1969-11-03

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was on Friday that the Prime Minister rebuked one of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party for listening to canards, paying attention to leaks and so on.
November 3, 1969

Diplomatic Establishment Changes What was a leak on Friday is, in fact, a communique on Monday.
I am impressed by the reference to cutbacks in operations in Latin America, recalling very well the loud blowing of trumpets when a certain ministerial group came back from that part of the world some months ago, and noting the reference in the Speech from the Throne to the intensification of Canada's contacts with the government and people of that area. I suppose there is some sort of inverse logic by which one could prove that curtailing the number of posts abroad might improve our contacts with the governments and peoples of foreign countries, but I would find that reasoning highly unflattering if I were a member of the Department of External Affairs. It would now seem to me that the prospect of this government leading Canada into the Organization of American States is very bleak at the present time.
It is not possible at this stage, in the proceedings on motions, to make a value judgment whether the closing of a post in Nicosia is a better move than the opening of one in Mauritius. These are matters which would have to be considered with greater care.
I am not sure I greet with happiness the reference to the International Control Commission. I have often thought there was a lack of faith in that organization and that as the Viet Nam war continued something much more effective might have been done, had there been the will, through the kind of grouping around which the ICC was involved. It strikes me that what we have noted today represents an abandonment of hope that this group can become more effective, that it is withering away and that, in fact, Canada's blessing has been given to this process.
I hope the minister's goals will be realized, but as to that we shall have to live in faith.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, one can readily agree it is a desirable exercise to cut out any fat which can be removed from a department, and one would be readily disposed to consider the suggestions made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs had he gone a little further and told us precisely what he expects to save in terms of dollars and cents. It seems to me that the saving to the Canadian people and to the Canadian treasury as a result of the changes he has announced must be relatively small, even minimal, at a very considerable expense to Canada's role in the world. I hope the Standing Committee on External Affairs
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
and National Defence will take up the question of precisely how much is being saved by these changes.
I cannot find any fault, for example, with the decision to close the little office, as the minister calls it, in Berlin. Obviously the embassy in Bonn can deal with this responsibility. It seems to me, however, that to lessen our representation in Latin America at this time just does not make sense, particularly when we are attempting to improve our relations with Latin American countries.
As for the reference to the International Control Commissions, it occurs to me that at a time when the situation in southeast Asia is becoming more, rather than less, complex with the possible approach of peace, a country such as ours might well be taking on a bigger rather than a smaller role there, particularly when one bears in mind the problems confronting Laos through the presence of North Vietnamese and other military in that country. To eliminate entirely our representation in that part of the world, to say that our commissioner in Saigon will look after the situation while we still remain a member of the ICC, seems doubtful wisdom to me. I think hon. members would have to have proof that these savings were really important and could be substantiated before this kind of cutting down could be accepted with equanimity.
Before I was elected to parliament some years ago I lived in Ottawa for some time, and since I have been elected to parliament I have lived here most of the time. I have always been impressed by the fact that it took the Department of External Affairs at least a quarter of a century to build up a group of foreign service officers of very high calibre that compared favourably with that of any other country in the world. I express very profound doubt whether it is sensible to cut into this group of men and women who have represented Canada to great effect and with great credit. I end as I began, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we would have to be persuaded that the savings really justify this kind of myopic cutting down.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I was sorry to read last week in the French newspapers of the decision taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to close a number of Canadian diplomatic missions throughout the world.
I was somewhat surprised by the procedure but I come to my conclusion that it was
November 3, 1969

perhaps easier to have the press translate a statement than the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
It is regretful to note that we plan to close embassies, especially in Latin America, where the presence of Canada is necessary to fight the subversion and poverty which are prevailing there, at a time when Communism is expanding. In my opinion, it is necessary to maintain good relations there.
Yet, although it claims that it wants to save a few dollars, the same government intends to open some embassies in Communist countries.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are asking ourselves some questions and rightly so I think. We believe that by acting in such a way, the government is leaning to the left and we object to this.



PESTICIDES


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, an important objective of this government is the protection and enhancement of man's environment and, in harmony with this objective, the protection of man, crops and livestock from pests. One of the most successful pest control agents, DDT, has now been shown to have detrimental effects on the environment. Therefore I wish to make a statement on this pesticide.
We have studied the current data on the safety of DDT as it relates to human health and to its effects on wildlife, including fish. Our research shows that our environment is now widely contaminated with DDT residues. These residues are mostly at low levels but have concentrated sufficiently in a few populations of birds and fish to cause reproductive failures and the elimination of a few bird populations over large parts of their normal range. DDT applications have also caused direct kills of fish.
There is no evidence that present levels of DDT in the Canadian diet have caused injury to humans. Nevertheless, in the light of the persistence of DDT, its deleterious effects on wildlife, and lack of clearcut evidence about its long-term effects on man, it is prudent to curtail contamination of the environment by it.
Within the Government, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) administers the Pest Control Products Act which regulates pesti-
Measures to Control Use of Pesticides cides offered for sale to assure that they are effective and safe when used as labelled. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) administers the Food and Drugs Act which has as one of its major objectives the assurance that foods do not contain pesticide residues at levels in excess of those established as safe for lifetime consumption.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)

The government has taken action in recent years to limit the amount of DDT used by federal agencies.
Hon. members probably know, that two years ago we discontinued the use of DDT in the protection of forests. In 1968 we eliminated the use of DDT in national parks and by 1969 aerial use by the armed forces. We have now completed a year-long review of the overall use pattern of formulations accepted for registration for sale under the Pest Control Products Act. After January 1, 1970, DDT will not be registered for insect and biting fly control in forests, parks, and other outdoor areas except under emergency situations and only after careful consulta ion between federal and provincial interdepartmental committees.
In addition, whereas in 1969 DDT was registered for the control of insects on 62 food crops, in 1970 registration will be granted under the Pest Control Products Act for use on only 12 agricultural crops. It is estimated that all these actions will reduce the amount of DDT used by at least 90 per cent. The remaining uses of DDT will be retained until prac'ical, safe replacement compounds or other protective measures are available.
The federal government, of course, recognizes and commends the partial controls already implemented by some provinces. It was felt, however, that more comprehensive and unified action was required at this time.
Concomitant with the revised use pattern we are, under the Food and Drugs Act, reducing the tolerance for DDT from seven parts per million to one part per million for 61 common vegetables and fruits such as beans, carrots, corn, lettuce, peas, tomatoes, strawberries, and all citrus fruits. For apples, pears, and celery, the DDT tolerance will be reduced to three and a half parts per million. The only tolerance for DDT that will remain unchanged at seven parts per million is for the fat of the meat of cattle, hogs and sheep. This tolerance will be further reduced or eliminated when practical replacement compounds are available to us and our trading
November 3, 1969

Measures to Control Use of Pesticides partners. There are no tolerances for DDT in potatoes and no tolerances for any pesticide residues in eggs, fish, milk, butter, cheese, ice cream and other dairy products. Our goal will be to effect further reductions in some of these tolerances and to eliminate others.
Bon appetit, Mr. Speaker!

Lest you are concerned about the levels of DDT in food, I think you should know that the Food and Agriculture and World Health Organizations of the United Nations, on the advice of expert scientific groups, have declared maximum acceptable daily intakes for humans on the basis of ingestion for a lifetime. For DDT, the recommended maximum daily acceptable intake is 0.7 milligrams. The average Canadian diet contains less than 5 per cent of this amount and food contributes 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the total intake of DDT by the general public.
In concluding this announcement I wish to emphasize that our scientists are world leaders in research toward the minimal but effective use of chemicals in pest control. This government will continue to examine all scientific evidence and intensify its own research program into pesticides, including organo-chlorine and other persistent compounds. The government of Canada will continue to play a leading international role in moves to protect and enhance man's total environment.
To this end, Canada has been an active member of international organizations, the role of which is to develop international standards for pesticides based on sound health and ecological principles and the needs of international trade. Canada will continue and will intensify its work in these organizations.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome in general this move announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). A good many of us, and I think the country generally, have been quite concerned about the effects of DDT upon our environment, our wildlife and eventually upon human health ever since reading that very striking book written by the late Rachel Carson some years ago. I believe a few years ago following that book and other publications a committee of the House conducted an investigation into this subject.
I am a little disturbed, because of the duration of time over which public concern has been expressed, that the government appears

to be following rather than leading. I hope one can really place firm reliance upon the assurances given by the Prime Minister concerning the efforts Canadian scientists and the Canadian government are to make in the future with regard to pesticides generally, their safety and environmental effects.
I am also a little surprised by what I take to be the implication in the Prime Minister's announcement that it is only during the past year that the government has been conducting in any sense a full-scale examination of the environmental effects of the use of DDT. It was announced that it had been decided, I think in 1968, not to use DDT in our own forests and parks and in 1969 the aerial use by the armed forces was stopped. But the Prime Minister said that the government has now completed a year long review of the over-all use pattern of formulations acceptable for registration. I may say, if this means what it seems to mean, I am shocked that it is only over the past year the government has been conducting in a serious way an examination of the over-all use.
There have been a number of indications lately of the care with which miracle pesticides and miracle substitutes must be examined, and there has been a growing concern about the way in which we are polluting our environment by, among other methods, using pesticides which have very profound residual effects. So generally I welcome the announcement and hope it means that the government of Canada is really going to take a sustained interest in and conduct an examination of such pesticides and substitutes.
I am a little concerned with regard to what consultation has taken place with farm organizations and what the effect of this announcement will be on agriculture when it has to turn quickly to certain substitutes. I would like to hope there has been some consultation with the provinces which have an interest in the effect on their agricultural industry.
Above all, I do not see any indication in the statement by the Prime Minister that the government has really been placing the emphasis it should have been placing upon the development of substitutes which would have a satisfactory cost effectiveness so far as our farmers are concerned. Certainly there is no mention of consultation with the provinces, particularly the provincial departments of agriculture. I hope that in fact there has been such consultation. In view of the difficulty many forms of agriculture are facing, I hope a really determined effort is being made to
November 3, 1969

develop satisfactory pesticide substitutes with appropriate cost effectiveness.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)
Having said this, having placed emphasis upon the need for consultation with the provinces, I also note that in the Prime Minister's statement there is no assurance that all departments of the government will comply with bans imposed by the provinces. I express very fervently the hope that all federal departments will in fact comply with general bans on the use of DDT imposed by any province and that the Prime Minister will be prepared to give such an assurance.
However, with these caveats-I do not want to be misunderstood in any sense-I certainly welcome the statement by the Prime Minister and his announcement that these steps are being taken to cut down the use of DDT very substantially. I only hope that the lesson that has been learned will in fact encourage the government and its departments to have a sharper eye in the future for difficulties of this sort, and to give the problem, in co-operation with other countries, its most urgent and effective attention.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, our group certainly welcomes the statement made by the Prime Minister this morning in regard to DDT. However, I feel, as did the previous speaker, that action of this type is long overdue. Frankly, I have been amazed at the lengthy delay in government action on this important matter. It has been the work of the provinces and other groups which have done a vast amount of research into the dangers of pesticides that has really forced the issue so far as the government is concerned.
I can recall asking a question three months ago of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) regarding DDT and its effect on foods so far as Canadians are concerned. We were assured at that time that there was no danger and nothing to worry about. Three months later we find that the government has decided to take action and ban the use of DDT in certain cases.
I think it is only fair to point out that the Prime Minister has indicated that other research is going on into other types of pesticides because there are a number of toxic pesticides that are just as dangerous as DDT. A number of reports-I have a couple on my desk-some of them over a year old, have been prepared by wildlife associations in the United States which point out that a group of very dangerous pesticides, which have been and are being used today in the United
Measures to Control Use of Pesticides States, Canada and other countries in the world, is having a bad effect on our environment. There is no doubt that in some cases the effects certainly are not as bad as those of DDT but they are traceable, and we find that practically all living organisms in every part of the world have some trace of these pesticides in them. It seems to me that Canadian research facilities to study these problems have been inadequate.
As I said, the action taken by the government now is a step forward and our group certainly welcomes it. But may I point out to the Prime Minister and the government that this is just one small phase of the pollution problem. Just a week or two ago we received a report dealing with detergents containing phosphorus. Two years is suggested as the time to be allowed before the production of detergents containing phosphorus must stop. I suggest to the government that this is another phase of pollution which must be tackled without delay. Research must go forward to ensure, when a change is made by these companies in the manufacturing of their various products, that a suitable product is substituted. There are other aspects of pollution with which I will not deal at present, such as pollution of the atmosphere which must not be allowed to continue much longer. Again in this case we have a report prepared by the United Nations dealing with the inherent dangers to mankind unless we move quickly.
I congratulate the government on this initial move, and I urge that a whole series of investigations be made to deal with the series of grave pollution problems at present threatening the very existence of mankind.


Mr. Rene  Maite@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, naturally, we cannot but be happy that the government has finally decided to do something about a problem dealing with the protection of the people of this country.
But as the previous speakers, I can only say that the government never leads the way, it is not an innovator although it is quite a good follower sometimes.
Ontario and Quebec having recently taken a stand in that matter, the federal government has finally decided to act.
But, Mr. Speaker, from the way the government is proceeding, it is obvious that it lacks the initiative so urgently needed in the country.
An important objective of my government is the protection and enhancement of man's environment and, in harmony with this objective, the protection of man, crops, and livestock from pests.

November 3, 1969
House of Commons
From that you might think that the government has always cared about that matter, whereas it is well known that it is taking action at last only under pressure from other governments, that is the provincial governments.
Needless to say, we are not blaming the federal government for taking some action, but we are blaming it for sometimes doing it only when it feels that it cannot do otherwise, when it wishes to be ahead of the others or to take credit for having taken the initiative. That is a perfect example of the way the federal government operates.
However, we congratulate it once again for having taken some action and we also express the wish that it will continue to destroy another form of DDT which is poisoning the whole population and which could be described as follows: deficit, debts, taxes.



HOURS OF SITTING, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 7

['Agreed.']
Hon. H. A. Olson (for ihe President of the Privy Council) moved:: That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 6(3), on Friday, November 7, 1969, the sitting shall be suspended at 3.00 o'clock p.m., and resumed at 5.45 o'clock p.m.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion between the government side and members of the other parties about this motion, and some of the reasons for it have been made apparent to the house leaders. But I suggest with due deference that at this time either the minister or another minister might make a statement indicating the reasons behind the motion so that all hon. members may have an opportunity to understand what is involved and, hopefully, may then feel free to express their approval or disapproval. I think it would be useful if this were done so that all the circumstances would be made known at this time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I agree there have been consultations and my understanding is that there was general agreement. But I would also agree that there should be a brief statement on the reasons, and perhaps the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray) would make it.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has indicated that the government white paper on tax

reform will be tabled in the House on Friday, November 7, at 6 p.m., and it is being proposed that for the first time there be an opportunity for all members of the House who desire it to have an advance briefing about the white paper before it is formally tabled in the House. It is therefore proposed that this briefing, which would be on a confidential basis, would take place in the Railway Committee Room and would begin at 3 p.m.
It was thought that it would be useful, because of the great interest on the part of members on both sides of the House in this matter, to give the widest opportunity to members who wish to do so to attend the briefing. The House is therefore being asked to consent to suspend its sitting on Friday, November 7, from 3 p.m. to 5.45 p.m.
If the motion is accepted it is my understanding that at 5.45 p.m. the bells would ring so that the House can then resume, basically for the purpose of having the white paper tabled by the appropriate time. It is also my understanding that once this was done there would be a motion for the adjournment of the house.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I do not think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) was quite right in saying there was unanimous consent. I indicated that the proposition which the government made was not an unreasonable one but that there were other hon. members who were involved, who were interested, and that the question of the timing might be of concern to them. It was for this reason I suggested that a statement be made now so that these other hon. members might have an opportunity, before the question is put by Your Honour, to indicate their views.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish merely to say on behalf of our party that the statement made by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray) is in accordance with the discussions that have taken place among House leaders. We accept the proposition that it might be a good idea to make available to Members of Parliament the same kind of briefing that on occasions like this is made available to members of the press. One of my colleagues suggests that on that basis we might become as well informed as the press. I do not quite know what he means by that.
But, Mr. Speaker, before hon. members accept this gracious invitation to go into the room where the briefing will take place they should be told that the doors will be locked
November 3, 1969	COMMONS
and once they get in they cannot get out for any purpose whatsoever until 5.45 p.m.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, there have in fact been consultations between the various opposition parties and the government regarding the briefing session which the government has scheduled for next Friday, November 7.
It seems that the government is preparing for a very important statement. Will such a statement be favourable or prejudicial to the Canadian people?
Be it as it may, my colleagues and myself are astonished at this procedure. We feel that the briefing session could have taken place right here in this House where all necessary services are available. However, since the Minister without Portfolio assures us that adequate equipment will be available in the Railway Committee Room, we agree to his proposal.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker,
I think the House appreciates what the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray) said. However, I am at a loss to know, and he did not explain, why this paper could not be presented on Thursday evening at eight o'clock as is done with budgets. If this were done, members of the House could be briefed from six o'clock till eight o'clock and the paper could be tabled in the House at eight o'clock.
Late on Friday afternoon a number of members of the House catch planes to go home for the weekend. This is a most inopportune time to have this briefing, and I would like the minister to explain why this could not be done on Thursday night.


Mr. Speaker:: It would be irregular to allow the minister to make a second statement at this time, but if hon. members wish to allow him to make a second statement in answer to the question asked by the hon. member, the Chair will comply with their wishes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said. He put forward perhaps more broadly what I said in my initial remarks in regard to the briefing being on a confidential basis. The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) has asked why the briefing and the tabling are to take place on Friday. Without taking time to
DEBATES	397
External Affairs and National Defence go into detail may I say it was felt, often considering all the circumstances, such as the hours of closing of markets, the attendance of all those who wished to take part in the briefing-press, provincial officials and so on-and in particular the interest of hon. members, that the most appropriate time could be only on the afternoon of Friday, November 7, with the tabling to take place at six o'clock on that day.

Finally, I wish to reiterate the assurance I have already given the members of the Credi-tiste party. All the necessary steps will be taken to have the required interpretation facilities available in the Railway Committee Room.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to hear evidence on and to consider Canada's policies with reference to defence and external affairs;
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.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that we have agreed that by unanimous consent this and another motion will be put, and I think there will be no dissent. However, at this time I would like to file a caveat. There is a good reason why these two motions and the four already passed with regard to the terms of reference of committees should be dealt with as rapidly as possible by the House. But it is desirable that the notice paper be used wherever there may be some hon. members with an interest in having discussions of certain terms of reference, and they should be given the opportunity to do so.
o (11:50 a.m.)
It may be that in future there will be other cases where it will be necessary to expedite the granting of terms of reference to a committee, and we shall certainly be prepared to discuss this at the proper level. Our view generally is that the notice paper is there to
3S8
November 3, 1969

Transport and Communications be used and, wherever possible, it should contain notice of these motions so that hon. members may have an opportunity to discuss them. I say that even though we have already agreed that these two motions may be put and that we have no objection to them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the caveat is a good one, but we also agree to this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion has been put to the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be empowered to consider the following :
1.	Representations from Mr. Peter Rohl, the Ben Ginter Construction Co. Ltd., Lucas Construction Ltd., and Krywa Bros. Construction Ltd., with respect to claims in relation to the construction of the Great Slave Lake line of railway for the Canadian National Railways;
2.	The problems of transportation in the Atlantic Provinces;
And that the evidence adduced by the committee in its study of the aforementioned matters during the first session of the twenty-eighth Parliament be referred to the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the same remarks apply to this motion as applied to the previous one. In ease the wording makes it look to some hon. members as though it is setting up a rather lengthy agenda, let me say that this is just a case of referring back to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications precisely those same matters the committee was dealing with before the end of last session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (for the Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-136, respecting the expropriation of land.


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


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: for leave to introduce Bill C-137, respecting the use of national safety marks in relation to motor vehicles and to provide for safety standards for certain motor vehicles imported into or exported from Canada or sent or conveyed from one province to another.


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


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: for leave to introduce Bill C-138, to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act.


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


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Prime Minister. Will he be able to give us the agenda of the federal-provincial constitutional conference to be held next month? Also, will he be able to confirm that the meetings will be open to the press and therefore to the public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 
Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister say whether it is the intention of the government to establish a parliamentary committee on constitutional matters during the present session?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker. I expect that the House leader will be able to make an announcement fairly soon in that regard.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask another supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the government consider arranging for consultations with the opposition parties in connection with the preparation of the terms of reference of such a committee?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will want to discuss with the opposition the orientation and terms of reference of this committee. We have views on it. We think this committee should follow the general pattern which has been followed by the provinces and the federal government in the study of these constitutional questions.



COMMUNICATIONS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Communications. In view of reports of prolonged argument over the division of ownership of Telesat, can the minister inform the House what progress, if any, has been made toward actually setting up Telesat Canada and beginning work on building the satellite?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: The work is proceeding quite satisfactorily, Mr. Speaker. I do not know what is the source of the reports to which the hon. member refers. All I can say is that work is going ahead with a view to signing contracts. After that, and not before, it would be normal to expect that there would be financial arrangements, namely, financing through the issuing of shares or debentures to the public. In the meantime the president and the provisional directors have been appointed. They have met regularly. They are undertaking negotiations, and the actual conclusion of contracts with the main suppliers is going on.


David Lewis: Can the minister inform the House who the directors are? We all know who the president is. In view of the fact it is
Inquiries of the Ministry assumed that the number of directors is related to the proportion of ownership, can the minister inform the House who the provisional directors are and how they were appointed?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, as is known, the provisional board is composed of two directors named by the telephone companies, Mr. Krupski and Mr. Archibald, the President of Maritime Telephone and Telegraph. Mr. Krupski is President of the Trans-Canada Telephone System. These were the nominees of the common carriers. Nominees of the government are Mr. Picard and Dr. John Chapman who is extremely well known to all members of the House. Members representing the public are Mr. Sothern and Mr. Golden, the president. The chairman of the board is Mr. Francois Ouimet, a former president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


David Lewis: Another supplementary, Mr. Speaker. What about Alphonse?


Eric William Kierans: I am sorry, I should have said Alphonse. Frangois is another friend of mine.


Mr. Bell:: You got all your friends on the board.


David Lewis: We can easily understand. There are always arguments between Alphonse and Frangois. I wish to ask the minister whether any decision has been made on the division of ownership? If so, what proportion has been provided to the carriers, what proportion to the government and what proportion to the public?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should tell the hon. member I had serious doubts about his first supplementary and I have even graver doubts about the second. I think the information the hon. member is seeking is of a general nature and perhaps should be given to the House by the minister in a statement on motions.


David Lewis: I think I appreciate the reason for Your Honour's ruling. May I be permitted to reword my question simply? Has the division of ownership been decided upon or is it still a matter of discussion?


Eric William Kierans: Such questions should be addressed to the president and board of directors of the corporation.

November 3, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Rene  Malie@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question to the Prime Minister.
Has the Prime Minister examined bill 63 now under consideration by the Quebec National Assembly, and if so, does he think this bill to be contrary to the official languages bill adopted here last June?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that his question, as worded, is hardly acceptable.
The hon. member is inviting the Prime Minister to express his opinion on the legality of a bill. Yet, even in the case of a federal bill, I do not believe that his question, as worded, could be acceptable.



AGRICULTURE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. There is a most extensive problem in western Canada, in Alberta and particularly in Saskatchewan where large acreages of crops will not be thrashable because they are in swath and climatic conditions prevent any action being taken. The result is that farmers are in a desperate financial position. Has the government given consideration to bringing in extraordinary legislation, if I may call it that, to meet this emergency so that some form of credit will be available for these farmers who are unable to market anything because they cannot have their wheat, oats or barley thrashed? They are in an impossible position.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister without Portfolio, responsible for the Wheat Board, have been out west investigating this problem. I ask the right hon. member to address his question to them.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? One would think when ministers are on pilgrimages the Prime Minister would be able to answer. Will the Prime Minister exercise the prestige that he has and communicate with the chartered
[Mr. Kierans.l
banks and point out to them that under all the circumstances they ought to provide credit which today is being denied?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to discuss this matter with the ministers responsible and I will decide if any action is required by me.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. In the course of his pilgrimage to western Canada did the minister have any discussions with the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Alberta or for the province of Saskatchewan with a view to joint action along the lines indicated by the right hon. member for Prince Albert? At this time I also invite the Minister of Agriculture to reply to the question I asked last Thursday with regard to advising farm mortgagors of the possibility of taking advantage of methods of securing a reduced rate of interest.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there is far more than one question contained in the speech made by the hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: You look like you have a lot to say.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have, but I like to stay within the rules, Mr. Speaker. I spent two days in Alberta discussing the problem of harvesting and what action would be useful and of assistance in this situation. I attended meetings in the hon. member's home town of Peace River as well as in Fairview, Spirit River, Grande Prairie and Edmonton. I also had a meeting with the Minister of Agriculture for Alberta, Mr. Ruste, yesterday afternoon. We are looking at a number of things we can do to be helpful in concert between the two levels of government.
With regard to the other question, Mr. Speaker, that I was asked on Thursday, I am having this checked by the Department of Justice. While it may be improper to give a legal opinion on it, I think the reply should come from the Department of Justice after an opinion has been expressed on the application.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was not asking for a legal opinion. The supplementary question I asked on Thursday was whether, under a certain assumption, the minister would consider giving notice to farm mortgagors of the rights which they hold with regard to the question of interest rates.
November 3, 1969


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am fully aware of that, but the certain assumption my hon. friend talks about is a legal interpretation of law.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister consider making representations to the banks in these areas asking them to continue to renew loans made under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, which carry a much lower rate of interest than short term loans, in view of the reports we have that banks are urging farmers to transfer overdue notes into the high interest rate range?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the question is properly directed. This act is, of course, administered by the Minister of Finance, and for good reasons. However, I will examine the content of the question and see if there is anything our department can do which will be helpful.


John George Diefenbaker: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In the course of the minister's perambulations did he form any estimate of the total acreage in Alberta and Saskatchewan that today is in swath and is an almost hopeless condition? The minister would require that knowledge before he would be in a position to discuss effective action.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is precisely the reason for going to the northern part of Alberta over the weekend and the reason for the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt going to parts of Saskatchewan.
So far as the estimates are concerned they would, of course, be only estimates, but there are some communities which are substantially worse off than others, where the amount of grain left in the fields is very high indeed, as high, in fact, as 80 or 90 per cent in some cases. I do not, however, subscribe to the pessimistic view that there can be no salvage value from many of these swaths. We have been through occasions before, last year among others, when crops which were in bad condition when harvested produced an unexpectedly high yield. I want to be helpful but I think we had better make use of our experience in the past when assessing the situation.



POST OFFICE


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to dial a question to the Postmaster General.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Can the minister advise us what efforts or investigations are under way following the reported theft on Saturday last of $250,000 from the main post office in Montreal? Specifically, have the looters been apprehended or has any of the loot been recovered?


Eric William Kierans: In response to the second part of the question the answer is no-not until the moment I entered the House, anyway. In reply to the first part of the question, the police force and the investigators belonging to the department are working very hard and in close co-operation.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Considering the fact that Canadians are concerned about the security of their mail as well as the safety of postal employees, can the minister advise whether any of his multitude of task forces are looking into the question of ensuring greater security for registered mail?


Eric William Kierans: The RCMP is making a detailed analysis of the extremely professional manner in which this particular burglary was carried out and they will undoubtedly have recommendations to make to us.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Has there been any evidence that the schedule of this well-planned robbery was advanced a week in anticipation of the white paper to be brought down by the Minister of Finance so as to make sure there would be no possibility of the take being subject to a capital gains tax?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the hon. member has to be given a busy signal in connection with that question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Since the hon. gentleman stated on September 5 that the federal minimum wage should be raised from its present level of $1.25 an hour to $1.50 an hour or perhaps to $1.75 an hour, is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation in the near future to raise the federal minimum wage to a level which would permit recipients to live above the poverty level?

November 3, 1963
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: The department is now concluding a departmental review of the minimum wage and its effect on the Canadian economy and, particularly, its effect on programs financed jointly by the provinces and the federal government. When this study has been completed it is possible that the cabinet and the Minister of Labour may consider it appropriate to introduce legislation.


George Harris Hees: As this is precisely the answer the minister gave me in reply to a question on this subject some 14 months ago, is it not obvious that the government intends to put this matter off year after year and has no intention of introducing legislation in the foreseeable future?


Mr. Speaker:: I have to rule out the supplementary question asked by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the minister care to look at Bill C-99 which is on the order paper in my name? If he likes it I would be glad if he would take it over.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, if you look long enough at the order paper you will find that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has a bill set down on every subject which has been introduced into this house over the last 25 years. It is the only opportunity he will ever have to introduce a bill.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker. Further to today's statement concerning DDT, will on analysis be made of all food imported into Canada, and will the presence of DDT in proportions higher than the indicated new tolerance result in the imposition of a ban upon this merchandise?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: If foods are brought into Canada containing DDT in proportions above our tolerance limit, their sale will not be permitted.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of

State for External Affairs having to do with the meeting which I understand took place between himself and the foreign minister of the U.S.S.R. in Ottawa earlier this year. Did the minister hold any discussions with Mr. Gromyko on our joint interest in the resources of the north Pacific Ocean and, in particular, did he discuss with the foreign minister the activities of the Soviet fishing fleet which is operating off the shores of British Columbia and Vancouver Island? If so, can he give the House a report on the nature of these talks?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. We did not discuss that subject.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In view of what I can only describe as a grave omission from the list of topics covered, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to give the House some assurance that he will take up this important matter with	the Soviet
government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Although we did not have this particular subject on the agenda of the talks with Mr. Gromyko, the Canadian government and the Soviet government are, of course, in communication constantly	through our
respective embassies. This matter has been under discussion for some time and will continue to receive our attention.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I notice that the Minister of Fisheries is present in the House. May I address a supplementary question to him. Has the Department of Fisheries any up-to-date information on the activities of this Soviet fleet? Is it, in fact, taking Pacific salmon in addition to groundfish?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: We
are keeping this particular fleet and other foreign fleets under close observation, certainly whenever they come within hundreds of miles of our shoreline.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. About a year ago we were given an interim report on the ministerial pilgrimage to Latin America. When does the minister expect to be in a position to place a final report before the House and the country making clear what benefits will accrue to Canada as a result of this extensive and expensive ministerial mission?
November 3, 1969


Mitchell William Sharp: A draft white paper is now in the course of preparation. This white paper will deal with much more than the tour which was undertaken by the five ministers, a tour which I believe laid the foundation for the closer relationship which will develop between Canada and the Latin American countries. It will deal with much more than that; otherwise it would have been published long since.


John George Diefenbaker: Did that visitation by the five ministers have its climax in the closing of those two missions in South America? Was that a consequence of the visit?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my recollection that this question was asked last week, though I do not recall an answer being given.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not know that. No answer given.



POST OFFICE


Alfred Dryden Hales: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker. Last session the hon. gentleman advised the House that he was reconsidering his policy of closing certain facilities in main post offices across Canada. Has he now reconsidered this policy, and may we expect the wickets of all main post offices to be opened on Saturdays?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I expect to make an announcement in this connection as far as the Christmas season is concerned very shortly, perhaps by the end of this week. With respect to the general question, this is a subject at present under negotiation with the unions.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: I
have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention, in addition to imposing restrictions on the use of DDT, to restrict or ban the use of fungicides which, together with DDT, have been responsible for rendering the pheasant and Hungarian population of southern Alberta unfit for human consumption?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Hungarian partridge.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You've lost the Hungarian vote.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Agriculture has the residual effect of these fungicides under constant and intense examination.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement concerning the curtailment of the use of DDT, and in view of the recent report of the Canadian Wildlife Service that unexpectedly high concentrations of DDT have been found in the carcasses of polar bears killed in remote regions of the Arctic, can the Prime Minister assure the house that there will be close liaison between the federal authorities and the territorial governments so that an acceptable ban can be placed on the use of DDT in the north?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will refer that question to the minister of northern affairs.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it the intention of the government to make representations to the United States, or have representations already been made, concerning further nuclear testing in the Aleutian Islands? If so, what is the nature of such representations?


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression that that question was asked last week. So many questions have been asked, of course, that it is a little difficult for the Chair to keep track of them all. If the question was not asked, perhaps the minister could reply at this time.


Mitchell William Sharp: Your recollection, Mr. Speaker, is correct; the question was answered.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is

November 3, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Did the minister discuss with the Canada Grains Council the policy of cutting back on the eastern feed grain freight subsidy before making his decision?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubt whether that question is in order.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that Canada became a signatory to the international convention on political refugees in September of this year, will the minister assure the House that no deportation order already made by the Immigration Appeal Board will be executed until the alien appellant has had an opportunity to explore the convention and to take whatever action is necessary in the hope of finding asylum in this country?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we intend, of course, to respect the spirit and rules of the international convention. I cannot give any assurance that the obligation imposed on the minister by the Parliament of Canada with respect to the execution of a deportation order under the act can be stayed, but every consideration will be given to the point raised by my hon. friend.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Rod Thomson (Bafileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government of Canada been approached by the government of British Honduras with regard to a request for assistance against external aggression after the official independence day of that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think I had better take that question as notice.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question

to the Minister of Labour. Are the recently concluded negotiations on the Vancouver waterfront subject to ratification?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the collective agreement is subject not only to ratification by labour but by the employers as well. I am hoping it will be ratified because I think the collective agreement is in the interest both of employers and employees. We will know by tomorrow evening whether it has been.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his statement about the changes in missions the minister mentioned generally a redeployment of personnel. Can the minister guarantee that there will be no lay-offs of those affected by the changes he has just announced?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the closing of these offices does not, of course, mean that Canadian based staff in those missions will be laid off. There is to be a redeployment of our personnel round the world. So far as locally engaged employees in those offices are concerned they, of course, will receive notice. Since the department is redeploying its resources, I cannot guarantee that there will not be some surplus staff. Indeed, I expect that there will be.



FISHERIES


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. Would the minister agree to refer to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry his proposal for a 1 to 5 per cent levy on salmon catches in regard to dogfish control, since I believe it has been the subject of a number of criticisms by the industry?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question
November 3, 1969

to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the continually rising costs in the agricultural sector and the urgency of reducing those costs, can the minister inform the House when the Barber commission on farm machinery will be in a position to make a report?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a date when we will receive or be able to distribute or table the final report of the Barber commission. However, during the last few days we have received a further report from the Barber commission dealing with price relationships between tractors and combines in various parts of the world. This report is now in the hands of the translators and printers and it will be made available as soon as it is ready.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the decision taken on the use of farm chemicals, is it now the intention of the Department of Agriculture to conduct research to find alternatives for those chemicals we have been using, such as DDT and the mercurial chemicals that have caused trouble to wildlife? What research is the department carrying on, or is it planning any research?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as asked is very broad in scope and would normally require a statement on motions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Without for a moment suggesting that the President of the United States is under any obligation to do so, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has in fact consulted the Canadian Government or, as far as the Prime Minister knows, any other government with respect to the statement on Viet Nam that the President of the United States is expected to make today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know of no consultation of this sort, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: A supplementary question. In view of the request that the President of the United States made in the United Nations when the General Assembly first opened that all countries assist in settling the problem in
Inquiries of the Ministry Viet Nam, will the government consider taking some initiative in discussing with Washington some of the steps that might be taken to that end?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there has been, and there will continue to be, consultation on these matters. On both occasions when I met President Nixon we talked about Viet Nam and the eventualities there; this was in response to the specific speech to which the hon. member has referred.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last, as reported at page 350 of Hansard, the hon. member for Calgary North asked me several questions concerning the sentencing of seven young people in Calgary on charges involving marijuana. I have looked into the matter and I find that the charges did not involve marijuana; they involved hashish, trafficking in hashish.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that when the Manitoba legislature amended the provincial Elections Act to provide for voting at age 18 it also included a provision to make it possible for persons who are so disabled they cannot get to the polls to vote by mail, I wonder whether the federal government would consider making a similar recommendation so far as the federal Elections Act is concerned?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible for amendments to the Elections Act. I think the hon. member should ask the President of the Privy Council the next time the minister is in the house.



ADDRESS DEBATE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, October 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jack
[Stage Direction]
November 3, 1969
The Address-Mr. Breau Cullen for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday when the debate was adjourned, I was dealing with the question of the coastal fishermen of my region and the problems they have to face. I was suggesting then to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) to support the associations desirous of grouping the fishermen so that they may become strong enough to participate effectively in consultations with the various governments.
The problem to be found sometimes among these people is that they do not agree about solutions and consequently, remain always in the same unfortunate situation.
I can give as an example agencies in my constituency, such as the Northern Regional Development Council, that helped the professional association of fishermen to get organized.
I hope that the minister will take note of these comments and will make sure that the necessary funds are made available to that association for the pursuit of its goals.
Mr. Speaker, I think that all hon. members agree that the real solution to poverty is to improve our education system so as to prevent our young people from prematuraly leaving school or university.
As to those who are too old to go back to school or university, it is a good thing that they take advantage of the retraining programs of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. But in spite of that, there will remain a group of people between the ages of 40 and 60 who can neither go back to school nor take part in the retraining program. What should be done with these people, for it is where the real problem of poverty lies?
I think we should resort to social development. Those people should be informed so that they will become aware of their problems. It would not solve anything to tell them: coastal fishing is bound to disappear and you will be requested to move to the city, or you will have to undergo retraining.
These people must truly become aware of their problems, and, to a certain extent, become masters of their own destiny.
I would like to mention the excellent job being done to this end by various organizations: the Professional Association of Fishermen and the Northern Regional Development

Council. I hope that they will always be able to rely on the support of the various levels of government.
In a roundabout way, Mr. Speaker, this brings me to the subject of the Company of Young Canadians, of which much has been said in this House lately. Much has also been said about it here and there in the country and a charge was recently made against it by the executive chairman of the city of Montreal. In my opinion, we should consider the aim of the Company of Young Canadians, its structure and the kind of people working within it
I was both surprised and distressed, Mr. Speaker, when I heard the charges laid by Mr. Saulnier against the Company of Young Canadians. This group was specifically set up by the federal government to help the poor and the underprivileged to organize themselves and to settle their problems in a more satisfactory way.
It seems quite possible that those people will form within society, a group and perhaps resort to violence, because they have been overlooked in the past by the various government levels. They have been rejected by the Canadian society. They are truly alienated. No decision has been taken by the government in this connection. Those people are not strong enough to assert themselves.
Yet, when other segments of our population are affected by some government decision, they can resort to lobbying and try and influence the administration.
But, what course can the poor and the underprivileged citizens take since they are never consulted? Sometimes they resort to violence.
I really regret that such a serious administration as that of Montreal should have made demagogic charges, just taking advantage of the conditions that prevailed in the city, while people were nervous after several days of violence, and blamed the Company of Young Canadians.
I agree with the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) when they say that if subversive activities are carried out within the Company of Young Canadians, the matter should be left to the Montreal city police. Why did Mr. Saulnier not ask the police to stop such disorders? If there are any subversive activities in another
November 3, 1963

organization in Montreal, will he not send the police there to inquire? No, what he wanted was to destroy the Company of Young Canadians. As for myself, I feel differently. Those who make such charges do not want social animation. They cannot accept it.
The Liberal party in New Brunswick, for instance, was threatened-and so was I because I was a member of it-by those who were doing social animation. We did not blame these organizations when they did it. They are welcome in my province. In fact, it is fine that they should help the poor to get organized and to become aware of their problems.
I would like to raise another matter, one which affects the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). Everybody was pleased to see the launching of the new industrial incentives program which, I am sure, will help our area. I would simply like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that it is possible to help the small businessmen in our area, those of the northern part of New Brunswick or those of the province of New Brunswick to organize themselves, but sometimes they lack expert advice or economic guidance. There are goods and there are markets, but the businessmen of the Atlantic provinces have always been accused of not being good salesmen.
In my opinion, the department could easily establish and finance an organization with engineers and consultants in order to help these small businessmen, incite them to launch their businesses resolutely and along sound lines. They could be given assistance in rationalizing their industries and perhaps in expanding them. They could also be helped in finding markets. This might not bring an immediate solution to the unemployment problem in our area or improve the socio-economic standard of living of these people, but at least they will be encouraged to take small risks and get their businesses off to a good start.
I feel that the department, in co-operation with the province of New Brunswick, would do well to organize or finance an agency or board of that type. The small businessmen who can prosper in our region would thus have access to experts to obtain information.

[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to congratulate the two members responsible for the
The Address-Mr. Danforth moving and seconding the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. They have my deepest admiration for the courage they have demonstrated in attempting to justify such a Speech from the Throne and persuade the House that it should be accepted. I admire the tenacity with which they struggled to put forth salient points which might have been included in such a speech. I also readily admire their native ability and eloquence in seeming to indicate that such a speech justified consideration by this House.
Normally Speeches from the Throne do not create a great deal of interest on the part of the citizens of Canada. Normally corporation lawyers and small businessmen have knowledgeable partners who pursue the substance of Speeches from the Throne in order to have some indication of the government's intentions in respect of the business and financial world and how the legislation proposed will affect directly their own businesses. But I earnestly feel the situation was just a little different this year. I believe that Canadians as a whole were very much concerned about the Speech from the Throne and were very much interested in what it might contain because over the past months the ordinary Canadian has become increasingly alarmed about the future of this country.
The ordinary Canadian has been faced with the highest cost of living in Canadian history; he has been faced with the highest interest rates in Canadian history; he has been faced with the highest tax rates in Canadian history. He is aware that we have the highest national debt in our history and is finding that the new measures chosen by the government to curb inflation tend to stagnate business and cause an ever-increasing trend toward the highest unemployment in Canadian history. So I contend that the citizens of Canada were more concerned about the Speech from the Throne this year than in any previous year.
As a country we are approaching a new decade with perhaps more basic knowledge at our command than ever before and more instruments and tools with which to work for the welfare of human beings world-wide and in Canada than ever before in the history of man. Therefore this speech was anticipated on two grounds. It was anticipated, first, because of the basic troubles facing the country and the hope that a solution might be presented and pursued in the ensuing ten years. I
November 3, 1969

The Address-Mr. Danforth think the lack of attendance by members in the House, the lack of attendance in the press gallery and the lack of attendance in the public gallery are a terrible and solemn condemnation of the failure of the Speech from the Throne to generate specific enthusiasm on the part of the people of Canada or to portray any hope for the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: Even the members of the press, those keen students of political science, in trying to wade through the chaff and pick out the kernels are finding it particularly difficult to discover in the Speech from the Throne any basic interest or principle for the Canadian public. When the press of this nation have to concentrate on two main points in the Speech from the Throne, first, that the voting age of citizens of Canada will be reduced to 18 years and, second, that perhaps the Speech from the Throne will become famous for what it did not say rather than for what it did say, this is an indication to me and my colleagues of how difficult they find it to accept this Speech from the Throne.
We who sit in opposition in parliament and the people of Canada must try to convince the government that the time has now come to deal with some of the desperate problems facing Canada today. No longer can we accept platitudes, alibis and excuses. No longer can we accept statements that discussions are under way, investigations are taking place, task forces are about to report and something will be done after consultation. During the past 18 months we have found these statements to be mere verbiage; they do not mean anything. The people of Canada are becoming well aware that this government would rather see important questions bogged down in excess verbiage than take serious steps in order to create an atmosphere in which a solution might be forthcoming.
I criticize the Prime Minister of this country, although not as an individual because I feel every member of this House is entitled to his own personal life. The Prime Minister, however, certainly represents the image of this country and in effect is the leading parliamentary figure in Canada. So his actions have a direct bearing on every phase of Canadian life. That is why I express concern today about his actions.
When this Parliament began the Prime Minister seemed intent not only on ascertaining what the problems are but on dealing

with them by direct dialogue with the people of Canada, with a frank and honest exchange of views, in order that all might participate in what he termed "the just society." I feel that this ideology, this concept of participatory politics, is to be commended. Environmental politics appeal to people of all classes. We soon learned from actions in the House, however, that what seemed to be an ideal was not to be the order of business by the government controlling Canada today. When a Prime Minister who insists on direct dialogue with the people of Canada must hold a special caucus of his own party in Ottawa because of a lack of direct dialogue with his own backbenchers this gives an indication of how he has failed to promote dialogue among the people of the country.
It would seem to me that a man intent on convincing members of this House and the people of the nation of his serious intentions should provide an image so that we could follow his example. But what do we find? We find that this man who speaks of direct dialogue has in his own office many men engaged in specialized services in the role of assistants, executive assistants, secretaries to assistants and secretaries to secretaries. The list grows longer and longer. As a matter of fact as an indication of just how cumbersome his office has become there is a division into regions and there are regional desks designated to control the welfare of areas across Canada. Does it not seem strange that the Prime Minister despite the presence of Liberal backbenchers representing Canadians feels the need to institute such an establishment in order to find out what is going on in the various constituencies rather than consulting his own members.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
I stated in my opening remarks that the Throne Speech was a golden opportunity to present to the people of Canada a challenge of what might be expected in the future and how by assessing our opportunities and using our own native skills and talents as well as the new tools of the age we could create for Canada a position of leadership among the nations by means of both our research facilities and our productivity. Instead we find that we are approaching the next decade in utter confusion. We seem to be faced with a mass of contradictions.
The Prime Minister and his associates appointed a representative to the Vatican. We
November 3, 1969	COMMONS
had representation in Rome but apparently we could not combine the two and we had to have separate representation in Rome and in the Vatican. I am not aware of any reason or necessity for this action because the matter was never discussed in Parliament. Another contradiction is found in the announcement this morning that Canada is closing down three embassies in South America, namely, in the Dominican Republic, Ecuador and Uruguay. We are opening a new embassy in Rome where we already have an ambassador and closing down three embassies in South America, an area of the world where the action is and where purchasing power lies, an area which has expressed a desire for more trade with Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: We have the contradiction of a government which opened this Parliament with a drive to create new departments, new task forces, new investigating groups, new research and regional desks, a government that added thousands of new civil servants and a few months later announced its intention of cutting 25,000 employees from the civil service by attrition and other means. This seems to me to be another contradiction which can do nothing less than throw the departments into utter confusion because no one in the civil service today knows whether his position is guaranteed or will continue, regardless of seniority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: In my own field of agriculture legislation was brought forward with the primary purpose of lending to the young farmers of this nation ample funds to consolidate and increase their holdings into so-called economic units. However, that was last session. This session the emphasis is on cutting down the subsidies to agriculture and the moneys poured into the agricultural field. The result is that these young men are faced with a curtailment of trade and production, a lack of sales and a tightening of credit. This is forcing them into a position where there is no other future but bankruptcy. They cannot survive on what was provided for them last year having regard to the economic climate provided for them this year. This is a direct contradiction in policy.
In another field we have heard over and over again Ministers of Finance stand in their
DEBATES	409
The Address-Mr. Danforth place and say that the future of Canada depends on increased productivity. As productivity increases our gross national product increases and so does our over-all economy. What do we see now? We see direct government action designed to cool off the economy of Canada-I think that was the wording used-and we see a tight money policy designed to decrease productivity and increase unemployment or bring about a slack in employment in order to create an atmosphere in which the government says that it can fight inflation. This is in direct contradiction of the policy that was in effect some months ago. As a matter of fact, what has alarmed members of the opposition in all parties is the contention on the part of government members month after month that Canadians have never had it so good, in spite of our protestations that we were in trouble with inflation and a higher cost and decreased standard of living. But all of a sudden we see in the Speech from the Throne the realization by the government that inflation is of prime concern, and these drastic steps are being taken ad hoc to counteract it.
Then we have another contradiction, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. McCutcheon), with regard to the committee system of Parliament. The lack of attendance in Parliament can be placed directly at the doorstep of the government members themselves because as the powers of the representatives in parliament are decreased, as there is taken away from Parliament the ability to criticize and hold up for inspection the government's measures, the efficiency of Parliament is decreased, not increased. This seems to be their prime objective. If they were successful in their contention and right in their intent regarding Parliament, this House would be filled with members and would resound with debate. We would have the political cross-fire for which Canadians throughout the ages have been noted. Under those conditions Parliament produced good legislation for Canada, but under the present system we find that all we are dealing with are housekeeping measures and clean-up legislation and we are studiously avoiding any discussion or debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being one o'clock this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
November 3, 1969

The Address-Mr. Danjorth AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, at the time of adjournment I was dealing with some of the inadequacies of the Throne Speech, and with the sorry state in which we find parliament today. Parliament certainly has not the image that it should have in Canada and among the nations. It no longer has the prestige that it should have in Canada and among the nations. And certainly, it no longer has the influence that it should have in Canada and among the nations. The whole responsibility for this deterioration can be laid solely at the feet of the present government.
When a parliamentary career is begun by requesting at least half of the ministers not to attend in the House on particular days, thus making it impossible for them to answer questions from opposition members on the workings of their departments, it is not conducive to the fulfilment of the full-time parliamentary obligations of all hon. members. Ministers not only have the opportunity to be the heads of departments but share the obligations of other hon. members to be full-time representatives of those people who chose to send them to Ottawa to look after their interests. I am sure the leader of my party would be in dire difficulty if at any time he even insinuated that a member of this party should not attend every sitting of the House.
It does not do parliament any good when policy statements are not presented on motions, but are made in the halls of parliament to television and press representatives, with no opportunity accorded to members of the House to criticize and point out the weaknesses in announced policies. This happens time and time again. We now find that newspapers, by means of so-called leaks, are able to obtain indications of government policy sometimes days in advance of that policy being announced in this House. This does not do the prestige, influence and image of parliament one bit of good.
The Speech from the Throne afforded an opportunity to demonstrate Canada's intentions in many areas. At one time Canadians were world leaders in many fields. No one can forget the effect that the discovery of insulin had in helping the diabetics of the world. No one can forget the pioneering work done by Canadians with uranium, particularly the first reactors that were constructed in Canada. These were outstanding events. No one can forget the tremendous work done in [The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
Canada in the fields of plant breeding, animal genetics and in the use of chemicals. No one can forget the work done in Canada to perfect machinery for production. No one can forget the high productivity levels reached through the efforts of Canadian management, unions and other labour groups.
Now, we are no longer leaders. Under this administration it seems that we only follow. We did not do anything about tobacco and its alleged evil effects until other countries had demonstrated the ills that could flow from the use of tobacco. We did not become aware of the danger of cyclamates in foods until another country discovered it. What are we doing to investigate saccharine? Look at our delay in taking steps to meet the DDT problem. We should be giving leadership in these areas instead of following others. We know what the problems are, yet nothing is done about them.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The people of Canada had every right to believe that in the Throne Speech the government would enunciate a solid, comprehensive program to deal with the problems facing the nation today, problems of pullution, problems of inflation, problems of poverty, problems of housing, and the serious and ever-growing problem of drug addiction among young people in Canada. It is my considered opinion that members of the opposition and the people of Canada generally will not be satisfied with verbiage, platitudes, white papers, investigations and other time consuming and delaying actions on the part of this government. The people of Canada demand, and have the right to demand, that their parliament act. Members of the opposition are just as determined to see that this shall happen. Nowhere does the Speech from the Throne say exactly what the government intends to do. As a result of our questioning and our prodding, we must force this government to take that action on behalf of the people of Canada that we feel is necessary and justified in order that Canada may once again take her rightful place among the community of nations.
An examination of legislation proposed during the previous session reveals that that legislation seemed to be social legislation only. It dealt with the climate of ever increasing permissiveness in society. In the ten years ahead of us, we have the opportunity to make a name for Canada. Why should Canadians not deal directly with problems facing
November 3, 19G9

Canada and the world. I am, of course, referring to those problems I have outlined. Why can we not do that instead of dealing with nebulous bills and legislation designed, it seems, to degrade and break down the essentials of human dignity or, in the alternative, to eradicate in this House and throughout Canada the defenseless symbols of English influence. Certainly, the time has come when we must act on behalf of the people of Canada. That the government has such intention is not evident in the Speech from the Throne.
The mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne have my warmest admiration and my greatest sympathy. Having read how little the legislation outlined in the Speech from the Throne will deal with matters that are of vital importance to Canadians today, I request hon. members present, one and all, to reject this Speech from the Throne.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, hon. members on both sides of the House have been unanimous in praising the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I, too, would like to congratulate our two new members of parliament for the way in which they have enlivened our proceedings at the beginning of this debate. They both saw a great deal of merit in the government's program for the coming session, and for this I commend them heartily.
This year's Speech from the Throne is notable for several reasons. It is wide-ranging in the sense that it provides us with a backdrop against which to assess the government's priorities. It is also informative in that it defines important issues and mentions major pieces of legislation. One of the foremost issues which it defines is pollution. Another is the extension of Canada's jurisdiction seaward from our shores. Both these subjects, of course, are vital to our fisheries.
In my remarks today I want to take you a bit farther. I want to talk about fisheries and about Canada's own fishing limits. I want to say a word about the effect of pollution on our marine life and I want to draw your attention to the damage which large foreign fishing fleets are doing to our nearby fishing grounds in the North Atlantic and in the Pacific as well. Man is learning to manage his affairs in many fields of endeavour. But in respect of fishing we have a long, long way to go.
The Address-Mr. Davis
True, we are beginning to manage our living resources in an intelligent manner. We are assessing fish populations and estimating maximum sustainable yields. We are trimming our fishing fleets down to size and increasing the income of the average Canadian fisherman. But all of this is of no avail if industrial wastes on the one hand, and foreign fishing fleets on the other, are paying scant regard to sound conservation practice. This is why we have a number of pieces of new legislation, new fisheries legislation, to deal with during the coming session. This is why we will have more legislation next year and the year after that, legislation which will not only increase the value of our commercial and sports fisheries but also help to protect the living resources of the northern hemisphere as well.
Several hon. members opposite have been talking as if we didn't have anything to offer in the fisheries field. Obviously, they have not read the Speech from the Throne carefully; that or only the first few pages. Rarely, if ever, has a government program contained so many references to this vital sector of our economy. Rarely has a government had so many fisheries bills to introduce.
Perhaps I should list the main ones now. They are, first, the Fisheries Act, which is to be amended; second, the Salt Fish Development Act, which is new legislation; third, the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, which is to be amended and, fourth, the Territorial Seas and Fishing Zones Act, which is to be amended. I could add to this list the Canada Water Act, because that is a new act which will deal with pollution from coast to coast, and the proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The question of unemployment insurance is of great interest to our fishermen as hon. members know.
Anyone interested in Canada's fisheries can have a field day on any one of these pieces of legislation. However we are looking for action and above all we are looking for suggestions. No good suggestion from whatever source will be ignored. We want to do the best we can for our own fishermen and the thoughts of any hon. member or any hon. member's ideas for action will be considered seriously I can assure you.
The government is proposing to do things, a good many things. It is proposing to re-organize our fisheries on both coasts, in the Arctic and in our inland waters. By legislating on pollution we will be protecting the resource itself. And by defining our fishing limits we

November 3, 1969
The Address-Mr. Davis will be improving our competitive position internationally as well.
After listening to some members opposite talking about the good old days I became curious. I checked up on what happened when the Conservative Party was in power. What did the Speeches from the Throne say between 1957 and 1962 when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) introduced seven Speeches from the Throne. Four Speeches from the Throne out of the seven didn't mention fisheries at all. Two others merely said that provisions in old bills passed by the preceding Liberal administration would be continued for a few more years. Only one had a whole paragraph on the fisheries. It was the first of the seven and it was followed by no legislation whatsoever.
And what by contrast do I find in the Speech from the Throne today? I find all sorts of references about the fisheries, about pollution, and about the protection of our resources offshore. I see references to fish life in the Arctic, references to international agreements and referencs to new fish marketing arrangements. What more can hon. members ask than that?
Fishing in other words is being upgraded by the present government. It is being looked at for what it is, part of our total ecology. We see it as one renewable resource among many, a resource along with wildlife, trees and water itself; a renewable resource the protection of which is essential to the future health and prosperity of mankind. In the present Speech from the Throne, the speech before you outlining the government's program for 1969-1970 I read this:
The competitive position of Canada's fisheries must also be strengthened ... by extending Canada's exclusive fishing zones.
This by itself is an important announcement. It emphasizes the government's intention to finish the job of defining Canada's exclusive fishing zones. To this end you will be asked to amend Canada's Territorial Seas and Fishing Zones Act. You will be asked to include a clause defining a new concept-that of "fisheries closing lines". We will be asking this House in other words for authority to complete the fisheries map of Canada, the map showing where Canadians alone can fish and where we alone can say exactly what happens to our marine biota as a living resource.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Those of you who are familiar with fisheries matters know that we have a 12-mile

limit. We have had a 12-mile exclusive fishing zone ever since 1964. Before that it was three miles the same as our present territorial sea. The first three miles out, in other words, are part of the territory of Canada. The next nine miles are part of our exclusive fishing zone. That was the rule, and that zone followed the ins and outs of our coasts until we drew "baselines", and the idea of "baselines", or lines from headland to headland, was also contained in the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act of 1964.
The government began to draw its first baselines in 1967. It drew them from headland to headland down the east coast of Labrador and around the eastern and southern coasts of Newfoundland. This spring it drew other baselines down the east coast of Nova Scotia and up off the west coasts of Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlottes. As a result, we have closed numerous bays and inlets to foreign fishermen. Not only that, but we have a 12-mile limit extending seaward from the headland to headland lines, or baselines, which we have already published on our fisheries maps for all to see.
There are still a number of important gaps in our 12-mile fisheries lines. These gaps can easily be spotted on our maps. They include the Strait of Belle Isle and Cabot Strait in the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. They include the Bay of Fundy, also on the east coast, the Queen Charlotte Sound and Hecate Strait on the west coast.
Generally speaking, these are wider waters, longer distances, bigger gaps, than those which we have spanned with our baselines. There is, for instance, a 56 mile gap across the Cabot Strait between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and a 94 mile gap across Queen Charlotte Sound off British Columbia. Here is where the concept of fisheries closing lines applies. Here is where we, again, must distinguish between Canadian territorial waters on the one hand and Canadian exclusive fishing zones on the other.
I say "distinguish" because Canada took the lead among the nations of the world in separating the fishing concept from the territorial waters concept, separating the fishing zone idea from the territorial waters idea, more than a decade ago. We said that our fishing limits should extend 12 miles out to sea, while our territorial waters remained at three miles. At first there was considerable opposition, internationally, to this idea, but the Canadian view prevailed in the long run. Now, many
November 3, 1969	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Davis countries, including the United States, have a three mile territorial limit and a 12-mile fishing limit.
Now, we are pushing for a series of "fisheries closing lines". We are pushing for "closing lines" which will apply to fishing and fishing alone. We want to be able, for instance, to regulate and conserve our fisheries in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. We want to do this under Canadian law. Having drawn a fisheries closing line across the Strait of Belle Isle and the Cabot Strait, we will be able to keep foreign fishermen out. Not only that, but we will and can apply the anti-pollution provisions of our Fisheries Act, which will be improved by amendments this session. When the fisheries closing lines are drawn the Fisheries Act will apply to the whole Gulf of St. Lawrence. We will be able to protect the marine, animal and vegetable life in the Gulf and do this without let or hindrance from others.
To repeat, the concept of a "fisheries closing line" is new to the field of international law. It is new, as our 12 mile concept was a decade or so ago. It is a line related to fisheries only; to the ecology of the area. It is a line defining what is, and what is not, the exclusive fishing zone of Canada. Inside the line we can regulate and protect marine life.
Outside of it, on the other hand, our fishermen are still in a sort of no man's land, a land where few rules apply and where overfishing on the part of many nations threatens to upset the ecological balance over great areas of our continental shelf. This will not be true within our exclusive fishing zones where we will have full control over pollution, fishing and the like.
Within these new and well-defined exclusive fishing zones of Canada we will be able to do a number of things. We will be able to protect the resource using an amended Fisheries Act. We will be able to deal with pollution, more effectively, from land based plants, from ships and from oil drilling rigs. We will also be able to tailor our fishing capacity so as to fit the resource. We will be able to conserve and to operate on the basis of a sustained yield. We will be able to exploit our marine biota, animal and vegetable, to the maximum while, at the same time, keeping an eye on the long term future. We, in other words, will be able to manage and conserve the resources within our exclusive fishing zones, zones which, thanks to baselines, the "fishing closing line" concept and the 12-mile limit will be continuous around our coasts.

So far, I have said little about the north. But the same laws and the same concepts should apply in Canada's Arctic. One might visualize, in the fullness of time, a sequence of fisheries lines forming a complete umbrella over Canada's great Arctic archipelago. They would stretch from our northernmost island down to Alaska in the west, and down to Labrador in the east. They would create a great and varied Canadian exclusive fishing zone in the north, and the pollution control provisions of our Fisheries Act would apply there as well. They would apply as much to the plankton as to the walrus and the polar bear. They would apply as much to the seal, the Arctic char and the northern cod, as to the various forms of vegetable life which grow, more slowly, it is true, in the great seas, straits and inlets, Canadian seas, straits and inlets, in this great Canadian northland of ours.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I am making myself clear in one important respect at least. I am not talking about territorial waters. I am not talking about navigation. I am talking, essentially, about the protection and management of our living environment. I am talking about the intelligent management of our living resource of the sea. I am talking about animal life, vegetable life and Canadian laws in exclusive Canadian fishing zones.
This life we must protect at all costs. We must protect it while, at the same time, allowing other people to come and go without undue hindrance or loss. I am not talking about territorial waters so much as exclusive fishing zones. I am not talking about transportation in the wider sense of the word. I am talking about conservation and the intelligent harvesting of living resources. I am not talking about hindering mobility. I am talking about a healthier ecology. We always want to maximize our mobility-and that of other people. We must at the same time protect the living environment, the ecology of all of Canada and its adjoining seas.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like hon. members to look even farther afield; to look out even farther from our shores; to look even farther into the future to see what it holds for our fishermen and ourselves. I want them to look out to the limits of our continental shelf and beyond. I want them to think, not only in terms of straight baselines and exclusive fishing zones, but also of the natural habitat of much of our fish life. I want them to recognize the fact that fish, being highly mobile animals, are no respecters of manmade boundaries. They will continue to swim
414	COMMONS DEBATES	November 3, 19G9
The Address-Mr. Davis	doubled over the past decade. Massive foreign
back and forth across Canada's man-made fishing lines. It follows that, in order to manage our fishery resources intelligently, we will often have to look out to the edge of the continental shelf itself, out to the limits of our Grand Banks in the east and the edge of the great deeps in the west. We will have to look at the living quarters of each of our major fish species, the geography, and the whole of their habitat. We will have, in other words, to concern ourselves about the state of the living resource, the living marine resource, the whole area of the seas adjacent to our shores, the seas beyond our exclusive fishing zones.
We have every right to do so, Mr. Speaker. That right is enshrined in the articles adopted by the international conference on the law of the sea back in 1958. Article I reads:
All states have the right for their nationals to engage in fishing on the high seas, subject ... to the interests and rights of coastal states . . . and to articles concerning conservation of the living resources of the high seas.
Article VI goes even further. It states that:
A coastal state has a special interest in the maintenance of the productivity of the living resources in any area of the high seas adjacent to its territorial sea.
Article VII takes us a step further. It goes so far as to say that:
Any coastal state may, with a view to the maintenance of the productivity of the living resources of the sea, adopt unilateral measures of conservation appropriate to any stock of fish or other marine resources in any area of the high seas adjacent to its territorial sea, provided that negotiations to that effect with the other states concerned have not led to an agreement within six months.
This all sounds clear enough. But what has really happened in the North Atlantic? What is happening today in the North Pacific? Gigantic, foreign fleets are moving in. The total fishing effort is going up. Fish stocks, many of which are already threatened, are going down. Productivity is dropping off. Some species are already over-fished, and the fate of our inshore fishermen, our Canadian inshore fishermen, is in the balance. Already the scales are tipped heavily against these Canadian fishermen. There is little they alone can do to restore runs of fish along our shores or raise their income from fishing, no matter how hard they try.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
What, really, has happened in the North Atlantic for instance? The total fishing effort, the international fishing effort, has more than

fleets have moved in and, while the total catch has gone up, the catch per unit of effort has gone down. The big, foreign state-owned fleets are not as productive as our own Canadian fishermen, but they catch a lot of fish.
A recent report of the Atlantic Development Board tells us that the productivity of Canadian vessels is much higher than that of the big Russian ships operating in the North Atlantic. Their catch per hour was only about 60 per cent of the Newfoundland catch per hour in 1960 and today it is only about 40 per cent of the catch taken per hour by our Newfoundland fishermen. In other words, these big foreigners do not catch as many pounds of fish per man day at sea as our vessels do. Their top officials are frank to admit that the economics of their long-range fishing effort are suspect by western standards. The fact is that they continue to throw these massive fleets at us, fleets of 50 or more vessels each in which the length of the average vessel ranges upwards of 200 feet.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Can the minister indicate the volume ratio as between foreign and domestic vessels as far as catches are concerned?


John (Jack) Davis: On the east coast-I am talking about the North Atlantic-the Canadian fishing fleet now takes about one third of the total groundfish catch whereas we took about one half ten years ago. This gives an idea of the relative fishing effort.
During the past summer I flew over a Russian fleet just outside the 12-mile limit off the west coast of Vancouver Island. It consisted of 40 giant trawlers, every one of which was bigger than a B.C. ferry. At night the fleet looked like a city, all lit up in the distance. It was indeed a small city, in that it was manned by at least 5,000 Russians. And it stayed there, close by our Canadian fishing limits, for many days. Dragging gigantic nets backward and forward over a few square miles off our coast it cleaned off one of our most productive fishing grounds. It can clean it off, not just for months, but for many years to come. And, mark you, there are many such fleets working their way up and down our coasts. They are cutting into our marine resources in a truly massive way. They are hitting our fishing industry hard, and they are hitting our resources hard. They are hitting them so hard that many of them may never recover.
November 3, 1969

Important species have been knocked back to the point where they are of little commercial interest to Canadians. Haddock from the east coast is a case in point. Ocean perch over the shelf areas of the North Pacific may soon be another. This is exploitation with a vengeance, and it has to stop.
I might elaborate. Whereas the maximum haddock catch in 1965 was of the order of 250,000 metric tons in the North Atlantic it is now approximately 100,000 metric tons a year at the maximum. On the west coast, the result of a day's catching effort in terms of groundfish is now 40 per cent of what it was five years ago. In both cases, big foreign fleets have been very active and the reduction in yield indicates what the effect on the resources has been.
Here is what a recent British report had to say about the situation in the North Atlantic:
There is no doubt that the general decline In stock abundance is, in the main, due to fishing pressures. Although the international catch, in total, is as high as ever, the catch per unit of effort has fallen substantially, with the effect that some fishing units are no longer economic.
The report states further:
In some stocks the level of production could actually be improved by reducing the amount of fishing, so that, for the purpose of obtaining the maximum amount of protein for the minimum amount of fishing effort, there is much to be said for some control of the amount of fishing.
Our own Canadian studies, meanwhile, show that the tonnage of fish caught per hour has continued to drop. It has dropped sharply over the past decade. The Russian effort, although it is only roughly half as productive as our own per man day, has increased nearly fivefold. And, according to the Atlantic Development Board, "the fact that the Canadian fleet is more than twice as efficient as their own obviously has no bearing on the Russian decision to fish. What is more significant is that the increased effort by other nations has led to a decline in Canadian return per unit of effort."
In groundfish, our share has dropped from roughly half of the total ten years ago to about a third at the present time. Our inshore fishermen, meanwhile, are catching fewer fish. Productivity, in terms of pounds per man day, has been cut roughly in half. This, really, expresses the fate of many of our inshore fishermen, particularly of those who live in Newfoundland. They are catching half as many fish now as they did in the 'fifties. It is true prices have risen but they have not risen sufficiently to offset increases in their
21362-21 i
The Address-Mr. Davis costs. In other words, their real income has tended to decline over the past decade in marked contrast to the rise in living standards of most Canadians.
This drop in productivity, like the failure of our Labrador fishery this year, can be attributed largely to an excessive offshore effort, an excessive offshore effort not only by big Canadian trawlers, but by a much larger and more rapidly growing fleet of state-owned vessels operated under the flags of the U.S.S.R., Poland and East Germany.
In this connection, I should like to quote another study which we commissioned and whose results we have now received. It states:
Concern has been growing, particularly in the last decade, over the very large quantities of groundfish taken from the sea in the ICNAF area.
"ICNAF" stands for International Convention for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. The report continues:
Biologists collecting and analyzing the data are warning the countries fishing in the area that the resource is fast reaching maximum sustainable yield. The warning is particularly strong for haddock and cod where maximum sustainable yields have been reached and in fact surpassed in some of the ICNAF sub-areas.
Indications are that haddock stocks are in a very poor state particularly in the southwestern portion of the Convention area. Though the cod catch could be expanded slightly in some sub-areas, the maximum sustainable yield seems to have been surpassed in 1968. All indications are that efforts by ICNAF member countries will continue to grow and that the area will be seriously overfished within a very few years.
These are the facts. All the world has the facts, really. The living resource out over our continental shelf areas is under heavy pressure. Some species are over-exploited already, yet foreign countries are stepping up their fishing pressure. As far as they are concerned there are no rules in this game. Certainly, there are no rules yet; it is a matter of first come, first served, and heaven help the hindmost.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Unfortunately the hindmost in this case is our own Canadian fishermen. They are being out-fished, not because they are less efficient, but because foreign governments are prepared to build massive fleets and run them like military operations. Our individual enterprisers, our rugged inshore fishermen, our small long-line operators and trawler operators-our God fearing, self-respecting fishermen-are no match for these gigantic adversaries. They are crushing us by the sheer weight of their tonnage and their gear, and

November 3, 1969
The Address-Mr. Davis our commercial fishing activity is being compressed into the smaller and less productive areas of the continental shelf. Our inshore fishermen are being hurt. Indeed, all Canadian fishermen are being hurt.
There has been a great deal of talk recently about the loss of marine life due to the sinking of the big oil tanker the Torrey Canyon off the south coast of England. Although this was a terrible thing, the damage to the marine ecology of that area brought about by the sinking of the Torrey Canyon was small compared to the havoc being wrought persistently year after year by some of the world's big, long distance fishing fleets. In a year they kill hundreds of times as many fish and other marine organisms as did the Torrey Canyon. They kill them every bit as effectively as hundreds of thousands of tons of oil did in that case. Equally important, they clean off the grounds in so far as future generations of fish and fishermen are concerned.
Fortunately the oil from the Torrey Canyon is disappearing. It is gradually evaporating or being oxidized in the sea itself. The same cannot be said of these giant fishing fleets which are growing in size and are taking more fish than ever before; and they are taking this fish without regard to sound conservation practice.
Worst of all for Canadians, these fleets are doing this just outside our own exclusive fishing zones and out over our own continental shelf. They are doing this to stocks of fish on which we have depended for centuries and on which we have every right to depend in the future.
We must bring this situation under control. We must press for the effective management of marine resources to the limit of our own continental shelf and beyond. This we must do at the next Law of the Sea Conference, and we must do it not only in the interests of our own inshore fisherman but in the interests of all mankind.
Hon. members will also have seen references in the Speech from the Throne to the need to provide good paying jobs to Canadians in those parts of the country which have been less fortunate than others.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order. I regret to interrupt the minister but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
Minister of Fisheries.


John (Jack) Davis: From an income point of view, many of our fishing communities are on the bottom rung of the ladder. They need government help. They need help from their industry. More than anything else, our fishermen need useful occupations, jobs in the fishing industry that will pay well and offer a measure of security over the long run.
Fishermen in our inland waters have gained a greater measure of security and are receiving higher incomes as a result of our new Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, the legislation setting up which, hon. members will recall, was passed last spring. We plan during the coming session to set up a Salt Fish Development Agency with the same objectives in mind. Meanwhile, our new Department of Regional Economic Expansion is doing its utmost to round out our local fishing economies with a view to removing many of the financial inequalities of the past.
But what good will all these measures do if the resource itself is undermined? What good will all this legislation do if pollution is allowed to destroy our marine life, or if foreign fishing fleets continue to make it harder to catch fish? Obviously, we must deal with this much bigger problem of conservation and good management, and deal with it not only on a national scale but on a global scale as well.
We must take our case, if necessary, to the United Nations. Certainly, we must take it to the next Law of the Sea Conference, which hopefully will be in 1971. We must do our utmost to bring order out of chaos. The question is no longer that of unlimited freedom to fish; rather it is that of conservation in the best sense of the word, of protecting the resource from serious depletion and of putting all our fisheries, Canadian and international, on a sustained yield basis.
We must protect ourselves wherever necessary. Certainly, we must protect our fishermen and their families. But always there is the need for co-operation. As citizens of an affluent nation, we do not want to keep all of our material wealth to ourselves. We want to manage it well, but we are also prepared to share it with others. This is a note that I would like to strike with regard to the harvesting of our fishery resource both in Canada and out over our continental shelf. It is an approach which, I am sure, will command itself to developing nations everywhere.
November 3, 1969

As the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons the other day, as reported at page 39 of Hansard:
Part of the heritage of this country, a part that is of increasing importance and value to us, is the purity of our water, the freshness of our air, and the extent of our living resources. For ourselves and for the world we must jealously guard these benefits. To do so is not chauvinism, it is an act of sanity in an increasingly irresponsible world.
With this statement I agree. I agree with it not only in respect of our inland waters and Canada's exclusive fishing zones, but in respect of the continental shelf areas as well. I believe we should do our utmost to conserve these marine resources, to protect them and to harvest them with due regard not only for our fishermen today but for our future fishermen.
We do not ask that we have the exclusive right to fish anywhere. We do not ask for the exclusive right even to fish in our own continental shelf areas. But what we do ask is that others respect the same laws of nature and the same laws of economics as we; that they conduct themselves on the high seas in a manner that is consistent with the interests of all mankind.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, before the Minister of Fisheries takes his seat would he permit a question?


John (Jack) Davis: Certainly.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I listened with interest to the minister's remarks about conservation, especially that part where he said that we have had a 12-mile exclusive fishing zone ever since 1964. In view of this statement would the minister indicate when we may expect the phasing out of the enormous fishing activity that is being carried on by the fishing fleets of Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, United Kingdom, United States, Norway and Denmark from that area which lies between our 12-mile zone and our 3-mile territorial sea?
My question is this. When may we expect the fishing activity of these enormous fleets to be phased out?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this phasing out can begin immediately after we have defined our own exclusive fishing zones. Until we have drawn all the lines, we cannot tell these countries what areas we are concerned about and the areas out of which we wish them to move. In other words, we must identify them on the map. This will require the passage of legislation which we will be proposing during this session. Once we have established these
The Address-Mr. Peddle fisheries closing lines, the negotiation and phasing out process can begin.


Thomas Henry Goode: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Fisheries a question. Do the U.S.S.R., East Germany, Poland and Japan attend the Law of the Sea Conference, and do they abide by the rulings of the conference?


John (Jack) Davis: They all attend these conferences. There have been two conferences, one in 1957 and the other in 1958. Not all countries have ratified the convention that was adopted at the conferences. I am not certain which of these countries have ratified all of the articles of the convention and which have not.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a question. He made lengthy reference to the need for conservation and indicated the extent of the tragedy created by foreign fishing in waters off our coasts. In this regard, he referred to the need for a conference and said one would be taking place in 1971-presuming there are any fish left at that time. I am wondering whether he can indicate what steps we are taking as a nation to initiate this conference on the law of the sea at an early date?
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


John (Jack) Davis: We are hoping there will be a conference in 1971. We are holding a number of discussions both within the government and with other countries in this connection. I gather the main concern at the moment is which group of countries will have the right to advance the first draft and therefore initiate the first discussion. There is a certain amount of jockeying going on in that connection.


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Thank you, Mr. Speakgoing to have another 40 minute question period.


Mark Willson Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I stood up two or three times in an attempt to be recognized in order to ask a question of the minister before he sat down. Since no one from this group has been recognized, I wonder whether I might be permitted to ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, this is the second or third time during this session of parliament we have heard a government reference to
418	COMMONS DEBATES	November 3, 1969
The Address-Mr. Peddle
pollution control in the Arctic and other Canadian waters. Does the government plan more stringent enforcement provisions in the Arctic and other Canadian waters than are presently in effect? My understanding of our discussions during the last session was that we only enforce provisions in respect of matters such as oil tankers up to the value of the tankers plus the cargoes. When the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act went through the Senate, the unlimited liability provisions to protect the public were withdrawn because the vessels could not get insurance. Does the government plan more stringent measures than we have at the moment?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the answer is very definitely yes. However, there are a number of fronts on which we can attack pollution, and the Fisheries Act is one. Obviously, it deals with protection of life in the water, but there is pollution of air, which would have to come under other legislation. There is legislation dealing with the construction of vessels which might sail through our territorial waters. This would have to come about largely as a result of international agreement in respect of transport. There are a number of fronts on which we would have to attack this problem.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. In view of the contribution just made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose), he should not be permitted to participate further in the debate.
This is the Throne Speech debate, so called. I listened to the Speech from the Throne and read it over a number of times. To me, it is an impossible item for debate. It does not invite debate, it defies it. I am not saying there is nothing in it or that it does not contain vague suggestions. What I am saying is that it is a catalogue, and I do not think we could debate it any more than we could debate the Ottawa telephone directory or the list of new books available at the Parliamentary Library.
I am sincere in saying that because appended to the Throne Speech is a list of almost six dozen pieces of legislation. There is no doubt that some good, solid legislation is contained in this list, but certainly no one can say that list provides us with anything that is debatable at this point. We are going to deal with the Small Business Loans Act amendment. We do not know if these loans are going to be increased, cut out, or what will happen. The 
list also indicates we will deal with an investment companies bill and the Expo winding-up bill. Apparently we will also deal with a young offenders bill. We have no details of these measures and do not know what is intended. In order to debate the Throne Speech as such, we will have to wait until some of these pieces of legislation are presented. However, this debate does give hon. members an opportunity to range rather widely in respect of a variety of subjects.
The first comment I should like to make is that the period set aside for the Throne Speech debate this year is just another example of the phasing out of Parliament. There is a pattern being set. A few days before the Throne Speech we heard a statement from the Prime Minister concerning how much he believed in, appreciated and respected this institution of Parliament. When we heard that we knew there was something coming.
The next thing we heard was that, for the first time in history, the hour for the delivery of the Throne Speech had been changed from three o'clock in the afternoon to ten o'clock in the morning. If that is not part of the downgrading process or phasing out of Parliament, then I do not know what I am talking about. When the Speech from the Throne is delivered at that time the function of Parliament is not the same since the speech does not receive the same attention as one delivered at the traditional hour of three o'clock in the afternoon. The next Speech from the Throne, which will probably be the last one, will likely be delivered at 7 a.m. or earlier.
The making of a president is taking place, and the president is not being made by anyone other than the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). This should be very obvious to all hon. members. I do not know whether that is good or bad as I have not thought much about it, but I think hon. members should be told what is taking place. That should be the obvious thing to do. Parliament should have some say as to its future. It should not be left to one man, or three men at the most, to phaseout what this country has cherished for so long.
I did not hear the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) when he moved the Address in Reply. He is the hon. gentleman who is so concerned about newspapers in Parliament and a full attendance. I did not hear his colleague, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau), who seconded the motion. He is the hon. gentleman who has blueberries of such proportions it only takes one to make a pie. I was in my riding on urgent business, but I
November 3, 1969	COMMONS
wish I had heard them. I want, as a matter of course, to congratulate these gentlemen for their contributions.
Having listened to the contribution by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) today, let me make one thing clear. I have not been out after the hide of the minister. In fact, this is the first time I have ever risen in this chamber to criticize him in any way. On the contrary, I went on record some time last year giving him a pat on the back because I thought he was trying to do a half decent job on behalf of the fisheries of Canada. Since the latest schmozzle regarding seal hunting in Canada, I can no longer hold my peace. I feel it is my duty to comment on the minister's handling or, should I say, mishandling of this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Last year about this time we were deluged with little cards reading "Stop the slaughter of baby seals-whitecoats". This year the cards read "Stop the slaughter of harp seals". Next year, the message will relate to hood seals, and then seals, period. First, I should like to make clear that I am in no way insensitive to cruelty to animals or human beings. Anyone who knows me will know it to be a fact, although kind of ridiculous, that if a horse fly, bumble bee or some other insect gets in my house in the summer I will get a bottle, a match box or something, catch that insect and release it outdoors. But I do not believe I would do that if I were depending on bumble bee skins, or something that had to do with these insects, for my living.
I have here a sheaf of correspondence which the minister graciously supplied to me some time during the last session. At the very beginning of this sheaf of correspondence there is a letter from the minister. I will read it into the record. It is not confidential. It reads as follows:
My dear Colleague:
Since the Committee has adopted a Motion to consider various aspects of the seal hunt I thought I should send you copies of recent statements which I have made on this subject as well as the reports submitted by a number of eminent veterinarians and members of Humane Societies who have observed the sealing operations in the Gulf of St. Lawrence over the past two years.
This information may be useful to you in preparing for your Committee meetings to consider this subject.
This letter is dated April 2, 1969.
DEBATES	419
The Address-Mr. Peddle
I was not active on the fisheries committee at that time. I deliberately stayed out of the seal debate because I gave the Minister of Fisheries credit for having enough common sense not to capitulate to the arguments of a bunch of impractical old ladies over in Europe who, in the evening when they finish their curried lamb, suckling pig or calves liver wrapped up in bacon, dress up in their kid gloves, put on a mink stole and kid shoes and go out to save the seals. When the minister supplied me with this sheaf of correspondence-and he did so without solicitation-it was obvious he supported the contentions and conclusions of the eminent veterinarians to whom he referred them.


Mr. McGrath:: That was before the old ladies got to him.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: My colleague says that was before the old ladies got to him. I don't know. For the record I should like to list the people who went out to check the 1967 seal hunt: Mr. T. I. Hughes, General Manager, Ontario Humane Society, Toronto, Ontario; Dr. Forbes MacLeod, Managing Director, Saint John Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Saint John, N.B.; Dr. Douglas H. Pim-lott, Department of Zoology University of Toronto, and a Director of the Canadian Audubon Society, Toronto, Ontario; Mr. James St. Onge, Director of Animal Welfare, Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Montreal, P.Q., and Mr. John Walsh, Assistant Director, International Society for the Protection of Animals, Boston, Massachusetts. I have here the reports of these eminent veterinarians, but I also have a resume of these reports. The following is a quotation from Mr. Hughes' final summary in his report:
In my opinion the regulations require further amendments which would close the loopholes and clarify the intent of the present regulations. Equally there is no doubt that the killing of whitecoat harp seals in Area 2 of the Gulf of St. Lawrence by Canadians is now as humane as the average slaughter house operation, in most provinces of Canada-
Note this!
-and more humane than many slaughter house operations particularly in those provinces where there is no Provincial Humane Slaughter Laws, such as Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec. In fact this might not be entirely coincidental. I am confident that a force of specially trained, physically fit Fishery Officers, with improved equipment and with further experience can ensure that the hunting of whitecoats in the Gulf of St. Lawrence by Canadians will be as consistently humane as any slaughter house operation in Canada or for that matter, Europe.
420	COMMONS DEBATES	November 3, 1989
The Address-Mr. Peddle
Those are the words of Mr. T. I. Hughes, General Manager of the Ontario Humane Society. He mentions that he was not forced to make those remarks. Then, there is another resume by Dr. Forbes MacLeod, Managing Director of the Saint John Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. This resume reads:
Close scrutiny was given to the sealing operation by this observer during the first three days of the hunt.
Over 800 carcasses were examined and less than ten per cent did not have fractured skulls.
Then, this statement is very important:
No evidence of suffering prior to death could be observed in the ten per cent without fractured skulls.
A crushed skull should be satisfactory nroof of a humane death.
The resume continues, and then there is this very interesting point:
Sad sights-
A little bit of philosophy, really.
-are frequently misconstrued as cruetly. Compared with other types of slaughter, the seal hunt is not inhumane.
This particular report, made by all those eminent veterinarians, was unanimous. Then, we have an announcement by the Minister a day or two before this House convened in the fall, obviously made outside the House to avoid any argument or debate on the subject. Again, to add insult to injury, the minister stands up today, makes a major speech, and completely avoids the subject.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


James Aloysius McGrath: No regard for parliament.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I do not like to make these remarks, but I really feel they must be made. I should like to quote from the Evening Telegram of St. John's, dated October 17, 1969. This is from an editorial entitled "Mr. Davis gives in". It reads as follows:
Fisheries Minister Jack Davis, whose riding is on the Pacific Coast in British Columbia, has finally-given in to the pressure from the lobbyists and the sob-sisters. His announcement that there will be no killing of baby seals, whitecoats, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence next spring, is taken by some sources as marking the beginning of the end of the entire operation. For make no mistake, the ardent campaigners against the seal hunt will not be satisfied unless they get a complete ban.
It is, moreover, typical of Canadian government mentality that they have put the cart before the horse again.

I will not go into that. We are not interested in that because we all know it, Mr. Speaker. Then the editorial reads:
It all adds up to another illustration of Canadian hypocrisy, and is another indication of a subconscious desire to play the "good guy" before the world. The so-called cruelty to baby seals is no worse than the cruelty inflicted on millions of other animals, birds and wildlife in general, not to mention the domestic animals butchered every day to fill our stomachs. And the crowning irony is that some of the strongest protests have come from the U.K. where they show no sign of getting rid of that most cruel of sports, the fox-hunt.


An hon. Member:: Tally-ho.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I read that editorial because the minister avoided any reference at all to this situation in his contribution to this debate. The minister took it upon himself to reply to this editorial in a letter to the editor of the St. John's Evening Telegram. So a minister of the government of Canada has to resort to a letter to answer criticism and uphold the principle of pro bono publico. He felt so insecure that he had to resort to this approach.


James Aloysius McGrath: He did not think anyone would read it.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: As I said, I have never been critical of the minister, but this action of his disappoints me greatly. I will not read the letter-*


John (Jack) Davis: Why not?


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: All right, I will read it. I was going to say that it would take too much time, but if the minister wants me to, I will read it. The heading reads: "Hon. Jack Davis Denies 'giving in' to Lobbyists". Why he has to do that I just do not know. The letter reads as follows:
Sir: I read with some surprise and disappointment your editorial on seals of October 17, 1969. You, apparently, believe that I have given in to "the lobbyists and the sob-sisters" and cut back the seal hunt insofar as Newfoundlanders are concerned. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
In my recent announcement on sealing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence I stated that aircraft operations would be banned. This, alone, is good news to Newfoundlanders. It means that the hunt will be reserved to sealing ships and landsmen. As by far the largest income to Newfoundlanders comes from ship operations, and because the aircraft operators from Toronto and points west had been taking a large percentage of the seals, this should give some aid and comfort to readers in your area.
Does the minister want me to continue?
November 3, 1969


John (Jack) Davis: Is that not true? I think it is a good point.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Then I shall continue.


James Aloysius McGrath: Have it printed in Hansard.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: The letter continues:
Secondly, the quota in the Gulf remains the same at around 90,000 pelts a year. They will be "beater" pelts in 1970, not "whitecoat" pelts. As "beater" pelts are worth between $15 and $20 a piece as opposed to $10 for "whitecoats" this should mean an overall increase in the return to those who work from ships and to the local landsmen who take young seals.
I have, of course, been referring to the Gulf of St. Lawrence which is under Canadian jurisdiction exclusively. The hunt off the Labrador Front in the North Atlantic is something else again. Here we are in international waters and have to compete with the Norwegians.
We have no intention of limiting our Canadian operations as long as the Norwegians refuse to agree either to the establishment of an overall quota on young seals or to the limitation of the hunt to "beaters" and older seals. Hopefully Norway, under pressure, will agree to establishing a quota and, hopefully, it will also agree with us that the taking of baby "whitecoats" is undesirable from a purely financial point of view.
In the meantime our own Canadian hunters will work to the same ground rules as the Norwegians and the hunt will be conducted as before. I personally, am sorry that this is so as I believe that we must set a much lower quota for the hunt on the Labrador Front as, otherwise, we will seriously reduce the total herd and undermine our position in the long run.
I realize that you could not let my announcement pass without some comment. But a quick, off-the-cuff reaction can be misleading. This is why I am writing to you now in the hope that you will also publish this letter for the information of those who are directly involved in the hunt.
(Hon.) Jack Davis.
Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.


James Aloysius McGrath: The letter should be headlined "Whispering Hope".


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: This letter should be signed "embarrassed" as so many letters to the editor are signed. Where is the consistency of this government? This is a strained analogy, but last year the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) proposed diplomatic relations with the Vatican and he asked for representations from the people of Canada. They poured in by the thousands, as he admitted himself. But then he turned around, announced the appointment to the Vatican, and said that the representations were just the results of organized pressure. What in the name of heavens is this seal fishery deal if it is not the result of organized pressure?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
421
The Address-Mr. Peddle


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I am afraid if this type of irresponsibility continues, the next thing we know the cod fishery will be curtailed to the same extent as was seal hunting. If it can happen in one case, it can very easily happen in another. No one can tell me that was not the result of an organized pressure group, of a group that went out to the ice and took beautiful technicolor pictures of young seals and of blood. We know blood is red. Why did they take the pictures in technicolor if they did not want to sway the opinion of the Canadian people? Let them go out to the farms and the abattoirs where young sheep and young pigs are killed and where other animals are killed.


James Aloysius McGrath: All the old women in Victoria got to the minister through their member.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: How did the old, sentimental clucks think other animals die? Do they think they commit suicide by taking too many sleeping pills or something?


James Aloysius McGrath: There is not one vegetarian over there.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I am sorely disappointed with the minister. I expected more from him. I did not expect him to capitulate before this kind of pressure that had no logical foundation. Who is Brian Davies except a slick-tongued promoter, a con man, as against these very eminent veterinarians, as the minister himself refers to them? The minister sent me his statement himself, a decision which was against the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries of this House.


James Aloysius McGrath: Their recommendation was completely ignored.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: No one says the seal fishery is pleasant or pretty. I have not seen it and I do not want to see it, but I think I am practical enough to realize that we have lived for a long time by killing animals and so far I do not see a substitute for it. This is going to continue. Again I say that I am very disturbed and concerned. I have lost a great deal of confidence that I had built up in the Minister of Fisheries. I do not care whether or not he is disappointed about it, that does not bother me. I have said enough about seals.
The one other comment I want to make is that seals now have to be shot or killed with a bow and arrow. Picture to yourself the Newfoundland sealers. They are not marksmen. They can manage to hit a seal with a
422	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Peddle heavy club and do a good, clean job of putting him out of his misery, but they are not marksmen. They might end up shooting one another, especially if we try to make Robin Hoods out of them and equip them with bows and arrows. If I or any member of this house, and particularly those members who come from areas where this hunt is practised, can stand by and see the minister capitulate before a bunch of foolishness and unrealistic garbage rather than decide on the basis of honest to God professional advice, and see the possibility of some sealers being shot when they are trying to earn a living for their children by killing animals-a thing which we all do-then I would not be doing my duty nor would my colleagues be doing their duty if we did not object.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister is a latter day William Tell.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: We certainly have heard
enough about seals, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how much time I have left, Sir, but I am sure Your Honour will let me know.
I am sorry the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) is not in the chamber. He is getting too smart, too smooth, too suave, but I have a few questions for him. The other day we heard him mention how important it is for the federal government to disseminate information in a more even flow. He said that the people must have more information. I would like to have some information from him.
According to a news report he has jointed the inner circle-whatever that means. I think it refers to a select five or six members within the cabinet. From his exalted position within the inner circle, would he let us have some answers to some questions? He is cited as being the Newfoundland representative in the cabinet. I do not think that is right. I feel quite sure he represents the whole of Canada. However, he has not denied this description, and each time there is a news report concerning him he is described as the Newfoundland representative in the cabinet.
Let the Minister of Transport tell us where he was when the decision was made to abandon the salt rebate. Of course, at the time he said that it might mean $100 or $200 per fisherman, and, what the heck, they would get over it; it was a bandaid. As the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) said the other night, having taken off the bandaid the fishermen are now bleeding to death.

DEBATES	November 3, 1969
Where was the Minister of Transport when the decision was made to eliminate rail passenger service in Newfoundland? All he said was, "You fellows are taken up with sentiment." He used that very word sentiment, something which is supposed to have prompted the Minister of Fisheries to abandon the seal hunt. Where is the consistency in all this? Where was the Minister of Transport when the decision was made to abandon the seal hunt? Where was he when the freeze was lifted from freight rates?
Where was the Minister of Transport when our staunch, stalwart Labrador fishermen had their first failure for many years this season and the cabinet decided, "Send the boys down to the nearest welfare office"? Where was Newfoundland's representative in the cabinet when the terrible situation regarding communications in Labrador was referred to him months ago, when his department withdrew its radio telephones and left Bell Telephone to handle the problem?
I am not trying to be funny, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure everybody knows about that group of singers known as the "Chipmunks". Just call Labrador south by telephone and the conversation sounds like the Chipmunks coming through 200 feet of galvanized pipe. In fact, the Minister of Transport did not even answer the representations of the people concerned. I have been trying to drag him into this chamber at ten o'clock at night to answer questions, and I cannot even do that. I have to settle for one of his parliamentary assistants, or something like that.
Where are the minister's comments on the high rate of unemployment in Newfoundland? He talked about giving out more information. Let us get information on these questions. Where are his comments on the terrible effects that inflationary curbs are having on Newfoundland? Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) to have a wharf fixed for the community of Raleigh, a wharf which is an eye-sore, which is a hazard but which must be used by the people, he sent down two men to put up a sign saying, "If you use this wharf you do so at your own risk." In fact, I have a photograph of it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. His time has expired and unless there is unanimous agreement he cannot continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 3, 1989


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I appreciate this concession, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to thank hon. members. Where is the Newfoundland representative in the cabinet who is building up such a wonderful reputation at the national level, but for what reason I do not know? He is miserably failing his own constituents and the people of Newfoundland. He was mute on the subject of pollution at Placentia Bay. He was mute on the subject of the terrible strike that took place in my riding of Labrador west. He was completely mute until driven to make some little concession there. It is a lovely job if you can get it, Mr. Speaker, but that kind of job doesn't last if you treat it in this way.
Half an hour is not nearly long enough to ask all the questions I have for that minister. When I began my career I used to say I had no intention of making long speeches, that I was not capable of speaking longer than five or ten minutes. In any event, Mr. Speaker, this is about the extent of my remarks on this occasion, but hon. members may rest assured that I will continue them at the earliest opportunity.


Thomas Henry Goode: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member resumes his seat will he allow a question?


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Question?


Thomas Henry Goode: I think there is need for a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It was difficult for me to determine whether the hon. member would permit a question. I do not think we can wait too long. The hon. member for St. Boniface.


Mr. Joseph Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the government on his program outlined in the Speech from the Throne which promises an interesting session.
As many hon. members have done before me, I would also like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau).
[English1
I would like also to extend my congratulations to the two newly appointed ministers, the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury), and to wish them success in their jobs.
21362-28J
The Address-Mr. Guay
I would like to explain the composition of my constituency. Many people seem to be under the impression that I represent only the city of St. Boniface, but my constituency comprises three large urban areas within the greater Winnipeg area. They are Transcona, a city of 22,000 people, city of St. Vital with a population of 30,000, and St. Boniface itself with a population of 48,000, plus two country points, lie des Chenes and St. Adolphe which are devoted to mixed farming. In fact, in the area of St. Adolphe farmers are still waiting to harvest their grain, since they have experienced very poor weather during the harvesting season.
The largely populated area that I represent encompasses a variety of ethnic groups, and these western Canadians represent a true example of understanding and unity in Canada.
Transcona is a fairly new city. It originated in 1912, and most of its labour force depends for work on the CNR shops located in that city. The residential city of St. Vital is the place from which Louis Riel came, and his home there will become an historical site with assistance from the local, provincial and federal levels of government.

The city of St. Boniface, founded in 1818, is often called the cradle of Christian civilization in western Canada. It is there that as early as 1800 most of our ancestors, the coureurs de bois, came to settle with Lord Selkirk. I regret that I cannot say more today about the history of St. Boniface.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)

Today, Mr. Speaker, instead of speaking of the historical aspect, I should like to bring forward some of the problems that affect my area and the province as a whole. I agree with the contentions of many of my constituents, of people of the greater Winnipeg area, of Manitoba and of western Canada generally, that we are the forgotten people. Instead of being on the receiving end, the people of Manitoba and of western Canada are on the losing end. If anyone asks who speaks for our little people, may I say that I speak for the little people and all the people of my area.
May I cite some examples to show that we are on the losing end. One good example is the removal of the Air Canada base from Winnipeg to Montreal. That was a great loss to us financially and commercially. We shall

November 3, 1969
The Address-Mr. Guay also suffer losses as a result of the departure of those from the University of Manitoba who are engaged in activities for the Department of Forestry. We shall also suffer when NASA withdraws its support from the Churchill project. According to an NRC announcement, that withdrawal will be effective as of June 30, 1970.
While I speak of these matters on behalf of those who live in my province, I know that one cannot blame the federal government entirely for what has happened. This does not mean that the federal government has no responsibilities in these matters. The opposition seeks to blame the government for many of our ills and members of the opposition are nearly always quoting from newspaper articles and letters to this end. May I, also, quote from the Financial Post of October 25, 1969. I cannot read the entire article because there is not enough time. The article in my hand refers to problems Manitoba may face in 1970. It refers also to NDP actions in Winnipeg and to the actions of the NDP government. Referring to the budget that has been passed, Mr. Roy E. Robinson, president of Versatile Manufacturing Limited, is quoted as saying:
'It's a bad move for Manitoba,' . . .
'Rising costs will not attract industry to the province.
'Companies exporting products outside the province may find it more profitable to set up sales subsidiaries outside Manitoba. By setting up a sales subsidiary in Saskatchewan, as an example, corporation taxes would be paid in Saskatchewan and a company would save money because Saskatchewan taxes would be less than in Manitoba.'
I continue quoting:
Versatile wasn't considering such a move at present, he said, but the possibility exists.
Other companies have similar ideas.
The article continues:
'It's a hard blow to Manitoba,' said A. W. Swann, manager of the Manitoba-Saskatchewan division of Canadian Manufacturers Association.
'Any company thinking of moving to Manitoba now has an indication of the government's thinking.
'The whole budget is discouraging to manufacturing industries. In light of what can be expected it is likely the thin edge of the wedge. It will work against the avowed aims and objectives of the NDP.'
C. E. Atchison, president, of Investors Group, said he was disappointed in the 18 per cent increase (from 11 per cent rate to 13 per cent rate) in corporate taxes. It is likely to discourage new business from locating in Manitoba, he said.
The budget will not help the province but how much harm it may do remains to be seen, said T. E. Durham, Greater Winnipeg Industrial commissioner.
The budget will make it more difficult to attract people needed for the business community, in

opinion of David Rothstein, president of Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. Efforts started by the previous government to get Manitoba moving economically may be stalled, he commented. It found inducements were needed to attract industry and if increases in taxes are going to continue, it isn't much inducement for people to come to the province, Rothstein said.
I will not continue quoting from this article which refers to the many problems facing industry and commerce in my area. In view of existing problems that we face in the west I will make several suggestions that the federal government might follow. I do so because I do not wish to be like members of the opposition who criticize various ministers or the government without contributing any solutions to these problems. I therefore recommend, first, that the government announce once and for all, so as to re-assure the labour force of the city of Transcona, that the CNR shops are to remain in the area; second, in order to remove doubt from the minds of others, that the building which is required to service the new, large diesel engines will be built in the city of Transcona adjacent to the shop which is centrally located. This will give better service to the entire system. My third recommendation is that consideration be given to declaring Winnipeg airport an international airport. I realize that the government has brought in an austerity program, but this move will not cost a penny and will be of great advantage to Winnipeg because an international airport would bring many privileges.
To the best of my knowledge, the federal government has not extended any help to those areas east of the Red River-and I could go back a long way in verifying this statement. I think the time is long overdue for the government to consider ways of helping not only the people of the greater Winnipeg area but of the entire province. The constituents of the greater Winnipeg area ought to be given consideration, and to this end I ask the government to consider erecting some buildings east of the Red River. I also ask that office supplies, stationary and printing materials needed for federal offices in western Canada be purchased in western Canada.
May I also ask that the government consider the possibility of erecting a second mint somewhere in western Canada. Without doubt, there is lots of room for it in St. Boniface. At any rate, it would be a good idea if the government were to build a second mint in western Canada in order that we do not remain the forgotten west.
November 3, 1969

Next, may I ask that the government remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, as this would automatically reduce the cost of homes and make more homes available to newly married couples in my area. Without doubt the cost of new homes would be greatly reduced if the tax were removed. Perhaps the government could introduce a policy under which this tax would be removed only for those people in the lower income groups about whom we are so concerned, the little people, and especially the little people of western Canada.
I am tempted to quote from another newspaper article but I will not. Instead, may I say that in my constituency in western Canada, one third of the people are French speaking Canadians. Every time something good comes out of Quebec you hardly hear of it in western Canada; but, by gosh, let the separatists do something wrong in Quebec and our friends in western Canada will blame us every time. Well, we have learned to live with that attitude. We are glad to be western Canadians and want to remain as such.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)

La Liberte et le Patriote, on October 22, 1969, published an editorial on the Prime Minister and the CBC.
Mr. Trudeau dashed into his fifties over the week. And the separatists, the Parti Quebeeois and the independentists within the C.B.C. were not spared the backlash. In one breath, Mr. Trudeau assailed everyone and, moreover, managed to enjoin the English-speaking minority in Quebec not to tolerate being bullied in matters of education and language.
It is possible that the tension between Ottawa and Quebec will adversely affect us, the Frenchspeaking people of the rest of Canada whom too many English-speaking people still consider Quebecers in exile.
Surely the federal government, and, in particular, the Prime Minister, cannot be anything but annoyed by these elements that stir up dissension and strife. No doubt Mr. Trudeau is right when he asks the C.B.C. management to act quickly and to get rid of those people who are using a government agency to spread ideologies harmful to peace and unity.
Would Mr. Trudeau go as far as to abolish the French network to get rid of a handful of undesirables? But would not that be lacking in logic with himself? How would he promote, support and encourage the French fact from coast to coast if he were to abolish the most powerful cultural vehicle?
Does he have to throw out the baby with the bath water to change the water?
Why not do some decentralization within the C.B.C. instead?
The Address-Mr. Guay
I go on with the quotation, while realizing that this is a recommendation I have often made. The article says:
Instead of centralizing everything in Montreal, why not give some decision making power to three offices, each one serving one region: for example, an office for the Maritimes and eastern Quebec, another for Montreal and Toronto, and a third one for the West. This is done for other government services.
Would it really be more expensive for the government to reduce grants that go to Montreal and to give more power, with a little more autonomy, to offices in the Maritimes and in the West?
Instead of letting Montreal dictate the policy of the whole French network, the C.B.C. should let the Maritimes and the West have more say in the matter. It should allow us to have our own newsmen and our own producers. The results may not have very much snobbish appeal, compared to what comes out of Montreal, but that will probably be more refreshing than the et .rnal Quebec squabbles that we have had to put up with lately!
My reason for mentioning this is that this article, in my view, shows clearly that the French-speaking people in the West-though they are a minority-have always got along very well with the English-speaking people in western Canada and intend to continue doing so. At present these matters create difficulties. It is no doubt only Quebec bickering, but we worry about it.
I do not intend to dwell on these matters, Mr. Speaker, because I know restraints are now the order of the day.

I suggest the policy of restraint is good. In fact, I think it is excellent. I feel, however, that while a restraining program does not hurt the rich, it surely does not help the poor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question before he sits down? In view of the comments he made on the budget recently introduced in Manitoba would he, as a member from Manitoba, say whether he approves or disapproves of the Manitoba government's action in reducing the monthly medicare premium to 55 cents for a single person and $1.10 for a family?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, in answering the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I first wish to say that I am surprised he did not get the point. Perhaps I was reading the quotation too quickly. I was reading from an article in the Financial Post. The reason the corporate tax in Manitoba is
November 3. 1969

The address-Mr. Mazankowski rising to the point where it is chasing industry into Saskatchewan is that medicare went from $117 to $17 and it will be the corporations and the business people who will have to bear the burden of that cost. It is for that reason they want to move out. I agree that for the small people, whom I represent, this is a good move, but it is no t very good for industry and commerce in our area.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Since it is customary to allow hon. members a great deal of latitude in the subject matters contained in one's contribution in the Throne Speech debate, I intend to exercise that option and cover a number of matters that are of concern to me. I trust these matters also concern other hon. members of this House, as well as a vast number of Canadians.
I would like first to express my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) for their opening remarks. I am sure both hon. members must have felt a deep sense of pride to be given this honour. They spoke of the relevancy of parliament and I hope their colleagues will give special heed to their criticisms because it seems to this government that parliament has become a rather torturous exercise. We invariably get the impression they would like to scrap the whole institution. I would remind hon. members that when we speak in this chamber we are not only speaking to those in this House, but to all Canadians.
The opening speeches more or less set the tone for this debate. We have heard suggestions from subsequent speakers as to how government should function, and they ranged all the way from a dictatorship to a republic to a corporation with a board of directors. I do not intend to deal at length with the relevancy or irrelevancy of this institution. I simply want to say that, as far as I am concerned, it is a matter of one's own personal initiative and participation in carrying out the responsibilities which we accepted when we offered ourselves for this honoured position. Above all, it is the opportunity to serve Canada and to serve those who sent us here.
Referring directly to the Speech from the Throne, I may say I found it a rather generalized document containing very little to get excited about. There are, however, one or two matters to which I would like to refer and comment upon. There are some items in the speech of which I approve and there are

others, which I will deal with later, that have been omitted, either deliberately or unintentionally.
The first item I wish to deal with is the lowering of the voting age to 18. I wish to make it abundantly clear at the outset that I approve of this measure and I intend to support its passage in the House. No doubt some people in this country may question this legislation, but I ask them to bear in mind that we have reached a period where our younger generation is seeking greater responsibility. We hear the cry that our young are irresponsible, but how can they ever become responsible or take up the challenge of responsibility if they are not given the opportunity of meaningful participation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I do not suggest for one minute that we have put an exaggerated premium on our youth, but I do get concerned about some of the headlines that we read in our newspapers about radicalism, violence, and riots. Perhaps it would be wise if we took the time to glance at the inside of these same papers to get a better idea of what responsible youth groups are doing.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I was glancing through the Calgary Albertan the other day. The headline on the centre page read: "Appealing to you-Youth groups help". Underneath, appeared the following:
The youth of Calgary forms one of the major groups working this year to help the United Appeal reach its $1,662,000 target.
The article went on:
Kathy Ballantyne, a student nurse at Holy Cross Hospital and member of the girl's football team, questions whether the exposure is great enough.
"Show me where it's spent" is her attitude, and Kathy says there are lots of her fellow students who may feel the United Fund is a good thing, but would like to be told where the money they help to raise is being spent.
Their inquiring minds are asking not how the money is spent, but where, so they can identify with the contribution they are making.
The Edmonton Journal contains a whole page devoted to student projects, proceeds from which will go to the United Community Fund. I should like to name some of the high schools concerned:	O'Leary, Victoria, St.
Joseph's, Macdonald, Ross Sheppard, St. Mary's, Ainlay, Queen Elizabeth, Louis St. Laurent, O'Brien. I ask you, Mr. Speaker; doesn't this sound like responsibility?
November 3, 1989	COMMONS
We hear suggestions from our youth that political parties are irrelevant. They want more than mere participation at the polls at election time. They are looking for, and they are ready for, a meaningful sense of participation. We in the various political parties all say that the future of our parties depends on the involvement of youth. But what are we doing to encourage the youth of this country to become more active in political affairs? I hope possession of the franchise will instil in them a real sense of enthusiasm for the building of this country; God bless us, there is a great deal to be done. I am sure it will lead to much the same enthusiasm as many of us experienced in our election campaigns last year.
We in the Province of Alberta have for some time allowed citizens aged 19 and over the privilege of voting, and the results have proved to be very satisfactory. I hope that in due course we may expect the institution of a uniform voting age across this country. I also hope parliament will consider the possibility of lowering the age at which young people may legally enter into contracts. It is somewhat ridiculous that a young person aged 18 can vote in a federal election, and influence the choice of a government, while being unable to enter into a contract to buy an automobile if he is self-sufficient, or self-supporting.
Since I became a member of this House my party has given me special responsibilities for dealing with youth matters and developing liaison between that segment of our society and our own caucus. I must say this has been one of the most gratifying duties I have had the privilege of undertaking since I took my seat in this honourable House. The association I have had, as a result, with our young people has convinced me that an enormous amount of energy and enthusiasm exist among our youth-enthusiasm for Canada. All we have to do is harness it.
Certainly, there are some radical differences of opinion, but this is natural in a free society. I would remind hon. members that radical differences of opinion prevail between senior members of our society, too. When any group, whether composed of the young or the old, feels a sense of alienation and frustration, it is bound to react. I am confident that the proposed legislation concerning the voting age could provide a foundation for sound, sensible involvement on the part of youth for the good of Canada. However, no one should expect that the mere passage of a bill will satisfy all the aspirations of Canada's youth. Not only
DEBATES	427
The address-Mr. Mazankowski should political parties give the youthful segment of society adequate opportunity to be heard, but immediate steps should be taken by all levels of government and by the public at large to encourage our young people to become actively involved in the activities of political parties; positive measures should be taken to encourage them to opt into our political society and work from within, rather than to opt out.
Above all, our educational facilities should begin to instil a little moral fibre, in place of the attempts to dissolve this moral fibre which now prevail. Programs of education should be geared to orientate and familiarize youth with the nature of our political framework at an early age so that voting becomes a meaningful privilege rather than a mere exercise.
I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues are not misled by an impression that because they have promised to introduce this particular measure they will necessarily have a monopoly of support from the young of Canada, and thus have provided the means of buying their way back to power. It may be that the right hon. gentleman's own party has failed in its dealings with youth. If I am correct, there is a fair amount of disillusion being felt among the young Liberal elements of his own party. I am sure it is fair to say that all political parties have considered lowering the voting age. I can certainly affirm that the subject has been actively considered, and the principle endorsed by the Progressive Conservative party.
As 1 have said, a simple lowering of the voting age will not satisfy all the aspirations of Canada's youth. Indeed, perhaps we are wrong when we think of today's unrest as being a "youth problem". It might be more helpful to consider this whole perplexing situation involving youth and society as being a "society problem" rather than a "youth problem". Have we earnestly tried to understand the young, or have we merely allowed them to live in their own sub-culture?
One of the most pressing problems facing society today concerns the use of drugs. I wish to emphasize what was said by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) when he suggested we should move very carefully and cautiously in considering legalization of the use of marijuana.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Anomalies and inequities may certainly exist in our present laws
November 3, 1969

The address-Mr. Mazankowski concerning certain types of drugs, and I hope these will be subjected to a comprehensive review. I have in mind particularly present laws as they relate to the use of such drugs as "speed" and heroin. The whole question of drug use is an exceedingly complex one. We must find means of analysing the state of mind of our young people who Eire taking drugs, and we must seek to understand why they are doing so. Meanwhile, until we are able to secure sufficient information as to the total implications of the use of marijuana, I submit we would be committing a grave error were we to move at this time in the direction of legalizing this drug. I believe that we, as legislators and as citizens, must take account of the growing use of drugs in our society. I would recommend that immediate steps be taken to familiarize the young, as well as others, with the dangers and implications of the use of all drugs. Specifically, I should like to make the following recommendations:
1.	That a system of centres be established across Canada to provide information, consultation and assistance on a more humane and rational basis to drug users. This organization should be federally funded.
2.	That further funds be made available for research into the effects and nature of drugs.
3.	That a national drug foundation be established for the administration of the previous two recommendations, for the co-ordination of research and for the exchange of information.
I might add that I intend to put forward a private member's bill dealing with this matter; I hope we shall have an opportunity to discuss it fully in this chamber. Until we have compiled a total assessment backed up by scientific and medical data, I submit we should move very cautiously. On the other hand, we should move vigorously in undertaking a comprehensive review and study of the state of mind of the young; above all, we must discover the underlying reason why so many become users of drugs.
We have heard a great deal recently about the Company of Young Canadians and its activities, and the controversies surrounding them. I personally believe that the majority of Canadians are fed up to the teeth with the CYC and I submit that the whole organization should be scrapped.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I realize that there may be some dedicated and sincere people within the organization of

the Company of Young Canadians, but these are in the minority and have the least influence. The organization seems to be dominated by a bunch of long haired, bearded radicals who do not believe in any established values, including the responsibility of having to work to eat. By virtue of its name and its past record, it implies that all youth in this country are radicals and subversives. I say that the damage this organization has done to the youth of Canada is irreparable, and we must abandon it before we turn all citizens of this country against our youth.
I suggest that if like the Canadian Union of Students, this organization had to operate on voluntary contributions and voluntary membership, it would collapse within 24 hours. Further, I should like to point out that the mere fact that the Canadian Union of Students has failed is ample proof that the majority of youth in Canada want no part of radicalism, subversion and mutinous activities.
Coming from an agricultural area I would be remiss if I overlooked some of the glaring problems facing western agriculture, as the government seems to have done in its Speech from the Throne. The Throne Speech contains one piece of proposed legislation to attempt to alleviate the desperate situation that exists in the west. I refer to the Canada Grain Act, which I suspect will merely lower prices to the producer while allowing greater market flexibility.
It is not my intention to go into depth with regard to the problems confronting agriculture. I am sure they are well known to all members of the house, including the Prime Minister who visited the west recently. These problems have been ably restated by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) and the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey).
To sum up the situation briefly, let me simply say that conditions in this area have not improved one iota during the last 12 months. There has been a continual deterioration in the situation, with very little evidence of hope in sight. Quite frankly, the agricultural picture in the west is one of gloom. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but the whole rural community appears to be in jeopardy.
I become very confused when, on the one hand, the government classifies agriculture as expendable and plans for the early retirement of farmers, encourages these people to leave their farms and transfer to the cities, while, on the other hand, the Prime Minister suggests that rural life is worth preserving, as he
November 3, 1969	COMMONS
stated in his speech on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Such statements are contradictory.
As far as I am concerned, rural life does have something to offer. It breeds self-reliance, self-discipline and self-determination. If this government were to take positive measures to stimulate rural life, then I would support them, as I am sure would many other members of the House.
I recall that the late General Eisenhower, who grew up in the small community of Abilene, Kansas, said that the robust life he had led as a prairie youngster, camping with friends, roughing it with his five brothers, helping to do the family chores, earning money on the side and learning the stern but compassionate rural ethic, were all part of the great and priceless heritage of living in a small town.
I should like to know why the Prime Minister, his colleagues and assistants, do not get together and face squarely the problem of rural life and agriculture. I believe it is high time they realized that agriculture is a necessary part of the Canadian economy, and that a vast number of Canadians prefer living in the country to urban life.
The production of food is more important today than ever before in world history. The Food and Agriculture Organization suggests that by 1975 a desperate shortage of food will exist in the world. This talk we hear about lack of markets and surplus of grain is sheer nonsense. The simple fact of the matter is that we are just not getting our share of the market. In 1966-67, we achieved 26.3 per cent of the world wheat market. In 1967-68 our percentage dropped to 17.2 per cent. Figures for the 1968-69 crop year are not yet published, but I suspect our percentage is even further below last year's, probably around 15 per cent.
We have not been selling our grain. I submit that what is required is a national grain selling agency with a progressive and imaginative policy. Such an organization should be organized in consultation with the producers. For too long have agricultural policies been formulated behind closed doors. We now have a new minister in charge of grain. With all due respect to the previous minister, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), who is a very amiable fellow, he knew as much about growing, marketing and selling wheat as I know about walking on the moon.
DEBATES	429
The Address-Mr. Mazankowski
In addition, we should introduce immediately a program to appraise and completely reassess our grain handling techniques and distribution methods. I think our methods of handling and distributing are outdated outmoded, and lack efficiency. It seems to me that our method of grain handling is the only part of the whole spectrum of grain production and marketing that has not changed one iota during the last 25 years. Certainly, the criterion we should aim at is to become more efficient and streamlined.
We all recall the election promise that if the Liberal party were elected to office in three years we could look for sales of one billion bushels of wheat. Half that time has passed and the only notable achievements in the grain marketing field so far have been lost sales. For a year and a half the government has been aware of the grain marketing problem. It has sent out surveyors and task forces and has established advisory councils. Even the Prime Minister was dispatched on a western tour. A grain council was set up, but I have heard nothing from it since its inception.
The government has suggested that farmers should diversify. I say, diversify to what? Beef? The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) has looked after that by proposing a boycott of beef. Beef prices are too high, and he maintains that the bulk of the increase is being passed on to the producer. Although diversification might solve some agricultural problems, it must be handled in a manner that is commensurate with the region. For example you cannot raise beef on the wheat plains of Saskatchewan. Therefore, a co-ordinated program of regional diversification in consultation with the provinces is required.
I believe it is the duty of the government accurately to analyse the supply and demand position of certain commodities and to encourage farmers to produce to meet those needs. However, no action of this kind has been taken by the government to cope with the situation and, above all, to meet the growing crisis.
At the present time farmers in the northern part of the prairies are undergoing difficulties resulting from adverse weather conditions. As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) pointed out today, in many areas 90 per cent of the harvest still remains in the fields. I know the minister and his colleague, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang), have visited the west and are analysing the situation. The province of Alberta has already announced its
November 3, 1969

The Address-Mr. Mazankowski intention to provide some form of assistance. But I submit this is a joint responsibility. I hope the minister will stand in his place and make an announcement this week in order to put the farmers at ease. The farmers are short not only of grain but of straw and feed to winter their livestock. So, certainly some assistance is necessary.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Some time ago Parliament was asked to approve and establish a department of regional expansion. We were led to believe this new program would benefit all Canadians suffering as a result of living in slow growth areas. We were led to believe that all areas suffering from regional disparity and drifting out of the mainstream of Canada's economic progress would be included. The fact is today that areas in Alberta and Western Canada which have experienced slow growth and have faced difficult times have been excluded. By an odd coincidence the only area of Alberta that appears to be in need of economic assistance, according to the minister and this new department, lies in the constituency represented by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). It is this kind of thing that makes western Canadians skeptical of the good faith of this government.
If the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) were to take a completely unbiased look at the economic plight of Canada today, I believe he would decide to treat the whole Canadian agricultural area as a designated area for economic assistance. The great tragedy of this country is that hundreds of thousands of solid, taxpaying productive citizens are being driven from their preferred occupations by a combination of government indifference and lack of leadership. Canada's agricultural community is a valuable national asset, not only as a producer of food and of exports, but as a reinforcement for the framework of Canadian society.
I should like to comment briefly on the situation of our veterans and the Woods report. I do know that the Standing Committee on Veterans' Affairs has been meeting and considering this document. I simply want to go on record as supporting the recommendations in the Woods report. I speak on behalf of all those I represent and on behalf of the many members of the Legion in the area surrounding my constituency.

Let me particularly emphasize the need for an equitable basic rate of pension related to the rate for unskilled labour in the public service, as outlined in information given to the 1919 parliamentary committee. It seems to me grossly inequitable that there should be a discrepancy now between the basic pension and the rate for unskilled labour to the tune of approximately $1,000, particularly in this time of rampant inflation and rising living costs. The whole approach to the adjudication of claims must be put on a more humane and rational basis, emphasizing the application of the benefit of the doubt.
Having regard to the Legion magazine, I submit that equitable mailing rates should be re-established to allow the Legion magazine, Canada's voice of the veterans, to once again enjoy parity with some of the subversive publications which have been disseminating malicious propaganda. I am sure it is no secret to hon. members or the public that the Legion's publications were saddled with a whopping 1400 per cent increase in mailing rates. Certainly, there can be no justification for this.
In concluding my remarks, I should like to put in a plug for my good friends and neighbours of the city of Edmonton. As you may know, the city of Edmonton is known as the gateway to the north. It is Canada's only major city-as a matter of fact, it is Canada's fourth largest city-that does not enjoy a direct international air service link with the United States. You may be aware that the citizens of Edmonton are conducting a vigorous campaign in support of the request by North-West Orient Airlines for the right to link up Edmonton with Minneapolis, Chicago and Anchorage. I am sure I do not have to go into detail with regard to the economic advantages which this would have for the city of Edmonton and the province of Alberta. As a matter of fact, the future growth of Edmonton and Northern Alberta could very well be hindered if a favourable decision is not made.
An indication of the desire to have this service implemented is evidenced by the fact that more than 125,000 signatures, backed by more than 200 business enterprises, have been collected, together with written support in an accompanying brief which has been submitted to the chairman of the Air Transport Committee which will be reviewing these bilateral agreements this month. I want to go on record as being one of those actively engaged in supporting this application and I
November 3. 1969	COMMONS
urge those who are charged with the responsibility of making this decision to react in a favourable manner, thereby giving Edmonton the opportunity to enjoy similar service to that enjoyed by all other major cities in this country. If such service is not established, it will simply mean that Edmonton will be doomed to become a second class city in Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members for your attention.


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark and Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this famous chamber and be identified in some way with the many speeches that have been given during this rather lengthy debate on the Speech from the Throne. I want to identify myself with all members in this house who commended the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) on the very excellent speeches they made at the initiation of this debate.
At this time, I should like to say a few words about my own constituency and then deal with three different topics. As hon. members will have noted when Your Honour gave me the floor, my constituency is officially called Lanark and Renfrew. This is most unfortunate, not because it is called Lanark and Renfrew but because I represent three counties in Ontario, Lanark, Renfrew and Carleton. I have difficulty in convincing the people of Carleton that they are in fact included. For that reason, I have a private member's bill before this house asking that the name be changed to include Carleton.
I am also aware as we sit here day in and day out, week in and week out, to quote a famous member of this House, that "you cannot tell the depth of the well by the length of the handle on the pump", and that similarly you cannot always tell by the speeches made how great or bow small is the contribution.
The three topics I want to deal with in the few minutes my time will permit-and perhaps I cannot cover them all-are the initiation of full diplomatic relations between the government of Canada and the Vatican; the Canadian rural dilemma, and additional means whereby regional disparity can be significantly reduced. This may seem like a very large slice from the cake. Perhaps I will not get around to all three, but I want to share some of my convictions, thoughts and research on at least two of these topics.
DEBATES	431
The Address-Mr. McBride
My position regarding the recognition of the Vatican can be put very simply by saying I am not in support of it but rather strongly opposed to it. This may be surprising to some hon. members. They may suggest that, as a member on the government side of the House, I should support it. They may suggest I have some prejudices and so on. For my own satisfaction, and hopefully for the edification of the House, I will as lucidly and as briefly as I can indicate why I am not in favour of recognition of the Vatican in the sense of establishing full diplomatic relations. I have already indicated my feelings to the people of my constituency, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp).
First, let me make one clarification. Some people say we are not establishing diplomatic relations with the Roman Catholic church but rather with the Vatican city state. It seems to me, if we analyse this situation for a moment, it is easy to see that diplomatic relations are not established between two sets of buildings; they are not established between pillars and they are not established between some kind of parliamentary assembly hall in nation A and some kind of assembly hall in nation B. Rather, they are established between governments, between those who, in fact, represent the people who live in those respective countries. It is between the government of Canada and the government of Vatican city that diplomatic relations have been established. Who is the government of Vatican city? Well, Pope Paul VI and the Curia happen to be the government of Vatican City. Who are they? They are none other than the titular and actual heads of the Roman Catholic church. In elementary school, I believe it was, we learned a mathematical principle that things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. So, it seems to me in a very real sense that we are like the Irish Rovers and their Unicorn when we say we are not involved with the Roman Catholic church but are just establishing diplomatic relations with the Vatican. We are playing silly games.
[DOT] (4.20 p.m.)
If the Pope is not the head of the Roman Catholic church, then I do not know who is and neither does anyone else. So, let us dispel once and for all the idea that they are not one and the same thing. I repeat that our diplomatic relations were not established with a group of buildings but with the government of the Vatican. That government is the Holy See of Rome and the Holy See of Rome is the
November 3, 1969

The Address-Mr. McBride primary bishopric of the Catholic church in the world. I say all of this to lay the foundation for hon. members in this chamber who may be interested in, or will at least tolerate, the presentation I am about to make. I must say this to clarify the reason for my opposition to the move to recognize the Vatican.
The recognition of the Vatican by Canada is not something that can simply be identified with or even compared with the 68 other countries which have established diplomatic relations with the Vatican before us. The reason we in Canada cannot compare our own situation with the situations which have existed in all the other countries is simply that we have a history that is distinctly and uniquely unlike the history of any one of those other 68 countries. It is basically different in relation to this topic.
What, in fact, does our history have to do with our establishing diplomatic relations with the Vatican now? Well, fellow members of this House, I am desperately convinced it has a great deal to do with it. It has a great deal to do with whether or not we should have diplomatic relations. I regret that the historic facts have received so little, almost pathetically little, consideration in the discussion or in public debate of this subject. Therefore, I beg hon. members to allow me to sketch for a few moments some of the brief and pertinent facts of the past out of which this nation's present has come and which bear directly on our diplomatic relations with the Vatican. Let us all remember-and this is almost a cliche or obvious truism-that we do not exist in a vacuum. We all have a history; we have come from somewhere, we are going to somewhere and where we have been has a great influence on where we are now and where we shall be later.
In order to make my point extremely clear I must go back some 712 years. In the year 1257-


An hon. Member:: You have a good
memory.


Murray Arndell McBride: I have done my research. In the year 1257, the Sorbonne was founded in France. From the time of the establishment of the Sorbonne, the Roman Catholic church in France was always much influenced by a teaching that could most simply be described in this way. The Roman Catholic church in France-this belief existed there to a greater extent than in any other country-should be more or less free from the authority of the Pope and should be a nationally autonomous

church. That idea has since that early date been of great influence in France. The Church should be nationally autonomous to the extent that even the appointment of the bishops should either be done by the king or the king should have the last say in the appointment thereof, rather than the Pope. This form of Catholicism quite naturally, came to be known in historical circles as Gallicanism French Catholicism has always been extremely Gallican. The other extreme, the opposite to Gallicanism, is where you are directly under the Papacy; where the bishops in another country-not merely in Vatican city or in Italy but in any country of the world- are appointed directly by the Pope. This is called ultramontanism.
I do not wish to appear to be a teacher or in any sense to be talking down to members, but this whole debate in respect of diplomatic relations with the Vatican has been entirely too shallow. It has ignored our history and has failed to note that Gallicanism was the Catholicism that came to Canada when the French settlers from France first arrived here. This was Gallican Catholicism which meant that the bishops were appointed by the king, to put it in its simplest form. When New France was settled, the religion was Catholicism and it was Gallican Catholicism. All of the leaders of the Catholic church in New France had very strong Gallican sympathies. We all know the history, but I must set the stage for what I am attempting to establish here. New France eventually fell to the abhorred British. It was very obvious, as in all cases where the British were able to conquer some other colonial power, that they had to give rights and privileges to the residents of New France. These had to be extended by the British or they could not hope to retain control over their freshly acquired territory.
If one studies British colonial expansion, one will find that this happened all over. The fact that the French court of the day-sort of back home on the ranch in France-had fallen on evil days meant that New France was reduced to the level of an abandoned orphan. It was left in the arms of the loathsome British. All of this has nothing to do with what I or other members think; this is the history of our country. This meant that the leaders of New France approached the British and said that one of the things they wanted was religious freedom; freedom to pursue the religion they had known. The British said they would grant religious freedom but that appointment of bishops by the
November 3, 1969

King of France would absolutely not be allowed and that there was no way the King of France was going to meddle in the affairs of New France any longer. So this, for the Gallican catholics of New France was a difficult situation. The leaders came back with a counter-proposal. The counterproposal was that if they could not continue to have the bishop appointed by the King of France, they would like to go directly to the Pope and become ultramontanistic. The British, who wanted to get free of French political and practical involvement in North America, said fine. So, something happened in Canada that was absolutely unique in the world.
Overnight, these people, who had been strongly Gallican, became members of one of the world's most ultramontanistic churches. This is the point in North America when the interests of the French speaking people and the interests of the Pope of Rome become fused into one. From then on, the two were linked together. This is a fact of history and this is a situation which does not exist in any other country. It may be that French speaking members from Quebec in this assembly would Stand up and say I am talking about things which are just ancient history and which are not relevant any more in French Canada. They might say that the opinions of French Canadians and the Pope are not one and the same any longer. But this conviction has not been understood in English speaking Canada or in areas where the population is non-Catholic and English-speaking. I have always found in Ontario and in western Canada there is a distinct conviction that this is the situation; that the historical fusion of French rights and the interests of the Papacy are still one and the same.
[DOT] (4.30 p.m.)
One year ago a very special bill known as the languages bill was introduced in this house. It was my conviction that it was a fantastically good bill, and I supported it unreservedly. As a result, and because of the history of Canada, I went into my constituency and said to my people: I know that so far as you English-speaking Canadians are concerned you still believe that the interests of the French language Canadians and the Pope of Rome are one and the same. But that is not so, I said. This was a coincidence of history but it is dead. It will not be perpetuated. They are two separate things. This government is interested in extending French language rights. We are not interested in the Roman Catholic church one way or the other.

The Address-Mr. McBride I made a very fine case. I think hon. members can see where I am going because when we established diplomatic relations with the Vatican, people like myself, from English speaking constituencies, who believe in Canada and who believe we should have an extension of the French language rights in Canada, had the rug pulled right out from under our feet.
I am embarrassed to say that not only has my credibility been damaged but the credibility of the government in which I have a minute share as a backbencher has also been damaged because if this type of action is going to undermine our progress toward bilingualism and resurrect the corpse that I had told people was laid to rest for ever-and I believed that that was the case-then this is a sad, sad day. I want to make my position very clear. Judging from what an hon. member to my right is saying under his breath, I am getting it across. I want to make it clear that I do not support this government action. It is most unfortunate that we have perpetuated what I had hoped was over and done with for ever. Religion and language should be two separate things. If there is anything that can be done to help Englishspeaking Canadians to recognize that we are not in any way perpetuating Catholicism, either pushing it up or down, but that language is one thing and religion is another, I would still like to hear about it and be a part of it.
My case has tumbled to the ground. For that, I am embarrassed and sad. I make my position clear and say that this has been a most unfortunate thing. It is a heavy price to pay at home to have millions of Canadians, who are in fact not Catholic and who speak English, believe that this government which is for extending the rights of French Canada is ipso facto and automatically for extending the rights of the Roman Catholic church in precedence over all others. This is very sad. However, that is water under the bridge and there is nothing I can do but cry the blues.
I do not want to use up too much of my time on this subject since there is a second point I would like to make. I will concentrate on one small area of the globe, namely Latin America, an area that holds my interest very strongly. There are 22 countries in Latin America and 20 of the 22 are predominantly Catholic. Of those 20, 19 are nations which have been colonized by either Spain or Portugal. The national churches in both those countries are Roman Catholic. The churches in both Spain and Portugal, if you know anything about the present day history, tend to
November 3, 1969

The Address-Mr. McBride be the most traditionally bound and tend to have the least ability of any national Catholic church in the world, in the context of their homeland, to manifest any relevent social conscience. In short, the missionaries who have gone out, as well as the whole of the churches in the 19 countries of Latin America, take their predominant tone and theme from Spain and Portugal. Therefore, in Latin America, the church has come to be too much identified with the establishment, with the people who have the power. As far as the mass of the people throughout Latin America are concerned, the people who have the power have the land, suppress the people, and have made a comfortable alliance with hunger, poverty, disease and illiteracy.
In increasing our own ties with the Vatican, we are identified with the establishment in a huge portion of the world where I, for one, want us to be future-oriented and identified with the mass of the people. In this sense, if you look into the future, the establishment of a diplomatic post at the Vatican is a disadvantage. Unfortunately, my time is running out and I will not be able to go into the other reasons. I have talked to other hon. members privately, and they have said they have never heard other people talking about these problems in discussing our relations with the Vatican. I am not attempting to suggest to the House that I have an insight which no other member has, but I thought these factors should be put on the record to indicate there are good reasons why it was a bad thing for Canada to establish diplomatic relations with the Vatican. Unfortunately, we are now on the side of yesterday. We are not standing with tomorrow. Too frequently, we creep where we should have walked and we walk when we should have run, but in this instance we ran forward only to catch up to yesterday.
I believe that bilingualism and bicultural-ism are more important than most of us think and that anything we do to diminish their importance is a step in the wrong direction. Therefore, I oppose the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Vatican.
Leaving that topic completely, I want to address myself for a few minutes before my time elapses to the problems in the Ottawa Valley and in my constituency, an area where roads are desperately inadequate, where avenues that will permit industry to place its products on the markets of Canada or of the world are so limited that industry is having a tough time in competing. We are in an area

that is not one of the designated areas in the regional development plan. For that reason, you will see on the order paper a notice of motion in my name that we should become a designated area. I hope it will be debated on some future occasion. We have some industry in our area, but the Ottawa Valley is primarily an agricultural area in a day when 7 per cent of our population is made up of farmers but when we are moving very swiftly to identify with the United States situation where less than 2 per cent of the population is in fact involved in primary production.
The problem in agriculture in Canada is a very simple one and I am familiar with it from first hand experience and professional training. In Canadian agriculture, the whole problem can be stated in one word-over production. In Ontario, we most certainly need- and I am not so familiar with the rest of Canada although I had the privilege of being a member of the Agriculture Committee as we travelled across the country-to control and organize our marketing. To do so, and to control our production, good supply management is essential. It is nowhere more essential than within the agricultural industry. In the midst of any attempt toward supply management, and any attempt to uproot or relocate people, no houses and much pollution, and we paramount. People-values cannot simply be thrown to one side. In Canada, we have a queer situation. We have cities with many people, no houses and much pollution, and we have rural areas with many houses, no pollution and no people. We need to balance these situations somehow or other. We need to get a little optimism in the pessimists and pessimism in the optimists.
To cope with this problem I have an idea, which may be farfetched but which I think ought to be given serious consideration. I call it the central agency for transportation, or, for short, CAT. The whole point of CAT, as I envisage it, would be that every manufacturer in the whole of Canada would pay no transportation costs to truckers or rail lines etc. Instead, all would pay an equalized levy to the central agency for transportation. CAT would levy an equal rate per ton or per hundredweight for transportation costs on all companies, whether they had to ship their goods 500 miles or two miles in every part of Canada. Thus, one of the most severe restrictions on decentralization of industry would be eliminated. It seems to me that although the regional incentives idea is a good one, it will never really work. We will never really achieve what we must achieve in Canada
November 3, 1969
unless some such additional scheme is adopted.
[DOT] (4.40 p.m.)
We might reasonably expect that our incentives would work more effectively if we could off-set at least one of the disadvantages that a company which locates in northern Ontario or eastern Ontario has over a company located in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, the disadvantages of extra transportation costs, the difficulty of securing rapid delivery, and the added difficulty of that company being located away from the large pools of skilled labour.
I know that many of the companies in the Ottawa valley area, which I represent, and companies in northern Ontario and elsewhere say, "Our problem is transportation costs. We have to compete with companies that are located only one mile away from those who buy their commodities." If anything could be done to diminish this disadvantage, then industrial decentralization could occur.
I would, therefore, leave the idea with the House that perhaps the Standing Committee on Transportation or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) could consider some sort of central agency for transportation, an agency which would equalize transportation costs for all industries regardless of where they were located. The net result would not work to the disadvantage of a company that decided to remove its works and its workers from the over-polluted, over-crowded city and place them in the country, where with proper safeguards its operations would not pollute the country. This is necessary in a country as great and as growing as ours. I find that in essence, Mr. Speaker, I have covered my topic and am leaving a little time for the next speaker.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, on rising to participate in the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne in this second session, I suppose it is normal and courteous to congratulate not only the two members who moved and seconded the Address in Reply to Her Majesty's representative but also to congratulate you, Sir, on having weathered the first term of this parliament, and all the officers who assist you in your work in this House, because it is only through the proper conduct of your duties that we are able to carry on in an effective manner on behalf of the people whom we represent.
The Address-Mr. D. MacDonald
Like so many other comments that have been made over the past few days, mine will be in nature a pot-pourri in an attempt to deal with some of the concerns that strike me as being important. One is tempted to respond to some comments that were made earlier, but I will refrain from doing that. Rather, I will deal with matters that I think are of very important concern, both to this House and to the country.
One of the chief concerns that people have had over the last year since the government took office-in fact, it is well over a year ago-has been the attempt to understand the shape and direction of its leadership. The shortest description that has been used up to now of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been that of a pragmatist. It is a very popular thing in the era of the 1960's to be regarded as a pragmatist. John F. Kennedy, who opened his leadership in this decade, was regarded as being a pragmatist above all else. In most quarters it is regarded as a compliment.
However, I would suggest that as the shape of the leadership of the government is becoming clear to us we are becoming more and more aware of the fact that it is led not by a pragmatist but by a legalist. For people in the future to understand the kind of decisions being taken, it will be important for them to understand the kind of leadership given. I would like to illustrate my suggestion that the Prime Minister is a legalist and practices a new kind of political philosophy that can be described as 'legalism' by giving three examples of three issues considered important to the people of Canada within the past year.
The first was one in which I was very closely involved-the whole business of the Nigeria-Biafra conflict, stretching over many months. There was great public agony, not only in this country but in many western countries, over the senseless slaughter taking place in the country formerly known as Nigeria and now known as Nigeria and Biafra. As recently as this month, one national church publication lamented in the strongest tones the inability of governments like our own to respond to the senseless loss of 2 million lives in little more than a year in that part of Africa. Our government has not acted. If we were to go through the various ins and outs of the discussions which have been held, and the things the government has said, and the attempts it has made to deal with this problem, one thing would become clear, that is that the government, from the beginning of

November 3, 1969

The Address-Mr. D. MacDonald its awareness of this problem, has been circumscribed by legalism.
Of course, a man of law such as our Prime Minister, and such as others who work with him, would quite naturally respond, "That is how we carry on our affairs, particularly those that pre-occupy the business of nations with nations." Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that when we very easily suggest that there is an accepted body of doctrine known as international law by which we can govern ourselves, then we have made the first basic mistake in trying to understand and deal realistically with what is happening in the international community.
We know only too well how ineffective the World Court at the Hague has been in trying to make its decisions stick, and this in fact in dealing with basic questions of international law. The international community is not one governed primarily by law and order. Rather, it is a human jungle. I suggest we have yet to reach that point where we can govern ourselves according to any kind of laid-down international dictum to which all nations, big and small, give assent. We know only too well that spheres of influence and powerful concerns play a much more important part in the decisions that are taken by governments than any adherence to some kind of abstract international law. Would to God that some kind of international law did, in fact, exist.
From the beginning, the Prime Minister has stated both publicly and privately that he could not act because it would be in contravention of international law. However, lawyers both in this country and in other countries who have spent some little time in examining the various international laws, so-called, that might apply to this kind of situation, and the various examples that could be culled from earlier decisions respecting international intervention, have argued strenuously that there is a good body of international law that would allow for a variety of creative responses to this situation. But we have not seen one ounce of solid, creative response to this most difficult problem. All we have heard from the beginning to the end has been a kind of resort to what I would call illustrations that bear no similarity to the problem, and these sometimes so crudely put as to be offensive.
Even more recently, we learned that our problems with regard to our sovereignty in the northern part of this country were placed in a great state of confusion because some months ago the Prime Minister suggested it was not at all clear what kind of jurisdiction

we would exercise in the waters between the islands in the Canadian Arctic archipelago. However, it is interesting that each time he has spoken since then he has moved back more and more to the position which has always been assumed by prime ministers in this country, the position that we do in fact claim sovereignty over all the waters that lie around the islands in the northern part of our country.
Now, the Prime Minister resorts to what to me seems the most strange way to get around this problem. Now, we are told that because of the danger of pollution, and because of the fact that the Eskimos for years have been walking on the ice as well as the land, we of course have jurisdiction and sovereignty in that part of the country. But naturally the Prime Minister will not speak forcefully until he has established, by some legal means that he has yet to make clear to us that he can proclaim and have it readily accepted internationally, that we are sovereign in that part of our country.
Thirdly, and perhaps of most immediate concern to people in our own land, there is the problem of inflation. Of course, inflation is a difficult problem to deal with, and to suggest it could be dealt with quickly or easily would be to ignore the real problems inherent in the situation itself. The government decided to establish a Prices and Incomes Commission which would attempt to determine what might be a reasonable increase for those asking for higher wages as well as for those who are asking for higher prices. Almost within a week of one another, we had two examples of the recommendations of that commission being ignored. The Canadian Labour Congress as much as said it was not prepared to co-operate with the commission, and one of our major steel companies announced that it was increasing the price of basic steel by 6 per cent. Today I hear that another firm has followed suit, with price increases of between 5J and 6 per cent. Of course, the Prime Minister has argued that the government does not want to interfere with the work of the Prices and Incomes Commission, because this is the commission's responsibility. Why the government feels this way is an intriguing question.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
When asked what action the government might take, because there seemed to be some doubt in the minds of some that the government might want to take action, the Prime Minister said that the question was being
November 3, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	437
looked into. When he was asked if the federal government is empowered by the constitution to control prices and wages without encroaching upon certain powers he replied, as reported at page 235 of Hansard as follows:
This general matter has been referred for consideration to the Department of Justice which, as the hon. member knows, acts as an adviser to the government on constitutional and legal matters.
Have we reached that stage when the government of this country, on being asked a question affecting our basic economy, must refer the subject matter of the question to some legal tribunal in order that we may decide what right the government has to act? I wonder whether we have a government at all, or if we have not been ruled by some new kind of law society which will pass judgment from time to time on questions of the day that are of most legal interest. Mr. Speaker, the government this Prime Minister heads is not one of pragmatism but of legalism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni):: I feel it is unfortunate that the country will have to bear, for at least another three years, with this kind of legalistic behaviour.
As one looks at the realm of international affairs, one can see that in the dying years of the 1960's such behaviour did little to enhance Canada's image. We are told in the Speech from the Throne that we shall be intensifying our direct contacts with many of the governments and peoples of Latin America, Africa and Asia. Presumably, we intensify our contacts by closing up shop in various places in order that we can cut our expenditures or losses-choose your own term. Is this the way that we are to co-operate more closely with some countries and understand them more fully? At the time, we have pledged ourselves to be an active member of the United Nations, and we suggest that we are now in a position perhaps to play our part in revitalizing and strengthening the United Nations. I wonder if anyone in New York city, say, would, take such a statement seriously, especially if he realizes that in the last few years in major matters which have come to the forefront of international affairs, Canada has displayed no leadership in terms of insight or courage. We have been happy to pander to the ideas of many other countries, many of which are not great powers but small powers, when they have told us that our price for being accepted by the international group is for us to go along with other people's ideas.
The Address-Mr. D. MacDonald
It strikes me that we are verging on hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, when we announce to the world that we are to establish, all on our own, an international development research centre. Sometimes I think that we see reflected in the makeup of this government the worst trends of Canadians who travel abroad. They have a smugness about them as they look at the difficulties from which our great neighbour, the United States, is trying to extricate itself, implying at the same time that although Canada is not so powerful we are really much better off and much better fellows. We can set up an international development research centre all by ourselves. Frankly, I do not know what we shall research. We have not even given the aid we have committed ourselves to give. I remember the figure of 1 per cent of our gross national product being mentioned in the grandiose pronouncements of our former prime minister a few short years ago.
In the Speech from the Throne, and in the Prime Minister's remarks, we see comments about the nature of our society, about its uncertainty, its shifting values and its propensity to action through violence. Some of that violence we have seen at close range. We are all genuinely concerned in this House about the ways in which traditional values and patterns of behaviour have undoubtedly changed. We are very much concerned that institutions such as this will not respond quickly enough, in terms of temperament and change, to the social realities of the country and of the world. But I say to you, sir, that as one reads the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's remarks one will see little evidence that there is an awareness of what must be done, because the situation of today in the world has changed from that of only a few short years ago. If the Prime Minister and the government believe that all they have to do in the face of current unrest is lower the voting age by three years, then I say that he and the government have lost all sense of what it means to lead the country today. What use are all these public discussions and white papers, if the Prime Minister has decided that he will not listen to the recommendations of parliamentary committees and that the government will, so to speak, do its own thing? I say that he has not really committed himself to discover what is happening in this country today. It is interesting to note that while the Prime Minister, during his election campaign, spent some little time talking about the need for people to participate in government and about the
438	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. D. MacDonald need for them to communicate with him their concern about what is happening today, we see evidence that the government today is trying to dampen down discussion, avoid criticism and, in a sense, go its own sweet way.
No Canadian was more shocked than I was when hearing what the Prime Minister had to say about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Even more shocking was the lack of public outcry which ought to have arisen from what he said. It is hard to believe that only a few short years ago one Prime Minister was publicly rebuked for sending a personal letter to the president of the CBC; yet here we have another Prime Minister saying that if the CBC does not behave he will close down part of its network, and there is no outcry. Government interference in this field will mean that instead of public broadcasting in this country, something which is extremely valuable for the freedom of people, we shall have state broadcasting, which very few here seem to understand. It is interesting to note that France is in the process of moving away from state broadcasting and is going to public broadcasting.
On the other hand, under the direction of our Prime Minister, we are moving in the other direction. I hope that this serious folly on the part of the Prime Minister, occasioned perhaps by his desire to present some kind of heartwarming speech to his followers in Quebec, will be seriously reconsidered and that no more of these outbursts will be allowed to occur. I do not know how many such attacks it would take by a leader of a country upon its crown corporation before the corporation would crumble not only from within but from without. The Prime Minister has a rather unfortunate habit of talking against those who use rather aggressive ways of dealing with situations and then doing the same thing himself. He referred to the difficult situation that exists in Quebec, but not in terms helpful to the situation. There was a rather strange situation last week. In Montreal the Prime Minister made a speech which had great appeal to those in English speaking Canada who are looking for very simple answers to very complex problems. Following this, the leader of the Liberal Party in Quebec suggested exactly the opposite. If anyone understands whether there is some strange bond between the federal and the provincial branches of the Liberal Party in Quebec, I hope he will explain it to me because I have difficulty trying to consolidate this point of view into any kind of unanimity.

DEBATES	November 3, 1989
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
There may be some short-range political gain in suggesting it is time for people to stand up and take on in an aggressive way those who suggest a different course for this country to adopt, such as preaching separatism or some kind of independent status, this is not really the way to deal with political situations in Quebec or anywhere else. Leadership should be more than a strong speech, more than an attack by innuendo. If we are to do more than play upon the divisions of this country and are to try to heal its wounds, we require different leadership than that shown by the Prime Minister in the last couple of weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Much of what the Prime Minister has said about participation and the chance for involvement is a thin veneer with little reality behind it. He has been in his position for some months now. If he is serious about participation, beyond having a few more teenagers going to the ballot-box once every four years, it is time he proved it. There are some basic things the Prime Minister could do. I cannot understand why at the beginning of his leadership he did not seriously and publicly advocate the broadcasting of the sittings of this House and its committees so that all Canadians could be aware of what is happening in the forum that, hopefully, represents their national interests. I cannot understand why in this day and age, when we put so much emphasis on what we learn via radio and television, political leaders should be allowed to avoid facing the responsibility of broadcasting the proceedings of this House. I have not heard any good arguments against the same access being made available to the audio and visual media as is now available to the printed media, and has been for many years.
If there is any seriousness on the part of the government to at least expose this institution. and its committees to the country, and vice versa, surely broadcasting of our proceedings is a first requirement. Even that would be only a first step toward a major involvement of the Canadian people. If the government is concerned about the amount of antipathy and even cynicism that exists in the political processes of this country, confrontation of the kind the Prime Minister exhibits from time to time is really not the answer. It is sad that somebody who is reasonably bright should resort to what is not a
November 3, 1969
very bright technique in place of real political leadership. We must make changes in our institutions. Some of them must undergo major change if they are to work effectively for the remainder of this century. It is not enough to cling to the past or tinker with what I call incidentals; we must go to the bottom of basic problems. If we are not willing to consider these basic problems they will one day be forced upon us in a very unpleasant way.
We should not fool ourselves. Simply because we have elections from time to time and people seem reasonably satisfied with the leaders and representatives they elect does not mean that all is well. We know it is not. We know that times have changed greatly. People no longer want to be simply spectators in their own country. They want not only representation but genuine participation. They do not want a sham kind of participation that simply means they have been allowed to take part but their opinions are not worth very much. This is sometimes the way parliamentarians on committees feel when reports are made and they find the government has neither considered them important nor even considered them at all.
I hope we might get beyond some of the peripheral questions that seem to concern the government at the moment, and raise basic questions about how parliamentary democracy flourishes in the 'kind of technological age in which we live. We have acknowledged that new realities exist in our system, whether they be of communication, education, transportation or social interaction. Unless we are prepared to recognize this fact, the difficulties we have been experiencing will become greater and not less. It is my hope that in this session of Parliament, perhaps through a special committee or an effort by some members, we will begin to work on this question in a way that will allow the kind of genuine participation that Canadians not only ask for but require. If we do that we will have taken a genuine step toward the kind of participatory democracy that has too often been a slogan and seldom a fact.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I join other hon. members in congratulating the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. The Speech does not really set out where we as a country hope to go and what we hope to do during this session. It is rather sketchy. However, it does touch on some things with which we have to deal. It devotes a sentence to the situation of the native
The Address-Mr. Gleave people of Canada. It devotes a couple of paragraphs to northern development and what we may or may not do in the Canadian north, the last frontier of Canada and indeed the last frontier of the North American continent.
The North American continent has been penetrated and developed for two centuries. Part of the United States and Canada is older than that, but mainly in the last two centuries has this continent been penetrated. The Speech declares we should take the necessary steps so that we do not despoil, ravage and abuse the last northern frontier to the extent that we have ravaged, despoiled and abused the part of the continent that we now inhabit.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The Speech from the Throne declares that important opportunities will be provided for the Indian people. Some of the Indian people in my constituency were kind enough to invite me to visit them while the House was in recess. They were kind enough to provide a hall and to put on a banquet or dinner, as is the custom on the prairies. They asked me to meet with them, to discuss what they could do and hear some of the things they were talking about. Last year we changed the regulations applicable to the Farm Credit Corporation and passed farm credit legislation to make it possible for these people to borrow money with which to operate farms. I was told that evening that six of these people had applied for loans and all had been refused. I was also told they had sought to build houses. I know this was the case. A large-sized quon-set hut had been built on that particular reserve a year or two earlier and there had been an undertaking that Indians would be trained to build houses and take part in the construction of houses for that and other reserves. When I met with them they told me they would like to know when the houses which had not yet been completed would be completed. They were anxious about this because the program had come to a standstill.
There were other questions raised. This lack of action demonstrates the gap between proposal and performance. Who in his right mind would start to build a house and not complete it? What is the use of saying credit is the answer, and promising to provide credit, if we do not intend to follow through? I have no doubt in my mind that there are in some areas Indian farmers who are reasonably well established and who have obtained loans. But surely when we changed the act we understood that when dealing with the

November 3. 1969

The Address-Mr. Gleave Indian people an approach would have to be taken somewhat different from that which applied to requests for loans by a Canadian farmer operating under good conditions. If the proposals we were making at that time were to be anything more than a sham and an empty promise, this must have been in our minds. It disturbed me that we should have acted without taking the steps necessary to make sure these people would be able to play their part and be in a position to take advantage of the legislation. They will not look at this question from the point of view of someone who listens to a speech made in this House and says; "Well, he had good intentions." They will judge the legislation by the results.
There is in this document a reference to the need to continue the fight against inflation, to win this battle and make the policy effective. Mr. Speaker, in the area in which I live and farm, people are not concerned about inflation. They are concerned about deflation, which is severe and has now reached the point at which it is working hardship. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) went out to meet these people. He sat and talked with them. I read some of the reports. It sounded like "Alice in Wonderland" economics. I am not an economist but I have talked to a great many economists. I never knew, until the idea was advanced at these meetings, that because a person had an investment he is automatically considered to have an income. I never knew that because a person owned a house or a farm it was automatically considered that he had a satisfactory income. I always thought the two things were different. Apparently that is not so.
We have a regional development program in the province of Saskatchewan. It is meant to take up the slack, I suppose. One of its projects is near Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale, around Hudson Bay Junction. I hope it works out and that some kind of industry is established. But while this is taking place, Gulf Oil in Saskatoon is proposing to remove its refining plant and concentrate production in the Edmonton area. I suspect a great deal more will be taken away than will be added, because this industry is natural to the area; it is fed by pipeline; it costs the taxpayer nothing to get it here-neither the taxpayer nor anyone else had to make a contribution.
We need an over-all plan for Canada I have to agree to some extent with the hon. member who spoke before me when he said, "Let us not accentuate pollution and inflation, but rather let us have some planning and
tMr. Gleave.]
objective in mind to solve these problems." The real objective of the government has yet to be explained. Fighting inflation is not, in itself, an economic objective but an attempt to deal with a situation which already exists. It is a negative approach. What is the positive approach of the government in terms of employment and economic growth, in terms of the well-being of the Canadian people?
This is what should have been dealt with in the document. What is the objective of the government in connection with the grain industry in western Canada? The document says that the production of grain has increased substantially, outstripping demand. Grain is described as one commodity whose reserves have piled up, causing financial hardship to many farmers. There is in the speech a promise to improve international co-operation and to re-establish orderly marketing. We are told we shall be asked to consider amending the Canada Grain Act so as to provide more effective competition by Canadian wheat in world markets. The document states that the reduction in markets and prices has been causing the utmost concern to the government.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The changes that were taking place in world markets must have been evident to the government before now. Indeed, they were evident following the second world war and the institution of the Marshall Plan. It was obvious that a substantial portion of our markets would lie not in western Europe but in China, Japan, Asia and Russia. The trend of future markets was clearly shown. Yet we emerged from the Kennedy Round and GATT negotiations with a pricing arrangement and marketing outlook that gave the impression that our main markets for grain were still in western Europe. The western farmer would like an answer to the question whether our trade policies have altered to take into account the new circumstances with which we have to live The Globe and Mail for October 10 last carried a news item concerning trade negotiations between the United States and Japan, part of which reads:
Japan also agreed to free the imports of soybean meal and peanuts for oil production by the end of 1971, and to expand import quotas for sausage and those for beef and pork, both by 20 per cent, Japanese sources said.
There is more to the story but I will not expand on it. I should like to know whether Canada is negotiating for increased access to other markets and is prepared to accept some
November 3, 1969	COMMONS
imports in exchange for what we have to sell.
I should like to know whether we will be able to increase exports of rapeseed which will offset the disadvantage these exports suffered as a result of the Kennedy Round negotiations. I think therein lies the answer to the grain and wheat problems facing western Canada.
The government has shown some initiative in the matter of barley sales and has recognized some of the new facts of life of the export market. Oddly enough, at the same time the government has limited the amount of subsidy paid on the movement of feed grain to our own markets in the east. Surely these are among our most valuable markets. I think one of our objectives should be to try to get maximum sales volume in our domestic market.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You cannot get more than 100 per cent volume.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I hear the minister say we cannot achieve more than 100 per cent, and this is right. But let us first get that 100 per cent. If the policy of this government results in a 100 per cent volume of sales, well and good; I will be happy to congratulate the minister. But let us be under no illusion: unless we are able to sell our grain, western Canada will have to face the prospect of agricultural land going out of production. What western Canada needs above all is an agricultural policy that gives direction to the farmers for the future. At the present time one province proposes to put up $6,000 a year for each farmer who wants to raise small beef herds: another province is encouraging feed lots. The same is being done with regard to hog production. I should like to know whether the federal government and the provincial governments can get together and agree to a policy that will be of significance to our farmers.
I am sure most farmers would agree that some diversification can take place so as to change production to the farmer's advantage. But unless a proper assessment is made, a hodge-podge policy will emerge; poor investments will be made and human hardship will inevitably ensue. But above all, as I say, the western farmers need direction so they have some idea what lies ahead. At a time when we are trying to survive, to overcome our present trading difficulties, one minister of the government of Saskatchewan is spending his time sniping at the Canadian Wheat Board, the only agency we have to stabilize
DEBATES	441
The Address-Mr. Gleave prices. I do not take that sort of thing lightly. There are always those who when a difficult situation occurs are ready to seek a whipping-boy, and this is the case with a minister of the crown in the government of Saskatchewan. This sort of thing is a sheer waste of time. If there is lack of aggressiveness on the part of the Wheat Board, let us ascertain why and take the necessary corrective action. The real solution to our problem lies in our overall approach to action that will stabilize prices for other farm products as well as wheat.
For example, the price of beef during the last year has been most erratic. In my opinion, our market information is inadequate. I wonder just how much market information is gathered from small sales barns that are scattered across the country, and how quickly information in terms of price and volume is transmitted to the marketplace so it can be interpreted by our farmers. If we are to have some diversification in western Canada, we must have security of price and a marketing system in which the farmer has confidence. This is one of the first requirements.
I urge the government to carefully consider trade and agricultural policies that will serve this very important region of Canada and give its people confidence and courage to continue to develop farms that are viable, high-production units. I shudder to think of a farming economy in western Canada that following four or five years of deflation-depression if you like-has lost a large part of its capital investment and is no longer as viable, strong and competitive as it is now. Our objective, Mr. Speaker, should be nothing less than the maintenance of a strong and competitive agricultural industry that can hold its own in any market in the world.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Before I recognize the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) I should like to inform the House of the questions to be debated at the time of adjournment. Following that I will recognize the hon. member.
At the time of adjournment the question to be raised is: the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle)- communications, southern Labrador, request for temporary reinstatement of D.O.T. service.
442	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. A. B. Douglas



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.
Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we seem to be reversing the usual order today. In the last hour or two we have heard two clergymen in succession, followed by two farmers. This seems to be almost going from the sublime to the ridiculous.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are
you sure it is not the reverse?


Albert B. Douglas: I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this Throne Speech debate. I join those who have preceded me in congratulating the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) on their fine speeches when moving and seconding the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne last October 23.
Last year, on September 23, 1968, I spoke of the startling drop in farm income, especially in the prairies, which was experienced in the crop year 1967-68. The value of our wheat and wheat flour exports that year dropped to less than $700 million, after we had experienced the four best years in history when under a liberal government from 1963 to 1967 the value of our wheat and wheat flour exports averaged over $1 billion per year.
The downward trend continues. I have not seen exact figures, but we did export 305.8 million bushels of wheat in 1968-69. Calculated at $1.90 per bushel, which is probably high when one considers the low grade of some of that wheat, the export value for 1968-69 would amount to $581 million. Coupled with the drop in Wheat Board final payments last spring, the grain farmer's loss of income has reached the proportions of a national calamity. Let me assure the government, which is rightly concerned about inflation, that the prairie grain farmers are certainly not contributing to that problem; on the contrary, they are among those being victimized by it. I will have more to say about inflation later.
The fact is that we already have a full-fledged depression in the grain growing areas of the prairies which is affecting not only the farmers but those urban communities which
[The Deputy Speaker.]
DEBATES	November 3, 1969
exist mainly to serve the needs of the farmers. Many of these urban communities are rapidly becoming ghost towns.
Regional development was mentioned in the Throne Speech. I am happy to learn that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and in particular its incentive activities, will continue to get increased attention and funds. I was very pleased to learn that a large part of southern Saskatchewan has been made eligible for area development assistance. I welcome encouragement for industrial development and I know that we in southern Saskatchewan will do our best to make use of the help offered.
In this connection I was interested in a comment made earlier in the debate by the hon. member for York-North (Mr. Danson) which points up the contrasts in Canada. He said, as reported on page 108 of Hansard:
We are blessed in our region. We have expansion going on daily that would create headlines anywhere else. This hardly ruffles the surface. It is almost routine. I have in mind a 4,000 man increase in employment in one aircraft plant, of which most people in the area are not even aware, which puts additional pressure on the economy of our region. There was a $32 million development in one corner of my riding which I read about in the local suburban newspaper. So we enjoy success and prosperity beyond measure.
Things like that rarely happen anywhere in Saskatchewan. If they did, and especially if they should happen in my constituency, everybody would talk about it for years before and probably for years after. This contrast lends urgency to the development of the area incentives plan. However, I believe that positive action to improve the lot of the grain farmer would do more to quickly revive our ailing economy and put life back into the service industries on the prairies, on a shortterm basis at least.
May I again suggest that the government support the price of wheat at $1.95J as was done between August 1, 1967, and July 1, 1968. That was during the period when no International Grains Arrangement was in effect. Now that the IGA has been agreed to and ratified by the government, there is even more justification for the government supporting that minimum price. This is a government agreement, negotiated by governments, signed and ratified by governments, which has been broken by government action in the first year of a three-year term. Farmers planned their production and financing on the basis of that three-year agreement. Now suddenly they are left high and dry and are being made the victims of an international
November 3, 1969
price war between governments. No government would dare treat big industry or labour unions in such a cavalier fashion. So I renew my request that the government consider what farmers believe to be a legitimate claim for this kind of assistance.
Farmers appreciate the beginnings of a two-price system. The principle has been established. I call on the government to make it more realistic in terms of general price levels in the Canadian economy. I ask the government to provide some meaningful assistance to grain farmers who may wish to diversify, which is what some government spokesmen are recommending.
Much has been said in the last year or two about who was responsible for encouraging farmers to increase their grain production. At one of the many meetings I attended in my constituency this fall, one farmer, who must have had a good filing system or at least a better one than I have on the farm, produced a copy of "Farm Letter", which is a monthly publication of the federal Department of Agriculture. It contained an article entitled "Outlook 67" and was dated January 1967. It was issued with the authority of Hon. J. J. Greene, the then Minister of Agriculture. Let me read two short paragraphs on the outlook for wheat:
The forecast is for a carryover of 580 million bushels on July 31 when the crop year ends, and the experts say this is not too much.
Remember, they are referring to July 31, 1967, just a little over two years ago. Listen to this:
Continuing high production of wheat will be needed. But given average yields, Canada should be able to meet the demand by planting 30 million acres to wheat, the same as in 1966.
Can anyone deny at least some government responsibility for the wheat surplus?
In March of 1968, a little more than a year after that "Farm Letter" was published, the task force on agriculture said that farmers should progressively reduce their wheat acreage from 30 million to 20 million by 1980. There has been talk about supply management in this House. Grain farmers operate under the most stringent system of supply management one could possibly devise. I refer to the quota system, which in effect only allows us to deliver from the farms that which is actually sold. The quota system and the resulting pileup of surplus grain on the farms caused farmers to go halfway toward the suggested 12-year reduction of 10 million acres in one short season. Wheat acreage was cut almost 5 million acres in 1969. If farmers should continue at that rate-which is quite impossible, of course-we would reduce our
The Address-Mr. A. B. Douglas acreage to 20 million acres in two years instead of twelve. If carried further to an absurd conclusion, by 1974 we would seed no wheat at all.
The unpredictability of the wheat industry is demonstrated by the production this year: while the acreage went down by about 15 per cent, the production of wheat increased by over 4 per cent. Someone will say that farmers just used more fertilizer on the reduced acreage. I have in mind the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle). The use of fertilizer was almost cut in half in 1969, compared with 1968. The average yield increase from 22.1 bushels per acre to 27.2 bushels was almost entirely due to rain coming at the right time, and despite a reduction in the use of fertilizer.
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Harries) made a very good point when he spoke in this debate last Thursday-I hope interested persons will take heed of what he said-as reported in Hansard for October 30, near the end of page 295 and on page 296. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I believe the word "not" was left out of the seventh line in the first column on page 296. I quote with approval one paragraph from page 296 of the hon. member's speech:
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
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 quite out of sympathy with, and inappropriate to, the kind of productivity that we can enjoy in Canada.
I urge the government to allow the budget to expand for agriculture rather than be constricted. Farmers are among those people referred to as being unable to exact from our economy their fair share of price and income increases. I believe that the people of Canada, who are on the average very prosperous, should through the federal government come to the aid of disadvantaged people such as the farmer, the fisherman, the pensioner and the slum-dweller.
Someone may ask, "Where can we get the money?" Again I refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona who I believe is a former dean of economics of the university at Edmonton. He suggested that crown corporations which have been successfully developed should be sold and the money used for other development. I would prefer that we dispose of other government agencies, particularly those that incur deficits. The first one that comes to mind is the Canadian

November 3, 1969

The Address-Mr. A. B. Douglas Broadcasting Corporation, which is expected to have a deficit of $151 million this year. I selected the CBC for more than financial reasons. They seem to be responsible to no one. I have not watched any CBC plays for years. I used to watch them but I could not stomach them. From my correspondence it seems that many people now have the same reaction. I am sure that few people would willingly pay to see some of the stuff the CBC puts out.
Most people in my area prefer the private network where management depends on public approval to make the operation pay. There is one exception. The private network station in Regina does not carry school television broadcasts. Early this fall the CBC unceremoniously switched stations in Regina with the private network, with the result that many schools which had purchased TV equipment and developed timetables making use of these broadcasts were left without the programs. One would think the CBC would have had enough consideration for its patrons to make arrangements with the other outlet to continue the service. The Don Messer fiasco was another example of the indifference of the CBC to its public. The CBC network and facilities should be worth a lot of money. We should sell the assets, use the money for more urgent programs and release almost $200 million a year of our annual budget for better uses.
I think funds could be diverted to greater advantage in the Department of Agriculture. My favourite suggestion is to dispose of the Tobacco Research Station at Delhi, Ontario, to the tobacco companies and save several hundred thousand dollars per year. It is ludicrous, in my opinion, to have on the one hand the Department of Health and Welfare spending large sums of money to combat the bad effects of the use of tobacco, while on the other hand the Department of Agriculture is spending large amounts to assist its production. There is also the question of the experimental station for fur-bearing animals which is being developed in Ottawa. I am informed that the fur producers believe such a federal research station is not required. So again I say, let us give more assistance to our dairy farmers, our hog farmers, our grain farmers and other agricultural producers. They are now receiving less government assistance and protection than farmers in almost any other developed nation.
That is not to say that the government has done nothing to help the farmers. More money than ever has been made available to provide farm loans and to assist credit sales
[Mr. Douglas (Assiniboia.l
of farm products. The Export Development Corporation was set up last session. Only about three months ago it was announced that our external food aid program was being increased $20 million, from $65 million to $85 million. Most of this aid consists of wheat and wheat flour. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) only a few days ago announced an increase of $1 million in the amount budgeted for feed grain freight assistance.
The government has appointed a minister to deal exclusively with the Wheat Board and the problems of the grain industry. Prairie farmers were pleased by the appointment of Saskatchewan's Otto Lang to that important position. I wish him well and assure him of my active support and assistance. He will have the constant and perhaps dubious benefit of my advice, solicited or otherwise, as he has already discovered.
I believe that one of the most significant things the government has done for the grain industry recently was the appointment of Mr. Charles Gibbings to fill a vacancy on the five-man Canadian Wheat Board. Ever since the Wheat Board was established by the Bennett government in the '30s, farmers and farm organizations have asked for farmer representation on the Wheat Board. Successive governments, including that headed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), failed to comply with that request. Last July this government did appoint a farmer, so we at last have farmer representation on the Wheat Board-and not just any farmer; Mr. Gibbings was a practising grain farmer who was president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool for many years. He is probably one of the best known, most highly respected, and most [DOT]knowledgeable farmers in Canada, if not in the world. The government has not received as much credit for this very commendable appointment as I think it is entitled to, and I propose to try to rectify this omission at every opportunity.
Already I believe we can see positive results from this appointment. We have a new, unprecedented deferred delivery plan to take care of unequal delivery opportunities at the end of the crop year. We have an investigation within the Wheat Board of the whole operation of the quota system, which has had little revision since it was instituted 25 or 30 years ago. We are selling grain to new markets and reviving old ones. These are only a few of the results of this appointment. I take some credit for the initiation of some of these new policies.
November 3, 1969	COMMONS
Some hon. members opposite have accused the government of hampering the operations of the Wheat Board, of undermining it and trying to do away with it. This is absolutely not true. When the Standing Committee on Agriculture heard witnesses from the Wheat Board last spring one of the committee members asked if they would like any further assistance from the government. As I recall it, the reply was that they received the fullest co-operation and assistance from the government. May I remind hon. members that it was a Liberal government which two or three years ago introduced legislation establishing the Canadian Wheat Board on a permanent basis. Under previous governments it was set up on a renewable, five-year term, and every five years its enemies had an opportunity to press for its discontinuance. If any members of parliament are trying to undermine the Wheat Board, they are not in the Liberal ranks. I and the others on this side are 100 per cent behind the principle of the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Speaker.
I am the only western farmer on the Liberal side of this House of Commons with the exception of our Minister of Agriculture. Not only that, but I am the only farmer M.P. for any party from southern Saskatchewan. The hon. members for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh), Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam), Regina East (Mr. Burton), Regina Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) and Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) are urban men.


Mr. McIntosh:: And also farmers.


Albert B. Douglas: Consequently,
more and more people from all over southern Saskatchewan are coming to me with their problems. One of the problems which is affecting particularly Saskatchewan and Manitoba is the shortage of box cars and the inequitable distribution of the box cars that are available. I experience the effects of these conditions myself. Many farmers inside and outside of my constituency are complaining. The discriminatory treatment that some railway lines and some delivery points have been receiving is almost unbelievable.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Why don't you do something about it?


Albert B. Douglas: I am. As of October 24 some points had not received one box car since August 1. Many others had received one, two, three, four or five box cars. On favoured lines they have been getting plenty of cars, as many as 100, or more, at individual points.
DEBATES	445
The Address-Mr. A. B. Douglas
On October 22 I complained very loudly about these matters to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson). Within a week he had arranged for me to meet the top officials of the CNR and the CPR. We had an extremely frank exchange of opinions and ideas on October 29. I was able to present facts to bear out my contention that many farming communities are being very unfairly treated. An investigation into the general situation was promised. In particular, all concerned agreed that a concerted effort would be made to make space available for farmers to deliver the supplementary quotas on durum and barley which expire on November 28 next. Similar deadlines last year cut off delivery of supplementary quotas of durum and oats before all farmers had an opportunity to deliver; they were arbitrarily deprived of important income opportunities by the vagaries of box car distribution. Farmers thus treated were justifiably incensed, and I hope that such an outrage will not occur again this year.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Imagine what a labour union member or a bank shareholder would do if someone such as the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans), failed to deliver his pay cheque or dividend cheque. I am going to watch the box car supply and distribution situation closely for signs of the improvement which I hope will result from the meeting last week.
My friend and neighbour, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam), spoke in this debate last Wednesday. He had an advantage over me because he had just returned, armed with a great deal of material, from some sort of convention at Niagara Falls. His speech consisted largely of quotations from that material, although I do not believe that he made reference to the very interesting guaranteed income plan put forward by his leader but which was reportedly scuttled by a group of Tories led by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). By the way, the hon. member for Crowfoot must have exhausted himself in the scuttling operation because I noticed him in the house only briefly one day this session. Neither did the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain reveal his solution for the pressing problems of inflation to which I will refer in a few minutes if I have time.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You should be the minister of agriculture.
November 3, 1969

The Address-Mr. A. B. Douglas


Albert B. Douglas: He did say something about the relative position of the United States in wheat exports compared with that of other countries, including Canada. He stated that in 1967-68 the U.S. increased its wheat exports while all other exporters lost ground, and total exports dropped by 12 per cent. This is true, and he probably knows why. The IGA expired on July 31, 1967, and the new IGA had not been ratified. So until it was ratified to become effective July 1, 1968, there was no floor price. The United States had no qualms about cutting prices, which was perfectly legal at that time. Canada, through our Wheat Board, tried to maintain prices to ensure that importers would ratify the agreement, because the agreement was probably more valuable and more important to Canada than to most other countries. I do not believe the hon. member protested this attitude at the time.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Your government sold us out at that time.


Albert B. Douglas: Perhaps Canada would have acted differently if present world wheat market conditions could have been foreseen. Up to that time it had been a sellers' market. In less than two years it has become a buyers' market and the hon. member's hindsight is marvellous to behold.
He should also have been using the latest figures available on page 5 of the August DBS publication, catalogue No. 22-005, which gives figures for 1968-69, the crop year just ended. Again, world wheat exports from the four major exporters listed dropped, this time by 18 per cent rather than the previous 12 per cent. The U.S. share dropped from 53.6 per cent in 1967-68 to 46.7 per cent. Canada's share went up from 24 per cent to 26.4 per cent. Why did he not give us the full picture?
He also berated the Minister of Agriculture for being realistic instead of blindly optimistic about grain markets in the next few years. I think it is far better to be a little pessimistic than to contribute to another cruel disillusionment such as has befallen grain farmers in the past two years. Farmers have so much built-in optimism that it does not require artificial stimulation. If they were not basically optimists they would all have quit the business years ago.
Recent statements by cabinet ministers, including the Minister of Agriculture and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, indicate that Soviet Russia intends very soon to enter negotiations regarding taking the balance of the 336-million bushel 1966 wheat

contract, and will also talk about further purchases. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who is still highly regarded in western Canada, recently made a trip to the Soviet Union. Perhaps he paid his own expenses, or perhaps the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) allocated to him part of the research funds which Parliament voted him. In any case, I am afraid it was not a very productive investment. It was pathetic, but not surprising, that the only announcement I heard him make on his return was a warmed-over version of what had been announced at the time of foreign secretary Gromyko's visit to Ottawa a few weeks ago and repeated several times since.
Further on the subject of wheat sales, the Wheat Board completed a very important wheat deal with Mainland China earlier this fall. Charles Gibbings was one of the three commissioners who spent some weeks in that country negotiating the sale. That sale was very encouraging to grain farmers who are now fairly confident that our exports this year will at least reach last year's level.
May I call it six o 'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker,
before I interrupted myself at the dinner adjournment, among other things I had briefly reviewed some of the recent developments in wheat marketing, including the impending talks with Soviet Russia on the balance of the biggest wheat deal in history, a total sale of 336 million bushels negotiated by the Wheat Board under a Liberal government in 1966. The last item I mentioned was the large 82 million bushel, one-year agreement signed with Mainland China a few weeks ago.
In the statements on agricultural policy quoted by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain last Wednesday one can see the fine hand of that self-styled super-salesman, schoolteacher from Saskatchewan, Alvin Hamilton. He says he has the solution to our wheat surplus problem. If it is anything more than pure fantasy why does he not impart this precious knowledge to the Canadian
November 3, 1969

Wheat Board? He cannot hope to regain command of the Wheat Board for another three or four years at least. If he were really concerned about the welfare of grain farmers he would not conceal such valuable information and thereby allow the farmers to continue suffering from low quotas and low incomes. I submit he has no solution and that he is only trying to perpetuate a myth that he contrived to build up some years ago. The voters of Regina East called his bluff on June 25, 1968. It is rumoured that he made a trip to the Orient recently. If that is true his timing is not as good as it used to be. This time the big wheat sale had been announced some time before he got there. Or perhaps the difference is that he is no longer in a position to manipulate announcements until he can be on the spot.
We need some long-term planning for agriculture, Mr. Speaker. We need a national farm policy. Farmers hopefully await the final report of the Task Force on Agriculture which is expected before the end of 1969. In arriving at that final report members of the task force will have had the benefit of the discussions and conclusions at the history making agricultural congress held in Ottawa last March. A reliable blueprint for the future of agriculture is long overdue but I believe this new Trudeau government would have been open to criticism if a comprehensive farm policy had been announced without the benefit of this thorough study of farm problems. Also, the Canada Grains Council, which was established during the last session, has just started to function and should be able to contribute a valuable input to a national farm policy. So, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the tabling of the task force report and to taking part in the development of agricultural policy and programs based on it.
Another report that we impatiently await is that on farm machinery costs. One of the recurring complaints at the meetings held by the Standing Committee on Agriculture in the prairies last spring was that of spiralling costs. In the many meetings I have attended since then, this remains one of the prime concerns. Our cash incomes are still comparatively high compared with 20 to 40 years ago, but our costs have risen astronomically. Farmers hope that the government's efforts to contain inflation, including the work of the Prices and Incomes Commission, will be effective in halting this unendurable cost-price squeeze which has bankrupted many already and which has brought most other grain farmers to the brink of insolvency.
The Address-Mr. Deakon
We fervently hope that the commission's attempts to obtain the necessary voluntary restraint from industry, unions and professional people are successful. The first apparent responses are not encouraging. The unions appear to be hostile to the idea of voluntary restraint. Industry is cool, with one of the pace-setters recently announcing steel price increases; and professional people, such as rural Saskatchewan teachers, are already campaigning for salary hikes in 1970.
The highly respected economist, John" Kenneth Galbraith, was reported to have said a couple of weeks ago that he could see no alternative than for the governments of Canada and the United States to impose strict price and wage controls on at least the major North American industries and trade unions. If the alternative to such control is mounting inflation followed by a terrific depression, which I am afraid is the most likely prospect, I am all in favour of such controls, and the sooner the better. I believe that most people on the prairies feel the same way.
In my opinion the Speech from the Throne was a very fine document. It is encouraging to know that the government is concerned about the strengthening of the United Nations, which I believe should be one of the top priorities. I eagerly look forward to the progressive legislation planned, including items to lower the voting age, to revise the Canada Grain Act, to increase grain sales, to reform taxes, to control and preserve our water resources, to reform criminal law, to protect consumers, to provide more low income housing and to improve labour-management relations.
Last but not least, I see much evidence in the Speech from the Throne and in actions and words of our Prime Minister and various other Ministers, that the government is genuinely concerned about the serious problems of Canadian farmers and is doing something about them. Mr. Speaker, I shall support the motion.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on rising to take part in this debate may I first concur with other hon. members of the House in congratulating the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau). Before proceeding with my comments on the Speech from the Throne may I bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that the federal riding of
November 3, 1969

The Address-Mr. Deakon High Park which I have the honour to represent is, through redistribution, composed of parts of the old ridings of York Humber, York South, York West and High Park. It is a most diversified riding economically and contains residents of a mosaic of ethnic origins.
May I take this opportunity to congratulate my predecessor, Mr. A. J. P. Cameron, for conscientious and unselfish dedication to this institution during his many years of service here and wish him well in his future endeavours. May I also express my deep regret and condolences to the family of the former member for York West, Hon. Robert Winters, on his sudden passing. His great contributions to Canada's economy and our democratic institutions shall long be remembered. He was indeed a great Canadian.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the short time available to me to briefly enunciate a few of my opinions on the Speech from the Throne. It was regrettable that the Speech from the Throne did not contain a greater priority in respect of urban affairs. Today, when more than 80 per cent of our nation's population resides in large cities such as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Halifax and others, from whence the majority of our problems arise necessitating legislation in transport, health, manpower, welfare, housing, consumer affairs, criminal law and communications, to name but a few, it would appear that our government does not consider this to be a major priority.
I know that the majority of those who do not agree with my statement will fall back on the excuse that this is not within the jurisdiction of the federal government and is a provincial and municipal matter. This is partially correct; but I submit it takes in all levels of government, as can be illustrated by some opinions advanced by a group of builders with whom I had the privilege to discuss the question of housing. They classified their difficulties in the following manner. First, municipal governments are maintaining outdated, archaic and restrictive building codes and demanding outdated building methods and materials. They hedge on re-zoning in areas where housing would be possible. In some cases builders are held up for more than three years by local councils. The builders' overheads, taxes and interest on the land are all added to the cost of the lot for which the home buyer eventually pays. I am advised that land costs now account for approximately one-third of the total cost of a home.
IMr. Deakon.]
Second, provincial governments have not made land available to the builders. As an example in Ontario one can cite the Thistle-town and Malvern land projects. Third, I submit that the federal government has been causing trouble for our builders in that it has make their work uncertain and difficult by an uncertain and fluctuating mortgage loan policy, to the point where builders cannot plan ahead. A builder is required to hire a large staff just in case more units can be permitted to be constructed and this increases his overhead and the ultimate cost 'of a home. Costs are also added since he can only construct one, two or three buildings at a time instead of introducing a whole assembly program which could bring about a large saving by the elimination of waste material and labour.
This is one example of overlapping jurisdiction and, therefore, of the constitutional argument. But the average man on the street has not one gram of knowledge about constitutional ramifications. All he knows is that he needs shelter at an economical cost; he needs food, clothing and medical attention for himself and his family. So let us take the bull by the horns, provide leadership, co-ordinate the efforts of all levels of government and endeavour to resolve some of these problems confronting the urban dweller. If we do not do this and we do not have jurisdiction, let us not abdicate our responsibilities in this regard Let us allow the provinces to do the job and distribute our finances to them on a per capita basis. The cities and urban centres are the pulse and heartbeat of our nation. I am therefore in agreement with the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) and would respectfully recommend that the government set up a standing committee of this House to deal with urban affairs.
Another issue on which I hold strong views is that of the sovereignty of our northern waters. This question has within the past few months come to the fore with the voyage of the Manhattan through the northwest passage; yet our government does not consider that these recent developments constitute a threat to Canada's sovereignty over her Arctic waters. This is indeed an optimistic point of view since one need only refer to the United States state department which has openly stated that the United States regards Lancaster Sound, Prince of Wales Strait, McClure Strait and other channels which comprise the northwest passage to be international waterways.
November 3, 1SG9
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if we do not take a strong stand now and snap out of our lethargy, we may lose by default. We must immediately take steps to assert our sovereignty by increasing our patrols by ship and aircraft over the Arctic waters. We must set up regulations with reasonable requirements as to the use of proper equipment and safe navigational practices for ships travelling the northwest passage. We must also set down stringent conditions in order to control pollution.
I had the privilege, with other colleagues of this House, of visiting the northern Arctic. We had the opportunity of going to the spot where apparently one of the large barges had been sunk. The barge contained high test airplane fuel which had apparently leaked out and evaporated, but it still contained approximately 110,000 gallons of diesel fuel. I do not know all the details of the operation, but apparently the barge had been moved and sunk at a depth of approximately 200 fathoms. I submit that because the barge is made of metal it will in a very short time corrode in the salt water. Eventually the pressure of the water will cause the barge to burst and a lot of diesel fuel will seep out and pollute large areas of the Canadian Arctic.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I am pleased to know the Prime Minister has indicated that the government will be taking some steps in this direction but I respectfully submit this is not sufficient for the following reasons. First, circumstances at present favour a stronger stand since it has been proven that even ships as massive as the Manhattan cannot penetrate the northwest passage without the assistance of powerful icebreakers and expert help. Canada has both expert help and the icebreakers to do the job. Second, by such methods as those I have recommended, Russia has acquired control over its northern sea route. Third, Mr. Speaker, we need not be too concerned if we carry out the previous suggestions as to asserting our control, and should we be challenged about our claim the subject matter would be adjudicated by the International Court of Justice of the United Nations. Three of the nations represented on the court are Japan, Britain and the Philippines, all of which are island nations and have a vital interest in maintaining control over the sea channels between their islands. I believe, therefore, that we can count on them for a sympathetic hearing. I therefore support the other hon. members of this House, Mr. Speaker, who are
The Address-Mr. Deakon in favour of the Government of Canada formally declaring the Arctic channels to be Canadian territorial waters.
Although the National Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport has made a number of studies regarding amateur sport in Canada, there is still a great deal more which can be done, especially on the general subject of minor hockey, its mushrooming pee-wee tournaments, its contribution to the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association and its numerous financial problems. At present, if it were not for the large number of volunteers who unselfishly give of their time we would not have the calibre of athletes we have today. If we are to remain in international competition and are concerned about the frustrations of today's youth, we must immediately take steps to promote, encourage and financially assist these sports. I commend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) for his part in the establishment of the cross-Canada sports demonstration project. This is a step in the right direction, but there is a great deal more that can be done.
I have listened to numerous speeches in this House by hon. members opposite, implying that they are the only ones concerned about old age pensioners and others on fixed incomes. Let me just reiterate that we on this side of the House also have a genuine concern for the old, needy and less fortunate, and I trust that the government will be taking steps to rectify these inequalities. There are numerous other matters which require urgent legislation. Notably among them are bankruptcy regulations and a revision of our immigration laws. I intend to speak on these subjects at a later date.
Taking the cue from other members and thinking it might be advisable to involve the general public in our legislation, I distributed a questionnaire to my constituents, the results of which have been tabulated. I think they might be of interest to hon. members present. I would like to have these questions and answers placed on the record. They are as follows: Should Canada recognize Red China? Yes, 60.3 per cent; no, 29.9 per cent; no opinion, 9.8 per cent. Is Canada taking sufficient steps to protect its sovereignty in the north? Yes, 13.9 per cent; no, 70.9 per cent; no opinion, 15.2 per cent. Would you agree to wage and price controls? Yes, 70 per cent; no, 24.3 per cent; no opinion, 5.7 per cent. Should a guaranteed income become the basis of a revised welfare program? Yes, 41.7 per cent; no, 48 per cent; no opinion, 10.3 per cent. Should family allowances be paid to only

November 3, 1969

The Address-Mr. Valade those below a specified income level? Yes, 69.4 per cent; no, 25.7 per cent; no opinion, 4.9 per cent. Should cigarette smoking be banned? Yes, 59.3 per cent; no, 28.9 per cent; no opinion, 11.8 per cent. Should the sale and use of marijuana be controlled on a similar basis to alcohol? Yes, 62.5 per cent; no, 27.6 per cent; no opinion, 9.9 per cent. Should old age pensions be geared to the cost of living index? Yes, 96 per cent; no, 2.2 per cent; no opinion, 1.8 per cent. Should a more uniform sentencing system be instituted? Yes, 83.8 per cent; no, 11.2 per cent; no opinion, 5.8 per cent. Should our tax reform program include a capital gains tax? Yes, 59.7 per cent; no, 29.8 per cent, no opinion, 10.5 per cent.
Legislation must be passed to control inflation even if it maintains wages at their present level? Yes, 74.8 per cent; no, 16.9 per cent; no opinion, 8.3 per cent. More effective and stringent bankruptcy laws should be passed immediately? Yes, 82.7 per cent; no,, 3.5 per cent; no opinion, 13.8 per cent. Criminal records should be expunged after five years? Yes, 49.8 per cent; no, 36.9 per cent; no opinion, 13.3 per cent. The bail system should be placed on a more equitable basis? Yes, 77.3 per cent; no, 9.2 per cent; no opinion, 13.5 per cent.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, this is a most significant survey because a very large number of the questionnaires were returned. In many instances the people who returned them wrote three or four pages of comment on other subjects. This clearly demonstrates that the public are interested in our institutions.
In conclusion may I say in all sincerity that notwithstanding these aforementioned criticisms, the government should be commended for proposing the reduction of the voting age to 18, setting up programs to reduce regional disparities, proposing tax reform and improving and preserving our water resources, to name but a few. I trust that with the co-operation of our amicable opposition the coming session will be a productive one.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie) :: Mr. Speaker, according to custom, I should like to join with the hon. members who have already contributed to the debate to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and this, for several reasons: first, because with rather clever dialectics they managed to gloss over the disappointment felt by the Canadian

people following that Speech from the Throne, since it provided them with very little relief.
Also, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member who had the floor before me for the inquiries he carried out to prove that he had heard many complaints against the present government in his constituency. In fact, his findings show that the government has failed in the Speech from the Throne to consider the urgent problems of the day.
Despite the 71 legislative proposals, the speech offers very few concrete measures to solve the kind of problems which the hon. member has just mentioned.
I went through the list of the 71 bills submitted by this government in its Speech from the Throne which I would define as follows: an exercise in academic rhetoric more remarkable by the number than by the quality of its proposals.
Needless to say that I examined the contents and the scope of these 71 bills. I find, as every hon. member must have, that 38 are designed to amend existing legislation and that 22 only are new proposals, few of which are really important.
Such is, Mr. Speaker, the performance of a government which promised not only to create a just society, but also to examine concretely the problems Canadians are facing. And yet in its second year in office an opportunity was afforded to it to settle Canada's urgent problems through legislation.
However, as we have found out, there is no indication of any measure to control and promote the development of family housing.
No measure is introduced to restrict and restrain inflation.
The interest rate is left unregulated. People are wondering if they are to continue paying interests at the rate of 9, 10, 11 and 12 percent and if the government will let this plague worsen, since it neutralizes all the home building industry in Canada.
Furthermore, the cost of living is still increasing. In this connection, someone was telling me that during a recent trip to Edmonton he had paid 79 cents for a piece of steak that costs $1.69 on the Montreal market.
Those are only a few examples of what people are really interested in.
In the proposed bills, there is no provision for air and water pollution control. Nothing indicates either that the government intends to legislate on drug control

I am referring to
November 3, 1969

psychedelic drugs, marijuana and other related drugs-the use of which is really dangerous for our youth.
Moreover, no reference is made to the possibility of improving the postal service in spite of the rates increases implemented last year. Nothing new is proposed in the constitutional field, in spite of growing tensions in federal-provincial relations. We are not given to understand that attempts will be made to settle problems which require an urgent solution because they threaten the structure of our country at this time.
The throne speech makes no mention of measures to eradicate the plague of unemployment that particularly affects Quebec and the Maritimes. The minister himself said recently that there was an 8 per cent unemployment rate in Quebec and I was most surprised to hear the seconder of the Address in reply say very sincerely and perhaps naively, as the tyro making one of his first speeches in the House, that the unemployment rate in his riding was 14 per cent.
If that is the situation, I think government members should recognize the importance of those matters and ask the government to act immediately instead of eternally delaying the necessary legislation.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we would also have liked to reconsider welfare pensions and others. We all know-and I think that the hon. members opposite also know it-that it is impossible today for our older citizens, those who have reached a venerable age and who live on welfare allowances, to live decently due to all kinds of increases. That is why, like most Canadians, I am so deeply disappointed by the Speech from the Throne which does not let us foresee any improvement in the lot and condition of the aged.
Nor is there, Mr. Speaker, anything to indicate that the angry outbursts of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) against the C.B.C. will have any effect if there is no follow-up to his public criticism. The Prime Minister blurted out those words during an enthusiastic and congenial meeting of Liberals, and we may well wonder whether he did mean them, whether he was merely carried away or again whether he was threatening in some way certain persons in the C.B.C. who had offended him or who had refused to give him their support in the last election.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
It remains that if the government has no intention to pass legislation in order to
The Address

Mr. Valade change certain elements of the internal structure and certain operating methods of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, we can only wonder whether it intends to take direct action as it did in laying off employees earning an average salary instead of going after the management of this state-owned company.
We must deal with issues of great current interest, such as the present economic situation in Canada and the measures the government intends to take in order to restore order, respect for the law and security in Canada.
I have greatly appreciated the contribution made by hon. members in particular the seriousness and the interest which they often displayed in their remarks on Canadian problems. Even if the government members obviously do it to protect the government, I think that on the whole hon. members discharged their responsibilities in a competent and honest manner.
In my opinion, the most important problem in Canada is surely that of the economy. Every day, we hear about the plague of regional disparity and of the dangers ensuing from it.
Regional disparities make it possible for people in one province to have more than a sufficient income allowing them to live in comfort and prosperity while in other areas some citizens live in the most abject poverty.
I was wondering what were the reasons for those regional disparities. Of course, we must rely on the initiative of the government which has promised a great number of measures in that field but has yet to do something about it.
We were recently given a small pamphlet featuring a mid-year review and the 1969 outlook for private and public investments in Canada. It contains statistics on investments and capital expenditures for the second term of the current fiscal year. Referring to the figures appearing on page 6 of the pamphlet, I shall draw a parallel with the investments and capital expenditures of recent years. For instance, the Atlantic provinces show an increase of 11 per cent in capital expenditures over 1968. In the other provinces, increases over 1968 were as follows: Quebec, 5 per cent; Ontario, 16 per cent; Prairies, 6 per cent and British Columbia, 12 per cent.
There are clearly disparities in the capital expenditures and investments of lower levels of government. What particularly struck me is that in this economic report, for statistical purposes, Canada is divided into five regions,

November 3, 1969
The Address-Mr. Valade i.e. the Atlantic region, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia.
I wish to recall a statement made by the premier of one of the provinces during a constitutional conference. In order to solve the problem of regional disparities, I wonder whether the Standing Committee on the Constitution might not look fully into the advantages of dividing Canada into five regions, each of which would correspond to economic realities, so as to minimize political differences that quite often stem from economic causes.
I know of course that some people have been opposed to this idea for very good reasons, whether of a local or regional nature. If we, the representatives of the people who are here to deal with the problems, do not eliminate the root causes of conflict or of regional disparities, if we are afraid, if we shrink from the imperative necessity of dealing, in a drastic way perhaps, with such problems, we should not be surprised to see our country disintegrate and thousands of Canadians suffer from the inaction of the government and from the inefficiency of the laws, because the mechanism that is proposed to solve the problems is not what it could be if we reviewed provincial boundaries, to make of the provinces economic entities which could, of course, at the same time, correspond to political realities.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to a remark made in this house during the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
Someone has referred to the role that a member should play. Very often, hon. members say in the newspapers, on television or directly to their constituents: I am just a member, I cannot do anything. In the house, at least, it may seem that I have no influence, but I do express the views of my constituents at the party caucus.
I think that the time has come, more than ever, for hon. members to stop pretending, in conferences or meetings with their electors, that they act within the caucus. We all know that a lot of work is accomplished in the caucus. All of us also know that each individual member has his heart set on representing his riding within his party. However, I think that when a member is elected it is to express here in this house the needs, the opinions and the hopes of those who elected him. I wish to see some day the disappearance of such an easy excuse which several members may use at times.

Hon. members have received a mandate. They cannot discharge that mandate if they only make themselves heard within the caucus. They ought to do it in the house. That excuse which we use too often may perhaps be traced back to the famous standing order 75C which restricts the length of the debates in the house, therefore preventing too often a member from participating in the debates and making known the opinions, the hopes and the problems of the people in his riding.
We are living now in Canada, and especially in the province of Quebec, unprecedentedly grave hours. We have come to the point where we often wonder-and the public also-what on earth we are doing and what is the point of having governments. A majority of the Canadian people are urging government members, parliament members, public servants at every level of government to open 'their eyes to the deplorable condition now prevailing and to take the necessary steps and legislation to prevent the country from collapsing into unrest and anarchy.
It is high time for the men in public life to make up their minds and to take action thus ensuring the respect of law and order in Canada and guaranteeing the future safety of every Canadian citizen in every province of Canada, from Halifax to Vancouver.
* (8:50 p.m.)
Never, Mr. Speaker, has our society been threatened more than it is today. Its social structure is threatened, as is the family as a unit.
The disturbances which of late have become more frequent in my province worry even the most optimistic.
When union leaders and teachers extol the overthrow by force of the powers that be to children of 9, 10, 11 or 12 years of age, and undermine family authority through revolutionary indoctrination, when the call to violence becomes the modus vivendi of the student body, the authorities and the governments have not only the right but the imperious duty to intervene.
Even if such things happen more often in Quebec, it does not mean that this situation is confined to that province.
One needs not be a pessimist to notice the progressive and steady disintegration of the Canadian society, but rather a realist and a clearsighted person.
Every Canadian citizen is partly responsible for building a better society as well as for the present disorder.
November 3, 1969

Rulers should be able to face up to ringleaders, professional agitators, and anarchists, too often imported in Canada because of permissive legislation.
If every Canadian citizen must contribute to restore order, justice and the respect for the law, it is also the imperious duty of governments to intervene. The example, as the saying goes, must come from high up. Nothing is more true and more realistic at the present time.
It is not enough for the Prime Minister to fly into a violent temper over the national TV network, before his supporters. This can only be harmful, and likely to lessen the respect that everyone must have for the high office he holds.
Mr. Speaker, to close one's eyes and to pretend that things will settle with time is to sit on an erupting volcano.
For too long the Prime Minister of Canada has ignored or made light of the many warnings that were given to him, both in this house and outside. When tolerance, Mr. Speaker, turns to flabbiness, when liberalism becomes licence and political dogma obliterates authority, sweeping reforms are needed to prevent a disaster.
The federal and provincial governments must enforce strict laws to ensure the security of citizens and some respect for their individual and collective rights.
In Canada, the word "democracy" has been used so widely that its limitations have been forgotten.
The government must ensure through adequate and efficient pieces of legislation that the Department of Manpower and Immigration will not open its doors wide to professional revolutionaries. It must ensure that our Criminal Code imposes the capital punishment to those who will advocate through violence the upsetting of democratic law and order. The seditious act should be more clearly defined in the Criminal Code.
Mr. Speaker, if we are not completely blind or criminally slothful and if authorities do not react, we are surely heading for what I would call the "Canadian dilemma".
If we do not take strong and immediate action, if our society does not wake up, we will be faced with the following alternatives: McCarthyism or communism; dictatorship or anarchy; censorship or licentiousness; economic control or recession with its disastrous consequences.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps those who will say that I am a pessimist or something of the 21362-30
The Address-Mr. Valade kind have too soon forgotten the Sir George Williams University affair, the riots which occurred at the time of the Montreal police strike and the events now taking place in the province of Quebec.
I certainly wish, Mr. Speaker, that my predictions are exaggerated and unrealistic. Only time will tell. It is up to us to act so that those predictions do not become an irreversible political reality.
To fill in the cracks which are beginning to show in the structure of our society, politicians must have a sense of responsibility.
The agitators of whom I spoke earlier take advantage of the constitutional problems and the political clashes between Quebec and Ottawa. The Prime Minister of Canada must stop providing the agitators with weapons through his irresponsible statements.
Is it necessary, and I ask the question seriously, for the Prime Minister of Canada to stand as the uncompromising opponent of Quebec in order to maintain his popularity?
By its negative aggressiveness, its unconsidered responses towards Quebec and its government, by the refusal of the Prime Minister to hold a dialogue on matters deemed essential by Quebec, the federal government emphasizes the Quebecers' distrust of Ottawa and French-Canadian members sitting here. In addition, it provides with arguments those who only try to justify their anarchy.
The purely political matters are not the only devices to which agitators will resort in Canada.
The head of a family who is unable to provide for the essential needs of his children is an easy prey for those people.
Quebec is restless? Yes, it is true!
Economically speaking, Quebec faces great difficulties at the present time. Unemployment has reached dangerous levels.
Recently, His Eminence Cardinal Leger, on a visit to Canada, reminded us of this selfevident truth that the distance separating the rich from the poor is still growing.
In Montreal, Canada's metropolis, there are cases of dire poverty, cases of extreme hardship, which we in public life who are responsible for the government of the country have no right to ignore or to tolerate in a self-styled just society.
This distance, Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of all of us and of the government to reduce it. Half-measures are no longer acceptable.
454	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Valade
Let us postpone the adoption of less important legislation such as the omnibus bill and others of the same type. Let us settle the urgent problems: housing, the cost of living, employment; social measures allowing people on relief to live decently.
I heard the hon. member who spoke before me say that he too was concerned with the problems of older people and that he supported the government in that respect.
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members on the government side realized in what exceedingly difficult situation live older people with no other income than their meager old-age pension, they would quickly understand that those people who are still able to do countless things for their follow-citizens, cannot live, cannot eat three meals a day with the meager allowances we grant them at present under our social legislation.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Let us not delude ourselves, Mr. Speaker, and tell these people that the government cannot increase these allowances because it would run into more debts, that it cannot afford it and that we are living in a period of austerity.
Mr. Speaker, should I be asked to choose between an increase of $200 million a year for welfare and old age pensions or the C.B.C.,
I would sacrifice the $200 million for the C.B.C. and earmark that amount for the old people of our country who are only waiting for assistance and perhaps a little gratefulness from their government representatives.
Mr. Speaker, let us give our young people positive options for the future. Let us see to it that they escape narcotics and psychedelic drugs and their after effects.
Recently, I was reading an article in La Presse-and I think all the newspapers have published this news item, relating to a very sad case that has to do with the daughter of a famous American comedian, and I mention him by name, since it is a well-known fact, I mean Mr. Art Linkletter who devoted all his life to the young people and made a most interesting career out of it. In this article from La Presse, Mr. Linkletter said:
My daughter did not commit suicide. It is the makers and peddlers of LSD who murdered her. She was not herself.
I suggest this is an indictment for murder, on the part of a father who lost one of his beloved daughters.
Should such a calamity befall one of us, we would unhesitatingly request the government

DEBATES	November 3, 1969
to take immediate drastic action to exercise control over these narcotics which are leading our youth to their destruction.
I am confident that if we provide young people with the necessary leadership, bring them up with sound principles and a healthy outlook, show them that their parliamentary representatives have their interests at heart, they will resist contamination by the bane of narcotics.
Mr. Speaker, I feel sure that if we prepare young people for the future not through anarchy and chaos but with due respect for law and order, then in spite of the present unpleasant situation, there will be a better future for Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, in closing, I hope that life will be good in Canada and that we, members of this house, will make that possible.


Mr. R. L. Whiting (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to congratulate my colleague the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) who moved the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, and my colleague the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) who in seconding the Address did great service to his constituency by drawing attention to the size of the blueberries grown there. I am sure all lovers of blueberry pie will appreciate his remarks. May I also congratulate those hon. members who were recently appointed to the cabinet or to the position of parliamentary secretary. The choice of individuals to fill these positions was in my opinion most appropriate. I know they will distinguish themselves in the fulfilment of their duties.
Despite the remarks of certain members of the opposition to the effect that the Speech from the Throne was filled with pious platitudes liberally interlaced with empty promises, I, together with many people in my constituency, find the Speech from the Throne to be a document which has encouraged the people of Canada to look forward to a constructive session of Parliament. Today I should like to speak to one specific item. I refer to the proposal to lower the voting age to 18. This proposed move on the part of the government involves many
November 3, 1963

implications. It is a recognition of youth and the part youth has played and is playing in the Canada of today, and will play in the Canada of tomorrow. Youth has an interest in government. This was evident in the last election when youth joined the ranks of all political parties throughout Canada. This aspect of the campaign was especially evident in my riding. In my opinion it was one of the highlights of the campaign on all sides, indeed, it added a new dimension and injected new life and enthusiasm.
The youth of today are vitally interested in the affairs of the nation. They express themselves in many ways, some of which are not constructive. Everyone, including youth, has the right to protest, but with that protest there must be responsibility. A democratic society is not based upon force and the destruction of property, looting and causing bodily harm to others. By lowering the voting age the government is bringing youth into the mainstream of decision-making. Although at times they may feel their part and the influence of their individual ballot is small, nevertheless they will be aware they no longer are on the sidelines but are taking a part in their country's affairs. It will not be long before they become aware it is the cumulative effort of many people casting their ballots for a cause that creates action and has its effect on society.
A corollary to the lowering of the voting age is the present attitude of people and government toward youth and the effect that some of their actions have upon* youth. One of these is the reduction in the size of our reserve forces. Most members of this House will heartily endorse the action of the government in its effort to fight inflation by cutting back expenditures. I believe, however, that the reserve force is one area in which serious consideration should be given to a no-cut policy. Through the militia, as it was formerly called, thousands of young Canadians have over the years received important, useful training which has made them better citizens. The reserve forces have provided physical and mental stimulation as well as moral development. It has been brought to my attention that the dollar investment in the reserve forces yields one of the greatest returns for the money spent. I subscribe to this opinion because a large percentage of the members of the reserve forces are in the high school and university age group. The pay received has assisted students to continue their education and has provided summer employment 21362-30$
The Address-Mr. Whiting through participation in summer courses of up to eight weeks' duration.
When speaking of the reserve forces I must point out that the militia has been the vital fibre from which our armed forces have stemmed in every national emergency. This was true at the beginning of World War I, the Second World War and the Korean war in 1950. It was from the militia that our forces drew their original strength. The militia formed the nucleus of our fighting power at that time. Although we hope and pray that this need may never recur, the reserves have always performed a patriotic duty in the preservation of Canada as a nation. So Canadians owe more than a debt of gratitude to the reserve forces. If anything were done to diminish their effectiveness or curtail their activities a Canadian image which has been created through patriotism, hard work and dedication, it would be deplored in the hearts of many loyal Canadians.
Although we must be guided by a principle which ensures fairness and equality in reducing national expenditures, nevertheless there are extenuating circumstances which must guide the consideration accorded certain plans. This has already been done in the case of regional development. In my opinion the reserve force is another example which should be accorded special consideration. I have referred to its importance in relation to youth, I have talked about the part the reserve has played in national emergencies and I have mentioned the opportunity for patriotic expression associated with this organization which has been built through dedication to our country over its years of existence.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I have not talked about the contribution the reserve army makes and can make to our over-all defence when our regular forces are reduced. Our reserve forces are a source of trained men ready for action; they are ready should there be need to defend our borders, or to handle local disorders should they arise. The reserves are also a source of personnel for the regular forces. The cost of training and the time required for training a man who has had the benefit of reserve instruction is much less than that required for the training of a raw recruit. But how much money are we talking about in the cost of operating the reserve force? It is less than 2 per cent of the defence budget. We must weigh this cost against the achievements of the reserve force, its potential and its function, and once again I would like to place special emphasis on the
456	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. MacGuigan part it plays and the interest it has for the youth of our country.
Some time ago an airline company came up with the slogan "Fly now, pay later". I think the endeavours of governments, led by the federal government, to reduce expenditures is commendable but there are areas wherein a variation of that slogan might apply. I suggest "Cut now, pay later". I also suggest that this is more a truism than a slogan when considered in connection with many of the programs concerning youth.
One of my reasons for focussing attention on youth was prompted by an event which took place in my home town of Oakville last week. It was Police Appreciation Week. The week was planned to give the public an opportunity to better understand the workings of the police department and, as might be expected, much attention was focussed on their work with youth. Police Chief Fred Oliver said in an interview that dealing with youth is not a cost but an investment. It is not true that teenagers are not good; the majority of teenagers are good. His opinion applied to more than 95 per cent of our youth.
At the same time Inspector Fern Alexander, one of Canada's few women police inspectors and head of the metro Toronto youth bureau, said that by the end of this year in metro Toronto 30,000 young people will have been in trouble with the law and 20 per cent of those will be around to haunt us for a long time. There will never be enough money to provide phsychiatrists, psychologists and other properly trained people to handle the situation. It is through participation that we can develop the full potential of our youth. Lowering the voting age to 18 gives them the opportunity to participate in government. Maintaining a vital reserve force gives the government an opportunity to participate in the building of character and the development of youth.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walker-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join those of my colleagues who have already expressed their congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in Keply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau). These hon. members have set a fine example to those of us who were elected in 1968 and have provided us with a fine example in trying to equal their efforts.
I would also like to extend my congratulations to hon. members of the House who
fMr. Whiting.]
DEBATES	November 3, 1969
recently had new duties bestowed upon them, the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) and the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), for their elevation to governmental rank, and the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) and the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for their well merited promotion to the rank of parliamentary secretary. I would like in particular to extend my congratulations to my close neighbour, the hon. member for Windsor West who, as a result of seven years' assiduous service in this house marked by careful attention to detail in all the activities of government, has now succeeded in establishing himself as one of that select group of people who present policy to this house. The city of Windsor is fortunate in having two such able cabinet representatives as the hon. member for Windsor West and the hon. Senator for Windsor-Walkerville.
One theme of the Throne Speech, and the principal theme in subsequent discussion, has been the necessity of controlling inflation. The rate of inflation in this country has been running at about 5 per cent this year and about 4 per cent in the years immediately preceding. We are far from the worst off country in the world, of course. In Chile the rate of inflation is about 35 per cent and in Brazil it is over 20 per cent. The United States and most other industrialized countries of the world, except Germany, have a rate of inflation which is higher than that of Canada. But we cannot for this reason comfortably conclude that our inflation arises solely from external causes, that is, from world causes over which we may have very little control.
The very fact of the differing rates in the various countries of the world from a high of 35 per cent to a low of 2 or 3 per cent shows that native conditions and national governmental policies have a good deal to do with the rate of inflation. We therefore have the duty to examine our own government, our own society and our own economic structure to see if there are ways in which we in Canada can combat this very serious problem independently of the efforts which are also being made by countries such as the United States to deal with it. This is just what our government has been doing. Our attempts to control inflation have been based on fiscal and monetary policies, on the beginning of the operation of the Prices and Incomes Commission and on an attempt to combat the inflation psychology which some economists and many psychologists tell us in one of the
November 3, 1969
most important aspects of the problem of inflation.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The government's austerity program is a very important part of the whole program of confining inflation to reasonable limits. What else can we do that we have not been doing up to this point? In my opinion the Prices and Incomes Commission should not be a mere fact finding body but should rather be a judgmental body. It should not be one which merely informs the people of what has been happening, but one which passes judgment on those events that have been happening. Of course, we have been distressed in the last few weeks by the large increase in the price of steel following upon, although not necessarily caused by, the wage settlement which was obtained by the United Steelworkers in the negotiations at Hamilton.
Dr. Kenneth Galbraith, our famous Canadian expatriot, last week, expressed the view in this city that one of the serious causes of inflation was the confrontation between the strong corporation and the strong union. Union demands are met by the corporation and then prices are raised to pass the increase in wages along to the consumer. The danger, as Galbraith and many other economists have pointed out, is that the corporation will use wage increases as an excuse for price increases which perhaps it had planned anyway, in order to raise once again the return on the corporation's investment.
I do not agree with one hon. member opposite who was speaking last week of corporate profits and said that because we have a continuing high rate of return on corporate investment this necessarily shows that something is wrong. After all, interest rates have been increasing in our economy generally and it is no surprise in such circumstances that corporate returns on capital have not been dropping and in some cases have been increasing. But at the same time we need to scrutinize very carefully price increases which are made by corporations, especially in industries where there is very little real competition between corporate giants, and again especially in industries which are very basic, bellwether industries if you like for our economy. In such industries we ought to have very careful examination, by a body such as the Prices and Incomes Commission, of any price increases which have occurred and, if necessary, of any wage settlements which have been made.
The Address-Mr. MacGuigan
The Prices and Incomes Commission should feel free to look at all the economic events that are happening in our society which relate to prices and incomes, to inform us about them and to make judgments upon them, not as a substitute for members of this House but as an aid to the judgment of the-members here. It seems to me that while this; in itself might not prove sufficient to control completely the problem of inflation, it would be going considerably beyond where we are now and would be a step considerably short of that of complete wage and price control.
The second alternative that we have is the alternative of wage and price control. Hon. members know, Mr. Speaker, that in the Board of Commerce Act case decided almost 50 years ago by the Privy Council, that august but often mistaken judicial body decided that it was not within the power of the federal government of this country to have a prices and wages policy which would impose prices and wages on industry.
It may be that this was a wrong decision. Many legal authorities believe that it was. It may also be that the Supreme Court of Canada, now our highest judicial body, would be prepared at this point in our history to overrule that earlier decision because most of the law of that period, most of the dicta of the cases which limited the trade and commerce power and the peace, order and good government power in our constitution, has since been disowned either by later Privy Council decisions or by the Supreme Court of Canada itself since it became the final court of appeal in 1949. It may be that this earlier decision could be successfully challenged and that, strictly on legal grounds, we could begin now to have wage and price controls, but I would suggest this would probably not be the most fruitful way to proceed. This is a case which has stood for some 45 to 50 years. It. has been relied upon by people in this country since that time. It would probably be much better if we were to attempt, as I believe government spokesmen have suggested, to bring about a political solution through a conference, seeking provincial agreement either to having the constitution of this country changed permanently to allow the federal government to set up real prices and wages control, or to work out some co-operative mechanism which would enable the two levels of government to work together to solve the problem.
From the comments of provincial governments and provincial ministers of finance it seems that the provincial governments are

November 3, 1969

The Address-Mr. MacGuigan just as seriously concerned about this problem as is our own government, and I think we could anticipate that if we were to use political means we might work out a solution. But, Mr. Speaker, the fact that we could work out such a solution does not mean we should leap to this step. It is a very extreme step in a democratic society. It is one which is very hard to make work, and is especially hard to make work in the light of the frame of mind in our society which itself causes inflation.
We have inflation in part because people do not believe it is a time in which they are called upon to make any particular sacrifices for the government of our country. They see no reason why they should not demand higher wages, why prices should not rise when they are not being affected, and in their personal decisions it would seem they do not have uppermost the demands of the common good. With such a popular state of mind it would be extremely difficult to get the support that would be necessary to make a prices and wages board which would impose compulsory restraints on our society work very well. ' Whichever of these methods we choose-and my own feeling is that we will have to find other methods than the ones we are now using before this problem is fully controlled-I am confident we will succeed in controlling inflation, if only because we cannot afford to fail.
Now I am going to say a few words about the economic situation from a different point of view, from the point of view of what I would consider to be justified exceptions to the government's austerity program. The Speech from the Throne recognizes several of these. One is that programs to reduce regional disparities in employment opportunities and incomes will not be subject to the general austerity program. Indeed, the Speech says that governmental expenditure in this area will be increased because of the priority which the government rightly assigns to this very serious problem.
The Speech from the Throne also points out that the housing program to construct one million units over the next five years, combined with a recognition of the paramount importance of low income housing, will also be exempted from the general austerity program. I would like to suggest two further exceptions which I believe ought to be made to the general program of austerity. The first of these is with respect to superannuated civil servants. From time to time it has been said that these retired employees are in no worse position than retired employees under plans

of private industry where those plans have been outdistanced by inflation. I think this is true, but I also think that the government has a particular responsibility with respect to those citizens who have been its employees. It cannot very well insist that employees of corporations have the right to receive from those corporations additional remuneration over and above that which is provided by contract under the original agreement with their employer. But it can, as an act of gratuity in the present inflationary circumstances, increase the amount of pension which its own employees are receiving, even at the cost of departing from the normal funded features of the plan.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Such payments would not seriously contribute to inflation. The figure of $5 million a year would deal very handsomely with the problem, and inflationary pressures would not be increased at all. That sum would represent an enormous contribution for the welfare of those citizens who have given, in some cases, a whole lifetime of service to their fellowmen by working for the government, people who once thought that their pensions would be adequate and have subsequently found, as a result of inflation which we have not been able to control, that their pension benefits have been eroded.
I also suggest that an exception could be made for pensioners generally. I am inclined to think that it would be very difficult at present to increase old age security pensions across the board in this country. I have not computed what the cost of increasing the guaranteed income supplement would be. Perhaps a strong case would be made for not paying additional benefits. On the other hand, I do not believe that any case can be made for not increasing, on a scale that is tied to the true cost of living, the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement. We have just received notice that as of January 1 the old age security pension will become $79.58 a month and the guaranteed income supplement will rise to $111.41 a month. These increases follow the pension index, which in turn follows the consumer price index. Unfortunately, the pension increase does not really follow the consumer price index because the increase is limited to an annual one of 2 per cent. I submit that this is a vicious and unwarranted limitation which, I believe, was unintentionally introduced. I understand that when these pieces of legislation were passed there was little expectation
November 3, 1969	COMMONS
that the cost of living would rise at twice 2 per cent per annum and that this limitation would work hardships on those who are living on pensions. But this has occurred. Since it has occurred, I think the government has the duty to remove this limitation.
Of course, I realize that any pension scheme with benefits which are tied to a rising cost of living is open-ended. If you do not have a limitation in your scheme, it is open-ended. At the same time, however, the government benefits from a rise in the cost of living; its tax revenues increase. The government benefits when incomes rise. Since the government does benefit, it seems to me that on every January 1 there should be no reason for the government not to pass on a small amount of this benefit to those people who otherwise would be left in a very unfair position in our .society vis-a-vis their fellow citizens. Since the government benefits from a rise in the cost of living I submit it should in this small way pay for the consequences of that rise.
I should like to say a few words about Indian policy. The Indian policy which was announced in this House in June by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) is in my opinion a truly liberal statement. It provides for our Indians the goal of equal status instead of the goal of different status. It provides for equality and pledges the government's willingness to provide the means which are necessary if our Indian citizens are to achieve equality. While adopting this fundamental and philosophical principle, the statement elaborates six points and proposes five practical steps which the government will be prepared to take. Nevertheless, despite the undoubted merits of the document the response by the Indian community has been unfavourable. I think we are doing ourselves no service if we believe that the document has been received with anything like overwhelming or even majority support by the spokesmen of the Indians of our country.
It seems to me that Indians disagree little with the principles of equality enunciated in the statement, although no doubt some Indians prefer at present to retain what the statement calls "different" status. Some Indians prefer things to remain more or less as they are; they do not want to make changes. I hazard the opinion that that does not represent the majority view of the Indian community. We are beginning to find a great deal
DEBATES	459
The Address-Mr. MacGuigan of unrest and what may be called agitation in the Indian community, which seems to indicate that our Indians are not satisfied with the status quo but want something better. I believe that Indian response to government statements is based largely on two factors. First, there is an attitude of distrust on their part, a distrust which I fear we have fostered too often in the past with our words and actions. Second, there is fear of a fait accompli according to a strict timetable. We can show rationally that these fears are unjustified, but that will not make them go away.
Recently, while talking with an Indian he expressed the sincere opinion that the white paper on Indian affairs proposed the automatic and immediate abolition of all reserves in this country. From a logical standpoint this is nonsense, because the statement does no such thing; yet this is what my Indian friend took to be the intention after reading the paper or hearing about it. He also believed that the fundamental purpose of the statement was to make Indians rich. He took the position that the aim of the Indians was not to get rich. Again, it seems to me that anyone reading the document would see that this is not so. The principal thrust of the document is this: it does not seek to make Indians rich but to make them free and equal citizens of our country. But because Indians do not trust us, this Indian read the white paper or heard about it and gained these misconceptions about it.
I suggest that we have the responsibility of breaking this deadlock. We, the stronger community, must introduce new elements into the situation which will upset the unfortunate, existing equilibrium. On the one hand we have the policy that is outlined in the government's statement, and on the other we have the response, based on fear, which to a large extent the Indian community has expressed toward the statement. I suggest that we should not push forward our entire plan at this time. We should not urge an over-all approach when we know the Indians have not adopted our philosophy. Instead, we should approach this matter from the other end of the scale.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
We should take a piecemeal approach. We should work on individual projects. Undoubtedly by working on them we would be taking
November 3, 1969

The Address-Mr. MacGuigan steps which would lead toward the goals we have outlined in our white paper. I do not believe we should ask the Indians to accept this philosophy. People may do the same things for different reasons and we should not necessarily expect them, even though we are working on a project co-operatively, to do so for our reasons. We should take a pragmatic rather than a philosophical approach.
I believe the government is beginning to do this. In the last month we have given funds to the Indians to assist them in developing and strengthening their own organizations. This is for our benefit because it ensures that we will talk to people from the Indian communities who will be representative of the views of their communities. But the more direct benefit will accrue to the Indians themselves. It will enable them to set up structures according to their own desires which will enable them to advise us more fully regarding what they want to do. We should continue to give them funds, if necessary even to prepare their own statement on Indian affairs.
I suggest we should proceed with all haste to appoint the claims consultation commissioner mentioned in the government's statement in June. This is very important because the claims consultation commissioner will work with both ourselves and the Indians, advising both groups how to best proceed with regard to Indian treaty and other claims which while not strictly treaty claims have at least a moral status. This appears to be the priority of the Indians.
We take as our priority the philosophical principle of equality, perhaps the basic principle relating to the relationship of the government to the people, the people to the government and generally of man to man. This is not the way in which the Indians approach the problem. The Indians begin by saying: You made certain promises to us and we want to talk about what you will do for us in terms of what you promised. If you do not live up to what you promised in the past, how can we believe anything else you may promise? This view should be placed very high on our priority list. We should proceed as quickly as possible to appoint the mediator between the Indian and white communities to try to solve this very difficult problem and to make concrete suggestions to the white and Indian communities.
The government statement suggests that this commissioner should proceed on a political rather than a legal basis. I believe this is

the soundest approach because regardless of the legal technicalities it is not a subject we can approach strictly in legal terms. That certainly would not satisfy the Indians and probably would not satisfy us.
We are establishing policy for the future; we are not just talking about past treaties. The claims consultation commissioner should have a wide-ranging mandate which would enable him to negotiate and not merely to report on the legalities of Indian treaties. The Indians fear that we mean to suppress them. They need reassurance through deeds and no longer just through words. I believe this is the policy which the government has not only announced but is actually following. I commend the government for its initiative in this area and I urge it to proceed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but his time appears to have expired, unless he has the agreement of the House to continue beyond his allotted time. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be brief. I wish to say a few words about Parliament. During this Parliament the government has moved effectively to expand executive power, reorganize the cabinet and reorganize a number of departments. It has carried out internal reorganization and is now tightening the administration of departments through its austerity programs. Above all, we see the growing supremacy of the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council office within the government structure. I applaud all these developments, Mr. Speaker.
However, it is also important to strengthen the legislature, not only as a counterbalance to the executive because of the fear that power may corrupt but for a positive reason. There must be increased participation in government, participation of the public as well as of members of parliament. The public of course cannot always participate directly; they have only rare occasions on which they may do so. They can participate if they are allowed to appear before a parliamentary committee either by being summoned to Ottawa as a witness or by reason of what I hope will become more common, that is, parliamentary committees touring the country and hearing what citizens in different parts of the country have to say about present problems which concern their committees. The
November 3, 1969

same result is achieved through the use of royal commissions, but I believe the government is correct in deemphasizing royal commissions in favour of the full use of parliamentary committees.
In addition to members of the public appearing before parliament through its committees, they also participate symbolically when they see their member of parliament participating in the House or in committees and when they see real dialogue taking place. This is especially true when constituents have expressed their views strongly to their member of parliament and perhaps persuaded him of the urgency of something which he did not previously believe to have high priority. They have the opportunity to see their member make the point in the House or in committee. If they see the representation of their member become policy through legislation or a white paper, they feel a real sense of accomplishment. Even when not all these steps are taken and they see only the process, I believe they are able to share vicariously, through their member of parliament, his participation in government and therefore feel they are participating in a real sense in what is happening in Canada's Parliament.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I am happy to say that the present government has been working strongly in this direction, but there are many more steps which need to be taken. The government has established a legislative committees system in which committees have a genuine, creative, active role in legislation and in studies which lead to legislation, but there is more to be done. Committees need wider-ranging terms of reference. The status of chairmen of committees needs to be upgraded. Committees need a budget for research and for travel so that there may not always be doubt as to the kind of projects in which they can engage. I envisage this as being a small rather than a large budget; if a committee needs more money it should certainly have to come before parliament on each occasion to seek it. There needs to be a reduction in the number of committees and in the membership of committees. There might well be an improvement in the scheduling of committees, perhaps a system of grading into major and minor committees, so that an hon. member serving on a major committee and a minor committee would not have more than one demand made on him at any moment.
The Address-Mr. MacGuigan
Most important, there must be a relaxing of discipline as it affects members of all parties in committee. I realise that members of the opposition point their fingers at the government and suggest it should relax its discipline. It seems to me they do not always bear in mind the effect of discipline in their own parties on members who serve on committees. I suggest that discipline as it applies to members of all parties should be relaxed.
I am confident this is the direction in which the government is moving, and I urge my hon. friends to move rapidly because these are times of rapid change in society and parliamentary institutions themselves are in danger, not only in Canada but in other countries. There is a danger that our policy, our laws for the future, may be made in the streets if they are not made adequately in our legislatures. If they are not made in such a way as not only to be just but to appear manifestly just, they may not be made well enough for the times in which we live.
This is an age in which authority no longer commands respect merely because it is authority. Laws are not respected by reason of their authority so much as by the authority of their reason. I use the word "reason" here not in the more restricted sense in which it was used in the past by philosophers who talked about right reason and doing things properly; it is reason in a manifesting and persuasive sense. We must not only perform well; we must let the people see that we are responding to their needs and deeply-felt aspirations.
I join those who have previously expressed their support for the ideas contained in the Speech from the Throne. I believe it contains a viable and even an exciting program for members of parliament this session and I am sure that with the co-operation of all hon. members we can look forward to a fruitful session of parliament.


Mr. Georges C. Lachance (Lafonfaine):: Mr. Speaker, having heard my colleague's so eloquent words, I wonder whether I might not call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my pleasure to comply with the member's request and to call it 10 o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are right.

November 3, 1969
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [English']



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with Standing Order 40 a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been moved. The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle).


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I believe this motion has been withdrawn for the present.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it my understanding that this question has been withdrawn for consideration tomorrow or later? Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Then this House stands
adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow in the forenoon.
At ten o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Tuesday, November 4, 1969