1969-10-30

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on what for me is a rare exercise, namely a question of privilege involving a matter which impinges upon or could impinge upon the privileges and effectiveness of all hon. members of this House, and I intend to make a motion for referral of the subject matter to one of the standing committees of the House.
I have in my hand a document from the Department of Communications addressed to the news editors of the radio stations in Canada, which reads as follows:
Radio stations will soon be able to obtain, by simply dialing a telephone number, policy statements of national importance made in the House, at a press conference or in a speech, by the Minister of Communications, Eric Kierans.
The system will allow radio stations anywhere in Canada, where there is a telephone service, to get a recorded statement (60 to 90 seconds) preceded by a service message by dialing a government number in their area.


An hon. Member:: His master's voice.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The document continues:
The statement can then be recorded by the stations for use in their news broadcasts or saved for public affairs programming.
We will let you know soon the number you must call.
This is over the name of Frank Howard, Director of Information Services, Communications Department.


An hon. Member:: 1984.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: This, sir, is a serious matter. The relationship of Parliament to the media is one of great significance at the present time. There are queries whether or not television should be in the House, on the
doorstep of the House, or in neither place. This is a time when we see a great proliferation of information officers in the departments of the members of the executive.
This is a matter of especial importance in that it involves the particular minister who has a special role and powers in reference to broadcasting in this country because, by Order in Council P.C. 1968-1305, those powers regarding licensing which once were vested in the Minister of Transport have now been vested in the Minister of Communications. So it is not a far stretch of the imagination to envisage that the news editors of the radio stations across the country, having dialed the number, may in certain respects expect to hear "his master's voice", as the old expression has it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: This matter, Mr. Speaker, should be investigated. If this is a proper relationship of a member of the House of Commons to the media, it should not be the exclusive property of the ministers or a particular minister. If it is an improper relationship with the media, if it embodies the concept, even remotely, of managed news, then it should be thoroughly investigated by the proper committee of this House and the practice curtailed forthwith. It may indeed be a proper performance or it may be a highly improper performance. But this relationship is of such significance in these days when we are told that the media is the message, that the situation could be very serious if the minister and the media are the same. I therefore propose to move the following motion:
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
That the conduct of the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications, as evidenced by a letter distributed from his office and relating to the availability of statements made by him or on his behalf to the radio stations of Canada be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much whether it would be in the interest of the House to enlarge the debate on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Hillsborough. I have studied the notice which I received from the hon. member in accordance with the requirements of the rules. I have
October 30, 1969

Publicizing of Policy Statements looked into the precedents and I am now in a position to indicate to the House whether I consider that there is a prima facie case of privilege, since this has to be determined before the motion can be put in a formal way to the House.
It may be useful at the beginning of the session for me to stress once again, as I have tried to do in the past sessions, the very nature of parliamentary privilege. Privilege has been defined as the sum of the fundamental rights enjoyed by each House of Parliament collectively and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. In the seventeenth edition of May's Parliamentary Practice at page 43 we find the following:
When any of these rights and immunities, both of the Members, individually, and of the assembly in its collective capacity, which are known by the general name of privileges, are disregarded or attacked by any individual or authority, the offence is called a breach of privilege, and is punishable under the law of Parliament.
Parliamentary privilege as a separate part of the common law includes the following special rights and immunities available to Members of Parliament:
-freedom of speech, in the sense of immunity against suits in defamation; freedom from arrest in certain very limited circumstances; exemption from court duty as a witness or as a juror; protection against undue influence, and reflection on Members.
There are also the collective privileges of the House dealing with the control of its proceedings and publications; the calling and protection of witnesses; reflections and indignities affecting the House as a body or as an institution; the right to set up its own rules, and the traditional privileges claimed by the Speaker on behalf of the House at the opening of Parliament.
I stress the essence of the definition of privilege itself so that hon. members will realize that it is only in very extreme circumstances that there can come to the House a legitimate case of privilege on the basis of the real and accepted and traditional definition of parliamentary privilege.
The question has often been raised whether parliamentary privilege imposes on ministers an obligation to deliver ministerial statements and to make announcements and communications to the public through the House of Commons or to make these announcements or statements in the House rather than outside the chamber. The question has been asked whether hon. members are entitled, as part of their parliamentary privilege, to receive such

information ahead of the general public. I can find no precedent to justify this suggestion. Hon. members will remember that there was an interesting and somewhat protracted debate on a question of privilege raised in the last session by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). The arguments which were advanced at the time were studied closely and the precedents were discussed in a ruling of the Chair reported at page 869 of Votes and Proceedings of March 31, 1969. The precedents which were quoted at that time are in my view applicable to the circumstances outlined by the hon. member for Hillsborough. There may be, in such circumstances, a question of propriety or a question of courtesy. There may be a grievance. But in my view there cannot be a question of privilege. In the circumstances I regret that I cannot put the hon. member's motion to the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I understand there have been consultations with representatives of the other parties in order to move with unanimous consent a reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. The purpose of the reference is to give the committee an opportunity to consider the present level of interest rates in Canada in relation to rates in other countries and to economic conditions in Canada and elsewhere.
With unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin):
That the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be empowered to consider the present level of interest rates in Canada and their relation both to rates in other countries and to economic conditions in Canada and elsewhere;
And that the evidence adduced by the committee in its study of the aforementioned matter during the first session of the twenty-eighth parliament be referred to the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to present this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
October 30, 1569
[Stage Direction]
Public Bills PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Speaker:: The House will note that on today's order paper there are listed many public bills for introduction by private members. It would be difficult at this time for the Chair to review the provisions of each of those bills. May I therefore suggest to the House that we adopt the procedure which was agreed upon by the House in several recent sessions, namely, that we proceed to the introduction and first reading of these bills so that each may be scrutinized between now and the time appointed for their second reading in order to determine whether there be any defect therein with respect to the practices and usages of the House.
Therefore, in order to save the time of the House, taking into consideration that perhaps more than two hours would be required to introduce each of these measures separately, it is suggested that by unanimous consent all the bills listed for introduction on today's order paper be deemed to have been introduced, given first reading and ordered to be printed and allowed to stand for second reading at the next sitting of the House, subject, of course, to a subsequent examination as to the regularity of each bill.
To be more specific I should mention that some five bills appear at first blush to have the earmarks of money bills and therefore could be ruled out of order. Hon. members who are sponsoring these bills may want to give some thought to arguing the procedural point when they are brought before the House for second reading. These bills are:
An Act respecting the Canadian Heritage Foundation Act;
An Act relating to Indian Lands in the province of British Columbia;
An Act to amend the National Housing Act, 1954 (Municipal Water and Soil Pollution Projects);
An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (Housewives' contributions and benefits):
An Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
These bills will have to be studied carefully before a definite opinion is given. The Chair will take into account, of course, all the procedural arguments that may be submitted to the House.
It is agreed that we proceed as has been suggested?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill C-13, to establish the Office of Parliamentary Commissioner-Mr. Thompson (Red Deer).
Bill C-14, to amend the Canada Elections Act (Political Affiliations of Candidates on Ballot Papers)-Mr. Anderson.
Bill C-15, to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act (Age Discrimination)-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-16, to amend the Criminal Code (Modernization of Law of Picketing)-Mr. Broadbent.
Bill C-17, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (Listing of ingredients)-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill	C-18,	to	amend	the British North
America Act,	1867 (Abolition of the Senate)-
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-19, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Bill	C-20,	to	better	assure the Public's
Rights to Freedom of Access to Public Documents and Information about Government Administration (Administrative Disclosure)- Mr. Mather.
Bill	C-21,	to	amend	the Criminal Code
(Fine print clauses)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-22, respecting Little League Week- Mr. Whelan.
Bill C-23, to amend the Criminal Code (Tire Safety)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-24, to amend the Hazardous Products Act-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-25, to amend the National Transportation Act (Fair competition of railway companies)-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).
Bill C-26, to amend the Criminal Code (Pollution)-Mr. Anderson.
Bill C-27, to amend the Criminal Code (Young offenders)-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-28, to preserve and promote Native Indian and Eskimo Arts and Crafts-Mr. Howard (Skeena).
Bill C-29, respecting Canada Day-Mr. Brown.
Bill C-30, respecting Canadian currency (Effigy of former Prime Ministers)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-31, to amend the Canada Evidence Act (Incriminating statements)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-32, to amend the House of Commons Act (Internal Economy Autonomy)-Mr. Howard (Skeena).

October 30, 1969
Public Bills
Bill C-33, respecting Pilot Training Flights by International and Regional Air Carriers at International Airports in Canada-Mr. Goode.
Bill C-34, to amend the Food and Drugs Act-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-35, the Canadian Heritage Foundation Act-Mr. Roberts.
Bill C-36, to amend the Small Loans Act (Advertising)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-37, Respecting Disclosure of Names of Drug Addicts-Mr. Haidasz.
Bill C-38, respecting the Control of Lobbying-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-39, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Prevention of water pollution)-Mr. Anderson.
Bill C-40, to amend the Financial Administration Act (Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration)-Mr. Thompson.
Bill C-41, to amend the Government Organization Act, 1969-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-42, respecting the Metric System- Mr. Peters.
Bill C-43, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (Notice and Payment to Employees in case of Discharge or Lay-off)- Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-44, to repeal the British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act-Mr. Howard (Skeena).
Bill C-45, respecting the presence of the National Flag of Canada in both Houses of Parliament-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-46, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (Application restricted to physical movement)-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).
Bill C-47, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (Labelling)-Mr. Anderson.
Bill C-48, to amend the Bank Act (Regulation of Excess of loan interest rate over rate of interest on debts payable by bank)-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-49, to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act (Age or Sex Discrimination)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-50, relating to Indian Lands in the Province of British Columbia-Mr. Howard (Skeena).
Bill C-51, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (Freedom of Conscience)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-52, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (Charity versus Closed-Shop Union Dues)-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).

BUI C-53, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (Time off without loss of pay for appearance in Citizenship	Court)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-54, to amend the Railway Act (Responsibility for Dislocation Costs)-Mr. Skoberg.
Bill C-55, to amend the Criminal Code (Abortion)-Mrs. Maclnnis.
Bill C-56, to amend the Criminal Code (Company-censored Housing)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-57, to establish a National Capital Region Planning Board-Mr. Francis.
Bill C-58, to amend the National Transportation Act (Restricted Application)-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).
Bill C-59, respecting the Metric System- Mr. MacLean.
Bill C-60, respecting the Employment of Women in Federal Jurisdiction before and after Childbirth-Mrs. Maclnnis.
Bill C-61, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (Three Weeks Annual Vacation after Three Years)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-62, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Monteith.
Bill C-63, respecting Canada Day-Mr. Borrie.
Bill C-64, to amend the Immigration Act (Mental Retardation)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-65, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, with respect to the Quorum of the House of Commons-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-66, concerning the Exportation of the Growth and Produce of Canada-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-67, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (Age or Sex Discrimination)- Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-68, to amend the Canada Pension Plan

Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-69, to restrain the use of Tobacco- Mr. Mather.
Bill C-70, to amend the Broadcasting Act (cigarette advertising)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-71, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (Severance Pay)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-72, to amend the Canada Elections Act (Youth Vote	Participation)-Mr. Mazankowski.
Bill C-73, to amend the Immigration Appeal Board Act-Mr. Haidasz.
October 30, 19G9

Bill C-74, respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day-Mr. Macquarrie.
Bill C-75, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Cullen.
Bill C-76, to amend the Criminal Code (Abolishment of Corporal Punishment)-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-77, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (Provision for a Ninth General Holiday with pay)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-78, to amend the Canada Elections Act (Qualifications of voters and candidates)-Mr. Laprise.
Bill C-79, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act and the Interest Act (Off-Store Instalment Sales)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-80, to amend the Public Service Employment Act (Age Discrimination)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-81, concerning reform of the bail system-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-82, to provide for the Establishment of the Alaska-Yukon Highway Authority (Alaska Highway)-Mr.	Thompson (Red
Deer).
Bill C-83, respecting noise in factories-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-84, to amend the Indian Act (Rights of Indian woman upon marriage)-Mr. Rock.
Bill C-85, respecting Human Rights-Mrs. Maclnnis.
Bill C-86, to govern, license and regulate the operation of Rainmaking Equipment in Canada-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-87, to amend the Canada Elections Act (Qualification of electors)-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-88, to amend the Regional Development Incentives	Act-Mr.	MacDonald
(Egmont).
Bill C-89, to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act (Five Year Base Price)-Mr. Stewart (Marquette).
Bill C-90, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954 (Municipal Water and Soil Pollution Projects)-Mr. Alexander.
Bill C-91, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act-Mr. Anderson.
Bill C-92, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. McBride.
Bill C-93, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (Floor Penalties, Criminal Joint Tortfeasors, and Moieties)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-94, to provide for the humane treatment of vertebrate animals used in scientific
Public Bills
and industrial experiments, tests or training by recipients of grants from the Government of Canada, by agencies of the Government of Canada and by persons manufacturing or testing pharmaceutical or biochemical products for sale to the Government of Canada or to any of its agencies-Mr. Groos.
Bill C-95, to amend the Criminal Code (Air and Water Pollution)-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-96, to amend the National Trade Mark and True Labelling Act-Mr. Anderson.
Bill C-97, to amend the Canada Elections Act (Students' Franchise)-Mr. Deachman.
Bill C-98, to amend the Canada Pension Plan (Housewives' contributions and benefits)-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-99, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (Increased Minimum Hourly Wage)-Mr.	Knowles	(Winnipeg	North
Centre).
Bill	C-100,	to amend the Small	Loans
Act-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-101, to amend the Canada Elections Act (Proxy Voting)-Mr. Comeau.
Bill C-102, to amend the Criminal Code (Preventive Detention)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill	C-103,	to amend	the British	North
America Acts, 1867 to 1965, (Duration of House of Commons)-Mr. Peters.
Bill	C-104,	respecting	Canada Day-Mr. Broadbent.
Bill C-105, respecting the labelling of hazardous household products-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-106, to amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-107, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (Labelling of dates on perishable commodities)-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-108, respecting the Inspection (Safety Standards) of Motor Vehicles-Mr. McCutcheon.
Bill C-109, to amend the Statistics Act-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-110, to amend the Food and Drugs Act-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-lll, to amend the Department of Transport Act-Mr. Goode.
Bill C-112, to establish a National Capital Region Pollution Control Board-Mr. Francis.
Bill C-113, to provide for the Protection of News Sources (Press Privilege)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-114, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act-Mr. Allmand.

October 30, 1969
Public Bills
Bill C-115, relating to the Control and Management of the Water Resources of Canada- Mr. Baldwin.
Bill C-116, to amend the Criminal Code (Wire Tapping, etc.)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-117, to amend the British North America Act, 1867, (Canadian Bill of Rights)-Mr. Badanai.
Bill C-118, to amend the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act-Mr. Howard (Skeena).
Bill C-119, to amend the Post Office Act (Hate Literature)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-120, to amend the Canada Elections Act (Qualifications of Electors and Candidates)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-121, to regulate Trade and Commerce-Mr. Saltsman.
Bill C-122, to amend the Criminal Code (control of motor vehicle)-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill C-123, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act (Instalment Purchases)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-124, respecting the Hunting and Fishing Rights of Indian Canadians (Mr. Simpson).
Bill C-125, to amend the Criminal Code (Adjournment for accused to obtain legal representation)-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-126, respecting Canadian National Pollution Awareness Week-Mr. Goode.
Bill C-127, proclaiming the Canadian Flag Day a National Holiday-Mr. Haidasz.
Bill C-128, respecting the Protection of Records of Canadian Business Concerns-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-129, to amend the Canada Pension Plan (Pension Index)-Mr. Macquarrie.
Bill C-130, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Goode.
Bill C-131, respecting the Marketing of Synthetic Detergents

Mr. Anderson.
Bill C-132, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act-Mr. Orlikow.



DEEP SEA FISHERIES ACT


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-133, to repeal the Deep Sea Fisheries Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
(Mr. Speaker.]
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


John (Jack) Davis: for leave to introduce Bill C-134, to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.


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


Hon. Herb Gray (for the Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-135, to amend the Canada Student Loans Act.


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of his various statements urging proper restraint upon the private sector of the economy. Has the government or the Prices and Incomes Commission yet decided on any guidelines as to what constitutes a proper exercise of restraint in present circumstances? If so, has any such information been conveyed, or will it be conveyed, to management and labour in addition to the general and proper exhortations in favour of restraint?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker. The Prices and Incomes Commission has been consulting with management and labour for some time past, indicating to them ways in which restraints could be properly exercised and suggesting that the idea of a moratorium on increases in prices and incomes should be considered for the period of the next year. Details have been made known widely by the chairman and members of the commission. As I understand it, they have slated a meeting for December in which these suggested restraints will be
October 30, 19G9	COMMONS DEBATES	275
Inquiries of the Ministry
brought back in the form of pledges by the parties who have been interviewed or various sectors of the economy.	approached by members of the commission.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If I understood the Prime Minister correctly, he indicated that the Prices and Incomes Commission has been conveying to certain parts, at least, of the private sector guidelines which would constitute an acceptable measure of restraint. Is it the intention of the Prices and Incomes Commission or of the government to make public the guidelines which are being suggested by the commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a tactical consideration which the commission itself will have to determine. It is my understanding that its intention was to seek some form of voluntary agreement from as many areas of the economy as possible before making such statements public, or at least before announcing them. The reason, of course, is that it is important to get agreement from the various parties before stating that agreement had been reached, before creating expectations that perhaps could not be fulfilled.
The newspapers have been full of news about these matters. We know that some companies have agreed, that some sectors of industry have agreed and that some sectors of the labour movement have not agreed. But as far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, the commission is still proceeding with its work. I do not think the commission takes the position that it has had final answers yet to its proposals; it is still hopeful that there might be some kind of voluntary restraint. We are waiting, along with the Leader of the Opposition, for some statement from the commission as to the next step it is going to take.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister in a position to indicate whether or not the Prices and Incomes Commission indicated any guidelines as to restraint in connection with the steel industry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am unable to say, Mr. Speaker. If within recent weeks the commission has had any specific meetings with the steel industry or, for that matter, with any other particular industry, then I have had no report of these individual meetings. Like the hon. member, I have read certain statements in the newspapers attributed to companies and unions in regard to suggestions made by the commission. However, I do not have a list, nor have I requested such, of all the


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question. As I read the comments in the press made by industry and labour regarding the proposals of the Prices and Incomes Commission, they related to general agreements on guidelines. Is the Prime Minister going further and suggesting that the Prices and Incomes Commission has submitted specific guidelines to particular sectors of the economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I do not know exactly whom the members of the commission saw, and I do not know exactly what they said. I have not asked them for a report on the matter, nor do I think it proper to do so at this time. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I know as much as the hon. member. I should add that I know as much as I have read in the newspapers, which is perhaps not very much.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to put this question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but in his absence may I put it to the Prime Minister. In view of the suggestion made by the Steelworkers Union that the Prices and Incomes Commission might be asked to hold its inquiry into the price increases in steel in public, may I ask whether the government will use its good offices to impress upon the Prices and Incomes Commission the desirability of acting on this suggestion?


Mr. Paul Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the commission is an independent body, and it is not for the government to tell the commission what to do at this time; at least, I do not think it is. Would the hon. member repeat the second part of his question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I repeat and clarify the question. I recognize that this body is an independent one. That is why I asked the minister or the Prime Minister whether the government would use its good offices to impress this suggestion on the Prices and Incomes Commission. After all, this sort of thing has been done before, so why not do it again?


Paul Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I cannot do this. The minister is in Washington at the moment

October 30, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry engaging in very important meetings. He will return at the beginning of next week, and I will put this question to him as soon as he returns to his office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Prime Minister himself not act on this matter?


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister which relates to what he said on these matters at the dinner given for the tripartite conference last night. Have the Departments of Finance and Industry, Trade and Commerce been instructed to prepare tax and tariff measures in order to fight inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They have not been so instructed, Mr. Speaker, but the government is giving consideration to alternative ways of fighting inflation, as several ministers have stated in past days.


George Harris Hees: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in respect of what the Prime Minister said last night about inflation fighting options which the government has open to it. Will he now or at the first opportunity on motions outline to the House just what are these inflation fighting options?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the textbooks on economics contain various options, four of which I mentioned last night. I do not intend to implement them until the measures in which we still believe have shown themselves to be without result. The question will be answered if we have to resort to further measures.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will request his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to make a statement to the House when he returns in order to indicate to the house precisely what action the Prices and Incomes Commission has taken to propose specific restraints, forms of restraints and degrees of restraints to particular sectors of the economy? Would the appropriate minister indicate to the House just what has been done, if anything, in this area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will raise the question with him. Let me repeat the answer just given by the Parliamentary Secretary. This is an independent commission and we do not want to be in the position of calling the commission in at every turn to give them instructions or ask them for reports.
[Mr. Langlois.l
As the minister said a few days ago, the opposition supported us and, indeed, urged us on in appointing this commission. We have faith in the men who form the commission. I think it is proper from time to time for contacts to take place between the commission and the minister, but I am sure the opposition would be first to object if we appeared to be directing the operations of the commission on a day to day or, indeed, a week to week basis.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I say on a question of privilege that I never pressed the government for the appointment of this independent commission or study group, as I call it from time to time. May I ask the Prime Minister in a non-argumentative way whether he would agree that there is intense public interest and that it is very much in the public interest that we have as much information as possible in this House and throughout the country regarding what proposals or steps are taken by this commission in order that we may formulate our own views as to what is required?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I would agree with that, Mr. Speaker, but this involves a matter of knowing how soon and how frequently the Leader of the Opposition thinks the commission should be reporting to the minister and to Parliament. We do not think it should be on a weekly basis.


George Harris Hees: I have a further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Roland Godin (Porfneuf):: I should like to direct my question to the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications.
As the postal rates in force since last year resulted in the disappearance of several Canadian papers and since many local weeklies are presently experiencing financial difficulties, could the minister tell us whether it is true that his department is considering granting privileges by means of special rates in the so-called designated areas?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Poslmasier General and Minister of Communications):: No, Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of altering our decision. However, we wish to discuss the problem with a group of owners of weeklies I will be meeting within a few days.
October 30, 1969	COMMONS


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we will return to the hon. member in a few minutes. We might now move to another subject for a few minutes and then call again on the hon. member. We will return to him for the purpose of allowing him to ask a further supplementary.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: 
Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking the hon. member's question into consideration. I will hand it over to the minister when he is in the house.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in the event that this view is sustained, will the minister advise the Farm Credit Corporation and the other institutions lending money under government legislation and also ensure that all farm mortgage debtors are acquainted with their position whether in relation to government or other farm mortgages?
DEBATES	277
Inquiries of the Ministry with snowed-under crops, is the federal government taking any initiatives, similar to those taken in 1959, to provide some form of assistance to offset the dire circumstances resulting from the shortage of cash, because cash advances cannot be acquired on unharvested grain, and to meet the shortage of feed and feed requirements during the ensuing winter?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisier of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the Wheat Board asked me to say that he and the Minister of Agriculture are considering such measures.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Will the minister be prepared to make a statement in the house within the next ten days?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister will want to ask the hon. member to repeat his question when he is ready to answer it.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the report on pollution recently submitted by the International Joint Commission which recommended that the use of phosphorus by the detergent industry in its products should be stopped within the next two years, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or his Parliamentary Secretary whether the department has taken any steps to implement this very urgent and important recommendation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I Will look into that, Mr. Speaker.



NORTHERN ALBERTA-INQUIRY AS TO ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Hunboldt I will direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the continuing adverse weather conditions in northern Alberta and the Alberta government's announced intention to help farmers



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether the Minister of Justice has requested the Post Office Department to issue a special stamp featuring Hal Banks to commemorate and express the jubilation of the government on the so-called closing of this famous case?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
October 30, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



USE OF RETIRED JUDGES TO DISPOSE OF DOCKETS

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the large numbers of Canadians held, while awaiting trial, in various jails during the July and August summer vacation when there is little activity in the courts, would the minister consider calling on retired judges, who are experienced, to assist the courts to clean up these dockets during the summer vacation? Many of these people are unable to get bail or cannot afford it.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: That is a very good idea, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that the administration of justice is constitutionally the responsibility of the provincial Attorneys General. This is something I would like to talk to them about.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that many of these people being incarcerated are young men and women charged under the Narcotic Control Act, which is a direct responsibility of the minister's department, will he contact these very special Crown prosecutors across the nation to see whether these people can be released on bail? Many of them are high school and university students.


John Napier Turner: I will take that into consideration, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that more than 13,000 dairy producers have been forced to give up dairy production, could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us if the government's dairy policy will be reviewed this year?


Florian Côté: Mr. Speaker, the dairy policy is reviewed and considered every month by the Advisory Board of the Canadian Dairy Commission which is made up of nine persons, most of them farmers. Every month that problem is studied.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture?
I wish to ask him whether, during these discussions, the Quebec Dairy Producers Union is officially consulted about the development of this dairy policy?


Florian Côté: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Union is invited to the discussions almost every month.



ATOMIC ENERGY


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but in his absence perhaps I could direct it to the Prime Minister. Has the government been able to find any solution to the problem of the critical shortage of heavy water in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Does the question not concern the government of Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker? Is the hon. member referring to the problems of Deuterium Company of Canada?


Percy Verner Noble: I believe the plant at Chalk River will have to slow down unless a supply of heavy water can be obtained.



POLLUTION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muslcoka):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has the minister's department cancelled a research project in the entomology section of the forestry research branch which might have provided an alternative to the use of chemical sprays, and has this been done as a result of the government's budgetary restrictions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest this is a question which might well be placed on the order paper. If it is urgent it could be considered at the time of adjournment this evening.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, Without in any way suggesting that Your Honour is wrong in ruling me out of order I should like to say that this is an urgent matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If it is urgent the hon. members knows that the matter can
October 30, 1969

be considered in a few hours at the time of adjournment later today.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the supplementary might be included in the question the hon. member will ask this evening.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I do not very often argue about these things but, on a point of order, may I point out that every day we speak in this House about pollution and here is a research project that is being cancelled which might have provided an over-all alternative-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot allow the hon. member on a point of order and on the ground of urgency to discuss the ruling that the question is out of order. This is the reason we instituted the rule which provides an opportunity to an hon. member to raise a matter at the time of adjournment. The hon. member says the matter is one of urgency. It may very well be one of extreme urgency. The Speaker has to make a rather quick decision on these matters and because he is often wrong in his assessment hon. members come back later in the day and put their questions in a more formal way at the time of adjournment. I hope at that time the hon. member will receive a detailed and satisfactory reply from the minister. I shall request the Clerk to put the hon. member's question at the top of the list to be considered before others later today.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was at the top of tonight's list.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl):: You were,
Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has a firm date been set for the banning of DDT in Canada, and have the necessary arrangements been made to put this ban into effect?
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National
Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I believe the government will be in a position to make a statement on this matter during the early part of next week.

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):
May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consult with his colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry to see whether some alternative to the use of DDT might be developed?


Mr. Munro:: These discussions have been under way for some time between all the departments involved.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether any departments of the government are using DDT in various programs in provinces where the use of DDT is now illegal?


John Carr Munro: Not to my knowledge.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
Canada did receive requests for help from two countries struck by disasters caused by natural forces, that is from Yugoslavia where there was an earthquake and from Tunisia where there were floods. For Yugoslavia, Canada gave $15,000 to the International Red Cross through the Canadian Red Cross which also donated $23,000.
For Tunisia, Canada gave $15,000 to the International Red Cross through the Canadian Red Cross which gave an additional $15,000. In addition, the CIDA has granted a sum of $15,000 for the purchase of equipment which will be sent in Tunisia.
We are waiting for an official request for food from the Tunisian government and we intend to consider it favourably. It will be, of course, a shipment of wheat or flour.


[Stage Direction]
GRANT FOR FRIENDSHIP CENTRES Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):	Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. I understand that officials of the Secretary of State's department submitted a presentation to cabinet several months ago requesting an increase in the federal grant to the Indian and Metis friendship centres. Can
280	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry the Secretary of State say whether this presentation has been dealt with by cabinet-
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt whether the question as asked is in order. The hon. member is referring to a communication in the form of a document between members of the cabinet. I have serious doubt whether in that form the question is acceptable.


Mr. Simpson:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State's department some months ago advised the provincial authorities that a decision was being awaited on this matter. They are now anxious to know whether or not cabinet has dealt with it.


Hon. Gerard Pelleiier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, we have actually received such a suggestion and it is now under consideration.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, the minister says they have received this request. Has the minister's department or the minister submitted a proposal to cabinet in this respect?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I feel, as you yourself seemed to indicate a moment ago, that internal communications within the government should not be made the object of questions or answers in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Secretary of State for speaking in support of the Chair's decision.

I must reiterate my view that the question as asked at the present time is quite in order but not the supplementary.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Have the details of an apparently discriminatory raid on the Fredericton Gleaner, carried out recently by officials of the Combines Investigation Branch, been reported to the minister, and can he give the House any information on this very serious and damaging action?


John Napier Turner: should like to thank the hon. member for having sent notice of his question across the 
DEBATES	October 30, 1969
aisle. I am not aware of the particular facts alleged by the hon. member. I might say to him that the administration under the Combines Investigation Act is within the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and no longer falls within the purview of the Department of Justice. The Director of Investigation and Research may well have been acting under his own statutory power. I will draw this situation to the attention of my colleague and ask him to contact the hon. member.


Hugh John Flemming: Will the minister consult with his colleague to ascertain whether similar investigations were made and similar actions taken in other parts of Canada in connection with the same type of matter?


John Napier Turner: Yes, sir.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Can he assure the House that his discussions with members of the salt fish trades will in no way impede or slow down the progress of the proposed legislation to establish a salt cod marketing corporation, and can he also report to the House on the meetings that have taken place in Ottawa in the last few days between officials of his department and representatives of the salt fish trades?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think I can give the hon. member that assurance. Also, in approximately ten days' time I will be discussing this matter with the fishermen of Newfoundland as well as the trade there.



SALMON FISHING LICENCES-POSITION OF INDIANS

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Can he answer today the question I posed yesterday on whether he would agree to a referral for investigation and report to the Standing Committee on Fisheries of the whole question of the proposal regarding salmon fishing licences on the west coast? The minister should be in a good position to answer this question since he has just returned from our fair province.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be only too
October 30, 1969	COMMONS
glad to refer to the Standing Committee on Fisheries the matter to which the hon. member has referred.



LEGISLATION TO PROTECT INSHORE FISHERY

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Si. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Can he indicate when he will be introducing his promised legislation to close the Gulf of St. Lawrence, especially along the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland, to foreign draggers in order to protect the inshore fishing industry in that area?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that legislation to do that could be introduced in the current session.



OPERATIONS OF SOVIET TRAWLERS NEAR LOUISBOURG

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of reports that a large Russian fleet, numbering 90 to 100 ships, is operating some four miles off the coast near Louisbourg, Nova Scotia, would the minister inform the House what types of fish these ships are catching and what steps he is taking to protect our inshore fisheries resources?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, all of the fishing vessels operating off the coast in that area have been under close surveillance by the Canadian authorities and I am informed that there are no foreign vessels within 12 miles of our coast. There may be some Canadian vessels operating in the area.



DECLINE IN BALANCE-INQUIRY AS TO ACTION

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the serious decline in Canada's foreign trade balance as revealed by figures issued during the last few weeks, what steps, if any, has the minister taken or is prepared to take in order to correct this situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this question should be answered by way of a statement on motions.
DEBATES	281
Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he will make a statement on motions dealing with this very serious problem?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, at the moment there are many things being done. For example, the strengthening of the Export Development Corporation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The only question which has been allowed is whether the minister will make a statement on motions. He may seek the consent of the House for the purpose of returning to motions so that he can make a statement. That course is available to him.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was just going to point out that the question was asked of me two days ago by a colleague of the hon. member, and that I am writing a letter to him in order to put all the steps down on paper. The hon. member who will receive the letter will probably want to, or want me to publish it because it will be so interesting.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That was a different
question.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr.   Gaelan-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question relating to the implementation of the official languages bill.
Could he tell the house whether the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board has begun or will soon begin its study and whether those areas where there is a large concentration of both linguistic groups will be dealt with first?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board is being established. As regards its decision as to whether districts with a larger or a smaller concentration should be dealt with first, I think it is up to the Board itself to make its own decisions.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State.
Concerning this important problem of bilingualism, I should like to ask him if his policy provides for the labelling of all products in both official languages?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this supplementary question should be put on the order paper.
282	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I directed a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with respect to dietetic foods containing cyclamates which may perhaps flood the Canadian market as a result of the restrictions being placed on them in the United States. At that time the minister did not know whether this matter came within the purview of his department. Perhaps he has a statement to make today?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I believe most of it falls under the purview of the Department of National Health and Welfare and some aspects of it under the Department of National Revenue. I understand that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has already publicly said a number of things about the matter, and I wonder if he wants to say more about it at this time.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Hamilton West and is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that certain artificial sweeteners, the cyclamates, have been banned from Canadian use because of their possible relationship to cancer of the bladder in certain rats, can the minister give the House and the country his assurance that other artificial sweeteners have been sufficiently studied to ensure their safety to the Canadian public?


John Carr Munro: I believe I can give that assurance, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wish to pose a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can he assure the country and the House that in the future, rather than depending on the leadership of American research to come to particular conclusions regarding hazardous foods, this government will take the lead in that regard?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that about 80 per cent of the research in this whole area all over the world is conducted in the United States. As a result surely one would expect they are going to come up with findings of this nature more

DEBATES	Oclober 30, 1969
than any other country, and certainly more than a country with a population of only 20 million. However, our people will be continuing their constant liaison with the United States researchers and will react to and assess their findings as quickly as possible. Of course in the meantime we are doing research ourselves. In comparison with countries of a similar size we have come up with many more findings in regard to unsafe products, and undoubtedly we will continue to do so in the future.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, to follow up the question the hon. member for Lotbiniere put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, could the latter tell us whether, as a result of the constant reviewing by the government of its dairy policy, changes have been made and, if so, what were those changes and was the manufactured milk producers union told about them?


Mr. Florian Cole (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Lotbiniere asked me that question, I think he wanted to know mostly if there was some co-operation between the government and the producers association. It so happens that, yesterday I met spokesmen from the manufactured milk producers association of the province of Quebec. I asked them if they were satisfied with the close contact they kept with the Canadian Dairy Commission and they replied that they were kept well informed by the Commission.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
I do not quite understand the Parliamentary Secretary's reply as it seems to contradict his own statement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member could ask his supplementary question.


André-Gilles Fortin: Could the Parliamentary Secretary inquire from the Canadian Dairy Commission and its officials who have, according to him, regular meetings with the representatives of the Quebec Dairy Producers Union, how many meetings were held, what changes were made and whether the people concerned were informed?


Florian Côté: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
October 30, 1969



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that the recently announced lay-offs of a large number of civilians at the U.S. naval base at Argentia could have a disastrous effect on the economy of the area can the minister say whether present manpower programs will be adequate to meet the seriousness of the situation or will new programs and expenditures be required?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with this situation for some time. My department is aware and is making available all the programs that are now in existence. At the present time we do not have any particular new programs to be administered by this department to meet that situation, but it seems to me that our present programs and services will be very helpful.


Walter C. Carter: A supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, Mr. Speaker. What steps are being planned by his department to help alleviate the serious economic situation facing people in that area as a result of the lay-offs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is asking the minister to give the House a statement of a general nature which, I suggest to the hon. member, should normally be made by way of a statement on motions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Randolph Harding: have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement made in Victoria, B.C. by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that Canada will be increasing its foreign aid expenditures, could the Prime Minister inform the House if the budget for the proposed foreign aid research centre will be considered part of the Canadian contribution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Randolph Harding: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How will the increased amount of overseas foreign aid be administered, particularly in Southeast Asia and Latin America, in view of the drastic cuts proposed in embassy staffs in those areas?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would not think that the question as asked is in order at this time.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he indicate to the House the result of nego Nations with the United States government regarding the economic disadvantage to Canada of the phase-out of many bases in this country as a result of (he cut-backs in overseas expenditure by that government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will read the question, Mr. Speaker-


John Howard Lundrigan: There seems to be some confusion opposite, Mr. Speaker, as to who will field the question but I will direct it to the Prime Minister who seems to be ready to handle it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am always quite ready to handle questions but I was talking to one of my colleagues and did not hear the question.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr Speaker, that just reflects the lack of sensitivity toward problems in this House, but I will direct the question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether negotiations have taken place with the United States government regarding the planned phase-out of many bases in Canada and throughout the world, and the economic disadvantage caused by this? In other words, have we already had discussions and are we able to predict the effect of this phase-out on the nation over a long period of time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As regards United States discussions with other nations, I do not know which minister could answer that, but as regards discussions with Canada concerning bases in Canada I will ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to report.


John Howard Lundrigan: A further supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask him or any other member of
October 30. 1969

The Address-Mr. Goyer his cabinet who has responsibility whether they could get together on this matter and make a statement to the House at an early opportunity?



ADDRESS DEBATE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, October 29, 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.
[Stage Direction]
[DOT]	(12:10 p.m.)
Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, for some time now people have been asking what is the best way to conduct Canada's foreign relations with countries where such relations often involve the provinces' interests or internal jurisdiction. This situation is not unique. Given the evolution of international exchanges since the war ended, all federal countries are faced with this problem. In the light of our practical and daily experience of external relations, I would like to make my contribution to the serious consideration required of Canada and of others.
For instance, much has been said about an "external sovereignty" for the provinces proportionate to the extension of their internal, exclusive or shared, fields of jurisdiction. That theory may sound attractive at first sight. Yet, it raises important questions in our mind, namely: Is it legally sound? Is it based on a justifiable interpretation of our constitution? Is it acceptable to the international community? Can the least serious observer of the international scene or anyone more or less familiar with the daily practice of external affairs reasonably think that, if implemented, that theory would bring about an effective and consistent policy?
Now, I would not want, at this stage, to bore the house with a tedious report on Canada's constitutional evolution in relation to external affairs. Everybody is familiar with the process by which Canada gained its independence. Everybody knows that after those fifty years of evolution the responsibility for Canadian external affairs was handed


from the British crown to the Canadian government. That evolution was confirmed by the 1947 Letters patent which are an integral part of our constitution.
However, I should like to take this opportunity to clarify certain so-called legal arguments which we consider groundless and which are brought up time and again.
It is quite often argued that the Letters patent argument is nullified by that of the Privy Council decision of 1937.
According to some people, the judgment rendered in the matter of the labour agreements of 1937 would permit the provinces to establish direct and separate relations with foreign countries, and even to sign international agreements in fields within their jurisdiction.
I seriously wonder about the amount of legal knowledge of the people who can reach such conclusions. It should be time, 32 years after the judgment, to know what it really is. In fact, all the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council said in 1937 is this: in matters which, under the British North America Act fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, the federal parliament cannot avail itself of the right to legislate by claiming that it is necessary to apply a treaty signed by Canada. On the other hand, the Privy Council has never questioned the exclusive right of the federal government to sign treaties and consequently to assume responsibility for Canada's international relations. No interference with the internal legislative jurisdiction of the provinces of Canada? Very well! But, on the other hand, no provincial interference with the ultimate and exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government in foreign affairs.
At times, it is argued that there are various federal constitutions in the world, that no two of them are alike and that Canada, therefore, can do as it pleases with its own. People forget to say one thing though: although different in other respects, all are virtually identical as concerns foreign affairs. In other words, power in external matters is always vested, one way or the other, in the central authority. Of course, there are some federal states, to wit, Switzerland, the United States, the Federal Republic of West Germany and the USSR, where constitutional usage apparently allows the member states to conclude some kinds of agreements with foreign states. There again, people forget to mention that a most cursory study of these constitutions shows that, in each instance, this power of the member states must be exercised under the
October 30, 1969
federal jurisdiction or through the federal government. Furthermore, every expert in comparative constitutional law could draw attention to the fact that even the powers of this nature that federated states may exercise are being used less frequently at the international level.
Some people claim that international life has changed and that we must fall into step. They say: "In view of the nature of external relations which have greatly evolved since the end of the war, and involve not only war and peace or trade, but more and more culture, technology or education, a new kind of internatioonal law is developing which enables the federated states to enter the field of international relations."
It is a wonderful theory which shows but one weakness: it is not in line with practice. International exchanges have grown, it is true-and that over the last 50 years-but the whole range of these exchanges remains in the hands of sovereign states and this, more and more clearly. You need only to know a little about reality and the principles of international law. Treaties contain less and less federal clauses and sovereignty transfer or sharing. The last instance is the following: As recently as last April-that is not even six months ago-the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, held in Vienna, rejected with an overwhelming majority, a recommendation which would have seemed to recognize, without clearly stating the conditions, the right for the members of a federal state to conclude treaties. This draft was used as an argument by the Quebec government in its White Paper as supposedly irrefutable evidence of the tendency shown by the members of a federal state to negotiate at the international level.
That draft was definitely rejected, for the simple reason that it did not take into account the conditions that I have mentioned and did not expressly reaffirm the exclusive right of the federal state to interpret its own constitution for the guidance of other states. The Conference concluded that the adoption of such a clause would be tantamount to an invitation to foreign states to give their own interpretation of the constitution of the federal states, and this would constitute undue interference into the internal affairs of such states. The Conference therefore strongly reaffirmed the well-established principle that in a federal country, the central government alone can interpret its constitution for the guidance of foreign States. Therefore, whatever may be alleged, international law has 21362-19
The Address-Mr. Goyer evolved and continues to do so, but in a direction that clearly does not favour the system, 'which, furthermore, is non-existent, which proclaims the external sovereignty of the provinces.
As international relations are extended to new areas, they are established between governments of sovereign states. This legal fact simply reflects the fundamental requirements of any consistent international activity. I shall come back to this later.
All those considerations of a legal nature must be stated. They are the prerequisites essential to any discussion. However, I am first of all a practical politician. I would also like to examine the theory of the external sovereignty of the provinces in the light of a daily and practical experience of external relations. As a system conceived in the abstract, this intellectual concept may seem plausible. It has a defect though, and a major one; it is absolutely irreconcilable with the facts of international life. From a practical viewpoint, the international community simply cannot accept this theory. For those who have a thorough knowledge of the workings of international relations, this formula seems a dangerous, ineffective, inconsistent and chaotic one. Let me explain.
The concept of sovereignty has become much clearer in recent years. It is high time we realized that even if there are still some protectorates, the notion of entity with various degrees of international character has practically disappeared, both in theory and in practice. There seems to be, at the present time, hardly any reason to expect that the international community will willingly revert to the antiquated concepts of semi- or partially sovereign entities, especially if such entities claimed the right to a distinct representation in the U.N. or its associate institutions.
The U.N., for example, is based on the principle of "one state", "one vote", and this without any distinction between unitary and federal states.
Federal states, as such, have no greater powers there than unitary states.
Could you imagine, for instance, that Canada having ten or eleven seats within the U.N.'s specialized agencies, and therefore hold 10 per cent of the votes, whereas countries such as France or England would be restricted to a single vote? Why, then, could India not amend her constitution so as to have 20, 50 or 100 votes? What a deal for federal



October 30, 1969
The Address-Mr. Goyer countries! Do you think the international community would play the game?
Let us take U.N.E.S.C.O. as a more specific case. If international law or the international community were to endorse the principle of extending internal juridictions at the international level, that institution would gain hundreds of members overnight. Can one seriously believe that it could operate in that manner?
In fact, for practical reasons, the international community is simply not willing to be broken up by admitting within its organizations the Canadian provinces as sovereign or partially sovereign entities.
In broader terms, since we are talking about the evolution of international realities, is there in our world a more pressing need than for dialogue, co-operation, cohesion? We live in a world of minorities. From a global point of view, there are no majorities, neither religious, nor political, nor linguistic. Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, all are minorities. Whites, Blacks, Yellows: so many minorities. No ideology, no language, no culture worth more than the others.
What we need in this divided world is not separatists' bombs but forms of agreement, such as federalism, which unite diversities without levelling them. Federalism, concerted action between communities: the hope of Europe building up, of Africa wanting to transcend tribalism, of Asia where a single country may be home to 50 cultures, in short, the hope of the world. We are too modest sometimes. Experiments in federalism and bilingualism which continue, increase and multiply every day here draw the admiration of many nations and some even try to imitate them.
President Senghor eloquently reminded us of this recently when he said, and I quote:
Bilingualism is one step ahead of unilingualism, just as the man with two legs walks more steadily than he who has only one.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
More basically, French and English bring us additional resources. This is not to say that we reject francophonia today. On the contrary, we cling to it and welcome our English-speaking brothers. This is why Canada can, in this area of culture, which is man's own, serve as an example.
Bilingualism, federalism are promising formulas which are nowhere else as alive and deep-rooted as in Canada, and which can help us attain even greater achievements. That is what the realities of our world require of us: to strengthen our federalism, instead of

breaking it up in half a score of foreign policies.
Let us see where would actually lead us the theory of those who want to share sovereignty in external matters among the federal government and the ten provincial governments. Let us carry this working hypothesis to its practical consequences. It is not enough to make constitutional diagrams at cabinet meetings; we must ascertain where they would lead us.
In actual fact, it is not possible to separate the various aspects of international life into air-tight compartments, because they are inextricably bound together. Whenever countries negotiate with one another, it is not possible to single out one aspect-for instance, education, culture, co-operation- among the other aspects of the relations between the countries concerned. One may distinguish between the traditional external policy and the more recent aspects of international relations, that is to say the technical, cultural or social aspects. But in fact those fields are a tightly knit network. What is accomplished at an intergovernmental conference on education may be related in many regards to other fields, such as co-operation within French-speaking countries or some other group, external aid policy, bilateral relations with the countries concerned, economic and trade problems, cultural or social international co-operation.
Political problems crop up time and again in so-called "technical" organizations and conferences. One should not be naive. One only has to observe the great powers to realize that their policies on culture, co-operation, exchange of technical data, social problems, are closely connected with many other political and economic aspects of international life.
Moreover, any foreign policy requires rationalization, compatibility and consistency. Canada's foreign policy must take into account a large variety of Canadian interests as well as the domestic and foreign implications. It is therefore essential to have a central agency for defining and coordinating our policies before submitting them to other countries. But we cannot have eleven such agencies.
Some might say: The solution is probably two centres: Ottawa and Quebec. Come now. If the country granted such treatment to one province, would not the other provinces demand the same? Two operation centres- one can easily witness it these days-that is
October 30, 1969

already impossible. But in that case, we would have not two centres but ten or eleven.
Any external policy must also be clear and efficient. In foreign policy as in other fields, the "principle of non-contradiction" should prevail. If ten or eleven voices from Canada are heard abroad, there will follow a multitude of views and representations which will, to a large degree, neutralize each other. Our influence would be that much reduced in international circles. There would then be little need to pay any attention to us.
Now, one difficult but essential thing at the present time, is indeed, to carry weight. In the face of the super-powers, Europe realizes the scope and the urgency of the problem, although it has not yet devised its solution. For a medium-sized power, it would amount almost to political suicide to squander its means of action in many important fields in a host of representations and initiatives. Ten provinces working separately in foreign countries, even if they did not mutually neutralize their action, would not have the same power or the same influence as a Canada putting all its energies behind unified representations.
A balkanized policy would be terribly vulnerable. Foreign countries would prove to possess superhuman virtue if they did not exploit in their own interests the marvelous possibilities for manoeuvering that a fragmented presence of Canada abroad would offer them in many important fields. It would be possible for them to play provincial interests against each other, to attract customers, to use Canada in all freedom and in good conscience, in short, with our permission. We only have to remind ourselves of recent events that occurred at home to support this assertion. The most serious thing in all this whole matter is this: should it be applied, the thesis of the external sovereignty of the provinces would threaten the internal life of Canada. The sharing of external sovereignties would permit in aeternum intrusions in the constitutional and, therefore, in the internal life of Canada. The future of Canada would thus be decided, not by means of rational constitutional debates, before public opinion and in the light of all the problems, but through the changing and divergent interests of the international community. We would thereby have a constitution forever made abroad. Could Canada survive? It would have instead very good chances of disintegrating without the electorate having wanted it.
It is high time that the people of Quebec realise that, even though they do not want to 21362-191
The Address-Mr. Goyer be separatists, the supporters of this thesis follow a policy the consequences of which might well ring the death knell of Canada. Those who pursue this aim should declare themselves and those who are opposed to it should say so.
It seems obvious to me that the provinces will have enough common sense to act within the Canadian context, avoiding to adopt those political programs which would threaten to disrupt Canada's foreign policy and Canada itself. But should they for all that resign themselves to playing no role in our external relations, to disappearing totally from the world stage? Is it Ottawa's policy to crowd them out of its external relations? Is it necessary to sacrifice the provinces and their interests on the altar of national unity? Not in the least.
What the provinces want, I think, is in short to see their aspirations and interests reflected in Canada's foreign policy and, should the occasion arise, to participate in the presentation and diffusion of that policy aboard, to be included in the activities of international conferences and agencies, to get proper recognition for their role and contribution to the Canadian common effort, whether it be in education, culture or technical and social cooperation. For this, there is no need for them to call for a disastrous distribution of the external sovereignty.
Canadian federalism offers them all necessary means. Within the present constitution, the federal government has been working on a flexible formula of co-operation with the provinces. This is no pious concession from the federal government, but a necessity imposed by a sincerely applied federalism. Some areas of consultation and co-operation have already been defined. The federal formula contains possibilities which allow for increased provincial participation in the Canadian effort abroad. Instead of wasting precious energies in disagreements abroad, it would be much more profitable if the provinces worked with the Canadian government to extend and better define the ways of consultation and co-operation.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
Let us talk plainly. What is that formula?
For some time already, the federal government has made a point of consulting the provinces on various questions concerning the drafting and implementation of treaties. It is then possible to attune the interests of the federal and provincial governments and to
288	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Gayer comply with the wishes expressed by the provinces as to treaties, the substance of which comes under their legislative jurisdiction.
Consultation may assume various forms. It may take the form of direct discussions between federal and provincial authorities; such discussions may begin before or during the negotiations on a proposed treaty, should questions related to the implementation of such a treaty require a federal-provincial co-operation.
On the other hand, various measures, such as master agreements, were already taken or will be later on by the federal government, to bring into force at the international level, agreements concerning provinces.
A number of international organizations, whose activities relate to questions that come partially under provincial jurisdiction, were established, especially after the war. All those organizations share a common basic objective, namely the drafting of international agreements, when general conferences are held. It is thus important that there should be close consultations with the provinces, in order to facilitate the ratification and implementation by Canada of the said conventions. Therefore, federal authorities have often consulted provincial authorities in the past few years, as to the contents of such agreements and the possibility of implementing them.
One of the most convenient means to implement this co-operation policy is to strengthen the provincial participation within the delegations sent by Canada to international conferences, in the activities of which the provinces show a special interest. This is what we have done for instance in the case of U.N.E.S.C.O., where provincial ministers of Education have been invited to participate in general conferences. Moreover, in the past provincial officials have been included in Canadian delegations. Such a system is perfectly adequate for the promotion of provincial interests, provided, of course, that we want to make use of it. This implies that the provinces in foreign countries make no desperate attempt to dissociate themselves from Canadian representatives. As if it were shameful to be a Canadian. As if it were ineffective to put forward, in one package, the interests of all.
Foreign aid is an integral part of the Canadian foreign policy and the federal authority is responsible for their co-ordination. On the other hand, considering the fields

DEBATES	October 30, 1969
where Canadian foreign aid is concentrated, it is obvious that the efficiency of the programs depends mostly on the co-operation of the provinces. This is true, of course, of the federal programs but even more of the provincial ones.
Thanks to an extensive network of consultations between federal and provincial authorities, the provinces have been able to contribute generously to the Canadian effort towards foreign aid both by recruiting teaching personnel and counsellors to serve abroad and by offering educational facilities and training in Canada.
In addition to their participation in federal programs, some provinces set up their own programs to assist developing countries. The federal government welcomes such provincial contributions. The only aim, in this regard, of the federal government is to see that the Canadian contribution is maintained and consistently developed as a whole, without breaking up the Canadian sovereignty abroad. Therefore, it is necessary to work together so that Canadian co-operation constitutes a whole that must be co-ordinated by the Canadian government, and in which the provincial contribution gets also the credit it deserves.
This formula, this process of consultation has the following merits: they are compatible with a viable federalism, they ensure the existence of a proper dialogue between Canada and the provinces in the fields of concern to them, in order to define a Canadian policy and to open the door to a provincial presence and action abroad, within a Canadian presence. This is a policy that is both constructive and consistent with the Canadian context. That is the policy of the federal government.
The constitution, and the very flexible way in which it is applied, guarantees the provinces representation, through and with the central government, in the field of external affairs. The system we have just outlined doubtless needs to be improved and developed. However, such improvements must be defined in Canada and by Canadians. Those matters are too complex and too important to us to be fought over abroad.
We are willing to talk with those who hold divergent opinions. We do not doubt their good faith. But that dialogue must take place in Canada, in a rational way, by means of agreements between governments, and constitutional discussions. We must find solutions that respect not only the rules of international law and modern day realities, but above all
October 30, 1969

the great principles of efficient and viable federalism. Our success-for, we will succeed-will serve equitably the interests of the provinces, the central government, the whole Canadian people; it will not fail either to give the divided world a great example and cause for hope.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, there are many subjects on which one could comment during this debate on the Speech from the Throne. I wish to confine myself briefly to three. One concerns the Unemployment Insurance Commission, another has to do with transport and, last, there is the question of the cost of living.
Turning to the unemployment insurance matter, for years we have been promised amendments to the relevant Act and improvements in the administration and in the commission. I notice that this year a brief reference is made to this subject in the Speech from the Throne. I can only hope that adequate and proper changes will be made in the Act, in the regulations and in the way in which the commission administers its responsibility. Unfortunately, the record of adminstration is a very bad one in the opinion of most people. The commission appears to be much more concerned to make administration easier for those within its own organization than it is about properly serving the working people of Canada, as it is supposed to do.
There is one recent example I could cite. The commission withdrew all its offices from the heavily industrialized area of southwestern Ontario-presumably the situation is the same in the comparable part of Quebec-and concentrated them in one place, namely, London, Ontario. When there are complaints from workers-and there are a good many, as all hon. members know-working people are obliged to take a day off work, if they have work, so as to run up to London and explain their problems. All this means a good deal of inconvenience and expenditure. It is only one example of what has been happening. I propose to deal with others when the subject comes before the House.
The latest thing we hear is that the commission intends to move its office to Belleville- not even to Toronto. People who work between Oshawa and Windsor will have to
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt traipse to Belleville every time they encounter difficulties in connection with their claims. I have heard of stupid administration, Mr. Speaker, but this seems to be one of the stupidest things I have heard yet.
In addition, the attitude of the commission itself needs to be changed. It has a long record of inflexibility, bordering sometimes on arrogance. In a recent case with which I have been concerned the Umpire made certain recommendations and suggestions to the commission. The commission decided to disregard them. When things get to the point at which a government commission pays scant attention to the recommendations and suggestions resulting from its own appeal procedures, things have reached a pretty pass and re-organization is needed. When the subject is brought before the House I intend, along with some of my colleagues, to bring these matters to your attention, Mr. Speaker, in greater detail.
I turn now to the subject of transport. When the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) spoke in the debate yesterday his eloquence flowed like the Hamilton River in his province. His transplanted blarney was equally effective. In the course of his speech he suggested that the opposition never had anything constructive to propose. Well, I shall make a little suggestion now. Incidentally, the government never pays any attention to suggestions coming from this side of the House anyway. Certainly, this has been our experience as members of the Standing Commit1 ee on Transport. Even when unanimous recommendations were made, not only did the government disregard them but it did not even have the common politeness to wait until we had completed our recommendations before it went ahead to do something else. As hon. members know, last session the committee paid a visit to the Atlantic provinces to study the transport situation there and make recommendations. The government reached a decision concerning the Prince Edward Island causeway while we were still in the process of drawing up our report. So much for the minister's statement about suggestions from the opposition side, even when they are made by a standing committee of this House upon which, of course, even government members are represented. No attention is paid to them, anyway.
Nevertheless, I should like to bring one matter to the attention of the minister. It concerns highway policy. Since the earliest days of Canada's development the federal
290	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt government has assumed the responsibility of promoting east-west transportation in an effort to promote the east-west flow of trade. In the discussions leading up to confederation, the building of railways for this purpose was a major concern. At the Quebec Conference, where the plans for confederation were discussed, two resolutions were passed on the subject:
1.	The general government shall secure, without delay, the completion of the Intercolonial Railway from Riviere-du-Loup through New Brunswick to Truro, in Nova Scotia.
2.	The Communications with the North-West Territory and the improvements required for the development of the trade of the great west with the seaboard, are regarded by this conference as subjects of the highest importance to the federated provinces, and shall be prosecuted at the earliest possible period that the state of the finances will permit.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
As the great historian of transportation in Canada, George Glazebrook, has written:
The movement toward a single British country in North America, as approached from the political point of view, coincide in time with the recognition, from the economic point of view, of the end of the continental projects (to build north-south railway links)...It was ..the combination of these two groups of motives that gave enough strength to the union movement to carry it to completion.
After confederation of the original four provinces, the construction of railways to the west formed an important part of the agreements leading to the joining of the territories between Ontario and the Pacific coast. Railways were not the only type of transportation route which received federal support for their development. Water routes as well were encouraged. Canal construction and the widening and deepening of river beds formed a part of the federal effort in this area.
Later in Canada's development air transportation received federal aid in the form of airfield construction, airport construction and the provision of detailed weather forecasts. Here the chief recipient has been Air Canada. Road transport has also been aided by the federal government. Even before the turn of the century-it is important to note this, Mr. Speaker-the federal government constructed roads in pioneer areas; for example, between Port Arthur and Fort Garry. According to Glazebrook:
After the gold discoveries in 1896 the Dominion Government undertook a program of road building in the Yukon Territory, and by 1913 there were some five hundred miles of good wagon roads radiating from Dawson and Whitehorse.

DEBATES	Ociober 30, 1969
Since motor traffic had become more common before World War I, in 1919 the federal government passed the Canada Highways Act which authorized the expenditure of up to $20 million on the construction and improvement of highways.
Between 1949 and 1968 the federal government allocated millions of dollars of federal funds for these purposes under the trans-Canada highway program. Together with the roads to resources program introduced by the Conservative government, but unfortunately abandoned by the subsequent Liberal government, these efforts constituted a wise and farsighted attempt to improve Canada's transportation infrastructure.
The federal government has thus clearly recognized its responsibility to provide efficient transportation routes across Canada. But it has fallen behind in the scope of its efforts. As the Economic Council of Canada reported at page 40 of its sixth annual review published this year, public expenditures on transportation have grown somewhat more slowly than other major areas of government spending like health and education. The gap is felt particularly in the area of highway transportation. In the same report the Economic Council noted that the "intercity movement of both goods and passengers has been rising more rapidly than national output, with increasing shares of the total carried by automobiles, airlines and pipelines."
Of these three types of transport, automobile transport, including transport by trucks, is obviously the most flexible in the carrying of goods, and can be expected to increase its share of non-passenger traffic the most. Pipelines are restricted to carrying liquids, or solids which can be floated or suspended in a liquid. Because air transport costs so much, such carriage can generally be expected to be confined to the transport of goods which are extremely light, those which are so expensive that transport is a minor part of the final cost, and those which require great speed for their movement, such as mail or perishable goods.
In its report for the year 1967 the Economic Council of Canada noted the trend toward a great expansion of motor traffic. It said this at page 200:
Between 1945 and 1965, the rate of growth in the motor vehicle population of Canada was 7.9 per cent annually, more than twice the growth rate of the human population. After modifying the trend for such factors as low ownership ratios in 1945 and the explosion of demand after wartime restrictions, it appears that population growth and a declining ratio of persons to vehicles could lead
October 30, 1969

to a 60 per cent further rise by 1980. This would suggest almost 11 million vehicles for Canada in 1980, a ratio of 2.3 persons per vehicle or approximately the ratio predicted for the United States in 1970.
Ontario provides a good example of what this means in terms of highway needs. In southern Ontario, for example, we have a vast urbanized area that extends almost without break from Windsor to Oshawa. This area is perhaps the most prolific manufacturing area in Canada. Trucking, which is the mode of transportation best adapted to moving manufactured goods into the heart of the market area and to moving goods to a great variety of distribution centres, is obviously of tremendous importance to the economy of the area.
Yet there are great needs in the field of highway construction, even in this relatively rich province, and there is a lack of funds to fill these needs. One of the greatest needs is for an expanded system of bypasses around urban centres both large and small. Every time a truck has to pass through the centre of an urban area, its progress is slowed down. This means delay in the manufacturing process if it is carrying partly processed goods, and delay in distribution to the consumer if it is carrying finished goods. It also means a higher final price for the goods being delivered, since insurance rates for trucks travelling through urban areas are higher. This situation becomes aggravated in a city like London, Ontario. I might mention that in my own city of Woodstock there is often a procession of 50 or 60 trucks an hour along the main street, to say nothing of the inconvenience this causes to people in the area.
Clearly, then, it is in the interest of the greatest possible efficiency and competitiveness of Canadian industry that adequate highway facilities be provided. In the face of obviously inadequate provincial financial resources, the federal government must step in and fulfil its traditional role of assuring an efficient route for Canadian trade.
The last item I wish to raise is the shocking rise in the cost of living. The cost of living is the major problem facing Canada at the present time. I note with some regret that there was only passing reference to this very important matter in the throne speech, as a matter of fact just two small paragraphs. This in itself cannot help but create apprehension among the business and labour communities, indeed among everyone, that the government is really not paying much attention to the problem.
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt
During the course of this debate many speakers have drawn a great deal of attention to this question, so much so that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has apparently been moved to get off his stern and to make references in speeches outside the House to the possibility of price controls, and only last evening to the possibility of imposing some form of taxation on businesses and labour unions in order to force them to bend to the government's will.
We are very glad that the Prime Minister has at last decided to pay attention to this very important matter. We are also glad that he realizes that it is important. Whether the methods he has in mind or to which he refers, such as price controls and taxation, are feasible, we know not. Many of us think that probably-and I say probably-they are not feasible because of constitutional problems. We often wonder whether the Prime Minister really means what he says when he talks of methods of price control and taxation to enforce the will of the government, or whether he is not trying to promote another of his famous dialogues. However, we will wait and see just what he does mean.
The stage for this very severe inflation which we are now experiencing was set with the notorious settlement that was made under the auspices of the then Minister of Labour and which granted a 35 per cent wage increase to the seaway workers. This was followed, of course, by appropriate and similar wage increases for the dockworkers in Montreal and the Expo workers. Since then things have steadily worsened. We have a situation where big labour is blaming big business and big business is blaming big labour for spiralling prices.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, in the opinion of most people the credibility gap between the general public, on the one hand, and big labour and big business on the other hand, is a gap no longer-it is a gulf or chasm. Both big business and big labour, in the press and through other media such as television, have been trying to explain that not they but the other guy is to blame for this problem. The Canadian public is getting increasingly suspicious of this sort of activity.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the rising cost of living has reached an acute stage. For a number of years previous to this year the increase has averaged about 4 per cent a year. This itself is bad enough, but this year shows every indication of a rise much greater than 5 per cent. Only recently the rising cost
292	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt of living was greatly stimulated by the notorious steel strike settlement in Hamilton, to say nothing of other wage increases which have nothing to do with labour problems.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
A matter I referred to in this House yesterday is the rising cost of detergents, one of the most commonly used household articles. The increase is over 50 per cent in a little over five months and there does not seem to be any explanation forthcoming. Only today the distributors of coffee announced that there is to be a 4 cent per pound increase in the price of coffee. I should like to know what, if anything, the government proposes to do about these things.
The burden falls on that large group of Canadians who have the least amount of money and are the least able to take care of themselves. I refer to those on fixed incomes and the primary producers such as the farmers who are not well organized. It is true that inflation is harmful to people employed in industry and shareholders, but it is not nearly as heavy a burden for them as for those who are not organized and able to protect themselves like people in big business and large unions. Pensioners of all kinds suffer more heavily. They are the ones who are made to bear the burden of the government's inflationary policies.
Why should the sick, the blind, the elderly and others be made to bear almost the full burden of the government's folly? I do not know why, but it seems quite unreasonable that this is so, and by no stretch of the imagination can this be regarded as proper or humane.
It is true that the government has attempted to do something. It set up a prices and incomes commission in an attempt to persuade business and labour to follow certain guidelines. This has not been very successful. Just the other day the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Donald MacDonald said that labour would not have anything to do with voluntary restrictions on wages, and went so far as to suggest that the government should institute price controls but not wage controls. No one can take such a statement very seriously.
A year or so ago the government instituted the Kennedy Hound on tariff reductions. These have not been passed on to the consumer except on rare occasions. Again the government has been able to do nothing about increases in prices.

DEBATES	October 30, 19G9
The government has tried to stop commercial building in cities over 50,000 population in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. It has attempted to do this by withholding the capital cost allowance of 5 per cent. This has had no effect because building costs are steadily going up at a rate of 12 per cent per year, and builders know they are much farther ahead to build anyway in spite of the government withholding this 5 per cent. This is another government plan which has fallen to pieces.
In the last three budgets we have had tax increases. These were proposed to slow down inflation but they have had no effect at all.
These are the four things the government has attempted. We cannot say it has not tried, but everything it has done is either wrong or ineffective. The public demands action in respect of the steady and rapid rise in the cost of living. The public demands action now. If it does nothing else, the government should at least ease the burden of its inflationary policies which falls almost completely on those who are least able to afford the increase. I have in mind the aged, those on pensions and the primary producers. If nothing else, surely the government could do something to shift the burden a little from those who are least able to support it.
Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert):
That the following be added to the address:
"but we regret that the government ignores the fact that the high level of the cost of living at the present time falls with tragic and increasing severity on pensioners and others who can least afford it."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gerald William Baldwin: Call it one o'clock. We want to get the government's answer on this.


Mr. Harries:: May I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
October 30, 1969



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
@Acting Speaker: (Mr. Bechard): Order. The hon. member lor Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Harries).


Hu Harries: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to take part in this debate today. Along with previous speakers, I should like to extend my congratulations to my friends and colleagues the hon. members for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and Lapointe (Mr. Marceau). Their speeches in moving and seconding the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne were excellent.
It is usual for a new member to make extended reference to his constituency. I shall forego that pleasure on the basis that those of you who have been fortunate enough to know Edmonton-Strathcona would find my description, no matter how eloquent, frail and inadequate in comparison with the real thing. For those hon. members who do not know Edmonton, I can only extend a warm invitation to them to stop awhile and enjoy an essential part of a vigorous and pleasant Canada.
Unlike some hon. members, I find myself enthusiastic about the program outlined in the Speech from the Throne. It does not bristle with promises but clearly indicates a continued dedication by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his government to establish a sound and economic base for a united and expanding Canada. In the face of the obvious political expertise that surrounds me in this House, I shall refrain from all but a brief reference to the political area and spend my allotted time on one more familiar to me, namely the economic.
My comments on the efforts of this government to establish a sound political base for a united Canada can be very brief. As a Canadian and as a westerner I think their efforts are meeting with unqualified success. The Prime Minister is restoring the faith of the people of my constituency, my city and my province, in the federal government and in a united Canada. There has been, I believe, a magnificent change in but 12 short months. On the political level, this government is establishing a reputation for forthrightness and careful progress that has not been a characteristic of federalism in our part of the country.
The Address-Mr. Harries
On the economic side, the Speech from the Throne conveyed an attitude and an approach that all members must find encouraging for our future progress. We are in an era of great economic change in Canada. If I may, I should like to sketch an idea or two which I think may reflect our future economic configuration. Canada, as is well known, was built up as a resource-based economy. At that time the appropriate policy for us to pursue necessarily centred about free trade in which we could exchange the raw materials of a bountiful nature for finished goods. Our policy centred about convertibility of currency, so that we could participate in the international flow of investment funds that were absolutely critical to a small and developing nation such as ours. Our policies at that time also appropriately encouraged immigration and the import of talent that was necessary both to get the production job done and create a consumer market and stable population base.
During that period of our development, the role of the government was subsidiary to the enterprise generated in the country. As was pointed out in an earlier speech today the government undertook a development role in those areas, especially in transportation, where such a development role was necessary and appropriate. The stories of the development of our transcontinental railroads, the development both early and late of the St. Lawrence Seaway, and latterly the government's activities through the Northern Transportation Company in the western Arctic and the development of a national airline, Air Canada, thrust the government into the position of being subsidiary to, but a very important part of, the growing Canada we were building.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Following World War II there was some shift in the resource development, but it was not of nearly the magnitude that is sometimes supposed. We still remained essentially dedicated to the development of resources for export, iron ore, power for the production of aluminum, the mining of nickel, the production of pulp and paper, the development, processing and export of petroleum products, and natural gas. The results of these efforts was to increase substantially the economic activity of Canada but they did not significantly alter the basic thrust which was as a resource-centred activity.
This concentration upon resources has created regional problems of increasing
294	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Harries intensity, and at the same time as this resource development was taking place nonresource activity tended to cluster in a relatively few areas. This trend is, of course, still going on and is giving rise to the urban problems that have heretofore been referred to in this House.
There can be no question in my mind, Sir, that regional economic development is properly a fundamental part of the program of this government. Surely, the objective must be to create, wherever possible, equality of opportunity. But as we look down the road there arises the question as to the adequacy of our present development and economic growth concepts.
For very obvious reasons, there has been a strong tendency for us to follow the economic pattern of the United States. In some ways it may not be inaccurate to accuse us of attempting to create a miniature American economy; but with the advances that have taken place in technology and with the increasing sophistication of many of our production processes it is not possible for us to create a viable economy based upon the pattern of American development.
The fact of the matter is that if we miniaturize our economy to a 10 per cent level, which would be in accord with the relationship in the population between the two countries, we find that a 10 per cent input will not give a 10 per cent output. As a matter of fact, because of the economies of scale, it is more accurate to suggest that a 10 per cent input would give about a 5 per cent output. Therefore, it seems reasonable to suggest that as we look forward to developing a viable Canadian economy, we do so having in mind the fact that we must specialize and in this way achieve the standard of living levels that are appropriate to a country with the aspirations and the resources that we have.
I think it is instructive to look for a moment at the Japanese steel industry. The steel industry in Japan is not based upon the location in Japan of resource materials; in fact, quite to the contrary. In a very few years in excess of 12 million tons of coal will be moving from the western part of Canada, Alberta and British Columbia in particular, to Japan for use in their steel industry. That coal or coke will be used in conjunction with iron ore that is mined in Peru and in Australia, and to a limited extent on the west coast of Canada and maybe in Alaska. This will be combined with other imported materials and the finished product will be exported IMr. Harries.]
DEBATES	October 30, 1969
back to those countries that have provided the raw materials.
One might ask why such an economic process is possible, why is it possible for the Japanese economy to import these raw materials, process them, and return the product to us at an obvious advantage to their economic situation. We used to seek answers for these kinds of questions in the labour rates that applied, in the idea that the standard of living in these far off countries was so inferior to ours that these people just worked for nothing and hence were able to accomplish this transfer of resources. This argument no longer applies, if in fact it had any validity years ago.
Rather, the explanation lies in the ability of the Japanese economy to use large scale processes, huge blast furnaces, magnificent rolling mills and other processing equipment to convert these raw materials to finished products at an exceptionally low per unit rate. This low per unit rate results simply from the technology, and this vast production is distributed worldwide on an incremental cost basis because the domestic market is largely saved for the capital goods manufacturers of J apan.
In other words, what is happening is that they have a low unit cost which enables them, combined with the domestic disappearance of the product, to export at a lower rate cost than any other producer. We never hear of steel being exported from the United States into Japan. The reverse has been true in such a volume as to make it desirable, from an over-all trade standpoint, for the Japanese voluntarily to restrict their exports of steel to the United States. There are other kinds of industries which demonstrate this same kind of phenomenon.
Surely, in Canada where we have many of the resources that are necessary for this sort of industrial output, where we are much closer to the larger markets of the world, to the United States and to Europe, and when we have many advantages that a country like Japan lacks, we should be able to do these conversion activities ourselves and thus provide employment and an economic growth pattern second to none. It is not related to anything but known technology and the clear requirement that we do away with miniaturized production processes in favour of a high degree of specialization in activities where we have a clear advantage, and steel is certainly one of them.
October 30, 1969	COMMONS
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
An example of the kind of thing that can happen and produce these sorts of economies is to be found in the agreement that Canada negotiated with the United States with respect to automobile production. But there is one essential difference. In the automobile industry we are in a situation of operating branch plants which, while integrated as part of the over-all United States automobile economy, are nevertheless subject to such decisions as might be made on a national basis by the United States which clearly has its first responsibility to its own citizens. This is an ever-present possibility and suggests, I believe, the major advantage of developing this kind of economic thrust within our own competence and control.
It seems to me, if this concept is a valid one, that the government ought to provide the same kind of leadership and the same kind of economic contribution as it provided during the development of what some historians have referred to as our resource-based economy. Surely, the money we invested in transportation in the earlier part of our economic life could now be withdrawn and used as a capital fund to provide the sort of assistance to large-scale development and consultation that was provided in earlier times to transportation. Here, I refer particularly to the metals industry and the chemicals industry, both of which lend themselves particularly to large-scale international development but I stress that such industries should be developed, sponsored and, as it were, controlled by Canadians in the interests of a viable national economy
In these days it seems unrealistic to talk about government expenditures without at the same time indicating possible sources of funds for such expenditures. I suggest that we withdraw from those enterprises which we finance on a development basis the funds that are now not necessary for the continued activity of those agencies and, in particular, I would direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Air Canada. Surely, Air Canada ought to be owned by the people of Canada on the basis that they choose to invest in a national airline, not on the basis that their investment is made a compulsory part of citizenship, as it is today. There is no reason that I am aware of why Air Canada would not function in the national interest, would not function just as well and just as effectively, if it were owned by the people of Canada through a corporation of the ordinary joint stock variety. The
21362-20 ^
DEBATES	295
The Address-Mr. Harries same thing might be said in respect of Polymer Corporation. I am aware that Polymer in particular makes a fine contribution to the funds needed by government, but surely this is not a reason for maintaining an investment that was started on a development basis when the continued existence of that investment denies us the opportunity for further expansion which is absolutely critical to our development.
Air Canada faces a period of growth in which large sums will be necessary, but these capital sums are not different in kind or in volume from those required by other airlines in the world, some government-owned and some privately-owned. In Canada, we have an investment industry with people competent to handle this kind of problem. We also have people anxious to invest in Canadian enterprises and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that their money should no longer be tied up when there are other projects, for which no additional funds are available, which could find a use for it.
The same argument can successfully be made with regard to Canadian National. This is a good railway company which over the years has been burdened with a lot of unproductive lines and an unwieldy capital structure. To continue to operate Canadian National in the same manner that it has operated since 1921 is, I believe, to commit the same error repeatedly. I hope that as the development program of this government unfolds it will find accommodation for this kind of concept.
As a western member, I feel that I should make some particular reference to agriculture because we in the west realize that agriculture represents a fundamental part of our economy, a part in which each of us, even though we be urban dwellers, has a very substantial interest. I think it is correct to suggest that our agriculture policy ought properly to re-examine its direction and scope so that there may be a realignment consistent with what is happening in the industrial sector.
As you know so well, Mr. Speaker, agriculture has been based largely on a specialized export pattern. We have for years assumed, in connection with our grain, beef, hogs and so on down the line, that the low-cost producer will ultimately prevail in the world's markets. This may have been a reasonable assumption at one time but it is patently wrong today. As one farmer said, under present conditions the only time farmers are rich
October 30, 1969

The Address-Mr. Harries is when they die. This is very true because the economic basis for the agricultural export industry has been destroyed. It has been destroyed in the United States, and in the common market countries as well, because politically in those countries the agricultural segment of the economy has not been left to fend for itself on a free international market. As one drives through the eastern part of France, and sees the technology employed in grain production there, one wonders how there can be any question of France exporting barley competitively with the large-scale, efficient processes employed in parts of our country. One wonders un il one realizes that, politically, people in France are considered an important part of the economy and under no circumstances are the economics of free trade going to prevail. This is no different from the situation in most other countries. If this principle is not going to prevail elsewhere, surely it is folly to suppose it can prevail in Canada.
I do not think it makes sense, Mr. Speaker, to permit Canadian agriculture to function on an external basis when virtually all the rest of the economy is functioning on an internal basis. This creates poverty and, in my view, conditions qui'e out of sympathy with, and inappropriate to, the kind of productivity that we can enjoy in Canada.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
It is interesting to look at the gross agricultural statistics and to see that in a recent year we exported about $1.3 billion worth of agricultural products while we imported almost $1 billion worth. I am not suggesting that in the rarified atmosphere of cities like Calgary you can grow grapefruit, but I am suggesting that there is a balance in our agriculture that must be struck if proper emphasis is to be placed upon the relationship between agriculture and the rest of the economy. This, essentially, is a closed environment. There must be, I believe, a massive redirection of agricultural effort and this will require not only transfer incentives but also bridge funds, as well as a basic re-alignment of our thinking with respect to the position of agriculture in the Canadian economy. I am sure this can be done and am hopeful, sir, that it will be done with reasonable dispatch; because, as we move forward with an economic program that looks to improvement in all regions of Canada, it seems to me that this must be one of the priorities.
In closing, may I say that this Speech from the Throne in my opinion continues the sound, progressive steps to a united and

growing Canada first promised by the Prime Minister in June, 1968.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Will the hon. member permit a question. Is it his opinion that the government should sell its equity in Polymer Corporation and utilize the funds or the capital obtained from the sale, or does he think that the government should dispose of a 51 per cent interest and retain a 49 per cent interest in the corporation. Has he thought about this?


Hu Harries: I believe that the government should sell its equity in Polymer Corporation and that Polymer Corporation should be a normal, joint stock company in Canada. It should be listed on some lively stock exchange like the one at Vancouver. It seems to me that the government should provide the seed stock; but I do not think we should continue to involve ourselves in an enterprise when it is as obviously successful as is Polymer Corporation.


Mr. McIntosh:: The hon. member supports free enterprise.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the hon. members for Sarnia and Lapointe (Messrs. Cullen and Marceau) on their remarks at the beginning of the debate.

I am speaking after the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Harries) has spoken, Mr. Speaker. It is easy to tell what part of Canada a member comes from by the remarks he makes. One can easily tell that the hon. member is from an urban constituency. Air Canada service does not seem to concern him at all, his attitude being that if Air Canada does not provide a service, some other airline will. His attitude no doubt is the same towards the Canadian National. But those from other parts of Canada, as I shall demonstrate in a moment, have a different attitude.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Like many hon. members of parliament, I hear many expressions of goodwill on matters which the government feels are of top priority, such as the lowering of the voting age, concern about the economic and social life of Canada, the extension of Canada's fishing zones, and so on. It is apparent from the Throne Speech that one of the
October 30, 1969

government's priorities is in the field of pollution, which is important. The government will present a series of white papers.
May I speak about the lowering of the voting age? I believe my speeches in the past to the young people have indicated that I am in favour of such a move. I strongly believe that such a move should be associated with programs in our schools devoted to educating our young people in our system of government and the workings of parliament in general, so that our young men and women may at least have an idea about budgets, for example, as well as the way governments influence or change society as a result of passing certain laws, rules and regulations. I fully understand that education lies within the jurisdiction of the provinces and that the provinces control and establish our educational programs. However, I believe that in Canada we should co-ordinate many of our efforts in education by providing similar standards for education in all provinces. As a matter of fact, there is a motion in my name on the order paper to that effect.
The federal government should encourage the provinces to make their civic construction programs much more patriotic ones. We must make our young people aware of what Canada is all about.
What concerns me most in the Speech from the Throne is the idea of providing a better social and economic life for all Canadians. There is a reference in the speech to the fact that the government will provide additional funds to curb regional disparities. Incidentally, I am pleased to see the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) here this afternoon. I am in favour of increasing funds and expenditures, if we can cure the disparities existing in Canada. But who will do all this? There is a reference in the speech to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I still read the minister's speeches which tell us just what that department will do for us all. We all want to give the department a chance to get on with this work, but I think the department ought to act immediately.
When the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was first set up, we were told that this department's activities would result in more employment in designated areas, the idea being that designated areas would prosper and grow along with other parts of Canada. We were told that other departments of government would not interfere with the
The Address-Mr. Comeau activities of this department. I say that other departments are interfering when we find that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has had to cut back in certain areas because of the government's austerity program. I was under the impression that nothing could be done by other departments in matters relating to designated areas unless the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion consented. But what do we see happening?
The Postmaster General is trying desperately to close post offices in the designated areas. Yesterday I received a list indicating that 48 post offices have been or are about to be closed in my little constituency of South Western Nova.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Louis-Roland Comeau: How can you talk about growth and prosperity when you start removing postal services? Have you ever heard of post offices being closed in Toronto?


An hon. Member:: Or Montreal?
Another hon. Member: Or Calgary?


Louis-Roland Comeau: Or Edmonton? The Postmaster General wants to save money, and that is very commendable.


An hon. Member:: Cut down on the Prime Minister's personal staff.


Louis-Roland Comeau: The Postmaster General says that three conditions must be met before a post office is closed. His basic criterion, nevertheless, is, "If it does not pay, it is out". When the Prime Minister says, "Cut out something" he does that. He takes the corner of his desk and he cuts it off.


An hon. Member:: Start your cutting with the CBC.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Louis-Roland Comeau: The minister does not have just one post office to look after, he is responsible for all the post offices in Canada. Some areas are doing all right and some are not doing so well. It is the government's responsibility to provide these services. The reason for having a government is to provide these services to the people, including those in the less prosperous areas. These services are paid for by all the taxpayers of Canada, not just by those in the large industrial centres.
If the minister wants to save money, that is fine, but surely there is money being wasted by his department in Ottawa which could be saved. New post offices Eire still being built. I
2S8
October 30, 1989

The Address-Mr. Comeau was in an area last week where new post offices were being built to replace old and rickety buildings. The minister has increased his staff, as have other ministers. The only reason the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) is cutting some of these services is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) instructed him to do so. The minister cannot cut these services in the urban areas because too many people would be affected, therefore it is the people in the rural areas who must suffer. The policies of the minister are affecting only the rural parts of Canada, those areas under the jurisdiction of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion should investigate the type of service being supplied by the Post Office Department.
Yesterday we heard from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson). We did not hear anything about transportation, but we did hear from the minister. What is his department doing to improve services in the designated areas? In the Maritimes, and other designated areas, freight rates have increased during the past year. The CNR is removing railway stations. The member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Harries) is in favour of this. He does not want the CNR, but in some sections of Canada there is nothing else. The services between Toronto and Montreal are profitable, and make up for the losses in areas such as the area I represent. The services in the large industrial centres are improving, but in the rural areas of Canada they are deteriorating.
It is not possible to promote growth and prosperity in designated areas in Canada by cutting back transportation and post office services. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion should ensure that the Minister of Transport follows the policy of the government to reduce the disparity between the regions. When the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was formed we were told this sort of thing would not happen, that the ministers would co-operate with each other.
In my area, the department recently removed a lightship. This may appear minor, but it was providing protection for the fishermen as well as employment.
What is happening to the air services in the designated areas of Canada? There are rumours that Air Canada will phase out many rural airfields. Is Air Canada not operating at a profit? I am under the impression it is. A government agency should provide services to all parts of Canada. If the

department can provide comparable services by regional carriers or other methods, that is fine, but I doubt very much that this can be
done.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion should also ascertain what the Department of Public Works is doing.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Nothing!


Louis-Roland Comeau: I am not the only member who comes from a fishing village. It is impossible to obtain $2,000 to have a small amount of dredging done in a small harbour. It is impossible.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Louis-Roland Comeau: Last week the fishermen in my constituency had to dredge their own canal. It is impossible to get $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000 to repair a small wharf. These people are not asking for the moon. They are not asking for half a million dollars, all they are asking for is $2,000 or $3,000. A lot of money is being spent to staff the minister's office and other things.


An hon. Member:: The Arts Centre.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I mentioned the Arts Centre before. I would be repeating myself for the tenth time if I mentioned it again. The government is hiring staff all the time-the highest paid ones of course; the lowest paid ones are being fired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I was under the impression that the austerity measures would not affect the designated areas. However, the government is reducing the services being provided to rural Canada in order that they might balance their budget or fight the so-called inflation. I do not argue the fact that inflation is a problem, but I do not see how it will help Canada to cut off services in the slow growth areas.
When the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was set up, the Prime Minister stated there would be designated areas in the Maritime provinces, some sections of the west and Ontario. It is not good enough to simply apply the axe, without considering the effect that course will have on the social and economic standards of some sections of Canada. It is not good enough for a government to stop growth and development in the already underdeveloped areas of Canada
October 30, 1969
simply to balance the budget. This government has no feeling for the people, Mr. Speaker. It has no feeling for minorities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis-Roland Comeau: The bill to give effect to bilingualism has been passed, but you can't eat that. It makes me sick when the government says, we have no money for little dredging jobs; we have no money for little post offices; we have no money for this and no money for that. There is all kinds of money, and the government knows it, but they have no feeling for the poor.
Yesterday the Minister of Transport stated we must adopt long-term policies. I agree with this, but the long-term policies of the government seem to mean that everybody should be moved to the urban areas. This will create ghettos or, as somebody suggested to me yesterday, anthills. We read in the newspapers criticisms to the effect that Maritimers who move to Toronto do not know how to live. We Maritimers are being criticized every day. I saw an article last week setting out the conditions it is alleged we cannot accept, yet the policies of this government drive us to the highly industrialized, heavily populated centres of Canada. When the services are removed the people have no choice, they have to move.
The industries also have no choice but to settle in urban Canada. How can industry be expected to settle in sections of Canada which have no services such as post offices, trains or Air Canada? More problems are being created by these people moving to the urban areas. We heard again today about the government's concern regarding urbanization. Everyone is talking about urbanization. There are many problems in urban Canada. People do not wish to spend one hour driving one mile to work. They do not want to pay $10,000 or $15,000 for a lot 30 by 100 feet when there is plenty of land available in Canada, nor do they want to live in a $250 a month, three bedroom apartment with seven children.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Do not talk to me about long-term policies if the only thing you can do is move people from rural Canada to urban Canada. I predict that in 20 years time the government will want to change this whole policy; there will be such a mess in our cities that they will want to drive people back to the rural parts of Canada.
The present administration does not seem to be concerned about the quality of the life
The Address-Mr. Winch of Canadians. Rural people are not really poor as we know the poor in the cities. Basically, they enjoy a good life. They work peacefully, do a little hunting, a little fishing. The quality of life in the rural parts of Canada is probably far superior to the quality of life in most of the urban centres, and in these circumstances some hon. members may wonder what I am complaining about. What I am saying is this: for goodness sake do not take away all the services needed by those who prefer to stay in the countryside. Let them enjoy things. Do not make it inevitable that they must move to the urban centres. If you want to change the nature of these services, then provide alternatives. It is not good enough simply to cut back. We have enough highly-paid civil servants to come up with better policies than we have produced so far.
What are the priorities now envisaged? I did not see anything in the Speech from the Throne of much concern to those living on welfare. The speech did mention something about building new houses, but we should not forget that a great many of our people simply cannot afford to buy them. Interest rates today are so high that few people can afford to borrow. No one can apply successfully for a housing loan unless he makes $8,000 a year. The effectiveness of the welfare system is basic to meeting the needs of the working poor, as well as others. These people are caught in the system and I hope we can prevent this situation. To do so may, indeed, be the objective of the government; I hope so. Perhaps I should not be too critical. Maybe the government knows what it is doing. But, Mr. Speaker, every government we have had since 1867 gave the impression of knowing what it was doing. And still there is poverty. There should be no need for a man to write to me today and say: I have 14 children, I am on welfare; they can take away their God-darned welfare if they wish; provide me with a job. This kind of thing makes me mad. Many of us come here with certain objectives in mind, a certain amount of initiative and a desire to do things for the people who are caught up in the system. I would say the present government is not helping matters, Canada is rich, and all parts of it could be developed if we were to stop and think for a little while and start being less political.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: On
rising to make my contribution to the debate on the address 1 should like, first of all, to

October 30, 1963

The Address-Mr. Winch make a few comments on the speech itself, then to touch on a matter of great concern to my constituents in Vancouver East and, finally, to speak briefly on a situation in Canada which, as I see it, is most serious and urgent.
May I say right away that there does not appear to be a great deal of difference between the various speeches from the Throne which I have heard over the years. I say this from the point of view of one who has had some experience with such matters, counting both the provincial legislature and this House of Commons. This, the second session of the twenty-eighth Parliament of Canada, is my thirty-ninth session, counting time spent in both legislative bodies, so I have listened to 39 speeches from the throne.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, the one we are now considering does not differ substantially from the majority of those I have heard in the past, inasmuch as to a considerable extent it is based on wishful thinking, generalities and platitudes. Nevertheless, I have never felt it was the sole responsibility of a member of the opposition merely to criticize and condemn the government, so I should like, initially, to commend the government for offering an indication that at least some consideration is being given to long term planning.
One of the great shortcomings evident in our parliamentary history is a failure to recognize and accept the need for long-term planning. There is, in my opinion, a definite indication now that this is in the mind of the cabinet, and this is why I commend hon. gentlemen on the front benches opposite even though, if my analysis is correct, it may take up to ten years to bring some of their projects to fruition. Having said this, I must express my keen disappointment that the Speech from the Throne failed to indicate that any consideration is being given by this government to bringing forth constructive policies and legislation to meet the urgent and difficult problems facing certain groups of people in this country. I refer particularly to hundreds of thousands who are living on fixed incomes and whose needs are apparently to be completely ignored.
A great many of the speakers preceding me have mentioned the plight of our senior citizens and others. I wish to draw attention to the situation facing our veterans. Before doing so, may I express the opinion that it is a disgrace that we should hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of


Finance (Mr. Benson), as we have in the last few days, pounding their collective breasts, if I may use that expression, and boasting of the fact that this year we shall have a balanced budget for the first time in many years. A balanced budget is all to the good, but a balanced budget which is achieved by sacrificing hundreds of thousands of needy people is a disgrace to those who boast about it.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Mention has been made of senior citizens and others. I cannot understand why nothing has been said so far about the needs of the veterans and the widows of veterans. Our veterans waited three years for the Woods report, and over a year for the white paper that was published. No action has been taken on either. When the white paper was published, a white paper that I think I am safe in saying was basically a fait accompli as far as government decision was concerned, it gave no indication of any recognition of the need of our veterans. As far as we can gather there is no indication whatever in the white paper of an increase in the basic pensions of the veterans of this country.
The answer we are given is that veterans pensions are part of the over-all task force study of the entire social security legislation of our country. Even the term "welfare legislation" has been used to describe these payments. Any government that takes the view that rightful payments to veterans is welfare is adopting a disgraceful position and is unworthy of the support of the people of this country. Such a government is letting down those men and women who, in two world wars and in Korea, offered their lives in this country's time of need. I say that these payments to our veterans are a right not welfare.
I sincerely hope that the government is going to have a change of mind and heart. Although this matter is not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, and is completely ignored in the white paper, I hope action will be taken during this session to increase the basic pension of the veterans of Canada. Certainly, this would mean a great deal in my own riding where there are thousands of veterans. For example, I have six veterans organizations in my constituency of Vancouver East.
Mention of the white paper brings me to another matter that I think should receive serious consideration by the government. I appreciate that the throne speech makes clear
October 30, 1969

that in this session we are going to be swamped with a series of white papers. Although I agree with this, as I said a few moments ago a white paper is really a fait accompli as far as decisions of government, policy-making and the introduction of legislation are concerned.
Both opposition and government members have a responsibility to ascertain whether any decision, policy or legislation put forward by the government is the correct one. It is most difficult to arrive at a conclusion in this regard when all one has before one is a white paper. The government has behind it all of the reports made by departmental and interdepartmental committees, as well as the reports of various task forces.
I think that both the government and parliament would be far more responsible if there were made available, as far as practicable, in addition to government white papers, the reports upon which the government has reached decisions. Because it is possible, Mr. Speaker, for the government to reach a wrong decision on the evidence submitted. The government may be making a decision or formulating a policy that is based on party and political expendiency instead of on the information supplied.
I fully realize that there are undoubtedly some documents that must be treated as completely confidential; that fact I recognize. Nevertheless, I hope that the Prime Minister will seriously consider making it government policy that members of all parties be allowed to receive the basic information upon which the government has reached a particular conclusion. If such a course were followed, parliamentary democracy would have a truer meaning.
Having said that white papers were really a fait accompli, may I in all sincerity make a suggestion to the government? I agree with the government's policy of placing a greater workload on, and giving greater responsibilities to, our committees. I think that is a good move. However, Mr. Speaker, I say it is sheer nonsense and a waste of the taxpayers' money to give terms of reference to a committee and ask the committee to make recommendations thereon when in fact the government has already made up its mind what it is going to do. Such a course is absolute hypocrisy, and it happens far too often.
Let me give the house a couple of illustrations. I have the privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee on External
The Address-Mr. Winch Affairs and National Defence. This committee received terms of reference from the government which included a study of NATO policy. The committee spent months studying NATO policy because the government wanted a decision. At great expense, every member of that committee was sent overseas to visit numerous countries in about 14 days. Within one day of returning to Ottawa the committee had to write its report. Yet the government had already made up its mind what it was going to do about NATO and what our NATO policy was to be. I ask, why waste weeks and weeks of many members' time and thousands of dollars in expenses if the government had already made up its mind?
Even more ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference also included a study of maritime command, its existing structure and policies. The committee was asked to look to the future and to bring in a report. During the recess a sub-committee of the standing committee returned to Ottawa, travelled to Halifax, spent four days there, received a mountain of information about maritime command and policy, A.S.W. and so on. Yet, within half an hour of the committee's return to Ottawa the government announced its maritime command policy over the radio and this included the scrapping, sale or mothballing of our only aircraft carrier, Bonaventure.
This sort of thing makes a farce of our committees and illustrates the arrogance and stupidity of the government in connection with some phases of committee work. I believe in the committee structure, in increasing the workload of committees and in the acceptance of new responsibilities; but let not the committees be the government's vehicle for face saving and whitewashing. If the government has made up its mind about a certain policy, then let it have the guts to say so, because the members of the House of Commons have plenty of other work to do.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
A great deal has been said about the government's austerity program under which in the next year our Civil Service is to be cut by some 25,000. I should like to express the hope that this policy is not static and there can be some variation. If there is not, some rather ridiculous situations can and will develop. I understand the rule is that if a position becomes vacant, an employee resigns or is fired, that position cannot be filled. Let me give you an illustration of what not only can occur but is occurring.
On the Atlantic coast we have a fisheries headquarters. They have two large ships, one
302	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. 'Winch the Cyngus and the other the Chebucto. Recently, the Cyngus went in to drydock to have a new engine installed, so the crew was fired. The Cyngus is now on its trials, but where did it get its crew? The Chebucto is going in for its annual overhaul, so the crew was taken from the Chebucto and put on the Cyngus. When the Chebucto comes back into service, what will be the situation?


An hon. Member:: The other one will go
back in for overhaul.


Harold Edward Winch: Unless there is some variation of these regulations, we are going to witness one of the most remarkable miracles of the world. We are going to see two of our largest fisheries ships on the Atlantic, one with a crew and the other a ghost ship without a crew. That will really be something! I am not talking about something that is hypothetical. Instructions have not yet been given to the fisheries department in Halifax which would permit the hiring of a second crew. I just bring this forward as an illustration of the need for flexibility. All across Canada, departmental heads and federal employees do not know where they stand or what they can do. For the sake of morale, as well as efficiency, this matter should be corrected as speedily as possible.
There are many other matters one might raise but, as everyone knows, our time is limited during the throne speech debate. Let me refer to a matter which concerns me considerably, and I hope it is of concern to every member of this house. We are elected as representatives of a party on the basis of our party's platform, program and policies. It has always been my belief that in this House of Commons we have to consider ourselves as 263 men and one woman who make up the board of directors of this nation of Canada with a population of 22,000,000. We have the power to make laws, rescind laws, change laws, alter laws, tax for money and spend it. For this reason, political expediency and party politics in the last analysis, if not in the first, should not play a major part or have priority in our decisions. In many of our decisions, if we accept responsibility, we have to take the lead and perhaps express views which may be unpopular. They may not be vote-catching, but I suggest we have a responsibility not to play politics and not make speeches or decisions on the basis of whether or not they are parochial and might affect our constituencies, provinces or certain groups. We must not make them necessarily

DEBATES	October 30, 1969
on the basis of whether or not they are popular. That is my very definite opinion.
In my estimation, we face very serious and urgent situations and conditions throughout Canada. We, as members of the House of Commons, cannot ignore these matters if we accept our responsibility. Much as I regret having to say so, it is my personal belief that there is a sense of irresponsibility permeating our Canadian way of life and our way of thinking. It is time something was said about this. Regretfully also, I must say that there seems to be an attitude, individually and collectively, that something is wrong but that it is the other fellow's fault. We feel that something should be done about these problems so long as it does not affect us. Too often we feel that we should let George do it. As long as we allow that situation to continue, we will be in serious trouble.
This feeling is permeating almost every phase of Canadian life. We see it in the field of education. Certainly, students require changes and new policies. Certainly, they should be represented on the governing bodies of the institutions of higher education. We must, however, make it clear, with a stern voice and a stern hand, that a small minority cannot and shall not have the right to exercise mob rule in the name of democracy. We can no longer allow the destruction by violence and by fire of our schools and universities. If I may refer to a very small group of professors, I may say if they do not want to teach then let them stay at home. With reference to a small minority of students, I say if they do not like the way things are going democracy does not demand that they learn about modern living, technology and so on. The students have rights. Changes are needed but we must make it clear that our schools, elementary and otherwise, exist for the education of those who want to learn. They are paid for by the taxpayers of this nation.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said a great deal about the fact that unless we have voluntary co-operation to end inflation, then stern measures may have to be taken. We may reach that point, but let me suggest that co-operation is better than compulsion. If we do have a need for compulsion, let it be as acceptable as possible. The government can only accomplish this by proving its sincerity, by not discriminating or placing the blame on one sector. The co-operation of labour is a basic requirement and the way to obtain that co-operation is by showing, through government policy and action, that we take the same
October 30, 19S9	COMMONS
view toward profits and prices as we take toward wages.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
This co-operation cannot be obtained by suggesting you have a government policy, then spending almost $13 million on the refit of the Bonaventure, $1.2 million on an annual overhaul and then saying you are going to scrap that ship. You do not obtain co-operation by passing an order in council, as the government did last January, whereby you forgive the Ford Motor Company of Canada $75 million owing to the federal treasury because that company could not meet all the requirements of an order in council made some five years before. This is a company which last year had a net profit seven times greater than it had in 1964. In the first nine months of this year it has a net profit of $51 million compared to $36 million in nine months last year. This is also a company which has $150 million in depreciation reserves, and retained earnings of $302 million. You do not obtain this co-operation when you ignore the basic, urgent issues of today such as urban renewal or urban redevelopment.
I say that if by government policy and government action you mean the curbing of prices and the control of profits then undoubtedly, not perhaps, you will receive the co-operation of labour. I see my time is almost up. There was another matter about which I desired to speak, but in conformity with the rules I will come to a conclusion based on a worry, a fear, of mine concerning the actions and the thinking of some Canadians. We must be outspoken, responsible members of parliament so that we can bring about understanding and co-operation between all sectors of the Canadian economy. This is a "must".
I made a statement a few years ago for which I was damned, condemned and criticized. I shall repeat it, however, here in the House of Commons today. The world does not owe Canada a living. We must earn it. To do that all of us, not only in this House but all 22 million Canadian citizens, must recognize the realities of today. If we do not then I-and I am not a prophet of gloom nor doom-would say we face disastrous consequences in the immediate future.


Mr. C. Terrence Murphy (Sauli Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, before adding my comments to those already made in this debate, I wish to
DEBATES	303
The Address-Mr. Murphy compliment the hon. members for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) for their excellent contribution to this debate on Thursday last. I think it only natural that their constituents should be justifiably proud of Iheir outstanding performance as we in this House are proud.
While it is true that the Speech from the Throne contained references to many subjects of great importance to the people of Canada, one observation was of particular significance to me as the representative in this House of the constituency of Sault Ste. Marie. It reads as follows:
Satisfactory relations between labour and management are of critical importance to our social and economic progress. The government is devoting greater attention to the problems and possibilities of industrial relations and will be putting forward for your consideration amendments to the legislation governing collective bargaining in the industries within federal jurisdiction.
The city of Sault Ste. Marie has been paralyzed by a steel strike since August 1. In a city of some 75,000 people, which relies practically exclusively on one industry for its economic existence, the shut-down of that industry, whether by strike or lock-out, can be disastrous. We who live in the city are of course aware that, from time to time, the very nature of industrial disputes makes such shut-downs necessary. However, I cannot help but feel that the present shut-down could have been avoided if the laws pertaining to labour relations were more realistic. I, of course, realize that the dispute in Sault Ste. Marie falls within the jurisdiction of the provincial government, and that the parties to the dispute are governed by the provisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Nevertheless, it is my hope that we in this House will enact federal legislation in this field which will be a model for the provinces, which will be so advanced that the provincial legislatures will have no alternative but to follow our lead. In other words, we should endeavour to be leaders, not followers, and if our efforts are successful perhaps-just perhaps-we might end up with labour laws which are more or less uniform from coast to coast, a result which is so desirable that the mere thought of its attainment should give us the courage to forge ahead and legislate in a field where up until now even the angels have dared to tread but lightly.
Needless to say there is not sufficient time available to discuss all of the provisions one would like to find in such labour legislation.
October 30. 1963

The Address-Mr. Murphy However, there are four specific submissions which I should like to make.
First, unions should, by statute, be made accountable as legal entities, capable of suing and, subject to certain conditions, of being sued, thus placing them in the same position before the law as all other corporate and private citizens.
Second, where industrial conversion resulting from technological change which is subject to management control is likely to lead to significant labour displacement during the term of a collective agreement the union should, by statute, be given the right to negotiate the method for dealing most justly with those employees who will be displaced. In cases where there is no agreement as to whether the expected displacement is significant, and in cases where there is not agreement as to the method of dealing with those employees who will be displaced, the issues in dispute should be submitted to binding arbitration. In any event, the law should require the employer to give at least six months' notice in writing to the employees who will be displaced, to their union and to the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
Third, unions should be required by law to conduct strike votes, ratification votes and any votes to extend or continue strikes, by way of secret ballot.


Mr. Pelers:: Why?


Charles Terrence Murphy: I will come to that in a moment.
Fourth, the legal remedy known as the "ex parte injunction" should be abolished by requiring any party who seeks to obtain an injunction, which would have the effect of restraining the activities of any person or persons engaged in a legal strike, to give notice of his intention to apply for such an injunction to the party or parties who would be affected by it.
There are many arguments, Mr. Speaker, pro and con with reference to the question of union accountability. On occasion, the issue has become an emotional one. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that if we view the issue coolly and objectively, we would inevitably be led to conclude that there is no logical reason for retaining the present status of unions Which places them in some fuzzy, grey, legal limbo wherein the law purports to govern organizations which are not recognized as legal entities. I strongly suspect that governments have perpetuated this legal fiction only because 
they have lacked the courage to take steps which might offend the labour movement and the tens of thousands of votes it represents. However, I hope this government has the intestinal and departmental fortitude to face this issue squarely and thereby concern itself with the interests of Canadians generally and not just the special interests of select groups in our country.
I said earlier I honestly feel that the present work stoppage in Sault Ste. Marie need never have occurred. I would like to explain why I hold that belief. On July 31 this year the collective agreement between Algoma Steel Corporation and Local 2251 of the United Steelworkers of America expired. Although negotiations for a new contract had been going on for some time, no agreement had been reached at that time. However, both parties were willing and prepared to continue bargaining, and no legal strike could take place until August 27. But at midnight, on July 31, approximately 38 insurgent dissident members of the local decided to institute an illegal or wildcat strike, and these men proceeded to picket all points of entry to the steel plant.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Regular members of the local who presented themselves for work were harassed and threatened. Some of these men braved the harassment and crossed the picket line. Others, as it turned out for good reason, turned back and returned home. I asked a number of those who turned back at the picket line why they and their co-workers allowed themselves to be pushed around by as few as 38 radicals. The answer was invariably the same, "Murph, you have a wife and kids. If you were told you would end up in hospital with a busted head, or that your family was in danger, what the hell would you do"?


William Arnold Peters: That is a lot of crap, and you know it.


Charles Terrence Murphy: Just listen, Buddy. Hon. members might think that such remarks were nothing more than idle threats but, Mr. Speaker, when you consider that a similar wildcat strike at the same plant only a year earlier had erupted into violence, resulting in extensive property damage and bodily injuries, then you may understand that the fear felt by many on this occasion was real.
October 30, 1969

Further evidence of the fact that the illegal picketers were not engaging in idle chit chat was discovered by the men who had crossed the line. When they came off shift they found that tires on their cars had been slashed, and car windows broken. Needless to say, they did not again attempt to cross that picket line.
Despite the earnest efforts of the officials of Local 2251 to persuade the members of their local to disregard the wildcat picketing and return to work, operations within the steel works were affected to the point that company officials found it necessary to shut down operations. I am told that the cost of shutting down a steel mill the size of Algoma is approximately one quarter of a million nonproductive dollars, and that the cost of reopening such a mill is the same. Faced with a possible legal strike on August 28, the company officials decided not to re-open the plant, despite the fact that the illegal picketing ended within a few days. It naturally followed that the union members voted for a legal strike on August 28.
During all this time, that is, from August 1 to August 28, the members of the United Steel Workers of America in Hamilton were striking the Steel Company of Canada. I believe it is generally agreed that Algoma Steel and the Sault Ste. Marie steel workers were prepared to accept any reasonable settlement which might ultimately be reached in the dispute in Hamilton. It is for this reason I believe that if it were not for the illegal activities of a handful of union members there would have been no work stoppage in Sault Ste. Marie, some 10,000 men in the steel industry and associated industries would have continued to work and take home pay cheques to their families, and the merchants and other businessmen who serve the steel workers would not now be standing idly behind their windows staring blankly at empty streets. I can think of no better example of the vicious effectiveness of an illegal wildcat strike, and I believe my proposal to make unions legally responsible for the illegal actions of their members to be an effective and just antidote for this type of social poison.
Naturally in cases involving illegal strikes, liability should be limited to those cases in which union officers fail to demonstrate that they did all they reasonably could to prevent the work stoppage or to persuade the defaulting employees to return to work. In Sault Ste. Marie the union officials did try to persuade
The Address-Mr. Murphy their members to return to work. Their persuasion did not succeed. However, if the rank and file members of the union realized that their failure to honour their contract might result in costly court actions, which might lead to damage awards running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that the payment of these penalties would be extracted from their pay cheques by way of increased union dues, then I believe that some 38 hotheads would have a difficult time keeping 6,500 workers from doing their job.
There are many other benefits which would flow from the establishment of a union as a legal entity, and some of the benefits would accrue to the rank and file union members. But I say this, Mr. Speaker, that if the enactment of a law which has the effect of making a union legally responsible prevents the occurrence of just one illegal strike, which could produce the havoc and economic hardship which resulted from such a strike in Sault Ste. Marie, then it is time we enacted that law.
In this respect I wish to quote from a decision rendered a number of years ago by the late Mr. Justice Brandeis, a very honoured and respected member of the United States Supreme Court:
This practical immunity of unions from legal liability is deemed by many labour leaders a great advantage. To me it appears to be just the reverse. It tends to make officers and members reckless and lawless, and thereby to alienate public sympathy and bring failure upon their efforts. It creates on the part of employers also a bitter antagonism, not so much on account of lawless acts as from a deep-rooted sense of injustice, arising from the feeling that while the employer is subject to law the union holds a position of legal irresponsibility...
The unions should take the position squarely that they are amenable to law, prepared to take the consequences if they transgress, and thus show that they are in full sympathy with the spirit of our people, whose political system rests upon the proposition that this is a government of law, and not of men.
The second proposal I outlined earlier had to do with industrial conversion or change, resulting from technological advances, which has the effect of causing labour displacement. As the Woods report on labour relations astutely observes, the term "industrial conversion" embraces all major changes that may have a permanent disruptive effect on the employment relationship. Technological change, or automation, is only one of the forces which may lead to such disruption. Other forces include resource depletion, product obsolescence, and domestic and foreign market shifts.
October 30, 1969

The Address-Mr. Murphy
While it is true that an employer may have little or no control over other causes of industrial conversion, it is equally true that the same employer does have control over industrial conversion by way of automation. It is in this area that I feel the employer should, by law, be required to negotiate with the union on matters pertaining to retraining, relocation, income maintenance, severance pay, early retirement and similar types of assistance that will provide some type of relief for those employees who will be dislocated as a result of automation. And I believe that such negotiation should be made mandatory, even though the changes to be made are to take effect at a time when a collective agreement is in force, whether or not such agreement has provided for the possibility of job-reducing changes.
I agree that automation has a vital role to play if our Canadian economy is to remain dynamic. The Woods task force report properly points out that to society as a whole, change is the key to the increased productivity necessary to meet unsatisfied public needs and desires and, to individual enterprises, change is essential to remain sufficiently competitive to survive. As the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) so aptly put it on Tuesday night, "the name of the game is change."
However, Mr. Speaker, industrial change by way of automation despite its obvious advantages cannot be allowed to run rampant without regard to the hardships to displaced workers which must necessarily follow in its path. The fact that the introduction of an automated manufacturing process will benefit not only his employer but also his fellow workers, and even Canadian society as a whole, provides little comfort to the man whose job has been eliminated by a machine. He will say, as I would if confronted with the same plight, "Good for you, but what about me"?
As representatives of Canadian society, we must answer that man's question. He is afraid, and justifiably so. We must act to allay that fear, and any action we take can be justified on both economic and social grounds. Economically, it makes sense to take steps to prevent the natural resistance to any form of change which can result from such fear. Socially, a truly just society cannot tolerate a situation which permits the majority, who will receive the benefit of change, to demand that the minority bear the burdens of that change.

[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I am agonizingly aware that the proposal I have made does not provide a complete answer to the haunting question of the displaced worker. My suggestion, if acted upon, would help only those workers who are covered by collective bargaining and collective bargaining covers less than half the labour force. Furthermore, it affords no protection to those workers who find themselves adversely affected by industrial changes resulting from causes other than automation. If one were to suggest answers to the questions which will be asked by these people, it would require much more time than is available to me today.
I am also aware, Mr. Speaker, that the proposal which I now make for alleviation of the hardships resulting from automation is not as extreme as other proposals I once supported. I am sure I will be reminded of that fact by my good friends who are members of United Steel Workers Local 2251 in Sault Ste. Marie. I once endorsed the position taken in the Freedman report with reference to this issue. My change in position has been the result of three separate influential factors.
First, the alarming increase in the number of strikes and the resultant irreparable damage to the economy of our country has caused me to have second thoughts about any proposal which would provide even more opportunities for strikes. I can see no justification for providing ways and means of disrupting the economic stability which we have come to expect once a collective agreement has been signed. It would be tantamount to providing warring nations with an endless supply of arms to do so.
Secondly, I have come to realize that collective bargaining, despite its many virtues, cannot by itself create jobs and this function should not be demanded of it. At best it provides a means for preserving obsolete jobs by sanctioning unnecessary work practices, or it shuffles job holders around by adopting such things as early retirement plans which induce older workers to retire to make room for the younger men entering the labour force. But jobs it does not create, and to think otherwise is to lull oneself into a state of delusion.
Finally, Freedman's proposals in this field became less appealing to me as I became increasingly aware of the economic Council's admonition that Canada must be vitally concerned with improving its industrial efficiency. In order to survive as a nation, we must
October 30, 1369	COMMONS
be able to put new methods and technology to effective use. I cannot see how this could possibly be accomplished by adopting a proposal which threatens our efficiency by providing additional means, not only to attract what little industrial stability we have come to expect, but also additional means to prevent industry from availing itself of the fruits of technological advances.
The third proposal which I urge the government to include in our new labour legislation is that unions be required by law to conduct strike votes, ratification votes and any other votes which have the effect of extending or continuing strikes, by way of secret ballot. Some may contend that by legislating in this field the government would be meddling in the internal affairs of the union-in other words, interfering with the right of the unions to govern themselves. However, when one stops to consider the extent of the power that unions can exercise over present and prospective members, it becomes apparent that the basic rights of union members are the proper subject of legitimate public concern.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Charles Terrence Murphy: When I am finished, Mr. Speaker.
The need for some sort of government control becomes even more apparent when we consider how the abuse or negation of basic democratic rights within a union has the potential of adversely affecting Canadian society as a whole. I need go no further than the steel strike at Sault Ste. Marie to find an example to illustrate this point. As I mentioned earlier, under normal conditions I believe the parties to the dispute in the Sault would have been prepared to accept any reasonable settlement that was reached between the parties in Hamilton. The Hamilton dispute was settled in mid-October. After that settlement, hopes were high that the Algoma steel plant in the Sault would be back in operation in short order. As things developed, it became apparent that all differences on monetary items resolved themselves in light of the Hamilton settlement but a non-monetary item involving the status of part-time foremen kept the parties apart. Last Sunday, at a general meeting of the union members called for the purpose of deciding whether to continue the strike until settlement had been
DEBATES	307
The Address-Mr. Murphy reached on this issue, a majority of the members voted for the continuation. According to news reports of that meeting, some members requested that the vote by secret ballot rather than by a show of hands, but their request was refused.
I can think of no more blatant example of the denial of basic democratic rights than that I have just cited. I accept the fact that a union must necessarily be a militant organization-in many respects similar to a country continually in conflict with its neighbour- and as such cannot be expected to abide by all the sometimes sophisticated principles of democracy. However, when unions begin to deny or disregard such basic principles as the right to vote by secret ballot on issues of such grave importance, not only to union members but to society as a whole, then I think it is the time for the government to take action to protect and preserve these rights.
My final proposal, Mr. Speaker, was that the use of the ex parte injunction as a legal weapon in legal labour disputes should be abolished. Thankfully, the vast majority of our citizens believe in, and have great respect for, the law. I believe a good deal of this respect stems from the fact that our system of administering the law is based upon the adversary system which gives the litigants, or disputants, the right to appear before a judge in open court and present their respective cases. All parties have a right to be heard in public before a decision is made. Let us contrast this procedure with that followed when applying for an ex parte injunction. This extraordinary remedy permits a judge, in the privacy of his home, his hotel room or even his club, to issue a court order which can, and usually does, directly affect the activity of some person who does not appear before him-indeed, who does not even know that the judge is asked to make such an order. To make matters worse, the person asking for the injunction does not have to appear before the judge. He is simply required to file affidavits to support his claim and he need not be subjected to cross-examination on the contents of those affidavits before an injunction is issued.
Is it any wonder that ex parte injunction proceedings are held in such contemptuous disrespect by members of the public generally and by members of unions in particular? How can we preserve this archaic and despotic legalistic tool and at the same time pretend to revere that ancient but basic principle of common law, "justice must not only be done,

October 30. 1969
The Address-Mr. Bigg but must be seen to be done." It is trite to say that bad laws breed disrespect for all laws and when the citizens of a country lose respect for the law, can anarchy be far behind?
Recent events in this country should make all of us frighteningly aware of the urgency of enacting laws which command respect and of ridding ourselves of laws which breed contempt. This government can take one small step in this direction if it does away, once and for all, with the availability of the iniquitous ex parte injunction in the legal labour disputes.
I would like to thank the hon. members for giving my remarks such attention, Mr. Speaker.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member resumes his seat


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising for the purpose of asking a question?


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may ask the question at this time.


William Arnold Peters: I would like to ask the hon. member, assuming his suggestion were followed and all decisions and votes of a union-and we will agree that they are very large and complex, particularly in an area such as Sault Ste. Marie-were made public, would it not be only fair that the decisions of the other side also be made public?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Charles Terrence Murphy: That is not my understanding, Mr. Speaker. It was not my intention to require a tabulation of the vote to be made public. At Sault Ste. Marie the vote would take place either in the Memorial Gardens or at the gate, wherever most people could gather. How those people vote and who votes would not be made public necessarily. That would be for the union to say. If the union decides to make the tally public, that is fine. That is the way a board of directors of a company operates.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my first remarks in this debate on the Speech from the Throne will be to compliment the government for its gracious reference to Her Majesty and Her Majesty's forthcoming trip to Manitoba during that province's centennial year in 1970. I notice in the Speech from the

Throne that Canada intends to continue to be involved in the United Nations. I commend the government for that. One thing, however, disturbs me. In backing the United Nations, we must become conscious of our place in the whole world picture. The millenium has not yet arrived. We live in a dangerous world and although Canada, like most western nations, looks forward to 1,000 years of peace, no events of the last decade indicate that the millenium is yet here; nor can we hope to see it's arrival in the near future. Let us therefore not become ostrich-like in our approach to the defence of Canada. After all, no purpose is served by talking about the security of the free world or the true welfare of the world in general unless the people of the world are willing to pay the price of freedom. The price is that one must adopt a wide awake attitude, have a strong and stable country at home and be willing, in some cases, to pay the ultimate sacrifice.
I am not one of those who think we can live in a peaceful world where people do not pull their weight in defence matters. It is not good enough to look south of the border for the total defence of North America or the free world. I think the great republic to the south may have been misled at times. Although it is not popular to say so at this time, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the United States. Twice in my lifetime has that nation come to our aid. The aid has been somewhat late, but, nevertheless, they brought us to a victory which was earned at great expense and with the blood of the Armed Forces of the United States. If one must choose between the various types of propaganda emanating from various world centres, let us not listen to that propaganda which speaks only of the destruction of our powerful and friendly neighbour. When I say that our entire defence program should be formed in such a way that it takes into account the great republic to the south, I am sure I speak for the average Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: We cannot take any cheap shortcut to mu own security, anyone who imagines that the United States alone can defend the free world is entertaining an empty and dangerous dream. Anyone thinking of the defence of Canada, therefore, must take a realistic approach to this question. Along with other men of good will I, too, want peace; but I hope we are willing to approach this question realistically. I will say no more on the subject at this time.
October 30, 1969

The Speech from the Throne mentions that the voting age should be lowered to 18 years. That move, I think, is timely and inevitable. Our young people are becoming more educated; we have television and free education across Canada; and it is no longer reasonable for us to say that a man is not mature before he is 21. At 18 our young people will not have the experience of 21 year olds; nevertheless, if our 18 year olds have studied history, politics and civic matters they will be as capable as most people of making up their minds on political matters. If an 18 year old is mature enough to serve in war, I think he is mature enough to vote in peacetime. I shall support the legislation when it comes before the House. Our young people are marrying younger and earning their own living. It seems preposterous to me that a young married person should not have some say about how taxes and the cost of living are to be regulated. I only hope they bring to the polling booths the maturity we can expect as a result of the new leisure time that has been spent in keeping up with world affairs.
Having said that, I tell hon. members that I am not too happy with the Speech from the Throne, because it does not offer solutions to many pressing national problems. I am not a Harvard graduate in economics, but I believe that a certain amount of inflation is built into our present economic system. I think we all agree that expanding prices are the result of an expanding economy. It is only the "runaway inflation" that we are worried about and I am not sure whether the efforts made so far to contain inflation in Canada are adequate. Have we adopted the proper approach in Canada? Our economists and those in charge of fiscal matters have always said, "When there is a depression in the United States there must be one in Canada, and when the economy expands in the United States it must also expand in Canada." I am not sure that this is necessarily true.
Canada is fortunate among the nations of the earth in still having virgin land, enormous natural resources, big rivers of unpolluted waters; vast sources of mineral wealth, oil, and even timber. That being so, I am not at all sure that we are handling inflation the right way. If we were more ready to accept advice from those who have been successful in business, from those who have made a study of the economic problems of the mining or the agricultural industry, we might come to grips with our economic problems in a manner better suited to Canada. I suggest,
The Address-Mr. Bigg perhaps, that we are not putting enough of our own, hard-earned money into our own capital investment. On this matter I cannot go along with the NDP which is busy at Winnipeg now. That party is screaming as usual at the United States and dragging red herrings-and I mean red-across the path. It blames the United States for all our problems.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
If we need capital investment in this country, there is no reason why it cannot be obtained here. We are one of the richest countries in the world, not only in untamed natural resources but we have a gross national product of $60 billion. There is no reason why Canadians cannot tighten their fiscal belt a little. (We are all over-fed and we certainly over-drink.) If we took a little money and put it into capital investment we could be a bit more like the Japanese. We could obtain our objective, not by cutting wages or lowering the standard of living, but by going back to work with Canadian tools, understanding and monetary self-restraint. When I refer to selfrestraint I do not mean cutting back in business, cutting down union hours or holding back union wages. I mean that we should save and invest in our own future.
While I am on the subject, I wish to say it might be very dangerous to put in price and wage controls unless we are certain which sections of the economy will be affected by these controls. It would be fine to have control over those people who have been able to weasel out of the government a 30 per cent raise, but what about the poor devils who did not get a raise? What about the civil servants who are still working for disgraceful wages in a country as rich, prosperous and far-sighted as Canada is supposed to be? It would be a disgrace to peg their wages at present levels and do nothing about the runaway prices of the things they buy.
Some of the people who were screaming about pegging the wages no doubt wanted to have their additional 30 per cent, but leave in the lurch the other fellow who has not got his economy straightened out. We are receiving advice from some people we should listen to the least. This afternoon we heard a very interesting discourse on economics from no less than a doctor of economics at the University of Alberta. He is the type of man who says that members of parliament are overpaid. They would be overpaid if they were in attendance in this house only as often as he! He happens to be a millionaire and he

October 30, 19G9
The Address-Mr. Bigg is not talking for other members of parliament. He is certainly not talking for members of the opposition, as he was reported to be in the Edmonton Journal of recent date.
All we ask is that this subject be fully studied. The member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange), who happens to be a member of the government, must use his thumb to get around his riding. This is beneath the dignity of the House of Commons and beneath the dignity of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr, Bigg:: It is time we stopped poking fun at each other across the floor of the House or in the press and set up a committee to iron out this question. This committee could sit whether or not parliament is in session. Let us tell the boys in the press gallery, if they are awake, that we do not get $18,000 unearned income. We get $12,000 of very, very hard-earned income in some cases.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I would like to see any three men in this country, whether they be economists or otherwise, who on $6,000 a year, can pay for me or the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk)-the great district which I once represented which has now been increased by some one-third, making it 100,000 square miles-to travel throughout our ridings in a way comparable to that of any commercial traveller selling popcorn or ladies' corsets. I would gladly hand over my $6,000 to them and welcome them to pay my bills. If there is any money left over they can give it to the members of the press gallery, or donate it to the fund for indigent scribes.
I am not going to say how much a good member is worth. I do not think it would be possible to pay for the kind of representation some constituencies are getting. I do not think some members of parliament should draw their pay cheques at all, but they should speak for themselves and not point the finger at other people. They should not say, "you are robbing the poor, unsuspecting taxpayer". If I were a millionaire I would not worry at all. I do not worry particularly now. I would be a member of parliament without remuneration because I love the work, but I do not want my colleagues to tell me I am ranting and raving for a lot of pay I do not earn. I would like to debate that privately or over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, if it
[Mr. Bigg.)
can be arranged, preferably with the member for Edmonton Strathcona.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: At this time, my riding is two-thirds agriculture and one-third urban. The agricultural problems in northern Alberta are very serious this year. When the Standing Committee on Agriculture travels, I hope it does not go from master farmer to master farmer and return with the idea that everybody has a nice a farming arrangement as Mr. Manning or Mr. Douglas. Apparently being premier of a province helps a man to learn how to farm properly.
Most farmers have to put up with weather conditions, and the weather conditions in northern Alberta at the present time are not a good advertisement for that province. These people are in desperate straits and emergency measures are required.
It is not the government's job to sell wheat or any other agriculture product, but it would not do them any harm to look around to find a salesman or two. With regard to sales of wheat, without being partisan about it, I suggest that some of the men who claim to have sold wheat in earlier times should be offered this employment. If they cannot do it, then they should keep quiet. But they should be sought out and offered the job. I think this wheat can be sold, even in the present, world market conditions.
What research is being done? Wheat can be turned into protein products. There is a great need for protein products in the world, particularly in Asia. We should see whether we can produce the right kind of hog to ship to Asia. It is not necessary to have a grade A hog. The people in China would be satisfied with 800 pound hogs. We could ship frozen hogs to the 700 million people of China.
We are making plans to recognize Red China. It might be a good idea if this recognition were, first of all, on the basis of world understanding, keeping human bellies full an and seeing whether we can put pork into the stomachs of the people who need more food. We can forget about the pork barrel at home and think about pork on the table of the Chinese people. I would agree to recognition of Red China, and every other nation, Asiatic or otherwise, on this basis.
I do not think there has been enough government research into agricultural products. In time of war we know we can sell all the unrefined wheat it is possible to grow to the desperate nations of the world. Let us find a
Oclober 30, 1969

way to sell agricultural products, whether or not they are turned into protein products, to the nations of the earth. I know it can be done, should be done and must be done. It is not good enough to say that nothing can be done about agriculture. Something that can be done is to give the small farmers of Canada an acreage payment right now. If such a payment were based on the cost of living at the time we established the first acreage payment in 1959, it would have to be doubled today. Even $400 would help a lot. This plan would not involve any administration costs whatsoever because all that would be needed would be a permit book. If the government wants to waste a lot of money on administration, this can be done but it is not necessary.
One or two Acts respecting agriculture on the statute books could be changed. Instead of waiting until the farmer gets his grain in the bin, money could be lent to him according to the acreage he hopes to get into the bin. Why wait until there is a disaster? Why not allow the man a little credit in order to get the stuff out? I know many farmers in northern Alberta would hire a grain drying machine if they had the cash to do so. They are stymied, although a few hundred dollars would make all the difference between going on relief and being able to carry on.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I have seen' news in the papers recently which alarms me. It seems we are not consulted any more in Canada; we are told what is going to be done. Some of the things we are told make my hair stand on end. Take this idea that the government should buy up all the unproductive land in Canada. I do not agree with that. What is unproductive land, anyway, and who is going to decide what constitutes unproductive land? This idea sounds like socialism to me and I do not expect it to come from the great Liberal party; I expect it to come from people who admit being devoted to socialism. It might work, though I do not think it would. But be honest about it. Do members opposite want to socialize land in Canada? If they do, let them say so, and let the electorate vote them in if it approves. Let them not do it behind closed doors and let them not socialize certain areas of land and not others.
Whenever I have been able to approve of legislation-and sometimes I have found approval difficult-it is on the basis that all Canadians were being treated alike. This was
The Address-Mr. Bigg the principle on which I acted when it came to voting in connection with the old age pension legislation. I do not like the means test. Spell it right in Hansard-m-e-a-n test. A means test is always a mean test. If the Government of Canada wants to be generous it can afford to be generous to us all. As far as I am concerned, a millionaire has just as much right to an old age pension as anyone else; he probably worked a lot harder than some of the people who are getting it. In my opinion, a means test is far more unfair and unprofitable than any other piece of legislation on the statute books.
We all want to eliminate poverty as far as possible. In the partisan press we have-and maybe there could be no other kind-writers accusing our leader, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), of supporting the idea of a guaranteed income. Well, the only guaranteed income I would vote for-and I speak for myself in this regard-is a guaranteed income in return for guaranteed work. I have never been in favour of a guaranteed income in return for no effort, and I would certainly not favour a guaranteed income for those who spend a great deal more time trying to avoid their civic duty than in trying to do something constructive for themselves or their fellow men. To pay a man a just wage for a good day's work is fair, and will always be fair.
I was disappointed to hear some people trying to say that the trade unions are responsible for most of the trouble in Canada today. That is nonsense. If it were not for the unions a great many people would still be in a condition amounting to near slavery. It is the abuse of union power which has been bad and it is our job here in parliament to see that abuses do not go unchallenged, whether committed by management or by the trade unions. It would be a very good thing in my opinion if management were sometimes to act to prevent a strike by introducing reforms which they know to be long overdue. It would be most refreshing, for example, if management were, some day, to call the staff in and say: Well, we have made a handsome profit this year; we have made a profit of $54 million; how much of that do you think is due to you as employees as a reward for your work and as a means of ensuring against strikes for the next few years?


An hon. Member:: Fifty-five million.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: This kind of thing is done in England, in firms such as Rowntrees and Frys whose very names are household words and

October 30, 1963
The Address-Mr. Bigg whose products are standards of quality. I have a suspicion that it is not only because they put good chocolate into the candy that they are so successful commercially.
We need more honesty in this country; more honest-to-goodness, straightforward honesty. We need it from all sides of this House. I should like to hear the members of the New Democratic party, for example, tell the unions that they are asking too much. It is most confusing to my farmers out west when they find that the reason they cannot ship their wheat is that some hidebound longshoremen's strike is holding up the movement of grain.


An hon. Member:: It is the employers.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: It has been the fault of the employers at times, as I am the first to admit. It would certainly put the employers on the spot as far as the farmers are concerned if the longshoremen could tell them why they should have a 30-hour week when those same longshoremen are ready to fight against the making of an acreage payment. It seems that when we hear talk about an acreage payment, we hear only a lone voice from the prairie.
Prairie farmers want me to ask why it is that only the farmer is supposed to get along by competing on the markets of the world while others have their incomes guaranteed. I am sure that when my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition talks about a guaranteed income he is not only thinking about the unemployed and those now receiving relief, but about everybody in Canada including the fishermen who want a fair price for their catch and the farmer who wants a reasonable return for his farm products.
What is the answer to these questions? It is a very complex one. If we want to improve the wheat sales situation it will mean more research; it will mean putting more salesmen on the road. It may mean digging into the taxpayers' pockets so as to give the farmer, one of the hardest working men in Canada, a fair chance to pay for his children's underwear and keep abreast of his taxes.
Only two-thirds of my constituency Mr. Speaker is agricultural in nature. The people in the urban centres are worried about the ever-increasing cost of living in the cities. The newspapers tell us-indeed, they boast about it-that a young man getting married is able to buy an improved lot for $5,000. I hear one hon. member say "That is cheap". Perhaps it is cheap at present prices. Can anyone tell us how this young man will be able to

pay the enormous education and other taxes which ride ever higher with the price of that property? The school board would, no doubt, be delighted if he had to pay twice as much for a lot, because in that case they would have double the amount to spend on certain forms and frills of education.
The easy answer to this problem is to say that education is not a federal matter, so we can close our eyes to it. Like the need to organize rapid transportation systems, it is not considered a federal matter. Even pollution, I understand, is not considered to be a federal responsibility. Is the air polluted above a city? Then, it is not a federal responsibility. If it were polluted over a provincial highway, then I suppose it would be a provincial matter; if it were polluted over the Trans Canada Highway, or over an interprovincial waterway, I presume we would come into the picture.
We had better get together. When we are rehashing our constitution we ought to bring it up to date so that we can straighten out these matters. When we turn to our legal brains we are told, in most instances, what we cannot do. We are told we cannot discuss certain matters, or that we cannot deal with pollution or certain aspects of public health without permission from the provinces.
o (4:20 p.m.)
The federal government tells the provinces that no money is available, so they need not keep asking for assistance. This is why our small farmers are leaving their homesteads. It is why pollution is becoming so bad that hope for saving some rivers is being abandoned. The bottleneck is a human one. There is no river in Canada that cannot be cleaned up if we start now.
I ask the government why they do not institute a crash program to combat pollution. According to an article I read last night, Canada hopes to get around to dealing with pollution by about 1981. My throat is sore at the present moment, not because I have been shouting but because of that stinking pulp mill just across the river. The capital city of Canada should be an example to the whole country in the matter of pollution control, yet if you have had pneumonia within the last five years you just can't live here. We cannot even breathe the air in this chamber without calling for medical attention. I am afraid if we have to wait until 1981 neither I nor Canada will be in a condition to benefit much from pollution control. We must get down to
October 30, 1969

brass tacks and talk about pollution now and do something real about it immediately.
The people of Canada are getting fed up with our throwing the constitution in the face of the provinces, whether this be in the matter of urban renewal, the unbearable burden of taxation or the cost of education. I say no problem is too hot to handle if only people would have the guts to handle it. If a problem is too hot to handle, then we have plenty of asbestos in Canada, and I suggest we had better order 265 pairs of gloves for the members of the House of Commons.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada will not mind paying us $18,000 and will even be glad to pay double as long as they get twice as much effective action for their money.


Mr. Jean R. Roy (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, may I join with my colleagues in congratulating the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Lapoin'e (Mr. Mar-ceau) for their excellent presentations in moving and seconding the Throne Speech.
At the start of last session I decided to make my maiden speech during the debate on the official languages bill. I did so because the bill was of such importance to many people both in my riding and throughout the country, and because it has a very special meaning to me as a Canadian of French extrac ion, born and living outside of Quebec. Due to some very unfortunate circumstances, this debate was put off until very late in the session, resulting in my maiden speech being long delayed. This session I am going to jump the gun and make my debut with this throne speech debate.
When I came to Ottawa it did not take me very long to realize that if I was properly to represent the people of Timmins riding it would be necessary to find solutions to existing problems. But, more than this, it would be of the utmost importance to project our thinking into the future and to make a concerted effort to make that future better than the past. Standing still, preserving the status quo, is not good enough for our generation and it certainly is not good enough for the young people.
If there has been one clear message to the present day politician it must certainly be the complete dissatisfaction of these young people with our present standards and way of life. The message of the young says: "Get with it, Jack! You have ruined the basic structure of the society that we must inherit from you and further develop for ourselves". They say the

The Address-Mr. J. Roy basic principles of humanity have been so distorted that that distortion seems to have become acceptable and normal. They say the meaning of life has been so badly forgotten that they seek refuge in things beyond natural life itself, such as drugs. They say morals have been so compromised that it is now difficult to say what is right and what is wrong. What was right is now always wrong, and what was wrong is now nearly always right.
Social, political, economic, human and spiritual values seem to be part of such a jungle, and have become of such concern to the young, that they have in most instances lost the ability to temper the theoretical wi.h reality, to adjust these theories with some measure of pragmatism. The communications gap between generations has opened so wide and has become so irreconcilable that the only solution for many is to wipe out this gap by destroying our present society. "Burn it down" is the new solution for all problems! Our young people want to destroy the society which seeks to eliminate them by subjecting them to the pressures of education, the pressures of social standing, yes, even the pressures of a normal, decent standard of living.
Seeing this frightful scene, Mr. Speaker, I decided last fall to try and communicate with our young people. I have been meeting on a regular basis with university students, high school students and other groups from my riding, and while these young people from Timmins seem to have a greater tolerance and understanding than the majority, they nevertheless are deeply concerned and have expressed great anxiety in regard to a large number of problems.
Since our area is rich in mineral and forest resources, they have great concern for the proper exploi ation of these resources. They understand that you can regrow a forest, but they also know that minerals extracted from the ground are never replaced. They believe these minerals belong to our citizens, and they cannot understand why these citizens do not derive greater benefits from this exploitation. They wonder why so many of these minerals are extracted and so little are processed at the source; why so many are exported to other countries and so many of our industries are owned by foreign capital. They fear economic domination will bring political domination.
They ask me about the lack of pollution controls. They want an assurance that when our Texas Gulf smelter is completed it will not cause the terrible type of pollution seen
October 30, 1969

The Address-Mr. J. Roy in the Sudbury area. They cannot understand the continuing increase in prices and incomes, or disparities in earnings across the country which show a tradesman receiving $1.75 per hour in one region and $4.50 an hour in another region for the same amount of work. They want to know why there is a difference of 50 per cent in earnings for the same work in two industries in the same city, why students are refused jobs because they are not union members and yet are refused membership in the unions. This happens not only to students but people in the workforce as well.
Students ask me why they must pay income tax on their small incomes in view of the high cost of education at university, and why education costs are not deductible expenses for their parents. I certainly hope the white paper of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will indicate some relief in this area will be given.
Our young people are concerned with our sovereignty in our northern waters. Their sense of pride in Canada and in belonging to this land is much deeper than ours and more significant to them. They have left in the past the prejudices and hatreds of long standing. Their minds are kept open to justice and fair play and their hearts to tolerance and understanding. As a result deep feelings of frustration for Viet Nam and Biafra are aroused in them,-yes, for their Quebec compatriots, too. And how about giving our surplus wheat to the hungry nations, they say.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Our students are concerned for their education, its quality and its purpose. They, more than others, realize the continuing waste of time, energy and talents through years of a learning process which lacks so much in purpose and effectiveness. Educational systems, like governments, seem always to be years behind the people they serve, years behind necessary accomplishments, and this, in spite of the great progress we have made, and in spite of the technological developments. We possess the necessary technicians and equipment, but lack a clear understanding of the basic principles and purposes. How many young people are technically competent and yet completely disoriented and ill-equipped to absorb the emotional shocks and moral challenges which everyday life brings.
Our young people ask me about marijuana laws, liquor laws and sex laws. To the older generation, these are the defending bastions of our moral standards; to our youth they are the hypocritical licences of permissiveness for
[Mr. Eoy.)
the older generation. We must have failed terribly, Mr. Speaker, in offering our youth so few worthwhile challenges that many have seen fit to turn to drugs, violence, revolution and anarchy for substitutes.
More generally and fundamentally, they want to know where they fit into our society and, if they do fit in, why it is they cannot participate in the establishment of values, in the decisions concerning society and themselves. Surely, we must have the open minds and the flexibility to allow such a large segment of our citizens to participate in the determination of the concepts and structure of our society and all its segments, especially those that concern the young people themselves and their future.
From fear of being misunderstood, Mr. Speaker, let me say I am perfectly aware that what I am doing is simply repeating the identification of problems by our young people. Solutions are much more difficult to find. Nevertheless, I think these problems are doubtly important because our young people are aware of them and deeply concerned and troubled by them. If we are to move in the right direction, develop the proper principles and concept for the just and desired society, legislate the correct laws, implement these laws in the proper fashion, then of course we must look to our young people and listen to their pleas. We must develop some understanding, for it is their future and then-legacy we are building.
While our young people are of paramount importance, Mr. Speaker, this is not to be taken as diminishing the importance of all our other citizens. Their problems are in good measure those of all Canadian regions; inflation, many people on fixed incomes, high cost of living and housing, inadequate social security, programs for the needy, the lack of understanding and humanity in so many of our public service departments.
Our pulp and paper industry in the Iroquois Falls-Ansonville area is a prosperous one. Until the Texas Gulf base metal discovery in 1963, gold mining was the most prominent industry in the area. This industry as you are no doubt aware, Mr. Speaker, is a depressed and diminishing one, and indeed exists only because of emergency gold mining assistance provided by the federal government. Gold mines would have to close their doors if this assistance were not available. The irony of this situation is that the industry
October 30, 1969

is being legislated out of business by government, the price of gold having been pegged at $35 an ounce U.S. since 1934. Since emergency gold mining assistance is due to expire at the end of 1970, my greatest effort in this session will be to influence the government's decision to extend and improve this aid in order to reinforce this industry.
With the discovery of the Texas Gulf base metals deposit, the whole economic picture of our area has now changed. Our economic base has been strengthened, and its stability established. The construction of a smelter next spring with the help of $6J million in incentives from our regional economic expansion department will again reinforce our economic structure, providing a substantial number of new jobs and acting as a shock absorber to our gold industry. This has changed our residents from pessimists to optimists again, yet many problems still exist and more will appear as a result of the new developments. New employees for the plant will create a serious housing shortage. We are presently looking into this problem. Solutions will have to be found and, of necessity, with this government's help, Mr. Speaker, solutions will be found, not only as a result of the efforts of politicians but also the enthusiasm, initiative and effort of our citizens. Our people are aware that the government cannot solve problems alone, cannot live their lives for them, and so they will accept the challenge. They will meet their responsibilities and they will develop a better Timmins riding for our young people, for all our people, and for Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon), pursuant to Standing Order 40 I might inform the house of the questions to be raised on the debate at the time of adjournment. They are as follows: the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken)-pollution, cancellation of forestry research branch; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-pensions, retired civil servants, inquiry as to increase; the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Deakon)-health and welfare, control of use of pesticides.
The Address-Mr. McCutcheon



ADDRESS DEBATE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Jack Cullen for an address to His Excellency, the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Nesbitt.
Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):: At the outset I should like to point out that my participation in this debate will not be lengthy. However, there are a few things I should like to get off my chest.
I am distressed about the way parliament is heading, and I am distressed about the undercurrent of dissatisfaction with Parliament running through so many of the speeches which have been delivered during this throne speech debate. I am particularly concerned about the continuing threat in virtually every government backbencher's speech about change in our procedures. I can share their concern for the way things are going, but the suggested solutions put forward by some of them I submit are not the answers to the problems.
The hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) set the tone for this debate and I congratulate him on the able manner in which he carried out his assignment. He is a next door neighbour of mine and a pretty close personal friend. I must say that in his speech he repeated a lot of platitudes, and he particularly stressed making parliament relevant. I know he will not object if I quote what he said, and this appears at page 6 of Hansard for October 23, 1969:
In the various committees of the house, this legislation is reviewed, criticized, amended and reported back to the house. This legislation is being subject to amendment and these amendments are debated.
Isn't that something! If I may quote further from the hon. member's words appearing at the same page of Hansard, he said:
I would like to see debates on important legislation hold the attention of this house, of the various media of publicity and the citizens of our country. I would like to see this House of Commons filled with members during the debating period.
To that, I say amen! No one will argue against this proposition, but I submit it might have been more relevant for us to ask why this situation occurs. I have my own ideas on
October 30, 1969

The Address-Mr. McCutcheon this subject which I hope to elaborate upon a little later.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Later on during the debate the hon. member tor Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Sullivan) whom I am delighted to see in the House, came up with a blueprint for a new constitution. As I understood his words, he seemed to favour a congressional style government. He even had specific suggestions concerning the division between the executive and the legislative branches of government. It sounded very much like Washington, D.C. being moved here to Ottawa. Now, lest anyone suggest for one moment I am being critical of either of my friends to whom I have referred, let me say at once such is not the case. I know they are concerned, and rightly so, but I submit the answer to the problem lies not in bewailing the fact and offering no solution, as was the case in respect of the hon. member for Sarnia, nor in abandoning our tried, true and proven systems for those of another country. I took from the speech of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain that that was his suggestion. The congressional system of our neighbours to the south, in my humble opinion, has not been such a howling success that I would be anxious to trade in our model for one of theirs No, Mr. Speaker, the answer is not as drastic as these members would have us believe.
I think the answer can be found much closer to home. All that is required is a little more intestinal fortitude displayed by the backbenchers in this House, particularly the backbenchers on the government side. I will come to that later also. I believe the majority of the new government backbenchers came here with a desire to participate and, even further, a wish to be non-partisan in their approach. After all the new members had every reason to believe that was what they were getting into. They knew their leader had been in different political parties, so they reasoned they could do what they thought should be done. They believed they were not tied. How long did that dream last? It was soon dispelled. Those ideas of being non-partisan, those dreams of statesmanship without party label and those suggestions in the press of forgetting politics and getting on with the nation's business have all been forgotten.
We were told a new era was dawning with the accession to power of a new majority government. The new era was dawning alright, but not the way the new members of parliament had envisioned it. We were told

that new emphasis would be placed on the committee system, that committees would be less formal than the committee of the whole used to be and that we would get right down to the facts. We were also told there would be non-partisan examination with the help of experts. I have been a member here since 1963, and this sounded good even to me. Alas, I should have known better, even though the new members could not be expected to. What happened? This quotation, allegedly made by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) when he was writing to his constituents, covers the situation pretty well:
The government members of the committee have been instructed to make no changes to the bills coming before the committee and to vote exactly as they are told by the government.
This I submit does not square very well with the words of the hon. member for Sarnia who wants to have the House filled, the committees to have a full attendance, everyone to be in his place and everyone set up like chess men. Why? Is there to be an opportunity for debate or are members just to be there to rubber stamp the wishes of a tightly-knit, ever-expanding executive group within the cabinet? The answer to the attendance problem that seems to weigh so heavily on the mind of the member for Sarnia is not to be found in the constitutional change panacea of the member from Hamilton, but in a renewed spirit of intestinal fortitude by government backbenchers who must resist being kicked around by the executive, even though that executive has the prerogative of dispensing favours.
I suggest there never has been a more dismal record of committee reports than those emanating from the last session of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: We might take the public accounts committee as an example. I was a member of that body for some period of time. We found out about the buses that had to have a hole cut in the side to get at the spark plugs. Investigation proved that those were pretty good buses after all, but they required a simple and inexpensive modification. We held innumerable hearings regarding the so-called extravagance of the refit of the Bonaventure. We studied the navy's hydrofoil. We learned all about the fire on board and how the costs had escalated just as much and more in building the hydrofoil than they escalated for the Arts Centre. The committee found out what the Auditor General
October 30, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	317
already knew. But the point is, what good has come of this; in what way have the deliberations of that committee assured the people of Canada that these things will not happen again?
In what way have any loose business practices been tightened up? Was anybody reprimanded for wrongdoing? If anyone was, I never heard of it. In other words, no action nor benefit really came out of the hearings and recommendations of the committee- nothing. I recall a member of that committee saying upon returning from visiting the Bonaventure last spring, "I'm sure this time we've got 'em; heads will roll this time". No, he was not a member of the party to which I belong. The only heads I know of that are going to roll probably are those on the Bonaventure if she ever puts to sea again. Anyway, we are going to scrap her after spending $14 million.
The public accounts committee probably is not a good example of lack of action on committee recommendations, because all that ever happens really is that there are some newspaper articles on such things as horses on the payroll, highly escalating costs of naval refits and highly escalating costs of world's fairs and centennial arts centres. But that is about as far as it goes. Lack of results, yes, but I suggest all that comes of it is a studied ignoring of this committee by the government.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Up until now at least, the government has not openly directed or dictated the findings of this committee, but I suspect it will not be long now until this is done. What about the Transport Committee report? In that case the poor chairman of the committee allowed a motion recommending the continuation of the "Newfie Bullet"? What happened to that report? More important, what happened to that chairman? Neither one of them lasted long, and the results of the committee recommendation did not last long either.
Do you remember how that report never quite made it to the House? I have no intention of boring you with the details. It is all in the record of last session. You will recall how the matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, but how many of you recall the earthshaking decision that that august body handed down? In case you don't I would like to read it to you. It is to be found in Votes and Proceedings for
The Address-Mr. McCutcheon February 13, 1969, volume No. 92, at page 695:
Your committee reports that the reason for the omission-
I am referring to the Newfie Bullet resolution. -is that it was never moved and concurred in that the said resolution, adopted by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, be part of its Second Report.
How many of you recall how it was impossible for many days for the government to make a statement in the House regarding our future role in NATO? The reason given was, "We cannot do anything until the Defence Committee reports. They are over in Europe now, travelling from base to base. When they get back here to Canada we will make a statement." The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) mentioned this today.
The committee got first-hand information, and when it returned it reported to this House as follows:
1.	Canada should continue to play an effective role in the preservation of peace through membership in NATO.
2.	Canada should continue to maintain forces in Europe as a contribution to the collective defence arrangements of NATO.
3.	Canada should continue its present roles in Europe until such time as the main items of equipment for its Air Division and Mechanized Brigade require replacement.
Did that report make any impact on government thinking? Not one bit! I quote from Hansard of April 18, 1969, page 7724 where the following announcement appears:
The Canadian government intends, in consultation with Canada's allies, to take steps to bring about a planned and phased reduction of the size of the Canadian Forces in Europe.
According to the hon. member for Vancouver East, that announcement was made within minutes of the arrival home of the Defence Committee. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of that-


Harold Edward Winch: I can.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: He is here and he says he can.
There may be some who think that what I have pointed out does not mean much. Maybe it does not, but it meant enough to a certain Liberal Senator because he resigned from the committee. He could not stand it. Do you remember that?
There are those who will disagree with what I am pointing out, and who will say the government has the right to govern. In this I
318	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. McCutcheon concur. But having the right to govern and not listening to dissenting opinions are two different things.
I submit that the two or three examples of the ineffectiveness of our committee system that I have given should be sufficient reason to call for a complete re-appraisal of the system. But I predict that instead of that we will be called upon soon to provide for some committee to sit while the House is sitting, to travel from place to place, to hire counsel, and to hire experts to advise it. With a record like our committees have established I, for one, will find it very difficult to agree to any of these requests.
If the committee system is to be continued the power of the committees must be strengthened. Committees as presently constituted are the creatures of the government, under direct supervision and control of the government. Does anyone actually believe that legal counsel hired at, say, $200 a day by these committees is really hired to serve the interests of the Tories, the Socialists or the Greditistes? If you do, then you probably also believe with Charlie Brown in the Great Pumpkin.
No, Mr. Speaker, the answer to attendance and to interest in the goings-on in this place lies in returning some degree of responsibility to the members of the committees and of this House. Ever since I have been here, there has been a steady erosion of the power and rights of the individual member.
I know that the hon members opposite, particularly the new members, will say that my examples of the ineffectiveness of committees are really not relevant. They will say, "If our Liberal party thinks things should be that way, then that's O.K.; that must be right because the cabinet says so. They have given instructions to our committee to do exactly what cabinet wants done. We'll do it and point out to the public that parliament isn't really relevant."
I say to hon. members opposite that if they want this institution to be relevant, as the hon. member for Sarnia suggests, then the authority and the decisions of committees must be strengthened. The private members must say, "No longer will we allow our rights and privileges to be over-ruled by the executive."
If we want the American system of committees, then each party will have to have its own legal counsel and its own expert witnesses. This will not bring an end to the Liberal government's pork-barrelling. It will

DEBATES	October 30, 1969
not end the patronage, but it will cut down the percentage, and at least the Tory, Socialist and Creditiste taxpayers will not be supporting only Grit experts.
Our committee system is nothing more than a joke. The flow is in the wrong direction. Instead of taking opinions from the grassroots to the cabinet, the flow goes the other way. I have offered a couple of examples of what I mean, but in case anyone has any doubt let me close by quoting from the Speech from the Throne:
The government believes that the time has come to extend the franchise in federal elections and it will therefore recommend to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of the House of Commons that the voting age be lowered to eighteen.
This example clearly shows what I mean about the flow of authority, the flow of recommendations. Gentlemen, it is going in the wrong direction.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Gerald Richard Cobbe (Poriage):: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear.


Gerald Richard Cobbe: The people in our agricultural industry are capable of producing and they are capable of diversification. They have proved this. But what guidelines do they have? How do they know what to diversify to? How are we to know the potential markets around the world? Are we to keep on producing wheat until it is running out of our ears, as it is now, or are we supposed to give these people some type of guideline? There are people in areas adapted to the growing of barley but the producers cannot afford to
DEBATES	321
The Address-Mr. Cobbe grow barley. They do not know how much, if any, barley will be used next year or if they will have the opportunity to sell. This is only one of many varieties of crops that people are capable of producing in abundance. When I refer to these areas, I am talking about producing economically.
The cost-price squeeze has always been a term used when talking about agriculture, but the problem has multplied because people are not producing what they are best suited to produce in their areas. These people should be allowed to produce what they can best produce and in the cheapest way so they have an opportunity to stay in the agricultural industry.
If we do not study the problem and come up with an answer, all other segments of agriculture will suffer from our over-abundance of wheat. People will automatically change to raising beef, pork, fowl and feed grain. What will this do to people already in the industry? There is a tremendous possibility even in the oilseed industry that their total market will be destroyed if we do not come up with a control production, if you want to call it that-control to the extent of how we are able to market.
In my area we have the FRED program. This is a cost-sharing program between the federal and provincial governments. I am very impressed with the amount of money that the federal government has chosen to put into this area in order to increase the productivity and standard of living of these people. The program is partially financed by the federal government with the complete organization and project planning of people in our provincial government, but with the understanding that people in the area will be consulted about what they believe are the best programs. I am disturbed that this is not taking place. I am concerned about cost-sharing programs which the federal government enters into without having some say in how the money is to be spent. There are area boards set up in this area, but it appears they are only for the purpose of keeping the people in the area happy. They make recommendations but very seldom are they listened to. To my knowledge these recommendations are never put into effect. I am concerned about this problem. I feel that if we enter into cost-sharing programs in the future we must have a little more say in exactly what takes place.
I have found that many people in my constituency are concerned about the student loans situation. I am happy to see there is
October 30, 1969

The Address-Mr. Peters now a bill on the order paper dealing with this subject. The problem they are faced with and which I think deserves some (study) is that there should be consideration given to the number of students that parents have attending universities. At the present time income is the main factor, and income will go only so far when you have three or four children attending university. I hope this question will be considered in the proposed amendments to the act.
In closing my remarks I wish to extend an invitation to all members of the House of Commons-I say this on behalf of all members from the province of Manitoba-to visit our province in the year 1970, our centennial year. This will be one of the biggest celebrations in the history of the province of Manitoba. Extensive plans are being made to host people from across Canada. Many, many events will be taking place and I will make it my duty, as I am sure all other members from the province will make it their duty, to see that you receive a complete calendar of events.


Mr. Dinsdale:: We will form a special committee.


Gerald Richard Cobbe: As the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) stated, we will form a special committee. I might say that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) spends a considerable amount of time in the province of Manitoba. I am sure for the sole purpose of enjoying our centennial year in 1970 and will, and he will be promoting this program. On behalf of all members from Manitoba, please make a special effort to visit us in that province during our centennial year.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in a remark made by one of my colleagues indicating that he had listened to and participated in 39 Speeches from the Throne. While I have not been involved to that extent, I have been involved in enough Throne Speeches to notice a great change taking place in our deliberations under the guise of a Throne Speech. When I first came to this House new members were expected to give a travelogue of their riding. I think this was a worth-while purpose because it gave new members the opportunity of making their maiden speech. It was to the advantage of the member and to those who listened to him.
For example, when speaking of my riding I pointed out that we had a number of agricul-

tural problems and I listed them. I made a remark which was factually correct but not really representative; I stated that in my area we produce an amount of cheese equal to the total Canadian export of cheese. Some people assumed that meant we produced all the cheese that was exported. This was not true, because we did not export any; however, we did produce that amount. This was a surprising fact to many members who had been here for years and did not know there was a large agricultural industry in Timiskaming; in fact, one of the best agricultural industries in Ontario.
In the last few days, Mr. Speaker, we have been listening to a different type of speech. The Throne Speech is changing. The Throne Speech probably started to change when the speech was read in the other place. It is a formality. It started with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), followed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Both these hon. gentlemen referred not only to what was contained in the Speech but also to their own aspirations. The Prime Minister, reading his speech, set a tone which has been followed by many of his hon. friends. This raises a question in my mind. I recall on past occasions being accused of wasting a lot of time during a number of other parliaments in order to accomplish a certain social end which was finally accomplished. People used to call attention to the number of dollars which were lost, as it were, during that filibuster. I was not much impressed, because it seemed to me that if we were not talking, somebody else would be doing so for a purpose which was less worthy. I am sure many hon. members feel the same way about the debate on the Address. However, we should look at this debate in terms of the possibility of modernization.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
We have already made changes in the rules and in other parliamentary activities. I am impressed by the number of speakers who have mentioned the committees' changes we have made. They have called' attention to the weakness, in fact to the failure, of the committees' system. But they would all agree we have at least examined the structure and been willing to do something about it.
Perhaps we should also take a look at the present procedure. Perhaps we would make it worse, but on the other hand we might make it better. At present it seems to be a hodgepodge. I should be delighted, Mr. Speaker, if you could have the opportunity to give us
October 30, 1969

The Address-Mr. Peters
hall an hour's dissertation setting out your impression of the debate, having been obliged to listen to a great deal of it. It has no continuity; it is not relevant to anything, even to the Speech from the Throne. It covers a multitude of subjects; it is sometimes amusing, sometimes heavy and sometimes really dull; and from your point of view, Mr. Speaker, it must seem very long indeed.. As I say, I believe we should take another look at this whole procedure.
Originally it had a purpose in allowing new members to make their maiden speeches. I should like to comment on the last speech we heard. I presume it was a maiden speech and I should like to commend the hon. member who made it. It was probably not the best speech ever made in parliament but it certainly evidenced a great deal of sincerity. The hon. member knew what he was talking about, and his speech was his own. Earlier this afternoon we listened to the speech of another Liberal, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Murphy) who gave an address which I am sure was written by the Algoma Steel Corporation board of directors. He could not possibly believe all the tripe he read in that speech. It was like a breath of fresh air to hear the hon. member to whom I referred a few moments ago talk about things with which he was familiar and which he understood.
A few years ago, whenever an hon. member read his speech to the House I made a practice of rising-except, of course, in the case of a maiden speech-to draw the attention of Mr. Speaker to what was happening. I intend to begin doing so again, and Mr. Speaker will have to reach a decision whether to object to the practice of reading speeches or whether to object to my drawing his attention repeatedly to an infringement of our rules, as I intend to do at half-minute intervals if necessary.
It seems to me that in days when speeches are being written by the library staff, by executive secretaries and by outside writers, members of parliament are listening less and less to hon. members to whom they appear to be listening; they are, in fact, listening to the reading of speeches which may have been written by God knows whom. As Your Honour knows, we have a rule which says that members must disclose the authorship of speeches which are read. If they are asked, they must disclose the name of whoever wrote them.
We also have a rule, a very loose rule and one which is not applied strictly in practice, that Mr. Speaker must insist that an hon.
member should not read a speech-he may refer to very extensive notes but he should not read the speech in its entirety. I have no objection to an hon. member providing himself with assistance in the development of a speech upon a specific subject. In many cases it makes for a better and more informative speech. But I do object to his reading a speech which someone else has written. If this is to be allowed, why do we not simply make arrangements for such speeches to be tabled, as they are in the United States? A member of one of the legislative chambers there will get up and say: I made a speech in Oregon yesterday and I should like it included in the record. Another member might say: I attended a meeting of a Board of Trade two weeks ago and I should like the speech I made at that time to be included in the record. Indeed, a congressman or a senator might even say: I have a friend who made a pretty good speech in Timbuktu, and I should like it to be included in the record of our proceedings. If this is what we want to do, if we wish merely to compile a record rather than a report of the opinions of members of parliament duly elected, we should establish some system different from the one we are now using.
Despite the opinion I have of certain individual members of this House, I believe that most of those elected to parliament are qualified to represent their constituents and that in most cases they are capable of making a contribution to our work. There are no tombstone candidates here. In fact, I have been very impressed by the calibre of the members who have taken part off-the-cuff in our committee proceedings. To make no bones about it, I have been impressed particularly by some of the backbench Liberals. I have not been so impressed by the way in which they vote, but I have been impressed by their ability while serving on committees. Anything less in the House is detrimental to the conception of democracy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
the front bench Liberals who bother us.


William Arnold Peters: They certainly bother us more than do some of the others. The other day the Prime Minister made a speech in this debate and he read every word of it. It was a lousy speech but it will look very well in print. In my opinion he could have crucified the Leader of the Opposition had he wished to do so, but he did not choose to because he was sc impressed by the way the written word was
October 30, 1969

The Address-Mr. Peters
likely to turn out. He did not take the opportunity to play politics, and I think we lost something.
Look around, Mr. Speaker. At this moment there is not a single minister present in the House. Parliament has got to a stage where it does not mean anything. There is one representative of the press in the gallery. He has been there most of the afternoon and if he writes everything he has heard he will not need to come back for a week. I know that the practice of giving speeches to the Press Gallery before they are delivered in the House results in many more press releases. But it does not impress me. It did not impress me in this case, because the Prime Minister was able to use about $130,000 worth of talent in the writing of that speech. If these men cannot do a good job, the right hon. gentleman can fire them and get another team. It is easy for all those people to write a good speech. As for myself, I am interested in what the Prime Minister thinks. I believe he has something to say. He expresses himself often, and he does it well. I like to see his gestures, because they are expressive of his feelings, as are the distinctive idioms he sometimes uses. In this case, as in others, much that is of value is lost when speeches are read.
I am sorry when an hon. member can see only one side of a question. This afternoon the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie was talking about a serious strike. He told us that 39 radicals were preventing approximately 4,000 people from going to work. Well, the plant in question covers between six and eight blocks; it has at least a dozen gates, probably six of which are in use. The hon. member tried to tell us that for every 100 workers there was one who stopped them, threatening them and their families with violence. He implied they were out smashing everyone's doors. All this was supposed to be the work of 39 men. Mr. Speaker, we do not need an army; we should just have a guerilla force. If the fact is that the Algoma Steel Corporation did write his speech, then he as a lawyer should be prepared to defend it and to see that something is done about a situation that should not be allowed to continue. If this be the fact, of course, then obviously anarchy must reign in that particular town.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I am not here to defend labour, but I am always interested in any charge that is made that a secret ballot at a union meeting should have been conducted. I have probably conducted more strike votes at union meetings

than any member of this house. As president of a local, any time a member of the union took the floor to demand a secret ballot, I saw that a secret ballot was held. I am sure the same situation exists in every responsible union. If the majority of the membership want a secret ballot, then a secret ballot is held; if the majority do not, then the democratic process comes into operation.
I suggest that to raise the old bogey that the union must have the press in attendance and use disinterested parties to conduct votes is tantamount to my saying to the Rotarians that their membership should hold a secret ballot to decide whether or not they should hold a Christmas parade this year. Democracy just does not work this way. Union decisions must be made by the membership. As I say, if members of a union want a secret ballot, they have only to support the proposition. To give any other impression is to be dishonest.
This raises another problem that concerns the news media. Parliament seems to be becoming less important to the press every day, since the only part of our proceedings to be reported is the question period. The question period creates an odd situation from the point of view of the press. If a particular pressman has any initiative, he can write a speculative story, plant the seed of the story in the mind of a member of parliament and the member can lend it authenticity by putting the question in the house. Then the pressman need only write the story again to produce what almost becomes manufactured news. As soon as the question period is over the house is comparatively deserted.
This brings me to another point that bothers me. It is the change that has taken place in our news media during the last few months or so. I do not have much time to watch television except during a recess, but I do find television to be a tremendous waster of time. For example, both the CTV news and the CBC news seem to consist of a series of little dramatizations which deal with events from coast to coast and across the world. There does not seem to be too much follow-up. These dramatizations do not convey a concise message; rather they are a series of disconnected pictures. Although these pictures are very good and these little vignettes are interesting, what bothers me is that they really fail to deal with the subject under discussion.
Not long ago I watched two programs of topical interest, one dealing with Speed, the other totally divorced from that subject-a program about the heavy water plant in Nova
October 30, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	325
Scotia. The program on Speed left me wondering, as I suspect it left everybody else wondering, why we have allowed some of our young people, for some reason that our sociologists cannot explain to us, to develop for themselves an escape mechanism of which the world has hitherto been ignorant. We all know about hard drugs like opium and heroin. Although opium dens have existed in China for centuries, I have yet to meet a Chinaman who was a real addict. The Chinese buy opium only when they have the money, and then they buy only what they can afford. Although they take a "trip" they are not addicts. They take it once and then leave it alone for the rest of the week.
Other people seem to be unable to do this, and perhaps it is a question of culture. Some people are looking at marijuana in terms of tobacco. Perhaps the tobacco industry is looking at it too, because it is fairly easy to grow. In fact, in some places it is almost a weed. It might be a good substitute for my colleague who does not like tobacco; he might be willing for us to grow marijuana.


Mr. Mather:: You don't get lung cancer from it, either.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, that is right. This little program that I viewed, and which I understand was seen by most Canadians, showed that we have not done too much experimentation in the matter of Speed. Speed is a drug that is used for staying awake. It helps people like truck drivers and students to concentrate on their work. It is injected into a vein. But according to the program, our hospitals do not know how to treat a person who may be dying of an overdose of Speed, and most hospitals are unable to control its effects. Although this program undoubtedly left about three million Canadians with an understanding of the problem of Speed, we as politicians are not in the least trying to solve that problem. The public is given the impression that Parliament is off in some never-never land, ignoring the problem.
The second program I saw, as I have said, was about the heavy water plant in Nova Scotia. I got the impression that there were a number of honest mistakes made when the plant was built. There was probably a crook involved somewhere, but other people were sincerely trying to find a solution to the problems of Nova Scotia. Unfortunately, they went into the matter with their eyes only half open and without having received proper advice. The people of that province have contributed $100 million toward this plant; yet it
The Address-Mr. Peters is estimated another $50 million is required to make it a success. The alternatives are not very encouraging. The province can give the plant away to somebody in the United States and hope that they can make it a success; they can try and complete the plant themselves, or they can sell it for scrap.
The members of this parliament will have to answer this audience of three million Canadians who saw the program. We will have to tell them that at Chalk River there is a group of people who are capable of deciding whether or not the plant at Glace Bay can be put into production. At the present time we are having to negotiate with Russia for the purchase of heavy water. Surely Canadians have an obligation to help maritimers get themselves out of a difficult position.
The CBC and other networks today are providing the people of Canada with an understanding of the problems facing the country, problems that we in parliament are not prepared to face. Unless we do face these problems the public will become very disillusioned. A few weeks ago I had an opportunity to attend a pseudo-political conference in Timmins held by the Ontario government. In a very broad sense it appeared to me-and I say this kindly-that it was some sort of leadership fight at a time when there was no leadership contest. It developed into a pretty good "beef" session for the people of northern Ontario. About 100 civil servants were in attendance along with many politicians and people from every walk of life. It was a very interesting and very lively three or four days. It will take some time to assess how much wheat and how much chaff will result from this conference and others held in northern Ontario. It was very plain to anyone in attendance that the easiest way to be heard and to gain approval is to oppose Toronto and damn the Ontario government. This raises the other point I want to mention in the few minutes I have left.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
We in Northern Ontario are in the same situation as everyone in the northern area of Canada beyond that affluent strip, even though it may be spasmodic in places. I have in mind areas where resources have been removed. In some cases they have been removed to the point that the resources are no longer available. I also have in mind areas where resources are still being developed but where very little processing is taking place. These areas stretch from Newfoundland to
October 30, 1969

The Address-Mr. Peters Vancouver Island. This is a vast area which in my opinion must be given consideration.
We have watched with interest the Area Development Agency and the Regional Development Incentive Agency which have tried to solve these problems. It was clear at the conference I attended in northern Ontario that governments will not solve these problems simply by making grants. Governments will have to do much more than that. In attendance at that conference were leaders from every municipality, from a great number of companies and from a substantial part of the mining industry. These people represented almost every interested group in Northern Ontario.
There was no suggestion that the federal or provincial government was not making money available for worth-while projects. The difficulty is that we do not know what is worth-while and we do not have people who know. I should like to make a suggestion. Today the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) pointed out that the people in Timmins are very happy because they are now going to have a concentrator plant. We are going to spend $6,500,000 in this regard. I am sure they will be happy, but only 20 or 30 people will be employed We are spending $6,500,000 to create employment for 20 or 30 people. Surely this is of only slight importance in view of the number of people who must be kept happy.
I should like to see the government carry out some research, as it should have done in Nova Scotia before it put in the heavy water plant. If we put in a copper rolling-mill at Kirkland Lake, it would be a huge success. We are drawing copper out of the Kidd Mine at Timmins, out of the McIntyre set-up and out of Texas Gulf. We are going down to Swastika to meet the train from Noranda. Noranda is rolling its copper in the city of Toronto. Surely there is no justification for keeping the rolling-mill in the city of Toronto.
A rolling-mill is a huge project which employs mainly hard-working people. This is not a highly technical operation but it is a source of great employment. Some consideration should be given to building government-sponsored plants of this kind. I should like to see several government sponsored plants built. Let me hasten to satisfy those who believe in free enterprise. I do not care whether the government runs these plants or not; I would be happy to let anyone run them who thought he could make a success of

them. The government should decide what projects to sponsore in certain areas after looking at the area generally, rather than one town or community in isolation just because an industrial relations officer suggests there should be a plant there. Surely this is not an unrealistic idea.
The other day a sessional paper was tabled which indicated that only one plant has been established since the Regional Development Incentives Agency was created last August or June, I believe. The regulations were passed by order in council on August 6. Since October 20 there have been 131 applications. One has been rejected, and offers have been made in 13 cases. In only one case was the offer accepted.
In my opinion this raises a problem in respect of how much money one should put into this kind of operation. The company concerned was McCain Foods. Many of us had the opportunity of visiting that plant with the Agricultural Committee. It is a very modern and efficient operation. It produces potato chips and other frozen foods. It is so advanced and efficient that a computer is used to run the frozen food operation. This company is building a new plant which will cost $4,100,000. We are going to put up about 25 per cent of the approved capital cost, plus another $5,000 for each job increase. We are providing for 380 jobs at a cost of $5,000 each. In other words, we are going to put up about $2,800,000 out of a total company expenditure of $4,100,000. We will be paying about 70 per cent of the cost, but we will be providing 380 jobs. This is the kind of criteria most of us are interested in using.
In all fairness to the Development Incentives Agency I should point out that when I asked why this money was being provided to a company that was apparently in a position to handle its own development, it was pointed out that it was easier to provide jobs by creating this incentive because without it the company would move into the United States where the products would be sold exclusively in that country.
One of the things we must consider this session is the development of government plants in areas where slow growth is a chronic problem. We must use the expertise of the Department of Industry and other departments in assessing the feasibility of developing plants in various areas. If no one is available to take over these operations, the government will have to get into the field. I hope such a program can be undertaken this
October 30, 19G9

year because it will solve some of the problems that face people who live outside the very affluent, industrial growth areas of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock this sitting stands suspended until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to open my remarks this evening with a quotation from Mr. John Deutsch, principal of Queen's University. It reads as follows:

In a vast and empty land we Canadians have borrowed technology, know-how, skills and capital from others and have applied these to rich material resources to build a new modern country. It has been successful and much has been accomplished, but, the time has come for a greater contribution from ourselves... If we are to play a more mature and more effective role in building our own future we will have to devote substantially more effort and more resources to research and development.

My intervention tonight is meant to inform hon. members and the public at large about what Canada and particularly the federal government is doing. The latter is, by far, putting the largest effort into research and development, especially in the industrial sector. I would also tell or remind my hon. friends of some recent government decisions which clarify its policy. Do hon. members realize that for the year 1968-69, Canada has spent $962 million for scientific research and development?
The universities' contribution thereto amounted to $280 million, of which $109 million came from the federal treasury, and the industries' contribution to $347 million, including $80 million from the federal government. The cost of the work carried out in the government's own facilities came up to $312 million and various other agencies spent $23 million under that heading. Therefore, $514 millions were provided directly by Ottawa for research and development. I wish to say it again: $514 million out of a total of $962 million for the year 1968-69.
21362-22J
The Address-Mr. Pepin
If one studies the progression of expenditures in Canada from 1964-65 to 1968-69, one realizes that they went from $561, to $677, to $765, to $898, to $962 million. The federal government's expenditures in that sector for the same period amounted to $277, $336, $368, $452 and $514 million.
This spending may not be sufficient considering the importance of the matter, but it is obvious that there is progress and marked progress.
I might also mention that during 1968-69 the federal government has provided $123 million for projects connected with scientific research, for instance, collection of scientific data, standardization, scholarships to students and researchers.
What are the federal government's objectives in the field of research and development? The first is to encourage university research in order to ensure that Canada will have adequate scientific personnel resources. The efforts in this field have been rewarding since I am told that in the university as well as in the government sectors we have at the present time a sufficient number of researchers. I am not saying qualitatively, as there is always room for improvement, but quantitatively. It is mainly in the industrial sector that progress is necessary.
So, the federal government gives assistance for the training of researchers by way of grants provided by the National Research Council and the Medical Research Council. It is worth noting that, lately, the idea of greater participation in projects carried out by researchers in various fields, is gaining ground. Not only is this idea in fashion, but it is also a worthwhile one.
I would like to mention three examples of this new trend. Memorial University in Newfoundland received $637,000 for the establishment of an ocean sciences centre; the University of Alberta received $400,000 for the construction of a temperature-controlled hothouse; while the University of Montreal was granted $915,000 for a nuclear physics accelerator.
Such is the first objective of our policy: to train researchers who are so badly needed for the economic development and especially the industrial development of our country.
The government also subsidizes research in its own establishments-that is "in-house", or "in housse" as our French cousins would surely say-to help those various departments to discharge their duties.

October 30, 1969
The Address-Mr. Pepin
I could give several examples, but I will restrict myself to the current research carried out by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in order to learn more about our water ressources and to improve their management. For that purpose, as you may perhaps know, Parliament has approved an outlay of some $24 million for the construction of the Canada Centre for Inland Waters, a building situated in Burlington near Hamilton where specialized research on pollution is carried out.
The Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry as well as National Health and Welfare also carry out specialized research. Their work is not widely publicized and I for one would ask these researchers to try to keep the public better informed. I am aware that they know each other very well, but it would also be desirable to make the rest of the country more conscious of their efforts.

The third objective of the government, besides aid to universities and besides inhouse research has to do with research done by Crown corporations or by direct funding when a particular objective is either too large to be undertaken by the private sector, or in the case of problems of national significance, when there are long-range implications and overriding reasons, social or economic, for the government to do so.
I might give just two examples of that. First, in the field of space research, our recent decision to support the Telesat telecommunications satellite. An allocation of $25 million has been made for the government's share of the Telesat development in its initial stage. Virtually all the costs, by the way, will be contracted to industry.
Another example has to do with the protection of our northern environment. As you know, we are all becoming more aware of the sensitive nature of the northern terrain. A decision has been taken to conduct a study of possible destructive influences on the northern environment including forests, tundra and permafrost.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has allocated some $3 million for research in various fields to four universities, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Laval and British Columbia, over a ten year period. This is of course only part of the research going on in the Canadian north. I could go on giving examples of federal activity in the field of scientific research and industrial

development. Let's have a few more. Through the National Research Council the federal government provides a technical information service. It also provides an industrial engineering advisory service of particular importance to small companies in the less industrialized regions of the country.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
It provides support too, in concert with the provinces, for provincial research foundations and councils which perform research and development on a contract basis for small and medium sized companies which cannot afford to have laboratories on their own premises. Five provinces benefit, in varying degrees I must say, from this federal help. One that has benefited most is the Nova Scotia Research Foundation which has been largely financed by the federal government.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I come to the federal government role in assisting industry. Of course, this is of particular importance to me as Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Everyone is familiar with the names of the research and development programs of my Department. Their names give a good indication of the content of the programs. There is the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, referred to as IRDIA. In other agencies, there is the Industrial Research Assistance program, also known as IRAP, and the Defence Industrial Research program. There is the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology, referred to as PAIT. There is the Defence Industry Productivity Program, known as DIP. All of these programs, whether they come under my department, the NRC, the Industrial Research Board or the Defence Research Board, made a contribution of $45.2 million last year to research and development in Canadian industry.
This year that amount could reach $72 million. This is a very important contribution to the industrial growth of our country. Some hon. members may ask: What do the public get in return? I wish I had plenty of time to give many examples, Mr. Speaker. Here are a few.
R.C.A. Victor was assisted in part by the PAIT program in successfully developing satellite earth stations for the international market. Sales of the earth stations to date amount to some $21 million, and the total market for such equipment over the next decade is estimated at $450 million. A new device for scanning oilwell log data and translating it into a form suitable for computer processing has been developed under the
October 30. 1969

same PAIT program. It is anticipated by the company concerned, Riley's Reproduction Limited, that the market will amount to $10 million in the first five years, with a substantial part of it being in export business.
Most people have heard about the PT6 series of gas turbine engines. This popular engine, developed by United Aircraft of Canada Ltd. with DIP support, is used in 45 aircraft manufactured throughout the western world. Sales of this engine have reached a total of $153 million. With the potential future sales this total is expected to reach $600 million. I could continue to give success stories in all parts of Canada. There is one in British Columbia. Gluham Products Ltd. was assisted, by PAIT, in developing a new highspeed glue laminating machine which reduces drying time from 16 hours to 30 minutes. A new $500,000 capital facility is now in successful operation. Many of the glued laminated beams used for the construction of the Canadian Pavilion at Osaka were produced on this machine.
Huntec Ltd. of Toronto-I saw their exhibit recently in Tehran at the Asian Fair-have developed a new mineral prospecting system, again with PAIT assistance. The resultig instrument offers both performance and economic advantages over competitive products. A large part of the sales are expected to be in the export market. The point I am making is that these incentives have contributed substantially to the growth of technology the growth of innovation in Canadian industry. I hope I made my case.
I said I would also refer to a number of recent decisions of the government having to do with research and development. I should first mention the formation of the Department of Communications. This department has a communications research centre which has $10.4 million to spend in 1968-69. I have already reminded the House of the Telesat communications satellite, and I have said that an allocation of $25 million has been made by the government as its share of Telesat's development in its initial stage.
As important is the fact that the government, notwithstanding its efforts to limit expenditures, has authorized that for the coming year, 1970-71, the funds allocated for direct assistance to industry in my department can be increased by 10 per cent. This is with a view to achieving a better balance in the expenditures of the government in the three sectors of the economy, namely, industry, government and university. Our three
The Address-Mr. Pepin research and development incentive programs, IRDIA, PAIT and DIP, will contribute some $72.8 million to the estimates for 1970-71 as compared with the latest estimate for this year's expenditure of $54.5 million, a figure to which I have already referred.
As a further indication of the activity in research and development I should mention that the government programs I have named coming under my department and other agencies are being reviewed, and some of them will be changed. One of them, the PAIT program, is going to be broadened, in terms of the wider coverage of the innovation process that will be permitted under the proposed amendments. I shall have something more to say about this in a few days. Attention is being given by the department and the minister to rationalization and specialization, especially in Canadian subsidiaries of American firms. We ask the "parents" to better integrate their Canadian operations within their international or North American complex. I have said that what we expect from them is not mini-plants; we want specialized sections, part of the total structure of these international companies.
We try also to encourage more research and development in smaller, generally Canadian companies. We also promote a more active relationship between university and industry. The general impression that I am trying to give is that we as a government and as a department, are becoming much more practical in allocating money for scientific research than we have been in the past. I am not trying to minimize the importance of pure science; I am just trying to boast the importance of applied science. There is no doubt that in a country like ours with limited financial and human resources, realism is of the essence in matters of scientific research of both government and industry. When I say this I am in very good company, and in this connection I would like to quote Mr. Anthony Wedge wood Benn, the British Minister of Technology.
We have come to the end of those days when any project, sufficiently big and spectacular, could almost automatically expect to win approval and the funds needed. The lobbyists for glamorous programs of scientific research will in future have to prove their merit against the claims of others seeking to solve more mundane but more pressing problems.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I could quote many other people on the same theme. The Fifth Annual Review of the

October 30, 1969
The Address-Mr. Pepin Economic Council of Canada, for example, says:
It is the innovation process-beginning when management decides to move from research and development into engineering and all the succeeding stages-which bring new products, processes and services into use, and contributes to growth.
There seems to be a fairly general mood in Canada in favour of practicalism that I believe is reflected in the direction taken by the federal government's scientific research and development policies.
The third point I would like to touch on very lightly, Mr. Speaker, is the public administration aspect of the question of research and development. Senator Lamon-tagne has said, "We cannot simply promote and stimulate change in science and technology. We must organize it." Of course, I agree with him entirely.
Here again, major changes are taking place in terms of trying to build up the best means of co-ordinating our efforts. As you know, the science secretariat was established in the Privy Council office to advise the cabinet on science policy matters and to assist the administration in the co-ordination of scientific activities within the government. Subsequently the Science Council was formed as an outside advisory group for the purpose of providing immediate and long-range advice to the government.
Further changes have recently taken place. For instance, the director of the science secretariat has been appointed chief science adviser to the cabinet. The Privy Council Committee on Scientific and Industrial Research has become a standing committee of cabinet which sits weekly and reviews all important new proposals and undertakes major assessments of existing programs.
The question of whether we have the best administrative system for our scientific efforts is often asked. What we really have now, Mr. Speaker, is a combination of decentralization and centralization. We have decentralization in the sense that initiative is left most of the time in the hands of the individual departments and agencies concerned. For example, research on meteorology is initiated by the Department of Transport, who should know best what is needed. At the same time, a certain amount of centralization is obviously necessary. This is why I have mentioned the recently created co-ordination media, for example the appointment of a chief science adviser to the cabinet and the fact that we

now have a standing committee of cabinet on scientific matters.
But do we have the best system? I do not know. Different countries have different systems. In England they have a Minister of Technology whose authority has been further expanded recently and now controls virtually all scientific and industrial activities. The United States has a very complex system which could be described as a combination of a decentralized system, such as we have, with co-ordination provided in the office of the President through a scientific adviser. Actually their system is not very different from ours.
It seems to me that the need for a certain centralization and a certain decentralization can be defended. We have here again the possibility of using the old Canadian compromise. I repeat, it is for each country to find its own solutions and the way best suited to administering its scientific research and development having regard to a special internal condition. This is what we are attempting to do in Canada, but we will certainly benefit from the coming reports on the study of the Canadian situation made by OECD and the special committee of the Senate led by Senator Lamontagne. I am awaiting these reports with anxious curiosity.
Mr. Speaker, I hope I have given a fair account of the efforts of the government to improve its research and development policy, to develop proper programs for industrial research and development and to provide the organizational framework necessary for the efficient implementation of these policies.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to extend to you my respects and best wishes as we enter this new session of the 28th Parliament. I believe the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply performed their task exceptionally well and I should like to congratulate both hon. members.
I think it is also conventional to congratulate hon. members of this House who since the last sitting have received promotion in their public careers. I offer my best wishes to those of my colleagues on both sides of the House who have been promoted. In particular I think we should congratulate the two new Ministers without Portfolio who in my opinion will serve their country well. Their qualifications are so compelling that to have them in his cabinet the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), a very frugal man, has been willing
October 30, 1969
to make his cabinet the largest in Canadian history.
Mr. Speaker, during this debate we have heard some very attractive speeches from the members of the government. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the Prime Minister spoke with a sense of great concern; both verbalized about compassion and understanding among men in public life. It is obvious that Rule 75c has at least given the government the security to indulge in higher aspirations than those of last session. As we all know, our last session was strikingly marked by the petulant, authoritative language of bullies.
The Prime Minister and the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply made very good speeches. Nevertheless, their remarks boiled down to little more than humbug, pure hogwash. I feel that I speak for my colleagues on this side of the House when I say that their utterances do not in the least affect the substance of the Speech from the Throne. We all know that the Speech from the Throne is neither a promise of nor an immediate response to the problems of this country. All the flowery phrases of the Prime Minister and his ministers will not in the least alter that fact.
To underline my lack of confidence in the Speech from the Throne I should like to speak of the challenges and problems facing my province. The preamble to the Speech from the Throne was established in full by the Prime Minister during several of his speeches this summer at Liberal fund-raising dinners. In some ways these occasions have received national audiences. Liberal fundraising dinners have now become the place where the Prime Minister exhibits his rare and Napoleonic courage.
In establishing his attitude toward the Atlantic provinces and other areas of inadequate economic development, the Prime Minister stated at the Liberal Federation of Canada in Montreal on October 19:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
And when we tackle the problem of Canadian unity from the economic point of view, the problem of having rich provinces, rich areas, help the poor, it is Jean Marchand who looks after that.
I can speak very well for my province. Regretfully, I say that in the matter of regional disparities this wonder boy of the Liberal party, this great saviour of eastern Canada wherein regional disparity is obvious, has paid lip service only to the solution
The Address-Mr. Carter of those serious problems facing the Atlantic region and the especially serious problems facing Newfoundland. In the Speech from the Throne we saw little reference to the terrible curse of regional disparity and the need to assist our fishing industry. Indeed, the Speech from the Throne made only the following reference to the fishing industry of eastern Canada:
The competitive position of Canadian fisheries must also be strengthened, not only through new licensing and marketing arrangements, but also by extending Canada's exclusive fishing zones.
It is obvious that this government is incapable of grappling with the problems now facing the nation; that it has become completely indifferent to regional poverty and that we can expect nothing but lazy paternalism. I hope the House finds my comments provocative, because the province for which I speak, Newfoundland, desperately needs government help. Newfoundlanders want to become full and productive partners in our confederation. We do not ask for special status, but let the word go out tonight that we demand equal status.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter C. Carter: Before the Prime Minister charges another task force to go out and find what are the ills of the nation, I am sure that the needs of Canada's "have not" regions are well known to the government and that it knows about our problems and acknowledges the need for solutions to them. The poor people of this country, whether they are in my province or in the slums of Toronto or Hamilton, will say that the Prime Minister is being phony when he implies that the government does not know enough to obliterate their physical plight.
A few simple statistics, Mr. Speaker, argue the case for much more action for Newfoundland. We have now had Liberal governments for nearly a decade in Canada, and they have all committed themselves to developing the quality of life in my province. But I can inform the House that today we have in Newfoundland one doctor for every 1,590 people, while Canada's average ratio is one doctor for every 833 people.
Today a large percentage of our population earn less than $4,000 a year, which again is far below the national average. Newfoundland has the highest unemployment rate in Canada and less opportunity for our people. Indeed, our unemployment rate is more than one-third greater than the national average, and this rate is increasing. The government

October 30, 1969

The Address-Mr. Carter knows these facts and should be able to imagine the physical and spiritual consequences of this state of affairs for the people of Newfoundland and other "have not" provinces.
If the government is concerned about the inequities existing in the "have not" provinces, one cannot detect it in the Speech from the Throne. The Speech from the Throne seems to lay much greater emphasis on the need for constitutional reform and matters of that nature than on the gut, bread and butter issues facing our people today in the "have not" areas. I notice that in the Speech from the Throne our east coast fishing industry which affects, directly and indirectly, almost 20 per cent of my province's people and is of immense value to the economy of eastern Canada, warrants 26 words in a speech of 2,500 words. That indicates, I believe, this government's indifference to solving the problems facing the people of eastern Canada who happen to be engaged in the noble occupation of fishing. I make no apology for my province's dependence to a very large extent on the fishing industry. Our people have fished for generations, and I pray to God that the people of Newfoundland and eastern Canada will be permitted to pursue their occupation and be successful in it. In the light of the government's indifference toward this industry and toward the solution of the problems facing it, I entertain grave doubts on this score.
For example, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) was completely indifferent to the plight of those Newfoundland fishermen who prosecuted the Labrador fishery this summer. In a release on this matter on October 23 the minister in effect told these men to go on relief, to go on the dole. That was how the minister answered their plea for assistance. The fishermen who prosecuted the Labrador fishery this summer, at great expense and hazard, had failed. These men expose themselves for a long time to the hazards of the sea, and after toiling for several months they were unable to catch enough fish to keep the bodies and souls of their families together for the coming year. They appealed to the Minister of Fisheries for help. What did he say? He said, "We are very sorry. We realize you have problems; we realize you have worked hard for the past two or three months, but I am afraid that in the circumstances we can offer you nothing more than relief-the dole." That was an utter insult to the fishermen of my province.
I am sure I speak for all Newfoundlanders and all decent and reasonable Canadians 
when I say that these people are deserving a better treatment from their government. In his release of October 23 the minister said, "To keep your bodies and souls together and to keep you from starving, we have decided to give you the dole, to give you relief." What a magnanimous decision that was by the minister! I hope the Prime Minister is proud of his colleague.
We see all sorts of committees going across the country, spending money and making recommendations that are not accepted. I should like to mention one such committee. On a recent junket to the Atlantic provinces by members of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, 15 or 20 members and a number of clerks, secretaries and what-have-you left Ottawa on a chartered DC-9 and flew to Quebec City, Halifax and Fredericton to meet one person in each province. If this represents economy and austerity, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not understand those words. The committee went to Quebec City and met one person, the returning officer of that province.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The committee then went to Halifax where we met one person from that province, a former returning officer who has not been in the job for the past five years. From there we went to Fredericton where we met the returning officer, who was not quite familiar with the act. Having spent so much money which should have gone into the pockets of the fishermen, we returned to Ottawa with no more information than we had when we left. This is a crime against the Canadian people, and I am opposed to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter C. Carter: Another example of "government by platitude" took place in the last few weeks in connection with the Minister of Fisheries' (Mr. Davis) so-called ban on the killing of whitecoat seals. I quote a well known journalist from Montreal who has appropriately entitled the article, "It was the Saving of Face for the Minister and not the Saving of Seals". This journalist reported that the ban on the killing of whitecoat seals announced by the Minister of Fisheries might well be a textbook example of power by public opinion.
What has angered the Newfoundland fishermen, and I am sure other fishermen from the Atlantic provinces whose livelihood will be affected by the ban, is that this government
October 30, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	333
acted upon public sentiment which the minister knew was based on misinformation. The irony of the situation is that in the past three or four years a dozen or so veterinary specialists and representatives of animal welfare organizations from Europe and North America inspected the whitecoat hunt at close range and found it generally to be an acceptably humane and legitimate animal-harvesting operation. The government, at the expense of people who augment their incomes by this industry, is content to listen to the whims of the ladies of the SPCA and others and have taken action that will have an adverse effect on the sealing industry of eastern Canada.
I suggest that with the new regulation which requires sealers to shoot rather than club seals, it is quite possible there will be more dead human bodies on the ice than those of seals. It is not a matter of saving the seals, sir. With regard to the new regulation, I suggest a movement should be started to save the sealers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter C. Carter: The Minister of Fisheries, who has not one iota of knowledge about the sealing industry, should have spoken to people who have had occasion to spend 8, 10 and 12 hours on the ice. He would then know that to give sealers shotguns and rifles with which to shoot seals is tantamount to telling them to go out and shoot their fellow sealers. I hope the minister takes heed of what I am saying. I contend that if this regulation is imposed on the sealing industry there will be very serious accidents on the ice floes next season. This is a stupid, crazy and nonsensical regulation. I am sure most of us can get very emotional when we think of a big, burly six-foot sealer with a club killing whitecoats, but I prefer to see whitecoats killed than Newfoundland and east coast sealers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter C. Carter: The Minister of Fisheries has now become the darling of the international press; therefore, I ask him to reverse his stand on behalf of the baby whitecoats. We all love them. I ask the minister to give serious thought to the inhumane way in which scallops, clams, mussels, and other shellfish are scraped, gouged and torn from the bottom of the sea while they are still alive. I ask him to give serious thought to lobsters being plucked away from their nests and their loved ones at the bottom of the sea and being thrown alive into boiling water. I ask the minister to give very serious thought to that
The Address-Mr. Carter practice because my God, sir, what can be worse than being boiled alive? The poor lobster is plucked from his habitat and plunged into a pot of boiling water while it is still alive.


An hon. Member:: Terrible!


Walter C. Carter: Lobsters are dragged off in a semi-conscious state, their claws are torn off, their tails are removed and they are then eaten by these terrible people who have no consideration whatever for life.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Walter C. Carter: If it were not so serious, Mr. Speaker, it would be laughable. The fact remains that regulations being imposed on the sealing industry are based upon the whims of a half dozen people who are more concerned with saving the whitecoats than they are with the slaughter that is going on in Biafra. I am the first to agree that we need conservation in the seal harvest, but we must realize that most Canadian and Norwegian shipping companies and seal hunters will continue to harvest seals in international waters simply because the minister has not been able or has not seen fit to reach an international agreement with respect to the seal hunt. The killing of whitecoats has been banned in a certain section but not far away they are being slaughtered by the Norwegian people. This is because the minister has not reached an agreement whereby this slaughter could be prevented.
In view of the regulation which the minister has imposed on the sealing industry, I seriously ask him to find some way to augment the income of fishermen whose incomes will be affected by the new regulation. I contend that the government should find alternative sources of income for the sealers affected by the new regulation. It is all very well for Lady so-and-so in England and Mr. so-and-so in New Brunswick to start a great outcry against the killing of whitecoats, but we must remember that a large segment of the population of eastern Canada depend upon that industy to augment their incomes and to keep body and soul together during the year.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
While I am on the subject of fisheries I should like to call the attention of the Minister of Fisheries to the need for immediate action to establish a salt fish marketing board. As some hon. members may know, Newfoundland fishermen engaged in the salt fish industry continue to sell their fish under the
October 30, 1969

The Address-Mr. Carter open receipt system. This is a system which encourages exploitation and which would not be acceptable to any other producers in Canada or in North America today. In effect, what happens is that the Newfoundland fishermen cure their fish salt and ship them to exporters who in turn give them an open receipt without any commitment as to price. Then in the fall when the fish is exported, the fish merchants decide upon the amount the fishermen shall receive for their catches. This is the most terrible system one could imagine. It leaves the fishermen open to the worst kind of exploitation by the merchants, the majority of whom have been traditionally noted for their lack of charity and concern for anyone but themselves.
I strongly urge the minister to take the necessary steps to establish a salt fish marketing board in order that the fishermen of eastern Canada may experience a sense of security and know how much they will earn for their summer's toil. What Canadian today, working in industry, on a farm, in an office or with the civil service, would work for three and five months a year without any guarantee being given as to what he will earn? I do not think anyone would do it. I do not know why east coast fishermen should be expected to do it, either. It is most unfair, and the system does not lend itself to the prosecution of this important industry to the best advantage. As I have said, I believe the minister should take immediate steps to establish a salt fish marketing board.
In the light of what has happened this year, especially to the Labrador fishery, I believe it is time the government introduced catch failure insurance for the fishing industry. I feel the fishing economy of the Atlantic provinces needs a sense of security as well as a program which would motivate those engaged in it to prosecute the fisheries to best advantage. I believe the regulations prohibiting the killing of whitecoats and the culling of seals are harmful. I think they will have an adverse effect on the economy of the areas affected. I believe the regulations were passed after complaints from people who did not know what they were talking about. This is borne out by the fact that in recent years a number of scientists and representatives of associations interested in the protection of animals have visited the ice floes without finding anything to complain about in connection with the way seals were being killed. I beg the minister to give serious thought to setting up a salt fish marketing corporation to give our

fishermen a sense of security and to create in them a motive for prosecuting this important industry in eastern Canada.
I now turn to housing. I notice that the minister responsible for housing is in the chamber this evening. I contend that the present housing crisis in Canada demands that the government adopt a bold, new approach in the area of housing and urban renewal. For Newfoundland and the other "have not" provinces the situation is compelling. At the present time nothing is being done to assist the average wage-earner in acquiring decent housing. The Speech from the Throne makes reference to the desirability of our citizens being housed in happy and pleasant surroundings. The government has again emphasized its desire to satisfy the needs of low-income families. But it is obvious to all of us that despite this pretence or interest no legislation is, in fact, promised to alleviate the serious housing problems which face Canadians today. In place of concrete proposals or legislation the minister responsible for housing has applied an urban renewal freeze. Instead of undertaking urban renewal schemes in my riding the government has done nothing but make promises and break them. I would mention one urban renewal scheme in my riding where people are not allowed to improve their properties or extend their homes to accommodate larger families because of the requirements of a grandiose plan which is being prepared by the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government of St. John's.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter C. Carter: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the other members of the House for allowing me to carry on. I think this matter is so important that it should be debated tonight. Many people are suffering in Canada, in my riding and no doubt in other ridings because of the freeze imposed on urban renewal schemes. In my province, 90 per cent of the wage-earners are earning less than $6,000. These people are too well off to avail themselves of direct government assistance for housing or to qualify for subsidized apartments, but they are not sufficiently well off as
October 30, 1969

The Address-Mr. Yewchuk
to qualify for a National Housing Act mortgage with which to buy or build a home. We all know that a person earning $6,000 a year cannot qualify for a full NHA mortgage. In effect, the vast majority of Newfoundlanders, and no doubt people in a similar position in other "have not" provinces, are left to their own resources.
These are the people who in a great many instances are condemned to raising their families in substandard conditions and substandard homes. Our housing policy at the moment is simply: share the wealth among the wealthy. In my opinion this is wrong.
The government's anti-inflationary measures are having a ruinous effect on the "have not" provinces, especially Newfoundland. While inflation is present to an alarming extent in such provinces as Ontario, in my province it is a foreign world.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The "have-not" provinces should not be forced to stall their development because of the prosperity of central Canada. I think someone once said that if one member of the family is sick, the other members should not be forced to take the same medicine.
In conclusion, I should like to enumerate certain facts about this government that is threatening Newfoundland's confidence in confederation. Since the government assumed office and introduced the just society and the end of regional disparity, we have seen the cancellation of the winter works program, the removal of the freeze on freight rates in the Atlantic provinces, the discontinuance of the salt rebate to our fishermen and the abandonment of our rail passenger service. With friends like this in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, we do not need enemies. The government should assume the development of the Atlantic region not as a responsibility to be undertaken some day; it should regard the removal of embarrassing inequalities as an existing and great challenge within the mandate that this country has given it.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to congratulate the two hon. members who moved and seconded the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I appreciate in particular the remarks of the mover. The only thing that concerns me is that he has not followed his own advice. I have not seen him in the house since he urged all other members to attend regularly. I also want to congratulate the new ministers on their appointments. I wish them every
success. I would also take the opportunity of congratulating those defeated Liberal candidates on their appointments to other government positions. Since the adjournment in July I have thought particularly of one from my own home town, a deserving man who put a lot of effort into the cause and has been justly rewarded.
My remarks tonight will be about pollution, that particular kind of pollution that is muddying the minds of the youth of this country.


An hon. Member:: You mean political
pollution.


Paul Yewchuk: Political pollution is right. I refer to the pollution of the mind by the use of drugs. Nothing specific was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne about this particular topic, but I think it is one of great importance at a time when a vast number of people are promoting the use of drugs such as marijuana, or "pot", Speed, hash and the rest. There has been an extremely active move afoot to convince young people that these are harmless drugs, that the non-medical use of these drugs only improves their minds and is not as harmful as tobacco or alcohol, which most of us enjoy from time to time. I have heard those who promote the use of marijuana say to adults, "You drink your booze and we'll smoke our pot. Why should you have your pleasure and deny us ours when we think ours is less harmful?"
I have with me tonight a little pamphlet that I obtained from the Committee to Legalize Marijuana. This proposition almost seems credible at first glance. According to this pamphlet the research that is outlined in the appendix has shown that the use of marijuana is not addictive; it does not lead to mental or physical deterioration or alter the basic personality structure; neither does it develop an acquired tolerance. The pamphlet does go on to say, however, that its use may result in minor psychological dependency; that it may result in reduced social productivity.
On the other hand, let me cite the statement made by the Alberta Medical Association that short-term or intermittent use of marijuana is unpredictable in effect. They say there have been many documented reactions, including depression, panic reaction, hallucinations and psychotic episodes of anti-motivational syndrome. A report of the John Howard Society indicates there is some evidence that its continued use for a long period of time can lead to lethargy, self-neglect and
336	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Yewchuk failure to look after one's own economic needs in society.
Those who are promoting the use of this drug tell you there is enough evidence to warrant approval of "pot" smoking; that fewer controls are necessary than with tobacco and alcohol. They go on to say that a large number of young people use the drug, knowing from evidence produced by research and from personal experience that it is harmless. I say "Bunk", Mr. Speaker. Not enough evidence has been produced through research. No research is available today to produce conclusive evidence that these are indeed the facts.
As a matter of fact, the evidence presented by the Alberta Medical Association indicates that scientific observation in western countries has not as yet been undertaken in a controlled and scientifically valid manner. Therefore, to contend that marijuana is harmless is absolutely unwarranted. There is definite evidence of its toxicity, and after careful perusal of much of the published evidence by the World Health Organization and other authorities it appears they are of the opinion that the long-term and chronic use of this drug does produce psychic dependence.
Another danger that should be mentioned is that users of "pot" never know what they are really getting when they buy it. They do not know for certain that the substance they are given really is marijuana, or whether it is laced with something entirely different and more dangerous. Often pushers of this drug are extremely anxious to switch users to something much more harmful, such as the hard drug. But in spite of the dangers that exist, it is estimated that about 300,000 young people in our high schools and colleges still succumb to the use of these substances.
In order to enable us to deal with this problem we must try to determine the cause of young people using this drug. Part of the reason may be the massive propaganda campaign now being waged in this country to the effect that it is harmless and good. But that is not the only reason. When talking with a couple of students, having always thought in my own mind that people who used these drugs tended to have emotional problems, I was surprised to hear them say, "No; I smoke it because I like it". This seems to be true, Mr. Speaker; a certain percentage of these individuals do smoke it because of the effect it produces. Users can experience euphoria, elation, hilarity, relaxation and passivity. In many cases they feel that in fact the drug

DEBATES	October 30, 1969
makes them more sociable and socially aware. In many cases they feel that their sensory thresholds to sound and sight are sharpened and they can enjoy art and music with greater intensity. That is one group.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
There is another group which involves individuals with emotional problems. This group falls into three broad categories. The first includes individuals who are experience-seekers; they are simply curious and want to give it a try; they want to experiment. Sometimes they are motivated to do this in order to rebel against their elders. Fortunately, this group is only a short-term use group.
The second group are oblivion seekers. These are the individuals with great emotional problems. They find that a drugged state of mind gives them a pleasant respite from all the strains and stresses that life around them produces. When discussing their reasons for using this drug they go into long harangues about all the injustices of our society and all the difficulties they have in trying to compete with present-day society. Often these individuals also show feelings of inadequacy and incompetency and use the drug simply to try to fill in the void that exists in their own minds about their abilities.
There is a third group called the personality-change seekers. This is the most badly affected group because of a basic personality disorder. They are trying to find an easy way to alter that disorder and they turn to drugs. They most commonly use a variety of drugs, always to no avail. They try combinations of stronger and stronger drugs, eventually winding up in a difficult position because their disappointment and frustration increases when they do not feel better.
A number of young drug users take drugs because of certain stresses that society places on them. It is becoming more and more common for young people to believe that they are expected to participate in sexual relations at a younger age than in the past. I think this is true. Society seems to expect our young people to do this. These young people often are not emotionally or physically prepared for this sort of experience and find themselves greatly disappointed after it. They then develop the idea in their minds that there is something wrong with them physically or that they are inadequate. Therefore, they try to
October 30, 1969

find an easy solution to develop rapid sexual maturity. Of course, this is to no avail.
Some of them blame society for not inspiring them or sufficiently challenging them. Others recognize their own emptiness of character and their flaws and turn to drugs to change that. As I mentioned before, some individuals feel the use of drugs helps them to communicate. Studies of groups of users have been carried out. All that seems to happen is that the smokers describe to each other the feelings that they experience, but in the long run they find their loneliness and other feelings of emotional distress are not resolved. They nevertheless carry on because they receive gratification from the temporary illusion the drug produces.
At one time I had the privilege of living in Vancouver for a year. I have had close association with drug users of various types and I have had the opportunity to witness first-hand the terrible and ravaging destruction of personality incurred by the use of drugs. It is an accepted fact that a large proportion of people using heroin started out using "pot" and progressed to harder drugs in order to get more of the desired effect. There is evidence of this kind of cross-addiction occurring. Many of its users and promoters say that "pot" is less harmful than tobacco or alcohol. I should like to know how many people have progressed from the use of tobacco or alcohol to the use of heroin. I suggest there are not very many. It has been said that 30 per cent to 50 per cent of all young people in our country use "pot", so we should legalize it. There are those who say the penalties are too harsh, so we should legalize its use and bring about less incarceration. That is the kind of philosophy that suggests you throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I should like to reinforce this argument by again referring to the report from the John Howard Society which indicates the actual penalties imposed in Canada on the users of drugs, particularly marijuana. Marijuana, or "pot", is classified as a narcotic and it is an offence to be in possession of it. This is an indictable offence for which a person is liable to 7 years in prison. The fact is that trafficking in a narcotic, or possession for the purpose of trafficking is an offence for which a person is liable to life imprisonment. The importing of "pot" is an indictable offence which carries a minimum sentence of 7 years and possible life imprisonment.
Let me read the statistics as to what is actually being done by the judiciary of our
The Address-Mr. Givens country. In 1967 the disposition of 453 convictions for possession was as follows: there were 242 suspended sentences, 33 suspended sentences and probation supervision, 67 sentenced to under six months in jail, 61 to less than one year, three only sentenced to three years or less than four years, and 47 not stated. In view of this I think the cry that many young people are being given long term prison sentences has no foundation. Only 3 out of 453 were incarcerated for three to four years.
Nevertheless, I am willing to concede that some of the penalties might be too harsh. This is an area at which we should look very seriously in order to bring the legislation more into line with the apparent seriousness of these crimes. I would suggest that less harsh legislation should be enacted, although the harsh legislation that exists is not being applied. Let me challenge those who promote the use and trafficking in "pot" on the basis that its use is not harmful. They do not really know what they are talking about because there is not sufficient evidence from any researcher to indicate without a doubt that its use is harmless in the long run. I conclude my remarks by leaving a message. I should like to associate another slogan with the just society. I say to the youth of Canada, get off the pot.


Mr. Philip G. Givens (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with all those who have congratulated the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. They did their job well. I listened with great interest to the views expressed by my good friend the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) and my friend the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) about the questionable value of speeches in this House. I happen to agree with them, but I also have the urge to get on the record. I will succumb to that urge as have other hon. members.
What I wish to place on the record was not contained in the Throne Speech but it deals with a matter I would have included in that Speech had I had anything to do with its preparation.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Our society today is experiencing accelerating change in a world of rapidly shrinking physical dimensions and exploding knowledge; a world of extraordinary technical achievements amidst disturbing social, political and human problems. In short, it is a
October 30, 1969

The Address-Mr. Givens world of paradox. The city is at the centre of this paradox. It is a symbol of economic success and a reflection of our inability to use this success to create an environment worthy of man's aspirations. It has brought large numbers of people into closer contact and interaction with each other; yet in spite of the extent and variety of this human interaction, the city is a lonely place for many people. Alienation and isolation appear to be more prevalent in today's urban society than in the largely rural society of earlier years.
In this earlier society much of the energy of people was absorbed in the task of feeding themselves. The city is the result of a large-scale emancipation from this task and growing opportunities for man to turn his efforts and ingenuity to producing a growing array of goods and services to satisfy not only his wants but also his whims. But in today's big cities undernourishment, deprivation and poverty still remain as large-scale problems in the midst of affluence. The modern city is also the result of the development and harnessing of vast new sources of energy which give man powers that would have been unimaginable to the people of earlier times; but this is also leading to rapidly escalating problems of pollution.
The paradox has so many dimensions; the beauty of art and museums barely removed from the ugliness and squalor of slums; the magic of music now so readily and widely available through new technology, surrounded by noise and din accentuated by other advances in technology; the growing opportunities which cities afford for constructive human endeavour, against a background of increasingly destructive crime, violence and delinquency; shorter hours of work and more leisure associated with a more hectic pace of life and frequently with the absorption of a great deal of time and effort in getting to work and back home; the advances in the healing arts in our cities and strain on human beings; the surge of new knowledge from our centres of learning, side by side with bewilderment about how to cope effectively with mounting urban problems.
Perhaps it is because the large city is such a recent phenomenon of civilization that we do not yet know how to cope effectively with the range of problems to which it is giving rise. But it is a phenomenon which is now posing urgent challenges that cannot be ignored. We still have lower densities and more options for alternative future growth patterns of our cities than is the case in some


other countries. But our cities are growing with dramatic speed, faster than most cities in the United States and very much faster than those in almost any other industrially advanced nation in the world today.
It is true, of course, that cities, and even quite large cities, existed in the past; but because so much of the total effort of earlier societies had to be spent on the production of food, no ancient city or group of cities contain more than a small fraction of the total population, not even the voters that existed when the Canadian constitution, the British North America Act, was fashioned 100 years ago. Twentieth century technology has permitted the removal of limits. In their impact on urban development, these technological advances have been two-edged. On the one hand, they have facilitated an enormous increase in the productivity of farmers and have thereby permitted growing numbers of people to flow to the cities. So powerful have been these forces of technological advance, acting and interacting with many other forces making for growth and change, that they have introduced possibilities for the development of mammoth agglomerations of people into areas which we do not yet know how to describe. Somehow the term "city" no longer seems to be appropriate for some of the largest of these agglomerations. We have begun to talk about "metropolitan areas" or "conurbation", and in each year that passes there seems to be more certainty, and less speculation, that we are moving inexorably toward future patterns of nearly continuous urban areas hundreds of miles in length, linking many once separate cities together. This we now call a megolopolis.
It is especially difficult for many people to recognize the extent and swiftness of Canada's urban growth. Perhaps this is particularly true of people outside of Canada who look from afar at our huge land area and our relatively small total population; who see Canada as a land of large-scale agricultural activity and rich and widely spread natural resource production; who think of Canada in terms of the historical development of the fur trade, the fisheries, the forests and the open grain fields. These people envy from afar the clear brisk waters of innumerable lakes and rivers, the open sky and, above all, space. Even today when they read about Canada in their newspapers they are still likely to find a heavy concentration of attention on new resource and energy projects in remote locations, on tourist attractions and on other
October 30, 1969	COMMONS
things that seem to make Canada a very different place from the urban environment in which they themselves live. Even many Canadians still think about Canada in some of these terms. It is true, of course, that we do have a vast natural heritage. But most Canadians now live in another and very different Canada, in crowded and congested cities, and most Canadians now work in other and very different industries and occupations, mainly in the service industries.
This transformation of Canada from a predominantly rural into a highly urbanized country has taken place within the twentieth century, within the living memory of many Canadians. Canada is now, in fact, one of the most highly urbanized countries in the world. Over the past two decades urban population has grown about half again as fast as that of the United States and at around twice the rate of growth experienced in many of the industrial countries of western Europe. A century ago only about one out of every five Canadians lived in a town or city. It was only about four decades ago that our urban population became larger than our rural population. Today almost three-quarters of our population is urban; and our rural population has actually declined over the past 10 or 15 years. By the end of this century it is estimated that nine out of every ten Canadians will live in an urban area.
Moreover, this growth or urban population has been particularly concentrated in the larger urban centres. Almost half of Canada's population today lives in centres of 100,000 population or more. Over recent years the population growth in these centres has been of the order of 350,000 per year. In other words, each year we have been adding the equivalent of a city of about the size of Calgary or two cities the size of metropolitan Victoria to the over-all population of our larger cities. Each year we have been adding a good deal more than a city the size of Halifax or of London, Ontario.
A large part of the growth of cities is, of course, accounted for by natural population increase; that is, the excess of births over deaths. For the smaller cities outside of larger urban agglomerations this, in fact, constitutes the main source of growth. For example, in the 1950's this was practically the only source of growth of cities of less than 30,000 population in Canada. But the growth of the large urban centres reflects net migration as well as natural population growth; migration from other countries as well as migration from rural areas, from villages and towns and even
DEBATES	339
The Address-Mr. Givens from other smaller cities. From 1951 to 1961 about half the growth of metropolitan areas with a population of over 100,000 was due to net inflows of people. The comparable figure for metropolitan Toronto in this period was 60 per cent.
In its Fourth Annual Review the Economic Council of Canada drew special attention to the particularly rapid growth of Canada's three largest urban centres, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. More than one out of every four Canadians lived in these three cities in the mid-1960's and the Council estimated that the relative growth in these centres would continue, so that by 1980 about one out of every three Canadians would be living in these three huge metropolitan areas.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
As we enter the 1970s over 5 million people will be living in the metropolitan areas of Toronto and Montreal, that is, about one out of every four Canadians in these two centres alone. It is possible that by the year 2000, when Canada's population may have reached beyond the 35 million mark, nearly one-third of the country's total population could well be found in these two metropolitan areas. In other words, their combined populations could more than double over the next 30 years.
The dramatic scale of Canada's present degree of concentration of population in large urban agglomerations can also be illustrated by the size of metropolitan populations in relation to provincial populations. Today we have 17 metropolitan areas in Canada with populations that are greater than that of Prince Edward Island. Over the past five years Toronto and Montreal have each added about three times the population of Prince Edward Island. Montreal and Toronto are each larger than the four Atlantic provinces put together, and of the ten provinces only Ontario and Quebec have populations exceeding those of Montreal and Toronto.
In spite of the impressive growth of Canada's urban population, especially over the past few decades, there have been strikingly stable features of our cities in the longer run. Perhaps the most outstanding of these is that the broad form of any given city is surprisingly persistent. Bay and King Streets in Toronto, Ste. Catherine in Montreal, Portage and Main in Winnipeg, and Hastings in Vancouver have altered skylines. The nature of the business performed along such streets has changed in many ways, but they are still at

October 30, 1969
The Address-Mr. Givens the centre and the expanded metropolitan areas have grown out from these centres.
The interplay of economic and social forces has shifted people, organizations and activities from one area of the city to another. But the relatively high value of land and capital near the heart of the city at any point in time makes any large scale abandonment of the city centre virtually impossible. New needs, new technologies and restless human energies have imposed new structures on old locations.
Population pressures have far outgrown the original boundaries. The large metropolitan area of today is essentially an over-lay on the earlier city-in a sense a counterpart, but moving at a greatly accelerated pace-of the ancient cities and towns which were built layer upon layer on the actual physical remains of earlier settlements. The buildings of the modern city no longer crumble into dust; we tear them down and rebuild speedily on their old locations.
The sheer physical task of building our cities for the future is immense. Our larger cities will more than double by the year 2000. This implies that in addition to the replacement and rehabilitation of existing structures we will need to add in these cities about as large a volume of new structures as already now exist in them.
Another paradox about the city is that although it possesses certain stable features it has also become the dynamic frontier of growth and change. For Canadians, whose history has been dominated by the pushing back of land and natural resource frontiers across an immense continent, the concept of the city as a frontier is perhaps still so new as to be difficult to fully comprehend. Yet over the past two decades our cities have not only accounted for almost all of our population growth; they have accounted for a growing proportion of our total output and income.
Employment and output in our primary industries-agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining-have declined relatively and these industries now account for less than 10 per cent of total employment and output in Canada. The most rapidly growing edges in our economy are to be found in our cities. Here is where we are now pushing back new frontiers and moving into unsettled areas- not so much frontiers of territory as frontiers of technology.
Given our vast geography and our rich endowment of natural resources there will always be challenges in this country for those who would seek adventure on our physical
IMr. Givens.]
frontiers, especially in the north. But the pioneers of today are to be found mainly on the frontiers of discovering, developing and making effective use of our human resources rather than our physical resources. It is in our cities, in which our human resources are so heavily concentrated, that the challenges are perhaps now the greatest; the challenges to the adventurous, the imaginative, the innovative, to seek new opportunities, to meet new needs and to cope with new problems.
As we look to the future it will be in our cities, and especially in our larger cities that most of the growth will take place. Many powerful forces are working in this direction-rising levels of education and skills, increased economies of scale and specialization, advancing technology and knowledge and growing relative demand for services. Moreover, the processes of increased concentration of economic activities and population in the larger urban centres have tended to become self-sustaining. In other words, one of the most potent effects of large urban agglomeration is that it is apparently everywhere tending to encourage still greater agglomeration. The city has always been the focal point for service activities; for commerce and distribution, for banking and finance, for government and education and medical services, for entertainment and cultural activities, for business and personal services. Thus the relative growth in these service industries has acted as a powerful spur to urban growth.
Over the past quarter century employment in the service industries in Canada has surged forward at a tremendous pace, from 40 per cent of all employment at the end of the second world war to about 60 per cent. Indeed, Canada has one of the most heavily service-oriented economies in the world today. Rapid growth and change in our large urban areas are raising rapidly escalating social, economic, political and technological problems. The Economic Council of Canada drew attention to some of these problems in its Fourth Annual Review in the following terms:
-There has long been widespread concern about the mounting deficiencies of our cities and the heavy backlogs of essential improvements. Shortages and inadequacy of urban housing, traffic and transport problems, air and water pollution, the confused jumble of conflicting land uses, decaying neighbourhoods and monotonous suburbs, urban poverty and social disturbance, steadily rising property tax burdens and the frustrations of municipal administration-these are familiar problems to the average Canadian city dweller today.
October 30, 1969

Our capacities for dealing with these problems are being tested to the limit. They are posing difficult dilemmas for many of our institutions, not least for municipal governments which were not originally structured to serve such large, swiftly growing and dynamically changing organisms as our modern large cities. Local government structures, powers, administration and areas of jurisdiction need to be modernized to cope with new needs and problems. The complexity of these needs and problems demands a substantial broadening and upgrading in the quality of manpower resources available to such governments for planning and policy purposes.
The widening gap which has emerged between the responsibilities and the revenues of the larger cities must be narrowed either by shifting more responsibilities to higher levels of government or by shifting more financial resources to municipal governments. No matter how this is accomplished, it has become increasingly evident that the scale and importance of the activities of municipal governments must be taken more explicitly into account within a comprehensive fiscal planning framework covering all levels of government.
The latter can perhaps be most effectively done within the context of the revived and strengthened Tax Structure Committee which was discussed at last December's Federal-Provincial Conference of finance ministers and provincial treasurers. This committee, if its work is to be relevant to the real needs of our modern society, must not limit itself merely to federal-provincial tax issues; it must also encompass expenditure issues and explicitly take account of municipal as well as federal and provincial financial issues. In addition, while many of us might well have instinctive reservations about the creation of new institutions, I believe it has become increasingly clear that there is a serious gap in our existing institutional framework in the field of urban affairs-a vacuum that is not being properly filled by any existing institutional machinery.
Given the fact that our urban problems are now nation-wide problems, the time has arrived to consider seriously the establishment of some form of national council on urban affairs-perhaps along the lines proposed at the Federal-Provincial Conference in December, 1967-for the purposes of gathering and disseminating information in the urban field, undertaking needed analysis
The Address-Mr. Givens on a wide range of problems that are common to all of our major cities, focusing attention on the efficient provision of high quality local services that the people of today's cities demand and expect, and helping to lay a basis for much needed advances in our understanding of the urban frontier on which so many of us now live. I would also respectfully suggest that it is high time we established a parliamentary standing committee on environmental, housing and urban affairs. These two ideas I believe to be mutually compatible, consistent and complementary.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The problems of our large cities are no longer merely municipal or local problems. The Canadians whom our provincial and federal governments serve are now predominantly urban Canadians. The national goals of high employment, high growth, stable prices, viable international payments balance and the equitable distribution of rising incomes must now be primarily accomplished within our cities.
As our society has developed and changed it has become increasingly shaped by both the opportunities and the constraints of city life. In this process-especially when this process has been greatly speeded up and compressed, as has been the case in Canada-there are dangers that the new freedoms and wider choices, the cultural and social amenities which urban life can make possible, especially when they are accompanied by impressive advances in material wealth and income, may be undermined and frustrated by impersonal forces that have little regard to man as an individual. For example, the automobile in the large modern city is threatening to become man's master rather than his servant.
As we look to the future development of our cities there is, I believe, a need to put man more consciously and consistently into the centre of the picture. Cities should be for people, not the other way around. To the extent that cities are unique, the physical and environmental problems vary from city to city and the priorities of public and private action will also necessarily be different. But man is the raison d'etre of cities and his problems are strikingly similar, city to city right across Canada.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent I move, seconded by Mr. Andras-
October 30, 1969

The Address-Mr. Lundrigan


Mr, Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the minister to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Davis: That notwithstanding section (4) of Standing Order 38, at 2 o'clock p.m., Friday, October 31, 1969, the question on any amendment or amendments to the motion for an Address in Reply to His Excellency's speech shall be put forthwith.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that this had been agreed to, but at the risk of stating the obvious I hope it is understood that after the vote is taken the debate resumes for the rest of the afternoon. I would not want anyone to think that when we vote, we go home.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to start by congratulating the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) on his very enlightening remarks. As a member of the opposition and a backbencher occupying a seat almost directly opposite the hon. member, it has always amazed me that a man of his ability has been forgotten by his party for so long. He has my deep sympathy for the circumstances facing him and many other backbenchers in that party. I think the hon. member for York West made an excellent speech and I should like to commend him for his efforts.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, members in this House from the old sod back east, Newfoundland, the rock of the east coast, were paid the greatest compliment they have received since becoming part of Canada. I suppose in the general sense that we came to Ottawa with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), who is also from the rock-


Some hon. Members:: He forgets it.


John Howard Lundrigan: Some people forget it and he forgets it, too. But I think we were paid the greatest compliment when he said we were working hard for the fishermen of Newfoundland by coming here demanding things for them. Although he criticized us for doing this, I think we should regard it as a compliment and be very proud of ourselves. An hon. member said a moment ago that the Minister of Transport forgets where he comes from. Perhaps this is a good thing for him because fish do smell and Newfoundland is not the most affluent part of Canada; as a matter of fact, it is the most backward part. If a person really wants to come to Ottawa and central

Canada and "make it" in the affluence here and the affluence of the Liberal cabinet, you cannot blame him for disowning the old rock of eastern Canada that is being washed by the heavy seas of the Atlantic ocean.
In many ways it is a disadvantage to profess knowledge of an area so backward, but perhaps we should forgive and forget. Without being sarcastic, it was quite a disappointment yesterday to hear a member for Newfoundland, who was successful in the last election by the skin of his teeth, try to disown other members from that province because they were fighting so hard for the fishermen of Atlantic Canada. It was quite a joke, quite a laugh. He referred to us as the type of people who would have been looking for a subsidy for the rocks in the basket used by John Cabot. We would have been looking for a subsidy for the rocks and the fish at that time, because it was then that the discrimination began against the fishermen of Newfoundland, and it has been continued by many governments ever since.
I wonder if anyone has ever told the people of Canada the story about the fishermen of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and other places. The prices being paid to them today are basically the same prices that were paid 20 years ago. The fish you buy in the supermarket for 79 cents a pound is sold for 18 cents a pound in Newfoundland. Did anyone ever tell parliament that the fresh cod which people buy for 75 cents, 85 cents or $1 a pound is sold for three cents by Atlantic fishermen? We Newfoundland members are ashamed of this. We are supposed to be satisfied with the salt rebate of $300,000 out of $12 billion taken away from the fishermen of Atlantic Canada. We are supposed to be satisfied, too, with the amendment to the Fisheries Improvements Loans Act passed a few months ago. Eighteen loans have been made since that act was passed back in the 1950s, for a total of $23,000.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
We are supposed to be satisfied because the Government of Canada purchased 7 million pounds of fish and sent it to Biafra. Did anybody tell the people of Canada how the fish was purchased and why it was so cheap? Has anyone told our people that the government of this country authorized merchants in Atlantic Canada to haggle with the fishermen and offer them the lowest possible price? The government, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of
October 30. 1969

Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) could then say that Canada is a benevolent nation because we sent fish to Biafra. The people of Newfoundland sent that fish to Biafra, and not the Government of Canada.
We have in Labrador about 1,863 fishermen. Of these, 263 are classified as floaters; they are people who go out in schooners and longliners and fish off Labrador. They salt cod on the boats. About 1,500 people are classified as livyers; they live on the Labrador coast, salt their fish ashore and go home in the fall. For the first time since John Cabot, these 1,800 fishermen failed completely. They had catches of 150 quintals of fish in previous years, and last year they had catches of 5 quintals. The fishermen of Newfoudland asked for some sort of disaster fund to be set up, but we are supposed to be satisfied with the dole, and with the welfare and Canada Assistance programs that come so benevolently from Ottawa. What did the Minister of Fisheries say to our fellow fisherment? B[e said, "Eat cake. Go on the dole."
We are supposed to be satisfied that the Minister of Transport, a Newfoundlander, represents us in the cabinet at the benevolent city of Ottawa. We Newfoundland members do not apologize for the efforts we make in this House on behalf of the people of Newfoundland. We do not apologize to the people of Toronto, central Canada or other parts of Canada for our efforts on behalf of the east coast people. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) did not apologize for referring to the open receipt, under which our fishermen are paid once a year. How many hon. members would like to be paid once a year? I have heard that there are places in China where people are paid once a year. They are also doing that in Newfoundland with our fishermen. They fish all year and bring in their catches, and finally some benevolent merchant comes along and says, "I will give you 3 cents, or 5 cents, a pound for your fish."
We make no apologies for criticizing the way our country is going. Carpenters in Newfoundland are making $1.50 an hour and carpenters a few miles south of us get $7.50. Where is the justice in that? Our cost of living is the highest in the country. Surely hon. members know that in St. John's we have the highest cost of living in Canada. Our food costs are 6 per cent above those of other, major Canadian cities. For meat, poultry and dairy products we pay as much as 33 per cent more than the pay in Halifax which is only a
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion gunshot away, to use an old Newfoundland expression. We pay $300 or $400 more for a car because it costs about $200 to transport a car to Newfoundland. In this day when we are sending men to the moon and when the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) is to launch a multi-million dollar satellite, many of our people do not have even a telephone. Many of our young people drop out before they reach high school. Many of them will live their lives in one of the great nations of the world and will hardly know how to read or write. It was estimated in 1966 that only 27 per cent of our young children who start in kindergarten will eventually finish grade 11. So I make no apologies for pleading for my province.
We have the greatest fishing resources of any country in the world. Last year, off the Hamilton international banks where our Labrador fishermen failed, one billion pounds of fish was taken by foreign vessels. There was a ratio of 80 to 1 as between the catches of Russian, Norwegian, Portuguese and Spanish boats and our own. But here in Canada we sit on our bottoms while other nations rape our resources. We have great mineral resources and a great people. Even the people of British Columbia are living in comparative affluence at this time. How long must our people stand by before this government is willing to recognize what is happening on our east coast?
Since I wish to continue my remarks another day, may I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, the question I raised earlier today concerns a very laudable project started by the Forestry Department in 1967. Its objectives were to find alternatives to the present toxic and poisonous insecticidal control of pests. The possibility of using non-toxic plant extracts which mimic the action of insect hormones was to be investigated. In other words, pest control by methods other than chemical sprays was to be researched. In the context of present proposals to ban the use of DDT and other chemical sprays, this was and is an urgent and timely effort.
October 30, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
One of the scientists selected to do the work on insect hormones was Dr. A. Man-singh, who was then employed with the United States Army Laboratories in Massachusetts. Dr. Mansingh was a native of India who had originally come to Canada and wanted to return here. He accepted an appointment from the Public Service Commission early in 1967 as a research chemist in insect physiology. He is apparently well qualified in his field and had two other excellent offers in Canada at that time, which he turned down. He did so in order to come back and engage in what he thought was an important national project.
Dr.. Mansingh worked in the systems biology group at Victoria, B.C. His research involved the screening of extracts of Canadian forest trees for hormone mimicking action, the studying of their biochemical effects on the growth, development, reproduction and survival of insects and the feasibility of their field application. This work was started in co-operation with Dr. V. Hach, the senior research chemist of the MacMillan Bloedel Limited research and development department, who provided extracts from the wood and bark of several types of forest trees. The insect hormone research project was transferred to Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and Dr. Mansingh was scheduled to be transferred to Sault Ste. Marie on August 19 of this year.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Two hours before his departure for Sault Ste. Marie, Dr. Mansingh was informed by his associate director in Victoria that his position had become redundant, and he is being laid off effective November 19, 1969. The reason for this lay-off was outlined in a letter received by Dr. Mansingh dated August 19 which reads as follows:
The severe budget restriction to the Public Service, which will hold our departmental budget for the fiscal year 1970-71 at the 1969-70 level, has resulted in the curtailment of certain research programs within our branch. The hormone program at the Insect Pathology Research Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, is one program that has been cancelled. Your transfer to Sault Ste. Marie was dependent on your assignment to this work. As a result of this decision to cancel the program, your position is now considered redundant. In keeping with ministerial instructions, this will confirm that your lay-off will take effect three months from today, i.e. November 19, 1969.
I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that the Professional Institute of the Public Service appealed unsuccessfully to the Treasury Board and that Dr. Mansingh presented a grievance under the Public Service Staff Relations Act
which was also unsuccessful. Accepting the fact that the public service has been allowed to grow beyond reasonable proportions, surely some reason and moderation should be used in reducing it, and the factors involved made known to those who are laid off.
The following questions arise which I wish to pose to the minister. First, why was a project of this nature dropped at a time when it seemed to become very important? Second, what guidelines have been established for laying off employees as a result of budgetary restrictions? I am told that in spite of the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) there have been no consultations with staff associations on the subject of layoffs. Third, is the job being considered the most important part of the layoff or is it the seniority of the man in the service? Four, is the government aware of the terribly low morale now existing in the public service, particularly in the professional field?
My fifth question is, since many people accept public service positions in preference to industrial and commercial positions only because of the security of tenure, how does the government hope to maintain an interested professional public service in the face of indiscriminate firings that are now taking place? Finally, if the insect pathology research has no value at this time or if Dr. Mansingh was incompetent, neither of which seems to be the case, I ask the minister to spell out exactly why the project was cancelled and this scientist laid off.
That outlines the grievance I have, Mr. Speaker. It may be the matter is not within the minister's knowledge. My intention this morning was merely to ask him to look into the matter. I hope the minister will now be able to at least satisfy these specific questions. If he can do anything to lay down the guidelines under which people are being fired, it will be very helpful to those in the public service.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) for giving me the opportunity to say a word about our priorities and the manner in which individual research programs are assessed. In the Forestry Service priorities for research are determined in close consultation with industry, with the provinces and with the universities. In this particular case the over-all program is administered, or certainly, priorities are determined, by a joint advisory board.

October 30, 1969

The hon. member asked several questions. He asked why the project had been dropped. The project had been in progress for some years inspired by Dr. Wellington, a much more senior gentleman who left the federal forest service last year and went to work for the University of Toronto. In other words, the project was leader less. This was one of the main reasons it was dropped. It was dropped, also, because it was rated by this joint committee of representatives of industry and the other interests concerned as being at the bottom of a very long list.
In our economy moves involving capital expenditure we are reducing the effort by something of the order of 5 per cent only. We are not dropping every project. We are certainly not dropping any of the projects which were at the head of the list. The hon. member asked whether this was the most important project, or whether it had seniority. Essentially we were engaged in an assessment of projects and once this project was adjudged to be at the bottom of the list, substantially without direction, without guidance from the man who began it and guided it for a number of years, it was considered one of the least desirable.
The hon. member mentioned morale. The pay in the service today is comparable with the pay anywhere in industry. An individual who leaves the federal forest service today and goes to work in a university or in industry does suffer some dislocation. But there are plenty of opportunities for young Dr. Man-singh who was employed for the first time by the service in 1967 and whose job came to an end this summer. He will not be leaving the service until January 31. I understand he is very competent and that there are plenty of opportunities for him to obtain suitable employment elsewhere.



PENSIONS-RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS- INQUIRY AS TO INCREASE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 28, as reported in Hansard at page 160, I addressed a question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) as follows:
Last Wednesday when I asked the Prime Minister a question about certain pensions, including the pensions of retired civil servants, he suggested to me that I should wait until I had seen the Speech from the Throne. Since there is nothing in the Speech from the Throne about pensions for retired civil servants, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether the government will soon be in a position to announce an increase in these pensions?
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The reply of the President of the Treasury board was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that in the not-too-distant future it will be possible as a consequence of the progress in the general review to make a statement in respect of the pensions of superannuates.
There followed a supplementary question and a further answer which left us just about where we were. So here we are again tonight, the President of the Treasury Board and I, discussing one of our favourite subjects-one of mine in any case. I imagine that he and others probably feel like saying to me: Do we have to do this all over again? have we not had enough questions and late shows and debates and arguments about the pensions of retired civil servants? I wish there was no need to carry it on. I wish the matter could be settled. I wish these people could get their place in the just society and that we could turn to other matters. However, I am afraid it is true that if we did not keep up the battle for these people, they would soon be forgotten. So tonight I appeal again to the President of the Treasury Board in the calm and sober quiet of this adjournment period to give us an assurance that something will soon be done to increase the pensions of our federal superannuates, including all those who are covered by that term.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
With the passing of time many of these people who believed that something would be done to improve their position have passed on. As a matter of fact, the rate of deaths among retired civil servants is about 1,500 a year. That means that 2,000 of them have died since the election in June, 1968, and 3,250 have died since May 8, 1967, the date when a report was tabled in parliament urging that something be done to increase their pensions forthwith. The minister knows what was in that report. He probably knows its contents every well now because he has told us a good many times that the matter is being studied.
May I put my appeal to him tonight in these terms. I know that sooner or later something is going to be done; this issue cannot be left unresolved forever. Indeed, I for one will not let it. Some day the question of dealing with these and other pensions by escalating them after retirement is going to be an accepted principle, something that is going to be put into general practice.
I confidently believe that one of the places where this practice will get started as far as
October 30, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the federal government is concerned is with its own retired employees. I am talking now about something more than just a 2 per cent cost of living bonus such as is added to the old age security pension and the Canadian Pension Plan benefit. I am talking about the basic principle of escalating pensions, a principle that we will have to adopt, I believe, across the board.
Because I believe that action is going to be taken some day-indeed, I believe that something may be done during this very session-why not take some interim action on behalf of these people now? To tell these people that they must wait until this grand review of social welfare and social security has taken place is condemning a few more hundred or so of them to die without seeing an increase.
Mr. Speaker, some kind of a plan for escalating pensions is going to come. I suspect that this plan will amount to more than just an ad hoc addition to the pensions that are being paid. I suspect that it will be a plan of escalation that will apply both to those who are now retired and to those who will be retiring in the years that lie ahead. If a plan of some sort is coming, why not give those who are retired now and who are in great need the benefit of it by an interim arrangement? Such an addition could provide an amount no more than the government might have in mind for the future, so that no paying back would be required. But surely in light of the fact that something is going to be done in the months or years that lie ahead, an interim arrangement for those now retired should be made right now.
There are many thousands of these people who feel their position very deeply and sorely. They see not only the cost of living going up and the value of their pensions decreasing; they see people who are retiring now, after doing the jobs that they did 20, 15 years ago or even more recently, retiring on much larger pensions than they receive. They see the much higher salaries that people are getting in those jobs today and they feel that the employer that they served is not being fair to them. I share their view. I express my complete confidence that the government is going to act on this question some day, that these pensions are going to be increased, but please, Mr. President of the Treasury Board, can we not take some interim action now in favour of those who are already retired?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to give an answer to the heartfelt plea of the hon.

member who has to some degree both asked the question and provided himself with the answer. I think he is as aware, as I am, that there is an inequality and an inequity and that we all feel something should be done to remedy this situation. I think he is also well aware that the cause of this inequality and what has brought on this situation is that phenomenon known as inflation.
Perhaps a better method of curing the problem is to concentrate one's energies on calling a halt to inflation and putting a stop to future erosion, rather than merely trying to apply a bandage to an existing and what would continue to be a suppurating wound. As he knows, a number of us are doing our best to bring the problem of inflation under control. This calls for restraint and some sacrifice in every sector of our economy. I wish that his new associates who were proclaimed recently in Winnipeg were as enthusiastic about these restraints as perhaps some of the rest of us are.
Perhaps the best approach is to try and bring inflation under control before attempting to relieve or mitigate the symptoms and inequities that inflation brings about. It is difficult but it is one of the hard choices that those who are called upon to govern try to make. We must try to set priorities and determine what should be done first, recognizing that in each course an element of hardship and sacrifice is called for. Perhaps the hon. gentleman is fortunate in not being required to make these choices. Those who are in office do, and have done. We have set our principal target for the moment as the control or restraint of inflation. This does not mean that in the meantime energy, plans and analysis with a view to rectifying some of the injustices that inflation has brought about should not be adjusted either during the process of curing inflation or immediately following its halting.
I assured the hon. member the other day that many of these plans are going forward. I hope, like the hon. member, that we will be able to do something perhaps before we have been entirely successful in dealing with inflation as a whole.


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



HEALTH AND WELFARE-CONTROL AND USE OF PESTICIDES

Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on October 29 last I posed a question
October 30, 1969

to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) regarding pesticide pollutants. With your permission, I wish at this time to elaborate slightly on this question. During the past few months there has been considerable scientific data and information published on the harmful effects of certain pesticides for the purpose of alerting the public to just how toxic some pesticides are and how carelessly they have been used. Notwithstanding this, the pesticide market continues to boom.
Fox 25 years man has been concocting extravagant assortments of synthetic chemical poisons and distributing them all over the planet. We continue the wide use of pesticides to wage war on endless varieties of bacteria, insects and rodents which continue to plague us. There are certain tangible benefits which can be credited to pesticides, such as the control of malaria, typhus, cholera and other diseases, and there is no doubt that they have contributed to making life more comfortable and nuisance-free. But as the price of this we have been taking unto ourselves some not very calculated risks. It is now well known from evidence adduced that the use of some pesticides such as heptachlor, Aldrin, Toxa-phene, DDT and many others has often produced unintended side effects on fish, wildlife and human health.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I refer to a brief submitted by Pollution Probe, an organization formed at the University of Toronto by students, staff and conservationists and presented to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). It refers mainly to the dangerous effects of DDT on wildlife and human life. The four major points from the brief would appear to confirm their opinion. These are the following: First, DDT upsets the organisms in the human ecosystem and threatens the survival of a vast number of species of wildlife. Second, DDT has been
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion linked to behavioural disturbances and inhibitions of learning in humans and animals. Third, DDT has been positively correlated to the incidence of cancer, cirrhosis of the liver and hypertension in humans. Fourth, there are, I am advised, other acceptable alternative pesticides which are now available.
I therefore submit this is a most serious issue today. The public is concerned, I am concerned and the government should be concerned. I should like to know what steps the Department of National Health and Welfare will take to curtail or stringently regulate the sale and use of these harmful pesticides and thereby protect the health of the people of this country.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Deakon) I should like to say that the federal government is definitely concerned about the health and quality of life in our country and indeed in man's total environment. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has taken, and continues to take, an active interest in the problem of pesticides referred to by the hon. member. In particular, the Department of National Health and Welfare has participated in a review of the pesticide problem undertaken by the Federal Interdepartmental Committee on Pesticides. Furthermore, the pesticide section of the Food and Drug Directorate has reviewed, and is reviewing on a continuing basis, the tolerance levels of pesticide residue in food.
May I assure the hon. member, by referring him to the recent statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that a government statement on pesticides will be made next week.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Friday, October 31, 1969