1969-11-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on August 30, 1968, I announced the appointment of a task force to study federal information agencies and make recommendations as to ways and means of increasing the efficiency and coordination of government information.
I now have the honour to table the report submitted by the members of that group.
The relevant authorities are now studying the recommendations put forward in the report and I expect to be able to make a statement regarding the action the government intends to take by the end of the year.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in English and in French, the report of the proceedings of the Canadian Agricultural Congress which took place in Ottawa from March 24 to March 27.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ONTARIO MINISTERS

Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw attention to the presence in the gallery of the Treasurer of Ontario and the Minister of Trade and Development of Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



ORAL QUESTIONS


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he feels there is any justification for the suggestion made to Mr. Henderson, the Auditor General, who is a servant of Parliament, not of the government, of a reduction in his staff at a time when it is quite apparent to most of us that what this Parliamentary watchdog requires is sharper teeth rather than a filing down of those teeth?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts as to the form in which the Leader of the Opposition is asking his question. Perhaps he would put the question in another way.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am not sure as to the nature of your objection, Mr. Speaker. If the minister would like to make a statement at some length on motions at a future date I would be happy to hear him do so. At the same time he might inform us whether the government proposes to introduce legislation, which the Auditor General has been requesting for some time, designed to increase the independence of the Auditor General and to define his office in a more formal and satisfactory way.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of ihe Treasury Board):: With respect to legislation, consideration is being given to this question. I would hesitate at the moment to enunciate a firm decision or opinion on the legislation itself. As to the question of staff, I think the House would like to know that provision has been made for the Auditor General to engage staff each year in excess of the number he has actually been able to recruit. This, I understand, is the case. The numbers and kind of staff that the Auditor General can obtain and usefully employ will continue to be provided.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Who forms the judgment as to
November 4, 1963

Inquiries of the Ministry what kind of staff the Auditor General can profitably use? Is the decision made by the Auditor General or by the President of the Treasury Board and members of the government?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, up to the present it has been made by the Auditor General.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question. Is it correct that the Auditor General has been requested to reduce the size of his staff?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board. Has any thought been given to allowing the Auditor General to recruit staff from outside the public service criteria?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what is meant by recruiting his staff outside the public service criteria. He recruits his staff either from inside or outside the public service. The definitions, the work or job qualifications, are established by the Auditor General.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether the establishment approved by Parliament for the Auditor General was 250, and has Treasury Board suggested that this number be reduced to 239?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the establishment is, and will continue to be, that approved by Parliament. This approval is obtained through the Appropriation Acts.


Mr. Baldwin:: As suggested by Treasury Board.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In spite of the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River, it is not dictated by Treasury Board.


Gerald William Baldwin: I said "suggested".


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I hope the hon. member will agree that Treasury Board-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -is empowered to make
suggestions for the improvement of productivity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. J. W. Monleiih (Perth):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether at any time instructions have been given to the Auditor General in regard to whether or not he should reduce the amount of work he is doing?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, that is a large question. For all I know, the hon. gentleman may himself have made suggestions to the Auditor General, and I cannot answer for the hon. member.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board, who in response to a question told me a moment ago that he had no knowledge of the Auditor General being requested to reduce his staff, whether he will look into this matter in view of the reported statement by the Auditor General himself that such request had been made to him?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take that up with the Auditor General.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: A Anal supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he will give an assurance that a similar check will be made on the growth of the Prime Minister's staff?


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the size of the Prime Minister's staff I should like to ask him a question arising from the announcement by Dofasco that it is going to increase steel prices by, I believe, 5 per cent, following an announcement by Stelco that it is going to increase its steel prices, again followed by an announcement by Westinghouse that it is going to increase the prices of its appliances. In view of the fact that the increased price of basic steel is bound to have a multiplying effect throughout the economy since industry will have to pay more for steel, would the Prime Minister undertake to request the Prices and Incomes Commission to hold public hearings into steel prices instead of merely limiting itself to private discussions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question last week.
November 4, 1969	COMMONS


David Lewis: I was not here last week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: But I did-


An hon. Member:: Read Hansard.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if hon. gentlemen opposite will behave as politely as they always do-


An hon. Member:: They are.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I was not here last week but I did read Hansard and, with great respect to the Prime Minister, he did not answer this question. I am asking him whether he will speak to the commission requesting it to hold the inquiry on steel prices in public rather than in private.


THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board.
Since in his various annual reports the Auditor General has been asking for some time that he be empowered to audit the books of several Crown corporations, does the government plan to implement his recommendations instead of having this work done by private firms?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, this matter is now under review, but no decision has yet been taken.


FLAX-REPORTED LOSS OF SALES
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio who answers for the Wheat Board. In view of the statement over the weekend that Canada has lost sales of two million bushels of flax because of failure to have this oilseed in forward positions, does the minister know whether this is a fact?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is certainly not in order, but in spite of the procedural difficulty the minister might be allowed to reply.
DEBATES	465
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have had discussions with the Wheat Board following the report in a Winnipeg newspaper about the loss of sales. Certainly the information from the Wheat Board is that there is no foundation whatsoever to these stories. Flax is available on the market according to demand. There is a regular procedure in this regard, and I understand that members of the Grain Exchange support the fact that flax is in fact available as required.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps hon. members will remember that under the rules it is not in order to ask a minister either to confirm or deny the contents of a report.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the volume of railway freight traffic, which is an accurate indicator of the state of the economy, is running 10 per cent below what it was a year ago and steadily declining, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, since he learned of this fact a week ago from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics report of October 28, he has instructed the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to prepare measures to stimulate the economy so we do not gradually head into a recession from which it may be very difficult to extricate ourselves?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not been briefed about this matter since last week; perhaps I should seek to increase my staff so as to be better briefed.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in order to bring the Prime Minister up to date on matters with which he should be familiar, perhaps I might suggest that his staff is the only one exempt from cut-backs on expenditures.


INQUIRY AS TO ACTION TO ASSIST FARMERS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a couple of questions to the Minister without Portfolio. The first I directed yesterday to the Prime Minister with regard to whether the ministers of the government, following their pilgrimage to Mecca, had decided that some
November 4, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry action should be taken to meet the serious situation in which farmers find themselves with so much of their crops under snow and with little or no hope of being able to thrash them this fall?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, following the initial question yesterday I believe subsequent questions were put to the Minister of Agriculture. Indeed, a similar question was put to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce last Friday. It was indicated in both answers that various measures were being considered to deal with these problems, the lack of cash on the part of farmers who do not have sufficient grain for cash advances, and other problems of which the department is aware.


INQUIRY AS TO ROYAL COMMISSION ON MARKETING
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio another question following that full, ample and innocuous reply. In view of the widespread self-examination that is taking place in western Canada concerning the Wheat Board and the fact that there has been a loss of markets and so on, may I ask the minister whether or not the government is giving any consideration, while approving in every way of the Wheat Board, to setting up a royal commission for the purpose of going fully into wheat marketing operations to ascertain exactly who is responsible for the present state of affairs and to ascertain what action might be taken to remedy it?


Otto Emil Lang: I appreciate the right hon. gentleman's predilection for royal commissions, but we think there are other ways of determining facts and solving problems. We have the problems in hand with this in mind.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the hon. gentleman himself now a self-constituted unitary task force?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


REPORTED CHANGE IN WHEAT BOARD PROGRAMS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt this question. In view of reports that the minister stated in Saskatoon that the Canadian Wheat Board would be relieved of certain

agricultural programs, would he inform the House what programs he was referring to?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is irregular as asked. The hon. member knows he cannot ask a minister about statements made outside the House. The hon. member might rephrase the question and ask it directly of the minister.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is there under consideration a change in the programs for which the Canadian Wheat Board is responsible?


Otto Emil Lang: Many questions in the area of the grains industry, including the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board, are under discussion. It is my hope this matter will be discussed very fully both with the farmers concerned and by members here. It certainly is possible that some things can be done to improve the ability of the Wheat Board to act as the salesman for Canadian wheat and to perform its central function as a marketing agency. That is certainly one of the questions which has been raised. I did ask in Saskatchewan over the weekend whether some programs with which the Wheat Board is burdened should perhaps be considered again to see whether they could be done by someone else, simply to free the Wheat Board to do its own job better.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the fact there was an undertaking by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that the Canadian Wheat Board would appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture, would the Minister without Portfolio have the Canadian Wheat Board come before the committee so that these matters might be discussed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INQUIRY AS TO ADDITIONAL DELIVERY QUOTAS
Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister without Portfolio. Has the Wheat Board yet authorized any further quotas on grain deliveries on the prairies and, if not, when are such quotas anticipated?


Otto Emil Lang: At the present time my latest information is that the unit quota is in effect except where special deliveries for special grains have been authorized. The Wheat Board is very much interested in attempting to give everyone an opportunity first of all to deliver the unit quota and to move grain accordingly.
November 4, 1969	COMMONS
I am sure that when that objective is nearer being achieved, further quotas will be opened.


POLICY RESPECTING OVER-QUOTA DELIVERIES
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I also have a supplementary for the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt, Mr. Speaker. Last Friday in his absence I asked a question about the reversal of the policy whereby wheat could be traded for flour for the producers' own use. Having reversed this policy, is the government prepared to advise the Wheat Board to allow the exchange of wheat for certified and registered seed?


Otto Emil Lang: There have been discussions with the Wheat Board about this issue. The Wheat Board has not yet announced over-deliveries for registered or certified seed partly because of the hope to move first of all the unit quota deliveries and relieve congestion but also because of the need for some discussions about abuses which have been associated with the over-delivery policy in the past. The Wheat Board is having discussions with the Canadian Seed Growers Association about this matter and it may be possible for some announcement to be made before too long.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
I would like to ask him if the government is contemplating the construction of a railway branch-line from Matagami to Hudson Bay in the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that his question could profitably be put on the order paper.


EXPO '67 INQUIRY AS TO DISPOSITION OF CITE DU HAVRE
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question to the Minister without Portfolio who is responsible for housing and who has jurisdiction over the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
DEBATES	467
Inquiries of the Ministry
As the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will give up as of December 31 next the administration of Cite du Havre and as a confidential and comprehensive plan regarding the future of the site was submitted to the federal government last May, could the minister inform the House what measures the government intends to take in this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this question should normally be answered through a statement on motions and the hon. member might wish to ask his question accordingly.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I shall state my question again. Will the minister make a statement on motions soon with respect to the future of Cite du Havre in Montreal?


Hon. Roberi K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, there are internal meetings going on between CMHC and the National Harbours Board, and when a decision about this matter is taken I am quite sure we will make it known to hon. members.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell us whether he has gone through the over-all plan submitted by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and whether he intends to advise the House of that confidential or secret plan?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any secret plan in those terms. There are several reports and recommendations about Cite du Havre. I do not know specifically which plan the hon. member is referring to, but I am examining all of them in consultation with my colleagues and when a decision is taken on one of them we certainly have no intention of keeping it secret. We will make it known to the House.


INDUSTRY
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
November 4, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry

When will the minister be prepared to make a statement on motions or in some other form on the state of the negotiations that are now taking place on the auto pact?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there is to be a meeting with the United States authorities on the auto pact, not for its renewal but rather to study a suggestion by the United States that some changes could be made. Consultations have been going on on this subject between my department and the industry. We are now developing our position. I think it would be rather unwise for me to announce what that position will be, but I will of course report on the negotiations when they take place.


John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate whether the government is pressing the automakers to make some firm commitment on the matter of price parity?


Jean-Luc Pepin: In the coming weeks I am to meet the presidents of the automobile manufacturers and this will be part of our conversations, that is, trying to assess if they cannot do better than they have already done.


John Edward Broadbent: I have a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate whether the trade unions directly involved are being kept abreast of the negotiations?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am known to be easy of access. If there are points that they would like to make rather strongly, I will be available to meet with them.


WATER RESOURCES
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. When does the minister expect to introduce the Canada water act?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be introduced this week.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Following the reported reluctance of the detergent industry to discuss alternatives to the
[Mr. Broadbent.l
use of phosphates at the conference this week, is the minister's department having discussions with the detergent industry?


John James Greene: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am having discussions with the presidents of the larger companies involved in the sale and distribution of detergents.


POLLUTION
John James Greene: While I am dealing with the question of phosphates, Mr. Speaker, might I be permitted to answer a question by the hon. member for Kootenay West, asked on October 30, in regard to the International Joint Commission report. The report referred to by the hon. member was submitted to the International Joint Commission by the advisory boards established by the commission to investigate and report on water pollution in Lakes Erie and Ontario and the international reach of the St. Lawrence River downstream from Lake Ontario.
I am advised that the I.J.C. will follow its customary procedure of examining this report and forwarding its recommendations thereon to the governments of Canada and the United States through the respective Secretaries of External Affairs and State. I understand the commission will be holding public hearings on this matter early in the new year prior to reporting to the two governments.
In the meantime the interim interdepartmental committee on water is studying this matter and will present its recommendations as to appropriate federal government action thereon to me as soon as possible for consideration by the cabinet.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncion):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of urgent representations by the Maritime Provinces Board of Trade and other organizations, is a study being made to determine the site for an international jet airport to serve the major cities of New Brunswick?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minisler of Transpori):: The first step has been taken, Mr. Speaker. In the last week a study was launched to determine traffic patterns and
November 4, 1969	COMMONS
future trends in the Atlantic provinces over the next 20 to 25 years. This information will be necessary in order to determine precisely where the airport site should be located.


Charles Humbert Thomas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the engineers now working on the study of air traffic needs in the Atlantic provinces have agreed that there is a need for a new airport in the province of New Brunswick, would the minister broaden their terms of reference so that they could report on the most suitable site for this important airport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think the location of the airport will be self-evident in a general way once the study of traffic patterns has been completed.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to bring in legislation to abolish capital punishment in respect of the murder of policemen?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have not been considering that, Mr. Speaker.


Percy Verner Noble: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government alarmed by the increase in murders in Canada from 220 in 1966 to 314 so far this year, and does it plan any remedial action?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is slightly irregular. The hon. member is asking whether or not the government is alarmed, and I would think that a question asked in those terms is not proper.


RADIO AND TELEVISION TUBE IMPORTS- THREAT TO CANADIAN INDUSTRY
Mr. Alastair Gillespie (Etobicoke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Imports of radio and television tubes from Japan appear to be presenting a serious threat to the Canadian tube industry. Can the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce confirm this, and what is it doing to relieve the situation?
DEBATES	469
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I would think this question is irregular. I would suggest that if it is a matter of urgency the question might be considered at the time of adjournment.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Has a decision yet been reached with respect to the matter of the government paying all or a portion of the medicare premiums of federal civil servants and federal superannuates in the light of the problem created recently by the action of Ontario?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker. We have been having extensive consultations with the National Joint Council on this question and I would expect a conclusion would be achievable in the fairly near future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As
a supplementary question, might that be achieved before pay and pension cheques are issued at the end of this month?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The decision might be achieved, Mr. Speaker, before the end of this month, but I am not sure whether it would be in time to get it into the machinery for the issuing of pay cheques.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Premier Smallwood of Newfoundland has repeatedly shown great courage by accepting some responsibility for the election of the Prime Minister as leader of the federal Liberal party, is the Prime Minister willing to accept any blame for what happened in Newfoundland last weekend?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


TAXATION
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Have the provinces or provincial
November 4, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry premiers been given any advance information on the contents of the white paper on taxation?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of a statement by Premier Thatcher of Saskatchewan last Friday that he had reason to suspect that the federal white paper on taxation would include mineral industry taxation measures "not as stiff as those recommended by the Carter report"?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, lots of people are speculating.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kooienay Wesf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the urgent need to move a shipment of British Columbia apples destined for New Zealand by the November 6 contract date, what assistance has his department been able to give to the B.C. tree fruits industry in order to ensure the loading and shipment of this cargo which is crucial to the welfare of the B.C. economy?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have been in daily communication with the B.C. Tree Fruits Co-op and, indeed, with other people in British Columbia respecting this shipment, and my information is that all of the preparations and so on respecting the shipment are on time.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Communications. In reference to the dial-direct plan to make the minister's utterances and audio press releases easily available to the radio stations throughout the land, are he or any of his task forces making plans to extend audio-visual services to users of the television media so as to avoid serious discrimination between these two elements?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Posfmasier General and Minister of Communications):: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


FISHERIES
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Have permanent surveillance measures been taken in order to ensure that Russian fishing activity off our coasts will remain outside our 12-mile limit?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Howard Lundrigan: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the increase in Russian activity off our coasts and the phasing-out of United States naval activity in Newfoundland, has the Minister of National Defence taken any steps to increase our national defence effort on the east coast in order to fill the void left by the Americans?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have no reason to increase the national defence effort because we believe at present it fits the requirements. Neither are we diminishing it. So far as the American operation is concerned, we expect to take account of it in our study of the situation.


John Howard Lundrigan: As a further supplementary question, can the Minister of National Defence indicate whether the statement by the Prime Minister last year that there would be an increase in "DND" effort to protect our own sovereignty was just a lot of Liberal hot air and false teeth?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


HOUSING
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for reporting to the House on housing matters. Because of the importance of urban renewal or redevelopment in Vancouver East, affecting some 1,300 acres, can the minister say when he expects to make a policy announcement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that a substantially similar question has been asked during the last few days and answered by the minister.
November 4, 1969


Harold Edward Winch: Mine is very specific, Mr. Speaker, relating to my own constituency.


Mr. Speaker:: To that extent it should be placed on the order paper or discussed at the time of adjournment.


Harold Edward Winch: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of the information he gave to the House that we have in the gallery as distinguished guests the Treasurer of Ontario and the Minister of Trade and Development for that province. I should like to ask the minister whether he is discussing with the provincial treasurer the use which the government of Ontario has decided to make of the $175 million or whatever amount was paid to that province for the purposes of the medicare plan?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should like very much to welcome the member back after his retreat from Winnipeg and to indicate that the Treasurer of Ontario and I are discussing a great many matters of mutual concern.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase or repeat my question. I want to ask the Minister of Finance to tell us whether he is discussing the propriety or desirability of the government of Ontario using the money allocated for medicare in ways other than payment for medicare?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, of all the things we are discussing, the propriety of the government of Ontario is not one.


TRANSPORT
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has he held discussions with officials or ministers of the province of Nova Scotia regarding the possibility of improvement of facilities of the Nova Scotia-Prince Edward Island ferry service between Caribou and Wood Islands?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there has been a
Inquiries of the Ministry considerable exchange of correspondence and the matter has been resolved satisfactorily, although I am not sure that the final acceptance of our most recent proposal has come in from the government of Nova Scotia.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Could the minister advise whether consideration has been given to adding an additional ferry to this service?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the matters under consideration now.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is proud of the position taken by Mr. Jean Lesage in the National Assembly last week and will he show the same courage with regard to Mr. Lesage's position as he did concerning that of Messrs. Drapeau, Saulnier and Bertrand?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is out of order on many counts, I am afraid.


BOXCAR DISTRIBUTION-OPPORTUNITY FOR OPPOSITION MEMBERS TO MEET RAILWAY OFFICIALS
Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the meeting called by the Minister of Transport with Canadian Pacific and Canadian National management concerning distribution of boxcars to grain shipping points in southern Saskatchewan, to which only Liberal Members of Parliament and Senators from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba were invited, would the minister now arrange a similar meeting for opposition M.P.'s and Senators in order that we may tell railroad management the problems in our constituencies as well?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to quer>
the question of the hon. member.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, could I put this question on at ten o'clock, because this is rank discrimination on the part of the government?


AGRICULTURE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting
472	COMMONS DEBATES	November 4. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Justice or the Parliamentary-Secretary. In view of the fact that thousands of people are concerned and many millions of dollars are involved, when does the minister intend to advise the Minister of Agriculture that interest rates on farm mortgages are subject to the provisions of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangment Act and must be reduced accordingly?


HISTORIC SITES
André-Gilles Fortin: I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Following our correspondence in connection with the restoration of the Sir Wilfrid Lauri-er Museum in Arthabaska, I should like to ask him whether he will ask the Historic Sites and Monuments Board to speed up that study, in order to give the citizens of Arthabaska satisfaction in this connection?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that the hon. member's question is really urgent and I think that it could be put on the order paper. If I am wrong and there is real urgency, the House will be pleased to consider this question at the time of adjournment.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Does the Canadian Army make regular patrols in Canada's Arctic and if not, why not?


POLLUTION
Mr. Charles Turner (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is it true that Lake Erie will be completely dead in one year if the use of detergents is not stopped immediately?


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member's question refers to a situation which may not happen for a year, the question might be placed on the order paper.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Florian Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question I was asked last week by the hon. members for Bellechasse and Lot-biniere (Messrs. Lambert and Fortin) about the number of times the Canadian Dairy Commission met with the C.F.U. and the milk producers association, I would like to say there were nine meetings. Detailed reports of the meetings can be found on pages 86 and 91 of the 1968-69 report of the C.F.U.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)



ADDRESS DEBATE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, November 3, 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.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, coming into the debate on the last day and having reviewed the speeches made throughout the debate, I would not wish to speak on matters that have been dealt with but would bring to the attention of the House a question that has recently arisen in connection with Parliament and this institution.
I have a very deep affection for this place. I have been away now for a week and it seems to me that one would not know Parliament was sitting except for a few desultory references in the newspapers-I am sure this has been the experience of other hon. members who have been out west-to the minister reviewing the grain situation on the prairies. It is a distressing fact and one that concerns me greatly that this institution, because of our own action and because of the attitude of the government of this country, is gradually being relegated to a position which is not in keeping with our heritage and our responsibilities.
It is a serious situation when I read in the press or in Hansard that there are some who would have speeches tabled instead of deliv-
November 4, 1969

ered, a course permissible in the United States House of Representatives. It distresses me to think that this institution would be asked to adopt a system which does not permit of that freedom of debate, that exchange of information, that clash of ideas which is of the essence in the preservation of Parliament.
I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) might have remained.
I know how busy he is-after all, I held that position myself. But during the course of an important debate it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister, as far as possible, to be in the House in order to secure the views of members in all parts of the House. This cannot be secured by reading Hansard. When the Prime Minister speaks it is not spontaneously but after some task force has placed the facts before him. Therefore I take it that his remarks on the last day of the session represented his considered opinion and regard for private members of parliament. I was not here that day-


An hon. Member:: Where were you?


John George Diefenbaker: -but I read what was said and I regard it as one of the most caustic and unjustified statements ever made by a Prime Minister concerning Members of Parliament. This is what he said of the Creditistes:
Give them holidays and they vanish out of the picture. They become nobodies-they are just nil.
There is no member in this House of Commons who is a nobody or just nil.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: He dealt further with what this institution means a little later in that debate when he said:
They do not have to govern, they have only to talk. The best place in which to talk, if they want a forum, is, of course, Parliament. When they get home, when they get out of Parliament, when they are 50 yards from Parliament Hill, they are no longer hon. members-they are just nobodies.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John George Diefenbaker: That, to me, was shocking in the extreme.


An hon. Member:: Arrogance!


John George Diefenbaker: Arrogant? The words in the book of synonyms are not sufficient to describe it! I would have expected the Prime Minister to say at the earliest possible moment that those observations might well have remained unsaid, but they stand. That is

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker his view, and it shows a contemptuous attitude to this institution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: No matter in what part of the House a member sits, he is entitled not to be referred to or considered a nobody. He was sent here by the people. It was a statement that will haunt the Prime Minister for a long time to come.
In the current issue of Canadian Time there is a cartoon of the Prime Minister and he is sewing up and silencing a mouse or a rat.


Mr. Crouse:: It is a beaver.


John George Diefenbaker: He has tied it up with a great deal of thread or heavy cord. He has it tied up. As far as I am concerned, that represents his attitude to Parliament. We are tied up. We are nobodys. We sit, we speak, we are unheard and referred to as nobodies.
I have some satisfaction in knowing that about the same time as this happened Marshall McLuhan, who is often regarded as the conscience of this government, when speaking of Armstrong and Aldrin having arrived on the moon, said, "They are nobodies". The Prime Minister said that when we get 50 yards away from the House of Commons we are nobodies. It took Armstrong and Aldrin years of training, 7,000 scientists to work on the problem, and they travelled 235,000 miles into space to become nobodies. You and I can do it by going 50 yards away from the House of Commons!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: What should I speak about? First, I will speak of this institution. I have read all of the contributions. I think we overdo it when one after the other and perfunctorily, as it were, we congratulate the mover and seconder. After the various leaders of the parties have done so, I think that is sufficient.
There have been some remarkable contributions. There has been information advanced, study and research revealed and, above all, there has been dedication. There have been complaints about the press gallery not reporting what takes place in the House of Commons. This is an institution that is avoided by this government. They have a perambulating system of ministers on a kind of musical chairs basis. Ministers are supposed to be here except when it is necessary to be absent. The Minister without Portfolio
November 4, 1969

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker (Mr. Lang) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) have had important duties which caused their absence in the last few days. Others have duties as well. Ministers should not be on a roster basis because if they do not want a question to be asked that comes within the particular ambit of any one minister and the question is directed to the Prime Minister he says in effect: Wait until the minister gets back. That is not Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I said earlier that this institution has been degraded. I say it again and I say it with deep sorrow. I miss this House when I am away. I do not care on what side of the House members sit, there is something about this fraternity, its relationship and the recognition that those who sit opposite are entitled to the fullest consideration. All are trying to do something for their country, but the leader of the nation has said they are nobodys. It did not affect me, but the fact is that the people will regard this institution no higher than the regard the leader of the country has for this institution, in respect of which he holds the highest prerogative position.
What should I say of international affairs? I am not going to deal with that question except to refer to it in passing. All over the world people are laughing at Canada chasing after Mao and saying: "Won't you allow us to recognize you?" I can just hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) saying, "Here am I, Mao, take me."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: 
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
November 4, 1969


John George Diefenbaker: But away went the windows. They smashed them up.
The Prime Minister said a while ago that he would add to his staff. He cannot. He cannot get any more people into that part of the building. They come from everywhere. I understand they are starting to wear badges so that one may not make the mistake of giving advice to another belonging to the same staff. What a ridiculous proposition is being heaped on the Canadian people by announcing that this government is engaging in economy!
I could deal further with this subject of economy and I could deal also with a government which has so little to do that it is starting to abolish lawyers. All lawyers, apparently, are crooked according to one of the ministers. Another minister is abolishing tobacco. And so they go on. And while they are doing these things the cost of living goes up to the highest point in history; interest rates are on the way to the moon; people are finding it difficult to live.
The Minister without Portfolio in charge of wheat has now left. Had it been otherwise, I would have addressed some remarks to him. One minister pleaded today that the government be given a little time; "we are looking into this; we are examining it". We ask what the government intends to do about the wheat situation, and the reply in effect is: We shall let you know in due course. While this is happening, tens and tens of thousands of acres in western Canada are under snow. Farmers are without any money at all to enable them to carry on. They cannot borrow from the banks because the banks have closed down in most cases as far as credit is concerned. I asked the government what it intends to do and the answer is given that the government is looking into the matter.
Sir, there is deep perplexity among the Canadian people. They are worried. They are concerned. They wonder what is going to happen next. There has been a kaleidoscopic series of things done outside Parliament and despite the views of Parliament. Nobody knows what will come next. This brings me to a matter with which I intend to deal in some detail.
I have said on occasions that this government seems determined to abolish the monarchy. Let no one deny that this is their purpose and objective. I should not be speaking on this subject today but for the fact that yesterday I examined certain books. In 1968, on December 13, I said:


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the right hon. gentleman but I must bring to the attention of the House that the time accorded to him under the rules has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: With the consent of the House, the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the government why it has done this. In January of this year the
DEBATES	477
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker government stated that the Queen, almost in the words of the statute, was the person in whom the executive power rested. Why has this provision been deleted? Why do they substitute the government or the cabinet for the constitution, putting the cabinet in the position that they believe that they can get away with anything? That is just an example of one of the most serious things that has happened today. The government is now determined to take the step that will ultimately bring about this result.
Let me digress for a moment. Among other things I am concerned about the fact that Her Majesty the Queen is not to broadcast her traditional Christmas message. I hope this will be changed. I hope the Canadian government will make it clear that we would welcome this message. This is one occasion in the year when the Queen, either as the head of state or as the head of the Commonwealth, speaks to her peoples everywhere. We remember those dark days of December, 1939, when many of us wondered what the next year would bring forth, and when King George VI made that speech which is immortal. He quoted the words of an almost unknown poet.
So far as the Throne Speech is concerned the Queen's name has been brought into it in a shabby and discourteous manner. She has been given a kind of Judas kiss. She was left out of last year's Speech and I think out of the Speech the year before. In the present speech she was restored as though she were some person from some foreign land who has shown some interest in Canada. I repeat, there shall be one Parliament consisting of the Queen and Upper House, styled the Senate, and the House of Commons, with an executive government with authority of and over Canada declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
I am concerned over the degradation of Parliament. The members of the press gallery are condemned because they do not report Parliament. This institution will die if the government continues to operate as it does at the moment. At the moment there is only one minister here. Surely they are not too busy to attend. This is a very contemptuous way of treating an institution which today has become not the Queen's government but the Prime Minister's government.


An hon. Member:: There are two ministers over there.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me make this perfectly clear. I should like to see some government
478	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Lachance members stand up and say to the Prime Minister of Canada that they believe in then-hearts in the monarchy and are not going to be pushed along in this way any farther. This is what is being done. They are nobodies. If we are nobodies over here, I refrain from using the expression that the Prime Minister might apply to you if he was sitting here.
Sir, I have concluded. What has taken place through this directive is an effort on the part of this government, or three or four members of it, to bring about the end in this country of the monarchy and to establish a kind of republican system of government wherein the Prime Minister will be the head. He is not the head now, but in giving this instruction contained in the Speech from the Throne, as they still call it, he has reached the position where he can say, like Louis XIV: "L'etat, c'est moi." As long as this institution stands and exercises its rights and privileges, that sort of view cannot be accepted.
If we are to bring about a republic-I am opposed to it but that does not mean other people are not entitled to their views-this shall not be decided by some bureaucratic outfit or several ministers who say, by administrative direction, burn, destroy and get rid of these institutions that have been acceptable throughout the years. Why change everything between January and July? Let the people decide. You members over there dare not deny the people of Canada the opportunity to vote on whether or not they want to be in a republic. Instead, by clandestine and secret means you are trying to bring about what you know in your own hearts- and the government knows-would not be acceptable to the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafoniaine: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer you my congratulations on the dignified and equitable manner with which you preside over our deliberations and I express the wish that you will continue to do so for a long time.
I also want to express my congratulations to the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Mar-ceau) who moved the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Both of them on this occasion made speeches that show a real concern for public affairs, a deep knowledge of Canadian politics and a sincere determination to take a full part in the development of constructive and efficient policies.

DEBATES	November 4, 1969
I may not be as amusing or interesting as the previous speaker, but I shall try to be more serious.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), as well as the leaders of the other parties and the hon. members who have spoken during this debate have done so with great dignity and generally without any bias. They made a general survey of the political situation inside and outside Canada.
I noticed that there was general agreement as to the alarming situation brought about by such problems as inflation, price increases, the cost of living, international insecurity, starvation in the world and the impatience of the young in face of our inability to solve their problems quickly.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
Finally, I have noticed a general consensus to the effect that we should all work together very hard to seek and find solutions.
In the Speech from the Throne, the government proposes to call upon the House to study various papers, as well as legislative proposals intended to lower the voting age to 18, devise measures to fight pollution and general inflation, and reform social security to build a strong and productive country.
The Prime Minister, in the course of this debate, has referred, among other things, to Canada's human and material resources, constructive criticism on the part of the opposition, the needless pollution of air and water, the participation of the young people in our country's political life, inflation, the increase in the cost of living, the inequality of opportunities for well-being in the world, threats to the human race in general, the Arctic regions, Canada's sovereignty and many other subjects.
During the debates which will take place in this House about the bills or problems that will be considered, I hope that I shall have the opportunity to take the floor as often as possible. However, in case I could not do so in due course, I take this opportunity today to give my impressions about a few points in which I am particularly interested, namely the very serious situation prevailing at present in the Middle East, the recognition of the People's Republic of China in opposition to Nationalist China, the problem of prisoners' rehabilitation and of expunging criminal records and finally, of bail in general.
In the Middle East, Mr. Speaker, we all know that peace has practically never prevailed there since the end of the ice-age,
November 4, 1969	COMMONS
when ice receded toward the North, Europe woke up to life from its lethargy and the green and fertile countries at the extreme end of the Mediterranean sea, well irrigated by then magnificent rivers, with rich pastures and thick forests, were scorched by the sun and became a desert.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the desert, the sun, solitude, and undoubtedly the recent discovery of huge oil fields have turned the Middle East into a hell where hatred and cupidity are the most prevalent feelings.
Christ came on earth, and so did Mohammed, the prophet, warrior and poet.
Today, the influence of great empires has almost completely disappeared in that region of the world and has given way to the exploitation of oil, but the desert still exists and so do hatred and cupidity.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) will soon visit the Middle East. I hope that through his good offices a solution will be found to this problem, because I believe that the cease fire which now prevails will soon end. With the present escalation, we are on the road to a world war, and that is very serious. I hope he will find the arguments able to convince all parties to accept a permanent cease fire until a solution acceptable to all is worked out.
In the first speech I had the honour to make in this House, in 1963, I proposed that we recognize Communist China. I am glad to see that this government entered into negotiations with the authorities of that country in view of this recognition which would permit Communist China to be represented in the United Nations. It is no use hiding like an ostrich while we sell that country wheat and seek other opportunities to trade with it.
It seems illogical to me not to recognize it. The recognition of that government as the real authority in that country does not indicate approval of such a system of government.
However I am anxious when I see that recognition of the People's Republic of China could perhaps bring about automatically the non-recognition of Nationalist China, Formosa.
It seems to me that we are not entitled to decide the political option of the citizens of the People's Republic of China or Communist China. I think it would be an error if our recognition of Communist China were condi-
2X362-315
DEBATES	479
The Address-Mr. Lachance
tional upon our severing of relations with Nationalist China.
I have already had occasion in the past to speak in favour of the rehabilitation of prisoners in our penitentiaries. In the meantime, the Ouimet Commission has presented its report and I hope the government will take steps as promptly as possible to implement the report's excellent suggestions.
We must make the public service accessible to those who have paid their debt to society. I believe courses can be set up in the penitentiaries for the purpose of preparing those prisoners who wish to enter the public service to do so, this without in any way suggesting that prisoners released from our penitentiaries should have immediate access to top positions. I feel that a probation system should also be set up so that those people would have to report on a regular basis and so that they could fully know that their cases are under constant study.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
But how can we ask private industry to try to make it easier for a prisoner to rehabilitate himself if the government and the civil service do not set the example?
Of course, this proposal is related to others which I intend to make, such as, for instance, the destruction of criminal records. I shall not discuss this subject at length because a bill to that effect has been introduced and we shall certainly have every opportunity of discussing it.
Still, this measure does not go far enough and I believe that we must do our utmost so that criminal records be destroyed after a certain time, so that individuals who have paid their debt to society can again hope to rehabilitate themselves fully and contribute to Canada's productivity.
Now I should like to deal with the problem of bails in our courts of justice, with which I am particularly familiar since I had the opportunity to represent for some time in Montreal the attorney general of the province of Quebec. I always loathe seeing a person under arrest having to prove his right to be freed on bail. It is not up to the accused to prove that, but rather to the Crown.
It is amazing to see that the individual who, for instance, is arrested for having beaten his wife, upon a mere statement sworn very often during the night, has to spend the night in a prison cell, and that the next day, he is required to post a bail which he is often unable to provide.
I know of an individual who was arrested in Montreal two years ago-I do not want to
480	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Lachance give too many details as people might identify him-put on a plane by the provincial police, and sent to one of the western provinces, because he was charged with plotting to set up a book-making business. This is obviously a criminal act, but certainly no criminal act can justify that the accused be sent 2,000 miles away and forced to post a $10,000 bail on real estate. The individual in question knew no one in the western city who could bail him out and he had to spend five days in a jail cell while his father was lying on his acquitted.
I do not accept, Mr. Speaker, that a person be held on the mere statement of police authorities. Nobody should be arrested and forced to prove he has a right to freedom. If we recognize the principle that a person is deemed to be innocent until he has been proved guilty, I think the onus of responsibility for deciding whether or not bail is necessary should lie with the Crown and not with the individual.
Nobody should be forced to prove his right to freedom and if law enforcement officers fear that the individual might escape-which is impossible, since the world is too small- just let him run. A good riddance. But I do not believe that anyone charged with being a member of a betting syndicate will try to jump bail.
In my view, Mr. Vallieres and Mr. Gagnon should not have been kept in jail for three or four years. I do not share their political opinions, but our system is such that individuals have to prove that they deserve to be set free. Should an individual not fulfil the obligations that hail entails, the Crown could always ask that such bail be annulled.
I find it totally unacceptable that an individual be deprived of his freedom during three or four years without having been found guilty. Our judicial system is badly organized in this respect. In the United States, a person may call upon an insurance company to put in bail for him. Here, it is just the opposite. It is quite difficult to find bail. Many individuals rot in prison cells while awaiting trial.
I have talked about Messrs. Vallieres and Gagnon. They are lucky to have several friends or so-called friends to help them. What about all the unknown who have nobody to help them and who are kept in jail for the most trivial offence before their trial.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the entire bail system should be reconsidered keeping in mind that the burden of proof and the need

DEBATES	November 4, 1969
of bail are the responsibility of the Crown and not of the individual.
Man may have conquered the moon and the world generally, but at the rate he is going, he will lose the earth. It is true that Canada cannot keep the peace throughout the world but we must redouble our efforts to deserve the wealth that we possess.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the distinguished hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) I was reminded of an echo of yesterday, of the unregenerate critic of progress and reform. I could not help but wonder whether this man on his recent trip to Russia discussed tub-thumping techniques of a previous encounter. I am referring, of course, to the famous occasion when in the United Nations in New York the right hon. gentleman was supposed to have caused Mr. Khrushchev to have taken off his shoe and thumped the table. I was reminded that empty barrels give out most sound.
In his opening remarks he referred to the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was not present in the House. I wonder if he was aware that his own leader was not present in the House and I wondered whether he spoke for the Conservative party.
It seems to me that he showed no understanding of the world for what it is. He criticized the program of this government because it was trying to reform Parliament. He referred to the roster system, and he referred to the degradation of Parliament. If he had his way, he would suffocate Parliament. He spoke about wheat sales hut offered no suggestions. It was an eloquent and distinguished performance of professional opposition. He spoke of economy drives and showed that he had no understanding of economy. After all, what man who uses so many words so generously could understand the word economy? He referred to windows, and I think inadvertently tipped his hand by demonstrating to all of us something I long suspected, that he is far more concerned with windowdressing than with the substance.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alastair William Gillespie: He spoke of the monarchy. He seems to have forgotten that the constitution is a living thing, something which the Queen's husband reminded all Canadians about not very long ago. And he referred to the picture on the cover of Time magazine.
November 4, 1969

He called it a rat. I think if he looked more closely he would discover it was a rather battered beaver. Further if he looked closely I think he might also observe the true symbolism of the picture. Surely this was the battered beaver reclaimed by the Liberals and nurtured by them under the Pearson government, and which is now being restored to health under the Trudeau government.
The Address-Mr. Gillespie I think we need to ask ourselves this question: How much are the cities of Canada going to have to say about the kind of cities they will become? After the agonizing events of recent years in the United States this is no idle question. Are our cities to be no more than passive bystanders as others unfold their grand designs for the benefit of the citizens of those cities?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alastair William Gillespie: And that, Mr. Speaker, is what the Speech from the Throne has indicated to us all.
In speaking in this way about the Speech from _ the Throne debate you may detect a certain impatience in some of my remarks. I feel this debate has gone on too long. I think we may all be slightly weary with what may be described as our eight-day diet. It has not been the quality of the speeches which caused this feeling of weariness but more their quantity and their generality, the fact that there was no clear aim, no concerted purpose to the speeches.
Few of the speeches have been reported in the press. When we think about it, how could they have handled this veritable deluge, this bonanza of Parliamentary opinion, even if they were interested? Are they right that the people of Canada are not interested?
I suppose we could rationalize this occasion by saying this talk-fest has therapeutic value rather like a psychologist's couch. It may even help to tranquilize our tensions, but there is an equal possibility that it may do no more than raise a yawn. Why not, then, four days next year?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alastair William Gillespie: In any event, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about two aspects of reform, the need to experiment with new mechanisms in federal-provincial-municipal planning, and the need to extend Parliamentary reform to include the important area of a Member of Parliament's productivity and the method by which he is compensated.
Recently a good deal of attention has been focused on the problems of the city. The hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens), in his stirring speech two nights ago, emphasized the importance of the city and of the planning and the environment of the city to the citizens of the future. He pointed out that a very large proportion of Canadians are living in cities now and that even more will be living in them within a few years.
The question that more and more people are asking today is simply this: How can the federal government ensure that its plans and programs for the city are in fact taking account of the needs of the city and, more particularly, are they in harmony with the future plans of the city itself? Is not the existing practice by Ottawa of consultation with a provincial government department or, worse still, with several separate provincial government departments, too indirect, cumbersome and inefficient in an age when the rate of change is accelerating enormously? Is it not time to consider new mechanisms to plan our growth and protect the quality of life in our cities?
By way of example, Mr. Speaker, the great metropolitan area of Toronto will expand in population in the next ten years by about the same amount that it has expanded and increased its population over the previous 150 years. I am saying, then, that I think there is a real urgency, particularly in the larger city systems, to consider new ways of relating the federal presence to those most concerned with planning the shape and the form and the enjoyment of the city, and I would like to use several examples to show the kind of problems that have occurred within the last year within the Metro Toronto region.
A year ago last summer an announcement was made about the expansion of the international airport at Malton. This expansion was planned with absolutely no local consultation of any kind. There had been consultation between the federal government and Queen's Park but not with the planning directors or elected officials of the municipalities most directly affected. As a result much of the planning had to be withdrawn because it simply did not reflect the aspirations of those who were going to be most affected.
More recently the provincial government at Queen's Park has recognized the need to plan for the future of this area. In a press release issued on October 9 they refer to a new series of zoning regulations for the Toronto International Airport. These regulations divide it into six zones, and certain compatible land use zones are associated with them. In their press
November 4, 1969

The Address-Mr. Gillespie release they indicate that they have been affecting the whole area would not have been involved in this process of planning the urban delayed.
environment around airports since 1957. But This experience, together with the zoning it took them 12 years to do anything about it. which the provincial government announced It took them 12 years to provide the within the last month, argues for the direct municipalities that were going to be most involvement on a consultation basis of the
affected with guidelines that would enable the municipalities to determine the kind of communities they should build.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to review briefly one or two of the remarks I made before we adjourned for lunch, so that the remainder of my speech will appear in context.
What I was arguing for was a new mechanism to reconcile the interests of the federal-provincial and municipal authorities in planning the urban environment and I stated that I wished to cite some specific examples of failure in this regard. I referred to the planning and the expansion of Malton airport and perhaps I should just review quickly one or two aspects of that plan and the areas where I feel it failed.
Almost immediately after the plan was announced a year ago last summer, there was an outcry from those most affected. Plans for schools, a community college, a hospital, and public housing, all had to be reconsidered. Private housing projects on lands zoned for residential use were put on ice. Plans for parks and recreation areas were hoisted and newly developed traffic pattern figures became obsolete. Subsequently, the airport proposal was modified to accommodate local views and the decision was taken to build a second airport which decision, let it be said, would have had to be taken within a few years in any event because the air space over Malton was expected to reach capacity by the mid-1980s.
The point is, had the local levels of government been directly involved with the federal and provincial governments from the start of the planning process, these mistakes would not have occurred. It is likely that the modified expansion could have begun six months sooner to the advantage of three million passengers and, just as important, local projects

appropriate borough, city or metro planning groups when anything as important as an airport is concerned. If we continue to see the process of consultation in terms of a ladder that is to say initiative by the federal government, translated to the provincial level which in turn translates the interest to the municipal level, we will see a lack of real consultation about local interests.
As I pointed out in my remarks this morning, the paragraph from the provincial government's press release made it clear that there had not been very much meaningful consultation with the municipalities until recently. The press release also pointed out that the provincial government had been aware of the problems of noise since 1957.
I quote: "in January, 1969, it was found possible to initiate discussions between the Department of Municipal Affairs and the local municipalities on the one hand, and the federal Department of Transport on the other, regarding the affects of present and future aircraft noise on surrounding areas."
It is my contention that it would have been much better had the local authorities been involved from the beginning; that instead of being asked to react to a situation which was in large part created for them they should have been given an opportunity to participate, and to shape a plan. I say that the up and down the ladder approach to consultation between the federal and municipal authorities is not satisfactory in this day and age. We should be thinking about a round table discussion. Surely, this is the sort of arrangement we should strive for today when speaking of inputs and consultation.
In this regard, I should like to go a step further and cite a recent experience in Toronto concerned with the possibility of relocating the Island Airport. A number of editorials and press comments have appeared under such headlines as "Airport Arrogance", and I will quote from the Toronto Star of October 24:
Despite representations from many quarters for a co-ordinated development of the whole harbour area, the city and Metro have been completely ignored. The Harbour Board, Queen's Park and the federal Department of Transport have gone their merry way without so much as consulting them.
November 4, 1969

[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
There have been scare headlines as well. There have been those about fear of pollution from the lakeside airport, and others of its kind, affecting the whole quality of life of a major urban area. The time has come to consider a specific approach to this problem. Before I make my suggestion for the solution to this problem, I wish to say I am not talking about just one airport. I am talking about a system of airports. In the metropolitan region today there are five airports, Toronto Island, Malton, Downsview, Buttonville and Maple.
What we must think about is planning an airport system for this major developing urban area. It cannot be done on an ad hoc basis of first doing something with Malton and then a second airport to provide for the future after the limited expansion at Malton. Nor can it be done on an ad hoc basis by examining a possible new site on the lakeside to replace the Island airport. We must think in terms of a complete system which recognizes the various kinds of carriers, the commercial carriers, chartered aircraft and general aviation.
It is of some significance that in the metropolitan Toronto area 90 per cent of the air movements, that is to say the take-offs and landings, are accounted for by general aviation, that is business, pleasure and training aircraft, and not by commercial carriers. It is this kind of exploding growth situation with which we must grapple. We cannot do it just in terms of federal-provincial consultation. We have to provide for the municipal input where it counts. We have to provide an opportunity for the planners and the elected officials of the municipalities to participate in the planning of this system so that their plans for the future with respect to recreation areas, housing, transportation, schools and hospitals fit in with the over-all plan.
The time has come to consider an approach to the formation of a new institution which I would propose as a metropolitan region airport board. There is precedent for this sort of arrangement. In 1911 the federal government and the city of Toronto became joint partners in the Toronto Harbour Commission which, incidentally, is a very happy precedent and which has spawned at least seven other similar arrangements.
This was an opportunity for the federal and municipal governments to plan together for the benefit of this city within a national plan.
I think a metropolitan airport board should be formed. It would be a planning agency. Its
The Address-Mr. Gillespie powers would be those of a planner rather than an operator. It would be composed of federal representatives of the Department of Transport, provincial government officials, municipal representatives, and other interests involved including representatives from the Toronto Harbour Commission which is now part of the airport system. I feel the municipal representatives should be both officials and elected representatives, those accountable to the people of the city. As I indicated, there is precedent for this arrangement and I think that its urgency is now compelling.
The other subject I wish to speak about, Mr. Speaker, is an aspect of parliamentary reform which I do not think has received all the attention it deserves in this debate on the Speech from the Throne. I refer particularly to the productivity of members of parliament and their compensation arrangements. The new importance of the standing committees requires a new appreciation on the part of all hon. members and the community at large of the need to improve the arrangements of members of parliament in order that they can be more productive. They have less time to spend in their offices and their time, therefore, must be spent more effectively. I would like to see a general recognition by members of parliament that the present arrangements are not satisfactory. I recognize that we cannot change all of them now, and may not be able to for some years. I am referring specifically to the problem of space. We should extract a commitment that something will be done.
What self-respecting businessman, professional man, labour union leader or member of the community would try to carry on his work as we do within six feet of an over-active electric typewriter? What self-respecting person trying to serve the kind of constituents we are can operate with one telephone line? It is a little like building a single track railway system between two points without any sidings. You can go in one direction, but until you have completed that direction nothing can come back from the other. Surely, the time has come for all members of parliament to support the idea of two telephone lines.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alastair William Gillespie: Surely the time has come for hon. members to insist on having some kind of telephone answering service. This is the most important institution in Canada. If we are using our single telephone line and someone calls our office, there is no way that person can leave a message. Similarly, if we
November 4, 1969

The Address-Mr. Gillespie do not happen to be in our office and if our secretary for some good reason is not in the office and someone calls, there is no way that person can leave a message. It is now time for us to recognize these shortcomings and move to correct them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alastair William Gillespie: The area of compensation arrangements for members of parliament is a delicate one. It is time we told the Canadian public what the situation is. I think the professional paper prepared by Mr. Horst G. Wolff, published by the Canadian Tax Foundation and circulated to many, if not all, members is a very useful contribution to this whole question with respect to expenses and compensation arrangements for members of parliament. It is very useful in helping us present the case to the Canadian public. It traces the history and points out the inconsistencies and the lack of a single guiding principle. It attempts to distinguish between the confusions of salaries and expenses and traces how these came about. It points out that the Carter Commission recommended changes and it supports the principle the Carter Commission endorses. One of the recommendations reads:
Members of Parliament should be treated on the same basis as other employees and so should be required to bring their allowances into income, and at the same time should be allowed to deduct their expenses of earning employment income including election expenses. We would expect that it would be accepted that the regular place of business of a Member of Parliament is in his riding, so that all expenses incurred while in Ottawa and in travelling to and from Ottawa would be deductible as long as they fell within the limits established for such expenses.
e (2:20 p.m.)
In other words, the Carter Commission proposal recognizes the dislocations which are occasioned by having two bases-a constituency base and an Ottawa base. This article points out clearly that the prevailing practice in business and the professions is for businessmen to deduct out-of-pocket expenses incurred away from their place of business. For instance, if a businessman or, indeed, anyone else, were to come to Ottawa to appear before one of our committees his expenses in coming to Ottawa would be deductible; they would not be added to his income as they are by inference to ours.
Let it be made clear that I am not advocating an increase for hon. members at this time. What I am saying is this: we have to change

the system of which we have become captives. It seems to me the time is ripe. We are approaching parliamentary reform from many points of view, including that of concern for making our committees more effective. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is the time to examine the aspect of parliamentary reform to which I have referred.
An appropriate way to do so would be by establishing a commission which would be given the task of determining what should be the appropriate level of remuneration for Members of Parliament by comparing the levels applicable in industry, the professions and the public service. More particularly, it is important that such a commission should recommend a way of providing for future changes in the salaries of parliamentarians. The present system was designed for parttime members. It is an ad hoc arrangement and in my view it is no longer appropriate since it no longer serves the cause which it espouses, that is to say, the health of parliamentary democracy.
Let there be no mistake about this: Members of parliament will be asked to do more, not less; legislation will become more complicated and more technical, and the effectiveness of members of parliament will become increasingly important to the operation of this system, not less. To point a finger at an example which may be useful in this context, I should like to remind hon. members that some time ago the United States recognized the importance of setting up a public commission to determine the appropriate levels and methods of compensating their members of parliament. I refer to the Kettle Commission which reported not long ago.
I think the commission should include members who are well-known in business life, in labour organizations and perhaps in one of the professions. I am thinking of a university president. Unless the system of public service is changed, good men will not serve in parliament in the future, not because they are unprepared to do so but because parliament and the people are not prepared to face a basic issue. Formation of such a commission as I have proposed would be an important step in the process of parliamentary reform, of bringing this institution up to date; of preserving the role of parliament in an increasingly complex age; of ensuring respect for this institution and for the quality of its representation; in short, of developing a strong and healthy parliamentary democracy in Canada.
November 4, 1969


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: 
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt to hon. member. His time has expired unless it is the disposition of the House to give unanimous consent that he continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Angus MacLean: I am very grateful to the House for extending this privilege and I hope not to abuse it unduly. I do not believe Canadians will take kindly to the suggestion that their hopes are to be foiled by the fickle finger of fate. They will not be satisfied if their aspirations are to be dashed. They believe with the poet that it matters not how strait the gate, how charged with punishment the scroll; I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul. Canadians feel they have a right to live in a country governed by a government which will provide the climate in which they can realize their ambitions.
Rural people are disillusioned and demoralized by the fact that they have an uneasy feeling they do not count as full citizens in this country. They feel that governments are not concerned about them and their way of life because of their own worth as citizens but are concerned with them only so long as they are producers of food-and the cheaper the food the better. This is not good enough. Rural Canada and the small towns in Canada have contributed disproportionately I believe to all the advances in leadership, the professions and learning in Canada. That fact should be recognized. Rural Canada is about as good an environment as one could hope to live in this modern day,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: -provided the economic situation is such that living a rural life is possible.
November 4, 1969	COMMONS
One thing that I believe is distressing the urban people is the unsatisfactory condition of their environment. They move to the suburbs in an attempt to get some privacy and property of their own. They are overrun by the unplanned growth of our large cities. They fight traffic to get to work. There is no place to park their car when they get there. They have no quiet. Wages are eroded by inflation. They have no real privacy. The wage scales and so on which attracted them to the city, and which looked like gold, have turned to tinsel. They have no opportunity at their level of income to provide any solitude for themselves or their children. They do not have an opportunity to see anything of nature. Fifty years ago Canadian fathers took for granted that on a Saturday they would be able to take their sons fishing. Even that simple joy is far beyond the economic ability of most Canadians today.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The fact is that our modern cities which are growing without any rational plan are not providing an environment suitable for the development of healthy minds or bodies in human beings. Canadians who live in urban centres are frustrated because the things they try to get for themselves are removed from them sometimes by other individuals, sometimes by corporations, and sometimes lay governments, and they seem to have no control over this situation. There is an unplanned and irrational sprawling of our large urban centres. Our economy and our tax structure is of such a nature that more and more Canadians are forced into these huge conglomerates of humanity for economic reasons but against their own will.
In this connection we, as Canadians, should be ashamed of the fact that we are at least 20 years behind the United States in the matter of city environment; we are at least 50 years behind the United Kingdom and 330 years behind Sweden. The city of Stockholm has had a city planning board for 330 years, and any one who goes to Stockholm realizes that immediately. Yet, we are still going on the false assumption that we, as Canadians, can just let things go as they will, that there is lots of space, of resources, of fresh air and water. This is not so unless it is handled and planned intelligently for the general good of all Canadians.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to congratulate
DEBATES	489
The Address-Mr. Fortin the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne opening the second session of the twenty-eighth parliament, which I greet with both enthusiasm and bitterness.
My enthusiasm derives from this unique parliamentary experience which provides me with an opportunity to express the opinion of the whole population on the legislative measures introduced by the government.
That experience of participatory democracy adds a new dimension and a new responsibility, although not always easy, yet exciting indeed, to the member's function. It entails serious thinking and the taking of a position for which he stands accountable to the population. That experience proves wonderful and I should like to thank my worthy colleagues most sincerely for it and for their kindness to me as well.
Mr. Speaker, I also view the opening of this second session with some bitterness. As a matter of fact, I was expecting the government to tackle the problem of the disintegration of our society, to act immediately and to include in its legislative program concrete measures for a balanced economy.
I was disappointed because the Speech from the Throne is remarkable more for what was left out of it than for what is in it, and that is tragic. Solutions are slow in coming. If the necessary steps are not taken today, tomorrow may be too late.
Up to now there has been too much delay. Society is disintegrating and we all see it.
During the recess every one of us spent his time usefully I guess, in his constituency or elsewhere.
As for myself I took this opportunity to get around my constituency very often in order to meet my electors and discuss with them present problems and matters of interest to them. In fact, many economic and social problems are now facing the population I have the honour to represent. From all these meetings, these discussions there emerges a common denominator, a governing idea that was always coming up to the surface as a leitmotiv, that is a deep concern for the future of their country, their province, their heritage.
Until very recently, the constitutional problems facing Canada were the concern of only a few intellectuals, civil servants or unknown experts. It was still the thing to do very recently, in fashionable circles, to develop great theses, quite often incomprehensible to the public, about the future of Quebec and Canada.
490	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Fortin
The people as a whole was not much interested and did not seem to care about Canada. The matter was discussed because it was the thing to do, but that was all. The great theses such as special status, autonomy, sovereignty-association, co-operative federalism, etc. were not taken seriously and created little interest among the people.
But today, and one is not quite sure why, the future of Canada and Quebec has become a major concern for each and every one of us. The citizens of the constituency of Lotbiniere are no exceptions. They worry about the noisy and dangerous protest which endangers innocent lives and may ultimately turn out democracy into total anarchy.
I should like then to take advantage of the few minutes at my disposal to outline briefly what I consider the essential problems at the present time.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
How far will the ever growing anarchy go? When will it stop?
Parents no longer know whether their children are in school or on the streets, whether they prepared a Molotov cocktail at lunch time, blew up the school buildings, picketed, marched or maybe even had a study session. In fact, those are the actions of professional agitators who, as the Quebec premier said recently, are interested in emptying our schools for any reason they can find, in making our children, inspired by deceitful and hate propaganda, come down into the street.
Right-minded people who favour order, authority and justice must and will have to get a consensus to end the underhand doings of some bearded and immigrant activists who left their country for fear of not being free and respected and who now want to impose their opinions in our country, without respecting anything, or anybody and foster anarchy. Those people wish to create here what they left behind when they fled their country. This points to a deficiency in the government's immigration policy.
The mother does not know any longer whether her husband will work tomorrow or if he will not return in the evening and tell her: "I am on strike."
The sick do not know any longer whether they will get the necessary basic care to which they are strictly entitled to recover at least part of their health.
Teachers do not know any longer whether they will be paid or if they will be provided with some kind of teaching material.

DEBATES	November 4, 1969
Students cannot tell whether they will attend school tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, we must not close our eyes to the fact that in our schools and universities, drugs and narcotics are flowing freely, and authority is being thrown overboard. Unfortunately, I find that few of my colleagues are interested in those questions.
The young unemployed despair of ever finding jobs in which they can make use of the skills they have acquired.
Wheat producers accumulate surpluses but they do not know what to do with them.
Milk producers in the East must pour their milk down the drain this year-I deeply regret that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is not in the house-not knowing what to do with their product when two thirds of the world's population are starving to death and are without the bare minimum. While people are starving to death, while some families do not have the bare necessaries, we are wasting our production.
Mr. Speaker, our rural community is becoming urbanized and this results in complete disruption. We are not prepared, nor are our governments, to cope with such changes.
All have questions to ask. However, few answers arouse interest.
As far as the Throne Speech is concerned, it is a vacuum. As a matter of fact, all those problems I have just listed-and I have only mentioned a few-have the same common denominator: social injustice.
The just society was not supposed to materialize yesterday and, according to the Speech from the Throne, it will not be for tomorrow either.
Personally, I had been building several hopes on the Throne Speech of this second session, Mr. Speaker, I bitterly realize, as many others, you may believe me, that nothing will be done this year except for rehashing the old bills and old ideas of the first session which brought no economical improvement for that matter.
Social injustice, that is what we must fight against. However, to fight it, we must first expose it, see it, grasp it. And to grasp it, we must go to its roots. We must go back to the source of economic injustices. That is the fundamental point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and a great number of other intellectuals of the same school speak forcefully of the just society and social justice which we must establish
November 4, 1969

and in older to achieve that aim, the Prime Minister has developed a program which may be summarized as follows: to appoint task forces, to produce white papers, to organize study trips across Canada, to submit reports and more reports which will he on shelves, to put the axe in the public service, to modernize the Criminal Code and give much importance to secondary bills such as those on abortion, homosexuality, etc., to impose credit restrictions to everyone except the rich, to increase interest rates on ah loans granted by the Farm Credit Corporation, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, etc., to review all programs without ever changing them, and to tighten one's belt, because inflation is galloping, and it is necessary to save money.
So that is the program of the Prime Minister, since he became leader of the government. Those are the only solutions he has to offer.
In other words, we must deprive ourselves in the hope that poverty will dissappear, and that social disparities will become mathematical equations.
The government also tells us with much publicity: Buy Canada Savings Bonds, they are gold! But with what money? That is what the Prime Minister fails to say.
This amounts to deluding a whole population that wants order, justice, equality and efficiency.
This world, full of inequities caused by the inertia of governments which find satisfaction only in indifference and in provoking futile disputes between governments over red carpets or words, is the best breeding ground for protests, revolutions, violence and anarchy.
Mr. Speaker, it is urgent to tackle the real problems, because it is well known that every social inequality is very often the result of an economic inequality or inequity and that every economic inequality is very often caused by the want of balance between the forces of production and the forces of consumption. So long as there is not a more equitable distribution of products while political freedom is respected, protests will continue to grow and to submerge our country and Quebec.
It seems to me that a certain kind of protest is a rising tide which cannot be stemmed at present, carrying all before it, drowning those who are unwilling to follow the wave of violence unleashed by union leaders such as Michel Chartrand, Raymond Laliberte, Marcel Pepin and others.
The Address-Mr. Fortin
That is why many people today have lost control of the situation and are at wits' end. Moreover, unless we face up to our responsibilities right now and our governments take concrete and immediate action, we will lose not merely our wits, but also our private enterprise, our liberty and our lives.
Tighten your belts. We will send the army in. We will take this or that community under our wings. If that is not enough we will impose price and salary controls. Such are the new proposals put forward by the Prime Minister in this session.
These are like band-aids on a wooden leg, they only aggravate discontent and everything will have to be done over again tomorrow. Why? Because we did not tackle and we are not tackling the real issue, which is a monetary problem. Time has come to act by taking concrete measures.
Mr. Speaker, here is one of many typical examples which really disappointed me last year. It will be recalled that, with great fanfare, the former Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) toured Canada with experts, held hearings with various groups and finally concluded that some measures were needed to solve, at least in part, the housing crisis in Canada.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The report has not only been differed indefinitely but the minister himself was forced to resign in the face of the inaction of the government of which he had been a candidate to the leadership.
This is an example among many which shows that we have now to bear with a government of retarded students who compile notes and decline action, and true commitment. In fact, what we need is a government of action.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I should like to deal with problems such as tight money, unemployment, and interest rates.
In view of the tight money and unemployment situation which we are going through at this time, several unbelievers of the past recognize today the urgent need for a monetary reform. With the Ralliement Creditiste, they agree that unemployment results obviously in economic stagnation. They agree that the great number of bankruptcies in Canada is due more to the tight money policy than to mismanagement.
Everyone realizes also the unfairness of the income tax which robs people, tortures with a shocking off-handedness the morale of those
492	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Fortin who built this country and who contribute to the development of our natural resources.
We also witness the impotence of the governments before those who control money and credit. Therefore it is important to delegate to our parliaments, representatives who have a greater concern for their electors than for the political party financed by electoral funds and high finance.
At the present time we are living in a deceitful economy. The prevailing economic conditions are unmerciful and cruel and, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), coming events will prove it.
In fact, if we look closely at the living conditions of many of us, we must admit without any reservation, that our system of government, supposedly democratic and alive, is really pitiful. An untold number of unemployed people and their families are living in poverty in the midst of affluence. Crimes, break-ins, are committed every day by young people who seem to have no place any more in our society.
Those same young people our federal leaders used to feed, to clothe, to care for and to pay all through the war years, they can no longer house them, clothe them, feed them, nor pay them in time of peace nor can they give then a job.
It is to those young people that they used to sing, with a quaver in the voice, the blessings of a war that would restore the human being to its democratic rights.
It is those same young people that our federal leaders are shamefully betraying today, after promising them during the war years an honest and happy in this rich country of ours. Our politicians cannot do anything now for those young people they deliberately sacrifice to finance and the chartered banks.
There is only room now for the dollar sign of finance in the heart of the federal government.
Must our Canadian youth be satisfied with decent living only when it must kill, and should it be starving to death afterwards with the return of peace?
Mr. Speaker, that is the serious question we are asking ourselves. It is all very well to shout that unemployment is international, that inflation preys on democracies, that money is too expensive and that the inkwells of the bankers are empty; it still remains that money is scarce. There are too many products of all kinds in our country. We must tolerate
fMr. Fortin.]
DEBATES	November 4, 1969
destitution within affluence. We must tolerate the fact that the rich grow richer and that the poor get poorer.
Thus, our governments, whether red or blue, restrain production. Factories are closed, good fathers of families are thrown out of work and our youth into a chasm of alarming uncertainty, when it is not into despair.
We suffer from economic anaemia, precisely because the blood that is necessary to the economic body, that is money, becomes increasingly rare through the fault of those who control it: bankers and high finance.
The federal authorities, Mr. Speaker, tolerate and allow the existence through legislative measures, of this anti-human and anti-social system which consists in the sad exploitation of the people, under the sympathetic eye of the present government. "Tighten your belts." That is all we hear.
Mr. Speaker, we need an active government and that may explain the move of protest. In fact, the governments are not moving. We owe it to ourselves to raise against this system which is rotten to the core. It is not brains that are lacking in the head of our people. Nor is it the heart that is lacking in the breast of Canadians, but rather money in their pocket-book, money which opens the doors to affluence in the country. Will not two wars and three economic recessions within 35 years be enough to open our eyes to the bad effects of a perverted finance that enslaves man. Money has always been lavishly spent on war, but it is hard to muster in the cause of peace. Bankers will readily extend their help in time of affluence but if we do happen to need them, then they put the lid back on their bottle of red ink. The tight money policy recently announced in the Speech from the Throne as a mean of fighting inflation gives us the measure of government enslavement to big business which provides the financing for the party's electoral fund.
Bankers, in Canada, are allowed to lay down the law in the economic field and our government has to fall in step, behind them, regardless of its responsibilities. It will lend you an umbrella when the sun is shining but come the first drops of rain and you are left in the street under the downpour. When a federal government, whether grit or tory, thus allows individuals to corner all the wealth of a country like ours without providing for a distribution system which makes allowance for everyone's freedom and safety through a national dividend and compensated discount, such a government deserves to be
November 4, 1969	COMMONS
overthrown or openly questioned. The people themselves are bound to ask such questions.
If we want to put an end to the crisis conditions we are now experiencing, not only in Quebec but also in the other provinces- for the uneasiness now felt by the Quebecers also deeply affects every Canadian in every province-we have to take some kind of action.
Recently, I had the pleasure of going to Nova Scotia. Early in the spring, I had the pleasure of going out west. On those two occasions I was able to see that what Quebecers feel is felt in another language as deeply and with as much concern by the other Canadians.
All are now aware that we must tackle the water pollution problem, the lack of Canadian unity-which was the object of the bill on the official languages,-that the Criminal Code must be amended.
Canadians are pleased with the proposed legislation generally, while recognizing more and more that the problem does not lie there, that we delude ourselves in thinking that the problem exists at that level. The problem goes beyond that. It is a monetary problem and the time has come for us to come to grips with it.
Credit in Canada is the monopoly of the commercial banks despite what some of our colleagues may say. That monopoly was granted by the Bank Act of 1935. The right hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King said so himself in 1935-I am not putting those words in his mouth, as I was not even born at that time. I quote:
Once a country has given up control of its money and its credit, it matters little who makes the laws of the land. Usury, once in command, will lead any country to ruin.
Mackenzie King, that great Liberal leader, said in addition, and I quote:
Until such time as control over the issue of money and credit is given back to the government and recognized as its most obvious, most sacred responsibility, speaking of the sovereignty of parliament is nothing but idle talk.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
In the same connection, I feel, to use the words of Mr. Mackenzie King, that it is unnecessary and useless to talk about the sovereignty and independence of Quebec as long as we do not have the tools needed to keep that independence under control
The same remarks could apply to Canada. This is why, in this as in anything else, we
DEBATES	493
The Address-Mr. Fortin are deluding ourselves when we believe in those glib talkers who actually have no economic solution to offer.
Our present monetary system has most disastrous effects. Successive periods of sudden boom and sudden recession keep recurring much too frequently.
The cycle, due moreover to the action of the financial system supported by our country at the present time,, is the following:
When peace supersedes war, surplus production accumulates and reveals the lack of purchasing power of the people. The shortage of outlets for our products brings about two results: first of all, unemployment, which, in turn, causes economic crises, and then follow the clashes that prompt some countries to wage war, and war, inevitably, involves increased borrowing, debt and inflation. To cope with the situation, governments, under the present system of administration, claim that they must increase taxes in all fields. Such levies snowball.
Then peace returns and the cycle referred to starts over again. On reading Canada's history, as well as that of many other countries, one can see that this is true.
Considering the fact that the control of the issue and withdrawal of money may determine the value and the nature of the production, it is when our fellow-citizens can exercise their sovereign right to control the monetary system through their parliament that the individual can be assured of financial security and freedom of action in the economic field.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I condemn the emptiness of the Speech from the Throne which does not offer any solution to the present problems, but only encourages people to become entangled in the system, thereby increasing their displeasure. I find it most unfortunate that instead of tackling the real problem, the real opponents of financial progress, we are satisfied, with the government's consent and under its impulse, to waste our time with secondary legislation while the financial problems only grow worse.
Mr. Speaker, I find unthinkable that the people should be so poorly informed. If they really knew something about the present economic system, instead of wasting their time protesting about a lot of secondary things, they would do so about the real problem which is a monetary one.
What is perhaps most unfortunate is that the Speech from the Throne does not recommend any action to solve the problem. Maybe
494	COMMONS DEBATES	November 4, 1969
The Address-Mr. Rochon
it is an indication that this government is in no way different from the previous ones.


Mr.   Jean-L. Rochon@Ahuntsic: Mr. Speaker, like those who spoke before me, I would like first of all to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
During the last session, my colleague from Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) expressed some of his opinions but through the style and the assurance he displayed last week, he showed us in a subtle and entirely new way that we were right last year to foresee a brilliant and promising future for him. Having heard his speech, I am sure as are all my colleagues that his contribution to Canadian politics will do credit not only to his province but also to the whole country.
As for the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau), he admitted that we were right when we were saying to his predecessor, Mr. Gregoire, that his separatist ideas were not shared by most of his constituents, but very few of them. Indeed, when he advocated that isolationist doctrine, he was forgetting that the federal and provincial governments had contributed the most to the development of that Quebec area known today throughout the world as the aluminum country.
Our colleague admitted that we were right when he stated his views and those of the people who voted for him at the last election. He made us understand, as we had told Mr. Gregoire, that in the riding of Lapointe as elsewhere in Quebec, people realize that Quebec cannot live and develop without the remainder of Canada and moreover, the remainder of the country needs Quebec to assert itself as a country whose advice is sought and followed.
Furthermore, I wish to congratulate our leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and to thank him for putting his intelligence at the service of the nation. Whatever you hear, he has become for us the members of his party, a source of inspiration, a guiding light in our action. God knows that the need for action is all too frequent in this century when what is essential today is already outdated tomorrow, in this century of the atom and of electronics when too often, alas, the machine takes the place of man, in this century when we have seen astronauts walking on the moon's surface.
Mr. Speaker, as my time is rather short, may I deal immediately with the subject of which I wish to speak and to express my views on some of today's problems.

I do not intend to pay attention to the criticism voiced by the members of the opposition. I know they did so without malice or spite, but rather to help the government. At least, it should be so.
I know that we, in this house, cannot all think the same way, but I know that all of us share the same ambition: to try and improve the welfare of the people. The only difference between us is in the way we see things. One wants to put one's own ideas forward and, without being fully aware of it, one slides towards partisanship, which is perfectly human. One unwillingly impedes the smooth running of the nation's business, instead of joining with others and helping others. One goes sometimes as far as to question the good faith of some who, more than opponents, would like to co-operate.
Everything should not be accepted straight away, for the government could make mistakes, errors and even blunders.
Moreover the opposition's function is to keep an eye on the government. If one were prepared to make constructive suggestions instead of blaming and criticizing, as is too often the case, the whole population would benefit and everyone would be happy to be efficient and understanding.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
For a few years, Mr. Speaker, the throne speeches have been dealing mainly with federal-provincial relations with a view to assuring the welfare of each citizen in every province. The numerous pieces of legislation passed, both economic and social, stand as a clear evidence that federal authorities are always eager to co-operate in the best interests of the Canadian people, and that, in order to attain that goal, confederation has to be oriented in a very specific direction for us to become a big nation in a big country.
This year again, the same end is in view, but times have changed. In 1969, it has become difficult and extremely hazardous to tackle the problems in the same manner as before. We must have the courage to face facts and to bring forward up-dated solutions, because let us not forget that we have to take into account, on the one hand, the new needs of a large number of countries in full development, in the process of great economic expansion and, on the other hand, the rights of the provinces. Even with the best of intentions, one may appear to be meddling in fields where this would jeopardize autonomy and lead to conflict between authorities of which, sad to say, those who are steeped in a narrow
November 4, 1969

and retrograde brand of nationalism take advantage to further a cause which has no justification in this century of emancipation in which we achieved maturity.
Last year, the main theme of the Speech from the Throne was the "just society". This year, the objective is to prepare the future by increasing the efficiency of present programs. What is announced is not the launching of major ventures, but rather the continuation of the fight against inflation. However, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which, as all are aware, has been created to do away with social disparities, will intensify its activity.
Numerous projects have been announced in the speech. Previous speakers have submitted a few to the House, in the public interest or in that of their riding. Some suggested that the unemployment insurance program be thoroughly revamped, others advocated certain changes in housing policies, others still showed us the advantages of certain reforms concerning the rights of the individual, with a concern for more respect for man, his person and what he represents. All these comments and analyses clearly demonstrated that the government is prepared to act, especially on domestic issues. This was pointed out in an article published in Montreal's La Presse, and I quote:
Domestic issues are given precedence in the Speech from the Throne. Indeed, the few paragraphs devoted to foreign affairs merely recall a well known policy: the government's intention to participate in the establishment of a movement designed to bring about a reform of the U.N., increased assistance to developing countries, and the initiative from Ottawa to protect international waters from pollution.
And that newspaperman went on to say:
Whether it is a matter of tax reform, of the revision of the Unemployment Insurance Act, or of different suggestions concerning consumer credit, packaging, identification of textile products and the security of motor vehicles, as well as of amendments to the Criminal Code, these different pieces of legislation tend to increase the security of the individual in the face of the growing power of the state and the complexity of the industrial society.
Even in the economic field, the government gives high priority to its concern for the welfare of the individual; the paragraph of the speech devoted to housing, in which the government announces as an objective the building of one million housing units and homes in five years is designed to lessen the difficulties of the less affluent.
Also designed for the individual are the following measures: the implementation of the official language bill, the fight against pollution, assistance for depressed areas, and lower income groups, the

The Address-Mr. Rochon
reform of social security, and also, the tax reform which aims at a more equitable distribution of the tax burden while favouring the economic expansion in the country.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, these few remarks about the Speech from the Throne, let me borrow this sentence from the Prime Minister. I quote:
All these measures tend to develop the environment where Canadians work and live. Even if such an environment became idyllic, there still would remain a very important task to perform, a task that will never be completed: guarantee to every citizen a life protected against any undue intervention.
Mr. Speaker, I had the great honour, last June, to represent Canada at the NATO meetings in Brussels. As vice-chairman of the scientific committee, I was asked to submit my appreciation of the studies concerning the marine resources of the North Atlantic area. Those information documents dealt first of all with the deep-sea resources in fish and aquatic vegetation, including sea-weeds, and it said that in a not too distant future perhaps, the ocean would become the granary of the world, and that the culture of these sea-weeds would probably become an important source of raw material for the manufacture food and industrial products.
It said that although these questions have been discussed before by other international agencies, the FAO for example, it could be useful for these NATO countries to promote the study of the techniques that are particularly adapted to the situation in the North Atlantic area, which would allow for increased exchanges of information, so that each of the member countries could benefit from these studies and be in a position to fight with the greatest effectiveness possible against this calamity, which is pollution.
Like other members of the committee, I have been quite impressed with these reports and I have come to the conclusion that means had to be found at all cost to protect all that wealth and to check water pollution.
As mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, our water resources are immense of course but they are not inexhaustible, and if it is imperative to encourage their development, it is just as urgent to ensure their conservation. Lakes, rivers and streams, are befouled with rotting marine vegetation, the sad result quite often of our lack of foresight.
Aware of its responsibilities, the government has made known its views on this serious pollution problem and it has initiated consultations with the provinces. So much the
November 4, 1969

The Address-Mr. Rochon better, and I shall make it my duty to send to Colonel Driscoll, the same gentleman who in October 1968 published in Foreign Affairs a most informed study on this serious problem, the part which deals with the subject.
During this tour, I had the opportunity to hear several guest speakers deal with the ticklish problem of pollution, at various NATO meetings. And one of the reports which impressed me most is, without doubt, the preliminary report on the United States reaction to the oil pollution off Santa Barbara, submitted by Mr. Peter Rondino, vicepresident and reporting officer of the International Secretariat.
I shall not go into all the details of that report. I think it suffices to say that on Tuesday, January 28, 1969, an eruption occurred during drilling operations in a well of the Union Oil Company about six miles from Santa Barbara. The well was capped so as to prevent oil from flowing too fast, but oil slicks finally covered the sea and the American government had to step in so as to protect one of the most beautiful beaches in the world. In fact, on April 16, the House of Representatives passed the 1969 Water Quality Improvement Act, for the protection of public waters against oil pollution. The Act contains a provision as to the responsibility inherent to oil plants. While discussing such a provision-I still refer to the Rondino report-the members of the government favoured a concept of absolute responsibility. Besides, Secretary Hickel has already published regulations to that effect and one of the exploration conditions, under a contract signed with the American government, is that the operators' activities should not be harmful in any way to the environment and, should they be, the said operators would be responsible.	.
Furthermore, the American Senate is now trying to determine whether full responsibility for cleaning up, without any kind of limitation, could not be covered by insurance.
This, Mr. Speaker, is perhaps a drastic measure but if you consider the awful damage incurred, on the one hand, and public interest on the other, there can be no hesitation. Other countries, including ours, should do the same. I was very much interested in another report, that of a Dutch delegate whose name I have forgotten. It dealt with air pollution resulting from the chimney fumes from factories located on the shores of the North Sea, on the outskirts of the city

of Amsterdam. Contact with the outside air changed these fumes into toxic gas and the resulting fall-out in the sea water was endangering the very life of the schools of fish living in those waters. The Dutch government, under the provisions of a bill passed by the legislative assembly, then compelled the owners of those plants, as well as any person potentially responsible for such mishaps, to use the necessary equipment in order to counter the danger of pollution.
Why could we not do the same thing?
Everywhere in the world, Mr. Speaker, people are rightly alarmed by this national threat. I am sure the government, together with the provinces, will find some way of doing something about it. If ever I am fortunate enough to go back to NATO, I would be glad to say that in Canada we also want to make a contribution to the well-being of man in this particular field.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
To all the reasons that could be put forth in favour of adapting a national program for the control of water pollution, another can be added, quite personal perhaps, since north of Montreal where my riding is located a river flows whose waters are so polluted that the Health League in Quebec stated publicly, early last summer, and I quote:
We hereby advise summer visitors, whether they live on the North shore, in Ville Laval, or on the South shore, in Montreal, along the Back River, that bathing is dangerous and that typhoid cases have been attributed to bathing in those waters.
I understand that sums were voted by the government, two years ago, when I was the member for Laval. Indeed, even at that time I asked for the Milles-Iles and Prairies rivers to be dredged and cleaned.
I know that in order to check inflation the government was forced to adopt an austerity program; I also know that, in that frame of mind, that work was postponed. But, might it not be indicated, as a start in the fight against that plague, to forbid bathing in rivers where there is danger of catching typhoid fever?
Since I have mentioned my riding, perhaps I could point out that our post office, on Hen-ri-Bourassa street, is too small. For several years now, we have asked that a new post office be built, capable of serving a population of over half a million people in northern Montreal, from Cremazie street to Riviere des Prairies, and from Ville St. Laurent to Ville Montreal-Nord. I am merely mentioning this urgent need as I will deal again with the
November 4, 1969

question when we consider the estimates of the Post Office Department.
Another question which I would have liked to discuss and which is of great interest to the Quebec members is what is taking place in our province. What is the meaning of all those protests which border on anarchy if not revolution? With the limited time at my disposal I cannot deal with it immediately, but I will surely find an occasion to come back on the subject in the course of this session. I will only say now that a few agitators have deceived too many people. The majority of the people are not separatists, far from it, as they are on the whole proud of being Canadians. These people desire mostly one thing: the fulfilment of the Canadian nation that they love and would like to be esteemed by the world at large


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I join with other hon. members who have participated in this debate in extending the usual perfunctory words of congratulation to the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
May I also, with the indulgence of the House, avail myself of this opportunity to make an apology. When the House met last session to wind up its affairs on October 22, I rose in my place on a question of privilege and inadvertently misled the house by suggesting that the 13th report of the transport committee had omitted a very important part of its recommendations. I subsequently discovered, Mr. Speaker, that there was a 14th report and that this report contained the part that I thought had been omitted. Therefore, I should like to apologize to the House for having inadvertently misled hon. members. May I apologize in particular to the chairman of the transport committee, the hon. member for LaSalle (Mr. Lessard), for having cast his position in some doubt.
I have been listening with great interest to this debate on the address, as I did to the speech itself. I have since read it a number of times to try to find some glimmer of hope that the many problems facing the country, and particularly some of the special and peculiar problems facing the Atlantic area, will be dealt with.
I have also listened to the various ministers who have participated in the debate, and with special interest to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson). As a member of the House
The Address-Mr, McGrath representing a Newfoundland constituency, to say that I was disappointed with the content of the minister's speech is to put it mildly. There was the usual fluency and eloquence, the usual sound and fury, but as usual nothing was said.
This was a great disappointment to me because I expected the minister, who sits in the cabinet as a representative of my province, to enunciate some of the solutions to the serious problems facing the Atlantic region. I expected him to outline what the government proposes to do about them and how it proposes to cope with them. But, as I say, I was greatly disappointed, as I am greatly disappointed by the minister's absence from the House today.


Mr. Peddle:: Again.


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, again, as my colleague for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador interjects. We have had to wait for other speeches to inform us whether new light was to be shed upon some of our serious problems. Again, we have been disappointed.
Yesterday the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) made a speech to which we listened with interest and followed closely. We have a great deal of sympathy for the minister; we have a great deal of support for some of the things we believe he is trying to do. The minister referred at great length to conservation and pollution. I should like to deal very briefly with the subject of pollution because it is a problem with which we are all concerned, one which is reaching crisis proportions in this country.
I believe that pollution in its various forms is one of the most serious problems facing Canada, but I should like to deal with but one aspect, an aspect that the minister of fisheries referred to in his speech yesterday, namely the effect of pollution on marine life.
The Government of Canada has recently finally recognized-I hope this recognition has not come too late-the severity of pollution in Canada. The pollution of our marine resources has taken on new aspects, and later on I should like to refer to them. A great deal of attention has been paid to the pollution of our lakes and rivers. Similarly, a great deal of attention has been focussed on the pollution of our major inland waters. I might say I am glad to see the minister, under whose jurisdiction this pollution problem comes, is in his seat. We have all heard a great deal about the disastrous effects that pollution has had on our freshwater fishing industry. In many
November 4, 1969-

disaster a few years ago when this tanker, with a full load of crude oil, broke up on the rocks off the coast of England. It is interesting to note that even though this accident took place several years ago, the oil pollution resulting from it is still a major problem. Scientists are still, to this very day, trying to measure scientifically the disastrous effect this accident had on the marine life of that part of the world. As oil tankers go, the Torrey Canyon was not a large ship. As a matter of fact, by today's standards she could be considered a small ship.
If one were to compare the Torrey Canyon to one of the small supertankers or compare it to the Manhattan, one would find the comparison dramatic. The Manhattan is 106,000 tons with a carrying capacity of 38 million gallons of oil, enough I am told to fill 4,000 railway tank cars. According to an article in the trade magazine Oil Week for September 29, 1969 we can expect ships much larger than the Manhattan to operate in the Northwest Passage. According to this same article-and surely this must be considered as a good authority-we can expect anywhere from 25 to 30 tankers in the next 10 years, tankers of 250,000 tons or more, to be operating in the Northwest Passage. These are tankers capable of carrying in excess of 1.7 million barrels of oil. When one compares this to the capacity of the Torrey Canyon, one can realize the enormity of the pollution threat.
As I said, too little is known about oil pollution on the high seas. Practically nothing, however, is known about oil pollution in the Arctic. From what little scientific data there is available regarding the decomposition of oil waste on the high seas, scientists will agree that decomposition slows markedly as the temperature is lowered. It follows, therefore, that the oil waste dumped on Arctic ice must be preserved, according to the best scientific evidence I can find, from decomposition and hence would represent a continuing pollution threat. Perhaps this is the dawn of the "Silent Spring" unless something is done about it. The sinking or even the serious damaging of but one of these tankers in this area could and would have a serious long term effect on the whole Arctic and Atlantic coastal environment, not only for our marine living resources under the sea but also those over the sea.
According to a paper prepared for the Canadian Wild Life Service by Dr. Richard E. Warner of Memorial University, Canadian resources will bear the brunt of any such

The Address-Mr. McGrath accident. I should like to quote the very important words of Professor Warner, a well known and learned expert in this field.
In the present absence of even rudimentary data on the behaviour of oils in ice filled Arctic waters, no sensible contingency plan in case of accident can be developed.
That is a very serious statement made by a very serious and learned scientist. This, then, is a great challenge facing this government and facing Canada in this day and age. We cannot help but ask ourselves what the government is doing about it. We are not talking about something away off in the future; we are talking about something here and now.
We have heard from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) about his announced intention to bring in legislation known as The Northern Water Rights and Pollution Control Act. During his crusade across the country, we heard from the Minister without Portfolio about the Canada Water Act. None of us had anything but good will for the minister as he went across the country trying to prepare the people to do something about pollution. But this aspect of the problem, separated from the whole area of environmental pollution, in my view is one that requires immediate action today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: I shall not be critical of the government, because I realize how serious the problem is. However, I should like to make a suggestion to the government because this is something in which we are all involved. I would ask the Minister of Fisheries and the government to give serious and immediate consideration to having this matter of oil pollution at sea, and the possible disastrous consequences of oil pollution in the Northwest Passage on our marine resources, referred to an appropriate parliamentary committee. In this way, scientists and representatives of the industry could appear before the committee and all the evidence on this one aspect of pollution could be collated. The problem could be studied by the experts in the government, underlined and set out. It seems to me this is the only way we can deal with it.
So far as the continuing problem of oil pollution of the high seas is concerned, I think Canada should be pressing for stricter international controls. I am talking about the waste from tankers at sea and accidental spillage of oil at sea. I give the minister credit.
November 4, 1969

The Address-Mr. McGrath He referred to this in his speech. He is probably more concerned about it than any one of us, because he knows at first hand the consequences of it. I believe that our government should be pressing for much stricter and more meaningful international controls, notwithstanding the fact that it is a signatory to the international convention for the prevention of pollution of the sea by oil. I am told by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) that a new agreement is being negotiated in Brussels this month to deal with accidental pollution of the sea arising from accidents at sea similar to the Torrey Canyon incident. I hope that our government will be firm in its resolve to deal with this matter. It must not lose sight of the new and serious threat to our environment, to our Atlantic coast and indeed to the waters of the Arctic. We already know the consequences of oil pollution on the high seas, arising from the practical impossibility of enforcing the regulations of the present international convention.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Unless steps are taken to obtain a meaningful and enforceable international agreement in the area of oil pollution and the related area of conservation, the Minister of Fisheries will find that all of his problems will be automatically solved for him because he will have no seal herd with which to concern himself every year. It will be wiped out. He will have no groundfish industry with which to concern himself because it, too, will disappear. This is the threat facing us today. Perhaps the minister will forgive me if I suggest to him that then he might be able to devote all his time to promoting sport fishing and to trying to satisfy the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) by coming up with a humane way of catching fish and eliminating that ghastly hook.


An hon. Member:: Such as the use of chloroform.


James Aloysius McGrath: This government, with its propensity for talk, might even be able to talk the fish out of the water. But I do not mean to make light of this because I know the minister is concerned. I can only hope that his government is concerned, and if they are, I challenge the minister today to have the matter of oil pollution at sea and the new problems posed by the opening up of the Northwest Passage to supertankers immediately referred to an appropriate committee of


this House, perhaps even the Standing Committee on Fisheries. Then, we would be in a position to call witnesses, have scientific evidence presented to us, and correlate it. In this way, Parliament would be able to play a meaningful part in this most serious national problem facing the whole country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can assure the house that I will try to be brief and not to abuse the privilege extended to me.
Before I resume my seat, I would like to make a few brief observations concerning the proposed legislation setting up the salt fish development corporation. Let me say to the minister and to the government that many of us in this House and in the country have waited a long time for this legislation. Indeed, we will not be satisfied until we see the legislation in the House, and perhaps even then we will not be satisfied. I know that successive governments down through the years- and here I make no exceptions-have been guilty, in my view, of grossly neglecting and ignoring the salt fish industry. As a direct consequence of this, we have seen many of our important and traditional markets lost to our European competition. As a matter of fact, one could almost suspect a conspiracy to abolish this ancient, honourable and important industry.
While the industry has been largely ignored by the federal government, the establishment has had a field day at the expense of the fishermen. Just let me illustrate what I said. Can you imagine a farmer taking his entire crop to a broker, getting from the broker an open receipt, going back to his farmhouse and waiting to see what the broker is going to pay him? He thereby places himself completely at the mercy of the broker who then sells the produce, names his own commission, and gives the farmer what is left. There is no farmer in the country who would put up with that kind of situation. Yet this ancient, feudal practice is still being carried on to this very day in the salt fish industry in Newfoundland. The tragedy of it is that our fishermen have no choice but to play along because for them there is no crop failure insurance, no government plan to advance some funds to buy gear
November 4, 1969
when they set out to catch the fish in the spring. What little they did have, such as the salt rebate program, has been taken away from them.
The salt rebate program may be peanuts to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) because we all know he is affluent, but to the fishermen of Newfoundland who are salting and drying their fish for sale it represents a great deal because their income-and statistics prove this-is barely enough to keep body and soul together. The callous treatment handed out to our fishermen-for example to those who took part in the Labrador fisheries this year and who are suffering the consequences of the failure of that fishery-has already been referred to by my colleague, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan). What does the minister say to that? He does not say: we will give you catch failure insurance. He tells them to go to their welfare officer and apply for dole. That is the substance of what the minister said in his statement on October 23. I am sorry to say that this has been typical of the attitude of the federal government down through the years with regard to fishermen who salt and cure their fish.
I have a great deal of faith in the present minister, a great deal of confidence in him, because I know he is trying to do a job. I know that even though he gave in to the sob-sisters of the world by abolishing the killing of whitecoat seals-I deliberately omit using the words "baby seal" because we do not refer to the baby lamb industry, the baby pig industry or the baby cattle industry, so when you use the term "baby seal" industry you are being taken in by these people-perhaps at long last the minister is prepared to do something meaningful for the fisheries. But let us hope it will be more meaningful than the action he has taken in respect of the seal industry. Notwithstanding the fact that as he admitted, there is scientific evidence to indicate that the club is the most humane way to kill whitecoat seals, he has made it illegal to do so.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Now, he says that more mature seals cannot be killed by clubs; they may only be killed by rifles, or perhaps even by bows and arrows. Considering the fur bearing value of seal hides, can you imagine the Prime Minister coming into this house wearing his otter coat with a bullet hole in the back of it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
The Address-Mr. W. Smith


James Aloysius McGrath: If you want to talk about the humane aspect, I say that for every ten seals shot with bullets the shame of it will be that probably six or seven will get away to die a slow and lingering death on the ice. I hope that the S.P.C.A. and other humane societies all over the world will come to Ottawa and demonstrate outside parliament against this terribly inhumane way of killing seals.
The minister leaves this week to hold discussions in St. John's with members of the salt fish trades. He has taken upon his shoulders the formidable and unenviable task of breaking the centuries old feudal traditions that exist in this industry. We all know how hard tradition dies, but in God's name let these traditions die quickly because those men who catch our fish and salt it cry out for justice, for a fair return for their fish. If those barons, those fish merchants who have held this industry in their clutches so long, and who have influenced successive governments for so long, are not prepared to go along with the change, my advice to the minister is to tell them to go home and content themselves with clipping coupons.
We on this side of the house, many of whom are the sons of fishermen, speak for the fishermen. For them we demand nothing less than justice, and we say to the minister that if the proper safeguards are not built into the legislation setting up the proposed salt fish development corporation then my colleagues and I will oppose that legislation with every ounce of strength that we can muster.
[Translation1


Mr. Walter Smith (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the hon. members who participated in the debate to congratulate my colleagues and friends the hon. members for Sarnia and Lapointe (Messrs Cullen and Marceau) movers of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
Let me also congratulate and extend my best wishes to the two newly appointed ministers who will join our dynamic government.
I would also like to extend my best wishes to the two new Parliamentary Secretaries.
Representing here one of the most beautiful ridings in the Province of Quebec, is reason enough for me to be proud.

The City of St. Jean, which is the largest the county, is an industrial city where manufactures of several different descriptions are

November 4, 1969

The Address-Mr. W. Smith to be found, including chemical, carpet, cables, foundries, pottery and textiles. Just across the Richelieu River from St. Jean is the second largest city, Iberville, also in the county of St. Jean, where some industries are established. The county of St. Jean is bordered on the south by the great state of the United States, New York.
Many sections of Quebec have been designated as areas where manufacturers will be encouraged to build new factories. But somehow the region of the valley of the Richelieu, and more particularly the county of St. Jean in its entirety, have been omitted. It is hoped that the cabinet will reconsider this very important region of Quebec, some 25 miles from Montreal. There is a serious danger that our region may even lose some of the important industries established in it if some revision is not made soon. Unemployment there in these two cities is higher than the Quebec average of over 7 per cent. It is hoped that when a revision is made this section will be made a designated area.
In the county of St. Jean we have some of the best market gardeners in the whole of Canada. The rich black soil is very fertile, and with modern techniques and fertilizers record crops are being grown year after year. Nevertheless, farmers in this category must be protected by limitation of imports during the summer season when their vegetables have to be marketed, principally on the Montreal market.
Very often when the local vegetables are ready to be placed on our local markets huge imports of vegetables are coming into Canada by the carload and the truck load, which glut our markets. At times, some of our perishable vegetables lie rotting in the fields because of too many imports May I suggest that the cabinet take steps to prevent this happening in succeeding years.
Some of the best dairy farms in the province of Quebec are to be found in the county of St. Jean. I am very proud to mention that in our region south of Montreal we have without a doubt the largest dairy farm in Canada. On this farm you will also find a milk pasteurizing plant where milk is bottled in plastic containers and delivered to dairy product distributors, from whom the consumers can purchase fresh milk daily.
When driving through our region you will also find many poultry farms where broilers, both turkeys and chickens, are raised and shipped to markets across Canada. There are


many hog farms to be found in several sections of the county.
It is my earnest opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers need the milk subsidies, hog premiums and freight assistance provided by the federal government. These things are vital to these farmers if they are to stay on the land. Perhaps more encouragement should be given to the farming industry through different forms of financial aid. The Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Farm Loan Act have been and will be very important factors in inducing our young people to remain on farms.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I was very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to learn that at the International Red Cross conference last month our government gained acceptance of a principle which it has long supported whereby the Red Cross will be permitted to provide relief to civilians on both sides during civil wars.
Knowing quite well that in Nigeria-Biafra, many poor civilians and especially poor, innocent children have died of hunger, while in Canada so much food is often wasted or thrown away, members on both sides of this House, I am sure, are hoping and praying that this war will come to an end in the very near future.
The objective of this government is to construct one million new housing units in five years. It is hoped the government will really keep in mind the low income families so that .more families will be able to live in more pleasant and healthy surroundings. I strongly support the action taken in this field which will promote and stimulate employment as well as urban improvement throughout our country and the rest of Canada. One way of lowering the cost of moderately priced homes in this country would be to remove the 11 per cent tax on building materials.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Bernard Smith: I am convinced my constituents are also ready to support my views on the removal of this tax.
May I say just a word on pensions? It is my opinion that pensions for retired civil servants, war veterans-both disability and regular pensions-and their widows should be increased substantially because of the increase in the cost of living which has taken place over the past few years.
November 4, 1969	COMMONS
We all know that many pensioners are facing great difficulties in meeting their obligations and providing for necessities. Since all pensions are under review at the present time by our government, it is hoped some adjustment will be forthcoming in the near future which will allow them to live and enjoy a happier life.
The population of the county of St. Jean, which I have the honour to represent, is composed of several different nationalities with various cultural backgrounds. To mention just a few of the various ethnic groups, the German, Italian, Dutch are all a great resource in our region. We have lived together over the years in perfect unity and harmony, regardless of nationality or creed, I am pleased to suggest that our region is setting an example for Quebec to follow, where parents can choose to educated their children in either French or English.
I am confident that the separatists will have great difficulty in influencing our people who are among the most happy in all of Canada. Even if the member for Saint-Jean in L'As-semblee Nationale de Quebec at the present time is thinking of joining the Parti Quebe-cois, Mr. Speaker, it is hoped my constituents will continue to make suggestions and recommendations to enable this session and the coming sessions to work for the betterment of all Canadians.
Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Darlmoulh-Halifax
East): In rising to take part in the debate on the reply to the Address, I must extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder; first, because I am obligated to do so but more important because I sincerely wish to do so. At the same time, may I extend congratulations to the new members of the government and wish them well in their appointed tasks and responsibilities.
Since coming to Parliament I have never participated in either the Throne Speech debate or the Budget debate and my purpose in doing so today as we start into the second session of this Parliament, is to express to Admiral O'Brien of Maritime Command, the wives and families of those men who lost their lives in the recent explosion aboard H.M.C.S. Kootenay, the crew members who survived, the captain and all the officers and men on board that ship, first my sympathy and secondly some words of praise. While most of us in this House, Mr. Speaker, and indeed in the nation, are not yet aware of the nature of this very serious accident, nor the
DEBATES	503
The Address-Mr. Forrestall causes of it, many of us are nonetheless very interested and very concerned.
In private conversation with the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, that gentleman advised me of some of the details surrounding the accident. This prompts me, Mr. Speaker, at this time to extend to the ship's crew the highest praise that I can as a layman, in terms of their professionalism. I extend the highest praise that I can, as a layman, in thought in a moment of great crisis, for the manner in which they conducted their normal procedures in combatting fire at sea and in securing the safety of those who survived the explosion and fire. I commend them most sincerely, although I must do so largely on the basis of second-hand reports and information.
I commend them for the manner in which they brought their ship into port in England. It is my understanding that the Kootenay came into port in the finest tradition, notwithstanding the severe crisis it had just been through.
We all await with concern and sincere interest the outcome of the investigation. We trust that it was not necessarily an environmental accident; that is to say, an accident that is peculiar to ships. We hope it was an isolated incident and that the cause of it will not be such as will in any way curtail the exercises of, or cause concern for, her sister ships in our fleets both on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. In connection with this tragedy, there is the question of the burial of those who died. It is my understanding four of the crew members were buried with full honours at sea and four have found a final resting place in England. The body of the ninth man was interred in Canada because his death occurred on board the Kootenay en route to Canada.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
My concern in this connection, Mr. Speaker, is that in peacetime, having some regard for the feelings of wives and families, surely the bodies of these men could be brought home to their families for final services so they could rest in their homeland. I am aware of the difficulties in establishing a general policy of bringing the bodies of our servicemen back home, especially in times of crisis. I ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) to review the policy of our government in connection with the final resting place of our service people who die abroad, in
504	COMMONS DEBATES	November 4, 1969
The Address-Mr. Forrestall order that some measure of comfort may be afforded their families.
I am concerned about what has happened, Mr. Speaker. I am as concerned as anyone would be who has lived next to the sea and grown up in an environment that has been surrounded by a maritime concept, a war concept and a fishing concept. I am concerned with the dedication of our men who serve on fighting ships. I hope this accident has brought forcibly to the minds of all Canadians the very serious nature of the work undertaken and very conscientiously carried out by the men serving under Admiral J.C. O'Brien, Commander, Maritime Command. I again pay tribute to that officer and to the men who continue to do the work that is their day to day responsibility.
Since I am on the subject of Maritime Command may I say that, while I do not necessarily regret the loss of the Bonaventure, I deeply regret the loss of what it represents for ASW capacity. I believe as long as we are in the ball park we must at least bring our own glove. Maybe somebody else can supply the bats and balls, but we must at least bring our own gloves and get on the team. We must be credible. One thing that has been very clear to me in the last four years is the loss of credibility in our Maritime capability, indeed our entire defence capability, in the eyes of not only our neighbours to the south but of our partners in the North Atlantic Alliance.
In the context of Maritime Command, it is important that we do not do anything to lessen the very real expertise we have built up in the field of anti-submarine warfare. I am not talking about our capacity to destroy enemy submarines or to chase them all over the Atlantic. What I am talking about is our capacity to detect and trap submarines and to provide assistance to SACLANT, the United States and the western world. This assistance can be provided in the form of knowledge of who the underwater enemy is at any given time and where he is from day to day, once we are aware of his presence in our contiguous waters. The only way to do this is by the maintenance of a viable and credible ASW capacity.
The loss of the Bonaventure, at least to my layman's mind, represents the loss of the strongest part of one-third of the capability which we can provide to meet the very minimum standard of surveillance necessary to enable us to contribute to the total input of intelligence. Surely, in this day and age we do not need to get into the nuclear race in terms

of the capacity to kill. Surely, there is a role for us to play in detection and surveillance. I believe we can play a very meaningful role, a role that would be credible in the eyes of our partners. I believe this is very necessary. There are many ways in which we could accomplish our objective, but there is no way short of the acquisition of another aircraft carrier to replace the loss of seaborne aircraft for use in this ASW operation. Thus the loss of the Bonaventure is serious.
As one senior serving Canadian naval officer termed it, it is a bloody significant loss. I do not know that it is necessarily that, but it is certainly a very serious loss and one that we are not going to be able to readily overcome. I am not talking about the viability of our ASW operation the moment hostilities break out. I do not think we can afford to get into that type of role, but surely up to that moment, God forbid that it should ever come to pass, we can make a meaningful contribution to the total input of intelligence. I am certain that we can do our share in detection, tracking and general surveillance. There is no reason why we cannot maintain our standards. I am not asking for the world. Surely, we can maintain the minimum standards necessary to make our contribution useful.
Today's writers suggest there is a serious question about the validity of ASW operations, that there must be a meeting of minds, not so much on the technological methods involved but on the principles. We have for a long time assumed, without debate, the necessity and logic for a reasonably high contribution to this field of defence. I think there is a rationale. Most of the writings, outside the area where discussion is classified and secret, question ASW operations, but in the final analysis no suggestion is made that countries such as Canada should get out of ASW operations. Indeed, Professor Martin, a very distinguished international writer on the subject of maritime strategy suggested to the subcommittee on Maritime Command not more than two or three days ago that there is a very real need for the contribution countries like Canada can make and that it would be a shame if Canada were to let her ASW expertise spin out. The loss of the Bonaventure and the absence of a suitable replacement turn out maritime command effort in a direction in. which a spin out and run down will be a natural consequence. There is a role we can play in this area, although a limited one.
November 4, 1989
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The experts today do not talk about sinking the Russian Polaris-type submarines which have nuclear capability. They seem to think that the Americans, for example, will seek in future to shoot down the missiles once launched. I am not talking about our getting into that aspect of the defence role because it is too expensive for us. But there is a role we can play and it is a vital one. If I could give Admiral O'Brien a real Christmas present it would be a couple of true submersibles, for the only effective way of trapping lies under the water where these missile-carrying submarines are to be found. I could go on for an hour or so talking about maritime command and defence matters in general, but there are other subjects I should like to touch upon briefly. One of them has been adequately dealt with by my dear friend and colleague from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I refer to the pollution of our northern and Arctic waters. Without repeating the points he made, I should like to associate myself with his remarks and add one or two comments of my own.
I am concerned, as everyone in this House is concerned, about the effects of pollution in the north and the upsetting of the ecological balance. Canada has a responsibility to do something about this problem and it is regrettable there is not a much more intense public dialogue on the subject. It seems to me that the problem is not only a massive one but it is multinational in nature; it is not restricted to ourselves, the United States and other countries which use or plan to use the north regularly. If we look at a map of the ocean currents in the Arctic and trace those currents down to the point at which they join the waters of the Gulf Stream, we can easily imagine the consequences of a major disaster happening to a bulk carrier in our north at any time of the year. Not only would we find the waters of Hudson Bay and Labrador polluted, but the waters of the Gulf Stream itself would be affected and the mess would wind up in Europe.
It is not hard to understand the multinational consequences of a disaster in our north. If a forum were to present itself I would support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Ahuntsic (Mr. Rochon) at the NATO meetings recently for dealing with the question of the pollution of the deep seas. I would support this proposition because, to use words which were handed to me just before I rose, elocution is not the solution to pollution.
The Address-Mr. Forrestall We need to involve multinational groups in measures which are immediately effective and tangible. I am a little concerned as to how far a country like Canada can go, bearing in mind that as yet we have not even accepted legal responsibility for such things as navigational aids in the north; we have not even cleared up the question of the ownership of these waters and whether or not we control them. It seems a little ambiguous for a country like Canada to assume responsibility for pollution when it has not yet accepted legal responsibility for these waters.
It is important that we should get on with our program of providing navigational aid in the north and assistance to shipping by way of an adequate icebreaker service. As suggested by other speakers in this debate and in other forums, we ought to move rapidly in the field of research into the consequences of disasters such as an accidental oil-spill in the north. In Dartmouth in my constituency there is one of the world's leading centres for studies of the ocean. It is a matter of regret that this institute for oceanographic studies has not been directed by the government to get on with the job in the area I have mentioned.
Another matter which concerns me a great deal concerns the position of standing committees of this House. Without going back too far, let me recall for all hon. members the fate of the former minister of transport who found it necessary to resign after his task force had returned from a cross-Canada tour delving into the housing situation. He felt obliged to take this course because of the government's treatment of the report of the task force. It will not stretch the memory of hon. members too far to recall the treatment accorded by the government to the reports of the Standing Committee on Transportation. Also, those of us who serve on the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence remember, with some injury to our pride, the treatment accorded us after we returned from a tour of NATO countries. It is a matter of record that we were home a few days before the government made its announcement about NATO and troop reductions, but the fact is that the government knew exactly what it intended to do before we even went to Europe. It was not the least bit interested in our hearings and in our report; it merely wanted to get us conveniently out of the way-


Alfred Dryden Hales: A shameful treatment of committees; a complete disregard of them.



November 4, 1969
The Address-Mr. Forrestall


Mr. Forresiall:: Even in the past tew weeks we have witnessed the action of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) in announcing the decision to scrap the Bonaventure, among other things, within moments of the arrival back in Ottawa of the subcommittee which had been touring maritime command.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
These are three classic examples of the sort of regard held for committees by the government of this country. I for one consider the government has shameful disregard for our committees, committees that could play a useful and meaningful role. I suggest that if the government continues in this way it will find it increasingly difficult to staff standing committees, particularly in cases where there is the slightest suspicion that the government has already made up its mind on matters referred to committees.
I could go on and talk of the waste of the taxpayers' money, but may I make just one or two references to an editorial that appeared in the Dartmouth Free Press of Thursday, September 25, 1969, and which dealt with what I consider a matter of some seriousness:
The federal government's policy of forming a number of task forces to tour the country and investigate various problems of national and international importance is a very commendable one.
I agree with that.
However, the government's reception of the reports of these groups has. to date, been somewhat amazing.
The Hon. Paul Hellyer's housing task force made a very extensive tour of the country-
I have already indicated the sort of treatment the task force received.
The Defence and External Affairs Committee toured Canada, and Canadian NATO bases in Europe, and by all indications their recommendation to maintain a strong NATO Commitment was ignored.
All members of the committee know this is true.
A subcommittee of this task force recently toured maritime command, but its recommendations were obviously not yet in the hands of the government before additional cutbacks, including HMCS Bon-aventure's disposal, were announced.


Louis-Roland Comeau: It is a farce.


J. Michael Forrestall: It is more than a farce; it is an insult to the intelligence of the men who served on these committees.
These parliamentary groups are not touring the country with money provided from the pocket of

the Prime Minister, but with the very liberal use of taxpayers' dollars. This expenditure was justified by the committee members themselves, in most cases, for they appeared to make their investiga-tionns in a most conscientous manner. It is insulting to the members of parliament, and to the Canadian electorate who chose them for office, to have their sincere investigations apparently ignored.
These are serious times in the economic outlook of Canadians, and we can offer sympathetic understanding to some of the Liberal government's more drastic measures to reduce expenditures. However, some of the present policies indicate a contempt for Parliament and parliamentary committees which should not long be tolerated by the Canadian people.
I am surprised that the Canadian people have tolerated them even to this point. As I have indicated, this contempt for parliament is a source of embarrassment. I am sure the members of the government are conscious of this, as are the chairmen of the standing committees. In addition, a great deal of money is involved. As the editorial indicates, members of parliament seriously pursue their responsibilities in parliamentary committees. But I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you I suggest to the government, that we have a lot more to do than traipse around the countryside on futile missions while the government sits on its rear end with its mind already made up.


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by adopting the practice of other speakers in this debate and congratulating my colleagues, the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau), for their initiation of this debate on the Speech from the Throne. May I endorse the remarks made by both, but particularly those of the hon. member for Sarnia, that one is now better able to appreciate the full impact and development, the logic and planning that has gone into the program presented by the government since its election to office in June, 1968. One can see for oneself that the government is not operating on a month-to-month or on a year-to-year basis, but in fact has formulated a program that will encompass all of the power and strength that its majority position in this House enables it to do. I welcome this kind of approach to government just as much as I welcome a change that guarantees the people of this country a government that has sufficient tenure of office to enable it to plan ahead for a number of years in this fashion.
This situation can be contrasted with that of the past decade. The government of today enjoys a majority, and therefore the virtual
November 4, 1969

The Address-Mr. Jerome
certainty of a tenure of office extending over four or five years. On the other side of the coin are those less certain, hectic times when day-to-day government is imposed by a minority situation in the House-government of the sort that immediately preceded the last election. All parties in the House faced difficulties which were created by a minority government situation. It was a situation which was readily embraced by the third and fourth parties represented in the House, because truly under such circumstances can they maximize their power and position in the affairs of this chamber.
In examining the Throne Speech one readily appreciates it is a continuation and an extension of the program that was begun by the government in 1968 when the first session of this Parliament commenced. In addition to the government's attendance to the day-today needs of the country, it has had as its paramount objective during its first year of office the reform of this institution. It has changed our way of doing business so as better to enable the House to expedite its affairs in a manner more in keeping with the needs of a nation that is growing and changing so rapidly.
Having accomplished the objective of enabling this House to conduct its business more efficiently and productively, the Throne Speech that introduced the second session is, I suggest, a logical follow-up. Having reshaped our procedures here in order to enable members on all sides and of all ranks better to participate in a really meaningful study and examination of the governmental process, this administration is now turning its face inwards and is making a clear pronouncement of those domestic problems that should receive priority, and the manner in which they will be dealt with in the coming session and those to follow.
In the order in which these problems appear in the Throne Speech, they include equality, both on an economic and on a linguistic basis; our Indian population and the position of Indians; the forthcoming review of and white paper on social security, on labour and industrial relations; and also, of course, the most important problem facing Canada today, that of the inflationary trend in our economy. The Throne Speech deals with the forthcoming white paper on taxation. It deals with the problems of grain farmers. It deals with the problems of the fishing industry, water resources and Arctic sovereignty. It also deals with the position of the government
in our society. It deals with our position in respect of the Criminal law and whether one should fight to protect the liberties of the individual. It also deals with the question of consumer protection, not only in respect of credit but in respect of packaging, labelling and processing. It deals with the question of housing and outlines the prospect of one million housing starts in the forthcoming five years.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The Throne Speech deals with the government's intention to review policies in respect of external affairs, defence, citizenship, social security and taxation. Therefore, it is my pleasure to support and endorse in every way possible the Speech from the Throne which began the second session of this Parliament. As I say, it is a logical extension of the program launched in the first session of this Parliament. I support it because I know that in the forthcoming years this administration will carry on with the same logical and progressive programming which it began in 1968. I look forward to the testing of the use of the time and facilities available to the administration at the conclusion of this parliament and to a repetition of the majority mandate that we received in 1968. I look forward to such a testing at the forthcoming election, whenever it may take place.
The Speech from the Throne deals with problems that face this country at the present time. It has reference to our views on the future. Basically it places a heavy concentration of effort in the coming year on solving the problems in the areas I have mentioned. It is occupied particularly with the practical aspects of solutions to the problems we face in this country.
There are a couple of aspects of life in this country to which I should like to address myself. I believe these are important and valid considerations above and beyond the practical things of our day-to-day existence. Let me deal first with the problem of strikes. As a representative of Sudbury I perhaps speak with some reluctance on the subject of strikes. My area occupies a position of economical, educational, financial and cultural importance in northern Ontario, and it is now entering the fourth month of economic paralysis inflicted by a continuing labour dispute between the Falconbridge Nickel Company, the International Nickel Company and their
508	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Jerome respective unions-the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers at Falconbridge and the union at INCO.
The sadness of the situation does not relate to the position in which the companies find themselves or the position in which the unions find themselves. These two companies, particularly INCO, represent the major producers of nickel and hold a virtual monopoly in the world. World markets will wait for the production of nickel, whether it be this year or next year. We have witnessed this situation in respect of Stelco. The speculators are at the present time greatly interested in and aware of the fact that at the conclusion of the strike the price of nickel will rise. The outcome will not bother them. There is nickel in the ground and these companies will eventually produce it. World speculators will obtain nickel this year or next year at a higher price. Indeed, this situation applies to a greater extent to the production of nickel than to the production of steel, because the one union involved is not as powerful as it once was in this country.
Dealing particularly with the United Steelworkers of America, that rich, strong and powerful union, let me say that it will weather this and other storms in which it is involved in Canada. In due course the members will return to work as a result of an undaunted membership. The union will perhaps increase its membership in the process. In any event, it will again begin to produce and revenues will be restored. It will become an even stronger and more powerful union through growth or amalgamation.
I am not concerned about the power struggle between the unions and the company, or which of them becomes more powerful. I am concerned about our society. We are still permitting demonstrations of hostility and war between management and labour. This seems to be the only way in which we can solve differences or disputes between these factions. The disputes involve a difference in conception of what is a fair wage. Tremendous expense is involved in this process. It is a primitive approach to arriving at a proper assessment of the value of a working man. There are differences of opinion as to how much an employee should receive in wages in order to enjoy a reasonable living.
Let me give an example of the cost of these disputes. The International Nickel dispute alone cost about 50 per cent of the total annual payroll of the city of Sudbury. That

DEBATES	November 4, 1969
strike alone cost about $42 million. The cost in terms of material that was not supplied to buyers amounted to $20 million. The loss of capital investment by the company, investment which would ordinarily have been made had the strike not taken place, amounted to about $30 million. One can add to that sum of $92 million a further sum in the neighbourhood of $120 million, representing the loss to various governments in revenue, transfer payments and taxes. This loss is obviously borne by the taxpayers.
Perhaps one could multiply that figure by two. Let us consider the fact that the International Nickel Company and the Falcon-bridge Nickel Company employ 2,300 men. This is a working force capable of sustaining a city of between 75,000 and 85,000 people for a period of four months, which is exactly the period of time these companies have not been producing. One needs very little imagination to project the effect of a strike on a community which is supported by one industry, but that is another subject. The fact is that we in this country cannot understand the position of the working man because we have been unable to develop a sense of trust between management and labour. Obviously, therefore, we cannot come to any sensible understanding of the problem or recognition of the fact that the working man should enjoy a decent standard of living.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
We cannot come to a sensible recognition of the fact that a working man should enjoy an annual increment by virtue only of his seniority. We cannot recognize that a man must not be paid in year 1 the same salary one would expect him to be paid in year 10 for doing the same job. Our failure in this regard, and our leaving the entire responsibility to the give and take of economic warfare, represents a staggering expense and a crippling economic inactivity in my community. We are not alone in this regard; it is happening all over the country.
It is not easy for me to throw out on the floor of this chamber the idea that we should be able to recognize that an annual increment must be paid to every working man from time to time, and that in addition to an annual increment for seniority and longevity of service there should be a periodic adjustment based on increases in the cost of living. We know that in a period of expanding economy inflation also increases rapidly. That is not to say expansion is a bad thing. It is a
November 4, 1969
healthy thing so long as it is allowed at a controlled rate.
So we expect these fluctuations and we recognize that the working man should enjoy a share of an expanding economy. He deserves an increment and adjustment in relation to a rise in the cost of living. The plain truth of the matter is that in our country in this day and age we should be able to develop a sense of trust and responsibility between management and labour. There should not be a war between them, but there is. There should not be hostility, but there is.


An hon. Member:: This is free enterprise.


James Alexander Jerome: It is an aspect of free enterprise that is not working to the advantage of this country nor to the advantage of many of its participants. The man who gets the short end of the stick at every turn is the man who is punching the card and carrying the lunch-pail. Because of what he is doing to support this labour-management process, he makes a sacrifice by having to live on whatever savings he may have for as long as the fight continues. Let us take as an example the situation at Stelco. I have been told-this may be inaccurate but I believe it is close to the truth-that the difference between the offer last August and the settlement that occurred in October at Stelco in Hamilton was less than 10 cents an hour. In my opinion the price that was paid by those working people to gain another 10 cents an hour was simply not worth it. The price paid by the country was not worth it. But above all, the price paid by the working men was not worth it because they will never get back the price they paid during the life of the contract or during their lifetime.
So I say that this is one of the most important areas we must be concerned about in the future, if we are to see above and beyond the day-to-day practical necessities of this countries and our day-to-day problems. If we are to do more than simply carry out the basic functions of our job, and work for genuine progress, one of the matters to which we should be inviting the fullest attention of every member of this House is a solution to the situation I have described, namely, the primitive way in which we live, where hostility exists between the working man and his employer to the eternal detriment of the working man.
This morning I had the pleasure of listening to the remarks of the very distinguished right 21362-33
The Address-Mr. Jerome hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker). Let me hasten to say at the outset of my reference to the hon. gentleman that I hold in my hand a copy of Hansard for Tuesday, July 15 this year. I have this copy of Hansard in my possession and I will keep it for a long time because on that day the hon. gentleman paid me a personal compliment in the course of his remarks in this chamber. I regard that as one of the greatest compliments I have ever had or probably ever will have. At that time the hon. gentleman said he felt I had a great future as a parliamentarian. That compliment came from a man who I am sure in the minds of all of us epitomizes everything a parliamentarian should be. I pay that compliment to him as best I can in return for the one he paid me.
I am also sure, great parliamentarian that he is and great lawyer that he was before he abandoned that career for this, he will not be in any way disappointed when I say to him that during the course of his remarks this morning, genuinely filled with admiration for him as I am, I realized the drastic difference that exists between us in just about every consideration that affects a member of this chamber. The hon. gentleman is a veteran of this chamber and has achieved its highest honour, and I am a fledgling. If my seat were any farther back it would be in the lobby. He, the veteran of many sessions of parliament and one of its most experienced and able orators, holds a seat in the centre of the stronghold of Conservatism in this country. I, in beginning my career in this chamber, come from a seat in the stronghold of Liberalism in this country, northern Ontario.
I suppose our differences should be obvious because of those facts. But only this morning, when I heard the hon. gentleman devote the majority of his time in this debate to a discussion of what he described as the clandestine, and indeed subterranean plot on the part of the government to abolish the monarchy, did I realize that the difference between us could not be characterized any more clearly than was demonstrated by his major concern that there was in the Speech from the Throne an indication that the Queen does not describe this government in terms of "my government".
It is not my concern, Mr. Speaker, whether Her Majesty the Queen, whom I hold in the greatest respect, refers to this government as her government. My concern is that the young people of our country care enough about what goes on in this chamber, in this

November 4, 1969

The Address-Mr. Jerome capital city and in this nation to describe it as their government. The hon. gentleman interpreted the rule changes passed by the House last session as an attempt to adopt a system which would restrict or stifle the free exchange of ideas in this chamber. Presumably he was referring to the present rules regarding the allocation of time for debate.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I could not take a more opposite view than to say that in my view we do not have a restriction on the exchange of ideas, of intelligent opinion and of intelligent commentary, but rather a requirement that when an oratorical contribution is made to the subject under discussion speeches should be limited. This rule will force members to make intelligent, meaningful and comprehensive speeches rather than engage in a filibuster designed to do nothing more than frustrate the business of this chamber.
I was interested to hear the complaint of the hon. member for Prince Albert, that because of the intention of the government to recognize Red China we appear to be playing into the hands of those who have declared themselves avowed enemies of freedom and who remain a threat to the peaceful existence of this country and our part of the world.
Is it not a strange coincidence that the same hon. gentleman in 1961, when his administration made the first wheat sale to the U.S.S.R. to feed those people who I presume then had the same avowed intention to overthrow the free world, hailed the sale as a great achievement in the economic affairs of this country?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The hon. member missed the whole point.


James Alexander Jerome: Let us be reasonable. The danger we face is not communism that is out in the open and is recognized as a threat, nor in our doing business with the U.S.S.R. and giving diplomatic recognition to Red China. That is not the danger we need to fear. Nor should we let ourselves be deceived for one second that that nation will ever be dissuaded from its avowed goal of overthrowing the free world by whatever means it thinks fit. In this sense I agree completely with the right hon. gentleman. The danger arises when these countries and others like them who have the avowed intention of overthrowing the countries of the free, western world, create disruption from within, like a cancer growing from within our society. The danger is that by relaxing our vigilance we allow within our


borders the growth of situations upon which those who intend to create disorder in our society can feed and nourish.
I do not have to cite examples. Disorder and the disruption of the right of our citizens to a peaceful and orderly existence have occurred on our university campuses and in our cities. All too frequently they have been too horrible for anyone in the nation to forget. This is the danger and menace of communism. When we allow this form of strife and disorder to take place within our own nation; when we fail to pay proper attention to it and to stand up firmly for our rights, organized groups trained to overthrow this country can take over. These are situations in which they thrive, and we must be alert to them. We must be on our toes to protect the freedom of our country. This is the area we must watch and in which we must fight the enemy. It is not the diplomatic recognition of Red China that presents a danger.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. Is there agreement to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


James Alexander Jerome: I will be brief, if possible, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't worry about time allocation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Alexander Jerome: If I may conclude, Mr. Speaker, the important thing is not that there exists in this house a symbolic or ideological difference between one member and another; it is not important that we are worlds apart in our thinking, for indeed it is the very essence of Parliament to come here and take widely opposite positions and confront each other through an intelligent exchange of views and debate-the question is how this chamber is going to conduct itself and how it will be regarded in the eyes of the impatient youth of our country.
The question is: Will we be able to retain the credibility of all the people of our nation, Whether they come from the coast or from the prairies, whether they are from Ontario or Quebec, whether they are young or old, whether they speak French or English, whether they are in management or labour, whether they are citizens of our country by birth or immigrants who have become naturalized Canadians? We cannot retain that
November 4, 1969
credibility if we are afraid of change and stubbornly resist change of every sort just for the sake of resistance.
If we cannot through the orderly and intelligent introduction of innovation and progress in the conduct of the affairs of this country give expression to the restless and revolutionary spirit that exists in our young people, we will have to bear the responsibility for that restless and revolutionary spirit finding its expression on the streets and campuses in the form of disorder, disruption, violence and anarchy.
The challenge is for those opposite who would resist change to stand up and say so, to tell their colleagues to go to the nation and say, as some of them have already said, that their avowed intention is to resist even the few rule changes that we have introduced in this chamber. Then resistance is at the cost of effectively carrying on the affairs of this nation. So I say, stand up and tell the nation that when the next election is called they will promise that if given the mandate and the right to govern this country, their first move will be to remove any limitation or restriction on our time for debate and everyone will under their administration be able to speak in the House as long as he wishes. If that is their position, let them go to the public and say they cannot accept the changes we propose, that they will resist them and fight them with everything they have. We have rearranged the business of this House to make it a place where business can be carried out meaningfully and expeditiously through co-operation. The few basic changes we have made will create a more productive Parliament than the Canadian nation has ever had.
I challenge hon. members opposite to co-operate in bringing about necessary changes. I ask them to consider the very important fact that attracted to this chamber in the last election were about 100 new members. I suggest that those members bear watching and examination, and they will not be found wanting in their contributions to and participation in the affairs of the House. I say to the veterans, to those who have come back time and time again, that if through their stubborn resistance to change they allow this House to stagnate in frustration, let them bear the responsibility for the actions of our young people-those with whom they broke faith- and for what happens to this country in the future
21362-33i
The Address-Mr. Woolliams [DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member if I could have a copy of his prepared text and, second, would he give me the name of the efficiency expert in the Prime Minister's department who was active in preparing the document? I have never before heard so much talk about efficiency. I would like to have the name of the efficiency expert in the Prime Minister's department who prepared the bulk of the text for the hon. member's speech. In that respect it was outstanding and brought to our attention the need for efficiency in this House. Further, could he give us the kind of thinking and philosophy behind this efficiency?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to attempt to answer that question as best I can. First of all, although inexperienced in this chamber I happen to be one of those who feel it is something of a desecration of the position of a member for him to come into the chamber with a prepared text. It is my view that when a member attempts to participate in debate here he should be prepared to get involved and participate in the interchange of ideas.
For that reason most of the remarks I made were in response to those made this morning by the right hon. gentleman to whom I referred. I had no prepared text; I still have none. I made some notes this afternoon, which are now on my desk-three pages of pencilled notes. My preparation for the speech to which the hon. member has given such adulation began at 11.45 this morning and went on this afternoon. I accept his compliments with the greatest appreciation. Unfortunately, however, I made no further preparation than that, and thus I am unable to provide him with notes.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, the sort of speech to which we have just listened provides an introduction for mine. I am going to speak about narcotics. I have for some time been trying to get information from the government on the subject. If anyone has resisted change, it has not been on this side of the House. If the honourable and distinguished member who has just sat down will do me the compliment of listening to me he will learn that I have some recommendations to make. I believe the narcotics problem is a national problem. I believe we must have answers now from ministers. We cannot be put off from day to day with

November 4, 1969

The Address-Mr. Woolliams answers to the effect that the matter is being considered.
People who have been criticizing me during the last few days-and they are not all on the opposite side of the House-have said that I should have been asking my questions of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). But one of the big problems is that under the roster system he is not in the House each day to answer questions. Under this system sometimes ministers ignore Parliament and refuse to attend even when they are due to attend.
All of us know that the responsibilities of cabinet ministers are such that they cannot always be in the House. But, Mr. Speaker, ministers are making use of this system to avoid giving answers. Dealing with this narcotic question, I wish to read the answer given to me by the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) as recorded at page 405 of yesterday's Hansard. The other day I asked him whether he had done any research on the charges faced by young men and women in Calgary. I asked whether he had ascertained the ages of the young people involved and the nature of the charges. His answer showed that he was uninformed.
The Solicitor General has graced this chamber for a long time, but I say to him that as Solicitor General he is not carrying out the functions and responsibilities of his office if he is not prepared to answer our questions. I have no large staff behind me. He has a whole department behind him. If I ask a question about a charge, or about what took place in such and such a place, it is his responsibility to come forward with the answers. In this instance he shirked his responsibility.
The Solicitor General replied to my question on Monday, when western Canadians who had gone home on Friday could not get out of Toronto to be back here on Monday. I will answer the Solicitor General tonight, and I will also answer the previous speaker to show that I believe in reform. I believe drugs have become one of our urgent national problems. We cannot continue to bury our heads in the sand with respect to the problem. This is what the Solicitor General said on Monday:
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.

This was the answer of the Solicitor General, who had all the necessary staff behind him to find out the facts. But he is not doing the job properly. He is not interested in giving answers; he is interested in arriving at the door of the Senate.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would call it six o'clock. However, before I sit down I would like to have permission to read tonight the charges laid in these cases; then we will find out who is setting out the facts.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in the three minutes I had before the recess I introduced my subject, which is the defence and preservation of the greatest asset that we have in Canada-our youth. Although I was not in the House on Monday to hear them myself, I did make reference to the remarks of the Solicitor General. I should like to place on record what I actually said last week and then read the charges obtained from the newspaper. Perhaps we can determine whether the Solicitor General is just making perfunctory answers or is really doing his homework.
On October 28, 1969 I asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister about the subject of drug use, because it is now becoming a grave national problem. I had hoped to see the Minister of Justice here. Would the Prime Minister be prepared to have his government consult with provincial Attorneys General and Ministers of Education so as to encourage the setting up of an education program in elementary schools, high schools and universities in order that the youth of Canada will be informed and become more knowledgeable about the use of drugs?
I used the word "drugs". The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) answered:
Mr. Speaker, we share the hon. member's concern about the need to have information disseminated on this important matter.
For that answer I congratulate the Prime Minister.
That is why we have set up a commission under Dean LeDain. We are not considering any specific action along the lines the hon. member has suggested until the commission has reported.
November 4, 1969
May I pause for a moment. While the commission is studying, society goes on. When we read the charges and the ages of the boys and girls who were convicted and sentenced we will find that the process of justice cannot wait for this government. The hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) accused us of being against change. I want change-and before I am through tonight I will ask the Solicitor General to get moving. I asked the following supplementary question of the Prime Minister:
I appreciate that the commission is now investigating this question. But since many high school students and young people in our universities are being charged with possession of marijuana and trafficking in the drug-
I want to emphasize that; I do not want to be misquoted and I do not want the Solicitor General to do a "snow" job.
-and many of them cannot afford bail and therefore remain incarcerated, will the government not consider measures to make the law uniform and to make certain that sentences meted out in this country do not vary from province to province?
At the moment sentences vary from province to province. Last week it would have been far better to have been charged in Toronto than in Calgary although it is still Canada, still one nation. The Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, sentencing is not within federal jurisdiction,-
That may be true, but judges are appointed by the federal government. However, that is another field and I will not go into it at this time.
-unless the hon. member is suggesting that we embark on the unusual course of setting a fixed sentence from which a judge cannot depart and over which he has no discretion.
Then I asked another question, Mr. Speaker, as follows:
The Prime Minister must be aware that in some cases young people are charged under the Narcotic Control Act, in which case they are liable to sentences of 7 to 14 years, while in other cases they are charged under the Food and Drugs Act where the sentence called for is much less.
I will deal with that in a few minutes. The Speaker brought me to order and I said:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I had to give a preamble in order that the Prime Minister will be filled in on the law.
I will let it go there for the moment. I asked some further questions and found the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) most gracious. I would not have bothered the Solicitor
The Address-Mr. Woolliams General on this subject at all the other day, but under the roster system some ministers are here and some are not. Urgent matters cannot await the will of the Prime Minister or even the Solicitor General. However, on this particular day I was fortunate enough to find my ducks on the pond. The Minister of Justice was here, and naturally I put my questions to him even though the Solicitor General gives the impression that I am not supposed to ask him questions. The Minister of Justice is not supposed to answer any questions -


An hon. Member:: He is going to withdraw.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On October 30, as reported at page 278 of Hansard I directed a question to the Minister of Justice as follows:
In view of the large numbers of Canadians held, while awaiting trial in various jails, during the July and August summer vacation-
To satisfy some of my Legal friends in Calgary, I was not referring to that city but to Canada. I hope that one particular Justice in Calgary reads that.
-when there is little activity in the courts, would the minister consider calling on retired judges, who are experienced, to assist the courts to clean up these dockets during the summer vacation? Many of these people are unable to get bail or cannot afford it.
I had read in the Globe and Mail that 50 or more young people had been held in jail over the summer because they could not afford bail. This government stands for change but this is going on whilst you are alive; you are governing the country, you are the responsible government. The Minister of Justice replied:
That is a very good idea, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that the administration of justice is constitutionally the responsibility of the provincial Attorneys General.
That is basically true, Mr. Speaker, but let us not hide from the facts. The Narcotic Control Act is directly under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are the responsibility of the Solicitor General. These ministers should not try to pass the buck or do a snow job by passing it on to the provinces. The Prime Minister is hiding under the protection of the constitution while trying to govern the country. He does nothing, protesting that the constitution does not permit him to make a move. I put another question:
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that many of these people being incarcerated are young men and women charged under the Narcotic Control

November 4, 1969

The Address-Mr. Woolliams Act, which is a direct responsibility oi the minister's department, will he contact these very special Crown prosecutors-
I could name some of them. They are only special because they are prosecutors and not because of any other function they perform, -across the nation to see whether these people can be released on bail? Many of them are high school and university students.
The Minister of Justice answered again. Because he was there that day I do not complain about his answers. He said:
I will take that into consideration, Mr. Speaker.
Now, compare the answers of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice with those of the Solicitor General who has had a lot to say about my charges, both inside and outside the House. Tilings come back to us in this place and we find out what is going on. He tried a snow job. There was even an emissary sent to speak to people in my party.
On October 311 looked around for the Minister of Justice but he was not here, it was not his day. The Solicitor General was here. As reported at page 350 of Hansard the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) asked a question about legal reform. I had read about this hon. member before I ever arrived in this House and I know he is one man who has always stood for reform. In that regard I back him 100 per cent.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I asked the question of the Solicitor General because his portfolio is closest to that of the Minister of Justice. I do not know whether he is above him or below him. The question is as follows:
I wish to ask a supplementary question dealing with criminal reform, Mr. Speaker. I direct the minister's attention to the Narcotic Control Act. In view of the fact that in Calgary, and the same thing is happening in other cities, seven young people ranging in ages from 16 to 21 yesterday received sentences totalling 29 years on charges involving-
I did not say "possessing."
-marijuana, is it the policy of the government to instruct federal Crown prosecutors to press for sentences up to five years so that this group of young people so incarcerated may be used as a deterrent against the use of drugs-
I did not use the word "marijuana"; I said "drugs." All drugs are included in the Narcotic Control Act. I do not want a snow job done in respect of what I said.
-in the universities and high schools, and is this not a misuse of the law?

Now we come to the perfunctory answer of the Solicitor General:
Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members wil recognize that it is quite impossible for anyone to accept the premises that were added to the question asked by the hon. member. I understand that this question was asked yesterday of the Minister of Justice,-
If the Solicitor General had read what I asked the Minister of Justice he would find I included all drugs under the Narcotic Control Act. However, he wanted to do a snow job because he will not face up to his responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What he really wants to do, Mr. Speaker, is leave the impression that I am trying to misrepresent the facts.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: So you are. You are doing just that.


John Howard Lundrigan: He finally woke up.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will read on. I will let the record speak for itself because the record does not speak favourably for the Solicitor General. I continue:
A further supplementary question, since the RCMP comes under the minister's jurisdiction. In light of the answer given by the minister, would he at an early date give a full report to the House on the pressing for these sentences imposed on seven young people in Calgary? Is it also the policy of the minister to instruct the RCMP to act as stool-pigeons.-
I do not know whether that is correct or not. The newspapers said it is. The RCMP mixed with the young people. That is how they obtained their evidence. As a trial lawyer, I have always understood when the police did that sort of thing, whether they liked the name or not they were basically acting as stoolpigeons. They are getting in the cake-mix so they will know the ingredients of the cake. Having read my questions and the answers given by the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General knew that I was dealing with the broad question of drugs. The reason I asked the questions was that I did not have the court docket; I do not carry it around in my back pocket. It is the function of the Solicitor General to know what E.G. McCormick, Q.C., of Calgary is doing. He received a Liberal appointment as a special federal drug prosecutor. It is the Solicitor General's function to have this information available.
When I asked these questions I expected answers from the Solicitor General. If I was in error about the drugs in the charges, he
November 4, 1969

could have stood up and stated so. Instead of that he implied that he had done some work on the question when in fact he had not. He just gave a beautiful, big snow job. I received my information from the newspapers; I have not checked the court docket. If I am wrong in this, it is because I have not checked the court docket. The courthouse has been closed whenever I have been home since this incident occurred. I shall read the sentences handed down to these young people in Calgary to whom I have already referred, which information I received from a leading Calgary newspaper.
The first one is Linda Wattie, age 20; 1J years for trafficking in synthetic marijuana and 1 year concurrent for selling LSD. Allen James McGregor, age 21, architectural student from Calgary; 5 years for trafficking in hashish and 3 years concurrent on each of three counts for selling LSD. William Alberta Godfrey, age 16, student from Calgary; 2J years for trafficking in marijuana. Yet the minister stood in his place on Monday in my absence and said they were not charged in connection with marijuana. I did not say there were not charged with trafficking in marijuana alone but other drugs. I know what is going on, and I hope the minister does. I repeat that Godfrey was 16 years of age.
With regard to Charles Arthur Gibbs, age 17, from Vancouver, B.C., the newspapers state his father is a retired Anglican minister. That cut me deeply because it runs into the roots of my religion. Gibbs received three years for trafficking in hashish. Ross Eric Gagnon, age 20, a welder from Ontario; 2 years concurrent on two counts of selling LSD. William Roy Crews, age 20, welder from Medicine Hat; 5 years for trafficking in hashish and 2 years concurrent on each of two charges of selling LSD. Murray Kenneth Christie, age 21, of Calgary; 5 years for trafficking in cannabis resin, which is hashish. Some of these charges involved marijuana and some involved hashish; yet the Solicitor General, as recorded at page 405 of Hansard, stated:
Mr. Speaker, on Friday last, as reported at page 350 of Hansard, the hon. member for Calgary North asked me several questions involving-


George James McIlraith: You read the word "involving". Quote it correctly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I don't intend to answer. The minister can make his own speech. I do
The Address-Mr. Woolliams not think he can stand the heat. He should stay out of the kitchen. I continue to quote:
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.
I ask the Solicitor General to stand in his place and say that none of those charges involved marijuana. I am not the Solicitor General; I do not have his staff. Like most hon. members, I get my information from the newspapers. I do not have a large research staff; I have one secretary and sometimes I am lucky enough to have two. Let us get down to brass tacks in this regard.
The hon. member for Sudbury today spoke about the great, Liberal reform party. Let us see what the law says about these matters. I intend to read from the Narcotic Control Act. I suggest to the Prime Minister that we should now encourage a course of action in respect of drugs. I abhor the use of drugs as much as any member of this House of Commons or any member of society. I also abhor the fact the law does not distinguish between one category of offence of trafficking and another. I will explain what I mean by that in a moment. The Statutes of Canada, 1960-61, provide at page 212:
(2) Every person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for seven years.
Cases involving possession of marijuana can be tried under the Narcotic Control Act. Persons convicted of being in possession of the drug are liable to seven years imprisonment. If they are guilty of trafficking, they are liable to life imprisonment. If we were dealing with those trafficking adults who selfishly destroy the moral fibre of the youth of Canada, the United States and all over the world, we would be dealing with the real traffickers. I agree that these people should be given a life sentence. I am sure we would all be happy to know that the real traffickers, the adults, the senior people who are making large profits selling drugs of all descriptions to our youth and are destroying the moral fibre of our nation, received this type of sentence. If we could catch up with those people and put them in jail, we could say a prayer of relief tonight and we would be able to sleep with satisfaction. This party stands for the youth of our nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
516	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Woolliams


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I give the government some credit. Section 32 of the Food and Drug Act was amended last year so that in cases of possession a person may be charged by way of summary conviction or by way of indictment. For a first offence by summary conviction a person may be ordered to pay a fine of $1,000 or six months imprisonment; or he may be sentenced to both. The fine may be $2,000, or two years, or both, on subsequent offences. However, it is still possible to proceed by indictment. I will have something to say later about that: The Crown decides the legal course to be taken.
What is happening to our youth? What is happening to the students in high school who are on drugs? I have been told by the youth that one student goes out, possibly a young fellow 16 years of age, purchases $25 worth of marijuana and brings it back. This person does not make any profit; he is merely buying it as an agent so that the others can get it. Next week perhaps another student will do this. That is a different kind of trafficking. It distinguishes from the trafficking wherein adult criminals are using the drug to make large profits and are destroying the moral fibre of our nation. The greatest asset we have is the youth of our nation. This is why I am concerned, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister agreed with me that it was an important subject, but not the Solicitor General. Can we wait on this government any longer for action?
I will now turn to the amendments to the Criminal Code. I hope I will be right in this regard because I had to do my research very quickly this afternoon. Section 622 of the Code was not changed. It is a pretty harsh section. An accused who is convicted of an indictable offence calling for punishment of imprisonment for five years or less may be fined in lieu of imprisonment. When liable for imprisonment of longer than 5 years he cannot be fined in lieu of imprisonment. So what happens? We come back to the Narcotic Control Act, and, if they are in possession, seven years is the maximum sentence. So section 622 cannot be used.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Several years ago I defended some fine young people, scholarship winners from Sanford University, California, in the United States. I shall not give their names, but they were Americans. One of them was the daughter of a very famous writer; the fathers of some of the others were in high places. This 
DEBATES	November 4, 1969
government talks about reform. Fortunately, in that case I thought the judge was a very reasonable man because he seemed to agree with me. He said to the federal crown prose-cuter: These young people are not criminals; they were out getting their kicks. Actually, they had brought in marijuana from the States and passed it around among other university students, some of them from western Ontario, and they were caught. Fortunately, the R.C.M.P., used their discretion and laid charges of possession only. But under this law, before the Food and Drugs Act was amended the maximum penalty is seven years, so according to the law they would not be able to be fined. But I had a reasonable judge and I suggested he should give them one day in gaol and a $500 fine. He agreed with me and, as hon. members know, under our law from the British a sentence of one day's imprisonment is not actually served.
Today we are facing one of the great national crises of the time. I am no Kinsey who goes out and gets all the answers, but I am told by young people there are high schools and universities in Canada where 60 per cent of the students are on drugs of some kind. That is a high percentage. I shall not name the fellow who came to see me this week. He was 22 years of age and he had quit his job in an insurance company. He said to me: Mr. Woolliams, I have never taken drugs but I am now going to find out the facts because the government is too slow in finding them out. We must save the youth of the nation. I abhor the use of drugs. I wish I could be sure tonight that no one would take drugs in this nation.


An hon. Member:: A drugged government, moved by hallucination.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about Godfrey, 16, and Linda, 20? Time will not permit me to discuss the conditions which exist in most of the gaols of Canada, but I have been in many of the penitentiaries as a guest. Conditions have improved tremendously under several ministers of justice, not only Conservative ministers but Liberals. The fact remains that once a young person has been incarcerated in a penitentiary even for a short period while his application to a proper institution is being processed, he or she is forced to mix with the worst kind of adult criminals. No one can tell me that this is a program of reform or rehabilitation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
November 4, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	517


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not think anyone in this House of Commons or in the country really thinks that a lengthy service imposed on these young people will either rehabilitate them or act as a deterrent to other young people becoming involved in the use of all kinds of drugs. Young people have for months come to my house saying there is a heavy use of drugs. Some may exaggerate, but when there is a heavy use there will be people in possession; there will be young people buying drugs for others, and they are traffickers. I am well aware of the psychological, emotional and physical disturbances of mind and body of those engaged in the misuse of drugs. I have told hon. members what section 622 of the criminal Code calls for. It states that an accused person convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment for more than five years may not be fined in lieu of any other punishment that is authorized. The new Bill C-157, chapter 38, of the 1968-69 Statutes relieves the situation by empowering our judiciary to suspend sentences under certain conditions.
I recommend that we should cause a study to be made and that on the basis of the best knowledge available today, scientific, medical and psychological, begin now in all the high schools and universities a compulsory course so that youth may be aware not only of the dangers of the use and misuse of drugs but also of the most horrible and terrible penalties which are presently prescribed by the law.
How many of them know what the penalties are? How many of you believe that a girl of 16, convicted and sent to prison for three years or five years, a girl who could be the daughter of any one of you, will be rehabilitated in an institution of that kind, or that her sentence will really serve as a deterrent to others? I cannot accept this. I do not believe it. Critics of my position might change their opinions if they understood what happens to these young people who serve terms in goal. There is the question of the confinement, the environment, the human atmosphere of which they will be part, which will in itself destroy our youth psychologically, emotionally and physically as effectively as the problem which put them there. In a psychological sense, high school and university students who have not suffered incarceration will find their own moral fibre destroyed.
Tonight, in the city of Edmonton, 200 law students are petitioning this so-called reform government. One student said to me: I am not 21362-34
The Address-Mr. Woolliams taking part because I want to be articled with a big law firm and they are part of the establishment. But others have said: We are petitioning because we think the law is wrong. What happened to these youths in Calgary was wrong, and that is why I rise to speak tonight.
Someone must speak for the youth. I know there are hundreds of Canadians who would speak as I am speaking tonight, and that other members of parliament who are sympathetic to this situation. I must be fair to the minister and admit that my words in one or two of the questions addressed to him might have been more explanatory. But what does it matter whether marijuana, hashish or another similar drug is involved? Canadian boys and girls are on drugs. If the minister thinks harsh sentences will serve as a deterrent, I ask him to cast his mind back to the days of the bootleggers. What happened then? The political scientists tell us that we can legislate certain things but that we cannot legislate morals. Prohibition failed. And some of the people who peddled liquor across the border are sitting in high places today, Mr. Speaker. They belong to another generation. We who throw stones had better not live in glass houses. As Emerson said: We are part of all we have met. Each is needed by each one and nothing is good alone.
In the context of modern society, I say to hon. members: This is your problem. I did not come here to fight with the minister but I admit I was hurt that he should confuse the issue and do a snow job on me. My wife said: You must feel almost like a No. 1 criminal because of what he has said. Well, I am happy that I have enough integrity to stand in this House and defend the youth of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I end on this comment, Mr. Speaker. One of the main reasons I am proud of my leader is that he thinks of our youth.
November 4, 1969

The Address-Mr. Saltsman He has the same feelings I have. I have not discussed with him my comments tonight but I have confidence that he will stand with me to reform the law. We need an educational program for our youth so that we can save the best asset we have-the young people of Canada.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, before returning from Winnipeg I searched the newspapers during the course of last week for some news of the Throne Speech debate. It was quite remarkable what little coverage there was. I can conclude only that the dullness of the Speech from the Throne and its low profile militated against those good members who by their intervention deserved to be noticed. I have had the chance of reading Hansard and I should like to congratulate members on this side for their participation. May I also congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address on the other side of the House on their contributions, which were excellent; indeed, they were much better than the Throne Speech itself.
I listened to the speaker who preceded me generate some fire and express some concern about the future of this nation, a concern that was lacking in the Throne Speech. Looking at the Throne Speech one would think there are no problems facing this country; that this is the best of all possible worlds. Any historian who in the future looks back to this document and examines the situation in which this country finds itself will be shocked at the serious nature of our conditions. To read the Throne Speech is to be unaware that this country is in danger of cultural extinction; that there is more foreign ownership of industry in this country than in any other country in the world. And it is not only a question of foreign ownership; our culture is dominated by the mores and values of others, values that might have relevance to another civilization but not to ours.
For years some lip service at least was paid to the notion of establishing a Canada Development Corporation; yet there is not a word about this in the Throne Speech. Even that small concession to Canadian nationalism has been dropped. It is not as though we were winning our fight for existence. We are losing that fight owing to lack of policies on the part of the government.
To look at the Throne Speech is to be oblivious of the fact that two cultures, two peoples who need each other desperately, are reaching the point where they can hardly

communicate with each other. The Throne Speech has nothing to remedy that situation. It has no solutions to offer to a serious crisis of our time. To look at the Throne Speech is to be blind to the fact that there is an outside world that needs our help, a world that should expect more from Canada than it has been getting. We in this country are in a position to make a significant contribution to underdeveloped nations of the world, but we are not doing so.
One is hurt by this kind of Throne Speech. One might have forgiven such a speech last year on the ground that a new government was feeling its way and should be given a chance. But that cannot be said this year. The government is showing a lack of idealism and a lack of concern for the future of this country. I and people like me are concerned about this attitude because we remember during the last election the hopes that were aroused among the young people of this country. I remember going into a polling booth, seeing a young girl clutching her check-off sheet and praying that the Liberals would win. She was praying that Mr. Trudeau would win because he was going to save this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Max Saltsman: But he has not done this. Why do hon. members applaud?


David Lewis: They are applauding you.


Max Saltsman: I happened to meet some of these people this summer. They came to me adopting a very defensive attitude inasmuch as they had worked very hard against me in the campaign. There was nothing personal; it was simply the way they felt. They said to me, "Tell me, Mr. Saltsman, what do you think of our Prime Minister? What do you think about what he is doing?" I replied, "Please don't ask me, because I do not want young people to hear the kind of language that I might have to use". I wanted to be kind to them. I did not want to tell them that their faith and trust has been betrayed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Max Saltsman: There is no cause for complacency or self-satisfaction. Hon. members opposite seem to think that this is a big joke. It is the government's Throne Speech that is the big joke, though it is no joke to the people of Canada. There are many jokers on the other side of the House. Some of them are smiling jokers, and some serious-faced jokers. One of the ministers of the government
November 4, 1969

The Address-Mr. Saltsman
smiles beautifully. I refer to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). He charms all the ladies. One can only say with great regret that it is too bad that all the wheat buyers of the world are not ladies. However, the government has caught up with him now and have transferred the role of wheat salesman to somebody else.
The minister goes around the country giving lectures to people in industry. He tells them to pull up their socks, that we in this country have to be productive, that we have to export our products. But what kind of policy framework has he created for these industries? What kind of assistance does he suggest? He has no answers. He is a lecturer. Toujours le professeur. He gives beautiful lectures but has no answers. The reason he has no answers is that he has no commitment to Canadian nationalism.
A long time ago the minister made up his mind that the economy of Canada was going to be integrated with that of the United States, so why should he bother about policies. Policies would only get in the way of this kind of integration. So this very competent man-and I do not underestimate his competence-has simply given up on the job.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for St. Boniface rising to a point of order?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member a question, if I may.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is entirely for the hon. member whether he wishes to accept a question.


Max Saltsman: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I will accept the question.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The hon. member makes much of encouraging Canadian industry instead of our United States friends. I should like to ask him whether his party gave a lot of consideration to this matter, in view of the fact that the lapel buttons his party members were wearing at their convention in Winnipeg last week were printed in the United States?
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, that is typical of the picayune mind of hon. members on that side of the house. It is an affront to the 21362-341
intelligence of members of this house when questions of that kind are asked. Surely the hon. member knows that the badges he has referred to were merely printed in the United States. Even had they been printed in Canada we should not be narrow-minded about them. We do not believe that chauvinism should be carried to the extreme and that every badge should be printed in Canada. We believe in trade; we believe in good relationships with other countries in the world. To pick up a button and say, "My, what a terrible thing it is that you should wear a button that is printed in the U.S.A." is nothing more than a display of an attitude which I suggest is not worthy of the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps it is.


Max Saltsman: I prefer to think that it is not, and that it is merely a mental aberration due to the lateness of the hour. Let me return to the serious problem with which I was dealing before that somewhat irreverent and irrelevant interjection. There is a serious problem in respect of the nature of Canadian industry and we are in danger of becoming, not a second-class nation but a third or fourth-class nation unless something is done to make our industrial structure more efficient.
In France, Servan-Schreiber pointed out the great dangers facing Europe because of United States ownership. But he does not place the blame on the United States; he places it quite properly on European countries for not doing something about the problem. He pointed out-and he might have said the same thing about Canada-that the advantage in the future of computers, electronics and advanced technology will be to those countries which organize their industrial structure so as to create suitable companies which will take advantage of the inventions and technologies. We are not doing that; we are borrowing. We can borrow and live fairly well on the loan, but the future will not be ours. We will eventually reach the point where we will be so dependent that we will no longer have the opportunity to make a significant contribution as a nation.
When I look at the Throne Speech I find there is some emphasis on the question of individualism, individual rights and individual personalities. Let me suggest that there can be no personality out of the context of a nation. A person does not exist in a vacuum; he exists as part of a nation, as part of a
November 4, 1969

The Address-Mr. Saltsman country and as part of a culture. If that nation, country or culture is destroyed, I suggest that the individual will also be destroyed. He will have no opportunity to be proud of having a nationality. I do not want to see that happen in my country, and I do not think many hon. members of this chamber would choose this kind of solution to our problems. However, if the policies of this government are not changed, that will be the horrendous prospect.
In my riding I have seen a number of examples of the failure of the Department of Industry to offer any real assistance to companies. We have a sweater and a knitted-goods industry which is now virtually finished. I know it is a vulnerable industry which has been in danger for a long time. Having spoken to the people in this field I have been informed that they are not asking for protection or special favours. They want to know the policy of the government in respect of the industry. They want to know what we are going to do in the future. They want to know, if the government has reached the conclusion that the industry is expendable.
If the government has decided they do not want this industry any longer, they want the government to say so in order that they may make other plans and redirect their energies. That is not what has happened. They have been asking for answers, which have not been forthcoming. The government's attitude is that perhaps the industry will die gradually and the problem will disappear. That is not a fair or honest way to treat an industry. There is no program on the government side of this house-just	lectures and little, moral
homilies.
Electrical industries have complained about discrimination in respect of purchases by overseas companies and the fact that very little has been done to help them. Engineering industries are competing or attempting to compete in respect of projects which are being supported by government funds. They find themselves totally excluded. The corporations receiving government funds are going outside the country to do their buying; they are not even entertaining bids from Canadian companies. This is an unfortunate situation and the solution is not simple. A great deal of the problem is concerned with financing, much of which is being offered by foreign companies. Canadian companies have reason to be dissatisfied because of the lack of attention being paid to this problem.


My area is a relatively affluent one. We in Waterloo are being asked to raise taxes to help the less fortunate areas of Canada. We do not object to this. As a matter of fact, we are pleased and proud to assist in this way. But when we do so I think we are entitled to ask that those areas being helped should attempt to provide opportunities for areas such as mine. If this is not done, the will to assist will not be strong and the program to assist designated areas in Canada will suffer.
We recently experienced a nickel shortage. There is still a nickel shortage in this country. In spite of the fact that manufacturers in Canada use a very small amount of the nickel produced in this country, some of them have had to shut their shops and lay off employees because nickel is not available. The policy of the government is that we should treat all customers alike. That sounds fine on the surface. The exporter gets his share, but the government intends that the Canadian manufacturer shall receive only the share he received in the past.
I suggest it would require a change of only 1 or 2 per cent to ensure that manufacturers in Canada do not suffer from a shortage of materials. Obviously it is not the policy of this government to assist Canadian industry. I have said in the past, and I repeat, that the policy of the government is oriented to the selling of raw materials to the United States. It has very little concern for the development of secondary manufacturing in Canada. Members of the government may stand up and deny this, as they have in the past, but I have never found their arguments very convincing.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The government made one feeble attempt at setting up a department of industry and the department collapsed; it did not work out. This did not occur because the idea was not worth while but because the government did not give it any direction. They did not give sufficient attention to the problems of Canadian industry and eventually they threw up their hands in despair and decided to put it back in the Department of Trade and Commerce where it was before. Now there does not seem to be a policy for secondary manufacturing in this country. There does not seem to be a policy that would change the direction of our economy from one of natural resource development to one of secondary manufacturing. Sooner or later, as rich as we are in minerals, those minerals will not be available.
November 4, 1969

What will we do then if we have not become a manufacturing nation?
This afternoon I had the unhappy experience of listening to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) when he appeared before the committee. He is an absolute disaster because he just talks. We have many talking heads over there. They talk a lot but do not do anything; they just lecture. The Minister of Finance talks too. He talks about inflation. His approach is that it can be talked away. He tells people they are going to get rid of it and he expects them to believe this. He talks about voluntary guidelines. He must know they have not worked in the past and will not work now. He seems to have a notion that people in business in this country are fools and will listen to the kind of things he suggests.
This country is experiencing a terrible economic situation. Despite the high-blown speeches the Minister of Finance makes we are having the worst of all possible conditions-high unemployment, slow growth and a rapid rate of inflation. What does he suggest as a way out of this situation? He suggests cutting back on a few government employees and cutting back on public expenditures. He will set an example for the private sector. There is just one thing wrong with that. The private sector is not paying attention to him. Every time he pulls in his belt they let theirs out and nothing is being accomplished.
When suggestions are made to the minister and it is pointed out that he cannot go on in this way and is living in a fool's paradise, he responds by making terrible speeches about communism and Cuba which have nothing to do with the suggestions made. If we tell the minister we must come to a point where some of the unjustifiable price increases in our economy are contained, he does not listen. He says, "Oh, you mean wage controls?" We say, "No, we do not mean that; we are talking about some price control". He says it is the same thing. It is not the same thing.
When one speaks of price control it is one thing to say there may be some element of wage restraint in it, but there also are many other elements in it. There is profit restraint in it as well. He does not acknowledge that. He simply refuses to face up to the fact that we are now living in an entirely different world. It is not possible any more to control inflation with the old weapons. To say we can control inflation by restricting prices and wages to productivity gains is no answer,
The Address-Mr. Saltsman either. Even if we were able to do this, such a situation would not take into account the fact that almost 50 per cent of our population is engaged in activities where the prospect for productivity increase is almost nil. I am talking about the service sector. How do you increase the productivity of a nurse, a doctor or a lawyer? There are very limited possibilities in these areas. It is very difficult to do this.
If there are productivity increases in some industries and wages rise there, surely it is unreasonable to expect that those in the non high-productivity industries will sit by and see their position even more eroded than it has been in the past. They will not accept that situation. This means that we have a built-in inflation in our system. We will have to live with it. We will have to do everything we can to minimize its effect, but until we realistically face up to the fact that there will be some inflation in our society we will never see justice done for those who are hurt by inflation.
As long as the minister says that we cannot increase old age pensions and attempt to do any of these things because we must control inflation first, he is in effect saying we will never be able to help that segment of society because we will never be able to control inflation in this country or any other country. The only reasonable and just approach to our problem of inflation is to compensate those who are hurt by inflation. There is no other way.
We cannot say to the old age pensioners that we will not help them until we bring inflation under control, "because we will not bring it under control and the old age pensioner must be helped now. We have all had an opportunity to be back in our ridings this summer and talk to people with ordinary problems. To them, however, these are difficult problems. This experience restores my perspective concerning what is happening, because I see the effect government policies have on the ordinary people of this country. I see the effect the cutting back of these expenditures is having on the people. Mothers call me about their disturbed children. Some of these are children 11 or 12 years of age who are already in trouble with the law or are having difficulty in school. These children desperately need help. They may one day show up in our courts because they have killed somebody and then we will want to hang them. These children need help now. We know what is happening; there is restraint on
522	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Saltsman them. The federal government set the example and the provincial governments are following it.
We are told that only so much can be done in one area. When I ask what will happen to the children when the quota is filled, officials shrug their shoulders and say they cannot do more because they do not have the money. It is incredible that we should stand by and watch this kind of thing happening to children who did not ask to be born, and whom we will condemn five years from now if they have committed a crime. We turn them away at a time when they plead for our help. If we look around we see old people living in tiny lofts above stores. These people may have only one, two, three or four more years to live. We built some good housing for older people in my area, beautiful accommodation. Those less fortunate look longingly at the people who were fortunate enough to get this public accommodation.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Mr. Lind:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Max Saltsman: In a moment, Mr. Speaker. They ask: Why cannot we have it? The answer is, of course, that the federal government has decreed that we shall have austerity. These people ask: If there is austerity, why are there so many hamburger stores going up all over the place? Are they more important than providing accommodation for these people? I say no, but this government says yes. The government is to be condemned for that kind of callousness and for its refusal to act. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) asks: What do you want me to do-interfere with the economy? That is communism. I say that is not communism, and if it means that we have to interfere with the economy in order to ensure decent housing for old people rather than setting up 700 more hamburger stands, let us interfere with the economy.
In my riding we have handicapped people. We pride ourselves on our manpower program. It is a reasonably good program as far as it goes. It does not go far enough because in order to take advantage of the program one has to be, first of all, three years out of school; one has to be unemployed for three years, which is the case with some of the handicapped people. They are told: Go to the province, which has a special program for the handicapped. This is all right except that the province does not have any money or any facilities, and it is doing what the federal
[Mr. Saltsman.)
DEBATES	November 4, 1969
government wants it to do, which is practising austerity. There are handicapped children who need help. They are born with these handicaps. They are not being helped by federal programs; they are being turned away from the provincial programs and simply discarded on some kind of human junk heap. It is too expensive and troublesome to try to train them; they do not fit into the pattern.


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


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: May I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. As the time of the hon. member has expired, the unanimous consent of the house is necessary to allow the hon. member to ask his question. I understand there is not unanimous consent.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: I was wondering if the hon. member would answer a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. There is not unanimous consent.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is traditional to commend those who formally participate in this debate, the mover and the seconder and the party spokesmen. This I do readily and sincerely. There have been some notable speeches in the course of the debate. I regret I was unable to hear the speech of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) in its entirety this afternoon. I was pleased to hear that during his absence from the House of Commons he has become chancellor of the University of Saskatchewan and a patron of Canadian letters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But I did have a rueful moment at the realization that one of the last grass root hold-outs had finally capitulated and become firmly entrenched as a member of the Canadian establishment. I also extend my commendation to members for the quality of the debate to which they contributed from all sides of the House. Hon. members are obviously concerned about their constituencies and their country, and while their diagnoses and remedies vary drastically and are sometimes contradictory, I do not think anyone can question the sincerity and dedication of those who have spoken in this debate. Perhaps I will be forgiven if I single out
November 4, 1969	COMMONS
government backbenchers tor special mention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What a surprise!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was evident from the tenor and content of their speeches that they as a group have a better appreciation of some of the problems confronting Canada and Canadians as we enter a new decade and have offered more constructive suggestions and criticisms than any member of the opposition parties. I think this is an encouraging trend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps they should take the place of the cabinet.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It may be that so far as members of the opposition parties are concerned, the Address in Reply has become more and more of a ritualistic activity in which the sole preoccupation is with criticism and condemnation. If this is so, there is a hope that this atmosphere of obsessive negativism displayed by the opposition will be offset by the existence within the government party of an articulate and constructive back bench.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: During this debate hon. members have had a good deal to say about the relevancy of Parliament as it presently operates. I think the concern is that politics has taken to the streets and there is a danger that what we do and say in Parliament has more to do with past practice and protocol than with the real issues; that we are indulging in meaningless verbal posturing and pirouetting while the real concerns of the people pass us by. I believe that is the sense of the concern of members. If I sense also the correct nature of the criticism made of Parliament by its members, there is a feeling that there is not enough debate in the real sense; that the clash of ideas and convictions which we have so long cherished as one of Parliament's main purposes does not take place either in the atmosphere of immediacy or in the context of a current time frame. To this I say: Let us plug in Parliament. Let us connect the Commons to the wider community through the medium of television. I can think of no other action on our part which holds better hope of retaining or restoring
DEBATES	523
The Address-Mr. MacEachen relevancy in this institution and giving politics a place in the scheme of things in the 1970s.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The principal priority of the government, as has been stated in the debate, is to fight inflation. This priority coincides with the current concern of the majority of Canadians. We have stated the elements of the policy we have adopted to deal with this problem. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and others have put the elements of this policy on the record for examination, discussion and debate; and the governor of the Bank of Canada has made his views known. There has been a lot of criticism from the opposition and much verbal shrapnel has been flying about. To listen to the opposition, everything is wrong. Yet as I have listened and as I have read carefully the speeches made, I have noted that they have not put forward an alternative policy to that which is being followed by the government. Our analysis of the problem and our solutions have been totally uncontested by the opposition's financial spokesmen.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, instead of directly confronting the government on this main point, instead of contesting it on the main issue before the country today by a motion of non-confidence, the official opposition evaded and side-stepped that main point and resorted to vague generalities. In this connection I might mention that even the mighty thinka-thon conducted at Niagara Falls failed to produce any policies deemed worthy of inclusion either in his speech or in the non-confidence motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). The opposition leader-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Athabasca.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would permit a question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If I have any time I will be happy to answer some questions at the end of my comments. The Leader of the Opposition in his peregrinations throughout Canada before the thinkathon at Niagara Falls gave us all the impression that he was going to go over the falls in a barrel, philosophically, so
November 4, 1969

The Address-Mr. MacEachen to speak. Now that the barrel has been opened we find it to be very empty.
The leader of the New Democratic Party in his speech-I must give him this credit-did mention the main problem of the day and attacked what he called the government's misguided anti-inflationary policy; but almost all of the counter proposals which he listed are either inapplicable, long-term,- suited to the 1930s or 1980s. No proposal made by the leader of the NDP could be regarded as applicable today, this month or this year in the current concern about inflation.
So, Mr. Speaker, my conclusion is that in this debate, in the motions made by the opposition and in the speeches made by the Leader of the Official Opposition and the leader of the NDP there has been no fatal flow or deficiency found in the current policy and solution of the government of Canada on the issue of inflation. I will return later in my remarks to the general question of the attitude of the opposition parties.
I would like to mention that a number of Speakers from all sides of the House have expressed interest in the larger question of social justice for all Canadians. I think it is appropriate that members of parliament should keep constantly in the forefront the conditions that are required to fulfil the aspirations and the opportunities that are so much a part of the essence of the just society. It is also appropriate to allude in this context to the Prime Minister's statement on the constitution and the people of Canada, delivered at the second meeting of the constitutional conference in Ottawa last February. He proposed as the third objective for a true confederation:
To promote national economic, social and cultural development, and the general welfare and equality of opportunity for all Canadians in whatever region they may live, including the opportunity for gainful work, for just conditions of employment, for an adequate standard of living, for security, for education and for rest and leisure.
I am sure we all believe these are sound objectives of a true Canadian federation. We realize that to achieve this third objective of the Canadian confederation the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada must have sufficient powers to stimulate and expand economic enterprise, maintain high levels of employment, promote growth in each region of Canada and ensure reasonably equitable social and employment opportunities and income levels for all Canadians. But,

Mr. Speaker, the federal government carries only a share of the responsibility for the just society. Indeed the shape and substance of social justice are framed at many levels. It embodies most profoundly the condition of individuals and families. It embodies the interaction of persons one with another. Private citizens and corporate enterprises, as well as public institutions, have a responsibility to recognize the culture, dignity and the reasonable and legitimate economic and social aspirations of their fellowmen. Social justice takes on meaning through the actions of local associations and local governments, through school boards, property owners' associations and social service agencies. Of course provincial governments, too, play an integral role in the process.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that no single agency, no single person escapes this task. Each segment of society has a role to play, a burden to share. A just society is built upon the recognition of individual dignity, mutual tolerance, fair play and the democratic participation of all its members. I refer here not only to the men and women who are born in Canada but to those who bring their talents and cultural heritage to our shores.
Part of our rule as a Parliament, and certainly part of my job as minister, is to provide a just and hospitable environment for new Canadians. It is only two years since the government introduced new immigration regulations which for the first time based the selection of immigrants on principles of universality, non-discrimination and equality of treatment. These regulations removed the last vestiges of discrimination on racial, cultural, national or geographic grounds and ensured that equal standards of assessment would be applied to all persons applying for permanent admission to Canada.
A further expression of Canada's concern, of this Parliament's concern and of the government's concern for social justice on an even broader front was the special arrangements adopted for the admission of Czechoslovakian refugees in 1968. To date some 11,200 Czech refugees have come forward and have settled in Canada. My department has spent over $11 million on their behalf. Roughly $3 million have been spent on language training alone for over 7,000 refugees. We have been able to place roughly 80 per cent of these persons in gainful employment in Canada. Here, then, we have the happy combination of compassion and good economics.
November 4, 1969
Czech families who suffered so much in their native country are not only finding freedom and opportunity in this country but they are making a very substantial contribution to the cultural and productive life of the nation.
Another important step which we have taken as a country in the field of international humanitarianism has been the ratification of the International Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1965 protocol. The convention and protocol represent the major international instrument for the protection of refugees throughout the world. It establishes a common definition of refugees, lays down standards for fair and just treatment in countries of sanctuary and contains safeguards against their expulsion.
We have initiated through my department a variety of measures designed to promote economic justice and full employment opportunities for Canadians in every part of Canada. Surely social justice means opportunity for self-expression at work and at leisure and security of employment to provide for one's family.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Throughout the country we have established Canada Manpower centres in many new towns and areas in order to bring a broader knowledge of jobs and training or mobility incentives to workers who seek new challenges and who might otherwise be unemployed or marginally employed. We have raised the professional level of Canada Manpower counsellors so that they may provide a better service to workers. We have streamlined our offices and information media in keeping with the dignity of job-seekers in pursuing a fundamental right. We have strived to protect human rights in the operation of all manpower programs. The department, without equivocation or exception, recognizes as illegal any discrimination in employment because of race, national origin, colour, religion or political affiliation. During that last fiscal year Canada Manpower counsellors placed roughly 700,000 Canadians in jobs in all parts of the country.
In his speech the Leader of the Opposition made a passing reference to my department and its activities. He asked: Whatever became of the excellent concept behind the Department of Manpower, which seems to be starving from lack of attention and interest on the part of the cabinet as a whole? The Leader of the Opposition is wrong, of course. That
The Address-Mr. MacEachen excellent concept is alive and well and progressing on increased funds and expanded activities. On the day following the speech of the Leader of the Opposition my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) stated that in the government's view the steady expansion of the Department of Manpower is given a high priority. I want to back up that assertion with some facts and figures, although not too many.
In 1961 and 62 the federal government spent a mere $18 million on all training programs combined. Very few adults received any formal occupational training at all. Last year over 400,000 adults enrolled in the adult training program, and this year even more adults will take training. Indeed, in this current fiscal year our budget is about $250 million-13 times the total amount spent eight years ago. Mr. Speaker, the annual budget growth on training in Canada-


An hon. Member:: Who started it?


Mr, MacEachen:: -has been impressive. The annual figures are as follows: 1967-68, $160 million; 1968-69, $192 million; 1969-70, $250 million dollars. This is the current fiscal year, and as evidence of the priority we are giving to this aspect of government policy we expect to expend an increased sum of money on training in Canada in the next fiscal year. Until recently wealthier provinces got most of the federal money because they could better afford to put in matching contributions.
In 1965-66, for instance, about $177 was spent for training, per unemployed person, in Ontario as compared to $34 in the Atlantic provinces and $25 in Quebec. In short, the effort was uneven and it failed to meet adequately the needs of the poorer areas or the adult workers with family responsibilities. Social justice demanded a redressing of the balance.
The radical initiative of the occupational training program reflected the government's genuine concern for the needs of the poor and jobless, particularly those living in the less favoured areas of Canada. Expenditures now are directed to where the need is greatest. Where four years ago the vast bulk of expenditures were made in Ontario, in 1969-70 we estimate expenditures of roughly $765 per unemployed person in the Atlantic provinces, $607 in Quebec and $702 in Ontario.
Just for the interest of the Leader of the Opposition I might mention that in the last year that he was Premier of Nova Scotia, the

November 4, 1969

The Address-Mr. MacEachen expenditures on training for that province were $6.7 million and this year they have risen to $11.2 million. So we are making progress. We are attempting to follow up the work of these programs by surveys of works after they have finished their courses. The results are extremely encouraging. I know my hon. friends will be interested to know that.


An hon. Member:: We are not.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They show, for instance, that whereas more than half the workers were unemployed when they began training- many more expected shortly to be laid off- over 80 per cent who returned to the labour market were holding down good jobs after training.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the minister a question. Would he indicate the statistics on the unemployment rate presently in Atlantic Canada, broken down by province?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the first question the hon. member asked and this is a very important matter to members of this House and the taxpayers. In addition to successful returns to the labour market, the trainees also increased their incomes by about 16 per cent.. I am very proud of the work being done by the adult training program. Every month we receive dozens of letters from those who have taken training, the vast majority of whom have been helped by the program. I should like to read an excerpt from a letter recently received from a worker in Newfoundland. I read this letter because it is very moving in that it outlines in the man's own words his experience on being liberated from the shackles of unemployment and illiteracy as a result of training.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is that Joey Smallwood?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the House leader of the opposition would make light of the experience of this worker who writes as follows:
Before I attended the course, unemployment for periods of up to two years was not uncommon to me and employment was manual labour for short periods of time with constant lay-offs due to shortage of materials and weather conditions. As you can imagine life was morally and materially almost unbearable.


An hon. Member:: He is now in the Prime Minister's office.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The letter continues:
In September 1966, 1 was accepted at the Burin District Vocational School for a course in carpentry. When I entered the school, simple addition and subtraction represented the scope of my mathematic ability and although I could read and write, putting my thoughts on paper was almost impossible. When the course was finished we were familiar with trigonometry, algebra and geometry besides the knowledge of estimating for the building trades, we'd obtained a solid course in English and Science and blueprint reading plus our actual course.
I left school in June 1967 and haven't been out of work since and although the job I have now is not as a carpenter, it is a very direct result of my carpenter work.
Attending the Burin District Vocational School not only increased my job chances but has opened up a complete new life for myself and my family for which we are eternally thankful and grateful.
Mr. Speaker, this is the sentence that I think will move my hon. friends.


An hon. Member:: Good old Mike Starr!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Whether it was a benefit derived from a former government or the present one, it is still a moving letter.
I was 33 years old when I first entered the school and I can honestly say that my life began at that time.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The letter is in the man's own handwriting. He knows the true measure of social justice. I think we all get a better appreciation of social justice when it is related to the concept of individuals who have mastered the difficulties of their environment and their careers. We attempt to assist workers through our manpower mobility program. We assist workers who move from one part of Canada to another, from one part of a province to another and from one part of an area to another in order to improve their job opportunities and their incomes. We have a mobility program in Canada at the present time which is the most generous in the world. Even Sweden, which is regarded as the model by some hon. members opposite, does not come close to the generous provisions of the manpower mobility program operating in this country. We have had substantial improvement in the operation of this program. Last year roughly 44,000 persons were assisted, at a cost of $4 million. We hope this year approximately 50,000 persons will be assisted, at a cost of $6 million.
With the occupational training program and the manpower mobility program we are in.
November 4, 1969

The Address-Mr. MacEachen
most cases touching the workers on the borders of the labour market. We are touching workers who are unemployed, sometimes employed, but almost always poor, through these two programs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to mention the fact that through these two programs, involving heavy expenditures for the people of Canada, we are touching those persons who are at inadequate levels of income and employment security. We are satisfied that for every dollar that we spend on occupational training in this country we will receive $3 in the form of increased productivity from the contribution that the worker will make in his working life to the economy of Canada. This is a very important aspect of our program because it makes good sense economically and it certainly makes the best sense from the point of view of social justice.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, there can be no better social form of investment than an investment in human resources. Manpower programs not only contribute to the quality of people and the pace of change but they set the preconditions for employment security and a better life. No government and no right thinking person in Canada can be unaware of the tempers and distempers of our times. If we are to meet the challenges that our young people are directing at us today; if we are to respond to their call for involvement in social action and social justice, we must find better ways of reaching the poor, disadvantaged and alienated. We as parliamentarians must make stronger attempts to break the barriers to opportunity, the barriers to unemployment and the barriers that are created by the vicious cycle of poverty, and social deprivation which inevitably lead to disenchantment with the bonds and structures with society.
My department is attempting to make that kind of outreach, to make an extra effort to reach the disadvantaged, the alienated and the poor. If the senior member for Halifax were here he would espouse with me the
work that has been accomplished in our manpower centres in Halifax, in the Gottingen Street project, working out of a store office in a poor and black neighbourhood. We have helped people through that outreach program by employing those from among the alienated to find jobs and better employment opportunities.
We are working in Toronto with the Rotary Club which is attempting to find employment for young people who have been incapable of entering the labour market. We are actively working with a youth group in Montreal trying to find better ways of reaching and solving the problems of the poor. I do not predict that what I have been talking about will bring about the complete transformation of our society. We are all aware of the importance of a healthy, viable economy and adequate levels of labour demand to any antipoverty labour strategy. Nor will new outreach alone resolve the roots of selfish ambition and intolerance that breed social injustice. Perhaps these initiatives, together with vigorous pursuit of the other programs by the government, will mark a new beginning.
We have heard in this debate a good deal about social policy in general. The predominant theme of the criticism has been that as a government we had been more concerned with planning and individual rights than with social justice and social programs for the people. It is not very long ago, Mr. Speaker, that I sat here and listened to hon. members opposite bemoaning the initiative we were taking in the field of social justice. I can still hear ringing in my ears the criticisms of members opposite when we brought in the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan, the Medical Care Insurance Plan and the guaranteed income supplement. The cry then was: Wait for spring. Why do it now? let us do these things in stages.
Canada has come a long way in the field of social security. Any member of parliament can understand what this costs the people of Canada. We still have a long way to go in some of the programs that have already passed this House. Medicare, for example, is still not universally applicable. There are features of the Canada Assistance Plan of which many provinces have not taken advantage, such as the work activity program. In the government's view, the need now is to carry out a careful review of the social security system we have created. What are the gaps? How can the program be improved? Are we
November 4, 1969

The Address-Mr. MacEachen getting the best value for our tax dollar? What should be the next step? Should it be new programs additional to those we now have, a refinement and extension of current programs or some radically new initiative such as the guaranteed annual income? Just what are some of the options open to us in the field of social policy? We have the option of improving and strengthening existing social insurance and social assistance programs. We have the option of combining with this an extension of the guaranteed annual income concept.
The development of the guaranteed income supplement has provided the government with expertise and experience in this field and has also alerted us to some of the problems in this approach. When looking at existing programs and discussing options, the question of selectivity-which has been discussed at length-must be examined carefully. In this examination the government must take into account our financial resources and the willingness or otherwise of the Canadian taxpayer to support additional programs. It must take into account jurisdictional realities as well as existing programs, because we cannot start as if nothing had happened or as if there were no programs in existence in Canada. Whatever system we adopt or whatever technique we devise, we must be aware that the first focus is on people and that ultimately the techniques exist to deliver incomes and services to the people of Canada. We are trying to answer these questions and determine our course of action. Our conclusions will be made public in the white paper on social security.
What of the opposition? What are their proposals? In his speech the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) attempted to explain why his party had voted against the subamendment of the Creditiste party. He quoted extensively from the Niagara resolutions to show that his party was in favour of the incentive society. What is an incentive society?
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


David Lewis: Don't ask me.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The official opposition guru in exile, Dalton Camp, claims that the Conservative Party is now left of the NDP. This was after Niagara Falls and before Winnipeg. Where "left of the NDP" is now, after the rhetoric and double-talk at Winnipeg, only God himself can tell the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) rose at the expiration of the minister's time. Quite properly, the minister was allowed to continue. Discussions have taken place between the house leaders which indicate that there are only a few minutes of formal business to be conducted after the question is put. On behalf of my hon. friend from Charlevoix I feel I must ask whether the House is prepared to allow him the few minutes of time he would normally have taken, provided we finish our business before ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard is the voice of the conscience of the Liberal party, of the government in power. Every time the government is in trouble, it invariably calls upon its trouble-shooter, the Minister of Labour and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) to come to the rescue.
I must say the minister has responded with his usual skill, but many a time he makes inconsistent statements.
Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Labour and Immigration attempts to ridicule the Progressive Conservative party's Niagara Falls meeting, he is out of order, because the purpose of this major meeting at Niagara Falls was not only the guidance of our party, but also a study of the problems now facing Canadians in order to find solutions for them. And if the minister has faith in the democracy of parties, I think he should be proud of the efforts made by the Progressive Conservative party at Niagara Falls to reach that objective.
Indeed, I think the Liberals will follow our lead in this field. They do so often because, on the first day of our Niagara Falls convention, the national chairman of the Liberal party announced in the newspapers that his party would hold sessions in Vancouver next fall in order to review its political programme and study the problems of Canadians.
The minister lacks sincerity when he tries to ridicule the serious meeting we had. Undoubtedly he merely wanted to joke about
November 4, 1969

the solutions that the government itself should find to rectify Canada's present situation.
Mr. Speaker, this serious situation has not been corrected in the Speech from the Throne which, in my opinion, lacks aggressiveness. I think that two priorities should have deserved more attention: inflation and the way to fight unemployment effectively.
It is not by propounding the abolishment of
25.000	jobs in the civil service any more than by closing four or five embassies that this government will effectively and definitely deal with the problem of inflation.
If the government neither has the courage nor the possibility to convince union leaders and industrialists to co-operate with it in order to support its anti-inflationary measures, the suggestions contained in the Speech from the Throne are not worth anything to settle existing problems.
Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec with
140.000	unemployed finds itself in a serious situation. A recent study carried out throughout the province showed that with the exception of the Italians, it is the French Canadians who are getting the lowest wages.
We are amazed at the unrest now existing in Quebec. If action was taken-and I do not only accuse the federal government but also every other level of government-to settle the unemployment problem and economic matters, it would be easier to solve the cultural and linguistic problems.
As we have seen lately, Quebec is in a turmoil because federal politicians have failed to take seriously the options which the separatist movement offers to Quebecers. It was attempted to ignore the problem and to pursue an ostrich policy by saying: There are no separatists. Unfortunately there are many separatists in Quebec.
As for the separatism which was feared at a certain time but which was ignored, I think it has gone beyond reasonable limits. We do not witness mere excessive demonstrations of separatism and nationalism, but as could be seen last week, the explosion of a movement likely to cause a bloody revolution in Quebec.
May I ask that members be more quiet, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May we have silence in the chamber.
The Address-Mr. Asselin [DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Martial Asselin: Being nationalist scarcely
one year ago, these movements have perhaps become sovereignist or independantist. All this has been stired up by professional agitators. In Quebec, some teachers who should educate our children have become professional agitators and had the students take part in protest marches against the authorities.
Will the speech recently given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Montreal settle the question? Indeed, the Prime Minister asked Liberal supporters to change the present Quebec government. Did the Prime Minister call on the Liberal militants to contest the policy of the Quebec government which is going to fight effectively the revolutionary movement that is beginning to be felt in Quebec? In my view the Prime Minister's statement had only one purpose: to fan the fire of the separatists, because these people have only one aim the dismemberment of the federal state.
It is not by using violence that we can check such movements as that, but rather by offering to the reasonable people of Quebec a new philosophy and a new orientation, by showing them that it is in the best interests of Canadians to live in a federal state.
How shall we achieve this? The responsibility in this regard does not rest solely with the members of the opposition, but also with the government members, especially with those from Quebec and also with the members of the Ralliement creditiste.
In my opinion, it is absolutely necessary to awaken within the adult population of Quebec a feeling of responsibility so that they may stand up to the young people who do not understand the problems now being discussed in Quebec.
I know that I have no right to criticize provincial legislation, but I wish to emphasize that three quarters of the young people who demonstrated recently in front of the Parliament buildings in Quebec had no understanding whatever of Bill 63 which was being discussed in the National Assembly.
How shall we achieve this, Mr. Speaker? By trying to awaken a sense of responsibilities among highly placed people in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada: union leaders, industrialists, directors of Chambers of Commerce, members of Rotary Clubs, in short, all those whose task is to support a legitimate government which introduces legislation for the benefit of the population.

November 4, 1969
Business of Supply
Anti-gaullist demonstrations by French students stopped when responsible people told the government: We are with you and we will back you.
Then the revolutionary students returned home and the population listened to common sense and to reason.
As a Quebecker, I am deeply sorry to see that some people in Quebec who have certain responsibilities towards their community, although perhaps not actively involved in politics, witness such events as those of last week without uttering one word or showing some reaction.
It is now high time that the voice of common sense and reason be heard in Quebec. May I tell my colleagues from Quebec that regardless of their political affiliation, they must stand united with us and urge the responsible people in that province to support every legislative proposal aimed at saving the Quebec community, both French-speaking and English-speaking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It was my understanding of the concensus of the House that the hon. member be given until ten o'clock. If that was the agreement, then pursuant to section 5 of Standing Order 38 it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings and to put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Cullen) agreed to.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the said Address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the House at its next sitting consider the business of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the ways and means motions relating to the amendment of the Income Tax Act laid before the House Friday, October 24, 1969, be now concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that Bill C-139, to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the first time and printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Ways and Means motion relating to the amendment of the Customs Tariff and Excise Tax Act laid before the House Friday, October 24, 1969, be now concurred in.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that Bill C-140, to amend the Customs Tariff and to make a consequential amendment to the Excise Tax Act, be read the first time and printed.


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

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, there were discussions this afternoon about the nature of the business for tomorrow. Perhaps at this time the acting government house leader would like to enlighten hon. members on this score.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, if the bills which the House has just considered and given first reading have been printed and are ready, we will proceed with the second reading of the Income Tax bill, followed by the Customs
November 4, 1969
Tariff and Excise Tax bill. If they are not prepared and printed in time, we will proceed with item No. 8 on the Order Paper, the Expo winding-up bill, followed by item No. 11, the bill in respect of the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act. We will then proceed with item No. 19, the Canada Student Loans Act. If we need more business for tomorrow, hon. members might consult Hansard for Friday last which contains the
Business of the House tentative plans we will follow as announced by the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock in the afternoon, pursuant to standing order.
It being four minutes after ten o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.



Wednesday, November 5, 1969