1969-10-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. H. E. Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 1 of Standing Order No. 60 I wish to lay on the table of the House copies in English and French of a notice of ways and means motion proposing amendments to the Customs Tariff and a consequential amendment to the Excise Tax Act. The notice of motion is substantially the same as that required for Bill C-212 of the last session which was given first reading by the House on June 27. Bill C-212 was based on the notice of motion in the budget speech of June 3.

I should like to table, pursuant to the same standing order, copies in French and in English of a notice of motion of ways and means to amend the Income Tax Act.

This notice of motion is the same as the one given on June 3 in connection with the budget speech and which was followed by first reading of Bill C-211.
Finally, I would like to ask the consent of the House to permit the material that I am now tabling to be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings and to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of motions see appendix.]



DESIGNATION OF ORDER OF THE DAY TO DEBATE WAYS AND MEANS MOTIONS

['Hear, hear.']
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 60(2) I should like to ask that an order of the day be designated for the consideration of the ways and means motions tabled this day.


Mr. Baldwin:: Why not for next session too in case you don't get around to it?



Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the House will recall the statement made by my colleague the Secretary of State in respect of the Company of Young Canadians. In view of the fact it has not been possible to give notice, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion for the purpose of establishing an order of reference for the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. The motion would be in the following terms:
That the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts be empowered to consider and make a final report to the House, not later than December 5th, 1969, upon the legislative framework, organization, and operations of the Company of Young Canadians, and that, for the purpose of its inquiry, the committee be empowered to retain the services of counsel and to adjourn from place to place within Canada, and that the clerks, counsel, and the necessary supporting staff be authorized to accompany the committee.
As I indicated, unanimous consent would be necessary under the rules to introduce the motion at this time. I believe the context of the committee motion has been discussed in the various comers of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister have leave to introduce the motion at this time?


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, we do not desire to withhold consent, but I should like to say something when the motion is before the house. I think it would also be helpful if the minister had copies. I have seen a copy in the hands of a member for about two minutes, having looked over his shoulder, but I should like to have a copy of the motion if the minister has an extra one available.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Do I have
unanimous consent?


Mr. Speaker:: If there is agreement the motion will be put to the house and, of course, it will be open to hon. members to debate the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
October 24, 1969

Company of Young Canadians MOTION OF REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts be empowered to consider and make a final report to the House, not later than December 5th, 1969, upon the legislative framework, organization, and operations of the Company of Young Canadians, and that, for the purpose of its inquiry, the committee be empowered to retain the services of counsel and to adjourn from place to place within Canada, and that the clerk, counsel, and the necessary supporting staff be authorized to accompany the committee.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, normally we would have no objection and, as a matter of fact, would welcome terms of reference to a committee of the House to look into the legislative framework, the organization and operations of the Company of Young Canadians. For some time we have felt there is a need for an evaluation of the work of this organization. and an examination of the Act, which is lacking in clarification on a number of points, as well as the need for a restructuring of the organization itself. Consequently we cannot object to the motion on those grounds.
However, I do wish to express my misgivings because the motion naturally is closely associated in the public mind with the statement made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) last Wednesday when he spoke of the fact that unsubstantiated charges of subversion had been made against the Company of Young Canadians. The public naturally will assume that the main task this committee will have before it will be to deal with the charges that have been made. The fact that in the motion before the House the committee is to be empowered to retain the services of counsel only strengthens my misgivings in that regard. If the committee is to look into the structure and legal framework of this organization and evaluate its work, then of course we will be very pleased to support it. But I do think we should express our fears that in the light of the statement of the Secretary of State and in the light of the fact that the committee is to be empowered to retain counsel there is every probability that the inquiry could escalate into a witch hunt.
If Mr. Saulnier, one of the persons who made these charges of subversion, is called and names names, those names will appear in the public press, and the person so named
[Mr. Speaker.l
will have the right to appear before the committee. If Mr. Anthony Malcolm, the vicepresident of the Quebec section of the Liberal Federation of Canada, is called to substantiate his charges that there are some 27 persons guilty of subversion, 18 of whom were or are members of the Company of Young Canadians, and certainly if he makes these charges before the committee, then the persons so named will be entitled to appear before the committee, and the House of Commons could find itself conducting a kangaroo court.
I am sure every member of the House is concerned about the question of subversion. There are two ways to deal with subversion. One is that if there is sufficient evidence that a person has been guilty of an illegal act he should be charged in the courts. If the person has not been guilty of an illegal act but has conducted himself in a manner unbecoming to an organization supported by public funds, he should be disciplined. If there is no provision under the Act for the executive director to discipline him, the government should ask the House to amend the Act to give the executive director adequate power. But I think a word of caution is necessary. We must remind ourselves that the House of Commons is neither a court of law nor an administrative tribunal. So far as our members on that committee are concerned they will do everything possible to try to see that a House of Commons committee is not used to do things which could more properly be done elsewhere.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) that the motion just introduced is in English only, not in French. Since it is generally agreed that all federal services should be bilingual, I think that the President of the Privy Council should have had his motion translated so we could read it in French.
As for the motion itself, I believe that most Canadians will be glad to see how promptly the government is prepared to appoint the committee due to report by December 5th on the activities and operations of the Company of Young Canadians.
Everyone knows about the charges that have been made, especially by Mr. Saulnier of Montreal and I think it is time the nation and, above all, that the Canadian Parliament be made aware of those dealings if they are indeed objectionable. We should be told of the charges laid down so that we may see if
Oclober 24, 1969

there are grounds for them in order not to finance subversion with the Canadian taxpayers' money.
It is high time for the Parliament to take a firm stand and I was pleased by the recent statement of the Secretary of State of Canada (Mr. Pelletier) and by that of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to the effect that subversion and terrorism must be ended, especially in the province of Quebec; the Ral-liement Creditiste supports unconditionally the setting up in the earliest future of that committee which will report to us by December 5 next.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, just before you put the motion there are one or two observations I should like to make. May I say first of all that I certainly support the reference of this matter to the committee, but I am afraid that it may entail great expense and another call on the taxpayers' money. I think that at the early stage of this investigation it is unnecessary to hire counsel. Counsel from the Department of Justice should be sufficient, at least to start with.
I also believe that the committee should not be given the authority to adjourn from place to place. I think it would be much more in line with the drive toward economy of the present government to subpoena the witnesses who are to be heard and have them come to Ottawa. Then all the meetings would be held here and Members of Parliament could attend those meetings as well as attend the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to what has been said regarding the establishment of this committee, and I make special reference to the observations of the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales). Certainly the members of this party are always concerned about the amount of money that is to be charged to the taxpayers. On the other hand, I believe that at this stage the right to appoint counsel should be included. Whether or not counsel will be used will be largely determined, I believe, by the course the proceedings will take. I should like to say as an illustration that we will have an opportunity later this session to debate the report made last session by the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments, and that without the valuable assistance which counsel was able to provide to that committee it would have been impossible not only to put the report together
Inquiries of the Ministry as well and effectively as it was done but to buttress it with the precedents, citations and supporting evidence upon which it is founded.
[DOT]	(11:20 a.m.)
I have never discovered any inability on the part of members of the house to put questions, and when the committee meets there is no doubt that the members of the committee will launch a searching inquiry. If matters come to light which may reflect on individuals, then I think the committee should be able to use the power which will hopefully be given to its members and engage counsel as and when it becomes necessary. I make that point, Mr. Speaker, to indicate the position that we take.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, before oral questions are called perhaps I might have the indulgence of the House to point out the presence in Your Honour's gallery of Brigadier General Albert Guerisse, Surgeon General of the armed forces of Belgium.
General Guerisse is well known to Canadians under his wartime code name of Pat O'Leary, when he was among the most outstanding leaders of the underground resistance movement in occupied Europe. As a prisoner in the infamous Dachau concentration camp his activities in the latter stages of the war resulted in saving the lives of many thousands of the prisoners in that camp.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister what action, if any, his government intends to take in connection with the strike that has paralysed all five seaports on the west coast?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to defer to the Minister of Labour. He is working on a solution

October 24, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry to the strike now, and I have nothing to report.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the crippling effect the strike is having on the economy of British Columbia, involving the lay-off of over 2,000 people in the logging and mining industries, has the government considered any timetable with regard to the various alternatives before it? For example, has the government given consideration to legislation? If so, can the Prime Minister indicate to us what, if any, deadline the government has with regard to possible alternative actions, including actions at present being taken or resorted to by the Minister of Labour?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are not anxious to introduce legislation to take away the right to strike from any labour movement when it has been given that right by Parliament. Therefore I have no comment to make.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the tie-up of 25 ships and the fact that the only problems remaining are non-wage, is it possible for the Prime Minister or whoever is reporting today on behalf of the Minister of Labour to state whether or not top officials from the office of the Minister of Labour have been sent to the west coast to try to bring the parties together in order to resolve this situation which, as I have said, does not involve wages?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we know this, the Minister of Labour knows it, and the House knows that he has been actively involved in finding a solution to this strike. He has found a way of moving wheat. He has not decided it is opportune for the House of Commons or the government at this stage to embark upon strike or lockout-breaking operations. This has been the position of the government and it remains the position of the government.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that I am informed the Steel Company of Canada has just announced an increase of 6 per cent to 7 per cent in the price of steel, does the Prime Minister intend 
to have an investigation made of this increase either through the Prices and Incomes Commission or in some other way, particularly having regard to the fact that steel prices are usually the bellwether of the whole cost of living index?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The House knows, Mr. Speaker, that the government has no constitutional jurisdiction to fix wages. The problem of inflation is being acted upon by the government in many ways. The question of investigating price and wage increases has been referred to the Prices and Incomes Commission and it is part of their mandate to investigate such things as the hon. member mentions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister made a Freudian slip when he said that the government had no authority to investigate wages. I am asking about prices and the relationship of those prices to increased productivity. Could I ask the Prime Minister if he can assure the House and the country that the Prices and Incomes Commission will be instructed to make an immediate investigation to see whether or not the price increase announced by the Steel Company of Canada is justifiable, and whether a report will be made to Parliament at an early date?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we set up the commission under its own authority so that it would not be answerable to the government for each of its actions. It has initiatives of its own and it has indicated that it will investigate the causes of inflation and, if necessary, will link a particular increase to both the wage and price structure. In this particular case the government does not intend to give specific instructions to the commission.



INQUIRY AS TO FURTHER SALES-CONTRACT WITH RUSSIA

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Has the government entered into any other contract for the sale to other countries of the surplus wheat from the West?
I should also like the minister to tell us, if possible, whether he has persuaded Russia to respect her undertakings of a few years ago concerning contracts signed with Canada?
October 24, 1969


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this question gives me the opportunity to say that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Hum-boldt, minister without portfolio, is now responsible to the House for the Canadian Wheat Board.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, could the minister responsible answer the question?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, there have been
announcements over recent months about specific sales of grain. There was an exchange in the House Wednesday concerning negotiations with the Soviet Union on the old and new agreements. The remark I made then was that it is not good practice to comment on discussions or negotiations which are, or are about to be, under way, so I have no comment to make about this matter.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio.
The minister is probably not in a position to give us any details, because it would undoubtedly not be in the public interest, but can he give us some hope that the matter will be definitely settled?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the hon. member of my great and continuing optimism about this and all other subjects that I deal with.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN AND ALBERTA-ASSISTANCE TO GROWERS

Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very aggravated situation in northern Saskatchewan and northern Alberta because of weather conditions there, has the minister anything to offer to the House by way of some form of relief for those people with regard to last year's crop other than what is contained in the pot of political pablum disguised as a Throne Speech?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is at least one of the brighter facets of having a surplus of grain that those farmers who have not been
Inquiries of the Ministry able to harvest this year's crop are not as handicapped in filling quotas, with grain on hand from previous years, as they have sometimes been.



SOVIET UNION-NEGOTIATIONS TO EXPAND

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question either to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or to the Minister without Portfolio. Is there under way any study or negotiations that will lead to some expansion of trade with the Soviet Union on a permanent basis so that the kinds of sales which have been made will continue on a regular and rational basis?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, the commercial agreement with the Soviet Union came to an end before the wheat contract itself came to legal termination last July, I believe. Our position is that we wish to clear the ground and come to the conclusion on the wheat aspects of our relations with the Soviet Union and then enter into negotiation on the renewal of the commercial agreement itself.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My question to the minister really was whether negotiations are being conducted of a kind that will lead to a real expansion in trade between our two countries?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my answer was quite clear when I said that we want to get the wheat aspect behind us before we become involved in further commercial negotiations with the U.S.S.R.



RATE OF INCREASE OF EXPORTS

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasi-ings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As Canada's export trade has been expanding at half the rate experienced by Great Britain, the United States and Japan and at one-third the rate experienced by the ten principal industrial countries of Europe, would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House and country what steps he and his department plan to take to bring our rate of increase of exports at least up to the level of our principal industrial competitors?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will

October 24, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry send copies of my recent speeches to the hon. member, for example, on the inauguration of the Export Development Corporation.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have read the minister's speeches and there is nothing in them to indicate that any steps at all are to be taken to increase our trade in any way whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, in the unavoidable absence of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence about yesterday's tragic accident aboard the Canadian Forces destroyer escort Kootenay. Before I ask my question perhaps I might be permitted to express to the next of kin of those who lost their lives and to the survivors who were injured the sympathy of the House generally and especially the sympathy of the subcommittee which visited this vessel just before it sailed. My question is: Has the minister anything further to report on this unfortunate accident? Specifically, what action has been taken to prevent any possibility of the recurrence of similar accidents on destroyer escorts?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, first may I join with the hon. member in expressing our deep sorrow to the families affected by the accident. This unfortunate accident brings home to all of us the hazards and dangers which servicemen in the performance of their duties must face. This is not always appreciated. An investigation is under way into the accident. So far we do not have all the facts. I am told that it was a boiler room explosion. These accidents are likely to happen if something goes wrong, although we do not know exactly what went wrong. There is no further information on the matter except that the next of kin are preparing to be flown to the scene. We have had one request from next of kin that one victim of the accident be buried at sea. We have had no expression of requirements from other next of kin.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the shortage of copper being experienced by the Canadian fabricating industry, can the minister say when he will take steps which on April 1 of this year he said he would take in this eventuality?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, there is some confusion in this matter which I should like to rectify if I may. In April last I tried to prevent the drain of copper from Canada, as a result of the higher price available for it on the London Metal Exchange.
I asked Canadian producers to take care of their usual Canadian clients at the North American price. I more or less froze the situation at that time, and this action is still very much valid.
The present situation is different. Because a strike is taking place I am now asked by some people to force Canadian companies not affected by the strike to drop their usual foreign clients and to sell copper here in Canada on a temporary basis, presumably, at prices lower than those they are obtaining now in foreign markets at a time when copper is available in Canada at the higher price.
So this is an entirely different situation, and I do not think the reference to my April 1 statement in the present circumstances is justified.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Whether or not the minister likes the reference to his April 1 statement, will he, in view of the serious situation and the unemployment being created by this condition, look into it further and make a statement to the House next week?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this is a most difficult situation. I sympathize with the employees of Canadian copper user companies as well as the Companies. The Companies have to pay the higher prices. At the same time I must try, I think, to preserve the reputation of Canada as a dependable exporter. I am weighing the advantages and disadvantages of both sides of the dilemma, but in the present situation I think we had better not mess around with present patterns of distribution of copper. I am not saying, however,

October 24, 1969	COMMONS
that there will not come a time, if the strike does not end, when the Canadian government will not have to intervene in the way that is being suggested at present by some. Let us hope the strike will end soon.


Mr. Desmond Code (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is he giving consideration to amending the copper export regulations so that Canadian scrap copper will be retained in Canada to help to relieve the shortage of copper which is causing the lay-off of thousands of Canadian workmen?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I know I have a very wide range of responsibilities but I do not think copper is one of them.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Gaelan J. Serre (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Does the Minister intend to make representations to the competent authorities in order to settle that strike which has been going on in Sudbury for more than three months?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think that the answer given by the Prime Minister a few minutes ago about the strikes on the Western Coast also applies in this case.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the House will have the opportunity to have a debate on the recognition of Communist China in the first part of this session.


Hon. Milchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly have no objection if the opposition would like to raise this matter on one of their allotted days.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since this matter could be very important, does the
DEBATES	19
Inquiries of the Ministry minister not think that the government might be persuaded to add one of its own days to the debate so that we can have two days to discuss the matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the matter could also be debated during the present debate.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. However, since the same question would also be of interest to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, perhaps I might direct it to both ministers. Would they consider making available to the residents of Churchill, Manitoba, as quickly as possible a comprehensive outline of their departmental employment requirements at Churchill for the next year or two? I ask this because the United States has seriously curtailed its research projects at Churchill.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the implications of the conditions that have arisen at Churchill. As the hon. member knows, we foresaw some of them. We have had discussions with the former government of Manitoba as well as with the present government. The acting premier of Manitoba is coming here next week and we will go into the situation further at that time. I am happy to tell the House that both the previous and the present governments of Manitoba have accepted a share of responsibility with respect to Churchill, which is very encouraging indeed. We will work something out, and I hope that subsequently we shall be able to make a statement that will clarify the situation about which my hon. friend is concerned.


HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Bearing in mind the latest figures for traffic accidents in Canada which, according to the latest release, show that 5,000 Canadians are killed every 12 months and
150,000	injured, what consideration is being given by the minister to implementing the decision of his predecessor to set up a public board to concern itself with all matters affecting traffic safety?

October 24, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the government is of course, as much concerned as my hon. friend about the carnage on the highways. There will be a bill introduced very shortly having to do with auto safety. I had one federal-provincial conference with the ministers concerned in the ten provinces and will be having another in a few weeks. If it appears that a board of some kind on a permanent basis offers the best solution to this problem, we will be happy to consider its implementation.


POLLUTION
Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. What action has the minister taken with regard to the massive pollution of the waters adjacent to the Har-mac Pulp Mill in British Columbia by the spillage of chemicals which took place last Tuesday night?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, we have our fisheries protection officers on the spot. We are assessing what damage is being done to the fisheries. We are in close touch with the company involved.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister please inform the house whether this mill is still operating while these investigations are taking place?


John (Jack) Davis: The mill is still operating, but the spill in question has been brought to an end.


JET AIRCRAFT-INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister prepared to introduce legislation during this session to outlaw the unnecessary and dangerously increasing form of air pollution caused by jet aircraft? I ask this question because the Ontario Minister of Energy and Resources has asked the federal government to take action to outlaw pollution caused by jet aircraft, particularly at the Toronto international airport, and also because seven United States airlines are now proving they have the technical capacity to remove such air pollution-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should not support his question by a speech.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member laid so much groundwork I am not sure I got the point. In any event, I want to say we are having discussions with the airlines. Whether we have the federal competence to deal with this matter I do not know, but we are certainly prepared to take steps to whatever extent we can to alleviate this admitted problem.


UNITED NATIONS
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of today being United Nation's day and also in view of the fact Canada is the only one of more than 50 senior members of the United Nations which does not have a United Nations information centre, will the minister inform the house whether the establishment of such a centre might be in his plans, particularly in view of the increased emphasis on international development on a multilaterial basis by the United Nations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is a suggestion I will be very happy to take into consideration. As the hon. member knows, it is one of the principal aims of the present government to renew the United Nations and the confidence of the world in it, but it is not simply a matter of establishing an information centre. I believe some fundamental reforms have to made in the United Nations itself before there will be the necessary degree of confidence.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is with respect to the reply he gave me on Wednesday at page 11725 of Hansard concerning the progress of the Robertson inquiry. I believe the minister was a little too enthusiastic and optimistic in the excitement of the commencement of parliament. Would he like to rephrase his answer now? Will he make a determination to do something about shipbuilding?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I apologize. I was indeed too optimistic. May I explain that a
October 24, 1969

committee was formed. We are paying for the chairman of the committee. We are providing staff support to the committee, the members of which are the leaders of the shipbuilding industry.
Good will and good intentions do not bring about an instant solution. The committee soon realized the extreme complexity of the situation. They are now asking me to provide consultant services, $100,000 worth. I have agreed to that because of the importance of the matter. This is now before Treasury Board. They have also asked that the vice-chairman be paid. I am not as sympathetic here as I was on the matter of consultant services.


VIOLENT DEMONSTRATIONS
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister in connection with a statement made yesterday by the president of the Montreal Executive Council to the effect that the protective measures offered by the federal authorities in the Montreal region are insufficient at the present time. Could the right hon. Prime Minister say if it is true that the protection offered by the federal government is inadequate in Montreal in emergencies such as those that happened recently, and what corrective measures the government intends to take?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would need to see the exact content of the statement made by the Executive Council Chairman of Montreal. As far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, we find, on the contrary, that the support given by the Federal Government in such circumstances is very much to the point, and during the events that occurred in recent weeks, when the Royal Mounted Police and even some Canadian Army units have entered into action to support the civilian authorities as soon as the request had been made, prove that point.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question addressed to the Minister of National Defence.
Did the Executive Council of Montreal inform the minister or request his assistance when the troubles developed in Montreal?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: A request was made for assistance,
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker, but it did not come from the Executive Council Chairman, but from the Attorney General of the Province as is required by law.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has his attention been brought to the large scale lay-offs of skilled employees in the CPR shops in Montreal? If so, will the minister indicate whether something can be done to alleviate the difficulties?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The answer to the first part is no, Mr. Speaker, but I will be glad to follow up on the request.


FISHERIES
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the recent announcement by the minister which brought to a halt for the coming season the killing of harp seals within Canadian territorial waters, I ask the minister whether, so the purpose will not be negated, any action has been taken or any decision reached with other countries with respect to an agreement regarding offshore Canadian waters so that his policy will not be killed by other countries?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, our recent announcement to ban the killing of very young baby white coat seals did not ban the killing of older seals in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In respect to international relations, we have had several meetings with the other country principally involved, Norway, and we are still endeavouring to establish a quota in international waters in the north Atlantic. In the meantime, pending the establishment of such a quota the hunt will continue as it has always done in those international waters.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: In view of the impact this measure will have on the inshore fishermen on the south coast of Newfoundland as well as fishermen of the Magdalen Islands, Prince Edward Island and the Gaspe Peninsula, has the minister reached a decision on what action will be taken to ease

October 24, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry the economic hardship his new measure will impose upon these inshore fishermen?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there will be economic hardship in that the total number of seals will be the same and the value of the pelts of the older seals maybe as much as twice as great as that of the price of the pelts of the white coats which have been killed traditionally in these areas.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Many farmers from the province of Quebec complain that they did not receive any subsidy for the production of milk since last June. Could the minister tell the house why such payments were withheld from farmers?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no refusal to make these payments to the farmers who are entitled to receive them. If the hon. member will provide me with the name and, preferably, the account number of any producer who was entitled to but did not receive his subsidy, I will look into it.


FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS INTEREST RATES-REPRESENTATIONS TO COMMITTEE BY LABOUR
Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Gatineau in his capacity as chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Will the hon. member advise the House whether the committee, in its deliberations and investigation into interest rates, will obtain the testimony of representatives of labour groups?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would not think that the question as asked is in order. Questions dealing with the actual discussion and debate in a committee cannot be asked in this way at this time.




Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Have any countries objected to Canada's plan to withdraw from the International Control Commission in Viet Nam, and is the government's decision in this regard based upon the belief that our participation in the commission does not do anything toward advancing peace in that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I ought to begin by making it clear that we are not withdrawing from the International Control Commission. We are, however, considering withdrawing personnel from two of the missions, in Vientiane and Phnom Penh, but they will be serviced from the commission in Viet Nam. There may indeed be some personnel left in those posts, but not from External Affairs.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether or not this withdrawal is being carried out in agreement with similar policies of other members of the I.C.C.?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the withdrawal of personnel from these two posts is being made through consultation, but I hardly expect that there would be full agreement.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I should like to address this question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that all shipbuilding yards in Canada are facing difficulty because they do not have work, and since the government is going to award a contract for the building of two ferries, would the Prime Minister consider giving the second lowest tenderer the job of building one of these ferries in order to help out over a very difficult period?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce did indicate that this whole subject was under review and that he was assisting the interested parties in conducting this review in the best possible way for Canadians. I cannot add anything to that at this time.
Oclober 24, 1969	COMMONS


HOUSING
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of housing. What steps has the minister taken, either persuasive or legislative, in regard to financial institutions contributing more money to the housing field to relieve the housing crisis?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the way the question is phrased is an invitation to the minister to give a statement which normally should be made on motions. Perhaps the question should be rephrased.


John Gilbert: Then I will rephrase my question and ask the minister whether he has made any representations to the financial institutions to contribute more money to the housing field to meet the housing crisis?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, we are in almost weekly communication with representatives of the lending institutions. I might say that they have performed fairly well this year and that we will be reaching housing starts somewhat in excess of 200,000. We are in constant discussion with the lending institutions as to their plans for next year.


John Gilbert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What steps has the minister taken to reduce high interest rates, and is he considering interest subsidies and rent supplements to meet the present situation?


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister agree to make a statement on motions concerning urban renewal?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will give that consideration.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I ask this question in view of the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare on the phasing out of the use of cyclamate in diet foods in Canada. What steps is the minister now taking to ensure that United States produced dietetic food products containing cyclamate, which
DEBATES	23
Inquiries of the Ministry are to be banned in the United States by February, will not be allowed to flood our market prior to the Canadian dead line?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I confess that I was not involved myself in this matter.
I will ascertain whether I should have been. I will find out whose ministerial responsibility it is-I presume it comes mainly under Health and Welfare-ascertain what is being done and report to the House.


INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF TRANSPORT CONTROLLER
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. In view of the renewed difficulty being experienced at many prairie points in obtaining boxcars for grain shipments, and in view of the fact that the new block system of grain movement is still only in the early stages of introduction, is consideration being given to the appointment of a transport controller to deal with some of the current difficulties?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. The block system is proving to work very efficiently indeed. It is now hoped that the blocks will be completely in effect throughout Alberta and Saskatchewan by the end of December and in the rest of the region before the opening of the navigation season. In view of this circumstance I think good progress is in fact being made in this area of transportation.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question.
Although the block system does have some merit, it still will not deal with some of the difficulties that are being experienced. Could the minister enlighten the House as to other measures that are being considered in order to deal with the problem of grain movement?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it seems that I may have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that he is asking for a general statement that ought to be made on motions.


John Stratford Burton: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.

October 24, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry POWER
MINAS BASIN-COMPLETION OF STUDY Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when he expects the Minas Basin power feasibility study to be completed and possibly made available to the public?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have no immediate information in that regard, but I will take the question as notice and inform the hon. member as soon as possible.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
George Harris Hees: I should like to address my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Why have the Indian and Eskimo people living in the northern part of Inuvik, a townsite which was constructed to serve these people, been denied electric, sewer and water services while the federal civil servants living in the other half of the town have long enjoyed these services?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member just said is not accurate. Many Indians and Eskimos may avail themselves of services in Inuvik. Unforunately, some of these people are not receiving them, because there is a population explosion in the Northwest Territories, due to the good management and the development of that region.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. Since the minister has tried to indicate that very few have been denied, why has the loan of $2 million which has been applied for by the town not been granted by the federal government? This is the $2 million that is required to provide these sewer, water and electric services.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this. I shall inquire and be pleased to reply to the hon. member next week.


David Orlikow: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would

the minister tell the House whether there are any white people living in Inuvik who do not have the opportunity to use the light, water and sewer services?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not know, Mr. Speaker.




Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Have any consultations been held between officials of France and Canada over the announced intention of France to set up a large Common Market fishing base at St. Pierre, in view of the impact that such a move would have on the Atlantic Economy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if such discussions have taken place I am unaware of them, but I will make inquiries.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question. I would appreciate a report as soon as possible. Since these ships would be operating from a French base-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the statement made two days ago that the interdepartmental review of industrial incentives is now complete, can the minister say whether existing programs promoting industrial research and development will be abandoned and, if so, which ones?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker; we are just improving upon them. This review is now the object of a recommendation to Treasury Board, and in due course I will make the necessary announcement.


NAVIGATION
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Public
October 24, 1969	COMMONS
Works consider making a statement in the House concerning the state of navigation on the Mackenzie River, the difficulties experienced by the Northern Transportation Company in moving the ever-increasing volume of freight, and the fact that moneys are being denied for the necessary dredging to clear the river?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member probably knows, we have been pre-occupied with this problem recently. I would not mind making a statement on it. We intend to do major dredging of the river. We have a difficult situation there because of the filling of the dam on the Peace River. In addition, we have had the misfortune of a year when precipitation has been low. The result is that the water in the Mackenzie River is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this statement should be made on motions.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Rod Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether the Canadian government is having regular patrols made of Canadian Arctic waters and, if not, why not?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, that is a very difficult question. We do not make a regular patrol, but to demonstrate why not would involve making a long speech.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 23, 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.
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I think I can speak on behalf of all members of the opposition when I say it is pleasant to be back on Parliament hill and once again become somebody, having been dismissed as nobody when we were last here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You may not manage.
DEBATES	25
The Address-Mr. Stanfield


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) upon his address to the House yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If I may presume to say so, he spoke well and effectively, so effectively indeed that when he was speaking about things the government ought to consider very seriously he seemed to drive the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) from the House. Perhaps that was purely coincidental.

I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) most sincerely on the way he has put forward his point of view.
Some of his ideas on the course that this administration should follow deserve serious consideration. Although far from supporting all he has said, I still realize, as he does, that he represents, for his party and for his constituency, an asset of which they can justly be proud.

I should like to congratulate the two new Ministers without Portfolio, both from Ontario, who have been appointed by the government and also the two new parliamentary secretaries. I wish them every success. I think it is sufficient to say that in all cases the promotions were well-deserved. However, I must point out again that there are as yet no parliamentary secretaries from New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta.
The country expected, or was led to expect a more extensive shuffle in the cabinet than actually took place-at least judging from newspaper stories which appeared to be rather inspired at the time. They predicted something more drastic. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) apparently could not bring himself to do this. May I just say to those who lost out this time, speaking from long experience both in the opposition and government, everybody cannot win all the time.
I must also extend a rather rueful congratulation to the government for having discovered the National Parole Board. The Parole Board has for some ten years or more escaped being touched by political patronage. Suddenly somebody, apparently of the East Block entourage, decided that the Parole Board would be just the place to put a couple of retired Liberal warhorses at $23,000 per annum each.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
October 24, 1969

The Address-Mr. Stanfield


An hon. Member:: The only defeated candidates left; poor Mr. Tucker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in criticizing the Speech from the Throne, I do not want to exaggerate. I want to be fair and I want to admit that there was one thing new. In each of the preceding 101 years of Canadian nationhood under the leadership of both parties the speech referred to His or Her Majesty's government. The speech we are now discussing refers simply to the government. This is, of course, a much more elegant method of expression and obviously establishes a very special identity for Canada. At least, it spares Her Majesty the embarrassment of association with a Speech from the Throne which reveals so little commitment to helping the ordinary people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Canadian people as well as the members of this house could be forgiven if, after the first reading of the throne speech, they regard it as some sort of a clever put-off. But what is most alarming to me is that the government itself takes the document seriously as a Speech from the Throne, and that it actually believes this empty speech is an adequate way for Canada to enter the decade of the 1970's.
There is sort of a special literary quality to the Speech from the Throne. It reads as though it were written by a committee at a cocktail party, such a genteel cocktail party that it recognized the need for establishing a national committee on law reform but was content to consider the question of poverty in Canada at some future date.
The government, sir, is running this country as though it were a private club with a very exclusive membership. If you are poor you do not count. If you are an Indian you are shipped off to the provinces to be looked after. If you are unilingual you run an elevator. If you want to stop the slaughter in Bia-fra or maintain an effective role in NATO you are not sophisticated enough for the tight little Canada this government foresees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: From the first days of this administration, I have been alarmed most by the apparent determination of the influential members of the cabinet to try to fit the people and the problems of Canada into a predetermined mould and to ignore or ridicule those uncomfortable realities which do not fit
the preconception. Professor Abraham Rot-stein put it very succinctly in the October issue of the Canadian Forum. I would like to quote him:
The Prime Minister's anti-nationalism is well known, but not so apparent is the classical liberalism out of which this derives and how that shapes his basic outlook. A man of many sides claiming a pragmatic approach to politics, he is the most deeply ideological of Canadian prime ministers. This surfaces rarely, but when it does in an unguarded moment of candour, the statement may be a revelation (even after the P.R. types have rushed in to set the statement 'in context'). The most famous of his personal cris de cceur is the query to the western farmers, 'Why should I sell your wheat?' It is the perfect embodiment of the ethos of the market economy -it expresses the P.M.'s personal sense of the rightness of things economic. It is worth reflecting on how "deep-seated a commitment it would require to wash out even momentarily, seventy-fire years of the history of the Canadian West- the wheat pools, the battle around the Winnipeg grain exchange and finally the Canadian Wheat Board itself!
The new policy toward Canadian Indians provides a second case. The attempt to have Canadian Indians 'sink or swim' in five years is reminiscent only of the Poor Law Reform Act of 1834-the pivotal legislation for the creation of a free labour market in England's emergent laissez-faire economy. To be told further, as we have been, that one section of Canadian society cannot form treaties with another section, is to wash out in an instant, another two hundred years of Canadian history. The valuable civil rights legislation of the last session of Parliament, in itself a great achievement, rounds out the picture. The cast of mind is unmistakably that of classical liberalism. Despite the P.M.'s personal motto-la raison avant la passion-he himself expresses the triumph of the ideological passion, not only over reason but over history as well. This stance is his personal privilege, but in the circumstances it is also the country s burden.
The former minister of transport, now the member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), established in our minds a similar fear when he remarked on the inability of the influential members of the cabinet to understand the real problems of the Canadian people. The throne speech confirms that fear because it is largely irrelevant to those millions of Canadians who, for one reason or another, need the help of Ottawa. It is largely irrelevant to those millions more whose prosperity and progress depend upon the leadership of the federal government in meeting the economic and environmental hazards of a new decade.
We will be hearing from the Prime Minister no doubt this afternoon, and I hope he will take the opportunity to fill in some of these gaps and reassure us by bringing forward programs that were not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne dealing with the very real and genuine problems of our people.

October 24, 1969	COMMONS
There are so many respects in which needs must be met. As a high priority we must adjust, ought to adjust, the old age security and other pensions to relate them more realistically to the increase in the cost of living. A 2 per cent ceiling on the cost of living adjustment is absurd when inflation has been more than 4 per cent for the past several years. We are talking here about people who are unable to help themselves. Surely, it is wrong for us to expect them to bear the burden of inflation or bear the burden of governmental anti-inflationary policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Of course action should be taken in respect of the serious situation relating to public service pensioners whom the government seems to shuffle to the bottom of the pile year after year. I was led to believe we would see some action taken in connection with a federal minimum wage. There is no mention of this in the Speech from the Throne. I hope the Prime Minister will be prepared to correct this situation. The government ought to recognize fully the urban fact of Canada. A way must be worked out with the provinces so that the cities can be involved fully in the discussions because clearly their responsibilities become more demanding each year and they become more responsible each year for the living environment of an increasing number of Canadians. We, ourselves, put forward at least a dozen specific recommendations in connection with housing, but the government seems to prefer to stand still. Urban renewal, important to the renovation and the whole environment of our cities, has for the most part been put in a deep freeze and yet the Speech from the Throne seems to contemplate this situation with great confidence.
Surely, the government of Canada should give an example to the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers in working out a strategy in respect of every aspect of our renewable and unrenewable resources and in working out a development plan for the various regions of the country so that the provinces and municipalities can proceed with them. The members of my party suggested something similar to a meeting of the Council of Resource Ministers, a meeting in connection with human resources.
There seemed to be a great deal of complacency in the Speech from the Throne with regard to the educational opportunities and the financial abilities of the proper authorities
DEBATES	27
The Address-Mr. Stanfield to support an adequate opportunity for education for young Canadians today. Whatever became of the excellent concept behind the Department of Manpower, which seems to be starving from lack of attention and interest on the part of the cabinet as a whole? What indication is there in the Speech from the Throne with regard to the recognition of the importance of establishing priorities in this country?
There is an urgent need for the setting up of a central agency to co-ordinate and lead the fight against all forms of pollution. The water act by itself is quite inadequate. We ought to have a real attack on the problems of our various industries rather than the sort of gesture contained in the Speech from the Throne toward agriculture. This is not the sort of thing the people involved in these industries expected. For example, it seems to be more and more widely accepted that unless a young man inherits a farm it is now very difficult for him to get into agriculture or farming in a viable way. Is this an acceptable situation to this government? Surely, it is not beyond the ability of this government to propose measures, in co-operation with the provinces, which would enable those interested in agriculture, and those qualified to do so, to get into agriculture in a viable way rather than be faced with the present situation in which it seems to be impossible for them to do so unless they should inherit a viable farm.
There are literally dozens of opportunities for federal interest and action and dozens of areas where action is needed. I hope the Prime Minister will take the opportunity this afternoon to fill some of the very great gaps which exist in the Speech from the Throne, because as it reads it is so cold that it is bound to be a keen disappointment to parliamentarians on all sides of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It amounts to a notice that we have been summoned here to process a good deal of legislation but will not be asked at this session to confront many of the most urgent problems facing the people of Canada. But if the throne speech is a disappointment to parliamentarians on all sides of the House, it is an even keener disappointment to those Canadians who voted for the government in the belief that it had some commitment to social justice and that it wanted to change lives as well as change laws.
October 24, 1969

The Address-Mr. Stanfield
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
The government has exhibited the same cold detachment when groups or regions in special need have sought help from it. Pensioners have received neither help nor encouragement; farmers trapped by an emergency have been treated to rather special lectures delivered on a tour, and persons seeking housing have been told that there is no crisis, while the 20 per cent of our population who live below the poverty line have still apparently made no impression upon this comfortable cabinet of Canada.
A correspondent of the Montreal Star, Mr. W. A. Wilson, wrote the following on September 27:
No member of Mr. Trudeau's cabinet could legitimately make a speech today outlining the social philosophy of the government for the simple reason that it has none. As time has gone by, this has become starkly clear and, with all that is good about the present administration, it is a shortcoming that we are likely to find overwhelming long before the next three years are over...
The government has made a great show of consultation. They have heard many people. It would be interesting to find someone to whom they have actually listened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It would be interesting to find someone in the government caucus to whom the government has listened, not to mention the majority of the members of the cabinet.
There are a goodly number of young men on the government benches-I am referring particularly to those elected for the first time during the last session-who came to this house with a sense of commitment, wishing to be involved with the real problems of the people and wishing to get things moving. I wonder how those men feel today. The apologists of the government, and there are not as many as there were, argue that this is all part of a plan, a master strategy which devotes the first three years to planning and restraint and then bursts forth with a bright new image in 1972.


Gerald William Baldwin: Like Napoleon retreating from Moscow.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Instead of a new image we need new action from the government, and this would certainly be something new. According to the apologists, it is all a matter of timing worked out by those omnipotent computers, just like the timing of the white


paper on taxation which has been mistimed so often.
If the government is deliberately doing very little now so that it can come on strong in an election year, it is not worthy of office. The mandate of the government is for four years, not to sit tight and discuss things for three.
We needed a throne speech that would provide an agenda for action, and I hope the Prime Minister will give us his agenda for action this afternoon, in case we are misinterpreting the throne speech in some way. I hope he will give us a statement of priorities, a strong expression of the concerns of the federal government. Instead, it seems to be clear that the government intends to lead the house in discussion in the forthcoming year, according to the following statement:
... a systematic appraisal of Canadian society and of the basic principles that are to guide it.
How very elevating, but what a sour taste it must leave in the mouths of the poor, the underprivileged, the aged and the unemployed who have been waiting for the just society for 18 months and through two speeches from the throne. How sour a taste it must leave to be reassured now that the government is properly engaged in making sure that their telephones are not tapped. How disillusioning it must be to those, especially the young, who have been waiting for positive leadership and waiting for the government to develop the country physically and to develop our human resources.
There is not a word about over-all national development of our young and growing country. Of course, there is one statement in the Speech from the Throne, at page 10, to the effect that our resources are immense but they are not inexhaustible. The same might be said much more appropriately about the patience of the Canadian people. There is not a word expressing concern for the opportunity of Canadians to achieve an adequate education or attempt to ensure that financial resources are available to them. There is not a word regarding training opportunities for individual development. Instead, the following statement appears in the Speech from the Throne:
The government regard national progress and individual fulfillment as indivisible components of its mandate.
That statement should certainly blow the minds of the electors at the shopping centres in the next election.
October 24, 1969	COMMONS


George Harris Hees: To the barricades!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What a disappointment it must be to those who were inspired 18 months ago by the rhetoric regarding a new international commitment.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is not in his seat now because I would like to speak quite frankly about this matter. The statements on international affairs are so weak that they must have been written by the minister himself. I should like to quote the following statement from page 3 of the Speech from the Throne: "we will continue to be an active member of the United Nations".


Some hon. Members:: Hooray!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Who would have thought that the government's review of foreign policy would enable them to progress so far that they could make such a pregnant statement.
There is mention in the Speech from the Throne of the Canadian International Development Research Centre which was also mentioned in the last Speech from the Throne. Last year we could not get any clear idea about this project. All that was clear was that the government did not have a clear idea as to what it meant. I hope the idea is at least a little clearer in the minds of the government and that they will take an early opportunity to tell us about it. This is fine as far as it goes, but who are we trying to kid? What have we done recently of which we can be so proud? Now, we are going to tell other countries how to do it and how to go about it. We would be better received if, first of all, we developed a meaningful international development program of our own. Then, perhaps we could look other countries in the eye when we lecture them.


George Harris Hees: Such as France.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What recognition is there of the crisis in our cities? I have visited, as have others, areas in this country and parts of our cities that have been designated for urban renewal for years. For example, sections of the city of Toronto have been frozen for years and that city has been trying time after time to get a renewal development project accepted. What must be their reaction to the freeze in which urban renewal has been placed? What must be their reaction if they read the Speech from the Throne and saw that there was no real commitment in this area on the part of the government? What
DEBATES	29
The Address-Mr. Stanfield happened when the Prime Minister travelled in northern Ontario and was met by delegations asking to discuss their problems and the possible role of the federal government in solving them? A correspondent of the Toronto Star was present.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
He wrote on September 30:
A group of slightly nervous shipbuilding employees approached Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in a Fort William hotel lobby at the week-end with a brief that said their jobs are being wiped out. Trudeau's-
Pardon the lack of proper respect to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, but I am just quoting this as it reads.
Trudeau's jocular response as a former labour lawyer was:
"Oh, I used to write briefs like this."
The men were not particularly amused.
Like people in communities across Northern Ontario visited by the Prime Minister at the week-end they were getting the old Trudeau cold shower treatment.
When people brought him their problems, he turned them aside with grace and charm and usually gave them an engaging lecture on the philosophy of government.
They found a leader who gave the impression of having tried everything and who had a healthy scepticism about the possibilities of changing anything very much ...
For a man who, according to his words in Geraldton, came to power to solve the generation gap, he offered what sounded suspiciously like a circumscribed old man's vision of the role of government.
I am afraid, Sir, this is what the throne speech reflects to me.
Last year when someone pointed out that there was nothing in the Speech from the Throne, the excuse was given that there were a great many left-overs from the previous year with which we had to deal. This year the government put out two excuses in advance for lack of content in the speech. The first was that there were still last year's leftovers, and in fact some left over from the previous year, and the second excuse was that the government were not in a position to make any new plans until they got the economy under control.
Under control, indeed! Under control after the way they have mismanaged it for years?
In 1965, and again in 1967, the government encouraged inflation. In 1968 they allowed it to get out of control. When he brought down his budget a year ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) thought inflation was almost under control. Certainly, he assumed
30	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Stanfield the rate of increase would be far less than it turned out to be.
I notice the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) in his place in the House. It is almost two years since his department was introduced as the loyal watchdog for the Canadian consumers. As the watchdog has aged we have noticed, with some sadness, that it has no teeth and a very short leash.
What is happening today is what I tried to warn the House and the government against in the first speech that I made as a member of this House, and what I have warned against several times since then. They are trying to fight inflation by resorting to the deliberate creation of unemployment. May I again quote the distinguished correspondent of the Montreal Star, Mr. Wilson:
Mr. Trudeau is deeply conscious that inflation hurts people. His greatest present need is to answer, as honestly as possible, two related questions: whose inflation pains he is seeking to ease, those of the strong or the weak? Deliberately caused unemployment is an economic weapon that falls upon the weak. It may be necessary to view the government organization as a plant that periodically requires trimming. It is then necessary to recognize that the secateurs are slicing through human flesh and blood.
Let there be no doubt this winter where the responsibility lies for high unemployment. The government is encouraging unemployment because they allowed inflation to run away for two or three years, because they were unwilling to try for voluntary guidelines in prices and incomes until very late in the day. Indeed, there is no sign today that the members of the government are giving the Prices and Incomes Commission any adequate support. In fact, the government seems to be leaving that commission to sink or swim on its own. Indeed, I have seen no effort on the part of the government to try to mobilize the Canadian people to support in every way possible the efforts of the Prices and Incomes Commission to reach some agreement on restraint, and certainly there is not the slightest indication in the Speech from the Throne, or in the government's policies, that they are prepared in any way to temper the winds of austerity to the shorn lamb.
The poor people of this country are those presently affected by this kind of program. Surely, we have not reached the point in this country where we have to leave them to bear the brunt without coming to their assistance, and at the same time be able to maintain an effectively vigorous fight against inflation?
DEBATES	October 24, 1969
Some of the members of the government are now behaving as if they discovered inflation. They say they have discovered the need to fight against inflation. Let me emphasize again, as forcefully as I can how the government ignored inflation for so long. All I ask them to do now is to support the program of the Prices and Incomes Commission, and to bring some succour to those poor people in Canada, those unfortunates affected adversely by the government's programs and who are unable to help themselves. Surely, this is not beyond the capacity of the government or beyond the capacity of the country.
Now, I would like to turn to another aspect of the just society. Last week the Prime Minister launched an attack on separatists in Quebec, upon governments in Quebec, and upon the C.B.C. for, unwittingly at least, aiding the cause of separatism. Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister stresses the need for national understanding and the need for rallying the country in the cause of federalism, I am with him. I am sure all members of my party are with him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When he is fighting separatism in any part of Canada we are with him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When he is discouraging violence in any part of Canada we are with him and we will support him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When he emphasizes the probable economic damage to Quebec that is done by violence and an incipient threat of separatism, or at least by a good deal of talk about it, I agree with him. I think it is quite proper for him to bring this as forcefully as he can to the attention of any part of Canada that may be involved in this sort of thing-


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Where is the "but"?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am surprised to find such cynicism on the part of the amiable minister across the way. I am sorry if it embarrasses the government to have me praise the Prime Minister. Our purpose is to be helpful on this question, on the great question of the constitution and the great question of our ability to live satisfactorily together in Canada.
Some members of the government, including the Prime Minister, may feel they do not need our help, and that we have nothing to

October 24, 1969	COMMONS
contribute. But I do assure him that we are here to help, and he may need our help. I would suggest that he move promptly to establish the all-party parliamentary committee on this subject that we have recommended, on the ground that he would find it a help to him in his work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, there were one or two aspects of the Prime Minister's comments last week that disturbed me very greatly. Some would be satisfied to say that the Prime Minister attacked separatism, and we should leave it at that. In effect we should forget about the rest of what he said. Let us chalk it up to over-kill, or something like that, which one columnist defines as the Prime Minister's tendency to make dramatic utterances which are mere melodrama.
But with great respect, and I want to be very earnest about this, the Prime Minister of Canada cannot have the luxury of indulging in verbal over-kill. That would be just too dangerous. So, if the Prime Minister of Canada wants to try to defeat the present government of Quebec and elect a Liberal government in its place, that is up to him. I do not quarrel with that. Likewise, if he intends to try to throw Messrs. Drapeau and Saulnier out of Montreal City Hall, that too is up to him. The national leader of the Liberal party may do what he can to change the government at Quebec City and Montreal City Hall. But it is quite another thing for him to try to suggest that those governments are linked in some way with encouraging lawlessness directed against the federal government.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I quote the Prime Minister:
It is obvious in any society, that all the members of a given society are inter-dependent, that some of its members cannot, on the one hand, encourage lawlessness at the federal level and, on the other hand, preach respect for law and order on the provincial or municipal levels.
Who are the people who "preach respect for law and order on the provincial or municipal levels"? I presume they are the provincial and municipal authorities.
The Prime Minister's statement clearly suggests that he thinks people in positions of responsibility in Quebec City and Montreal "preach respect for law and order on the provincial or municipal level" and then "encourage lawlessness" at the federal level. What else can it mean? Why is it in the speech at all if it does not mean that?
DEBATES	31
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
There is no other explanation for these statements than an attempt, subtly or not so subtly, to tar people at both the provincial and Montreal City level with accusations of encouraging lawlesness directed at the federal government. I think that is going much too1 far.
May I refer to what the Prime Minister said about Radio Canada? The Prime Minister has evidently decided there may be something to the reports to the effect that separatists on the staff of Radio Canada are using' the network to disseminate separatist propaganda.
Now, where was he? Why did he remain silent when his colleague the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier)-and the President of the CBC-gave quite different assurances to Parliament and the parliamentary committee? I could read into the record a series of replies given by the Secretary of State dating back at least to October 16, 1968. On each and every occasion the Secretary of State did his very best to assure all of us that such fears were unfounded. When Miss LaMarsh quoted Mr. Ouimet on alleged separatist control of Radio Canada, the Secretary of State said on January 15, 1969:
I do not think there are grounds for such an accusation, and I believe it would be quite hard to prove it.
It would be interesting to know where the Secretary of State stands today. Has he changed his mind or does he continue to support the position taken by the President of the CBC?
On February 18, 1969, the President of the CBC made the following statement to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts:
The corporation is doing everything that it is reasonable and proper for it to do to maintain a proper degree of self-discipline within the corporation on this point. It is this objective that Mr. Picard and 1, and the management of the corporation, with the backing and support of our board of directors have set for ourselves so far as the abuse of the facilities of the corporation are concerned by persons employed by the CBC who, regardless of their political affiliations, try to make unfair use of the position in which they find themselves.
Some of us have difficulty in accepting those assurances. The Prime Minister, certainly, was silent despite the assurances of the Secretary of State. At his press conference on October 15 the Prime Minister did

October 24, 1969
The Address-Mr. Stanfield not exactly endorse the statement of Dr. Davidson and Mr. Picard when he said:
You know, we often complain that the CBC, especially the French network, is full of separatists and I daresay it is probably true judging by the results of it.
On Sunday night he gave a pat on the back to Messrs. Picard and Davidson and said they were doing a tremendous job. But he went on to make what to me was a very alarming statement on what would happen if they did not succeed:
We will assume our responsibilities as a government. We will close the shop. Don't think that we won't do it. If need be we can produce programs-
The people of Canada do not want their television or radio programs slanted toward separatism. There is no doubt about that. There is, and there has been, real concern about this. Neither do they want a state radio-tv network operated directly by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Nor do they like to hear threats from their Prime Minister, or anybody else speaking for the government, such as the statement, "If need be, we can produce programs."
Who? The Secretary of State? The Prime Minister? Or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), with his experience in broadcasting in his native province of Newfoundland? Are they going to run the network and produce the programs?


Some hon. Members:: They tried that
before.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My hon. friends can laugh about it, but it is a very serious matter.
What is meant by this talk about a government trusteeship to run the network? The Prime Minister said, if he will excuse my French:
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)

That is possible, yes, indeed. I cannot offer a definite date, but that is possible.

A government trusteeship! The present managers of the CBC are in the nature of trustees-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and they are responsible not to this government, but to this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Of course employees who would use the CBC to disseminate propaganda, including separatist propaganda-perhaps particularly separatist propaganda-should be fired. There is no question about that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But in all candour, let me say that we are not going to allow the right hon. gentleman and his political colleagues to decide who is deserving of being fired.
If there is going to be any firing, surely it is going to be done by due process, in a way that will make sure the innocent are protected and that the firing will be done by the responsible management. Let us cut out any incipient McCarthyism around here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We may be concerned about the CBC. A lot of people are concerned about it in this area of separatism and the undue attention given to the separatists. But we are not so hysterical that we are going to turn the CBC over to the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues to run or to control the programming.
We are already too well aware, those of us in opposition, of the tendency of the Prime Minister to caricature all of his opponents as extremists of one kind or another, to characterize them as "nobodies". We are not going to let him instal some kind of trusteeship which would make this network his own personal preserve or the preserve of his party.
The concern I wish to express is that we proceed, as we have always tried to proceed in this parliamentary democracy, with a regard for the protection of the innocent and with respect for due process. My concern is not diluted a bit-in fact it is strengthened- by the serious allegations made yesterday by Mr. Malcolm when he charged that subversive elements financed from abroad have infiltrated the Parti Quebecois and the CYC. It is said that Mr. Malcolm listed the names of 27 alleged subversives in a speech that sounded like a police file. I do not know where Mr. Malcolm got his information, but it only intensifies my concern with respect to these charges to the effect that there has been
October 24, 1969	COMMONS
serious infiltration. It also intensifies my concern in seeing that we proceed properly in this matter, but with due process.
When he appeared on the television program "Format Trente" on Monday night the Prime Minister was asked if he could document some of his assertions with regard to Radio Canada. It would have been easy to document them; instead, he contented himself with saying these words, and I ask you to excuse my French, Mr. Speaker.

Considering the nearly frantic approval I was given yesterday when I made this small, rather tame accusation, I would be tempted to say...
I was the first to be amazed at the indignation expressed by that crowd of 3,000 people for the CBC programs ...

In other words, "the crowd cheered; therefore I must be right." How far are we, sir, from sheer demagoguery? It is easier to excuse one outburst that may have been the result of atmosphere at a friendly dinner; but these statements began at a press conference on October 15, were continued in a speech on October 19, and elaborated upon in a television interview on October 20. Sir, we will certainly support proper efforts to ensure that separatists do not have influence in the CBC. But we will not support the Prime Minister in the threats he is making.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Without trying to match the Prime Minister for melodrama, I say that the whole performance should provide food for thought for those who are concerned, about ensuring that the authority of government is always exercised responsibly. The Prime Minister always has been a strong believer in the necessity for countervailing forces. No doubt one of these days very soon he will go out and try to redress the balance by making a militant speech about civil liberties. It will be a very gullible audience indeed that does not weigh his words against the illiberalism of some of his comments last week.
Sir, we must ensure that federalism in this country is worthy of victory. That must be our aim. A country like Canada needs strong, active and responsible government. That is why the country was created in the first place. That is the only way we will unite it now and keep it strong against the grave and difficult new problems beginning to unfold as well as the old problems with which we have been left.
DEBATES	33
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
Although the constitution is important, it is only part of the package. Equally critical is the determination of members of cabinet to give leadership by using the powers that already belong to the national government. The government does not lack the power to lead; it simply lacks the will. There is a lot that is wrong with the present government. But the single most serious fault is that deep down its members do not want to confront the real problems of the Canadian people. We cannot afford that attitude in Canada. There are too many problems, old and new, which can be met effectively only by strong federal leadership.
The traditional disparities in the country continue and grow ever more acute. They will be beaten only when the Government of Canada decides that we can no longer put up with whole groups of Canadians being trapped in poverty and with whole regions slipping farther behind adequate standards. On grounds of compassion and economics we must take these serious problems seriously; because if we do not they will create a new source of disunity and a new kind of crisis.

The authorities of Canadian cities where most new problems can be found cannot solve them on their own, especially with such limited resources. Problems raised by pollution, drugs, housing and transportation have such disastrous national repercussions that they threaten the survival of the country. There is a clear-cut national responsibility for a certain level of government to take these matters in hand and do so without delay. That is the essence of leadership.
The government of Canada must take direct interest in the country's economic growth; everything else depends on that. Our economy will not prosper on its own. There should be some agreement between the governments and private enterprise on the kind of development which we should seek and on the best programs to be carried out.
The national government alone can give that kind of fair and comprehensive leadership.

There are many forces, sir, that would tear this country apart. Some of them almost have. Our party is here to co-operate with the government in keeping this country together and in strengthening it. We will support measures brought forward that will attack directly the problems of the country and of
34	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Trudeau the people. But there is after all only one force that can hold Canada together and keep it strong. This national government is the one thing all Canadians share. It is the one force that can be effective in making the country effective. If it fails to anticipate new problems or to solve old problems, this country will be weak. There must be a genuine commitment for leadership from Ottawa and there is not one indication of that in the Speech from the Throne. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the following amendment to the address:
but we regret that the Speech from the Throne indicates it is the intention of the government to stall action for another year on policies to improve the living standards of large numbers of our people.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in congratulating most sincerely the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. It is always a pleasure to be able to draw to the attention of the people of Canada the high standard of their representatives in this place, a standard which is by no means confined to any single quarter in this House.
Both the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) belong to that large group of young and active members of this House who were first elected in 1968. They and their colleagues in all parties have brought with them a degree of freshness and vitality that has enhanced interest in parliament on the part of the electorate and in so doing has raised the stature of this institution. We are proud of today's performances and so, justifiably, should be the constituents of these two members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear..


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: These gentlemen are both lawyers. While both are newcomers to this place, each has a long record of distinguished service in community affairs which stood them well in the last election and which serves as a solid base for their contributions

DEBATES	Ociober 24, 1969
to this House. Both have displayed competence and diligence in their parliamentary activities and I am confident that hon. members will agree with me when I add that their contributions yesterday will serve as a fine introduction to this debate.
I wish as well, Mr. Speaker, to offer a word of congratulation to the Leader of the Opposition for his speech. He will excuse me, I know, if I do not praise his efforts with the same enthusiasm I have employed for the two members who preceded him. Nor will he expect me to follow his lead and invite this House and the country into a mood of deep despondency about every aspect of Canadian life, excluding perhaps the weather. I do thank the hon. gentleman, however, for his stated recognition that all parties come to parliament pledged to work in the best interests of the country. I hope that he will find that all of his criticisms have been commented upon before the conclusion of this debate. A number of ministers have indicated that they intend to participate during the coming days, which will permit hon. members opposite to receive detailed answers to the many questions which they will be raising.
The task of the opposition is to criticize and newspaper reports of remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition and some of his lieutenants reveal that their intention this session is to raise criticism to a new level. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that they were not referring to the noise level. I hope, too, that by criticism they mean a vigorous and searching inquiry of government activities and policies; an inquiry measured more in terms of depth than length. Possibly some of these news reports were unclear, but I have been left with the impression that the House of Commons might look forward to a struggle of the proportions of the Hundred Years War, perhaps fought in the night with knives.
However, after listening to the Leader of the Opposition this morning, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should change the simile. It is apparent that the Leader of the Opposition shares the traditional conservative view of government-that it should operate similar to a patron in a shooting gallery, firing away automatically as each target pops up, never giving a moment's thought to the mechanism which causes the targets to jump.
We intend, Mr. Speaker, to identify the root causes of the problems of poverty, of inflation and the like and aim at them. We make no apology that we are not shooting at random. If this is novel to hon. members opposite, I am not surprised. It is not evidence, however,
October 24, 1969	COMMONS
of any lack of compassion or interest in human beings. The record of the Liberal party is proof of that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and myself have had the opportunity to visit, this summer, several areas of Canada and to get acquainted, on the spot, with the problems of the people who live there. I am convinced that as a result, we are both better equipped to assess these problems and the advisability of the solutions which we intend to bring about. In fact, since the house adjourned, all hon. members went back to their respective ridings and have been able to travel all over Canada. We all have had new opportunities to realize the greatness of our country, the pride of our national spirit and the scope of our achievements. In short, we have been in a position to further discover the Canadian fact. We came back with the conviction that we are the citizens of a country which is not simply a northern extension of a foreign state, nor an historic accident, nor the result of the casual gathering of people of various origins. Quite the contrary, we constitute an homogeneous community, with a dynamic, a social organization and a future of its own.
During these last weeks, again we have seen and observed with pride the struggle of the Canadian people against a severe climate and a stubborn soil so as to became the masters of the riches promised to people who are at once industrious and perseverant.
On the other hand, we have noticed with an increasing concern some results of that struggle: the ruthless destruction of a landscape and the useless pollution of air and water. We were all able to assess the price that our society pays for the urban and industrial expansion which, too often, destroys the soul of our land, even though it increases our material welfare. Once again, we realize that an industrial growth, uncontrolled, is a source of danger.
Mr. Speaker, we are all determined, I am sure, to tolerate no longer the human sacrifices of comfort, health and efficiency which are forced upon us by an environment overcome by noise, noxious fumes and industrial waste.
We have all noticed, also, with great interest, the advantages and the benefits enjoyed in the economic field by a very great number
DEBATES	35
The Address-Mr. Trudeau of our fellow-citizens. But this could only emphasize in our opinion the sad situation of thousands of other Canadians who, because of circumstances over which they have no control, have to face serious financial difficulties. Those difficulties are numerous and manifold.
Here we have the Maritime fisherman, whose income has been scanty for so long that he could never get but a minimum of essential goods. There, we have the Prairie farmer whose competence and courage made him exceptionally successful and who could buy considerable amounts of land and machines; but he now is threatened with a total loss, because a sudden decrease of his income prevents him from meeting his financial commitments. Elsewhere again, the townsman who lives in a slum, unable to break out of the vicious circle in which he is kept by unemployment, illness and lack of education.
We cannot, nay, we must never give these people the impression that we regard programs, studies or laws as ends in themselves. Such measures have only a meaning if they bring relief to the people in want.
We must not think for instance that the very fact of living in a city allows to hope for economic miracles and that we can solve the problems of the farmers and of the fishermen simply by directing them towards different occupations in the urban centres.
It is beyond doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the population shift from the farms will go on at a constant rate, but this is no reason to agree with those who claim that rural life can no more profit to the country at large, nor to the citizens who have chosen this way of life. And that goes far beyond the simple question of economical effectiveness, even if that question remains extremely important. Thus, we should ask ourselves how we are going to meet the employment and other needs of men who, as landowners, were for many generations independent and self-sufficient people. We must also know what steps are being taken in cities in order to instil into the young people who came from rural areas an awareness of their responsibilities and usefulness, which they often acquired naturally in their native environment.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Lastly, it seems reasonable to ask ourselves whether we were not partially the cause of the present restlessness of the young people, by forcing upon them a social system that seems devoid of stimulants for the individual.
October 24, 1969

The Address-Mr. Trudeau
Thomas Huxley once said that the feeling of uselessness is the heaviest burden to be endured by our system.
No Canadian should be considered as a useless person; all citizens should have, on the economical and social plan, the opportunity of a full and fruitful life. Is that what we are offering them when we ask those farmers, who are also pedologists, botanists, mechanics, meteorologists and dealers, to leave their homes in order to settle down in areas where there is no demand for their particular skills? The Canadian farmers, by their sense of responsibility and their dignity, always represented one of the constitutive forces of this country. It would be unfair to under-estimate the contribution these men have made to our society. In some areas of Canada, the necessary transition should be brought about with great care. The federal government commits itself to do so and to respect, in this matter, the rights of all the citizens concerned. A legislation to improve the present situation of the wheat producers will be referred to Parliament for consideration in the course of the present session. Furthermore, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) will soon explain the various steps which have been and are now taken to prevent the return of such conditions.
In the course of last summer, Mr. Speaker, we have heard, again both with admiration and concern, young Canadians express criticism over the deficiencies of the social system we are offering them: this criticism had to do with the difficulties facing our native people; with a number of laws the enforcement of which is wronging those who are weak and ignorant; with an international community that accepts killing and destroying as the normal course of event and lastly, with parliamentary and government institutions that do not answer the needs of the Canadians as efficiently as they should. This criticism was not just made random, in a disorderly way; often it was voiced-and we welcome the fact-by political bodies the role of which is precisely, in a democratic society, to provide for the necessary changes. Every member of the house should take at heart to ensure the fruitful participation of our young people in the political life of our country.

This summer, too, we have all watched, even while accepting the optimistic forecasts of Canada's economic future, the debilitating effects of an inflation which has taken root in

all western countries and which no government individually has so far been able adequately to control. All hon. members have returned here with the determination to ease these problems and in so doing illustrate once again the important role which parliament plays in the life of Canada.
The leaders of the opposition parties have had much to say about the government's alleged failure to act in controlling spending. They have also had much to say every time we have acted. This kind of inconsistent, automatic criticism prompts me to remind them that the credibility gap is not a phenomenon peculiar only to other countries.
In addition to these activities which we have witnessed, Mr. Speaker, there have been some aspects of Canadian life which we have felt more than seen. Of these, the most evident, and undoubtedly the most important, is the spirit of tolerance and goodwill that is an invaluable Canadian characteristic. Canadians take for granted what so many persons elsewhere seek and envy: human relationships that, by and large, accept without question differences in colour or origin or language.
I stated on July 1 that we seldom reflect how fortunate we are in this country that there is a notable absence of bigotry and prejudice. Events of the past few weeks, however, have demonstrated that we cannot afford to assume smugly that these hateful characteristics are strangers to Canada and are always absent. Nevertheless, if all Canadians are not yet able to live in dignity, by far the greater number of those who are not able to do so suffer from indifference- not from hate; from neglect, not from prejudice. Not here do we find repression clothed in the guise of liberty, or violence tolerated in the name of law and order. This spirit of tolerance is our greatest gift, Mr. Speaker; we must cherish it and never take it for granted. Against it we can judge our stature as a country and as a people.
But tolerance is of benefit only if it remains a positive force. It is evil if it becomes an excuse for inaction or lack of care. Canadians must never become tolerant of poverty, of lawlessness, of suffering. Through their representatives in this place they must continue to make known their desire to share in the task of eliminating these evils, and we here must not flag in our attempts to find solutions.
Our primary responsibility, Mr. Speaker, is to the people of Canada. But the efforts of Parliament to produce a better life must not
October 24, 1969

be confined for the benefit solely of Canadians. In comparison with the daily lives of the great majority of humanity, Canadians are immensely fortunate, whether measured in terms of political rights, in terms of freedom from the fear of violence, or in terms of standard of living. By contrast, two thirds of mankind live in a state of perpetual misery and struggle, with per capita annual incomes measured in hundreds, not thousands, of dollars.
The world is now too small to permit such disparities to continue. Unless these differences are eliminated, the pressures on the rich nations will become so intense as to force them either to share in equal measure or to make decisions of frightening moral consequence. By the year 2000 the population of the world will be 7.5 billion, twice what it is today, and 80 per cent of these people will be living in the developing countries. There is no rational or moral justification for a lack of response now by Canada and other developed nations to their undeniable needs. In these respects we should be familiar with the alarming observation of Chateaubriand who wrote of a similar, but infinitely smaller, problem in Europe a century and a half ago. He stated:
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Try to convince the poor man, once he has learned to read and ceased to believe, once he has become as well informed as yourself, try to convince him that he must submit to every sort of privation, while his neighbour possesses a thousand times what he needs; in the last result you would have to kill him.
These	are sobering and frightening
thoughts. They explain the decision of Canada, at this time of austerity in most governmental programs, to increase the value of our foreign economic assistance budget and to create, after extensive planning and consultation with other countries, an International Development Research Centre which will be charged with the responsibility of improving the qualitative effect of Canadian and other aid projects. The Centre is an exciting concept; a recognition that accelerated economic growth is a complex task, and is deeply interrelated with problems of social development. I am sure all hon. members will agree that it is fitting that Canada, long among the most active of contributors to foreign aid-and this year the host to the 20th annual meeting of the Colombo Plan countries-should take a lead in this important respect. It must continue to be the responsibility of all of us here to ensure that 21362-4
The Address-Mr. Trudeau Canadians will understand the need, and support increasing expenditures, for developmental programs. In these respects, we share the pride of all the world in the important task performed so well for the World Bank by that distinguished Canadian, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. His commission and its report have brought honour to him and to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The breathtaking exploits which took man to the moon this summer emphasize the lack of success which has greeted efforts to overcome the much less exciting, but nevertheless much more difficult and important, task of resolving human differences on this planet. The tragic conflict in Nigeria continues, notwithstanding the efforts of African states and many countries outside of that continent to assist in its resolution. Canada makes no claim to possession of superior wisdom in matters of this kind; it bows to none, however, in its desire to relieve suffering and attain peace. In our efforts to lighten the humanitarian burden, Canadian officials in a number of countries have conducted and are conducting investigations, offering suggestions, advancing proposals; my personal representative has visited Africa twice to talk with Nigerian and other leaders and been to both London and Washington in this same pursuit; the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has been untiring in his travels and discussions-both he and I have held talks with the Secretary General of the United Nations. Canada has not been successful in bringing the war to a conclusion, and this the government regrets. Nor does it make any of us here less sad to know that several African leaders, including one who has recognized Biafra, have stated publicly that there is little if anything that Canada can usefully do in these respects-in addition to what it is doing-at this time while both sides remain intransigent in their basic attitudes and while the overwhelming majority of African states insist that this is a problem for Africans, not outsiders to solve.
The humanitarian consequences of this tragedy, however, are a burden for all mankind, not just Africa. Every child that starves in any part of Nigeria is a matter for the conscience of us all. Canada has been in the forefront in supplying food and relief materials to the International Committee of the Red Cross for distribution to civilians throughout Nigeria, on both sides of the fighting lines. Canadian government contributions amount to some $3 million; we are prepared to make
38	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Trudeau further funds available when once the delivery blockage is removed. If it is not quickly removed, we shall take other appropriate steps.
While struggling to bring some relief to the suffering peoples in Nigeria, Canada has at the same time been active in its attempts to avoid future situations where political differences might be employed to prevent adequate relief efforts. Canada proposed, and then cosponsored with Norway, three important measures to this end at the 21st International Red Cross Conference in Istanbul in September. A declaration of principles for international humanitarian relief to civilian populations in disaster situations was unanimously adopted. Two other resolutions were overwhelmingly carried. These are designed to produce international legal principles which will be supplementary to those now in effect in the four General Red Cross Conventions of 1949. They are intended to remove any doubts about responsibility for humanitarian assistance to victims of armed conflicts, whether these conflicts are of an international or a civil character. This was an important initiative, welcomed on all sides. It is another example of the quiet, persistent and often effective way in which Canada, through its skilled representatives abroad, discharges its responsibilities in the international community.
In still another variation of threats to innocent persons, this country will within a period of days have completed the formalities precedent to ratifying the Tokyo Conventions concerning hi-jacking of aircraft. Canada is also the co-sponsor of a resolution now before the United Nations concerning acts of piracy in the air.
The need for constant attention to man's foolishness in the name of pride, of honour, of vanity, must not be underestimated, Mr. Speaker. War, as the newspapers attest every day, is no stranger to this planet. In Nigeria, in the Middle East, in Viet Nam, it flickers and flares. Elsewhere, persons suffer and die as a result of military activities which are not described formally as "war". In southern Africa, and many other parts of the world, personal activities are restricted and human freedoms are confined by military and paramilitary activities. Any of these incidents, or others similar to them, could burst from their confines without notice, and envelop us all.
No single international activity, therefore, rates higher priority in the opinion of this government than the pursuit of effective arms

DEBATES	October 24, 1969
control and arms limitation agreements. Canada refuses to submit without protest to the present nuclear hegemony. It is deeply concerned at the failure of the important nuclear powers, the U.S.S.R., the U.S.A., China and France, so far to ratify the nonproliferation treaty, article VI of which binds parties to negotiate in good faith on measures leading to the cessation of the nuclear arms race, to nuclear disarmament, and to general and complete disarmament. At the same time that ratification is delayed, the development of multiple warhead rockets continues in two of these countries, a development that could make satellite inspection and verification of arms control agreements impossible. The world now stands at a crossroads which, if passed unwisely, could lead to the destruction of mankind. Canada pleads with both the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. quickly to begin their strategic arms limitation talks.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
In the course of negotiations at the United Nations 26 nation disarmament conference are two conventions, one intended to prevent the nuclearization of the seabed, and the other to control chemical and biological means of warfare. In these negotiations Canada is deeply and energetically involved, represented by some of its most talented public servants. We axe at the same time examining very carefully our own activities in research areas to ensure that we are not in any way contributing in an unintended fashion to a situation which all mankind properly regards as abhorrent. Canada is seeking in these studies and in these negotiations, as the world has sought and attained in other environments and for other purposes, international regimes for the protection and the advantage of all countries.
The threat to the human race is so real that we must not permit false reasoning to hinder us in our endeavours. If the application of out-of-date military strategies to alliances with old and trusted friends might lead not to the desired deterrent effect but instead to provocation and to obstacles to detente, then these strategies must be re-examined. In these instances it is the strategy, not the alliance, that worries Canada and we will not hesitate to suggest correctives with the same vigour that we contributed to the establishment of the alliance.
Membership in a community, Mr. Speaker, imposes-and properly-certain limitations on the activities of all members. For this reason, while not lowering our guard or abandoning
October 24, 1969	COMMONS
our proper interests, Canada must not appear to live by double standards. We cannot, at the same time that we are urging other countries to adhere to regimes designed for the orderly conduct of international activities, pursue policies inconsistent with that order simply because to do so in a given instance appears to be to our brief advantage. Law, be it municipal or international, is composed of restraints. If wisely construed they contribute to the freedom and the well-being of individuals and of states. Neither states nor individuals should feel free to pick and choose, to accept or reject, the laws that may for the moment be attractive to them.
It is in this mood that the government is studying its claims to the waters lying off the islands of the Arctic archipelago. To close off those waters and to deny passage to all foreign vessels in the name of Canadian sovereignty, as some commentators have suggested, would be as senseless as placing barriers across the entrances to Halifax and Vancouver harbours. We would certainly prove by those acts that we were masters in our own house, but at immense cost economically by denying shipping of importance to Canada. On the other hand, if we were to act in some misguided spirit of international philanthropy by declaring that all comers were welcome without let or hindrance, we would be acting in default of Canada's obligations not just to Canadians but to all the world.
In the Canadian Arctic are found the breeding grounds, sometimes the only breeding grounds, of many species of migratory birds. Bylot Island is the site of the nesting ground of the total population of the Greater Snow Goose. It is the site as well of the nesting colonies of some six million sea birds. Along 12 miles of the coast of Somerset Island are the nesting grounds of four million birds. Large numbers of air breathing mammals- whales, seals, walrus-inhabit the waters lying throughout the Canadian archipelago. The existence of these and other animals and birds is dependent upon an uncontaminated environment; an environment which only Canada can take the lead in protecting. The beneficiaries of this natural life are not only Canadians; they are all the peoples of the world.
For those reasons, I say in this place, Mr. Speaker, that Canada regards herself as responsible to all mankind for 'the peculiar 21362-4J
DEBATES	39
The Address-Mr. Trudeau ecological balance that now exists so precariously in the water, ice and land areas of the Arctic archipelago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We do not doubt for a moment that the rest of the world would find us at fault, and hold us liable, should we fail to ensure adequate protection of that environment from pollution or artificial deterioration. Canada will not permit this to happen, Mr. Speaker. It will not permit this to happen either in the name of freedom of the seas, or in the interests of economic development. We have viewed with dismay the abuse elsewhere of both these laudable principles and are determined not to bow in the Arctic to the pressures of any state. In saying this, we are aware of the difficulties faced in the past by other countries in controlling water pollution and marine destruction within their own jurisdictions.
Part of the heritage of this country, a part that is of increasing importance and value to us, is the purity of our water, the freshness of our air, and the extent of our living resources. For ourselves and for the world we must jealously guard these benefits. To do so is not chauvinism, it is an act of sanity in an increasingly irresponsible world. Canada will propose a policy of use of the Arctic waters which will be designed for environmental preservation. This will not be an intolerable interference with the activities of others; it will not be a restriction upon progress. This legislation we regard, and invite the world to regard, as a contribution to the long-term and sustained development of resources for economic and social progress.
We also invite the international community to join with us and support our initiative for a new concept, an international legal regime designed to ensure to human beings the right to live in a wholesome natural environment. In pursuit of this concept I shall be holding discussions shortly about this and other matters with the Secretary General of the United Nations. A combination of an international regime, and the exercise by the Canadian government of its own authority in the Canadian Arctic, will go some considerable distance to ensure that irreparable harm will not occur as a result of negligent or intentional conduct.
Canadian activities in the northern reaches of this continent have been far-flung but pronounced for many years, to the exclusion of the activities of any other government. The
40	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Trudeau Royal Canadian Mounted Police patrols and administers justice in these regions on land and ice, in the air and in the water. The Canadian Armed Forces carry out continuous surveillance activities; Canadian postal services, health services and communications networks criss-cross these territories to serve those who live and work there. Among these persons are the Canadian Eskimos, who pursue their food and conduct their activities over the icy wastes without heed to whether that ice is supported by land or by water. In all these activities, and in others, ranging from geophysical explorations to the distribution of family allowance cheques, Arctic North America has, for 450 years, progressively become the Canadian Arctic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members know that there is not now, nor is it conceivable that there will ever be, from any source, challenges to Canadian sovereignty on the mainland, in the islands, in the minerals lying in the continental shelf below the Arctic waters, or in our territorial seas. This happy situation is the result of quiet, consistent policies in the past on the part of all Canadian governments. The present government pledges to be equally consistent. Those policies will reflect Canada's proper interest not only in the preservation of the ecological balance which I have already mentioned, but as well in the economic development of the north, the security of Canada, and in our stature and reputation in the world community.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)

May I say again, Mr. Speaker, that the government is highly interested in what it considers to be the two most valuable assets of Canada: its human resources and its natural resources. The government faces every problem in terms of the administration and development of those resources. Our actions as well as our failings, during this mandate, will, I hope, be assessed in that light. I invite the hon. members to study the present legislative program in the same spirit.
I extend that invitation because I realize that daily decisions concerning immediate problems may often seem unpopular. It is inevitable, that, in a country as huge as Canada, with such varied interests as ours, Canadians should not always agree on what conclusions are reached, solutions are

DEBATES	October 24, 1969
proposed or priorities are established. Nevertheless, those conclusions, those solutions and those priorities will always, this I promise, be in harmony, over the long term, with certain principles.
First of all, we will never sacrifice, in the name of progress, a clean and healthy environment to industrial or commercial development.
Secondly, we will never allow, in the name of efficiency or social welfare, an omnipresent government to substitute itself to the right to privacy or to any other individual freedom.
Thirdly, we will not allow, in the name of freedom of speech, sectarianism to replace tolerance; violence, dialogue; discrimination, moderation.
Mr. Speaker, these principles should hardly give rise to a debate in the house. They are so self-evident that they are not likely to arouse interest. Paradoxically, however, it is precisely for this reason that they require constant attention on our part.
Clean environment, respect for privacy, tolerant attitudes, these are things that Canadians have long taken for granted as being a natural aspect of the happiness of living here. And yet, we run the risk of squandering our wealth if we do not take care of it. Often unknown to ourselves, we yield before the temptation of abuse. I would like to sum up what the government plans to do in order to goad the conscience of our citizens in these areas and what measures are needed to correct the habits of the past.
We intend to tackle the problem of environment, not only in the Northern regions but everywhere in Canada, by directing our efforts mainly to the two major sources of pollution: urbanization and the invasion of modem technology.
Urbanization is not by itself prejudicial to the environment, but inadequate planning and mismanagement may lead, in this respect, to disastrous results, such as unhealthy habitat, in particular. This government is fully aware of the costs and burdens that society bears at the present time for not having, in the past, succeeded in gradually solving the problems inherent to urban expansion. We pledge to remove these difficulties and to find solutions to these problems. The proposed amendments to the National Housing Act are another step in this direction.
The accelerated growth of our cities is not a transitory phenomenon, likely to disappear
October 24, 1969

in due time. We must not rely on that. On the other hand, there is no reason either to despair. Cities could very well offer an agreeable environment where work, pleasure and life itself could be satisfying. Why should Canadian cities, like those of some countries, be associated with the paralysing fear that the only mention of the word "city" never fails to inspire, because it has become synonymous with slums, noise, disease, crime and lack of educational and recreational facilities? It is our firm determination that Canadian cities get healthier and fully foster human activities.
The same technology that has produced real miracles in the field of communication and transport, as well as in the advance of applied sciences, remains however the most formidable enemy of a safe biosphere. It is no longer possible from now on to escape the unhealthy consequences of a defective destruction of industrial and domestic wastage and the incomplete combustion of residual products. Nature has shown an astonishing capacity for adjustment and reproduction which is not however unlimited. During the course of evolution, many forms of life have disappeared, because they were unable to adjust to survival conditions or to find a proper environment. Their capacity for adjustment was too slow to lead to a biological transformation in accordance with current requirements. The ingenuity and the pre-eminence of man gave rise however to the illusion that he can remain invulnerable to the effect of those natural laws. However, nothing indicates that mankind can elude the risk of extinction.
Indeed, he has too often used the resources provided by his intelligence and his instinct not so much to accept the challenges confronting him as to challenge his own survival. In so doing he threatens not only his own species but also the whole life on our planet.
The present government is firmly determined that no such acts of madness will be allowed to go on indefinitely, at least in Canada. Together with the aforesaid legislation concerning the protection of the Arctic regions, we shall, in the course of this session, introduce a new bill on Canadian waters to prevent pollution of lakes and rivers, as well as a bill governing the operation of appliances that emit radiations. As we have already indicated this year, a study is being conducted at the present time on the risks involved in car and truck exhaust fumes and on means to correct the situation.
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
All these measures tend to develop the environment where Canadians work and live. Even if such an environment became idyllic, there still would remain a very important task to perform, a task that will never be completed: guarantee to every citizen a life protected against any undue intervention. The growing influence of large undertakings, of big unions, of a powerful government and of large cities will leave us no respite in that connection. Unemployment is an insult to human dignity, and so is an impersonal welfare system. It is also an indignity to provide insufficient protection to our citizens against criminal activities. Every Canadian should feel proud of himself in the presence of his children and his neighbours and he should be able to rely on every level of the government in this respect. Canadian society does not have an overflow of skills; we cannot therefore afford to waste the smallest contribution that each individual can bring to the country. Our history books are unfortunately teeming with cases where, through misunderstandings brave men have seen their designs fall through, simply because they were thought to be non-conformists and because they refused to share in the ideas and beliefs of the community. We cannot accept a perpetuation of social conditions which push some frustrated and powerless men towards the marginal areas of the law, and sometimes even beyond. Our human resources in this country are not so rich that we can say to anyone that we have no answer to his needs and no solution to his problems.
In short, Mr. Speaker, in this time of research and of change, we must see to it that technological progress does not crush the individual. Our country has traditions of individual liberties and deeds which do not allow us to forget that the denial of one single person's rights denies the rights of each and everyone of us. The action that the government has taken, and that it will take during this session in the legal field, answer to the rightful demands from all the people who feel concerned by the matter. The huge report of the Ouimet Commission on the penal reform is being carefully studied. The minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has had lengthy discussions with the respresentatives of the legal world about the amendments he intended to bring to the Criminal Code as regards bail and electronic eavesdropping.
A bill to institute a committee for the reform of the law will be introduced during this session, so that the federal acts, and the scope of their provisions, should constantly be
42	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Trudeau subjected to the scrutiny and analysis of legal authorities.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, these innovations and reforms in the area of criminal law are in some cases overdue. Many of them are in response to demands which have been voiced in an inarticulate but nevertheless sincere fashion by Canadians, young and old, in all walks of life. All of them reflect governmental sensitivity to, and an attempt to understand and rectify, the underlying social causes of crime and disorder. Not surprisingly, their very novelty makes them offensive to some. But their existence on the statute books of Canada is proof that this country is responsive to the needs for social change and is committed to an atmosphere of freedom. It is important that this be understood by every one in Canada, Mr. Speaker.
Canadians should know that this government will control and restrict within its competence any state activity which interferes unduly with individual liberty. We continue to believe that a constitutionally entrenched charter of human rights of the sort proposed last year will serve as a solid base of human values. In these areas of civil liberties no government in the world is more sympathetic nor more active.
I say this, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize that 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. There may be some places in the world where the law is so inflexible and so insensitive as to prompt such beliefs. But Canada is not the place. 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.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I say to them that the law enforcement agencies in this country are instruments of government. They are responsible to government and answerable for their activities. This being so I emphasize that unlawful acts of violence perpetrated for any reason will be regarded by this government as without excuse and not to be condoned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

DEBATES	October 24, 1969


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This government has no intention of bending before any real or pretended backlash to so-called "soft" criminal laws. We are not prepared to back into an authoritarian era because of the activities of a small number of criminally inclined persons. But under no circumstances are we going to permit these same persons to assume that this society will tolerate their criminal activities.
We intend to ensure that the laws parliament passes are worthy of respect, and intend to use our powers to ensure that those laws are respected.
Lest these self-styled Robin Hoods, revolutionaries and romantics have any doubts about the results of their activities let them be told that anarchy is a two-way street; that in a jungle community there is no dispensation for the property or the lives of hoodlums and thugs, or of so-called activists parading in the guise of taxi drivers or students; none either for their loved ones, or for any other member of the community. In the absence of respect for the law, we all stand naked and vulnerable.
I am told that centuries ago this point was vividly, if cruelly, made known to their subjects by some wise rulers in ancient Persia. As a dramatic illustration of the advantages of order, periods of anarchy were on occasion permitted.
Those who disrespect legal processes expose themselves to still another danger, the danger that law abiding elements in society will, out of anger for those incidents and out of fear for their own safety, harden their attitudes and refuse to accommodate any changes or remedy any shortcomings. The former Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Ramsey Clark, explained this reaction, in American terms, in these words:
Fear may have been a good instinct for cavemen; it may have kept them alive. But in our time, it's terribly dangerous. When you're afraid, you lose all compassion for other people. Fear deprives you of the very concern that is essential to remove the cause of that fear. Frightened, you fail to fulfil the obligations of a compassionate and just people-to educate and employ and house and give help to the poor. Finally, fear deprives you of any concern for justice itself. Frightened, you want to shoot looters, to arrest without cause, to hold without bail, to force confessions.
Mr. Speaker, I ask those persons who make bombs, who deny the peaceful exchange of ideas, who are unwilling to accept the decisions of authorized arbitrators, if these are the results they seek, and if they consciously
October 24, 1969	COMMONS
desire society to descend this spiral to destruction?
We in this House, as representatives of political parties, bear a heavy responsibility in these respects. We must not relinquish the burden which rests on our parties to offer to all Canadians acceptable vehicles for their political activities. If we do not provide proof of the vitality of the democratic process we shall have failed our responsibilities and proved to the critics that the system is indeed at fault.
I wish to add on behalf of the Liberal party, Mr. Speaker, that we accept that challenge; that we intend, in the future as in the past, to be the voice of change; that we shall not foresake our role as advocate of the great main-stream of Canadians; that we intend to listen, to understand, to respond, and to lead.
This Canada of ours is a bold experiment, an experiment that must continue on orderly lines as it has in the past. But order is not stagnation. Orderly change need not lead to any less imaginative or desirable results than would the plans of those who press for precipitate reform.
Bold plans are no less bold because they are thoughtfully conceived. Broad change is no less broad because it is carefully designed.
Orderly change will permit us to retain our sense of direction, our unity, and our diversity. Our unity must be of commitment to a better Canada, a Canada in which all the diversities which give us strength flourish for our betterment, a Canada in which the dignity and worth of every individual are perfected, where each person is given an equality of opportunity which is real, unfettered by disease or ignorance or poverty, a Canada which exists as a free country in a world where freedom and peace are the norm, and not an elusive target.
I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that every member of this house shares these goals. Our differences are only in the means of attaining them, in assessment of priority, in judgment of the rate of achievement. This institution of parliament is designed to resolve those differences. I look forward, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure do the leaders of all the Opposition parties, and all hon. members, to a productive and effective session, one which will bring deserved repute to this House and will contribute to our common goal of a better Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
DEBATES	43
The Address-Mr. T. C. Douglas
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) on their very commendable speeches in moving and seconding the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Theirs was not an easy task, because it is somewhat difficult to make bricks without straw. One of my colleagues has described the Speech from the Throne by saying it ought to be called the spare ribs speech-a lot of bones and not much meat.


Mr. Mackasey:: Like a lot of the ham we are having right now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Now we are getting from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) the boloney he usually slices so thickly.


Gerald William Baldwin: This is a meatless Friday.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Speech from the Throne, like the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon, is filled with pious hopes and good intentions. No one can quarrel with the sentiments of high public morality which have just been outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). However, I think the Canadian people will be disappointed in the Speech from the Throne and in the speech to which we have just listened, because for over a year they have been expecting that the government would outline its blueprint for the just society, and most people believe that the just society means more than legal justice.
Of course we want legislation which will control wire-tapping, will deal with detention before bail and see that every person has fair and equal treatment before the law. Those are things that members of this party have been advocating for years. It is regrettable that a Liberal government which has been in office for over six years is only now getting around to dealing with those problems. A just society involves more than legal justice. Surely a just society also means social justice and economic justice. However, the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon were extremely vague and evasive about what the government intends to do in order to provide greater social equality and greater economic opportunity for the people of this country.
In the whole Speech from the Throne there is not a word about unemployment. The
October 24, 1969

The Address-Mr. T. C. Douglas Prime Minister said that there is indignity in a man being out of work. There certainly is. There is not only indignity; there is want for him and his family. What is there in the Speech from the Throne that offers any hope that unemployment will diminish rather than continue to increase? Neither is there a word in the Speech from the Throne about the acceleration in the take-over of the Canadian economy by foreign investors, particularly American investors, which is one of the most pressing problems facing this country. The Speech from the Throne is silent in this regard, and the Prime Minister has not said anything on the subject. What happened to the Canada Development Corporation, which has been at the masthead of every Speech from the Throne brought down by the Liberal party since 1963?


An hon. Member:: They did not even bother with it this time.
Another hon. Member: It fell overboard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This time it has gone with the wind. The Speech from the Throne says that the most pressing problem facing this country is inflation. I think most Canadians would agree with that. It says that the government has taken certain measures to combat inflation, which it hopes other sectors of the economy will emulate. I say, Heaven forbid! The first point I want to make in these remarks, Mr. Speaker, is that the policies followed by the government to combat inflation have been a ghastly, colossal failure.
The government's solutions to the problem have been four-fold: First, to create further unemployment; second, to cut back government expenditures; third, to fire civil servants; fourth, to impose a program of income restraint on pensioners, veterans and welfare recipients. This means, of course, that those who have been hardest hit by inflation are to be the first victims of the government's efforts to combat inflation. These efforts have not only failed to cure our economic ills, but they could conceivably trigger a serious economic recession this winter with unemployment reaching anywhere from 6 per cent to 9 per cent of the labour force.
The government has accepted the theory that the best way to combat inflation is to create more unemployment. This is an extension of the policy contained in the June budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). It is simply a carry-on of the policy of his predecessor, namely, that the government


should create additional slack in the economy. Unemployment has been rising steadily since 1965. It now stands at 5 per cent of the labour force, on a seasonally adjusted basis. The September unemployment rate is the highest since 1963. The government's policies, far from resolving our economic difficulties, will cause further suffering and hardship while at the same time having little or no effect on rising living costs.
The Economic Council of Canada, in its Sixth Annual Review, warned the government of the dangerous course it is pursuing in these words:
Further fiscal and monetary restraint conceivably could result simply in higher rates of unemployment and economic slack, with no more than marginal effects on current rates of increase in prices and costs.
The Council points out that since 1967 the Canadian economy has been operating with a significant margin of economic slack, as shown by the present high level of 5 per cent unemployment, seasonally adjusted. The Council also said:
With unemployment in the range of 4 per cent to 5 per cent... it is difficult to argue that excessive general demand pressure has contributed to inflationary conditions.
[DOT] (3.10 p.m.)
However, the government continues with an anti-inflationary policy based entirely on this false premise. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the government is using the wrong economic tool to do the wrong thing at the wrong time. Fiscal policy may be a powerful tool in controlling employment, but it is limited as a technique for controlling prices. Reduced federal spending means lower aggregate demand, lower output and lower employment. In seeking an answer to inflation the government is flirting with an economic recession. This inept cure could be worse than the disease. The first casualties in the war against inflation are the very people who are hardest hit.
One must agree with the Economic Council's contention that much of Canada's inflation is imported from the United States as a result of the Viet Nam war. Therefore, restrictive measures will do little to suppress demand; they will have the effect of causing further unemployment without doing much to attain price stability. Economic indicators already show a slackening in United States economic activity. Paul McCracken, Chairman of the United States Council of Economic Advisers, foresees anti-inflationary pressures taking hold late this year or early in 1970.
October 24, 1969

There is a distinct possibility that the Canadian government's austerity program could result in an economic over-kill that would cause a slowdown of our long-term economic growth, which is so essential to increased production and full employment. There are some indications that this is already happening. The latest Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures show that in the second quarter of this year there was a drop in output of one-fifth of one per cent, compared with the 1.8 per cent increase in the first quarter of 1969 and the 2.7 per cent increase in the last quarter of 1968. Industrial production for August shows a decline of 1.6 per cent when compared with the figures for the previous month.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the government's policy of creating slack in the economy is based on the erroneous theory that inflation in this country is the result of too much money chasing too few goods. There is certainly no lack of goods, and very large sections of the Canadian people are certainly not embarrassed with too much money. The government may have in mind our corporations whose profits in 1968 increased by 20 per cent. But for the old age pensioners, the veterans, the farmers and the fishermen of this country, an abundance of money has certainly not been a problem.
Inflation in this country has been aggravated by an unequal distribution of income and a misallocation of our resources. Far from rectifying the situation, the government's program of restraint will only widen the gap between various income groups, accentuate the unjust distribution of income and impose an unacceptable degree of suffering on that section of the Canadian people least able to bear it.
Second, I suggest that the government's policies to combat inflation are not only a colossal failure but are grossly unfair. The burden of the fight against inflation has been placed entirely on the public sector, while the private sector remains completely unrestricted.
In its attempt to contain inflation the government is cutting back on essential community services. Funds for public housing, urban renewal, winter works, pollution control, drug control and research, salmon spawning projects and hospital construction have been severely restricted. At the same time the commercial sector of our economy has increased its capital expenditures for this year, over 1968, by more than $281 million. Expenditures in this area amounted to almost $1.5 billion last year. A substantial portion of this amount
The Address-Mr. T. C. Douglas was spent on the construction of prestige office buildings, chain stores, movie theatres and hotels. We maintain that if restraints are needed, surely it would be more sensible to space out postponable private investment and give priority to essential community services such as schools, hospitals, housing, urban renewal and pollution control facilities. The government keeps talking about establishing priorities, but restraints have been imposed without any regard for the social priorities and the needs of the Canadian people.
For example, when medicare is being introduced, hospital construction grants are being discontinued. Health resource grants have been frozen at a ridiculously low figure while supermarkets, prestige office buildings and gas stations proliferate. Apparently the government is prepared to allow the private sector to use our available resources on the basis of profitability, while essential public services are restricted in the name of austerity. The cities of Canada are being extremely hard hit by the government's decision to cut federal expenditures. The growing urban crisis has been left to smoulder and wreak its inevitable havoc in individual despair and social tension. The Economic Council of Canada warned the government of a major housing crisis and urged it to take action in these words:
. .. major new initiatives to cope with the problems in the housing industry are urgently needed if Canadians are to be well housed in the future at reasonable prices.
In spite of this warning, the minister responsible for housing announces that he has no further funds for public housing or urban renewal this year. It is increasingly evident that the free play of market forces cannot solve the housing problems of the low income and middle income families. For these groups the government's decision to freeze public funds for housing means higher rent, poor accommodation and too large a share of their income being expended in obtaining shelter.
Nothing illustrates the governments' schizophrenia better than the announcement of the minister responsible for pollution control, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang), to the effect that the municipalities should apply to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for assistance. At the same time the minister responsible for Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras), indicates that no money is available and advises the municipalities not to send in their applications this year.


John Gilbert: Shame.
46	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. T. C. Douglas


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: While the private sector continues to operate on a "business as usual" basis, the government's austerity program is hurting the economy and creating hardship for whole sections of the Canadian people. Allow me to cite one or two examples, Mr. Speaker. The fisheries services are being cut at a time when the fishing industry faces a crisis. The salmon catch in British Columbia has this year been only a little better than half that of last year. This situation calls for the hiring of more biologists and the expansion of our biological stations. Instead, these are being severely curtailed. The situation is further aggravated by the government's new licensing program. Under phase 1 of this program 1,000 vessels from the B.C. salmon fleet were eliminated last year, and 2,500 vessels will be eliminated this year. The Minister of Fisheries is quoted in the Vancouver Sun of September 4, 1969, as saying:
We are moving towards a commercial salmon fleet manned by professional fishermen.
I suggest that if the minister's policies are continued we will be moving toward the day when most of the salmon fleet will be owned by the fish-handling companies and the independent commercial fisherman will be out of business. Consider the problem of western Canada, which is facing its greatest economic crisis since the 1930's. The sole contribution of the government to solve this crisis has been to increase the amount of money which the farmer can borrow on his farm-stored grain. The government's austerity program has left the prairie farmers in a distressing condition and the prairie economy in a state of disarray. However, no group has suffered more from the effect of rising prices than the old age pensioners and the recipients of veterans allowances. The old age pensioners have an increase this year of $1.58 a month, which is supposed to represent 2 per cent of their income, but in the meantime the cost of living has risen by 5 per cent. The recipients of veterans allowance have received no increase at all. The government continues to evade its responsibilities with respect to this group. The government's austerity program means that these groups, who have suffered so much already from rising living costs, can expect no help whatsoever as long as the government maintains its austerity program at their expense.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The government has over the years talked about a war on poverty. This is the war that 
DEBATES	October 24, 1969
never began. It is a war which poverty is winning by default. Almost two-fifths of our population live below the line of deprivation, and one-fifth are below the poverty line. The plight of our Indian, Eskimo and Metis people cries out for compassionate and humanitarian policies. The conditions on some of our Indian reserves beggar description; they are a national disgrace. The government uses its austerity program as an excuse for doing nothing. Even worse, it uses inflation as a cover for imposing reactionary programs that are reminiscent of Herbert Hoover.
The government will have great difficulty in persuading the Canadian people that it cannot cope with the problems of poverty, because it did not have difficulty finding $17 million with which to refit the Bonaventure before it went into mothballs. The government had no difficulty finding $49 million for the hydrofoil, and $80 million for the automobile industry. Now we read that Union Station in Ottawa, which is to be demolished in a few years, is to have $600,000 spent on it. My guess is that it will probably be over $1 million. It is being renovated for federal-provincial conferences. Is this the government's idea of social priorities? Is this how the Prime Minister puts into effect all the fine, moral precepts which he enunciated this afternoon? Emerson once said, "What you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you say".
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, our civil servants have been made the villains and the scapegoats of the government's fight against inflation. No intelligent person will object to staff reductions on the basis of efficiency. However, the present cuts in staff mean that the civil service has been largely overstaffed, or essential services are being cut. The government should tell us which is the reason. The government's treatment of civil servants makes a mockery of collective bargaining. In essence, the government has said that any increase in salaries must be compensated by a reduction in staff.
At a meeting at Mount Gabriel Lodge in June of 1968, between Treasury Board officials, deputy ministers, heads of crown corporations, etc., guidelines were established for civil service collective bargaining, and they have been rigorously applied. We in this party contend that if there are to be government guidelines, they ought to apply to both public and private sectors and to all forms of income such as profit, rent, interest, capital gains and dividend payments. They should not be imposed solely upon the wages and salaries of civil servants.
October 24, 1969	COMMONS
It is doubtful whether any employer in Canada would treat his employees more callously than has the federal government. This is particularly true of the provision that the first to be fired are those 60 years of age and over. If private employers take a leaf out of the government's book there will be troubled days ahead for Canada. There have been some significant omissions in the government's policy of cutting staff. For instance, the Prime Minister's office staff is twice as large as that of his predecessor and costs $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) when he was Prime Minister of Canada. The number of elite advisers to the government has reached the astronomical figure of 117, at a cost of $1.5 million.
The Prime Minister has now added two more Ministers without Portfolio, making a total of five Ministers without Portfolio. I do not know why we need more Ministers without Portfolio, unless it is to give regional representation, a reward for services rendered or the Prime Minister feels that some of the ministers he has are not capable of doing the job they have had assigned to them. This is the largest cabinet in Canadian history. No one would object to that if they were doing anything worth while, but when the government is cutting staff and reducing essential public services these additions to the cabinet make a farce of the government's appeals to the public for austerity.
Before I go on with my next point, Mr. Speaker, I want to move an amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"who are suffering from rising unemployment, lower prices for primary products, and the curtailment of essential public services brought on by the government's misguided anti-inflation policies."
I will now turn to what we in this party believe to be the realistic and effective measures which must be taken in order to cope with the problem of inflation. We say, first, that Canada must attain a greater measure of economic independence. Much of our inflation has come from the United States and arises from the war in Viet Nam. Mr. Smith, the Chairman of the Economic Council, made that clear in his evidence before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Professor Watkins, who wrote the
DEBATES	47
The Address-Mr. T. C. Douglas report on foreign ownership for the government, put it much more succinctly when he said that not only have we lost the capacity to create economic growth in Canada, but the capacity of the Canadian government to create jobs and to control inflation is negligible. The Prime Minister's statement that we have only a 15 per cent marginal economy indicates the extent to which we are dominated and controlled by economic decisions made in the United States.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
It is increasingly apparent that Canada must have a greater measure of economic independence if we are to pursue policies which will promote economic growth, provide full employment and assure a larger measure of price stability. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the take-over of Canadian industry by United States corporations is accelerating at an alarming rate. In July, 1969, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs reported the following figures in connection with foreign take-overs in Canada: In 1963 there were 43 take-overs; in 1964 there were 96; in 1965 there were 83; in 1966 there were 87; in 1967 there were 90, and in 1968 there were 174. We contend that immediate action is required to reverse this trend, one that is eroding Canada's economic independence and preventing us from having the manoeuvrability which is so essential if we are to have a greater measure of control over our economic affairs.
We suggest there are a number of steps to be taken in this direction. First, we think that Canada should move toward establishing a floating exchange rate. This would give us a greater degree of flexibility in pursuing a monetary policy that is more appropriate to our needs. Second, we contend that there should be full disclosure by all large companies, both public and private, of the real source of ownership. Third, there should be legislation to prohibit foreign ownership in key sectors of our economy, as has already been done in the case of banks and the news media. There should be stronger anti-American combines legislation to inhibit foreign mergers, and there should be a take-over tax to restrain the absorption of Canadian businesses by foreign investors. Fourth, we believe we must establish a Canadian commercial corporation, as recommended by the Watkins Commission, to ensure that the goods produced in Canada can be sold on world markets without running afoul of the Trading with the Enemy Act in the United States.
October 24, 1969

The Address-Mr. T. C. Douglas Fifth, we must establish a Canada development corporation, publicly owned and controlled, for the purpose of directing Canadian capital into the development and expansion of Canadian industries.
The second measure we must take, in addition to getting greater Canadian economic independence, is the revision of Canada's tax structure so as to tax all forms of income on a basis of equity. The Carter Report, which was brought down in 1966, has not been acted upon. The government has repeatedly promised a white paper; we are still waiting for it. The latest date offered us is November 7.
I suggest that the Canadian people are prepared to support vital and essential public services provided the cost is borne fairly and equitably by all sections of the population. The Canadian people will not condone having an unfair share of the tax burden fall upon the middle income and lower income groups, while privileged sectors of the economy are allowed to evade their full responsibilities, as has been shown to be the case by the Carter Report.
Third, the government must step up its program to eliminate poverty and to remove regional economic disparity. A start has been made by the government in its program for regional economic development. I am glad to see from the Speech from the Throne that this is one program to which they propose to grant more money. This program, however, must be supplemented by other programs to help those who are below the poverty line, particularly the old age pensioners, veterans and other low income groups. To this end we will be pressing for the establishment of a guaranteed annual income, which in the long run is the only final solution.
Fourth, we believe that special programs must be set afoot to deal with the plight of the Indians, the Eskimos and the Metis. Canada has the productive capacity to create the wealth necessary to help the underprivileged. The economic slack from which we are suffering today represents the loss of several billion dollars a year in potential wealth production. This is why economic growth and full employment are so essential to a prosperous and united Canada. We also believe that housing, urban renewal and pollution control must be given high priority. Improving the environment of Canadians is the major task confronting this government, and a sufficiently large share of our national output must be directed to this end. Fifth, the government must tackle the problem of 
administered prices. Today at least two-thirds of our prices are no longer responsive to the law of supply and demand but are under the control of monopolies and quasi-monopolies which set their own prices with little regard to the marketplace.
We had a very good example today of how much the government is concerned with this problem. The Steel Company of Canada announced a 6 per cent increase in steel prices. When I asked the Prime Minister about it, he said, "We have no authority to look into wages". We are not talking about wages; we are talking about prices. Is the Prime Minister implying that the increase in the price of steel is due to the increase in wages? This is why we want an investigation.
Mr. William Mahoney, the Canadian director of the United Steel Workers of America, contends that wage increases can be completely met out of the improvement in productivity in the steel industry. I contend that if the government were doing its job it would immediately investigate this increase in the price of steel. If the contention of the steelworkers is correct, namely, that then-increased wages can be met completely out of increased productivity, this government has the obligation to require the steel industry to roll prices back to their former figure.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we maintain that Canada must take a much more independent stand on foreign affairs. Our increasing economic dependency on the United States has unfortunately led to political dependency and acquiescence. Let me give some examples. First of all, the ABM system. On March 19 last, as reported at page 6853 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
If, Mr. Speaker, after receiving all the information, we are led to the view that the ABM system constitutes escalation and is conducive to greater peril for mankind, then we shall condemn it. We shall tell the United States that we disapprove. If, on the other hand, we are convinced that the ABM system is necessary though regrettable as a move by the United States, then we shall have to decide whether or not we shall participate in the operation of that system.
e (3:40 p.m.)
The ABM system was hotly debated in Congress. It was finally passed in the Senate by a majority of only one, and was made law by the President of the United States. But during all that discussion the Prime Minister was silent. The proximity to the Canadian border of two of these bases can affect the lives of Canadian citizens. The escalation of the nuclear arms race could affect the survival of the human race, yet the Prime Minister
October 24, 1969

remains silent. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to speak today in glowing terms of the survival of mankind. The time to speak out was when the whole question of the ABM system was being debated. The Prime Minister said that if the government disagreed with the system, we would condemn it and tell the United States government we disapproved of it. What has the government done? Has it condemned it? Has the government approved it, or is it merely remaining silent and acquiescing?
Another example arises directly out of the ABM system, namely, the nuclear tests at Amchitka in the Aleutians. These tests were announced many months ago but not until September 19 did the government get around to sending a note to Washington. When it did, it was such a mealy-mouthed statement that there was little hope anybody would pay any attention to it.
Two more tests of much greater magnitude are planned. What action does the government propose to take? I suggest to the Prime Minister that after all his fine words today and his expressions of hope for the abolition of nuclear armaments, he has a responsibility to tell this house, the country and the United States the stand we are going to take in respect of the two further increased magnitude tests which will be taking place at Amchitka-and to do so before the installations are in place or preparations even begin.
Another example of our acquiescence in respect of international policies concerns the question of sovereignty over Arctic waters. The discovery of large reservoirs of oil in the Arctic means that this area is now up for grabs, and that countries which looked upon it as a few thousand acres of snow and ice have now become very interested in the area. Canada is in danger of losing its sovereignty and ownership of those Arctic waters by default and by its failure to assert its basic rights. There can be no doubt about our rights.
Mr. Ivan Head, who is one of the Prime Minister's advisers, wrote of our Arctic waters a few years ago:
-surrounded on all sides by Canadian territory they possess the character of Canadian waters.
Maxwell Cohen, dean of the law school at McGill University, points out that on the basis of the Norwegian fisheries case, decided by the International Court of Justice in 1951, Canada has a just claim to the Arctic waters as being internal waters, though subject to peaceful navigation rights from one part of
The Address-Mr. T. C. Douglas the high seas to the other. Dean Cohen further points out that since 1958 the world has generally accepted the right of a coastal state to have exclusive jurisdiction over the continental shelf that extends seaward-


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I thank the house for its kindness and I shall not trespass on hon. member's patience much longer. I am just about finished. Dean Cohen has pointed out that since 1958 the world has generally accepted the right of a coastal state to have exclusive jurisdiction over the continental shelf that extends seaward from the mainland to an average depth of 600 feet.
Canadians have no desire to deny peaceful passage through the Arctic waters. However, any mishap to oil tankers passing through these waters could create serious pollution problems. If we are to be the victims of any mishap, surely we are entitled to exercise proper control of these waters. To do this Canada should assert its sovereignty, lest its silence be construed as indifference.
The Prime Minister said this afternoon that legislation would be introduced in respect of the pollution of Arctic waters. We will know better, when we see the legislation, how far Canada intends to extend its sovereignty. The fact remains that a few weeks ago the Manhattan sailed through these waters with instructions from Washington not to fly the Canadian flag. This indicates that our great neighbour to the south is questioning Canada's jurisdiction in that area. It is time the government and this House of Commons-indeed this entire parliament-made its position clear not only to the Canadian people but to the nations of the world. Let me close by saying that the failure of the government to deal vigorously with some of the most pressing social and economic problems facing the Canadian people requires most vigorous action by the parties in opposition.
We listened this afternoon to the very eloquent statements made by the Prime Minister as he delineated the plight of people in various sections of Canada; but we listened in vain for any concrete or specific programs which the government has in mind to improve the conditions of the people for whom the Prime Minister shed such eloquent tears.
October 24, 1969

The Address-Mr. T. C. Douglas
A Liberal government has been in office since April, 1963. They are not neophytes. The present administration has been in office since June, 1968. It has had ample time tor the studies, white papers, royal commissions, interdepartmental committees and all the paraphernalia that is used to avoid having to make a decision. I say that unless the government comes up with much more specific programs and policies than we have seen to date, it will be the task of this party and the other parties in opposition to try to push the government out of its lethargy and prod it out of its self-satisfied apathy.
[DOT] (3:50 p.ra.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my first words will certainly be to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne (Mr. Cullen and Mr. Marceau). I was not here, in the house when they made their speeches but I read them this morning and, under the circumstances, I think that these hon. members have done a tremendous job while omitting to talk about the Speech from the Throne. It was rather difficult for them because the Speech did not have much substance. We can say that the government has some good intentions but that we have often witnessed in the past governments with good intentions.
That did not prevent, for instance, the seconder, the hon. member for Lapointe, from describing the beauties of his area-and I congratulate him for his sincerity-he is right. The Saguenay region is one of the most beautiful areas in Canada. He said, as evidenced on Page 9 of yesterday's Hansard and I quote:
The people, a strong and energetic breed are represented, no doubt through a coincidence, by the colour red.
A little further on, the hon. member said:
Unemployment now stands at the alarming level of 14 per cent. Since the labour market cannot absorb the ever increasing number of those who want to join it, qualified workers must leave the area if they do not want to graduate as jobless or become dissenters who protest against an affluent society which denies them the right to earn a decent living.
Mr. Speaker, it is well spoken and I hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will read again this part and will apply the necessary measures to alleviate this situation which prevails not only in the Saguenay area but in various other areas of the country.

Before coming to the heart of the matter, I would be remiss in my duties if I did not say that I am delighted-since the Prime Minister is in the house-with the firm stand which he has taken for some time now on the terrorists and the CBC. In fact, practically every night the national news of the CBC present Mr. Lemieux of Montreal, a professional agitator who has recently grown two tufts of hair. He looks like an African chimpanzee but he is on television almost every other day.
In the Canadian population there are quite a few sound elements which should be invited by the CBC to say what can be done to unify our country and to make people understand the advantages of a unity respecting everybody's rights. It seems to me that the CBC can still gain some ground and make some wise decisions in this field.
The right hon. Prime Minister said indeed that he trusted the new CBC board. We want to trust them also. However, we believe that if it is true that separatists are invited by the CBC to state their opinions, others should be invited too and this is exactly what CBC does not want to admit.
Mr. Speaker, this does not mean that Ottawa politicians only should be invited to speak on the CBC network.
The right hon. Prime Minister said, in a recent conference, that if its administrators cannot manage to straighten out the CBC, the government would "close shop". Ages ago I said that if the administration of the CBC or the parliament could not handle it, then it should be sold to private interests. Indeed, channel 10 in Montreal creates less trouble than channel 2 of the CBC.
The right hon. Prime Minister attacked the terrorists here in the house. I, too, have repeatedly spoken against them. That does not mean that all separatists are terrorists, nor that all terrorists are separatists. There is quite a difference between the two. One can find, amongst the terrorists, hoodlums who infiltrate organizations, especially with a view to provoking unrest, hand to hand fights, street fighting brawls or destruction, the like of which we witnessed in Montreal on October 7th last.
Mr. Speaker, certain things deserve serious examination. However, that does not necessarily excuse those who spread terror in the city of Montreal, or who would attempt to do so elsewhere. Laws are required to bring them into line; if they are not happy with living in freedom in Canada, then let them bear the yoke in Cuba or Moscow, it matters
Oclober 24, 1969

little but let them go elsewhere. In Canada, we do not want yokes and, especially, not the yoke of terrorism. We do not want that under any circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, after yesterday's afternoon sitting, I was able to hear, on the CBC news bulletin, the Right Hon. Prime Minister say, in reply to the journalists' questions, that during this session more white papers would be dealt with than legislation.
The last session was that of the just society and the fight against poverty. These matters are not dealt with in the last Speech from the Throne. This must mean that the government has achieved its objective, that of setting up a just society. It seems Canada no longer has any poor. This year, we must then prepare for next year's session and put white papers before parliament. We can then call this session that of the white papers.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
A white paper on unsold grain in western Canada, on unsold fish in British Columbia and in the Maritime provinces, on water and air pollution, on consumers' credit, on the reorganization of the fiscal policy, so as to take away from those who have in order to give a little more to those who have not, by means of endless red tape, that may cost as much as the difference between what is given to the poor and what is taken away from the rich.
When things go wrong in Canada, we blame others, not ourselves. The fault lies with the Nigerians, the Biafrans, the United Nations, which are paralyzed, with the arms race, for too much money is being spent on arms. So the National Defence Department's budget is being reduced-the minister knows it-in order to improve the situation.
Yet, things remain unchanged. The fault lies with the countries that do not buy our wheat anymore. Seven or eight years ago, the government used to say to the western farmers: Come on, hurry up, produce more wheat! Six or seven years later, the same government says: Do not produce any more wheat, we cannot sell it, because our former customers have become producers.
The Prime Minister is showered with wheat when he visits Saskatchewan. Because no markets can be found for our Canadian wheat, ministers are being sent around the world to find new markets, but without much success. It is quite a problem! What would be

The Address-Mr. Caouette the solution? The Prime Minister does not suggest any. He is still looking for it.
There have been no sittings of the house for the past three months. Three months ago, the Prime Minister told us he needed that time to examine the problem because the opposition would not do it. It took the Prime Minister three months to study it. He grasps well whatever he studies but he found no answer. Maybe is it because he does not understand that well when he is studying or because he simply does not want to see the answer likely to solve the problem? The answer, I shall deal with later.
If things are going the wrong way in Canada it is because of the contesting youth, it is because of the constitution, it is because of inflation. The more we talk about fighting inflation the more it seems to prevail. It is hardly mentioned in the Speech of the Throne. Everybody is aware, however, of the steady growth of inflation in every area in Canada. We find fault in everything except in ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, when Parliament adjourned, on July 25, I said to the house, as appears from the Hansard, page 11632:
Mr. Speaker, in the public interest, I believe it is urgent that we talk, for instance, about the underdeveloped areas, the producers, the farmers, the overall agricultural policy in Canada, the social security structure that should be amended ...
... indeed, there is something in this structure that does not work, right now. There are poor people lacking the social welfare they need while others, who have no right to it, are getting it. A number of scandals were brought out into the light, in the province of Quebec, and it appeared that Ottawa had paid 50 p. 100 of all the amounts of moneys stolen from the coffers of the Quebec government, right into the very department of the social security or social welfare of that province. Cases are now pending, at the courts. We shall make no comment right now, but will deal with that matter in due time.
-old age pensions, pensions to veterans and retired people.
Those are matters that should be discussed at the earliest possible date. The government has now been asked for three, four or even five years to consider answers in order to help these retired people. I can hear the minister answering: "The opposition is asking us to spend more money."
But the government has less and less money. And the Treasury will run dry because precisely
October 24, 1969

The Address-Mr. Caouette the government allows financial sharks to increase their interest rates.
This is the primary cause due to the fact that the government is now at grips with that very financial system.
The government will be supplied by financial sources on which it has to pay accrued interest. If it borrows $1 million or $1 billion-
... on a 20-year basis...
-it will have to pay backmore than $2 billion when the loan will fall due.
And to pay off the second billion, it would have to borrow again, because this is how the system works.
And as I was saying then, the government seemed to recognize its priority needs.
Evidently, the government intends to introduce legislations concerning underprivileged areas, farmers, unemployment insurance, pensions, social security. However, it fails to introduce the main measure, the most important, that which I suggested when I said:
-the members of the Ralliement creditiste maintain that the first thing to settle in Canada is the monetary system.
It should be settle not according to the will of the hon. member for Temiscamingue or that of the prime minister of Canada, but by means of a credit control commission that will grant the necessary credit to finance economic development, in Canada and in the province.
The government should introduce in the house a precise, clear and lucid legislative program applying to the Canadian monetary system, where can be traced back inflation, the subject the prime minister has dealt with so often these last months.
He dealt with it and we are sinking deeper and deeper into inflation which enables the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. This is the system in which we operate and as long as that system controls the destiny of our nation, we will be in the same mess. Whether it be under the government of this Prime Minister or of a future one, we always end up in a dead end. A solution is impossible to find. Such is the situation in which we find ourselves.
The Prime Minister replied, as reported on page 11632 of Hansard of July 25, 1969, that the hon. member for Temiscamingue, the

leader of the Ralliement creditiste did not surprise him, and I quote:
He was never in power and he will never be. He does not know what is a government.
Did the Prime Minister know in 1942 what a government was when he was campaigning for the CCF party in the North-West of Quebec? Does the Prime Minister remember when he came to Rouyn with Mrs. Therese Casgrain to speak about the CCF? Did the Prime Minister know what a government is all about, before being elected as a Liberal member?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Don't talk about my private life.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear the Prime Minister tell me not to talk about his private life because if I had to choose between his private life, when he was a supporter of the CCF party and his public life, now that he is a Liberal, I wonder sometimes if I would not choose to support him in his private life rather than in his political life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: 
Mr. Drury:: Only one.


David Réal Caouette: That is true, the minister is right and in fact, the hon. member for
October 24, 1969

The Address-Mr. Caouette
Lapointe mentioned that according to an old saying, two berries were enough to make a pie in the Lake St. John area. But he told us yesterday that a single one was enough. We have the proof of it: the hon. member for Lapointe is here.


Some hon. Members:: Ha! Ha!


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, New Brunswick is faced with an over-production of potatoes and southern Ontario with an overproduction of corn.
Our mining areas are in an appalling state of stagnation. In western Canada, it is the wheat. There, students at the Winnipeg University, pay their schooling expenses with barley, I think. That solution has been devised because there is no money.
The right hon. Prime Minister said further that although I have never been in power or been a minister:
A very long time ago, no doubt, when the member,
was still a child he stated his political theory and economic philosophy. Everything boils down to the monetary system. He found the truth, several years ago. He thinks he can stop thinking, studying and examining because he has the answer to everything: the reform of the monetary system.
The right hon. Prime Minister used those terms, Mr. Speaker.
If there is too much pollution it is because of the monetary system.
There is some truth in that. The right hon. Prime Minister was not entirely wrong. He was jesting, at times, but what is lacking in order to fight pollution in the Canadian waters? Ask the authorities of the province of Quebec! It is not the means of halting pollution that is lacking. It is indeed the money to do it.
We hear the Prime Minister of Quebec blaming the Prime Minister of Canada, and the Prime Minister of Canada answering the Prime Minister of Quebec.
Recently a Frenchman ending on a "Ski" came to Quebec to interpret the constitution, and I congratulate once again the right hon. Prime Minister upon the attitude which he took at that time, when he said that it does not belong to guys from France nor from England to interpret the Canadian constitution anywhere in Canada. Let Canadians do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Why did the Frenchman
from France, the French Secretary of State who came to tell the Quebecers what to do, not tell the Michelin Compagnie of France to come and settle in the province of Quebec, instead of going to Nova Scotia if he is so anxious to organize cultural and commercial exchanges between Quebec and France? This shows a lack of sincerity.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, to return to the problem, it is a financial problem.
The city of Montreal was recently faced with a gory revolt. The army had to be called, as well as the provincial police, and the municipal authorities said quite frankly that if their protection system was not too efficient it was because of a lack of funds. There would be no shortage of policemen if there was enough money to pay them.
And I wonder why the right hon. Prime Minister whom I believe to be a very intelligent man cannot understand that the monetary problem is the basic problem in the whole economic and social structure of Canada. This does not mean that money is a deity we should worship; it is a means' of exchange that should be put to our service. That's what money is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: The leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) said earlier that we fail to build hospitals and roads because we lack money. We never worry about the material, the skill, the engineers, the contractors and the rest of it, for we know that we have them. We know that we have no money. That is why the right hon. Prime Minister is trying hard to tell us: "Practice restraint." We tell the municipalities and the provinces: "Do not spend."
In Ottawa, we are going to stop spending, up will go the number of unemployed in Canada; a feeling of insecurity is settling in every area, not only in those I mentioned earlier but everywhere, for such is the situation in the country.
What is going on in the lake St. John area, in the Abitibi area? Two thirds of Canada are considered nowadays as designated areas. And the Prime Minister thinks it hilarious whenever we talk of monetary reform.
This year for instance, everybody shows compassion for the fate of our young people. Poor young people, we must help them!
According to the speech from the throne, it is the Prime Minister's intention to propose a legislation in order that the voting age be
October 24, 1969

The Address-Mr. Caouette lowered to 18, as if that were to feed the young who are hungry. The Prime Minister knows that thousands of young people coming out of multipurpose schools, CEGEPs and universities this year were unsuccessful in their search of employment.
Mr. Speaker, is it not pitiful to see in 1969 a 17, 18 or 19 year-old boy, who has to ask his father, who may be a miner in the Noran-da mine, an employee of the Canadian Vickers in Montreal, or of Canadair or of a Winnipeg or Toronto industry, to lend him 250, 500 or $1 so that he may go to see a movie or buy cigarettes, even if we are told that cigarettes cause cancer?
Mr. Speaker, we know such is the position in which our young people find themselves at the present time and then we are surprised whenever they rebel and question the doings of their elders. We are surprised to see them brutalize somewhat a society into which they cannot integrate.
In that case, Mr. Speaker, should we sincerely blame the young people who wish to form an integral part of the Canadian society? Should we not blame rather their elders, the people in power, who prevent young people from being a part of that society through a lack of responsibility or of legislation at all administrative levels, whether it be municipal, provincial or federal.
Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister continued, saying:
If housing is in a bad way, the monetary system is to blame. Canadian participation abroad also depends on the monetary system.
There are fewer problems there. The necessary funds are usually found for foreign aid. But when it comes to helping our own country, they cannot be found.
Here, I say what I have always said: I am in favour of foreign aid to the greatest possible extent, but if we can, as people, as a government, as a parliament, grant loans without interest, for periods of 50 and 60 years to such countries as India, South America, and other under-developed countries in the world, why can the parliament, the government not legislate to allow interest-free loans to be granted to our provinces, our municipalities, our school boards, for terms as long as those? If those loans are a good thing for foreigners, they should also be of help to

the provinces, the municipalities, the school boards; they should provide for work in exactly the same way as they do in foreign countries.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was a bit sharp, when he said speaking of the Creditiste members and I quote:
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
-and for that, of course, they must talk. And in order to do so they must, of course, be in the house. Give them holidays and they vanish out of the picture. They become nobodies-they are just nil.
And at that point, the Liberals cheered.
-They are here, Mr. Speaker, to be seen and to be heard.
However, the Prime Minister should admit that if we are here to be seen and to be heard, it is not thanks to him or to the Liberals who did everything, who contrived every means possible to get rid of us. We have not disappeared. We even came back in greater numbers than before. Why? Because we do not make ourselves heard only in parliament. If the Prime Minister does not know it, he will learn it very soon. We meet people elsewhere; we live with them, year round, holidays or no holidays. We mind our business, as Canon Groulx used to say, and I quote:
Mind your business, but do mind them!
That is exactly what the members of our party are doing here. We are not here simply to try to replace others, but to make concrete and logical suggestions to the government.
The Prime Minister should look at us and take us seriously, instead of blabbing nonsense about us without acknowledging the tremendous work we do. He said, and I quote:
They need a forum and there is none except in the house. They do not want to go in their constituencies, because the people there do not want to see them. They have heard the same things over and over again for too many years. Well, they are welcome to stay in Ottawa if they like.
In the circumstances, the prime minister should have known from experience. He said, and I quote:
They have heard the same things over and over again for too many years.
The same things, that is precisely what we have been hearing, here, in the house, for seven years. We are told of poverty prevailing in this or that area of the country, of our
October 24. 1969

products that cannot be sold. Now, we even hear about paying the farmers so much per acre as a premium for not growing wheat. We shall soon be thinking of paying the potato growers for not growing potatoes. Then, we shall live in a well-balanced and fully just society: one where payments will encourage curtailment of production and where the number of Canadian unemployed will be maintained and increased.
Mr. Speaker, such speeches as the Speech from the Throne we have heard will not settle the problem.
At the beginning of the speech for instance, the government makes known its intention to take certain measures regarding our international relations and I quote:
-the means at our disposal for bringing these conflicts to an end are necessarily limited, but the government is making full use of its opportunities-
While the government is making full use of those means, the world crisis is getting worse. There is less and less understanding between countries.
A little further, in its Speech from the Throne, the government expresses the hope to extend franchise to the eighteen year olds who actually need the right to live rather than the right to vote. If we could give our young generation the possibility of earning an honest and honourable living, there would be less tragedies such as the ones we have to face now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but under the standing orders, the time allotted to him has expired. Unless he obtains the unanimous consent of the hon. members he cannot go on.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I will not take undue advantage of the broadmindness shown by the hon. members who have allowed me to carry on. It will only take me a few more minutes.
I did have quite a lot to say, but I must be brief.
I come back immediately to the franchise at 18 years of age. We are in favour of it. I would like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister in this connection. As far as 1946, when I was first elected, I asked in this house that the franchise be extended to the 18 year-old, explaining that if our young people were
The Address-Mr. Caouette old enough to be enlisted at 18 in the Canadian Army, they were old enough to vote, decide their future and what is to be done in Canada. Since then, exactly 23 years have elapsed. Therefore the Prime Minister is 23 years late on that matter.
Mr. Speaker, we can also read in the Speech from the Throne, the following and I quote:
History, geography and economics ... have placed certain of our citizens at a disadvantage.
I said a few words about it a moment ago.
History, geography and economics appear to have taken such an importance that they involve every region of Canada. But in that chapter, this government states that it will take measures concerning the designated areas that suffer from serious disadvantages in the volume of employment and average income, that it will introduce legislation in order to help them. But, it does not say in what way and does not refer to any specific program. You may send fifty-year old chaps back to school to retrain them but to retrain western farmers or New Brunswick potato growers is rather difficult. On the contrary, we should produce what we can produce and, as I said earlier, help under-developed countries as much as possible, without affecting for all that the normal development of our Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker, a little farther, further reference is made to inflation, implying that the government had fought it efficiently by levying a new tax and reducing expenditures. Only, this resulted in an increased number of unemployed in Canada, more especially in the province of Quebec, where the unemployment rate reaches about 40 to 42 per cent of the total number of jobless in Canada.
Should we hold only the federal government responsible for this situation? No. Authroities in Quebec should also take their responsibilities in that area, because some works fall under provincial jurisdiction but cannot be done by the province. Why? Because it says: Ottawa is encroaching upon the taxation field. Ottawa is responsible for the things we do not have.
But all the while Ottawa is being run down, no legislation is adopted in the province of Quebec, so much so that everyone is getting annoyed with this situation. For example, while in Quebec they keep saying
56	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Caouette that Ottawa is not giving them what belongs to them, at every official opening in the province, a federal member of parliament or a federal minister is invited, but they are afraid to let him address the public because he is from Ottawa, as if French Canadian members of the House of Commons were not French Canadians from Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I am as good a French-Canadian patriot as any nationalist of the province of Quebec and here in Ottawa. I am proud to represent a Quebec riding, with dignity I hope, as a French-Canadian and as a Canadian. This is not yet understood in Quebec. There is some reluctance, it is believed in Quebec that Ottawa is removed from all that.
Mr. Speaker, the other day, the Prime Minister was right when he said that Canada's address is Ottawa. It is, for all those who have business to do in Canada, whether it is in New Brunswick, in Quebec, in Nova Scotia. This does not prevent the provinces from having rights and from taking their responsibilities. The constitution now gives them those rights; they only have to use them and enforce them. That is all there is to do.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne also states, and I quote:
The structure of our tax system must be adapted to reflect more accurately the true circumstances of individual Canadians and of business organizations in our modem society.
The Prime Minister just said: Take some money from those who earn more and give it to those who earn less, in order to balance the system.
We are against taking money from those who do have some, so as to avoid stifling personal initiative and to help the private sector. Do not take from the individual his sources of income, because his drive will disappear, and with the disappearance of ambition, out goes progress.
With the huge output we produce each year in Canada, which total salaries and profits cannot buy because they are insufficient, we say that a national dividend should be distributed to each and every Canadian citizen in order to have this purchasing power counterbalance our huge national output. Then, Mr. Speaker, without harming anyone, we would strike an almost perfect economic balance.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
There will be no perfection, of course, but near-perfect equilibrium in the purchasing

DEBATES	October 24, 1969
power of consumers, without taking anything away from anybody, because we are against socialist policies which consist in taking from those who have and hand it to those who have not, as they say in English.

Take away from the "haves" to give to the "have nots". Ultimately we will have all kinds of "have nots" and no more "haves" in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly where we are going with such a socialist policy. We believe that the government will introduce concrete legislation during this session and we shall study it objectively. We are not here merely to say no, no, no to the government and the Prime Minister.
If the Prime Minister does something which makes sense, I am the first one to congratulate him. A moment ago I did so sincerely and openly because I like to see a man who takes a stand and has the courage to say what he thinks.
There is a song often heard in Quebec: "Say what you think, do as you say, but be yourself in the world of today." I agree with the song because it really means something: "Say what you think, do as you say." The Prime Minister usually says what he thinks but, sometimes, he forgets to do as he says. I should like to see him do as he says, and be himself in this world of today.
I believe it would then be possible to provide Canada, this country of ours, with a sound and progressive administration, to reactivate our economy so that every social class in Canada may share in it.
Any association exists for the benefit of its members. The members, here, are the Canadian people. We represent here those people and we must give the whole population a share in Canada's enormous wealth. Our role as members of Parliament is to pass legislation, to set everything in motion and to give every Canadian economic security and individual freedom.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I move that this debate be now adjourned.


Mr. Marceau:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
October 24, 1969	COMMONS
My hon. friend from Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) dubbed me a blueberry. Perhaps this is the best compliment that was ever paid to me. However, I should like to point out that to be truly a blueberry, you must have a blue belly. I doubt I can go that far.
DEBATES	57
The Address-Mr. Caouette [English]
On motion of Mr. Hees the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Olson the house adjourned at 4.35 p.m., pursuant to special order.
_____________________________________________________________________ _
October 24, 1969

House of Commons CANADA


NOTICES OF MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 24, 1969
60	COMMONS DEBATES	October 24, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Income Tax	 61
Customs Tariff and Excise Tax	 63
October 24, 1969
[Stage Direction]
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that the surtax imposed on individuals and corporations by Part 1A of the Income Tax Act be applicable in the case of individuals to the 1970 taxation year and in the case of corporations to taxable income earned in 1970.
21362-5i

[Stage Direction]
Customs Tariff and Excise Tax Act
1.	That section 4 of the Customs Tariff be amended by repealing subsection (4) thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
4. (4) Where any order is made after the coming into force of this subsection under the authority of paragraph (b), (d) or (f) of subsection (1), the order shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, cease to have any force or effect with respect to any period following the one hundred and eightieth day from the date of its making or, if Parliament is not then sitting, the fifteenth day next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, unless not later than that day the order is approved by resolution adopted by both Houses of Parliament; and upon the commencement of the period with respect to which any such order so ceases to have any force or effect, all rates of Customs duties and the benefit of any tariff withdrawn by the order shall be deemed to be restored, and from and after the commencement of that period the rates so restored and any tariff the benefit of which is so restored shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, apply as they applied immediately before the day on which the order became effective.
2.	That section 7 of the Customs Tariff be amended by repealing subsection (lc) thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
7. (lc) When any order is made under subsection (la), the order shall cease to have any force or effect with respect to any period following the one hundred and eightieth day from the date of its making or, if Parliament is not then sitting, the fifteenth day next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, unless not later than that day the order is approved by resolution adopted by both Houses of Parliament.
October 24, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
3.	That section 11 of the Customs Tariff be amended by repealing subsection (1) thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
11. (1) On the materials set forth in Schedule B, when used for consumption in Canada for the purpose specified in that Schedule, there may be paid, out
of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the several rates of drawback of Customs duties, other than any special duty or surtax, set opposite each item respectively in
that Schedule, under regulations by the Governor in Council.
4.	That each tariff item in Schedule A to the Customs Tariff, other than tariff item 19201-1, that contains the expressions "on and after January 1, 1970", "on and after January 1, 1971" and "on and after January 1, 1972" be amended
(o) by striking out the expression "on and after January 1, 1970" and the rate or rates of duty set opposite thereto;
(6) by striking out the expression "on and after January 1, 1971" and the rate or rates of duty set opposite thereto; and
(c) by striking out the expression "on and after January 1, 1972" and substituting therefor the expression "on and after June 4, 1969".
5.	That tariff items 19905-1 and 65200-1 in Schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out the expression "on and after January 1, 1970" contained in each such tariff item and substituting therefor the expression "on and after June 4, 1969".
6.	That tariff items 7303-1, 7311-1, 13650-1, 29005-1, 40401-1 and 40402-1 in Schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended
(а)	by striking out the expression "on and after January 1, 1970" contained in each such tariff item and the rate or rates of duty set opposite thereto; and
(б)	by striking out the expression "on and after January 1, 1971" contained in each such tariff item and substituting therefor the expression "on and after June 4, 1969".
7.	That section 15 of An Act to amend the Customs Tariff, being chapter 12 of the Statutes of Canada 1968-69, be repealed.
8.	That Schedule A to the Customs Tariff and each order in council made under section 10 of the Customs Tariff and section 273 of the Customs Act reducing the duty on goods be amended by striking out tariff items 30200-1, 34000-1, 34100-1, 34610-1, 41200-1, 41205-1, 41210-1, 41215-1, 41220-1, 41225-1, 42605-1, 47200-1, 47300-1, 47305-d, 47400-1, 47500rl, 47505-1, 47510-1, 47515-1, 47520-1, 47525-1, 53415-1, 66000-1, 66005-1 and 66010-1, and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of those items, and by inserting in Schedule A to the Customs Tariff the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget
Tariff Item	-	British Preferential Tariff	Favoured- Nation Tariff	General Tariff	British Preferential Tariff	Most- Favoured-Nation Tariff	General Tariff34000-1	Type, chases, quoins and slugs, for use in printing..	Free	10 p.c.	20 p.c.	7$ p.c. Free	174 P.c. Free	20 p.c. 10 p.c.34100-1	Babbitt metal and type metal, in blocks, bars, plates and sheets	Free	10 p.c.	20 p.c.	Free	10 p.c.	20 p.c.34610-1	Zinc rods; zinc shapes other than flat-rolled; all the foregoing if containing not more than ten per cent by weight of other metal or metals	Free	Free	10 p.c.	Free	Free	10 p.c.COMMONS DEBATES	October 24, 1969
Utot-l
Attot-i
Zinc strip or sheet, ungrained, whether or not ground, lor making offset plates for lithographing: sine strip or sheet, not pound or polished, coated on one side with acid-resisting material, when imported for use by arindert and polishers, to be prepared tor use in photo-engraving; all the foregoing if containing not more than ten per cent by weight of other metal or metals	 Free
Printing presses, n.o.p., with an image or printing . area of 374 square inches or larger; mechanical deliveries or conveyors for use with such presses; parts of the foregoing	 Free
Printing presses, nj>.p., with an image or printing arp of less than 374 square inches; parts of the foregoing	 Free
Machines and apparatus, excluding those provided for in tariff item tlllO-1, for use exclusively by, and in their capacities as printers, lithographers, bookbinders, paper or foil converters, manufacturers of stereotypes, electrotypes and printing plates or rolls, or manufacturers of articles made from paper, cardboard or foil, namely:-
Machines and apparatus for making matrices, stereotypes, electrotypes or printing plates of any kind;
Machines and apparatus for the preparation of plates by graining, grinding, polishing or sensitising;
Machines and apparatus, including cameras and camera equipment, lenses, prisms, camera and printing lamps, screens and vacuum frames, for transferring imagery to sensitised paper, film, plates or rolls for use in printing;
Machines and apparatus for slitting, winding or rewinding, having a roll width of less than seventy-two inches;
Free
Free
10 p.c.
10 p.c.
15 p.c.
15 p.o.
Free	Free
10 p.o.
Free Free Free 2J p.c.
Free Free 10 p.o. 15 p.c.
15 p.o. Free 15 p.c. 35 p.c.
Free	10 p.c.	15 p.c.Free	Free	Free
o>
Cn
October 24, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
Most-
British Favoured-
Tariff	

 Preferential	Nation
Item	Tariff	Tariff
41205-1 Gun and mould apparatus for making press rollers; tCont'd) Machines and apparatus for addressing or wrapping newspapers, magazines, periodicals, pamphlets and catalogues;
Machines and apparatus for bookbinding, boxcovering, bronzing, bundling, carbon coating, counting paper, cardboard or foil, creasing, cutting, drilling, dusting, embossing or producing embossed or engraved effects, eyeletting, flocking, folding, gathering, glueing, gumming, inserting, jogging, looping, metal mounting, numbering, pasting, patching, perforating, punching, reinforcing, ruling, scoring, sewing, sheet feeding, sheet piling, spraying for anti-offset, stamping, staying, stitching, stripping, tubemaking, tying, varnishing, or waxing;
Parts of all the foregoing	 Free	Free
41S10-1 Machines and apparatus for use in the manufacture of manifold business forma, namely:-
Rotary web fed rubber plate and offset printing presses, and printing units therefor;
Feed-in units;
Numbering units;
Punching units;
Slitting units;
Perforating units;
Winders or rewinders;
Folders;
Sheet cutting and piling units;
Hot carbonizing units;
Continuous forms collators;
Snap set collators;
Continuous forms interleavers;
Crimp-lock and slitting machines;
o>
o>
General
Tariff
15 p.c.
Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget
British	Most-
Preferential	Favoured-Nation	GeneralTariff	Tariff	Tariff
Free Free 2$ p.c. Various
Free 10 p.c. 15 p.c. Various
10 p.c. 15 p.c. 35 p.c. Various
COMMONS DEBATES	October 24. 1969
Stitchers;
Carbon paper processors;
Parts of all the foregoing	
Free	10 p.c.41215-1 Machines and apparatus designed for typecasting, typesetting including phototypesetting, or for producing justified copy; machines and apparatus designed for creating or translating signals, on tape or wire or other media, for programming the automatic operation of the foregoing; typemaking accessories, n.o.p.; parts of all the foregoing; stereotypers' blankets or blanketing	
Free	Free
41220-1 Articles and materials which enter into the construction and form part of the machines and apparatus entitled to entry under tariff items 41201-1,
41205-1 and 41215-1, when for use in the manufacture of such machines, apparatus and parts thereof Free	Free
412SO-1 Sheets, plates, blocks, rolls or cylinders, ground, polished or otherwise prepared for the'production of
printing plates, rolls or cylinders	 10 p.c.	15 p.c.
41225-1 Printing plates of all kinds, including rolls and cylinders, for the reproduction of non-advertising material in newspapers, or for printing books or music, or for printing periodical publications enjoying second-class mailing privileges the pages of which are regtir-larly bound, wire-stitched or otherwise fastened together, not including catalogues; copper shells, bases, matrices, moulds, exposed positive or negative films and reproduction proofs, for such printing plates... Free
Free
15 p.c.
Free Free 2} p.c. Free
10 p.c. Free 15 p.c. Free
15 p.c. 10 p.c. 35 p.c. Free
15 p.c.
Free Free Free Free 2J p.c. 15 p.c.
Free Free 5 p.c. 10 p.c. 15 p.c. 19 p.c.
Free 10 p.c. 10 p.c. 15 p.c. 35 p.c. 30 p.c.
Free	Free	FreeFree	10 p.c.	15 p.o.Various	Various	VariousFree	15 p.c.	20 p.c.15 p.c.	19 p.c.	30 p.c.10 p.c.	15 p.c.	20 p.c.Free	71 p.c.	30 p.c.10 p.c.	10 p.c.	30 p.c.Various	Various	Various
25 p.c.
Free
Free
Free
in.
Free
Free
1 ct/sq.in. 1 ct./sq. in. VariouB
Free 25 p.c.
1 ct/sq. in. 1 ct./sq. in. Various
October 24, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
			Most- Favoured- Nation Tariff			Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget	
Tariff Item	-	British Preferential Tariff	General Tariff	British Most-Preferential Favoured-Nation Tariff Tariff	General TariffStereotypes, electrotypes, and other printing plates made from moulds, n.o.p.; copper shells, bases, matrices or moulds, for such printing plates	
per square inch	1 ct.	let.	1J cts.	1 ct. Various	1 ct. Various	1$ cts. VariousiWfS-t	Printing plates including rolls and cylinders, n.o.p.; exposed positive or negative films and reproduction proofs, for such printing plates	10 p.c.	15 p.c.	25 p.c.	10 p.c. Free Various	15 p.c. 15 p.c. Various	20 p.c. 20 p.c. Various42605-1	Machinery and apparatus enumerated in tariff item 41205-1, when for use exclusively by, and in their capacities as manufacturers of articles made from regenerated cellulose or cellulose acetate; parts of the foregoing	5 p.c.	5 p.c.	35 p.c.	5 p.c. Various	5 p.c. Various	35 p.c. Various53415-1	Press blankets or blanketing, of a class or kind not made in Canada, for use with printing presses	Free	5 p.c.	10 p.c.	Free	5 p.c.	10 p.c.554/7-1	Press blankets or blanketing, n.o.p., for use with print-ing presses	10 p.c.	15 p.c.	25 p.c.	Free Free 24 p.c. 20 p.c.	Free 10 p.c. 24 p.c. 24 p.c.	Free 15 p.c. 35 p.c. 40 p.c.
9- That Schedule A to the Customs Tariff and each order in council made under section 10 of the Customs Tariff reducing the duty on goods be amended by striking out tariff items 43125-1, 43130-1, 43130-2, 43150-1 and 43155-1, and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of those items, and by inserting in Schedule A to the Customs Tariff the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
COMMONS DEBATES	October 24, 1969
Most-
British Favoured-
Tariff	

 Preferential	Nation
Item	Tariff	Tariff
43125-1 Toolmakers', machinists' or metal workers' precision tools and measuring instruments, namely:
Bevels:
Buttons:
Calipers;
Clamps, including key seat clamps and rule clamps;
Dividers;
Gauges, including thickness gauges in roll form;
Micrometers;
Parallels;
Plumb bobs, mercury;
Protractors;
Punches, automatic centre;
Scribers;
Speed indicators, hand;
Squares;
Straight edges;
Trammels;
Verniers;
Vises;
Toolmakers', machinists' or metal workers' precision tools and measuring instruments, n.o.p.;
Parts of all the foregoing	 Free	9 p.c.
43130-1 Engineers', surveyors' or draftsmen's precision instruments and apparatus, namely;
Alidades;
Altazimuths;
Aneroid barometers;
Boards, military sketching;
Clinometers;
Compasses;
Cross staff heads;
Curves, adjustable, irregular, railroad and ship; Curvimeters;
Dipping needles;
Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget
General
Tariff
20 p.c.
British	Most-
Preferential	Favoured-Nation	GeneralTariff	Tariff	Tariff
Free
9 p.c.
10 p.c.
cr>
co
October 24, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
-J
Tariff
Item
Most-
British	Favoured-
Preferential	Nation
Tariff	Tariff
Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget
British	Most-
General	Preferential	Favoured-Nation	GeneralTariff	Tariff	Tariff	Tariff
43130-1 Distance measuring apparatus using light, radio or (Cont'd) soundwaves;
Drafting instruments of all kinds;
Drafting machines;
Engineering lasers;
Gyro converters;
Heliographs;
Integrators;
Levels;
Liners, section;
Meters, portable for hydraulic engineering; Pantographs;
Parallel rules;
Parallel ruling attachments;
Pedometers and paceometers;
Plane tables, military and topographic; Planimeters;
Poles, ranging;
Prisms, angle;
Protractors;
Rods, levelling;
Scales, flat and triangular;
Sextants;
Slide rules;
Splines;
Straight edges;
Subtense bars;
Tacheometers;
Tallying machines, pocket;
Tee squares;
Telemeters;
COMMONS DEBATES	October 24, 1969

[Stage Direction]
Theodolites;
Transits;
Traversing targets',
Triangles of all types;
Parts, attachments, tripods, base plates and fitted cases for all the foregoing	 Free	5 p.c.
43150-1 Geophysical precision instruments and equipment of a class or kind not made in Canada;
Parts, attachments, tripods, base plates and fitted cases for all the foregoing	 Free	Free
43155-1 Photogrammetric instruments and equipment for use in the interpretation of photographs and in the preparation of maps and plans from photographs, including the following: stereoscopes, binoculars for use with stereoscopes, parallax bars, height finders, contour finders, sketchmasters, slotted template equipment and accessories for use with any of the foregoing; stereoscopic plotting instruments and equipment of either optical-mechanical or projector type, including such accessories as plotting and tracing tables whether electrically, mechanically or remotely operated, optical instruments for preparing diapositive plates, voltage regulators and electrical transformers, cooling systems, lamps, spectacles, filters, height gauges, principal point selectors and other components for use with the foregoing equipment; all the foregoing of a class or kind not made in Canada and parts and fitted cases for any of the foregoing Free	Free
20 p.c.
20 p.c.
20 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
9 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
10 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
5 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
10 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
7j p.c.
[Stage Direction]
30 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
18 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
28 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
30 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
5 p.c.
20 p.c.
October 24. 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
10. That Schedule A to the Customs Tariff and each order in Council made under section 10 of the Customs Tariff and section 273 of the Customs Act reducing the duty on goods be amended by striking out tariff items 46200-1, 47600-1, 47602-1, 47605-1, 47610-1, 47805-1, 47810-1, 47815-1, 47900-1, 48000-1, 48005-1, 48100-1, 48105-1, 48600-1, 51100-1, 51100-6, 69605-1, 69610-1 and 69625-1, and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of those items, and by inserting in Schedule A to the Customs Tariff the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
Tariff
Item
Most-
British	Favoured-
Preferential	Nation
Tariff	Tariff
Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget
British	Most-
[Stage Direction]
General
[Stage Direction]
Preferential
[Stage Direction]
Favoured-Nation
[Stage Direction]
General
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
46200-1 Instruments for observation, measurement, experimentation or demonstration in respect of natural phenomena, n.o.p.; photographic, mathematical and optical instruments, n.o.p.; speedometers, cyclometers and pedometers, n.o.p.; parts of all
[Stage Direction]
the foregoing
[Stage Direction]
24 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
30 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
2$ p.c.
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
30 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
47600-1 X-ray apparatus and X-ray film; microscopes, illuminating devices and stands for use therewith; the following surgical, dental, veterinary and diagnostic articles: instruments; sterilizers; cobalt-therapy units; anaesthesia, surgical suction and oxygen administering apparatus including motive power and wall outlets but not piping systems. Parts of all the foregoing; electric light lamps designed for use with all the foregoing; portable cases and containers for all the foregoing
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
2J p.c. 24 p.c. 124 p.c. Various
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c. 15 p.c. 214 P-c. Various
[Stage Direction]
30 p.c. 35 p.c. 40 p.c. Various
[Stage Direction]
47605-1 Operating room lights designed to minimize shadow, not including bulbs, of a class or kind not made in Canada; chairs and tables for surgical operating purposes; infant incubators; infant and patient medical-alert or identification devices including beads, tapes and ribbons of any material, cases therefor and equipment for their application; electrocardiographs, paper and sensitized film for use therein; apparatus for sterilizing purposes, including bedpan washer-sterilizers but not in-
COMMONS DEBATES	October 24. 1969
47810-1
47St0-1
eluding washing nor laundry machines; parts of all the foregoing; electroencephalographic paper.
All for the use of any public hospital, under such regulations as the Minister may prescribe	 Free
Artificial limbs, with or without power, and all accessories and devices therefor; spinal and other orthopedic braces; parts of the foregoing	 Free
Aural, nasal, mastectomy and other medical'or surgical prostheses; materials for use in reconstructive surgery; ileostomy, colostomy and urinary appliances or articles other than infants' pants and diapers, designed to be worn by an individual; materials and articles required therewith for proper application and maintenance	 Free
Auxiliary driving control kits and other equipment designed for attachment to motor vehicles to facilitate their operation by physically disabled persons; parts of the foregoing	 Free
Boots, shoes and appliances for an individual with a defective or abnormal foot or ankle when made to order for the individual or when purchased on the written order of a registered medical practitioner	 Free
Invalid chairs, commode chairs, walkers and all other aids to locomotion, with or without wheels; motive power and wheel assemblies therefor; toilet, bath and shower seats; all specially designed for the disabled; accessories and attachments for all the foregoing:
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
October 24,
[Stage Direction]
20 p.e.
[Stage Direction]
26J p.c.
[Stage Direction]
50 p.e.
[Stage Direction]
*-*
[Stage Direction]
10 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
19 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
<0
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
O) CD
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
19 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
30 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
21 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
O
[Stage Direction]
20 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
261 P.c.
[Stage Direction]
50 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
S5
[Stage Direction]
211 P-o.
[Stage Direction]
251 P-c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
w
[Stage Direction]
10 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
20 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
O n w >
- *
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
30 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
[DOT]ti M
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
151 P-c.
[Stage Direction]
30 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
xn
[Stage Direction]
10 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
19 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
Item
47825-	1
47826-	1 47830-1
Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget
Of a class or kind made in Canada; parts thereof....
Of a class or kind not made in Canada; parts thereof
Artificial larynges; devices for amplifying speech to audible volume; devices for the audible or visual recording or reproduction of speech or attempted speech, for use in training; attachments, accessories and batteries for the foregoing; parts of all the foregoing. All the foregoing when imported for the use of a mute or partially mute person, of a public hospital, or of a bona fide association or institution for the mute or partially mute, and not for sale or rental unless to those mentioned herein, under such regulations as the Minister may prescribe	
Alternating pressure mattresses; canes and crutches; ceiling projectors and prismatic glasses, for reading; oscillating beds; patient-lifters; powered feeders, powered page-turners; pressure-gradient elastic supports made to order for an individual in accordance with the written prescription of a registered physician or surgeon; attachments and accessories for the foregoing; parts of all the foregoing. All the foregoing when imported for the use of a disabled person or of a public hospital, under such regulations as the Minister may prescribe
[Stage Direction]
British Preferential Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Most- Favoured- Nation Tariff
[Stage Direction]
General Tariff
[Stage Direction]
British Preferential Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Most^ Favoured-Nation Tariff
[Stage Direction]
General Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
10 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free 15 p.c. Various
[Stage Direction]
10 p.c. 19 p.c. Various
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c. 30 p.c. Various
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free 15 p.c. Various
[Stage Direction]
10 p.c. 19 p.c. Various
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c. 30 p.c. Various
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free 15 p.c. 15 p.c. Various
[Stage Direction]
Free 19 p.c. 20* p.c. Various
[Stage Direction]
Free 30 p.c. -27* p.c. Various
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free Free
[Stage Direction]
17* p.c.
[Stage Direction]
17* p.c. 35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
and 61 cts. and $1.50
[Stage Direction]
per dozen pairs
[Stage Direction]
20 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
26* p.c. 50 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various Various
[Stage Direction]
COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
October 24. 1969
[Stage Direction]
Ifl90<h-1 Materials and articles for use exclusively in the manufacture of the goods enumerated in tariff items 47600-1, 47605-1, 47805-1,47810-1,47815-1, 47820-1,47826-1, 47880-1 and 47885-1
[Stage Direction]
'.... Free
[Stage Direction]
51100-1 Golf clubs and finished parts thereof; racquets and racquet frames and baseball bats; balls of all kinds for use in sports, games or athletics, n.o.p.. 15 p.c.
51125-1 Walking sticks and walking canes of all kinds, n.o.p... 15 p.c.
69580-1 Motion picture films and filmstrips, with or without sound recording, for deposit as archives and for exhibition without commercial purpose, under such regulations as the Minister may prescribe	 Free
69605-1 Scientific apparatus (and ancillary equipment thereto), utensils, instruments, and preparations, including boxes and bottles containing them-, glassware for laboratory or scientific uses; maps, charts, motion picture films, filmstrips, microfilms, slides and other photographic reproductions and pictorial illustrations; pamphlets and magazines; reproductions of works of art; sound recordings and video tape recordings; stencils and cards specially designed for the preparation of library index cards; models, static or moving; animals as research or experimental subjects; living plants, seeds, cuttings, buds, scions, tubers, bulbs and root-stock; mechanical equipment not otherwise enumerated in this item when of a class or kind not made in Canada; parts of all the foregoing. All the foregoing when for the use of any society or institution incorporated or established solely for religious, educational, scientific or literary pur-purses, or for the encouragement of the fine arts (namely architecture, sculpture, painting, engraving and music), or for the use of any public hospital, public library, public museum, university, college, academy, school or seminary of learning in Canada and not for sale or rental unless to those mentioned herein, under such regulations as the Minister may prescribe	 Free
Free
20 p.c. 20 p.c.
Free
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
23 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
20 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
1} cts. Free
[Stage Direction]
li cts. per linear foot 1} cts. per linear foot (20 p.c. max.)
[Stage Direction]
3 cts. 3 cts. (30 p.c. max.)
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
cn
October 24. 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
va
o>
Mosb Favoured- Nation Tariff			Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget
[Stage Direction]
Tariff Item
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
British Preferential Tariff
[Stage Direction]
General Tariff
[Stage Direction]
British Most-Preferential Favoured-Nation Tariff Tariff
[Stage Direction]
General Tariff
[Stage Direction]
69610-1
[Stage Direction]
Materials and articles for use exclusively in the manufacture of the goods enumerated in tariff item 69605-1
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free Various
[Stage Direction]
Free Various
[Stage Direction]
Free Various
[Stage Direction]
69625-1
[Stage Direction]
Sound recordings specially made for use in the study of languages; sound recordings, tape recorders and phonographs for bona fide libraries, and being the property of the organized authorities of such libraries and not the property of individuals or business concerns; under such regulations as the Minister may prescribe
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free 13 p.c. 10 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free 18 p.c. 12J p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free 28 p.c. 25 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
11 That Schedule A to the Customs Tariff and each order in council made under section 10 of the Customs Tariff and section 273 of the Customs Act reducing the duty on goods be amended bv striking out tariff items 945-1, 2705-1, 10505-1, 10540-1. 17310-1, 20620-1, 23240-1, 29655-1, 31615-1, 31905-1, 38800-1, 41001-1, 41002-1, 41305-1, 41525-l,x42835-l, 44043-1, 44047-1, 44059-1, 44300-1, 45400-1, 50600-3, 50600-5, 50600-6, 61625-1, 70320-1, 70321-1, 82300-1 and 93404-2, and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of those items, and by inserting in Schedule A to the Customs Tariff the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
					Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget
[Stage Direction]
Tariff Item
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
British Preferential Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Favoured- Nation Tariff
[Stage Direction]
General Tariff
[Stage Direction]
British Most-Preferential Favoured-Nation General Tariff Tariff Tariff
[Stage Direction]
945-1
[Stage Direction]
Feeds for use exclusively in the feeding of trout and salmon
[Stage Direction]
on and after July 1, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Free 5 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free 5 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
25 p.c. 25 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free Free 25 p.c. 11 p.c. 11 p.c. 25 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
October 24, 1969
[Stage Direction]
10505-1
[Stage Direction]
Lemon, lime, orange, grapefruit and citron rinds,
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
10540-1
[Stage Direction]
Oranges, grapefruit, lemons, or limes, sliced or in the form of pulp, with or without the addition of preservatives
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
17310-1
[Stage Direction]
Printed books, pamphlets, cards and sheets for use in intelligence testing; other articles and materials imported with and specially designed for use with such printed books, pamphlets, cards and sheets; cards for use in the teaching of reading or arithmetic
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
19948-1
[Stage Direction]
Trays of pulp or pulpboard, with pockets, imported for use exclusively in the packaging of peaches and nears in their natural state
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
20620-1
[Stage Direction]
Materials and articles for the manufacture of the goods specified in items 20605-1, 20610-1 and 20615-1
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
mio-i
[Stage Direction]
Ossein for use exclusively in the manufacture of gelatine
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
39665-1
[Stage Direction]
Pyrophyllite for use in Canadian manufactures
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
31815-1
[Stage Direction]
Glass tubing in straight lengths of not less than three feet, not coated, for use in Canadian manufactures...
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
31906-1
[Stage Direction]
Plate glass, not more than five thirty-seconds of an inch in thickness, for use in the manufacture of laminated safety glass
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
5 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
SW5-1
[Stage Direction]
Composition foils, composed of varying percentages of lead and tin, and whether or not containing antimony
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
35115-1
[Stage Direction]
Metal alloy slugs, cast, with diamonds or diamond chips embedded therein, of any size or shape, in condition as from the mould, for use in Canadian manufactures..
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
19 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
25 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
3 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
194 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
22 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c,
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
174 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
21§ p.c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
17 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
194 P.c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
10 cts.
[Stage Direction]
20 cts.
[Stage Direction]
40 cts.
[Stage Direction]
per gallon of the strength of proof
[Stage Direction]
25 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
25 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
25 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
25 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
10 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
10 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
5 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
19 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
25 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Sj
October 24, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
Most-
British Favoured-
Tariff	

 Preferential	Nation
[Stage Direction]
Item
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
SS009-1 Sheet piling sections of iron or steel, not further manufactured than hot-rolled, and whether or not with handling holes therein
[Stage Direction]
5 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
10 p.o.
[Stage Direction]
38800-1 Foundry moulding flasks and jackets for use therewith; parte and attachments or accessories for the foregoing
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Bits and augers of all kinds;
Drills of all kinds, not including those drilling rigs entitled to entry under tariff item 49103-1;
Fishing tools, n.o.p.;
Reamers, stabilizers, and combinations thereof, no.p^
All the foregoing for use in the exploration or drilling for water, oil, natural gas or minerals, or in mining or quarrying:
41001-1 Of a class or kind made in Canada;
parts thereof	 5 p.c,	15 p.c.
41003-1 Of a claas or kind not made in Canada;
parts thereof	 Free	Free
41305-1 Machinery and apparatus, of a class or kind not made in Canada, and parts thereof, for preparing, manufacturing, testing or finishing yams, cordage, and fabrics made from textile fibres or from paper, imported for use exclusively by manufacturers and scholastic or charitable inatitutions in such processes only	 Free
Free
[Stage Direction]


Kate* is Effect Prior to Retea Proposed io this Budget
British	Most-
[Stage Direction]
General
[Stage Direction]
Preferential
[Stage Direction]
Favoured-Nation
[Stage Direction]
General
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
20p.e.
[Stage Direction]
6 p.e.
[Stage Direction]
10p.e.
[Stage Direction]
Wp.0.
[Stage Direction]
17 p.e.
[Stage Direction]
16 p.e.
[Stage Direction]
40 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.e.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
35 p.0.
[Stage Direction]
16 p.e.
[Stage Direction]
16 p.e.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.o.
[Stage Direction]
15 p.o.
[Stage Direction]
19 p.e.
[Stage Direction]
30 px.
[Stage Direction]
17 p.o.
[Stage Direction]
18 p.e.
[Stage Direction]
25 p.e.
[Stage Direction]
25 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
5 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
25 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
10 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
16 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
10 p.o.
[Stage Direction]
16 p.e.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
10 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
10 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
2J p.c.
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
10 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
19 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
October 24, 1969
[Stage Direction]
42835-1
44047-1
Sewing machines, not to include industrial sewing machines, with or without motive power incorporated therein; parts thereof	 5 p.c.
Governors, n.o.p., and parts thereof, for use in the manufacture or repair of diesel locomotives... Free
Aircraft, not including engines, under such regulations as the Minister may prescribe:
When of types or sizes not made in Canada	 Free
on and after July 1, 1971 Free
Aircraft engines, when imported for use in the equipment of aircraft:
When of types or sizes not made in Canada.. Free
on and after July 1, 1971 Free
Auxiliary power units;
Batteries;
Bolts, cocks, cotter pins, eyelets, nuts, pins, rivets, screws, turnbuckles and clevis, washers;
Brakes, with related operating gear;
Carburettors;
Direct or inertia starters with or without related operating gear;
Distributors;
De-icing and anti-icing equipment;
Electric generators;
Electric lamps;
Exhaust gas analyzers;
Fittings and couplings;
Fuel pressure warning devices;
Forgings and castings;
Hinges;
Hydraulic jacks;
Hydraulic pumps;
Ignition coils;
Instruments;
15 p.c
7Jp.c
Free 7* p.c
Free 7i p.c
25 p.c.
30 p.c.
271 p.c. 27} p.c.
271 P.c. 271 PC.
[Stage Direction]
5 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
25 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
10 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
19 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
71 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
30 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
10 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
20 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
18 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
30 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
271 P-c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
71 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
27} p.c.
[Stage Direction]
(On and after July 1, 1069)
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
271 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
71 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
27} p.c.
[Stage Direction]
(On and after July 1,1909)
<i
[Stage Direction]
October 24, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
Tariff
Item
Most-
British	Favoured-
Preferential	Nation
Tariff	Tariff
Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget
British	Most-
[Stage Direction]
General
[Stage Direction]
Preferential
[Stage Direction]
Favoured-Nation
[Stage Direction]
General
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
44059-1 Landing and navigation lights;
(Cont'd) Magnetos;
Oil coolers;
Pressure fire extinguishers;
Primer pumps;
Propellers and helicopter rotors;
Radio for navigation and air traffic communication; Seats;
Shapes or sections, rolled, drawn or extruded, and bars, rods, tubes, plate, sheet and strip, of any metal or alloy thereof;
Spark plugs;
Swaged wires and tie rods;
Tires and tire inner tubes;
Vacuum pumps with related operating gear; Voltage control boxes;
Wheels;
Parts of all the foregoing;
[Stage Direction]
All of the foregoing when of types or sizes not made in Canada and for use in aircraft, aircraft engines, airborne aircraft equipment, or parts of aircraft, aircraft engines, or airborne aircraft equipment
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
271 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free Various
[Stage Direction]
Free Various
[Stage Direction]
271 P-c. Various
[Stage Direction]
44300-1
[Stage Direction]
Apparatus, and parts thereof, for cooking or for heating buildings, not to include commercial food processing machines, namely, continuous pressure and atmospheric pre-heaters and cookers, and parts thereof, for sterilizing or for cooking or for both sterilizing and cooking food products in hermetically sealed containers
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
20 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
30 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
211 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
30 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
U62H-1
[Stage Direction]
Electron beam welding machines and laser beam micro-welding machines
[Stage Direction]
5 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
10 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
30 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
5 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
18 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
30 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
October 24, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Frames not more than ten inches in width, clasps and fasteners (not to include slide or hookless fasteners), when imported for use in the manufacture of purses, chatelaine bags or reticules; parts of the foregoing
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
61666-1
[Stage Direction]
Scrap or used tires and tubes, wholly or in part of rubber,
[Stage Direction]
when imported for use exclusively in the manufacture of reclaim rubber
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
66815-1 Motion picture films, negative or positive, with or without sound; still picture films, negative or positive; video tape recordings; sound recordings in tape, disc or wire form; all the foregoing being news features or recordings of current events
[Stage Direction]
-____ Free
[Stage Direction]
70320-1 Goods (not including alcoholic beverages, cigars, cigarettes and manufactured tobacco) imported by a member of the Canadian Forces or an employee of the Canadian Government, or by a former resident of Canada returning to Canada to resume residence therein, and acquired by him during an absence from Canada of not less than one year for personal or household use and actually owned by him abroad and in his possession and use for at least six months prior to his return to Canada
[Stage Direction]
*.... Free
[Stage Direction]
The Minister may by regulation exempt any goods or classes of goods from the six-month ownership, possession and use requirement set out in this item.
Goods entitled to entry under this item shall be exempt from all imposts notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or any other Act.
Any goods imported under this item which are sold or otherwise disposed of within twelve months after importation are subject to the duties and taxes otherwise prescribed.
12} p.c.
Free
Free
Free
20 p.c.
Free
Free
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
12J p.c.
[Stage Direction]
20 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
1J cts. 3 cts. per linear foot
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
3c/lin. ft.
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
20 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
25 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
15 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
171 P.c.
[Stage Direction]
30 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
oo
October 24, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
to
Tariff
Item
British
Preferential
Tariff
Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget
Most-
[Stage Direction]
Favoured-
[Stage Direction]
British
[Stage Direction]
Most-
[Stage Direction]
Nation
[Stage Direction]
General
[Stage Direction]
Preferential
[Stage Direction]
Favoured-Nation
[Stage Direction]
General
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
92942-Vegetable alkaloids, natural or reproduced by synthesis, and their salts, ethers, esters and other derivatives:
92942-i Caffeine and its salts	 Free	121 p.c.	25 p.c.	Free	121 P-c-	25 p.c.
93404-Synthetic wax; waxes containing synthetic wax:
93404-2 Polyethylene of a number-average molecular
weight not exceeding 4,000	 Free	Free	10 p.c.	Free	Free	10 p.c.
12. That Schedule A to the Customs Tariff be'amended by striking out tariff items 70310-1 and 70315-1, and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of those items, and by inserting in Schedule A to the Customs Tariff the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
Tariff
Item
Most-
'British	Favoured-
Preferential	Nation
Tariff	Tariff
Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget
British	Most-
[Stage Direction]
General
[Stage Direction]
Preferential
[Stage Direction]
Favoured-Nation
[Stage Direction]
General
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Goods (not including alcoholic beverages, cigars, cigarettes and manufactured tobacco except where specifically provided therefor) acquired abroad by a resident of Canada for his personal or household use or as souvenirs or gifts, but not bought on commission or as an accommodation for any
COMMONS DEBATES	October 24, 1969
other person or for sale, and declared by him at the time of his return to Canada, under such regulations as the Minister may prescribe:
70310-1 Valued at not more than twenty-five dollars (including alcoholic beverages not exceeding forty ounces, and tobacco not exceeding fifty cigars, two hundred cigarettes and two pounds of manufactured tobacco) and included in the baggage accompanying the resident of Canada returning from abroad after an absence from Canada of not less than forty-eight hours	 Free
A resident of Canada shall not he entitled to the exemption granted under this item more often than once in each calendar quarter, that is in each quarterly period in a year beginning on January 1, April 1,
July 1 and October 1, respectively.
70311-1 Valued at not more than one hundred dollars (including alcoholic beverages not exceeding forty ounces, and tobacco not exceeding fifty cigars, two hundred cigarettes and two pounds of manufactured tobacco) and included in the baggage accompanying the resident of Canada returning from abroad after an absence from Canada of not less than twelve days	 Free
Goods {other than alcoholic beverages, cigars, cigarettes and manufactured tobacco) acquired in any country beyond the continental limits of North America may be entered under this item although they are not included in the baggage accompanying the returning resident if they are declared by him at the time of his return to Canada.
The exemption granted under this item shall be extended only to a resident who, upon his return to Canada, establishes in such form and manner as the Minister may specify by regulation that he has been abroad for a minimum period of twelve days, which form and manner may differ according to the country visited or the mode of travel used.
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free	Free
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
oo
[Stage Direction]
October 24. 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
Tariff
Item
Most-
British Favoured-Preferential	Nation
Tariff	Tariff
General
Tariff
Rates in Effect Prior to Rates Proposed in this Budget
British	Most-
[Stage Direction]
Preferential
[Stage Direction]
Favoured-Nation
[Stage Direction]
General
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
Tariff
[Stage Direction]
A resident of Canada shall not be entitled to the exemption granted under this item more than once in a calendar year and he shall not be entitled, with respect to the same trip abroad, to claim an exemption under tariff item 70310-1 if he claims an exemption under this item.
[Stage Direction]
70312-1 Valued at not more than one hundred dollars (not including goods otherwise allowed duty-free entry into Canada, nor alcoholic beverages, cigars ,cigarettes and manufactured tobacco) and included in the baggage accompanying the resident of Canada returning from abroad after an absence from Canada of not less than forty-eight hours
[Stage Direction]
[DOT] 25 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
25 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
25 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
70313-1 Valued at not more than five dollars (not including alcoholic beverages, cigars, cigarettes and manufactured tobacco) and included in the baggage accompanying the resident of Canada returning from abroad after an absence from Canada of not less than forty-eight hours
[Stage Direction]
.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
Various
[Stage Direction]
The exemption granted under this item shall be extended only to a resident who, at the time of his return to Canada, is not entering any other goods under any other item of this heading (or under tariff items 70S 10-1 or 70S 16-1 until January 1, 1970).
[Stage Direction]
Goods entitled to entry under any item of this heading shall be exempt from all other imposts notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or any other Act.
COMMONS DEBATES	October 24, 1969
The Minister by regulation may, notwithstanding any other provision in customs legislation relating to the entry of goods, excuse a returning resident of Canada from any requirement for making a written declaration or entry with respect to goods entitled to entry under any item of this heading.
The Governor in Council may, by order, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, reduce the maximum value of goods that are entitled to entry under any item of this heading but every order made pursuant to this authority shall be published in the Canada Gazette, and shall cease to have any force or effect with respect to any period following the 180th day from the date of its making or, if Parliament is not then sitting, the 15th day next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, unless not later than that day the order is approved by resolution adopted by both Houses of Parliament.
13.	That the heading to the column in Schedule B to the Customs Tariff entitled "Portion of Duty (not including Special Duty or Dumping Duty) payable as Drawback" be amended by striking out the expression "not including Special Duty or Dumping Duty".
14.	That any enactment founded upon paragraphs 4 to 6 and 8 to 11 inclusive of this motion shall be deemed to have come into force on the 4th day of June, 1969 and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the said paragraphs imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after that day, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.
15.	That any enactment founded upon paragraph 12 of this motion shall come into force on the 1st day of January, 1970, with the exception of items 70312-1 and 70313-1 which shall be deemed to have come into force on the 4th day of June, 1969.
16.	That a consequential amendment be made to the Excise Tax Act by providing that the reference in Part VII of Schedule III to the Excise Tax Act to tariff items 47600-1, 47815-1 and 69605-1 be read and construed as a reference to these items as they read immediately before June 4, 1969.
Queen's Printer for Canada, Ottawa, 1969
oo cn
October 24. 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 27, 1969