation and who will continue to further the development of this great country of ours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Pilon:: May we call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being six o'clock p.m. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 6(1).
At six o'clock the house took recess.
IMr. Isabelle.]


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome the opportunity provided by this debate to make some brief remarks about the current economic situation and particularly about the problem of inflation.
We in Canada have lived through the longest period of prosperity in Canadian history, beginning in 1962 and running for almost ten years. We as a government want this period of inflation-of prosperity, rather-to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Miller Bell: I hope the press gets that.


Edgar John Benson: Only if the period of prosperity continues can we do the things for the poor and the needy of this country that ought to be done. I would indicate briefly to hon. members that over the past ten years we have made a great deal of progress in the area of social development in this country. We have brought into being the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan, a guaranteed income for people beyond the age of 65; we have seen the implementation of medicare, and a retraining program second to none in the world has been established. I hope that we in Canada can see this development continue.
I have said before, and I repeat, that the number one problem we face in this country today is the persistent upward spiral in prices, costs and incomes. Other than this we have a prosperous and viable economy. However, unless and until we bring this spiral of inflation under effective control all the aspirations of this house toward a better life for all Canadians, all our hopes for continuous high employment, for a rising standard of living and social justice for the poor and the depressed in our country will come to naught. If rapid inflation persists, we face instead a loss of confidence in the real value of money, a serious rundown in the economy, the erosion of export markets, rising unemployment, a heavier burden upon the poor and widening divisions within our country. This is why, as I said in my budget speech, the number one task in economic policy today must be to deploy all available forces, public and private, more aggressively than ever in the battle against constantly rising prices.


I must confess to being puzzled by the position of the opposition parties. They frequently profess a great concern about this problem, particularly, and rightly so, about the effect of rapidly rising prices upon people who must live on fixed and low incomes. Yet in their participation in the debate on Friday last it seems to me that their main demand was for the government to give up the fight, or to rapidly boost expenditures in each of several dozen directions at once. Nothing at this moment could be better calculated to worsen the situation in the most desperate way.
It is important to put the matter in its true perspective. There should be no need to elaborate upon all the destructive ramifications of the kind of price increases we have been experiencing for more than three years, but it is essential to understand fully the real nature of the present situation; to understand why, despite the deployment of strong anti-inflationary policies, the situation has persisted for so long and in so acute a form. I do not think we can look at it in the light of the conventional analysis of a recurring cyclical turndown and upturn of business, production and employment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Who does?


Edgar John Benson: There is, I suggest, a major new development today. It arises from the unprecedented success we have experienced in maintaining high levels of employment and incomes throughout the post-war period, particularly over the past decade. For the first time in history we have managed to sustain an almost uninterrupted expansion of the national economy for a period of almost ten years. It is the very strength and vigour of this long economic upswing which has given such intensity and persistence to current inflationary pressures. Too many Canadians, unaware or forgetful of the principles upon which our market economy must operate, have come to expect that continuously rising incomes for everybody are now to be had as a matter of right rather than as a just reward of economic discipline, production and effort on their part.
There is another relatively new dimension to our current situation. Destructive inflation is not just a Canadian problem; rather, it is almost global in scale. In nearly every country with which we trade the rise in prices has been close to or even worse than our own. The consequences are obvious. International competitiveness is not able to exert its customary restraining influence. Instead, with
The Address-Mr. Benson some notable exceptions such as wheat, the prices of many of the goods we sell abroad have also been advancing. So too, with the prices of many of our imports. With a quarter of our total output flowing into exports, and an almost equal proportion of imports, we are inevitably caught up to some degree in worldwide inflationary pressures.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
This is not to say for one moment that we are helpless in the face of such pressure. Quite the contrary. Even if we cannot insulate ourselves from the influences of other countries, especially the United States, there is much we can do on our own account. The fact is that the sharpest rates of increase in prices, especially in recent months, have taken place in just those things for which the domestic economy is mainly responsible. This is true of most domestic services, ranging from medical fees and hospital costs to transportation services and haircuts. It is true of urban land values and housing; it is true of construction; it applies in many public services. We can and must do a better job of restraining prices and costs in all these and similar areas, and to the extent we are successful in achieving a better price performance than our trading partners we will reap rich rewards in the growth of real production and real incomes.
The broad outline of the government's policies to achieve this objective is quite clear. We have given first attention to what is called the setting of the big levers of monetary and fiscal policy. Here we have had the closest co-ordination and harmonization of policy between the government and the Central Bank. We have agreed upon the broad and interlocking strategy required in each field, with the details of program and application left to the appropriate authority. In this connection may I bring to the attention of the house the remarks on monetary policy given by the Governor of the Bank to a business conference in Toronto only last Thursday.
As for fiscal policy, the crucial decisions were taken in my first budget a year ago. At that time we adopted the tax measures necessary to assure a balance in the public accounts budget during the current fiscal year, given a normal growth of production at acceptable levels of prices. That action represented a successful shift in fiscal policy in the face of continued inflationary pressure. Last June, with further evidence of a potential overheating of the economy and renewed


The Address-Mr. Benson price pressures, we concentrated upon controlling expenditures and budgeted for a restraining surplus. In fact, as price and income increases have tended to advance more rapidly than hoped for, the federal budget is now exerting an automatic stabilizing influence and I now expect that the surplus will be significantly larger than I had forecast in my budget last year.
We are holding, and must hold, to this course notwithstanding the many appeals and urgings that we should increase government spending on many worth-while and desirable programs. I can assure hon. members opposite that there is scarcely a single item of desirable, increased spending they have mentioned which has not been argued even more forcefully and persuasively by one or more members on this side or by my cabinet colleagues. We should like very much to do the easy and popular thing-to spend freely on higher pensions, increased allowances, more subsidies for farmers and fishermen, further aid to the poor, more housing, beautifying cities, overcoming pollution, higher salaries for everyone, and so on. Believe me, over the past several years this government has done a great deal to increase expenditures on social benefits to the Canadian public. Nothing could be simpler than to spend freely on these things, and nothing would be more irresponsible. Nothing would be more damaging to the real, longer term interests of all the people these things are intended to serve. We must reject the politically expedient, short-term response and opt for a responsible fiscal policy which will contribute to the real economic health of our country and to the genuine interests and welfare of all Canadians.
We have sought, as well, to supplement fiscal policy by stimulating and encouraging the idea of voluntary restraint. There is no question that if the organized economic interest groups in our society-business, labour, professional associations, landlords, other governments-were to take a strong stand in favour of even a modest degree of restraint, and to act upon it, we would roll back the forces of inflation in very short order. The government has worked for over two years to put this idea across, and the Prices and Incomes Commission was expressly designed to help in this work. I think we have made some progress. Certainly there is a wider understanding of the issues involved, of the gains to be won by voluntary restraint, than ever before in our country. There is much

more to be done, and notwithstanding a temporary setback I am confident that the work of the commission will yield valuable results. In all of this it is absolutely vital that the government itself should show the way-and this, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made crystal clear last August, we are determined to do.
A third part of the framework of government policy against inflation concerns the regional aspect. Difficult disparities obviously complicate the task of containing inflation and maintaining high levels of employment. Monetary policy, by its very nature, must apply on a country-wide basis. There is no way, within an integrated national economy enjoying the free movement of people, goods, services and capital among all its regions, to provide for broad monetary restraint in some regions and monetary ease in others. The Central Bank, however, has always followed a policy of asking the chartered banks to keep in mind the needs of the slower growing regions whenever they find it necessary to restrict their lending and I have completely supported them in this effort.
Fiscal policy is somewhat more flexible. Even here, however, there are important limitations. The national government cannot lightly take up tax measures which seem to discriminate in favour of the taxpayers of one region or province as against those in another. As for expenditure, when total demands so far outrun revenues, as in our case, we have a clear duty to be sure that funds are provided only for genuinely worth-while projects and programs, even in lagging regions. There is no justification for simple make-work palliatives. This is all the more important because increased expenditure in the lagging regions works its way rapidly throughout the economy. Soon it adds to the intensity of demand in other regions such as southern Ontario, one of the main areas of inflationary pressure in the country.
In spite of these problems, we embarked in the last budget on certain selective measures geared to the regional aspect of the inflationary problem. Both the acceleration of the Kennedy Round tariff cuts and the temporary deferral of capital cost allowance on certain types of building in rapid-growth provinces had this purpose. Over the longer term, however, we place major reliance upon the expanding program of regional development. This is one of our highest priorities, and increasing funds are being allocated to it. There is as well the very large and rapidly
October 27, 1969	COMMONS
increasing equalization grants paid to the lower income provinces.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Perhaps I might note one aspect of the new equalization system which has assumed added significance under current inflationary conditions. The strong growth of tax revenues in the most rapidly expanding provinces also brings about a substantial increase in federal equalization grants to the less expansive provinces. These latter are thus able to finance a growth in provincial expenditure and employment-creating works even when higher spending on direct federal programs may be held back. In this fiscal year, for example, we now estimate that equalization grants to the less affluent provinces have grown by $144 million, a 25 per cent gain over the last fiscal year.
Nevertheless, regional unemployment remains as one of the most stubborn and intractable problems we must face. Reference was made last Friday to the national problem, with the rate of unemployment averaging about 5 per cent for the country as a whole. In fact, for all the provinces from Ontario to the west the rate averages out at only 3.4 per cent, well within the target range of so-called full employment. But in Quebec and eastward the unemployment rate is averaging about 8 per cent. I am satisfied that the solution to this deep-seated problem certainly does not lie in allowing inflation to rage unchecked. That would only worsen the problem. It is mainly the economically weaker regions of the country which must carry an undue share of the burden of higher costs and prices since they lack the power to win proportionate gains in income. This disparity and inequity can only be overcome by pinpointing our development effort even more selectively to accelerate basic economic growth in these regions, and this is the aim of our government.
Here the fourth part of our framework of current policies is particularly relevant. These are the policies and programs concerned with the supply or production aspects of the economy. Perhaps the broadest and most important are the expanding programs for improving manpower skills and mobility, programs on which we are spending a tremendous amount of money in this country, probably proportionately more than any other country in the world. In this regard, the steady expansion of the Department of Manpower is given a high priority, and as mentioned in the Throne
DEBATES	145
The Address-Mr. Benson Speech, new proposals for unemployment insurance will help reinforce these efforts. Similarly we have the rapid growth of our aid to the provinces for university, professional and technical education which we deem to be of great importance in our country.
I should mention as well the notable example of the very substantial government support being given to the financing of housing. Here we fully expect to again hit the target of 200,000 housing starts this year, this in the face of record high interest rates and continued extreme pressures in mortgage and financial markets. Unfortunately, even though the rate of residential building is very high, costs have continued to mount, particularly in certain centres of the country. This has certainly been one of the most unfortunate effects of the excessive rates of wage settlements which have taken place in the construction industry in several major cities across the country this year.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the minister would permit a question. I do not wish to interrupt him and could wait until he has finished. The minister speaks of the economy being overheated. Is he suggesting the inflation is due to excessive demand? Could he clarify his view with regard to this?


Edgar John Benson: I think I made it quite clear in what I have been saying to date. In the economy one could not say there is necessarily excessive demand, but there is a cost-price pressure at the bottom which is pushing up inflation in the economy. It would be very nice to find a simple solution to the inflation problem in the country such as the hon. member suggested last week; that is, that we adjust government spending upwards and put more pressure on the economy by creating excessive demands.
Mr. Speaker, if I may continue, it is unfortunately true that although everyone professes to be alarmed about inflation, there are important members and groups in the community who are not really deeply concerned. I would say this often includes members in the opposition. They are mainly the people who are able to exercise their economic power to stay ahead of the game. Even if their costs rise they are able to wrest proportionate and frequently greater increases in prices or incomes from the rest of the community; and if and when the crisis develops and their position is threatened, they would be the first


The Address-Mr. Benson
to come running to the government seeking help.
This is partly why, despite all our efforts, the upward spiral of prices, costs, wages and other incomes has not yet been effectively checked. 1 am the first to acknowledge this fact. Even though anti-inflationary policies have been deployed since early this year, the fires are still burning strongly in our economy. Until very recently the pace of price and wage hikes has been tending to accelerate rather than to slow down. Obviously it takes time for measures of restraint, either in the form of higher taxes or curtailed spending, to work their way through and affect the private spending decisions of individuals and business firms. There is also a large element of so-called cost-push inflation, higher costs of materials, services and wages, built into the economy going back over two or three years. I have already mentioned the impact of international inflation. All of these factors, taken together with the influence of the long economic upswing, have combined to create the great problem of deep-seated inflationary expectations. This is the expectation of people who believe that inflation will go on forever and they should get whatever they can out of it. 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 hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: The Governor of the Bank of Canada, in the speech I mentioned-


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, would the minister allow a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would point out that the minister has the floor and it is his decision.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to answer my hon. friend's question as soon as I finish the few more words I have to say.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada, in the speech I mentioned, has put it this way:
I do not believe that one can explain either the insistence of lenders on receiving such high interest rates or the willigness of borrowers to pay them without reference to the strong expectations of continued inflation that have developed. Borrowers have been reluctant to postpone expenditures for

fear of incurring higher costs later, and lenders; have sought to protect themselves against the impact of rising prices by refusing to lend except at high rates. Inflationary expectations have unhappily become a central feature in our economic situation, and it is a central task of economic policy to try to eliminate the causes of these expectations.
I have to say it is on this last crucial issue that I think the Economic Council of Canada has in part missed the point in their most recent annual review. I have read that document with care and I do not think that either the analysis or views of the Council are nearly so far removed from my own as has been quite loosely suggested.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
It seems to me that our differences turn out to be essentially matters of degree and not of basic principle. The Council is concerned about the dangers of excessive fiscal restraint and they focus upon the so-called lags, or the delay in the impact of policies upon the actual level of economic activity. There is, however, a further lag which the government cannot ignore. To borrow a familiar term, this is one of credibility. Governments may be slow to recognize emerging economic trends and to act upon them, but under present conditions people may also be slow to believe that the government means what it says about checking inflation. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We cannot be sure of breaking the cycle of inflationary expectations and actual price increases until there is clear and positive evidence of a slow down in the rate of inflation in our country.
This is why we cannot afford now to ease up on the fiscal and other brakes. Indeed, I have been receiving many letters from across the whole country urging more drastic measures of control, particularly an all-out freeze on prices and wages. Most of these letters come from little people, pensioners, low wage earners, farmers and fishermen, housewives struggling to balance their household budgets; from all those, in short, who lack the economic power to bargain their incomes up as fast as prices increase. There is no doubt in their minds as to the need for all-out controls over both prices and the wage gains and fee increases they see being won by organized labour and professional groups. This is what these correspondents are asking for, rather than higher government spending and taxes in our country as proposed by members of the opposition.
I do not, of course, believe that we should resort to blanket controls except under conditions of the gravest crisis and only after other efforts have proven fruitless. Apart from the
October 27. 1969	COMMONS
need to secure some constitutional accord with the provinces to make controls legal, it is clear that the web of directives and controls urged by the New Democratic Party in place of fiscal and voluntary restraint would rapidly entangle the entire economy and produce stagnation,	unemploy m e nt and
inequity within our country. Let there be no mistake-if we are to control prices, there is no alternative but to control wages at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: Direct and indirect labour costs account for nearly three-quarters of the total production costs in our country. If we are to control the investment of capital, as suggested by the N.D.P., we will delay or in many cases put a stop to many major projects, with a consequent sharp fall in production and a drastic increase in unemployment, especially in the areas of Canada where higher employment is necessary. If we are to control output and production, as suggested by the N.D.P., 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 N.D.P. wants for our society, but I do not believe that we need it. We can move along to the objectives that we want to accomplish without adopting drastic measures such as the ones which have been adopted in Cuba and China.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: Don't forget rule 75C.


Edgar John Benson: From what I have said, Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be evident that we have no intention of easing up or giving up on the war against inflation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edgar John Benson: I know that the truth bothers the N.D.P. It always has and probably always will.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


Edgar John Benson: We will control inflation in this country. It is merely a matter of deciding whether we must impose further monetary, fiscal and other controls to accomplish this objective or whether the people within the economy-encouraged by hon. members
DEBATES	147
The Address-Mr. Benson opposite, I hope-will take the voluntary steps that are necessary so that we can move forward in this country without having the inflation which we have at the present time.


Gerald William Baldwin: You said this two years ago.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the minister but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there agreement to allow the minister to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: This is too good to waste.


Edgar John Benson: I can only say it is better than anything I heard last Friday.


Gerald William Baldwin: You were not even here last Friday.


Edgar John Benson: I was here and I listened, although not with interest, to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


Gerald William Baldwin: Your peerless leader is not going to like that.


Edgar John Benson: Neither do we contemplate the opposite extreme, that of hog-tying the economy and the people of Canada in a tangle of bureaucratic, arbitrary decrees as to the prices they should charge, the wages they should seek or the investments they should make in our country. Our approach will continue to be the one we have been following steadily for many months, using broad fiscal and monetary policies to keep the economy from excessive overheating, stimulating longer-run regional growth and employment, and emphasizing our interest in the regions that need developing in our country, the high unemployment regions east of Ontario. We will continue our efforts to add to the productivity and efficiency of the economy and to seek a broader understanding as well as the co-operation of the entire community in voluntary restraint. These are the policies which will do the job for the greatest good of the greatest number of people in our country. In due course they will bring our enormously productive economy back to a firm basis for continued growth and expansion. When that prospect is firmly in sight-and we are reviewing the situation on a daily basis-we will be the first to initiate a relaxation of restraint. No one is more anxious than the government to carry forward all the new programs and good things for the people of


The Address-Mr. Benson Canada which we believe lie within our potential grasp, and indeed they will be carried out under this government.
Some hon. Members : Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am prepared to recognize the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), but I understand the hon. member for Moose Jiaw (Mr. Skoberg) has a question.


John Leroy Skoberg: The minister suggested he would be prepared to entertain a question. I should like to ask him whether he considers that voluntary restraint will accomplish a wage and price control, and if he does, what part of our society will be disadvantaged under these conditions?


Edgar John Benson: I never said that voluntary restraints would accomplish wage and price controls, unless all segments of the society agree upon them. My hon. friend has seen what happened recently in the Prices and Incomes Commission with respect to voluntary restraints. May I say at this point that there does not appear to be an immediate prospect of their being undertaken. But I would also say to my hon. friend that imposing wages and price controls, even if we had the power to do so in this country, would not achieve the objectives easily or without a great deal of disruption in out economy. I think the people of Canada would accomplish the objectives we desire if they would restrict their demands for increased income, be it profits or wages, in relation to the increases in productivity within the economy.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister be good enough to answer one further question? I believe it is implicit in what he said that the aged have suffered more in comparison with those who have been able to take advantage of inflationary opportunities. Is it his opinion that it is necessary to hold the aged in that inferior position, for example by maintaining the 2 per cent ceiling on adjustments with regard to the cost of living? Is he of the opinion that this is essential to an adequate fight against inflation in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that for the first time in Canada's history a federal government, a Liberal government, recognized that inflation would affect the older people in our country. We instituted a guaranteed income for older people in this

country. We started it at $105 per month, with a maximum of 2 per cent added for increases in the cost of living, and we were the first government in the history of Canada to do this. I would also like to say that this figure of $105 is $60 above what was provided by the previous Conservative government.
We believe in helping the older people in this country, and we do not believe that the poor people, the underprivileged people, should suffer because of inflation. That is why we want to beat inflation. If hon. members opposite would stop encouraging the government to spend more money, thus increasing inflation, it would help us in our battle against inflation so that we may accomplish the ends we have in mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was a mini speech.


Edgar John Benson: Next question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson).


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with my colleagues in congratulating the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) for moving and seconding the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. In particular I commend the seconder of the Address in Reply because I believe he has proven himself a worthy replacement for his predecessor the hon. separatist gentleman who is now deputy leader of the Parti Quebecois, and if the good of the nation requires his leadership in that constituency I trust he will have continued success.
I was a little concerned that the hon. member for Sarnia devoted much of his speech to criticizing this institution of which we are members. Even from watching the functioning of this House during the last couple of days it seems to me that what the hon. member ought to be doing is preaching more to his own caucus and less to the House. I am sure he must understand that the real strength and heartbeat of democracy radiates from this institution; therefore, we must all work together to improve its performance and efficiency. We must never lose sight of the fact that it is here that we have an opportunity to speak on behalf of those we represent, and to express opinions that are as diverse as is the nature of our country.


I also wish to congratulate the two new members of the cabinet on their appointment to office, the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury), but must point out that this raises the size of the Canadian cabinet to the highest it has ever been in history. I only hope their contribution might be equal to the size of the cabinet. However, I find it difficult to understand the policy of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in constantly increasing the numbers of those who assist him, whether in cabinet or in his office. One of the things which the Prime Minister has missed in his appeal for a new approach to things is the reform of the cabinet itself, which now is certainly a top-heavy organization. If the cabinet is to continue in the old pattern of things, it will not assure the kind of efficiency that the Prime Minister wants from his government.
The most impressive thing about the Speech from the Throne was the lacklustre approach it took to our problems. The public have shown an obvious lack of enthusiasm for it, even as the attitude of this House indicates to-day. I have noticed this from reading comments in the press and from contacts I have had within the past few days with various people across the nation. It is true that its positive emphasis is placed on strengthening Canadian unity, but on the other hand it promises little to meet the present day problems of Canada.
Tonight we listened attentively to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). It was interesting to note that he continually condemned the opposition for lack of a program as an alternative to that proposed by the government. It is the responsibility of the government to propose policies that will correct the problems we face. It is all right for the Minister of Finance to try to lay blame on the opposition, but I point out that when the votes were counted in the last election and the Prime Minister received the support of the majority of representatives in this House, he immediately assumed the responsibility for initiating programs and policies necessary to strengthen the country. The responsibility of the opposition is to criticize and to effect constructive improvements to these policies and programs.
It is just not enough for the Minister of Finance to take the low-keyed approach that he took tonight, saying that our greatest problem is inflation and that the government must control it. There are scores of other problems pressing upon us which, unless they

The Address-Mr. Thompson are solved, will result in it not mattering whether or not we succeed with the problem of inflation. What we need, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) stated so well, is a Throne Speech that will be an agenda for action on the one hand and at the same time will be a strong expression of federal government concern regarding the nation's problems, particularly those in relation to national unity.
The Speech from the Throne made an appeal to young people by referring to a proposal to drop the voting age to 18 years. However, it is of interest to note that this recommendation is to be studied by a standing committee. In fact, much of the Speech from the Throne disturbed me because from its tone it seemed that instead of a Prime Minister speaking to his people we heard the voice of one who sounded more like a president.
The approach taken by the Prime Minister during the parliamentary recess indicated that this institution is not held in the same respect and regard by him as that held by his predecessors. The Speech from the Throne is actually a speech from our monarch, but for the first time this Speech from the Throne failed to speak of the cabinet or the government as Her cabinet or Her ministers. The only mention of the monarch in it was with reference to her pending visit to Manitoba.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I only hope that the Prime Minister will take the advice of His Highness Prince Philip when he said that if the Canadian people decide the monarchy is no longer an acceptable and useful institution in Canadian life, it would be up to them to do something about it, but it should be done openly. If it is the intention of the Prime Minister to eliminate the role of the monarch in our system of government, I think he owes it to the Canadian people to come out and say so, instead of letting it gradually slip away in the hope that they will let it go by without too much comment or criticism.
Coming back, Mr. Speaker, to the lowering of the voting age, during the last ten years it has been my impression that the young people of Canada have not really been demanding that the voting age be lowered. In fact, there is very little pressure from the young people on this subject. I think it is a good thing to encourage young people to participate directly in the process of government.


The Address-Mr. Thompson However, 1 do not think there is going to be any radical change in voting patterns, because in the three western provinces which have taken the lead in this there has been no evidence of any basic change in the pattern of voting.
What our young people are really looking for, particularly from the right hon. gentleman who is our Prime Minister, is leadership that will inspire them for the years ahead when they replace us, with the knowledge that what is being done now is preserving and strengthening the nation of which we are all a part. I find it very difficult to accept the lukewarm, passive approach to the basic problems as expressed in the Speech from the Throne. I would remind the government that on every side there are problems facing us that must be dealt with. It is not good enough to say that we are going to call a federal-provincial conference some time in the future, or that there is going to be a white paper on this or that. It is essential that the government give some indication of how it intends to solve these problems.
We are told that by 1980, 80 per cent of the people of Canada will be living in metropolitan or urban communities. This illustrates the tremendous need for adjustment in the area of transportation alone. Something will have to be done that is far different, far more impressive than that which is being offered at the present time.
The Speech from the Throne mentioned that the housing target for the next five years is one billion new homes in Canada. That is a notable target and we would all accept it. But how can we reach a target of one billion new homes with interest rates as they are at the present time? In fact, it is impossible to expect that people will be able to purchase the homes they need, and should have, if the interest paid over an amortization period of 20 to 25 years is two or three times the value of the home itself. What has been said about that? Nothing.
It is one thing for the Prime Minister to say that it is an international problem and refer to monetary policies-and in this he must include the inflated cost of money-but it is not good enough simply to say that this is a situation which affects the whole world while we in Canada do nothing about it.
The Minister of Finance has stated, quite correctly, that we have had a sustained and continuing period of affluence and economic expansion over the last few years, but does

that necessarily mean inflation is inevitable? He also mentioned that with the exception of wheat our exports have increased in price during the past year. I suppose he would imply that this meets the increased cost of production. But let him not talk that way to the farmers of this country. They know it is not just wheat that is involved. As they face the problem of inflation, probably more acutely than any other group in the country, they know it is not just wheat that has gone down in price. All grains and cereals-even beef, at its present high level-are still below what they were in price a few years ago.
The crisis that today faces Canada's farming industry demands more immediate and determined action than we have seen up to the present time. In fact, with a good deal of the western harvest already under snow and with little hope of its being taken off this fall, the crises that have developed in the west during the last few months have become more acute. I would like to think that the Speech from the Throne carried some word of encouragement for the farmers, but there was nothing in it.
I say to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and those involved with policies relating to the sale of agricultural produce that we are not just facing a depression in western Canada today-we are in it already. A situation that has been difficult will inevitably become more difficult. This situation will not go away by itself. There is nothing in the Speech from the Throne for western farmers or eastern farmers, either.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that there is no easy solution to this problem but I do not accept the criticism from the government benches that we on the opposition side are just out to destroy or oppose those positive things they might suggest. Neither do we wish to encourage or incite the government to spend vast sums of money which are not readily available. Nevertheless, the problems are there.
The Speech from the Throne said something about the pollution of air and water. We know this is a tremendous problem, but it is no solution to say that in the future there will be a white paper on this matter, or that a federal-provincial conference will be called. It is imperative that some indication be given on how this problem will be dealt with by the federal government.
As I gauge the reaction of the Canadian people to the Speech from the Throne there is not very much optimism for the future as it


relates to the hard facts of life, and particularly to the economy. We are told that the white paper on tax reform will be available in about ten days, but unless it contains positive proposals to encourage the development of our own resources and to expand the productivity of this nation we are only talking to the wind. This is an area where the responsibility of government falls directly upon the Prime Minister and his cabinet. The Minister of Finance should talk more about what inflation actually is and how imperative it is that the productivity of this nation be speeded up to catch up with the tremendous overhead that the cost of government represents in this country. Today, with inflation pressing in on us, we are paying for the sins of governmental policy of the last five years. The cost of governing has gone up much faster than the increase in the growth of productivity. We have heard the CBC mentioned as an example. I would remind the House that last year the total expenditure of the CBC was more than $196 million.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
It would seem that there are ways in which this type of expenditure can be reduced. I am opposed to the abolition of the CBC, but we cannot afford the type of luxury involved in this tremendous expenditure of public funds. Similar charges could be repeated over and over again as one looks at policies of government expenditure and investment that have been carried on during the past five years. We need policies that will encourage the growth and development of this country and give us time to catch up with the growth of overhead costs incurred in financing the government of the country. That brings me to a point on which I wish to spend a few minutes. It concerns a policy that was implemented during the summer recess. It has been talked about but not really discussed in depth, and was touched on in the closing weeks of the previous session. I am speaking of the industrial incentive program announced in August.
The government has expressed concern over regional disparities in Canada. Unemployment, wages and costs, standards of community service, and consequently standards of living vary considerably in different regions of the country. In fact, as one crosses the breadth of Canada one sees that the differences between our regions divide us more from one another than do the differences that exist between us and our U.S. neighbour from

The Address-Mr. Thompson north to south. It is this factor that makes the governing of our country so difficult for any government. The federal government has recognized the problem that exists and has designated certain regions of Canada. In fact, there is one of these areas in every province, beaause all provinces have areas which the government considers to be most in need of stimulus and improvement. The government will grant substantial funds for capital investment to any manufacturing industry located in one of these designated regions. It will also make a grant for new jobs that are created.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the incentive program can not be expected to be a significant stimulus for new industries to establish in an area in which they otherwise would not have become established. As explained by government spokesmen, the incentive program is intended to be an incentive to industries which are planning to establish new plants, or to diversify into manufacturing new products, to locate in a designated area instead of some other area. It is therefore just as important for us to know where such industries will be attracted from as to define the areas to which they are to be induced to move. In other words, the program is a "have and have not" program in that every community is either labelled as one into which industry is to be encouraged to locate or as one from which industry should be diverted. Obviously, the economic health of the various regions of Canada ranges all the way from white to black through every shade of gray; and this black or white approach will in my opinion create serious discriminatory and inequitable situations.
In my constituency we do not expect any program of industrial incentives. For the most part the economic health of industries in central Alberta is good. I am concerned about the type of policy that will be developed in this incentive program, under which communities that are not in the hot or incentive areas will be forced to cool off. Indeed, the incentive program will draw industries away from the areas which are developing and place them in areas where it is to the manufacturer's benefit to locate.
I think it is accepted by all that the major urban centres of population, areas which are known as the hot areas of the country, are natural magnets for industry. They have built-in markets, transportation systems, pools of skilled labour and ancillary specialized services. On the other hand, labour is more expensive, more unionized and less stable;
Oclobar 27, 1969

The Address-Mr. Thompson land taxes are usually higher, as is the cost oi living. Pollution, zoning and other restrictions are often more severe. Nevertheless, some industries are still able to locate outside metropolitan areas. Some are obliged to do so because of the nature of the industry. These are the "fall out" industries and they are the only industries that will move from one place to another if encouraged to do so by the incentive program. We are not, therefore, really talking about the over-all industrial picture of Canada; we are talking about a small proportion of industry which might be affected by this incentive program. You cannot describe such industry with any black or white label.
The smaller cities are fiercely competitive for these fall out industries, and it does not seem unreasonable to assume that the industrial location incentive plan will receive the most careful consideration of all fall-out industries. I would have thought, however, that the government could have come up with an incentive program that is not tax supported. Incentives in the form of concessions could have been given. Those incentives could have taken the form of tax allowances to encourage industries to locate in areas according to need.
I submit that for the government to say a certain area must be classified as an incentive area is the wrong way to approach the problem. The net result will be that we will worsen the situation and make it more difficult for areas, which at present are able to carry on by themselves, to carry on in future because under the new incentive program they will be discriminated against. I would have thought the government could have introduced a program which would have placed a premium on new industries being established in the "cool off" areas so as to balance the incentive of the hot areas. There could be direct and positive assistance other than direct subsidies to industries which wish to locate in areas not covered by the over-all incentive program as outlined by present governmental policy.
It seems to me that in trying to encourage industry to locate in various areas of the country we must develop a national viewpoint as opposed to a merely regional viewpoint. It is therefore obvious that the present type of program will make it increasingly difficult for those areas outside the incentive program, and which are not part of the industrial and urbanized hot areas, to compete with those areas which are to be given incentive assistance.

We have heard examples of the type of program the government ought to consider, and it would do well to listen to suggestions coming from this side of the house. It should not condemn our suggestions as being frivolous and merely aimed at bringing about increased expenditures in an attempt to solve our problems.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: We face many other problems in Canada. We commend the Prime Minister for his attitude toward some of the problems which affect national unity. National unity does not depend on just cultural or political differences. It does not just depend on the solution of language difficulties. National unity will come about when the over-all economic and social development of this country is dealt with in an equitable way so that we may develop our tremendous reserve of resources, physical and human. At the same time there must be the type of government that will suit our needs. Our government must work for the national good. Canadians must not be burdened down with bureaucracy and the high cost associated with it. Essential projects must not be discarded because of government policies.
As we look at the coming months, at the legislation on the order paper and at the problems that involve us all, we can only hope that this session will be profitable. I encourage hon. members on the government side to study the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne and then to stand according to their convictions. Unless we come to grips with the basic problems affecting the over-all welfare of our country we shall not meet our responsibilities as we ought to meet them.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
It is to this end, Mr. Speaker, that we extend congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Speech from the Throne and to the new cabinet members. We trust this session of parliament will be worth while as far as the developing and unifying of our nation is concerned.


Mr. Gaelan J. Serre (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to join with previous speakers and congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the throne speech, the honourable members for Sarnia and Lapointe (Messrs. Cullen and Marceau).


They certainly did a good job and I am pleased to see once again that the present government is made up of qualified men.
I would also like to pay tribute to three great men who sat in this house before me: senator Hurtubise and Leoda Gauthier, both deceased, and judge Odias Godin who sat in the house between 1958 and 1965 and who is present in the house this evening.
Mr. Speaker, these three remarkable men have left their mark not only on my region but throughout the country.
In the next few minutes, I shall try to give my impression on the contents of the throne speech. Then, I shall do my best to draw the attention of the house to problems peculiar to my riding of Nickel Belt and to Northern Ontario. Finally, I intend to inform the government about representations by the people whom I have the honour and pleasure of representing.
Mr. Speaker, I would not forgive myself if I failed to congratulate the right honourable Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for his sense of realism, his clearsightedness, his devotion and his courage since he came to power. Under his leadership, the government of this country is achieving gradually the just society which it proposed to establish.
Indeed, his philosophy of the just society emerges with a greater clarity and vigour in the speech from the throne. When reading carefully that document which sets forth a program much more personal, concrete and specific for this second session, one realizes that it contains a sound philosophy for the country, a philosophy designed to show a growing difference towards the individual, to define the public weal above all in relation to the improvement in the well-being, the security and the freedom of each individual.
Last year, after having succeeded in laying the foundations of a just society through the reform of parliamentary procedure, the government now proposes, in this second session, to really set itself to work by introducing bills designed to do justice to Canadian citizens.
One has only to review some of the most important legislative measures which will be proposed in the second session to realize that the government is firmly determined to pay more attention to our people who are in less fortunate conditions than the rest of the country.
Like my constituents, I am pleased that the government is establishing programs to reduce economic regional disparity and to
The Address-Mr. Serre further protect the rights of individuals and minorities.
Here are a few examples: it will give special attention to the necessity of employment surveys among Canadians of Indian descent. It intends to vote an increased budget for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which becomes the main instrument in the fight against social and economic disparities. Some of the measures are the guarantee of liguistic rights and programs of assistance for minorities; a tax reform aimed at establishing a new formula for a fairer distribution of the tax burden; a complete revision of the policy on social security; amendments to the legislation governing labor-management relations; new Criminal Code amendments to provide better protection of individuals' rights; and special attention to housing problems.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that despite the threat of inflation the government's objective is to construct, over a period of five years, one million new housing units to meet the needs of low-income families.
The government will also propose measures to eradicate water pollution, a revision of the legislation regarding consumer goods in order to give consumers a better protection and a thorough reform of the unemployment insurance plan to make benefits available to a greater number of unemployed.
Under the heading of reforms affecting the rights of individuals, I am very happy to find that the government intends to lower the voting age to 18. The young people from my riding know that I have been working for a long time towards that goal. Mr. Speaker, I am not one of those who entertain doubts and misgivings about the ability of the younger generation to take those new responsibilities.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
On the contrary, I have always had great confidence in youth. Since I am one of the youngest members of this house, and a professor, I can say from personal experience that today's youth is much more mature and better informed about politics than previous generations and, in many cases, in a much better position to exercise its right to vote than a certain class of adults.
I say: Let us have no fear of giving responsibilities to our young people. They will protest less and bring a most valuable contribution to their environment and to our country.
In my riding, there are already a significant number of young people of 16, 17 and 18


The Address-Mr. Serri years of age who are very actively engaged in politics and who could teach a great deal to their elders. They are undoubtedly a great source of inspiration in their own circle.
I am convinced that this change of attitude in the federal policy will encourage a growing number of young people to take more interest in State affairs.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the population of the Nickel Belt constituency, the large constituency, which I have the honour to represent in this house, looks favourably upon the new measures considered by the government at the beginning of this second session, and I am sure my constituents are ready to support it. However, it is not all beer and skittles in Nickel Belt and Northern Ontario. We have to face a lot of specific problems that go back a long way; some of them are becoming so acute that they call for immediate action from the governments.
The most serious problem in my region is unquestionably air and water pollution'. This problem has been rampant for several years and the situation is getting worse and worse instead of getting better.
Last Friday the Toronto Telegram published an article entitled: Sudbury: devastation total. The disastrous situation in which my region is plunged is fairly well analysed there. My constituents are getting very impatient at the government inaction about it. They do not intend to remain passive any longer. They are well determined to take the necessary steps and invite the government to act immediately. The continuing effort of a citizen committee from Sudbury and the area, under the skilful leadership of Mr. Paul Falkowski, deserves certainly to be pointed out here.
Mr. Speaker, either according to tradition or to the constitution, it has always been recognized that pollution was a provincial field of jurisdiction. However, since it has become apparent that the provincial government has been unable to find solutions to control pollution, my fellow-citizens as well as myself are urging the federal government to intervene.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gaetan-Joseph Serré: Since this problem is quite extensive in- the Sudbury area, a research centre to help the corporations to find some means to control pollution should be established as soon as possible.
[Mr. Serrfi.l
My constituents will certainly be more reassured if they note that the federal government is now determined to take the initiative by introducing during this second session a new bill aimed at preventing water pollution.
The housing crisis is quite acute in my constituency as the result of a lack of funds. The government will have to give its immediate attention to that problem by finding means to provide funds at more reasonable rates of interest to people with low incomes.
I strongly hope that the government will seriously consider the possibility of withdrawing the 11 per cent tax on building materials, at least for individuals who wish to build their own homes. I especially hope that the provincial authorities will stop blaming Ottawa and that they will assume their responsibilities in that field by providing the municipalities with the water, sewage and planning services they need.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gaetan-Joseph Serré: I can hardly understand that such a corporation as the CBC which is entirely subsidized by the citizens is left so free to broadcast what it likes without having to answer for it to the people. I suggest that this situation is completely abnormal, and that we, as the elected representatives of the people, should be able to exercise greater control. My constituents are stirred up, and rightfully so, because of certain programs that have a very bad influence on the people of this country.
The sole effect of many programs is to lower the moral standards. There are, of course, many good programs, but more effort should be put, I think, into attempting to present a greater number of educational and cultural ones.
The people of northern Ontario were very happy to learn of the introduction by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion of a program of subsidies to secondary industries. It will surely help to reduce the poverty and unemployment that exist presently in many sectors of my district and in the whole of northern Ontario.
I believe, however, that this new program, like similar ones in the past, is of benefit only to certain selected groups and to certain more-favoured sectors, at the expense of the poor and of the less-favoured regions. For that reason, I have invited the municipal authorities in my riding to take it upon themselves to establish the structures liable to


attract industries to their localities. Many municipalities have already responded and have created industrial committees, and for this I congratulate them.
I am sure they will receive all the necessary co-operation from the various government agencies. I have already repeatedly stressed in the house the need for secondary industries in northern Ontario. There is no need for me to belabour the point now. May I simply enumerate the types of industries that more than any others would be of benefit to the economy of my region.
Plants for machine assembling and construction of mining equipment could be established, a local slaughtering house with an inspector on permanent duty in order to encourage the raising of cattle, a local warehouse for agricultural products, increased assistance to the farmers who are now forced to leave their farms on account of lack of facilities, in order to allow them to compete with the other centres of the province and the country.
Special attention should be given to the tourist industry. It is known that in northern Ontario natural resources and scenic beauties are diverse and plentiful. For example, I hope that the federal government will consider the possibility of developing a national park in that part of my constituency which is called French River. As is well known, this region has a rich historical past. It was the road followed in days of yore by Champlain, the first missionaries and the first settlers who developed northern Ontario.
Many other types of industries could prosper in my constituency. In order to ensure a proper development of this vast region, I feel that a socio-economical study should be undertaken by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
Such a study would promote a better coordination of local efforts and better planning.
My French-speaking compatriots in Ontario are greatly pleased by the determination of the present government in its efforts to ensure linguistic equality in the federal government's agencies, and wherever it is warranted by the population breakdown.
Franco-Ontarians are following very closely the efforts of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) who is devising an assistance program for French-speaking minorities, aiming not only at ensuring their survival but mainly at enabling them to develop fully within the Francophone and Canadian frameworks.
The Address-Mr. Serre
Having conducted for several years their struggle for survival, and their fight is certainly bearing fruit, if we consider that nearly three quarters of a million French-speaking Canadians live in Ontario, the biggest concentration being in the Nickel Belt area, in northern Ontario, my French-speaking compatriots now see more reason for hope in the new policy of the federal government and in the change of attitude of the provincial government who has just granted French secondary schools to the French-speaking population.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Such commendable initiatives certainly deserve our admiration and all our gratitude.
However, now that we are guaranteed linguistic equality under the law, we must not stop there. The French-speaking people of Ontario recognize, as does the Secretary of State, indeed, that bilingualism will be shortlived if it is not founded on cultural bases which immerge us in tradition and provide us with a sense of evolution.
At the priority level, we need, therefore, some cultural stimulation. The French-speaking people in Ontario have at their disposal few French cultural services and the existing ones are often inferior to the valuable English cultural services or less interesting.
Prompted by a strong desire for perfection and self-achievement, in order to participate on an equal footing with their English-speaking fellow-citizens, in the building of a united country, my constituents, like myself, urgently demand that the federal government designate as a bilingual district the Sudbury area; that subsidies be granted to various social and cultural services, that the C.B.C. establish as soon as possible in Sudbury a French television station with a local production centre responsible for Ontario public affairs and the development of local talents.
They also ask that additional financial assistance be granted to French newspapers. Special attention should, for instance, be given to the only French weekly in the Sudbury region, Le Voyageur, a local undertaking which certainly deserves recognition; but which is having a hard time to subsist due to lack of money. They want additional grants for the Laurentienne University of Sudbury to promote cultural activities and retraining courses to be made more easily available to the French population by providing French courses in Sudbury.


The Address-Mr. Serre
I already know, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State and the government will find the necessary means to comply with those legitimate requests from my fellow-citizens of northern Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent a most diversified population. The Nickel Belt riding and the Sudbury region are populated with men and women of all possible nationalities, with the most varied cultural background. The valuable cultural contribution from all these various ethnic groups, and I have particularly in mind the Ukrainians, the Italians, the Germans and the Finnish people, to mention just a few, is certainly the greatest resource of my region. The extraordinary thing is that despite this mosaic of races, religions, languages and cultures, we have learned to live together, growing and mutually enriching each other in perfect harmony.
We have really achieved unity in diversity. That is why I don't hesitate to offer my region as a model for the whole country. I would even go as far as to assert that the future of Confederation will be decided in Northern Ontario. In that sense we are perhaps twenty years ahead of the other parts of the country. Indeed my region already gives a true picture of what Canada could be tomorrow.
Now I would like to challenge certain extremists of the province of Quebec, including Mr. Levesque, who have no faith in the country's future and I would like to invite them to climb down from their ivory tower and to spend some time in my region. They would certainly find it a beneficial source of inspiration.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move to a more progressive and effective session. I hope my constituents will continue to give me their support, their recommendations and their most valuable suggestions so that with them, together with all members on all sides of the house, we can work for the common good of our great country, Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being 9.45 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 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 of the amendment to the amendment 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.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
On motion of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) the debate was adjourned.



APPOINTMENT OF CLERK ASSISTANT (LEGAL)

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty at this moment to inform the House that the Governor General in Council has appointed Marcel R. Pelletier, Esquire, B.A., B.PH., LL.L., D.G.S.L. Clerk Assistant (Legal) of the House of Commons.
It being seven minutes after ten o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
/

Tuesday, October 28, 1969