1970-10-13

PRIVILEGE


Mr. G. W. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a question of privilege relating to the presence within these buildings of armed troops. I do not believe it has ever been necessary in Canadian history to have troops stationed within the precincts of Parliament. I, as a private member, may not be aware, of course, of all that the government may be, but it strikes me as deplorable that armed troops should be within the building. If it were necessary for the protection of members to have additional security within the building, I would not object, but the physical presence of armed troops revolts me.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reassure the hon. member and the House that it was not by design that members of the armed forces were in the building this morning. When it was first communicated to me that, in the course of duties which were to be performed, as arranged last night, for the protection of members on both sides of the House and other members of the Ottawa community, the armed forces had come on to Parliament Hill, I issued instructions immediately that they were to retire and not be within the buildings. I regret that it was through an error that they came within the precincts of Parliament. We are taking steps to make sure that it does not occur again.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka that perhaps the matter should not be pursued further. I am in full sympathy with the point he has raised and assure him that the presence of armed guards in the buildings was without the authority of the Chair. In view of the action which has been taken now by the Minister of National Defence, I assume that no further action will be required. The protection of members has been the responsibility of the protective staff of the House of Commons, and this situation continues.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce the
successful conclusion of our discussions in Stockholm with representatives of the People's Republic of China, reflected in today's joint communique which records our agreement on mutual recognition and the establishment of diplomatic relations. The joint communique of the government of Canada and the government of the People's Republic of China concerning the establishment of diplomatic relations between Canada and China is as follows:
1.	The government of Canada and the government of the People's Republic of China, in accordance with the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, noninterference in each other's internal affairs and equality and mutual benefit, have decided upon mutual recognition and the establishment of diplomatic relations, effective October 13, 1970.
2.	The Chinese government reaffirms that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China. The Canadian government takes note of this position of the Chinese government.
3.	The Canadian government recognizes the government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China.
4.	The Canadian and Chinese governments have agreed to exchange ambassadors within six months, and to provide all necessary assistance for the establishment and the performance of the functions of diplomatic missions in their respective capitals, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit and in accordance with international practice.
Officials from my department and from Industry, Trade and Commerce will be leaving for Peking very shortly to begin administrative preparations for the opening of a Canadian embassy in Peking. We hope to have the embassy in operation within two or three months.
The establishment of diplomatic relations between Canada and China is an important step in the development of relations between our two countries, but it is not the first step, nor is it an end in itself. We have opened a new and important channel of communication, through which I hope we will be able to expand and develop our relations in every sphere. We have already indicated to the Chinese, in our Stockholm discussions, our interest in setting up cultural and educational exchanges, in expand-^
understanding on consular matters,~and in settling a small number of problems left over from an earlier period. The Chinese have expressed the view that our relations in other fields such as these can only benefit from the establishment of diplomatic relations between our two countries. They have also agreed in principle to discuss through normal diplomatic channels, as soon as our respective embassies are operating, some of the specific issues we have raised with them.
As everyone knows, the agreement published today has been under discussion for a long time. I do not think it is any secret that a great deal of this discussion has revolved around the question of Taiwan. From the very beginning of our discussions the Chinese side made clear

October 13, 1970
Recognition of Red China
to us their position that Taiwan was an inalienable part of Chinese territory and that this was a principle to which the Chinese government attached the utmost importance. Our position, which I have stated publicly and which we made clear to the Chinese from the start of our negotiations, is that the Canadian government does not consider it appropriate either to endorse or to challenge the Chinese government's position on the status of Taiwan. This has been our position and it continues to be our position. As the communique says, we have taken note of the Chinese government's statement about Taiwan. We are aware that this is the Chinese view and we realize the importance they attach to it, but we have no comment to make one way or the other.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: For greater clarification, Mr. Speaker, could I have the consent of the House to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government of Canada is breaking off diplomatic relations with the government of Taiwan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it agreed that the Leader of the Opposition may ask a question at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for his question, because I think it is important that it should be answered at this time.
There is no disagreement between the Canadian government and the authorities in Taipeh on the impossibility of continuing diplomatic relations after the government of Peking is recognized as the government of China. Both Peking and Taipeh assert that it is not possible to recognize simultaneously more than one government as the government of China. Accordingly, the authorities on Taiwan and the Canadian government have each taken steps to terminate formal diplomatic relations as of the time of the announcement of our recognition of the government of the People's Republic of China.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have previously commented on this matter. I have tried to make my position very clear. I have stated and still believe that it is realistic and appropriate to recognize what is in fact the government of a country if it can be done, as I previously said, under decent and acceptable conditions.
The government of Peking has in fact been the government of mainland China for many years. Experience has indicated that in the long run it is better to bring about recognition by the society of nations and to establish working relations with what is in fact the de facto government of a country. This, of course, does not involve in any way approval of the purposes of the particular government or the way in which it functions. Canada has diplomatic relations with a good many countries although, to put it mildly, we do not wholeheartedly approve of their method of operation.
Although this is a matter of controversy, I recognize the fact that it is appropriate to establish diplomatic

relations with Peking under the proper conditions. I still believe that it is not appropriate to accept as a condition the withdrawal of recognition of the government of Taiwan.


Mitchell William Sharp: There is no government of Taiwan.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister says there is no government of Taiwan. There has been a government, Mr. Speaker, with which we have had diplomatic relations. There is no question about its de facto jurisdiction over Taiwan.


Mitchell William Sharp: Over China.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: To allow ourselves to be pushed into the position of withdrawing recognition of the government that has been in fact the government of Taiwan in order to achieve diplomatic relations with the bigger fellow is not an acceptable condition. Therefore I do not approve of the government of Canada breaking off diplomatic relations with the government of Taiwan.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
If the government of Taiwan breaks off diplomatic relations with the government of Canada because of recognition of Peking, that is its responsibility. I want to be very clear about that. But I want to be equally clear that I do not approve of the government of Canada having bargained with Peking for recognition and exchange of representation on the basis that Canada would break off diplomatic relations with the Taiwan government, which does appear to have been a condition of diplomatic recognition by Peking in this case. I do not approve of the government of Canada having accepted that condition and I wish to make this very clear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party have long urged the recognition of the People's Republic of China by the government of Canada. We are very glad, therefore, that the government of Canada and the government of mainland China have been able to work out the necessary arrangements whereby diplomatic relations can be established between our two countries.
The present government in mainland China has been the de facto government of that vast area for some 21 years, and it seems to be ridiculous to go on failing to recognize the existence of a government which controls almost a quarter of the earth's population. It seems to me that the time was long overdue for taking the step which has now been taken. I am convinced that once diplomatic relations have been established we can work out many cultural exchanges and trading relationships to the mutual advantage of both countries. I believe most Canadians will feel that the step the government has now taken is one which is not only in the interest of Canada but one which could be in the interest of world peace. I say that because I do not think one can long keep a large country such as China out of the councils of the world.
October 13, 1970

With reference to the severing of diplomatic relations with the government or Nationalist China, I would simply point out that when the government in Taiwan is prepared to state that it is the government of that area, and of that area only, it will be time for the Canadian government to negotiate with that government for diplomatic recognition. But as long as the Taiwan government claims to be the government of China, which clearly it is not, it is impossible for the Canadian government to recognize two governments of China. If the government in Formosa should decide to restrict the area over which it claims sovereignty it would then be possible for the Canadian government to discuss with it the question of recognition and the exchange of diplomatic representatives.
I hope that since the government has established, or is in process of establishing, diplomatic relations with mainland China we will now take a much more forthright position with reference to mainland China's entry into the United Nations and her right to sit on the Security Council. I do not think that the United Nations will ever be an effective body for maintaining the rule of law in the world as long as it excludes a country which represents such a vast proportion of the world's population. To have a Security Council composed of the United States, the U.S.S.R., Great Britain, France and Taiwan is ridiculous. I hope that the Canadian government will show some courage at the United Nations by pressing for the admission of China to the United Nations and her right to take her seat on the Security Council of that body.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely incredible and upsetting to see the other parties applaud the statement in which the government announced the recognition of Communist China.
At this time when federal, provincial and municipal governments, as well as all police and armed forces must defend the fundamental freedoms of citizens, the federal government takes it upon itself to recognize a country whose government is composed of men much alike the FLQ members.
Is that logical? Everybody is scared! We are all afraid to leave the Parliament buildings, to go to Montreal or Quebec, because FLQ members could kidnap us and make us join Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte. We hear the members of the NDP, the Progressive Conservative and the Liberal parties applaud the recognition of Communist China because it will promote the sale of a few bushels of wheat to the Chinese and cultural exchanges.
Have we so great a need for the Communist culture of the Chinese? For 21 years, we have recognized Nationalist China. Today, the minister informs us that Nationalist China no longer exists. We break off all relations with that country and we recognize one government only: the one that was forced on the Chinese people by the revolution.
In Canada, however, we want to pass a law to fight revolution. I hear some laughter; some think this is funny. Taken by the FLQ at 2 o'clock this afternoon, they will say: Try to free the political or ideological criminals that are being held in Montreal.
Environmental Pollution
Mr. Speaker, we do not accept recognition of Red China.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: Let the government heed our words: we are against revolution. We are in favour of freedom for the human being. We shall not safeguard such freedom by granting recognition to those who spread discord and revolution throughout the world.
This is our position: freedom at home. Yes, but a sound one, one which will permit us to go ahead, to develop our country, not to give it up or to surrender it to people thirsting for blood and revolution in the world.
If we repudiate the FLQ in the province of Quebec, we have no right to recognize Chinese or Russian communists or any others.
I notice that you are about to call me to order, Mr. Speaker, but before resuming my seat, I should like to say that the government is making a mistake in asking us, on the orie~Eand, to stop the FLQ from going wild and kidnapping people and, on the~other, to recognize Com-' munislT China which is~resorting to the same tactics: kidnaj-miTTgs-. executions. TevolF~and~ielective assassination.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)



ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, there was a special committee in existence last session dealing with the question of pollution. I believe there has been discussion among members of the other parties and, with the consent of the House, I should like to move a motion that would have the effect of establishing this committee for this session. I move:
That a special committee of the House of Commons he established to investigate generally the problem of pollution in the waters, soil and air of Canada, and the plans of the federal government in relation thereto, with powers to report from time to time its observations, opinions and recommendations thereon;
That the committee be empowered to send for persons, papers, and records; to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House; to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee; to appoint, from among its members, such subcommittees as it may deem advisable or necessary, and to delegate thereto all or any of its powers, except the power to report directly to the House;
That the evidence adduced by the committee during the past session in relation thereto be referred to the said committee;
And that the members of the committee be Messrs. Aiken, Anderson, Beaudoin, Comeau, Deakon, Gibson, Givens, Haidasz, Harding, Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand), Lachance, and Sulatycky.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, now that it appears the government has adopted this outlaw as its own we are prepared to go along with the proposal.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: We are
happy to support this motion, Mr. Speaker.

October 13, 1970
Constitution of Canada


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the President of the Privy Council. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Government Notices of Motions-The President of the Privy Council:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to examine and report upon proposals, made public, or which are from time to time made public by the Government of Canada, on a number of subjects related to the Constitution of Canada during the course of the comprehensive review of the Constitution of Canada, which review was agreed upon at the Constitutional Conference of the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premiers and Prime Ministers of the Provinces in February, 1968, and alternative proposals on the same subjects;
That the Committee have power to appoint, from among its members, such sub-committees as it may deem advisable or necessary;
That the Committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the Committee have power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers, and records, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within Canada;
That the quorum of the Committee be 17 members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and that the Joint Chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when 7 members are present so long as both Houses are represented;
That the Committee be empowered to retain the services of three specialists to assist it in its work; and that it also be empowered to retain the clerical and stenographic help deemed advisable by the Joint Chairmen;
That the papers and evidence received and taken on the subject in the preceding session be referred to the Committee and made part of the records thereof;
That the following Members be appointed to act on behalf of the Special Joint Committee, namely: Messrs Alexander, All-mand, Asselin, Breau, Brewin, Dinsdale, Fairweather, Fortin, Gibson, Hogarth, Hopkins, Lachance, MacGuigan, Marceau, Mc-Quaid, Osier, Ouellet, Roberts, Rowland and Woolliams; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I say that it has not been possible to clear up the disagreements or, more properly, reservations in connection with this motion. It may be possible to do so later. With your consent and the consent of the House I should like to suggest that the notice of motion be stood in its place until a later day.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there is any further information he can give at this time with regard to the kidnapping cases? I ask this question in full knowledge of the possible delicacies of the position and responsibilities of the Prime Minister.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the way in which the question was asked and I shall attempt to answer it as best I can. I think the simplest thing to say is there is complete agreement between the government of Quebec and the government of Canada on the position taken by Premier Bourassa yesterday afternoon when he made it quite clear that the only thing that had to be done now was to ensure through negotiations that there be a mechanism established for the release of Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte. This is the thing that has to be established at the outset. I might add that on the general topic I can only express an opinion. I do sometimes wish that the media-radio, television and press-would exercise a bit more restraint in talking about these problems. It is a mistake, I think, to give them publicity, which is the thing they hope for most. I also think it is a mistake to encourage the use of the term "political prisoners" for men who are bandits.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
* S*S *



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the settlement for the postal workers and now the decision handed down by an arbitrator with regard to certain senior civil servants, which provides for
October 13, 1970

increases in salaries ranging from 13 per cent to 15 per cent, may I ask the government whether this means the government has now abandoned the 6 per cent wage guideline as being unworkable and ineffective?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the guideline was introduced as just that, a guideline. In answer to my hon. friend's question I should like to say that, in the opinion of the government at least, unless labour and income settlements generally attain a lower level than that at which they have been running in current months and over the past year or so the long-run battle against inflation is a long way from won because these costs are bound to build themselves back into the cost structure of the economy.



CRITICISMS BY CHAIRMAN OF PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION-GOVERNMENT POLICY

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Do the statements made by Dr. Young, the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission, having to do with his criticism of the business community's general lack of willingness to face up to strikes and his criticism of Steinberg's for increasing wages despite the assurance of that firm that this meant no increase in prices, represent government policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as is well known, the setting up of the commission is government policy. I do not know of any mechanism whereby the commission checks its statements with the government before they are made on matters such as the hon. member just quoted. Therefore they cannot be said to be government policy because they were not devised by the government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that Dr. Young is the chairman of a commission set up by the government and in view of the fact that his attacks have been almost solely on wage and salary increases, accompanied by a significant silence about increases in the profits of the chartered banks, does the Prime Minister not consider that the effectiveness of the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission has come to an end?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the Leader of the Opposition in a moment, but I suggest to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that his question is in the form of an argument and is not acceptable in those terms.



CONTINUATION OF POLICY OF RESTRAINT AND WAGE INCREASE GUIDELINE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance tell the House whether it is going to be the policy of government to continue the policy of restraint and the 6 per cent guideline? Is it going to continue to be the policy of the
Inquiries of the Ministry
government to follow this approach in the fight against inflation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking at some length on this matter later this day.



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. My question relates to the Prices and Incomes Commission. Is the government drawing on the contingency fund to pay the increased cost of the Prices and Incomes Commission or will there be a supplementary estimate which will be submitted to Parliament?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as additional funds beyond those provided in the main estimates will be needed, there will be a supplementary estimate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the element of policy involved in this, will that estimate be submitted to the House of Commons at an early date?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, all supplementary estimates are submitted to the House of Commons.


Gerald William Baldwin: Not willingly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will this be done at an early date?
* Si* *



POST OFFICE


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Post Office.
Can the minister tell us whether negotiations with the former employees of G. LaPalme Inc. of Montreal have come to an end, or whether he will have other meetings with the representatives of these people who have been the victims of their own union?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that the meetings I have had with the employees of G. LaPalme Inc. took place after their statement that they have had nothing to do with the kidnappings of hostages. My final meeting is scheduled for 3 p.m. today.

October 13, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this question to the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General but in their absence may I put it to the Prime Minister. Is it the government's policy, which seems to be established now because of two previous cases, to exercise in all cases the Royal prerogative and commute all death sentences of persons charged and convicted of the murder of policeofficers, having regard to the present legislation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, all cases are decided on an individual basis by cabinet and it would be a mistake to say that there is a policy which applies in advance to all cases. Of course the law itself is to be reviewed by the House of Commons at the expiration of five years.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in view of the seriousness of what has occurred recently in western Canada and elsewhere, would the Prime Minister agree that this is the proper and appropriate time for the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General to make a report, particularly in view of the fact that murder has increased by 55 per cent in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have had a report on this particular case from the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. At this time there is nothing to announce except that the search is being continued and that the RCMP are being assisted by the armed forces. I will bring the suggestion of the hon. member to the attention of the minister and if he has anything to add he will do so.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement just made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the agreement of the governments of Canada and the People's Republic of China on the establishment of diplomatic relations I have a twofold question. What commitment has the government of Canada given to the government in Peking regarding sponsoring or supporting the admission of that country into the; United Nations? Second, has Canada in her negotiations with the Peking government determined whether or not that government will support the charter of the United Nations and particularly the declaration of human rights?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, during the negotiations I said publicly in this House and elsewhere, and the same position was stated to the representatives of the People's Republic of China in Stockholm, that if we establish diplomatic 
relations with the People's Republic of China as the government of China it would, of course, be quite consistent and to be expected that we would support that government in the occupation of the China seat.


Robert Norman Thompson: Could I have an answer to the second question regarding whether or not the government of Peking will pledge its support of the charter of the United Nations and the declaration of human rights?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should assume that if the government of the People's Republic of China wishes to occupy the seat of China in the United Nations it would at that time be declaring its support for the charter.



TAXATION


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in respect of the timetable for the introduction of income tax changes arising out of the white paper on taxation. In view of the indefinite reference to the timing of legislation in the Speech from the Throne, can the minister assure the House that such legislation will be introduced during the current session and that it is the intention of the government to proceed with legislative enactments at the current session?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



MANPOWER


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration concerning a news release, which I believe all hon. members received over the weekend from an organization known as Student Employment Europe, under the heading "5000 Canadian students to work in Germany summer 1971". Was this document prepared with the co-operation of the minister's department and is his department in fact calling upon West Germany to aid Canada's faltering student employment program?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will have noticed as well a recent press release about the very great effort which was made this past year in connection with the employment of students for the summer; that general effort will, of course, be extended and strengthened. So far as the particular news release is concerned, I should like to take the question as notice.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would look into the situation surrounding the delivery of this document which came without envelope and appeared to many of us to be one of the multitudinous outpourings from the minister's department?
October 13, 1970



STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT-ABILITY TO CONTINUE EDUCATION

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether any systematic canvass is being made by the federal government in co-operation with the provinces regarding the position of students at this time of the year following the summer, for example, as to how many have had to drop out of university or high school because of employment difficulties during the summer? Is any such systematic canvass being made by the minister or his department?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, a survey is under way of the situation in regard to students and the effectiveness of employment programs this past summer.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the minister answer the question I asked him, whether a systematic canvass is being made as to the effect on these students? I did not ask him about the success of his program but the state today of students as a result of this summer's difficulties?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered the question and if I should say in addition to the Leader of the Official Opposition that the study is systematic I would be glad to do so.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if I may ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, in line with the questions asked by my leader, whether there is any active and real negotiation between the provinces and the federal government with regard to extending university facilities which are sadly overcrowded in all provinces in Canada today?


Otto Emil Lang: That question goes beyond the purview of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. The question of education of course falls principally within the scope of the provincial governments, as I am sure the hon. member knows.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Could he tell us whether steps have been taken for a jurisdictional transfer in New Quebec and whether he anticipates a settlement in the near future, particularly in the field of education?


Hon.   Jean. Chretien@Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: Mr. Speaker, discussions are still going on with Quebec authorities and I had the opportunity to meet with the Minister of Natural Resources two weeks ago in this regard. It is a very intricate
Inquiries of the Ministry
problem as the Eskimos have expressed their opinion very clearly and discussions are still going on with them and with the provincial authorities. We hope to find an area of agreement satisfactory to the three parties concerned.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister.
Could the construction of a million-dollar school at Fort George be interpreted as the desire of the federal government to transfer the jurisdiction in education to the provincial government of Quebec?


Mr. Chreiien:: Mr. Speaker, the Eskimo population should not be deprived of education facilities because some people are quarrelling. We are taking our responsibilities in order to offer those Eskimos and those Indians the best education opportunities.



RESOLUTE BAY-USE OF NATIVE LABOUR ON LOCAL PROJECTS

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I had intended to ask the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a supplementary question, but I will forgo that and instead ask the minister directly whether he is aware of a preposterous situation whereby Department of Transport officials at Resolute Bay in the Northwest Territories, upon briefing Canadian and U.S. businessmen intending to bid on a particular five-year contract for catering and the like, have advised private industry at that Arctic community and other posts not to consider native labour for local projects and to regard available Eskimos as occasional help? In light of previous declarations by the government that it had a favourable approach to promoting the employment of Indians and Eskimos, would the minister look into this matter and report to the House at an early date?
[Translation\


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I really cannot understand that attitude. This is not official government policy. On various occasions we have said that, like the government, the private sector has to make special efforts in order to provide the Eskimos and the Indians of that region with regular jobs.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In light of the highly sensational and widely varying reports with regard to the bringing of additional troops into Ottawa and their use, would the minister advise the House just what is the situation, what use will be made of these troops and how many were brought in?

October 13, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the troops were brought in at the request of the security forces, principally the RCMP, to supplement the police resources, which have been under very considerable strain, for the purpose of the protection of individuals and property. I think it would be undesirable to indicate either the specific roles or the number of troops in order to preserve the basic security involved.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is the purpose to supplement the police forces or are these troops to take on additional duties that the police forces would not normally fulfil?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 

UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Was it upon his explicit instructions that the Canadian delegation at the United Nations abstained in the vote on a resolution in the special political committee calling for the adherence of all states to an arms embargo against South Africa?


Mitchell William Sharp: Obviously the delegation acts on my
instructions.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Would the minister indicate to the House when we might expect a cabinet decision upon the question of shipment or spare parts to the Union of South Africa in light of the Security Council and special committee resolutions, and would he indicate whether, once that decision is made, we may expect a statement in the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: 

AGRICULTURE


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Now that the province of Manitoba has decided to intervene in the proceedings involving the validity of regulations in Quebec prohibiting the importation of agricultural products, will the minister indicate to the House whether or not the gov-

ernment of Canada will be represented by counsel at those proceedings? Alternatively, will he discuss with the Minister of Justice the necessity of proceeding directly to the Supreme Court and securing a speedy decision on this issue as was done in the breathalyzer case?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Without reviving all of the points I have raised in reply to the hon. member's previous questions on the same subject, I would like to say that I have discussed this matter and will do so again with the Minister of Justice in view of the new developments. But I have to say that I do not believe that a satisfactory solution to the whole problem can be reached as expeditiously through that route as through the one I indicated to the House some time ago.


Gerald William Baldwin: You and I are not on the same wavelength.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Did discussions take place with the government of Denmark at the recent meetings held in Copenhagen, referred to in a press release issued by the minister's office today, regarding the conservation of Atlantic salmon? If no agreement was reached, is the minister now prepared to recommend to his cabinet colleagues economic sanctions against Denmark?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: will certainly continue to give that matter consideration.


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps the minister might answer my question before he starts considering it. The question was specifically whether the government discussed with the government of Denmark at the meetings held in Copenhagen recently the question of the conservation of Atlantic salmon and the harvesting of that species by Denmark which is threatening its very survival?


John (Jack) Davis: We had discussions in Ottawa with the Minister of Fisheries from Denmark late in the spring. I am not aware of any recent discussions with Denmark on the subject of fishing for salmon in the Atlantic.



PESTICIDES


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on a matter which has been previously discussed. In view of the reported decision by the federal Department of Agriculture to extend for one year the use of the pesticide DDD, which was to be banned as of January 1, 1971, can the minister inform the House
October 13, 1970

whether the department received any information indicating that this chemical has become less dangerous and less a health hazard which could justify such a decision?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not
think that this is the reason in the context in which the question was asked. As was pointed out, there was a 90 per cent curb on the purposes for which DDD could be used, but a condition was attached that satisfactory alternative chemicals would be available for some of the purposes for which that chemical had been banned. However, I will check into the situation and give a more specific reply to the question tomorrow.


Mr. John L. Slioberg (Moose Jaw):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say why general notices of changes will be sent out by private letters to chemical manufacturers and not be announced by public notices? How will the public know of any general notices of changes?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think it is done by both routes, although I presume that the private letters that go to industry are of a more technical nature giving details respecting the technology that is involved in the statements. I do not believe there is any attempt to refrain from notifying the public in general terms.



LOCAL ELEVATOR CONGESTION-AVAILABILITY OF BOXCARS

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: wish to direct my question to the minister responsible to the House for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that farmers are unable to deliver their prescribed quotas at the present time owing to congestion in the local elevators, what assurance can the minister give the House that boxcars will be available to transport the amount of grain that he professes to have sold?


Otto Emil Lang: The program for the very heavy deliveries of grain is going ahead very well. There is congestion in some elevators as a result of some heavy deliveries on the quotas wh'ch have been opened fairly wide, and this congestion is being relieved as rapidly as possible. Certainly it is simply a matter of time until cars arrive to provide space in elevators for the delivery of these quotas. Of course in the meantime the farmers have the cash advance program available to tide them over.
* * $



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the. Minister of Agriculture.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Can the minister tell the House whether Canada received a certain amount of butter from New Zealand this summer?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 

NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development arising out of the matter of oil exploration on Banks Island in the Canadian north. Will he table in the House any memoranda of agreements between the government and the Eskimo people, between the government and the oil companies or between the Eskimo people and the oil companies, so that we may fully understand what decision has been arrived at in connection with this exploration?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think I could table the text of the agreement between the companies and the government, agreement which has been communicated to the Eskimos' lawyer in Banks Island and whose contents was discussed with the Eskimos a few weeks ago in the presence of representatives from the government and the companies.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister to answer my original question. Will he table these documents in the House so that members can examine them?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to table the documents we have but I do not know if they are available right now. I am not aware whether they have been returned to me by those who signed them.



BAFFIN ISLAND-PROPOSED RE-OPENING OF IRON MINES -CONSULTATION WITH NATIVE PEOPLE

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister with reference to a question I put to him the other day about the possible re-opening of iron ore mines on Baffin Island and the negotiations going on with a consortium of South African and American companies. Have there been any consultations with the native population in that area in order to protect their aboriginal rights in this matter?

October 13, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this question is still at the preliminary stage. This is the situation: Very large deposits of iron ore have been discovered and we are presently studying the possibility of working these deposits to provide a large number of jobs for the Eskimo population of the area. However, we are not yet in a position to report on this development.
The Eskimos are aware of the possibilities of this area and we certainly will be able to discuss with them, during negotiations, the degree of their participation in this development.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Richmond.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a
further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question just asked by the hon. member was not really supplementary to the preceding one, and the Chair has recognized the hon. member for Richmond. I will return to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands in a moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he can give the House the assurance that no final agreement will be entered into with the consortium of South African and American corporations to which I referred until there has been full consultation with the native people with respect to their aboriginal rights?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are aware that this will have important implications for the Eskimos, and I can assure the House that we shall in due course discuss with them all the aspects of the problem, more specifically the issue foremost in my mind: to make sure that Eskimos will be hired and will get all the education and the training needed to do an efficient job.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council.
As the debate on Bill C-197 was adjourned at the close of the last session a few days ago, would the President of the Privy Council inform the House whether the Standing Committee on Agriculture will continue its study of this bill so that it may be referred back to the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is on the list of bills. Just how it will be advanced and when, I will disclose later.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the decision to close the DVA office in London, England, would the minister advise what continuing service will be provided for the many Canadian veterans who receive assistance and are resident in England, and what is being done to reassign the staff employed there?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 

PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT OF EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY MINISTER

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether at a very early date, perhaps in the throne speech debate today, he intends to make a statement with regard to the enlargement of the European Common Market that is now under consideration, and further, whether he intends to make a statement as to the views he expressed abroad with regard to some plan he has in mind as to the reference of any agreement between Great Britain and the EEC to some international organization?
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisier of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I hope to do that soon. I was expecting to be challenged by what the Leader of the Opposition had to say on this subject in his speech on Friday last, but I must admit I was not. I was hoping he would provoke me into entering the debate but there was not much in what he said on the subject. However, I will try to be provoked just the same.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I point out to the hon. gentleman in the same spirit, Mr. Speaker, that, whatever importance he may attach to my views, this is a very important question, and I hope he will have something important to say on this subject inasmuch as no spokesman for the government has done so to date.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport or in his absence for his Parliamentary Secretary. In view of the
October 13, 1970

completely unsatisfactory service now provided by Pacific Western Airlines in Kootenay West after its recent purchase of B.C. Airlines, would the minister personally investigate the existing service with a view to having it improved, as was promised to the citizens of the area at an Air Transport Committee hearing in Castlegar several months ago?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: In the absence of the minister, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this question as notice.


Randolph Harding: Would the minister also check immediately the reasons for PWA cancelling the former Saturday and Sunday air link between Castlegar and Calgary via Cranbrook?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that his supplementary question should normally be placed on the order paper or discussed at the time of adjournment, but since it is supplementary to a previous question to which the Parliamentary Secretary has undertaken to give a reply it has been accepted along with the main question.



RESEARCH


Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Following the tabling last week of the answer to a question of mine, which shows that 70 per cent of all federal government nonrepayable financial grants for scientific research and development during the years 1965 to 1969 were awarded to foreign-owned firms, could the minister advise the House whether his department has now begun a reassessment of its scientific grant programs with a view to bringing about a change so that most grants will go to Canadian-owned companies?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, we do not discriminate in the support that my department gives to research and development. We give it wherever it is being done when it is in the Canadian interest, even when it is being done by foreign-owned companies in Canada. The proviso, of course, is that such research will be used in Canada. That is how the program is being administered.



MANPOWER


Mr. Rod Thomson (Balileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the minister made any approach to his colleague, the Minister of Labour, with respect to a method of providing new jobs for workers affected by
The Address-Mr. Woolliams permanent plant shutdowns such as the Garden City Paper Mill at St. Catharines, Ontario, where 150 workers lost their jobs forever?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I have not discussed this specific issue. The departments, of course, frequently discuss the general issue.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, October 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jacques-L. Trudel for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 29), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) (p. 41).
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, today at this time it is difficult to come to grips in this speech of mine with the economic problems that face our people. It is also difficult at a time when it would appear that the security and very foundation of our nation are being somewhat shaken. At the outset may I say to the government that now is the time to support to the fullest our administrative personnel and our officers so that law and order can and will be maintained in this nation in the future as it has been in the past.
I might say as an aside that I am confident, and I am sure all members will agree with me, that the majority, more than 99 per cent, of the citizens of Canada, because of being steeped in the traditions of this nation have confidence that we can return soon, I hope, to normalcy. There is an emotional temper afoot. No one can deny that. We saw this today in the question of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and in the Prime Minister's answer to the Leader of the Opposition. I felt that the question and the statement made fitted the responsibility of Parliament in this regard at this time. When one speaks of the emotional temper afoot one cannot help but think of the words of the late president Franklin D. Roosevelt in a statement he made at a time when violence was afoot throughout the world. It is so well put together that it became almost a prayer. This is what he said:
Grant us brotherhood, not only for this day but for all our years-a brotherhood not of words but of acts and deeds. We are all of us children of earth-grant us that simple knowledge. If our brothers are oppressed, then we are oppressed, If they hunger, we hunger. If their freedom is taken away, our freedom is not secure.
Grant us the common faith that man shall know bread and peace-that he shall know justice and righteousness, freedom and security, an equal opportunity and an equal chance to do his best, not only in our own lands, but throughout the world. And in that faith let us march toward the clean world our hands can make.
Those words have real meaning at this time when our nation is under so much stress.

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. Woolliams
In proceeding to the meat of my address I would ask this question: What did the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's message contain relating to the matters before the nation so far as this House is concerned? The two speeches reminded me of a university graduate delivering at the request of the faculty a valediction. You know, a valediction is given when a graduate is bidding farewell to the students. The Prime Minister has placed himself in that position. If I might paraphrase, this is what the Prime Minister said: I as Prime Minister have failed you; my government has failed, the just society I promised you was a fake, a fraud; the just society is a far away ideal, a new heaven. I could not help but think that the Leader of the New Democratic Party touched on something very important at that time. To paraphrase the Prime Minister again he said that it is a far away ideal, a new heaven but that he has lost faith. He said in effect that there is no heaven, injustice is everywhere, he cannot do anything about it and that we are all going to-I cannot mention the place opposite heaven. That is what he said.
The two speeches were made up of mere magical phrases. In a nutshell, the Prime Minister's speech that was read can be classified as gobbledygook. The playboy and world traveller has a sense of his own writing, and indeed reading, and a personal affection for beautiful words because he bewailed the mammoth string of wooden cliches which he has used so often to preach his propaganda and dogma about what his ideal is. The two speeches will long be remembered for their hollowness in respect of any positive suggestions to curb the ever-spiralling cost of living which is affecting Canadians at all levels and in respect of a remedy to work out any reasonable solution to the problem of disputes between labour and management.
If I might digress at this point I would say that the western farmer is in trouble today because the government failed to measure up to its responsibilities in the dispute between labour and management and this has made it difficult for grain to be moved to the ports and markets. I would suggest this involves other things such as the postal strike and so on. Then there is the problem of social need in respect of housing, the crying need to solve air, water and noise pollution as well as the need for programs to guarantee job security and retraining and, above all, the need to re-establish respect for law and order.
It seems to me that the Trudeau government, which Canadians in 1968 fondly hoped would carve out and create a just society for all Canadians, has reduced this nation to a mere second-rate power among the smaller nations of the world, and has stripped us of our domestic prosperity, unity and dignity. It has successfully eroded our international respect abroad, responsibility and, indeed, our image. However, in 1972 when the election rolls around this all-powerful, absolute, cruel and heartless government will be defeated at the polls. Senator Cameron may have put his finger on the situation. He is a Liberal senator in the other place. He said recently that if an election were held in Canada at the present time not one federal Liberal would be elected west of the Great Lakes. I think that if he took a look at the situation he would say the same thing in respect of Liberals even east of the Great Lakes. The people are fed up with this government.
This government has neglected the cities. I could carry on in this vein. The two speeches, however, rang out with hollowness. They lacked any content. They were both rhetorical incantations. The verse of the government contains only words and not deeds.
Let us for a moment review the platitudes and the cliches in the Prime Minister's speech, let alone in the Speech from the Throne, in which he attacked us and our leader. The Prime Minister started off in his usual gracious manner. He said he had a hunch that the leaders of all parties, particularly the Official Opposition, would be critical of the Speech from the Throne. Why? Because he must have known before the speech was delivered that it was a weak effort, strong in language but weak in deeds. This is really the kind of government we have today. No one needs to exercise his political capacity or sagacity to reach that conclusion.
What did the Prime Minister say about foreign ownership of Canadian industries which is an important problem today? He attacked the position taken by our leader and the leader of the New Democratic Party. This is a typical statement by the Prime Minister. Perhaps I might paraphrase what he said: We on this side have said, through the offices of a minister reporting to cabinet, that we are in the process of trying to enunciate government policy in this important area in order to avoid a pragmatic or ad hoc approach, but we knew we did not have the support of the opposition on this.
During the election the Prime Minister preached strong nationalism and the taking over by Canada of foreign investments. The moment an election is over there is one thing we can always rely on a Liberal Prime Minister doing. When the election is over, what do they do? They rush to the United States, cap in hand, to get another big, fat loan, as the government of Quebec did and as this government will do. Not only does that aggravate our problems but it mortgages the future of Canadian generations yet unborn through foreign investments and increases Canada's national debt. That is kind of inconsistent. The Prime Minister talks about inconsistencies, yet he preaches one thing on the hustings and does another.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
Of course, one need not go far to find the answer for this. One only needs to read what was printed in Le Devoir in February, 1963. There the Prime Minister wrote about liberal philosophy. I have quoted these words before, and it is time to repeat them, because they place many things in their proper perspective. The article is headed, "Pearson, or the Abdication of the Spirit, by Pierre Elliott-Trudeau". At page 14 of the article the following appears, "Thus, the political philosophy of the Liberal party is simplicity itself." That is what he said, and it is easy to understand. He goes on to say, "Say anything, think anything you like. But put us in power, because we are best fitted to govern."
When he stepped into the leadership of the Liberal party he talked of a just society. But that was merely a

October 13, 1970

vague promise of something to come in the future, if we ever get there. That was merely stalling, because nothing is being done.
Let me go to another subject. What does the Prime Minister say about youth? He said that Canada is a young country. Those are beautiful words. He also said that it is in the youth of our country that we seek our future. Well, any Prime Minister could have said that. We all agree with those words. Then he went on to say:
To the youth the past is of relatively little consequence: their lives are still to be lived.
A poet once wrote that "a land without ruins is a land without memories." Our lack of ruins is in some ways a tribute to our ability in the past to adapt to change.
There is one truism about this statement: the Prime Minister has left the country in ruins. What has the government done for the youth of this country or for youth in general-that is what I ask-except mimic their ways and dress? That is something any man of 50 can accomplish. But that is not what our youth are looking for.
I have asked questions oh this subject. The two ministers, the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), have failed to reform our laws that affect our youth. I have brought before this House several times a bill to amend the Criminal Code, because the code says that any person of seven or over who is competent to know the nature and consequences of a criminal act may be convicted of a crime. The government has managed to build an unenviable record. Not since confederation have such claims been made for a just society and administration of justice. We have incarcerated, during the period this government has been in office, more young men and women in our country that at any time since confederation. Is this a record to be proud of? Is this what the government is doing to youth? Actually, this government is good at bringing about highs-high unemployment, high interest rates, high rates of incarceration and high murder rates. The murder rate in Canada has gone up by 55 per cent. This is the government's record and, while intelligent men and women are placed out of sight and out of mind in penitentiaries, the drug problem continues to grow.
The research centres and the rehabilitation centres recommended by the LeDain Commission have been and are still being ignored. They ought to be set up immediately. In liaison with the provinces, the government ought to run such centres. Their purpose is good, for they would explode the drug fictions and make sure that youth becomes more knowledgeable about the use or misuse of non-medical drugs. Words are not enough. Let us have some deeds.
It is two years since this government took office and since the members of the Privy Council, took up their jobs as the executives of Canada. And what does the government say about all these matters? In its own defence the government blames the courts; and the courts, in their own defence-actually the courts have no method of speaking effectively-say that Parliament made the law. Parliament has tried to get these well spoken script readers to change the law, but we have only had more scripts. Again, we have had words but not
The Address-Mr. Woolliams
deeds. Let me repeat: the government blames the courts and the courts blame Parliament. They say that Parliament passes the laws, and that they must be enforced. What is the government? It is really a sort of classical university unto itself. That is what it is.
This past summer I saw some of the realities of our country. As I drove from Ottawa to Calgary on that great No. 1 trans-Canada highway, I saw young people hitchhiking. This summer more young people in Canada roamed and hitchhiked across the country than ever before. Never before have we seen young men and women hitchhiking across this country as we did this past summer. What were they looking for?


Mr. Crouse:: Work.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes. They were looking for work and opportunity, and they found no work and no opportunity. They were made promises, but few were kept. On this side of the House we begged the government for a positive program to help them. We begged the government to help those graduating from high schools or universities to find employment and opportunity. Few got work. The government did little. Moreover, it destroyed the morale of our armed forces and even destroyed the militia. Then it tried to establish a playboy army by paying youth to play at soldiering while at the same time we put in mothballs $285 million worth of CF-5 aircraft. Again, there were words but no action.


Gerald William Baldwin: Just look at the Prime Minister's staff.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes. Just look at the staff. There is no policy or plan to assist our youth to get an education or to obtain job retraining. While the Prime Minister permits the dissipation of our best resource, youth, unemployment grows and grows among young people. We hold a record in this regard and then he says, "Canada stands as one of the most happy and enviable facts of the times." I do not think he can take credit for all that has happened in this country since confederation. He went on to say:
Because of all this, our country can be looked upon as a global environment, as an environment exceptionally favourable to the fullness of human development.
When young people leave high school and university and cannot find jobs and when young people cannot enter university because of lack of money, are we allowing them to develop? Let me ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), when they are on the list of the unemployed, are they developing? So I say to the government that this is a time for decision and not a time for rhetorical phrases and procrastination. It is a time for an energizing performance. It is not a time for vacillation. We are living in important times. It is time to restore law and order. It is time to maintain our principles and bring about justice and liberty in the true sense of the word. It is not a time for tergiversation. Above all, it is a time for straight talk and not for political verbi-cide and waffling. The Prime Minister has said:
Some are unable to maintain such a standard because of a lack of education or an absence of the skills necessary in today's world; others are unable to stretch their fixed incomes to meet the increased costs of necessities; still others are temporarily without employment through no fault of their own.
62

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. Woolliams
Let me ask tour questions. What aggravated and accelerated the high cost of living? The government's policies did. Who brought in nineteenth century economic methods to cure inflation? The Prime Minister did. Who aggravated unemployment and dumped people out of work on the unemployment market? The Prime Minister did. Who placed the burden on the underprivileged and on those living below the poverty line in Canada? The Liberal government did.
[DOT] (12.30 p.m.)
The Prime Minister says justice will be obtained when the needs of everyone are satisfied. What have you when most things have been ignored, have deteriorated and all are dissatisfied? The Prime Minister stated in his speech in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, as recorded at page 34 of Hansard:
There is justice when everyone's essential needs are satisfied. This implies a reasonable access for all to the goods owned and produced by the country. Now, work is the normal mode of access to the goods on which life depends; it therefore cannot be disassociated from the right to live.
Has the high cost of living brought justice to the old age pensioners or the veterans? Never have they been in such a cost squeeze. Who has been satisfied by throwing people out of work and reducing the low income pensioners and others to destitution? Nobody. Is that the just society?
My charge against this government is that economic justice is rationed. When justice is rationed, how can the ideal of the just society be even a vision let alone a realization? The Prime Minister promised a heaven. He has lost his faith. Now we are left to believe in that other place where all people are suffering.
What about his brave words regarding pollution? The Prime Minister has talked about the ability to set up a number of laws to deal with pollution. For two years I have been raising a question in this House. I use this only as an example. Each year one and a half million visit Banff national park. Raw sewage from the government administrative offices and the government's facilities which they supply during the months of June, July, August and September is being poured into the beautiful, colourful and clean Bow River which crosses Alberta and joins up with the Saskatchewan River and eventually flows into Lake Winnipeg. This is because the government is expropriating practically all free enterprise except the big corporations. Imperial Oil and Canadian Pacific Railway can move in, but the little man is out. While the government talks about doing something concerning pollution, they are not even cleaning up their own household. It is a speech of words and no deeds.
The situation is so bad on the Bow River that 60 miles upstream cattle have died from the pollution caused by this government that talks about fighting the pollution of air, water and noise. The government has now set up a committee. That will mean another delay. I hope my expression will be parliamentary when I say that when I listen to their story about pollution I think, what bloody rot!
What about the cities? The Prime Minister blames the housing crisis on the framework of the Canadian constitution. He says that according to the constitution we cannot rush into the situation like a bull in a china shop. He seems to be out of date. The late Bob Winters started a mammoth housing project after World War II. That was the beginning of a national housing scheme which built houses across this nation and which started suburbia. In a period of 18 months the D.efenbaker government poured $700 million into housing. This was in 1957 and 1958. This would be a lot more today if we compare the present proportion of our budget. While we now have a $13 billion budget, in those days the budget was only $5 billion or $6 billion. If the late Robert Winters was able to do so much when he was the cabinet minister in charge of housing, why cannot the Prime Minister do the same as we move into the seventies?
What we need is a housing program that will rock this nation, one that will work for the average man. Unless a person earns $8,000 to $12,000 he cannot purchase a house in the Montreal, Winnipeg, Calgary or Vancouver areas. This is for the rich. There is nothing for the poor. That is the just society. Is that the far-away ideal we heard about during the election campaign?


An hon. Member:: And Toronto.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I agree with the hon. member. I am glad to see the Liberals are aware of the situation in Toronto. We now have good representation from Toronto. After the next election we will have many more members because the people in that area are fed up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The late Premier Johnson of Quebec saw infiltrating revolutionary forces in his province. He saw revolutionary forces and crime syndicates in Montreal, Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver and Toronto. He asked the federal government to please set up a royal commission to tabulate how those people were working, the countries from which they were infiltrating and who they were working with. Had this been done we would today have the evidence to lay before the administrative and police officers as well as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. We would be able to handle the FLQ problem. While we asked for that action for two long years the government said, "Oh, we don't need it". We wonder how close they are to this situation when they refuse to find out the facts and the evidence.
The Prime Minister will not yield to the request of the opposition to investigate syndicated crime in our urban centres. All words, no action! Appeasement has never promoted lasting peace. Understanding the problem will achieve a solution, if we act.
The greatest injustice done by this government to any class of people outside of the average men in the urban centres is the injustice that has been done to the treaty Indians. Nothing is more important to a treaty Indian than his treaties. This is the cry of his generation. Here lies the cultural gap between the now white generation and the now red generation, and I am talking about the colour in a colloquial sense and not in a philosophical sense.

October 13, 1970

Before the Indian Act is repealed, before the dictatorial, bureaucratic, unsympathetic white paper is implemented, the treaty rights concerning the Indians' land, culture, way of life and inalienable rights, as guaranteed, must be defined, clarified and judicially defined. Therefore this government, as was promised by the Pearson government and died on the order paper when we were defeated as a government, should immediately set up an Indian commission and administrative board with all the necessary informalities so that evidence judicially admissible or inadmissible should be made admissible before this board in order that this board can ascertain the treaty rights of those Indians and so that the proper facts and documentation which are presently denied by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development can be ascertained. This board must be armed with the proper powers to subpoena witnesses, hear evidence and force the production of documentation which is being denied the Indians. The most skilful lawyers and advisers should be placed at the disposal of the Indians.
When members on this side of the House make the positive suggestion that the government hire and pay these people to ascertain those rights, the government says it is not necessary. For ten years a case has been pending in the Exchequer Court involving the Blackfoot reservation Indians who are asking for the establishment of their treaty rights. They are also asking for compensation for land abuse and expropriation. For ten long years that case has laid idle. This is not because the court will not hear the case but because the Indians do not have a lawyer. One lawyer undertook to act in connection with the petition. Then he wrote to the Department of Indian Affairs asking whether he could receive at least his expenses. But he got no answer, no co-operation. Is this the just soc'ety? It is just in words, but not in deeds. Until we have achieved this promise of legal assistance, this nat'on can never achieve the destiny visualized and expected by our forefathers, nor can we as Canadians point a finger at other nations, whether they be the United States of America or the countries in Africa, as to their rationing of justice.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House give unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have only a few more remarks to make. I shall not abuse the courtesy of the House. But I will say this. The constitution has guaranteed the Indians their rights, if rights they are-I could elaborate on this theme if I had time. Those rights arose because of treaties made in the name of the Crown. The terms of the constitution placed the Indians under federal jurisdiction. An attempt is now being made to assign this responsibility to the provinces as part of an effort by the govern-
The Address-Mr. Pringle
ment to evade its full responsibility. It is being done in the name of justice and, we are told, following consultation. What really happened? They hired a few Indians on the breadline to go out and try to sell this program.
But let me ask these questions. What Indian has asked for land ownership which would result in provincial taxation of Indian reservations? What Indian has asked that the Canadian constitution be changed to remove any reference to Indians or Indian lands? What Indian has asked that treaties be brought to an end? What group of Indians has asked the government to exclude from its special consideration half of the Indian population in Canada? Mr. Speaker, these questions are self-answered. No Indians have asked for these things. Yet this policy is being rammed down their throats.
The just society is a far-away ideal. The Indian had faith, and what he was promised was a heaven. It proved to be a fraud and a fake. The heaven has turned into hell for these people, who are now demanding action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am indeed happy to associate myself with those who have extended compliments to the hon. member from Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) who so ably moved the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I also congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for selecting a member of this stalwart group on the immediate left of the Speaker who are entrusted with the balance of power in this chamber and who are affectionately referred to by the opposition as the government rump. I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I failed also to extend sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) on the occasion of his elevation to the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. As unofficial leader of the rump in Canada's twenty-eighth Parliament, he discharged his duties faithfully and well. Our loss, here in the rump, can only be compared in depth to the expressions of sadness and grief exhibited by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) as a result of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour being reseated in another section of the chamber.
My compliments also go to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) who seconded the reply. I congratulate him on the context of his remarks which brought a message to the chamber from Canadian agriculture. His long association with various segments of our agricultural industry, as a practising farmer, is invaluable to Parliament in general and to the Standing Committee on Agriculture in particular.
Notwithstanding the apparent determination of the Official Opposition to obstruct progress or permit change in needed farm legislation, farmer producers have been striving to throw off the yoke of the status quo and accept authority, provided by provincial enabling legislation, for production planning coupled with the responsibility of marketing. This is especially true of commodity groups which are heavily dependent on domestic sales.
Failure to complete the report stage and third reading of Bill C-196, the Canada Grain Act, as amended by the Standing Committee on Agriculture, may serve the inter-
64

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. Pringle
ests of the grain trade but will provide little or no solace to grain farmers now desperately in need of the provisions in the Act to improve and expedite the marketing of grain according to world customer demand. The hope of our grain farmers, and indeed of all producer-oriented Members of Parliament from all parties, is that the Official Opposition will agree to permit the debate on Bill C-196 to proceed in its present status during this new session so that the bill can be passed without further unnecessary delay.
The second farm bill to fall prey to the sabotage tactics of the Official Opposition was Bill C-197, an Act to establish a farm products marketing council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products.
Mr. Speaker, although I have been associated with Canadian agri-business for many years, no one has satisfactorily explained to me why farmer producers have been denied the right to place a price on their products. The purchaser quoted the price and the farmer took what he was offered. With the exception of the Wheat Board and the Dairy Commission, little or no federal ground rules, known as enabling legislation, have been enacted to allow commodity groups in competition with other commodity groups to discipline themselves and establish a reasonable degree of stability. On the contrary, farmer producers have actually been encouraged to produce in heavy surplus, to build unmanageable inventories, resulting in disastrous market prices which on a regular basis dropped below the cost of efficient production. This system has enabled secondary industry to farm the farmers while the Canadian taxpayers picked up the tab in the form of subsidies just prior to the collapse of a commodity group into bankruptcy.
Consumers have also unwittingly been the innocent victims of this system. Heavy surpluses forced prices to farmers down, although secondary industry usually managed to maintain satisfactory margins. The consumers jumped with joy, only to find that within a period of time farmers were forced into alternative production, creating shortages which shoved prices to a high level, more than wiping out any advantages gained during the low-price period. Farmer producers, with unpaid feed bills in areas of specialized production, either lost their farms or, in attempting to switch to other commodities, went further into debt to provide additional capital.
Therefore, under the old system of surplus and shortage consumers have suffered with producers. The solution has proven to be production and marketing stability. By this I mean ample high quality production with manageable inventories, providing an adequate service to processing and distribution outlets at stable prices and in competition with other food items. This system may curtail the profits of some segments of secondary industry. However, producer confidence, inspired by stability, encourages farmers to take advantage of technological progress by investing in mechanical aids which improve efficiency and lower costs.
A moment ago I suggested that the solution has proven to be production and marketing stability. I use the past tense because existing marketing boards operating within the scope of provincial enabling legislation have already
brought during the last nine years a degree of stability to their commodity groups virtually unheard of in the history of Canadian agriculture.
I say this while acknowledging the fact that a threat to interprovincial movement of poultry products now exists in Canada. It has been dubbed the "chicken and egg war". Those of us who are familiar with the sequence of events know that each step taken by provincial governments in order to maintain stability was the direct result of actions taken by commodity groups who have refused to adopt the concept of orderly production coupled with orderly marketing through marketing boards.
It is no secret that Quebec egg producers pleaded with producers in other poultry surplus provinces to adopt a system of supply management and orderly marketing which would assure some price stability in Quebec. This took place over a period of years. They wanted some stability that was comparable to other commodities in other provinces which were operating through producer marketing boards. When the Quebec egg producers' pleas were ignored the Quebec agency, I would say somewhat in desperation, placed interprovincial movement of eggs into Quebec under the jurisdiction of the Quebec board. They did not eliminate interprovincial movement of eggs into Quebec, and I place emphasis on that fact.
During this period certain promoters known in the poultry trade as integrators apparently decided to invest heavily in facilities for broiler production in Quebec. We now come to the chicken part of the "chicken and egg war". It is interesting to note that while broiler marketing boards were operating successfully in other provinces, Quebec producers were either unable or unwilling-I am more inclined to believe the former to be true-to establish a broiler marketing board in Quebec. Quebec producers with little or no capital were persuaded to provide land and labour at prices considered unrealistic in all other parts of Canada. It was not long before huge unwieldy surpluses of broilers began to build up in Quebec and subsequently went into interprovincial movement to all sections of Canada at what must be considered distress prices by all people knowledgeable in the broiler industry.
It is inconceivable to believe that the promoter integrators of Quebec who enjoyed mark-up revenues from feed sales, egg hatching and processing would expect farmer producers in other parts of Canada to go bankrupt and abandon their investment. It is also paradoxical that Quebec egg producers showed the way to the other provinces. It was they who paved the way for resumption of stability, something in which all farmers across the land are interested, which has been lacking in agriculture through the years but which is now finally finding its way to the surface. All other provinces, with the possible exception of Newfoundland, have with the co-operation of provincial enabling legislation issued orders relating to interprovincial movement of broilers similar to the Quebec order regarding the interprovincial movement of eggs.
This unilateral action on the part of provincial marketing boards and governments was taken as a last resort and not without considerable apprehension as to the future of interprovincial trade in Canada. Let it be a

October 13, 197 0

matter of record that the broiler commodity groups in all provinces of Canada endeavoured to persuade the promoters in Quebec to cut back their production and to work out a market sharing system so it would not be necessary to ask them to hold back their shipments. This is something that had to happen. I have been in touch with most broiler marketing boards in the western provinces, and it is my understanding that some stability is already returning to the market. I have been told there is a shortage of broilers in Ontario but on checking I find that a bothersome surplus still exists. Broiler chicken is still the cheapest meat on the counter and will continue to be in the foreseeable future. May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I take pleasure in bringing to the attention of hon. members of this House the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a delegation of Parliamentarians from Ghana. I am sure all hon. members of this House will be pleased to pay tribute to their appearance here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Jacques-L. Trudel for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment (Mr. Stanfield (P. 29) and the amendment to the amendment (Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) (P.41)).
M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, when I was obliged to call it one o'clock, and for the benefit of those who have tuned in late, I may say that I was discussing the sequence relating to what is now known in the vernacular as the "chicken and egg wars", I was referring to the problems relating to interprovincial trade between the various provinces.
Let me make it very clear that I know of no one who holds the Quebec farmer-producer, and I stress that phrase, in his role as a type of hired man, grower accountable for the present dilemma. It is most unfortunate that they undoubtedly are suffering now financially
The Address-Mr. Pringle
as a result this ruthless overproduction. It must be noted that broiler growers everywhere are deeply concerned, but I believe that farmer-producers will find the solution if we grant them the opportunity to do so.
It was suggested on several occasions earlier today that we should support the government of Manitoba which has elected to seek a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada. I am at a loss to understand how this will solve the problem of interprovincial trade. This may assist Manitoba in shipping eggs into Quebec, if they are successful, but as I previously stated, the Quebec order does not eliminate the interprovincial movement of eggs into the province of Quebec. Other provinces have made similar orders and I should like, if I may, to quote from the last paragraph of the order published by the province of British Columbia. It reads:
Nothing in this order shall prevent any person from bringing into, packing and storing in the Province of British Columbia any import product or from exporting any import product to any place outside the Province.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
But the Province has the jurisdiction to regulate sales, and is doing this to the best of its ability. In fact, Quebec is granting contracts and orders for the inter-provincial movement of eggs at present. But let us suppose that the steps taken by the Manitoba government are successful. It will mean that the efforts of one province in Canada to regulate interprovincial trade have been ruled ultra vires. However, the other orders made by at least eight other provinces are not exactly the same as the Quebec order. That means we would have to go back to the Supreme Court of Canada-I am not a lawyer but I am advised that this would have to happen-on each different order, and I am not too sure whether my tenure of office would be long enough for me to see the end result. But I know what it would be if we could provide the producer-growers of Canada with a marketing act which would be operated by producers and be satisfactory to them.
I think we all agree that trade restrictions at provincial borders under individual provincial jurisdiction are going to be a stop gap measure at best. A national producer marketing act operated by producers, designed to challenge the various commodity groups to compete with each other for their fair share of the consumers' dollar would provide the best vehicle. I therefore renew my plea to hon. members opposite to permit the enactment of such legislation as soon as possible.
Canadian farmer-producers, through their various commodity group organizations, are ready, willing and able to shoulder the responsibility of stable food production. They possess the expertise and desire to manage their own affairs.
I was more than pleased with the emphasis on pollution control included in the Speech from the Throne. Since my constituency is located in the beautiful Fraser Valley, the acknowledged garden spot of the world, any type of pollution quickly becomes a matter of deep concern. This is evidenced by the formation of a number of groups willingly giving of their time and effort to fight pollution of all kinds wherever it becomes apparent. Perhaps one of the most active groups is known as SPEC,

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. Thompson
which stands for the Society for Pollution and Ecological Control. This group is not only dedicated to attacking industrial waste, whether air, land or water, but is also concentrating on the control of pollution at the home owner level. In this particular, area we are concerned with fighting pollution more than with fighting industry. We do not believe that the elimination of industry will cure pollution, but we believe that we have the technological knowledge at present to cure pollution and to permit industry to continue to operate.
These groups have recognized that the use of detergents in automatic washing machines, overuse of pesticides, incinerator burning, and in fact outdoor barbecuing, all add to pollution. It is interesting to note today that a member of the society in my home town of Chil-liwac, Mr. John Rogers, has been petitioning for a survival day for all Canada for many months. I am sure he would be gladdened by the knowledge that the nation's capital is attempting the experiment on October 14, and I wish it well even though I am not too good at riding my son's bicycle.
Another problem of deep concern relating to the ecological future in my area is the proposed flooding of the Skagit Valley by the department of lighting of the city of Seattle. Although the existing dam is located in the United States, the flooding will take place in Canada. This would create a ten mile addition to Ross Lake with a gradient of only 100 feet or less so that only a very small draw down would create a large area of mud flats. It is my understanding that the International Rivers Improvement Act, passed Parliament on July 11, 1955, requires federal permits approving the altering of any waterway crossing an international border. We are, therefore, hopeful that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) will take whatever measures are necessary to persuade the Seattle department of lighting to seek additional power elsewhere.
In closing may I say to all hon. members within the sound of my voice that the 100th birthday of British Columbia's entrance into confederation takes place in 1971. Plans are now being developed throughout the province for a year of meaningful celebration, and worthwhile projects are being projected commemorating the past 100 years whilst steadfastly looking to the future.
May I at this time properly thank the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), his cabinet and the government for the very generous gift of $10 million to the people of B.C. from the people of all Canada to assist in paying the cost. Many fine and worthwhile buildings will be made available to the people of B.C. which would have undoubtedly been denied to them without the generous gift of this government. I therefore, extend a warm and sincere invitation to everyone: come to British Columbia and join with us in 1971. You will receive a welcome unsurpassed anywhere in the world.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to take part in the Throne Speech debate. I wish to offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Trudel) and seconder (Mr. Douglas (Assiniboia)) of the motion which brought the Throne Speech before us in the House of Commons. It is an honour to be so selected.
I find the Throne Speech to be a very interesting document. It contains many platitudinous statements with which practically anybody of any loyalty to our country cannot but agree, yet many of these are hollow in that the meanings of the words are neither interpreted for us, nor are the statements which follow the embodiment of what is meant. In fact, many of them are contradictory.
Today I want to draw the attention of the House to one aspect of the remarks made in the Speech from the Throne. The Speech from the Throne states that the passing of the 60's and the beginning of the 70's reminds us that Canada faces a new age, an age which will be subject to forces not all of which are yet comprehended or understood, forces which will proceed from external as well as internal origin. I agree with that statement. I only wish that some of the happenings and events that are taking place today might indicate that the government as well agreed with it.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
It is a new age not so much because of changed circumstances, but new because of changed values and attitudes.
I think that is a fair statement too, Mr. Speaker, but what disturbs me is that there is no attempt in this Speech from the Throne to define or explain what these changed values or attitudes are. Like a lot of other Canadians today, I am concerned about what they might be. The next paragraph of the speech is as follows:
Because of the clash between these new values and the old, because of the quest by the young and the disillusioned for some resolution of attitudes, we live in a period of tenseness and unease. It is an age frequented by violence as desperate men seek ill-defined goals; an age of frustration as gentle men question impatiently old assumptions.
I question many of the old assumptions that are before us, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to hear the government state more clearly what some of these new attitudes and changed values are, because therein does my concern lie. Thus, Mr. Speaker, my remarks are going to be based upon these statements which I have quoted from the Speech from the Throne.
I believe that this is an historic but sad day for Canada. The government of our great land, while being intimidated on the one hand by the FLQ, which it knows as well as we do is a revolutionary movement in sympathy with and in full support of the communist movements of Cuba, Algeria and elsewhere, has chosen today to announce its recognition of the communist government of China. Political leaders in Algiers, Peking and Moscow must be very smug and happy today. Likewise it must be a dark, discouraging and frustrating experience for our friends who directly confront communist China, such as Korea, Viet Nam, Thailand and many other countries which by their own experience know the ruthless strategy of communism, and whose citizens have struggled and died for the hope of freedom. I think of the Phillipines and of Hungary. I think of Indonesia, of Czechoslovakia, and of at least another score of nations across the world. Is this where the changing values and new attitudes are?
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) said earlier today that Canada has no statement to make one way or another in regard to the claim of the Peking

October 13, 1970

communist government that Taiwan is an inalienable, territorial part of China. Who does the minister think he is kidding? Do we throw 14 million people into the hands of the communists without even a quiver of conscience? How could any government of a free nation, or any conscientious liberty-loving person be neutral between freedom and slavery?
A few days ago the death was announced of M. Dala-dier, once leader of pre-war France. I cannot help but wonder if we are in the midst of another Munich betrayal.
In 1936 in the Council Chamber of the old League of Nations in Geneva, the Emperor of Ethiopia, under whom it was my privilege to serve directly for some eight years, when the pressure of events had caused him to realize that passiveness of the League had neutralized any action for justice in face of the invading fascist armies in his country, said, "God and history will not forget." Perhaps God and history will not forget today either.
But, Mr. Speaker, referring again to the changing values and new attitudes which the Speech from the Throne spoke about, I must say that as a Member of Parliament and as a citizen of Canada I am disturbed and saddened by the events of the past nine days. A tragedy of numbing severity and of frightening ramifications at two distinct levels has stunned the country. On one level we have witnessed the spectacle of warped and desperate men playing at the same time magistrate and executioner in mad pursuit of their goals. For the safety of two innocent lives we have but two responses-hope and prayer. For two equally innocent families, one cannot verbalize or articulate sympathy equal to what all Canadians feel.
At a collective level as a nation we have witnessed a tragedy no less inestimable. For the past nine days we have seen the subjugation of democratic values to terrorism, the subjugation of human life to political expediency, the subjugation of justice by law to oppression by anarchy. We allow this situation to continue only at our individual and collective peril. Frightened Canadians in Quebec and in every other province, I believe, look bewilderingly for leadership.
I am reminded, Mr. Speaker, that just about three years ago-in fact it was on October 17, 1967-I raised a question in this House regarding reports that appeared in the press, which had appeared throughout the summer and during the following months, concerning guerilla terrorist training activity taking place in the Laurentians. I talked about the huge staff at the Cuban pavilion at Expo actually participating in such terrorist training. I talked about the distribution of communist newspapers, and in particular of GRANMA, the official Cuban communist party newspaper which was being distributed freely from the Cuban Expo pavilion.
I was laughed at then, Mr. Speaker, and I found it necessary to write an open letter to the minister of external affairs, the Hon. Paul Martin. I tried to talk to him about the matter, but I could not get anywhere with him with regard to it. So, my open letter was an attempt to bring these things to his attention.
The Address-Mr. Thompson
In this connection, I quote from an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Telegram on July 31, 1961, as follows:
Recently there have been overtones of association between small extremist French Canadian separatist groups and alleged guerilla veterans among the bloated staff of the Cuban Expo pavilion. In 1965, half a dozen French Canadian separatists attended "summer courses" at the University of Havana...
The editorial continues:
Cuba, unlike almost all her communist fellow states, is openly playing the oldest communist game of all, violent international revolution.
At that time we did not realize really what was taking place, and we are only now coming to the reality of it.
The federal government is naive to assume that it is dealing with political separatists or with those whose commitment is to change by political means. In that regard I must say that the statement made the other night by Rene Levesque was a commendable one. I am very pleased he made it because he disassociated himself and his organization, which is seeking to bring about change in Canada through legitimate political means, from those who would bring change about through revolution and terrorism.
The abductors of Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte are members of the FLQ who are committed first and foremost to the destruction of a political system by revolution. These are not the new ideas and attitudes that we want in Canada. These people seize any issue to advance their cause, through violence if necessary. The FLQ is not a political action group working to reform the country. They are revolutionaries. Ascribing middle class values of fair play to these men is not to face up to reality. There can be no middle ground with these desperadoes.
I call upon the government, supported by Parliament, to re-assert that the rule of law, the sanctity of the judicial process shall prevail in this emergency. To bargain with those who would equate reason and reform with abduction and murder is to bargain with no less than the stability of society itself. Any concession to those to whom violence is a political expedient, no matter how small, can only be construed as a sign of insipient weakness and a lack of resolve and commitment to those principles upon which civilized society inevitably rests. To suppose that criminals, who would countenance the taking of innocent lives for their own twisted purposes, will be amicable to reasoned compromise is to ignore historical experience and present realities. I must commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for his statement during the question period today when he resented the fact that certain members and elements of the press continue to call these men political prisoners-those whose release is being sought. They are what he said- criminals and brigands, and I think we should deal with them.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
It disturbs me to hear men on television and radio, who would pretend to lead public opinion, say they cannot make a moral judgment on these issues until they know more of the facts. The country is responsible. Just as we members of this chamber extend the responsibility to

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. Thompson others, we carry public responsibility as well. The agony of decision must not obscure the issues involved. The choice is between a society of order and justice, where the majority determines the destiny of a nation, or a predatory state of anarchism where a nasty, brutish and short life is expendable to the dictates of a minority. Concession in this context can lead only to further concession, as we have already witnessed. The rule of law in a free society is non-negotiable.
Realizing as I do the gravity of the situation, and conscious as I am of the responsibility of all members of the House of Commons to assure the Canadian people that we shall never succumb to lawless terrorism, I call upon the government to implement without delay the following five-point program. I call upon the Prime Minister to make a nation-wide address to the Canadian people to reassert the primary rule of law in this country and to assure them of the government's resolve to take measures of appropriate severity to the gravity of the situation. Acting upon the authority conferred upon it by Section 91 subsection (1) of the British North America Act, I call upon the government to declare that the political kidnappings in the city of Montreal are matters affecting the peace, order and good government of Canada and henceforth will be treated as a federal responsibility, working in close co-operation with the provincial and municipal authorities. We have already seen a partial step in this regard, although even that was bungled this morning. When we see troops in battle dress in the House of Commons or even on the Hill, we admit our own weakness or ability to judge the situation. It is good that this situation has been corrected.
Third, I call upon the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to announce a substantial award, plus executive clemency, to anyone who can provide authoritative information leading to the apprehension of the criminals responsible for these two abductions. Many times in the past this has proven to be a very useful strategy. Fourth, I call upon the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet to commit such officers of the RCMP and of the Canadian armed forces as are necessary to ensure the speedy apprehension of those responsible for these heinous crimes. I invite the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, and the provincial and municipal authorities, to explore in detail the feasibility of commencing an immediate house to house search of any area where reasonable suspicion exists that FLQ cells are operative. It is a travesty of justice that persons are able to hold the men whom they have abducted without the forces of the law being able to apprehend them or even know where they are.
As a member of the House of Commons, I hereby serve notice that at the earliest opportunity I shall attempt to secure an amendment to subsection (1) of section 233 of the Criminal Code of Canada concerning the crime of kidnapping to make kidnapping for political ends a capital offence subject to the death penalty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: As the law stands now our hands are tied.
This is a concrete program born not of panic but of resolve, put forward not in turbid confusion but in the unshakable conviction that whatever be the problems of our society they are not solvable by vigilante lawlessness. It is a program which would not only unite the Canadian people in their determination to continue a society which effects change by non-violent democratic processes but would also serve notice upon those who would use terrorist tactics to erode the confidence of the people and to eradicate a nation's values that such methods will not and cannot succeed. To forfeit this opportunity to clearly express our values and the depth of our commitment to those values would be an individual and collective abdication of our responsibilities.
In closing, I should like to refer to another statement contained a little further along in the Speech from the Throne. I would challenge the Prime Minister to act upon these words which basically are his. These are the words:
... there is more need than ever before to preserve as constant values truth, honesty, excellence and relevance; that a society which is not inspired by love and compassion is not worthy of the name.
I would add to that statement "that is not inspired by love, compassion and justice is not worthy of that name". Certainly, the people of Canada are expecting more than they are getting from the government of Canada today in this crisis.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Trudel) and the seconder (Mr. Douglas (Assiniboia)) of the Speech from the Throne for the tremendous job they did in this respect. I should like to participate in this debate today to discuss the developments in our economy and in our economic policy that have taken place since I presented my budget to this House in March.
Our perspectives on the economy and on economic policy are changing with changing events. It may be helpful if I begin by recalling to hon. members how we viewed the situation last March, based on the facts then available. The data on the year 1969 was nearly complete. It revealed that the inflation gripping the country had carried prices up at a rate of about 4f per cent. Our fiscal and monetary policies had finally, after some delay, succeeded in reducing the rate of growth of demand after mid-year. This lower growth of demand had induced lower profit rates, but had brought no reduction in the rate of wage rate increases. As for prices, we were able to say at that time that we could see some hopeful signs of a lower rate of price increase, but nothing more. It looked as though the stage was set for some dampening of the inflationary forces, but one could not be sure. The Prices and Incomes Commission had just concluded its agreement with the business community and we were conscious that any success they might achieve on their front would permit more rapid relaxation of the restrictive policies.
In these circumstances, we struck a stance for a moderate expansion in fiscal policy. We planned for a reduced budgetary surplus and for increased non-budgetary expenditures, which taken together implied an increase in our cash outlays from the previous fiscal year of about
[Mr. Pringle.)
October 13, 1970

three-quarters of a billion dollars. In planning our increased expenditures we concentrated on high priority programs such as those of regional economic expansion, housing and manpower training. We also took particular care to ensure that much of the new stimulus would be directed to regions of traditionally higher unemployment.
At the same time, because of the continuing inflationary threat, we took out some insurance by planning for a system of controls over buying by consumers on credit and by extending our measure for deferred depreciation on non-residential construction where we felt the thrust of construction costs was particularly strong and infectious.
In outlining this policy position, I stated clearly that the government would respond quickly to changes in the economic outlook with changes in its policy measures.
On the basis of this policy position, I anticipated that output and employment would move upward in 1970 though at a lower rate than in 1969. I indicated that there would be some increase in unemployment accompanied by difficult labour negotiations and strikes. I also held out the hope that price advances would be somewhat less vigorous. These expectations have so far been borne out by developments, though in somewhat fuller measure.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I should like now, Mr. Speaker, to review the economic developments to date this year in some detail. The economy has been growing less rapidly this year than last. In the first half of the year the national output, apart from price changes, grew at an annual rate of just under 2\ per cent. This compares with a rate of a little below 4J per cent in the last half of 1969.
Some sectors of the economy have been stronger than others. Growth of the demand for consumer goods and services and for new capital goods have been outpaced by demands of governments and even more by demands for our exports. In the personal sector, a slower growth of income has led to lower growth in the demand for goods and services, especially in the first quarter of this year.
Investment in residential construction, following the lower starts of late 1969 and early 1970, experienced a sharp fall, especially in the second quarter. We are now, however, on the way up. Housing starts, reflecting the March budget's injection of an additional $150 million in CMHC loans, have been rising for several months. In September they were running at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of about 185,000, up from about 175,000 in July and August and an average 137,000 in the second quarter.
Business spending on new capital has been sluggish so far this year. On non-residential construction spending was no higher in the first half than the average level of last year. This is in spite of an increase of about 15 per cent indicated for this year in the surveys of investment intentions. The intentions surveys also suggested much higher levels of spending by business on machinery and equipment this year, but in the first half this spending was some 6 per cent below 1969. These shortfalls of spending below intentions reflect in part the deliberate choices of business in the face of their expectations of
The Address-Mr. Benson
profits and sales. But they also reflect, especially in regard to construction expenditures, the strikes and lockouts in the construction industry. These disputes have produced an 82-per cent increase in the number of man days lost in the construction industry in the first eight months of this year compared with the same period in 1969. Labour peace in this sector would, I am confident, give rise to a marked renewal of activity.
Let me turn now to two expansive areas of demand this year. I refer first to demands by governments for goods, services and new capital assets. Taking all levels of government together their expenditures have risen by about 8 per cent in the first half of this year as compared with some 5 per cent in the second half of last year. The increase this year has been particularly heavy in the second quarter.
Secondly, exports have been a most dynamic force in the economy this year. After having grown at about 7 per cent over the last half of 1969, they grew by some 9 per cent in the first half of this year, most of this increase being concentrated in the first quarter. The latest figures, for August, show some decline from the very high plateau achieved earlier in the year, but exports continue to run well above the figures for the last quarter of 1969. Our sales to countries other than the United States have been the most buoyant. On a seasonally adjusted basis export sales to the United States were lower in August than in December by 7 per cent, but sales to other countries were higher by 14 per cent.
Merchandise imports have been on a declining trend this year and as a consequence the balance of trade has been very strong indeed. Even when this favorable balance is offset by a first half deficit on non-merchandise transactions of about a billion dollars, the current account of the balance of payments is left in surplus by nearly $300 million.
This strong trade surplus, reflecting in part our better price performance, combined with strong inflows of capital to produce considerable upward pressure on the Canadian dollar. We decided at the end of May that we should not resist this pressure any longer. The alternatives were to revalue or allow the dollar to float. In the event, we decided to cease for the time being to purchase sufficient U.S. dollars to keep the exchange rate of the Canadian dollar in the market from exceeding its par-value of 92i U.S. cents by more than 1 per cent. Since then the exchange rate has been allowed to respond to market forces. I shall refer later to the effects of the subsequent rise in the exchange value of our currency.
I would like now to discuss the labour situation in some detail. The population of the country that is of working age grows at a fairly predictable rate. The rate was about 2.6 per cent last year and we expect it to be about the same this year. What is very much less predictable is the proportion of those in the population of working age who will offer themselves for employment. This proportion, technically referred to as the labour force participation rate, has been showing some wild gyrations lately. These gyrations very seriously affect our unemployment figures. For example at a given level of employment a difference of 1 percentage point in the participation rate-which is the order of magnitude we
70

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. Benson
have been lately-can make a difference of If percentage points in the unemployment rate. This is a very serious matter. We believe the factors involved in these swings include the movement of students in and out of the labour force, the impact of the manpower training program and the reactions of potential income earners in a family unit to the fortunes of the principal breadwinner. These factors interact in a complicated way. Predictions and assessments of the unemployment situation are greatly complicated by this situation.
Another factor of considerable importance in assessing the unemployment situation in the country has not received much public attention to date. This is the dramatic acceleration in recent years in the time lost in work stoppages owing to industrial disputes. The figure of man-days lost per quarter from this cause has been rising at an average rate of 25 per cent per year since 1962 and has now become very large. Disputes in some industries cause unemployment in others. In fact, the second quarter seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was probably a half to three quarters of a percentage point higher for this reason. In referring to this matter I do not wish in any way to minimize the distress that unemployment causes. We must, however, recognize that it would be futile to use fiscal and monetary policy to try to eliminate unemployment arising from this cause.
In following the developing situation in respect of unemployment, it is important to keep a close watch on the number of those who have been unemployed more than three months. For these persons the lack of employment is obviously even more serious than for those who are out of work for shorter periods. This proportion is small. In August, people in this category comprised 1.7 per cent of the labour force, and the figure has remained remarkably stable, indicating a high order of resiliency in our economy.
I have spent some time, Mr. Speaker, in commenting on these special features of the labour supply situation because all members of this House share the government's deep concern with the fact that unemployment is as high as it is.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Shall we send the minister a towel?


Edgar John Benson: The hon. member could use, himself, all he can get. In spite of the levels to which unemployment has risen, I cannot report any convincing evidence that the rise in wage rates has begun to slow down. I believe that the pressures in the economoy emanating from this fact are the most important single obstacle to the resumption of the faster rates of growth with high employment and steady prices which we all want.


Mr. Lewis:: Bilge.


Edgar John Benson: The average annual increase in base rates provided by major wage settlements during the first two quarters was 8.9 per cent. For 1969 as a whole it was 8 per cent.


An hon. Member:: What about government manpower?


Edgar John Benson: To the extent that these settlements are indicative of cost developments in other parts of the
economy or to the extent that they may guide new wage and salary settlements on a broad scale in other parts of the economy, then we are faced with the possibility that such increases may be rolled through the system. This could seriiously affect our price performance if a sufficient easing of fiscal and monetary restraint were in progress to accommodate it.
The rise in wage costs in the face of a mediocre productivity performance has meant a substantial surge in labour costs per unit of output in manufacturing. In that sector and in the economy at large, profits per unit of output have taken another sharp plunge in the second quarter of this year similar to that recorded in the second half of last year.


David Lewis: We ought to send some people
handkerchiefs.


Edgar John Benson: This has no doubt been an important factor impeding the growth of investment and employment this year.
I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that we have been rewarded in our struggle against inflation. I am sure all members of the House welcome the better recent news concerning prices, and that they will want us to consolidate these gains. Raw materials prices have been falling since early in the year, relieving the impact of higher wage costs in varying degrees from industry to industry. Wholesale prices generally have been on a downward trend this year. The all-items consumer price index, on a seasonally adjusted basis, increased at a 1.5 per cent annual rate over the February-August period this year. Food prices played a very imporant role in the slowdown. The consumer price index excluding food increased at a 3.2 per cent annual rate, which is sharply down from increases at close to a 5 per cent annual rate in most of 1969. Generally, our price performance in recent months has been considerably better than that in most other industrial countries.
e (2:50 p.m.)
I spoke earlier, Mr. Speaker, about the policy measures adopted in my March budget to deal with the economic situation at that time. I have traced the economic developments since then. I would like now to describe in some detail the policy responses of the government and the specific measures we have taken to deal with this changing situation. The government's economic policy objective is to give to the economy the maximum stimulus that can be provided without unleashing another and inevitably more damaging round of inflation.
In pursuing this objective, we are continuously reassessing the degree of stimulus that can be provided within the terms of the objective. In this reassessing we have been greatly encouraged by the more moderate price increases. As the new price information brightened _nto sharper focus, the government felt that it could take a more relaxed fiscal stance. We are still very worried by the continued increase of wage costs. We continue to hope, however, that moderating prices hold some promise that wage demands might soon be scaled down. Given the lags in the impact of policy changes, which we consider carefully in our planning, we felt a progressive

October 13, 1970

adjustment of the stance was warranted. This view developed before we were pressed by events into allowing an appreciation of the dollar to occur. We recognized that this appreciation would put pressure on our exporters and on our import competing industries.
One of our first moves was to drop the insurance policy we had taken out in the form of a projected control over consumer credit.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada has explained in his statement of August 31 that monetary policy since early in the year has sought to relax the very tight credit conditions which prevailed at the beginning of the year. The bank rate has been progressively lowered from 8 per cent to 61 per cent. Market rates of interest, especially for shorter term securities, have fallen this year. The rate on long term government of Canada bonds is down roughly half a percentage point and treasury bill yields are down about 21 percentage points. Since March of this year the average monthly increase in the seasonally adjusted private money supply at annual rates has been 12.1 per cent.
I should like also to refer to the measures I announced at the meeting of Ministers of Finance and Provincial Treasurers at Winnipeg in June. On that occasion I announced that the government of Canada would undertake to accelerate payment to the provinces of tax collections we make on their behalf. This has the effect of increasing our non-budgetary requirements this year-in effect the funds we put into the economy in this way-by $150 million. In addition, I announced that equalization payments to provinces would be increased by $60 million over the $867 million originally planned, on the basis of new data that had become available since the estimates.
Finally, I announced that $150 million remaining to be spent under the technical and vocational training schools program would be disbursed to the provinces in this fiscal year and the next. This, coupled with a further extra $15 million of disbursements to the provinces under other programs, added $90 million more to our budgetary expenditures for this year. Thus the effect of these measures was to add $150 million to our budgetary requirements and $150 million to our non-budgetary requirements or $300 million in all-a very considerable figure.
We have taken further important steps since the June announcements. Let us consider budgetary expenditures first. Equalization payments to the provinces for the current year have been raised by another $50 million to approximately $975 million owing to the impact of yet further new data. Payments under social insurance programs such as the Canada Assistance Plan have risen and will add further to the purchasing power in the private sector. Hon. members will be aware of the important effort and expenditure we made this past summer in connection with student summer employment programs.
In addition to these extra steps, I wish now to announce that the government has recently decided to ask the approval of Parliament for the expenditure of an additional $60 million to be directed very specifically to the alleviation of unemployment where the unemployment conditions are especially severe. Just under a third of this sum will be used by the Department of Manpower 23226-61
The Address-Mr. Benson
and Immigration in an extension of its manpower training programs.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister permit a question which I think is appropriate at the present time? Does the minister mean to indicate that the payments to the provinces during the current fiscal year will be higher than those that were forecast?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I indicated two situations where they will be substantially higher; first, with respect to the increase in equalization arising out of the data which is received, as my hon. friend knows, two years late; second, because of the agreement of the federal government to speed up payments to the provinces of taxes collected which will be an expenditure for us in the current year. Then, there is the speeding up of the program with respect to vocational schools where we agreed to pay off the $150 million, half this year and half next year.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My question relates to the forecast made for the current year as to the payments to be made to the provinces under the tax-sharing arrangements. Is the minister suggesting that these payments will, in effect, be substantially higher in total than were forecast?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I was not speaking of the tax-sharing agreements under which we collect taxes for the provinces and transfer them. As a matter of fact, if my hon. friend will wait a few minutes, I will file a table which will show exactly what payments will be made to the provinces. We have decided at this point to ask Parliament to allocate an additional $60 million of which one-third will be used to increase the manpower retraining programs. About one-quarter of the amount will be employed for the use of special employment programs and will be directed to capital projects in regions where unemployment is higher. The remainder of the program, about $25 million, will be used to employ men for a variety of operations and maintenance tasks which need doing but which departments had been asked earlier to postpone.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister a question? Are these additional funds to deal with unemployment going to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or will some other department do this?


Edgar John Benson: They will be going to several departments. Manpower retraining will be getting about one-third. There will be $25 million which will go to various departments.


Mr. Lundrigan:: That is for Newfoundland. What about the rest of Canada?


Edgar John Benson: Again, these special efforts will be made in regions of particularly high unemployment. These extra measures undertaken since June will add over $200 million to our budgetary expenditures.
I have been speaking of measures we have taken that involve budgetary expenditures. Several measures also adopted since June involve non-budgetary expenditures. The largest single item relates to the program announced

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. Benson
on August 5 by my colleague, the minister responsible lor the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Under this program, the government has added $100 million to the capital budget of the corporation for the current calendar year to enable it to expand its lending for construction of homes for home-ownership and rental accommodation for families of modest income in areas where housing and employment needs are greatest. These new funds will add 15,000 housing starts this year.
May I now be permitted to outline the budgetary and non-budgetary changes since the budget and the effect of these upon the cash position of the government. Budgetary revenues are down $50 million and budgetary expenditures are up $350 million, producing a prospective budgetary deficit of $150 million instead of the surplus in prospect last March of $250 million. In addition, there has been an increase of non-budgetary requirements of $325 million, except for funds required to finance foreign exchange transactions. With this exception, I am now anticipating a cash requirement on budgetary and nonbudgetary account of about $1.3 billion. To October 1 of this fiscal year the Canadian cash required to finance exchange transactions has been just over $1.2 billion. These post-budget government outlays represent a very considerable fresh fiscal stimulus to the economy.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
If I may have the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should now like, for the information of hon. members, to include as an appendix to Hansard tables in the form normally provided with budget speeches. These include a summary statement of our cash requirements for 1969-70 and our current forecast for 1970-71, the yields for the same two years of our main categories of budgetary and old age security revenues and again for the same two years tables and explanatory notes giving the budget figures in terms of the national economic accounts in the form published by the Bureau of Statistics together with a reconciliation with the budgetary accounts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have to ask the hon. minister's pardon. I was not listening. I was conferring with the Clerk.


Edgar John Benson: I requested the permission of the House to attach certain tables as an appendix to Hansard today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the minister have the permission of the House to append these tables?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Editor's note: For text of above documents see Appendix A)


Edgar John Benson: Let me now summarize the progressive expansion which has taken place in the government's fiscal and monetary policies in step with the steady easing of inflationary pressures over the past several months.
In the budget last March, there was a significant easing of fiscal restraint, with the government's cash requirement undergoing a swing of around three-quarters of a billion dollars from the previous year. At the meeting of
Finance Ministers and Provincial Treasurers in Winnipeg last June I indicated that outlays to the provinces would increase by some $300 million to cover accelerated transfers of tax revenue, accelerated payment of technical and vocational training school grants and higher equalization payments. Since that time it has been estimated that equalization payments to the provinces will be further increased this year by $50 million. The student summer employment program launched by the government, together with increased payments under various social insurance programs, will add another $73 million to current expenditures.
An additional $100 million has been allocated in the present calendar year to finance the construction of
15,000	housing units for families with moderate incomes. And today I have announced plans for new expenditure of $60 million of programs aimed directly at relieving unemployment where conditions are most severe.
On the monetary side, there has also been a significant easing of restraint. Since March of this year, the money supply in private hands has increased at a seasonally adjusted annual rate averaging 12.1 per cent. Rates of interest are significantly lower, particularly for shorter-term securities.
Mr. Speaker, this review should assure all members of the House that the government is maintaining an alert, continuous watch for opportunities to move the economy forward. Just as soon as we have felt reasonable confidence that our anti-inflation policies were bringing favourable results we have moved to stimulate the economy. We are anxious and determined to achieve a faster rate of growth and higher employment. But we know we cannot achieve and retain this prize through inflation.
I would like to make a few observations on the outlook as it now appears to us. In the government's view the pace of our advance and the support we can give to it will be determined very largely by developments in the private sector of the economy. A key is the performance of costs. The recovery of capital investment depends very directly upon the outlook for profits. This is turn depends upon productivity and wage costs. The potential demand exists, for there is today no generalized over-capacity in capital equipment and structures such as we have known in certain earlier periods. On the recovery of capital investment depends the recovery of employment and personal incomes and hence consumer spending. We can expect strength from government expenditures and exports, the forces which have sustained the economy this year.
As our economy moves forward our governments and industries will have growing needs for funds. Having in mind the pressure that appreciation puts upon our industries in direct competition with foreign producers, I would urge those who are contemplating borrowing to consider very carefully whether they have fully availed themselves of the competitive services of the Canadian capital market before they decide to float issues outside of Canada.
We anticipate a steady improvement in our employment situation, though the winter ahead will be a difficult one. We shall need a substantial annual rate of real growth before any marked improvement in the unem-
[Mr. Benson.l
October 13, 1970

ployment rate will be forthcoming. These are the hard facts.
We believe that the economy is capable of returning to the rates of growth which will reduce the unemployment rate significantly over the next four or five quarters. We believe that our policy stance will guide the economy on this course. The government will do the people of Canada no service if it rekindles the inflation by seeking to force an advance more rapid than productivity improvement and cost moderation will permit. The government will continue to be alert, as it has been alert, to reassess the developments in costs, in productivity and in prices, which must in the end determine the maximum degree of stimulus that the economy can safely absorb. When we can take further action to spur the economy closer to the goal of full employment and growth with stable prices we shall do so. We believe the stage is now set for the recovery of employment-perhaps slowly at first but at an accelerating pace. A strong growth of employment and the reduction of unemployment consistent with good price performance and moderating costs is the priority goal of our economic policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Lundrigan: I should like to ask the minister a question, Mr. Speaker.


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


John Howard Lundrigan: I was hoping to ask the minister a question before his time ran out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister's time has just expired by about one minute. I gave him a minute's grace because it seemed to me he was coming to the end of his remarks. However, if the House gives unanimous consent, the hon. member may ask a question. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Howard Lundrigan: My question relates to the $60 million nest egg which the minister said would be available. Would the hon. gentleman tell us the basis of its distribution and whether he has arrived at a conclusion concerning the manner in which the money will be distributed, and to what parts of Canada?


Edgar John Benson: First of all, in my speech I did not talk about $60 million, but about several hundred million dollars-changes in expenditure in the last several months and additional expenditures. With respect to the new item of $60 million, I indicated that 30 per cent would go to manpower, about 25 per cent to capital expenditure and the remainder on various maintenance expenditures. If the hon. member wants details of the total amount and precise information as to where these sums are to be spent, I will be pleased to provide it if he will drop me a note.


John Howard Lundrigan: Perhaps I should rephrase my question; I seem to find difficulty in communicating with the hon. gentleman. Has he decided where these monies will
The Address-Mr. Burton
be distributed, when they will be distributed and the basis of the distribution? I am referring only to the nest egg he offered to offset the unemployment situation in places where 20 per cent or more of the work force is unemployed.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker. I did say that we had already decided on making this expenditure, and I have indicated to my hon. friend that I will give him a breakdown by areas if he drops me a note. I cannot, off the top of my head, say that we are spending x dollars in Newfoundland, that we are erecting a building somewhere else, and so on, but I will supply the information if my friend drops me a note requesting same. In addition to that, we will be introducing a supplementary estimate to cover this expenditure.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne and in the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in this debate, this House has witnessed an almost unparalleled barrage of high-flown phrases and wordy platitudes. No doubt the speech writers in the Prime Minister's office and the other draftsmen responsible for these documents, are congratulating themselves on their command of language and esoteric concepts. But what the Canadian people are more interested in is whether the government commands a grasp of the problems facing the Canadian people, and whether the government has an effective program to deal with those problems.
Thus, I welcomed the amendment moved by my leader, because it brought the debate back to reality, back to the threat to Canadian independence created by growing foreign ownership of our economy. It brought us back to the reality of high levels of unemployment, to the reality of poverty and hardship that is being faced by many Canadian families.
If we heard something of the sublime in the Speech from the Throne and in the remarks of the Prime Minister, then I think we heard something of the ridiculous this afternoon from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). The Speech of the Minister of Finance this afternoon was a recitation of the failure of government policy. I noted that the minister placed a great deal of emphasis in his speech on laying the blame on the labour situation in Canada. It seemed to me that he was acting something like Dr. Young, Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission in this regard. I am not sure whether the Minister of Finance is parroting the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission or whether the chairman is parro'.ing the minister; but in either case they are both talking in the same way.
For one thing, the minister commented on the wild gyrations taking place in the labour force participation rate. I suggest that this is just one more piece of evidence that points out that the government has a complete lack of control over the economic situation in Canada.
The minister took great pains to point out that there has been an increase in work stoppages in Canada. I think the key question is: Why are they taking place? The answer to the question is that the government

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. Burton
has allowed a jungle-type society to continue to exist in this country. The government has failed to introduce a comprehensive incomes policy such as that proposed by New Democratic Party members. This is the reason for the increasingly difficult situation with respect to management-labour relations. Where is the incomes policy that we have heard suggested over the past several months?
The minister also said that a slowdown in wage demands is not coming. He suggested that this was the most important factor in the economy. On the other hand, he also pointed to a plunge in profits. I have never heard the minister express concern about a plunge in wages. Neither have I heard him express concern, or at least any great concern, for those Canadians who altogether lose their incomes as a result of unemployment. When did either the government or the Minister of Finance have any concern to express about the sharp increases in profits that have occurred during the past number of years? When did they have anything to say about the increase in interest rates? They have said nothing about that.
These factors are supposed to be indications of a healthy economy. Yet once wages start to go up this is cause for great concern amongst the government policy makers. This is why I suggest there is a basic contradiction involved here. I further suggest that the government has revealed its true colours in that it is not concerned with the ordinary working man in this country. Rather, it has concern for the corporate sector of the economy, for those people who already have a larger than proportionate share of the wealth of the country.
Certainly, the announcement of the minister this afternoon that more money would be voted to alleviate unemployment is belated but welcome. The minister then went on to say that a difficult winter is ahead. I suppose he expects people to take some consolation from that statement. He said that possibly there would be a return to normal growth conditions within the next four or five quarters.
What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that there will be a return to normal growth conditions at the end of 1971. The minister is suggesting that at that point it is possible the government will take steps to stimulate the economy. And what will happen near the end of 1971? This is very near the time when the government is going to think of calling the next federal election.
Both the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's address dealt with economic conditions. There were curious contradictions and conflicts, some straying from the facts, and throughout a failure to face up to necessities and to the bankruptcy of government policy. On the one hand, it was noted that something had to be done about unemployment and other problems. On the other hand, the attitude of "I'm all right, Jack" was taken. At one point some satisfaction was gained from the contention that unemployment rates had levelled off. If it is suggested that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate remained at 6.7 per cent in both July and August of this year, this will be small consolation to many thousands of Canadians.
The situation was perfectly predictable. The government was warned from many sides that its economic policies would result in a serious slowdown in the Canadian economy. It was warned that the voluntary guidelines policy to be implemented by the Prices and Incomes Commission could not succeed. The New Democratic Party advocated a comprehensive incomes policy. Other proposals were advanced. But the government blindly persisted in its policies. Now, many thousands of Canadians are reaping the whirlwind of the government's policies.
The government is now faced with a serious problem. Expectations are for high unemployment this winter,- admitted by the minister-a serious slowdown in business investment and the prospect of no growth in the second half of 1970. It seems clear that there will be no real economic pick-up until well into 1971. The reason is obvious: there is a time lag between policy changes and their effect on the economy.
A year ago the New Democratic Party urged the government to change its policies. The government failed to listen. On Friday the leader of the New Democratic Party again put forward a five-point economic program involving public investment programs, investment controls, redistribution of income by tax reforms, prices and income controls if necessary, and action to reduce our dependence on and vulnerability to the United States economy.
The Speech from the Throne must be analysed in terms of its adequacy. No one will dispute that there are some welcome announcements in the Speech from the Throne and in subsequent statements by ministers. Some proposals may even be regarded as a faltering and inadequate step in the right direction. The establishment of ministries concerned with environmental affairs and urban affairs will be meaningful only if accompanied by sound, far reaching and courageous programs.
In the final analysis, the government's program must be judged on the basis of its adequacy. Does it take the necessary steps to ensure the well-being of Canadian society? Does it ensure the welfare of individual Canadians? Is it prepared to go beyond "equality of opportunity", as mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, to "equality of condition"? Does it show courage?
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that on too many counts the government has fallen short in a speech liberally sprinkled with conflict and contradictions. Let me cite a few examples. According to the speech, the just society has now become the "distant ideal". Concern is expressed for the "life-support systems of the biosphere", and a new department of environmental affairs is to be created. But there is no assurance that the government is prepared to take the profound steps necessary to cope with these matters.
Reference is made to the need to anticipate and plan rather than reacting to events. But the government persists in taking smug satisfaction from its performance. Reference is also made to equality of opportunity, but not to equality of condition. Too often the phrase "equality of opportunity" is used in order to avoid the decisions necessary to bring about meaningful change. In reference to the government's urban activities, the Speech from the

October 13, 1970

Throne states that "the government seeks, by making rational its efforts in these fields", and so on. That is surely an admission of past irrationality and hardly an assurance of future common sense. Reference is made to the "competitive marketing system faced by consumers" and then we are told the government is going to do something about "combines, mergers and unfair trade practices".
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
There is only one short paragraph concerning problems of foreign ownership and no assurance of any program arising out of the current government study of this matter. The Speech from the Throne states:
It would be irresponsible to suggest that the economy is now in a satisfactory condition".
And then later:
Unemployment remains distressingly high in some parts of Canada-
It then concludes:
In sum, the vitality of the economy, coupled with present governmental policies, is countering slowly but effectively the pressures of inflation and unemployment.
Much lip service is paid to the United Nations. But words cannot make up for the failure of the Prime Minister to fulfil the expectation that he would address the 25th anniversary session of the UN on behalf of the people of Canada.
In the light of the two kidnappings in Montreal in the past ten days, special note must be taken of the statement in the Speech from the Throne:
Notwithstanding its difficulties, Canada continues to enjoy social stability to an exceptional degree.
Surely, this is the type of statement that can only contribute to an attitude of smug complacency which in turn allows situations to grow which eventually can result in the type of problems now faced by the governments of Canada and Quebec. It is not my intention to comment upon the immediate problems in view of the delicacy of the matter, but I did want to comment on some broader implications.
First, any tendency to donwngrade the problems facing Canadian nationhood is wrong. This crisis, which was somewhat submerged during the past year, now is a matter of concern for each and every Canadian. If we want a Canada we are going to have to work for it. For one, I want a Canada.
Second, the Prime Minister received a mandate from the Canadian people at the last election largely on the confidence and expectation that he could solve the problems of Canadian nationhood. Many people from all parts of Canada looked to him to save Canada. To create such a hope and expectation was false. To rely on such an approach was false. The evidence is now clear that, for whatever the reasons may be, the state of our nation has not improved and the Prime Minister has not reached the impossible objective associated with his political personality.
However, it would be folly to counsel despair. Rather, all Canadians must reassess the situation and develop
The Address-Mr. Burton
new approaches. Constitutional reform must be tackled on the basis of dealing with real issues and problems. Regional development programs must be related to people, not to the strengthening of private corporate power. Concepts of law and order must not be used as a weapon to prevent or hinder changes in outmoded or inadequate systems.
I was especially interested in the comments on tax reform in both the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's speech, since I served as a member of the House committee studying the white paper. Members will know that the majority of the committee bowed to the pressure of business and corporate representations and recommended substantial concessions to the corporate sector. Maybe they did not go quite as far as the Senate committee but we really do not expect any better from the other place.
It is also noteworthy that the committee meekly acquiesced to the modifications of the Minister of Finance to the White Paper proposals as they affected the oil and mining industries. It might be useful to recall some events. On August 5, the minister informed the committee he did not intend to announce any further modification of the white paper but added a rider "you can never tell". On August 26, the minister announced his concessions. By early September, when the committee met to consider its report, government members were prepared to accept the new proposal without having asked a single question.
I note the Prime Minister attempted to rationalize the concession to the mining industry in terms of growth. I challenge him to reconcile these concessions with the statement in his speech last Friday, which reads, at page 34 of Hansard:
The only true prosperity is that which is equitably shared.
I challenge both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to reconcile these concessions with the following two sentences in the Speech from the Throne:
Thereafter, legislation will be introduced incorporating policies designed to make more equitable the economic burden shared by our fellow dwellers in this complex and varied land. These taxation measures are part of the government's pledge to utilize the wealth of Canada for the good of all Canadians and not just for those fortunate enough to be shielded by the protective apparatus of giant corporations, alert professional organizations or powerful labour unions.
This is one more example of the hollow words in the Speech from the Throne. It is one more piece of evidence that real tax reform is a long way off. While it now appears that the government intends to proceed with the enactment of whatever changes are finally decided upon, I hope adequate time will be reserved for consideration of the legislation.
Members will be aware that the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) and myself introduced a minority report on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I commend its recommendations to the Minister of Finance. Tax credits instead of tax exemptions, a full capital gains tax, an end to the special privileges associated with corporate and investment income, an end to special concessions to large oil and mining industries, integration of estate and income taxation, and an ade-

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. Burton
quately structured progressive tax rate schedule-all of these things are needed for real tax reform.
The government must change its approach and not back down to the pressure of special interests. The Speech from the Throne correctly noted tensions existing in Canadian society. Inequality of wealth and economic power is one of the causes of these tensions. Failure on the part of the government to correct these inequalities can only intensify these tensions in society.
One final word on taxation concerning the provinces. There was some legitimate concern on the part of the provinces concerning the long run revenue implications for the provinces related to their fiscal needs. Beyond that the role played by the provinces in the White Paper debate was very disappointing. Most of the provinces joined the anguished cries of corporate business and were prepared to concede just about anything wanted. I think Canadians expected a more responsible approach by provincial governments. At least one provincial government has the unenviable position of being linked with the other place. A Leader-Post article dated October 1, 1970 is headed, "Province, Senate agree". The first paragraph reads:
The Saskatchewan government and the Senate Banking Committee see eye to eye in their disagreements with the federal government's white paper on tax reform.
I have already made some comments in respect of the national economic situation. I should now like to turn to a number of matters concerning the province of Saskatchewan which has been particularly hard hit by a combination of national economic events and special factors operating particularly in that province. The crisis faced by Saskatchewan during the past year poses many questions involving Saskatchewan's future and I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the implications of some government programs and policies on that future.
One indicator of the course of events in Saskatchewan is population. On July 1, 1970, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics estimated there were 940,000 people in Saskatchewan, an absolute drop of 22,000 from the figure of
962,000	in October, 1968. Net migration out of Saskatchewan would have of course been much higher. Unemployment figures have not reflected the true picture due to the high degree of mobility in Saskatchewan's labour force, the relatively high percentage of people engaged in agriculture and the fact that some groups, such as Indian people on reserves, are not included in labour force surveys.
Several industries have faced serious problems. Potash faced special problems due to unplanned, too rapid expansion; oil and uranium slowed down but most important, agriculture faced a real crisis due to a slow down in markets, price drops and continual cost increases. Agriculture is still the most important industry in Canada and grain production is still foremost within the industry. For this reason I think it is tragic that the Canada Grains Act was not passed at the last session. The government waited too long to introduce it with the result that we did not finish the committee stage until the last day before the summer adjournment. It was an improved bill that came out of the committee, and we in this party wanted the bill passed quickly. That was not
to be. When the House reconvened on October 5, the Conservative members tabled 44 amendments. I submit that such a move was made for one reason only, that was to kill the bill, and they did. Most of their amendments would have reduced the Grain Commission's powers to control the grain trade. Now, the bill has to be introduced again in this session before it will be possible to introduce protein grading which is so badly needed.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The Speech from the Throne tried to paint a good picture of the infamous Operation Lift and tried to suggest that it was responsible for unclogging wheat markets. I suggest that the unclogging of wheat markets was due more to crop conditions in a large number of foreign countries. It was also suggested that, the Lift program encouraged a healthy diversification of agricultural activities." Possibly the government has not heard that the price of weanling pigs in Saskatchewan dropped from $22 to $3 to $4 in recent months. Such are the consequences of crash programs like Operation Lift.
In addition, hon. members will recall that last spring the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board warned farmers not to increase their barley acreage. Some increase took place anyway. Now, we have the prospect of a barley shortage and the minister is busily covering his tracks by urging farmers to grow more barley.
In the long-run Operation Lift will prove a real setback to western Canadian agriculture. Had this expenditure been used to stabilize farm income, production adjustments would have been made without the damage that has been done.
Finally, it should be noted that when the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) spoke last Thursday in the debate in seconding the motion now before us he did not once refer to Operation Lift, although he referred to many other items. From a farmer from a farm constituency in Saskatchewan, surely this silence is eloquent.
There are other aspects of agricultural problems in Saskatchewan that I would like to discuss, including price supports, marketing, grain movement, etc., but time does not permit. There is one particular matter though that is causing many farmers concern, that is the government's dairy policy.
I raise this matter because of the previously quoted reference claiming that Operation Lift encouraged agricultural diversification. Many farmers in Saskatchewan are concerned at the rigid application of the policies of the Dairy Commission which now effectively prohibit them from obtaining cream subsidies in particular. This operates badly for many prairie farmers because the Commission's policies were introduced at a time when grain markets were buoyant and many farmers had gone out of milk production. I hope the commission and the government will review the rules to bring about a more fair operation for any prairie farmers.
In answer to questions and representations the government has pointed out from time to time that Saskatchewan will benefit under regional development programs. Complaints have already been made about the low allocation of expenditures to Saskatchewan.

October 13, 1970

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. Burton
The above information is being provided in view of the interest you have expressed in this regard.
Why is Esk so much more stable than Serath? I have nothing against keeping Esk open, but let us compare the two communities.
Esk is about five miles from Lanigan, a rapidly growing town. Serath is about 20 miles from the nearest town. Serath has 50 householders according to the latest postal guide while Esk has 38. True, Serath does not have banking and medical facilities. What does Esk have? The 38 householders comprise 23 farmers, one teacher, three retired, one postmaster, four labourers, two grain agents, one carpenter, one housewife, one garage or service station operator, and one general-whatever that is.
The then Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) refused to listen to many representations and reasoning. Local Liberal politics held sway. Some local Liberal supporters wanted to get the rural route contract. This is the type of patronage politics that has hurt the post office more than all other factors. The two Liberal members from Saskatchewan played a disgraceful role in this episode.
Another matter of concern to many communities is the reduction in railway service. The CPR has closed most of its agencies in Saskatchewan, and branch line service in many areas is restricted to grain movement. Now, the CPR is trying to unload its last remaining passenger service in Saskatchewan, the main line service.
The CNR also tried to close most of its agencies and establish a master agency plan. Public reaction was so strong that it looks as if the CNR has called off its plans. Instead, it is resorting to the old railway game of squeezing out service when the railways do not get their way. Passenger tickets have been taken away from many station agents. Communities on some lines no longer have cartage services; draying contracts have been terminated; distribution of express is becoming more centralized. Such an approach by the railways is the height of irresponsibility.
These examples and many others I could cite, Mr. Speaker, illustrate how the structure of Saskatchewan communities is breaking down because of the lack of co-ordinated planning sensitive to the needs of people. What is needed in Saskatchewan is concern and attention to the needs of communities, large, small and rural, to ensure that viable communities exist which are desirable places for people to live, from aesthetic, cultural and economic standpoints.
Many program changes are needed. I give one small example. For years forest nursery stations have provided trees free of charge to farmers. A very useful service has been performed. I suggest the time has come when this service should also be provided to urban communities. I recognize that in doing so consideration would have to be given to the situation of commercial nurseries.
In view of the serious problems facing rural Canada and smaller communities, and in view of the urgent need for co-ordination, planning and programs I urge that a minister of state for rural affairs be appointed. A useful step will be taken by appointing a minister of state for urban affairs and housing. I hope this step will be followed by meaningful programs. I suggest there is a similar need for a minister of state for rural affairs. Because
of the failure of the government to act on this and many other problems, I will support the amendment to the amendment moved by the leader of the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Philip G. Givens (York West):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to congratulate the mover of the motion for the address in reply, the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel), and the seconder, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas). I do this not only as a formality but because of my high personal esteem for both of these gentlemen.
Many years ago when I was a law student, I began to learn about the constitution of this great country. I learned pretty quickly that municipal institutions came under section 92 of the British North America Act, which meant they came under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Indeed, I had a very good teacher. My teacher in constitutional law was so eminent that he now sits as a justice on the Supreme Court of Canada.
Then, almost 20 years ago I went into municipal politics. I worked my way all the way up from nothing to a state of absolute poverty, through the stages of alderman and controller, and went on to become the mayor of my beloved city of Toronto. I saw the city of my birth grow from a population of 650,000 to a metropolitan area of over 2 million population. I saw it grow by an estimated
50,000	to 60,000 people a year each year for the past 20 years, and as well I saw grow its problems of congestion, poverty, housing, welfare, education, traffic jams and pollution. I saw these problems engulf my city and its environs.
Quite often I sat wringing my hands in frustration because of a lack of power and money to do the things which had to be done for my great city. I would go to the province with my hat in hand, like a mendicant or beggar, looking for financial assistance and legal assistance. I was told by the boys in the provincial government that it was the federal government which had the money and that I should go to see my friends in the federal government. So, I would come up to Ottawa. They would take me out to lunch and they would tell me, "Phil, you know very well that jurisdiction over the cities belongs to the provinces."
I rapidly became a track star on the run-around track of passing the buck, and when I came here as a federal member of Parliament two years ago I knew about the constitution. I knew what it said in the constitution but, Mr. Speaker, that did not make it right, because it did not accord with the reality of the situation.
I have argued loud and long, time and again, that the municipalities we now have in this great country are not the municipalities which were envisaged by the Fathers of Confederation and the BNA Act, that their responsibilities today are not just to fix curbs and fill potholes, to look after police protection and fire protection, that today the cities are conglomerates, and that Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver could never have been envisaged in 1867 in the extent to which they have grown today.
Indeed, notwithstanding the fact of the constitution, the federal government today is financially right up to its neck in municipal matters, to the extent of hundreds of

October 13, 1970

millions of dollars spent on housing, airports, harbours, post-secondary school education, post offices, public works and so on. Today the budgets of Montreal and Toronto are bigger than the budgets of at least seven of the provinces, and the populations of Montreal and Toronto are each bigger than the populations of seven of the provinces. Indeed, today the populations of each of the cities of Toronto and Montreal is bigger than the population of all the four Atlantic provinces put together.
If the provinces have a right to sit in at constitutional conferences, as I have seen them with premiers representing provinces which have populations of anywhere from 150,000 to 200,000 or 300,000 people, then surely the populations of our great cities have a right to be represented at these conferences which will determine the constitution of this country for the next 100 years.
I have pointed out that by the year 1980-this has been stated time and again by eminent statisticians and research authorities-which is only a short ten years off, 80 per cent of the population of Canada will be living in the cities of the nation. Sixty per cent of our population will be living in cities of over 100,000 population, and one third of the entire population of the nation will be living in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. I have argued that there was a need for the federal government to manifest its concern for the cities in order to prod the provinces, even though the cities are their responsibility under the constitution, something which I have never denied. I have argued that urban areas have affected national policies, financial and monetary policies, more than many of the provinces. In any event, Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing with municipalities as such but with people, the people we represent in this House of Commons.
But, Mr. Speaker, all these arguments seemed to fall on deaf ears. I was told that the constitution stood in the way, that I was beating my head against a brick wall, and so it seemed to me.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They were bluffing you.


Philip Gerald Givens: Anyway, I will leave to others the chronicling of the sequence of events which took place from the beginning, two years ago, until now. But, lo and behold, in the Throne Speech last week my impossible dream seems to have come true. By the appointment of a secretary of state for urban affairs and housing, the government has acknowledged that it has a place in the urban affairs of the nation. This is a specific acknowledgement in the Throne Speech. This is a de jure as well as a de facto recognition that the federal government owes responsibility, and is manifesting its concern, for the cities. It could not be clearer than it is in the Throne Speech. This means to me that there will now be a recognition of the place of municipal governments in the day to day public business of this country and in the planning for the future. In addition, in the search for a new Canadian constitution, the municipalities will be recognized and accepted as participating partners and be given a role consistent with their influence on the lives of the Canadian people.
The Address-Mr. Givens
So far as I am concerned I consider this to be a total vindication of my position and I have only one word of caution I wish to express at this time. If a federal initiative in urban affairs is to bear fruit, it must necessarily be accepted in good faith and must take into account the indispensable participation of the other levels of government, particularly in the area of formulation of national urban policies. It must be a tri-partite arrangement. This means that the federal government must recognize and pursue actively its responsibility to foster effective and continuous consultation between all levels of government in the formulation of national urban policies. It also means that the municipal governments must recognize the responsibility they have to consult together in the formulation of the municipal point of view. They must, themselves, come to terms with the problems that are situate within their boundaries and they must work together to assure a better understanding by each municipality and its officials of national urban problems. Without the full participation of municipalities as provincial and national groupings any federal initiative is doomed to failure. Without the full and active participation of individual provinces and the provinces as a group, once more federal initiative is doomed to failure.
The Canadian municipalities, through the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities, have obviously contributed to the alerting of the federal government to its need to take an initiative in urban affairs. Let us hope that the municipalities do not consider the federal initiative to be a sufficient measure. Let us hope that they are urged to move even further and faster along the road to three party consultation rather than make the fatal mistake-and this is what it would be-of relaxing their efforts at the first sign of success in this venture.
Much has been said about the matter of pollution. We have been inundated with a miasma of pollution jargon. In an age of transcience in which fashions and fads change over night, as people leap from one sensation to another, there is a strong danger that the public will lose interest and that the destruction of our environment will continue apace as man goes the way of the dinosaur into oblivion. But I do not think this will happen.
I think that pollution is, and will continue to be, the vital issue for the rest of this century. If we fail in this period of time and over the next generation to control its disastrous devastation and to repair the basic defects of rampant population growth and uncontrolled technology, and if we do not somehow adjust our concern about the environment and adapt it to our traditional institutional framework of society, then we will have had it; we simply will not survive. Many cracks have been made by sophisticated, "hep", people, the swingers, who have wondered out loud through the facilities of the media whether the furore about pollution is full of sound and fury signifying nothing and whether indeed it is a passing fad like the mini or the midi or the Nehru jacket. There are the neanderthal types in all walks of life who have indicated that it is only a tempest in a teapot, a gimmick for professors and radical students to attract attention and publicity for themselves.
In the past decade we have seen many emotional and volatile issues grab people and shake them only to be

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. Givens
forgotten the day after tomorrow. Our attention span is terribly short and our concentration as fickle as a femme. This unfortunately is true. I feel, however, that never before have we been faced with an issue of such vital significance to ourselves and the future of our children and our grandchildren. This is an issue which we live with every day and which is before our very eyes day in and day out, week in and week out, year after year. We are reminded of it constantly as we breathe the air, listen to the constant cacaphony of deafening noises around us, struggle through crowds and traffic, twitch our noses and turn away from looking at the streams, rivers and lakes in and out of our cities in order to keep from throwing up.
If in the face of these frightening reminders which we see every day we turn away or lose interest and turn to something else for kicks, then we will truly deserve the catastrophe which will descend on our heads. Therefore, I consider the call in the Throne Speech for a co-ordination and consolidation of all our efforts in an effective fashion and the establishment of a department with a mandate for the protection of the biosphere to be a declaration of major importance which would not have been possible two years ago.
On the subject of abortion, I welcome the proposal for a special debate. Naturally, I would prefer to see the government take specific action on this matter but two years in these hallowed halls and corridors have taught me that there are many deep and serious divisions of opinion on this subject and of course I have mine. I do not think I will ever forget the debates in this House when we were discussing the therapeutic abortion amendment to the Criminal Code omnibus bill last year.
The state of New York, which has a population greater than the whole of Canada and which has an ethnic, racial and religious mix which is a microcosm of the whole of the United States and comparable to ours, has freed abortion from criminal strictures. Although this great state is just across the border, it may as well be at the other end of the world so far as this progressive move is concerned. At least the xenophobes in our midst can take comfort in the fact that we have not been brainwashed and acculturated to this degree by our United States neighbour.
When we passed the therapeutic abortion amendment I really believed we had done a good thing and that we would be protecting about 100,000 Canadian women a year who seek illegal abortions from the back alley butchers who prey on them. Alas, this has not been the case. I believe it is time this Parliament took heed of the growing number of Canadians who maintain that an intimate decision concerning abortion should be made by the woman or couple concerned, without being dominated by those who would impose their ideas concerning morality and religion on others who hold entirely different views and beliefs.
I feel the same way about another controversial matter mentioned in the Throne Speech. I refer to the question of the non-medical use of drugs. I have been appalled by what I have seen in the courts in Toronto and by what is going on in the courtrooms throughout this nation with regard to this problem. Every day hundreds of youths
across this country are being arrested, mugged, finger printed and given a criminal record at the start of their lives for the mere possession of a "reefer" or two of Cannabis marijuana. Many of these kids have come from our finest homes. The result of such conviction, regardless of the penalty imposed by enlightened courts, has a devastating effect on the families as well as the accused. It is granted that this whole problem in respect of drugs is vexing and perplexing, but this method of handling these cases under the Criminal Code is really archaic and Draconian in an enlightened society. I shall anxiously await the commission's final report so that it can be studied, discussed and acted upon without further delay.
So, for the reasons I have indicated, I am delighted with the Throne Speech and for the first time in the two years I have been here I can honestly say I now feel at home in this House.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I take the opportunity of congratulating the movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne (Mr. Trudel and Mr. Douglas).
We are all invited to discuss the Speech from the Throne. In all such speeches, we find valuable items and some that are less so, as well as omissions. This speech teems with good intentions. In fact, it says, and I quote:
As Canada moves into the seventies, we are ail invited to join in this bold enterprise-to share the excitement, to face the challenge, to pursue the distant ideal of a just society.
Further, it says:
The Canada of the seventies must continue to be a land for people; a country in which freedom and individualism are cherished and nurtured; a society in which the Government lends its strength to withstand, rather than support the pressures for conformity.
That surely set me wondering! Here is more:
Fortunately, our population, the number of Canadians engaged in productive employment, the total volume of goods and services which they produce, and Canadian exports all continue to grow.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to spend the few minutes I have left commenting only the Throne speech. As many others, I would like to make some objective remarks.
After two years in the House, we might well ask ourselves certain questions. In fact, there were 300,000 unemployed two years ago; today there are 500,000 people out of work.
The government has adopted an anti-inflationary policy. The attempt to limit salary increases to 6 per cent is an example. However, they forgot to ask industries and businesses to restrict their profits to 6 per cent. To me, it was gross injustice. I was very surprised to see that the government wanted to limit salary increases to 6 per cent without any consideration for low wage earners. This type of unfairness was designed to widen the gap between the rich and the poor.
As regards housing, there are still very serious problems in this field.
On many occasions-and I shall take the liberty of repeating this-we had asked the Minister to repeal the
[Mr. Givens.l
October 13, 1970

11 per cent sales tax on building materials. For a year and a halt now, we have been asking the government to make low-interest loans to workers with low incomes. In my view, such action would soon bring about the expansion of the construction industry.
A policy aimed at making the repayment of loans easier may well be introduced, still, low-income workers cannot be required to pay over the years three times the actual value of their homes.
It is indeed a pleasure and a duty to request once again-and I hope the minister will listen to us this year-low-interest loans, or, in other words, loans bearing interest at 5 or 6 per cent for wage-earners with an annual income of $10,000 or less.
With respect to agriculture, the two years that have just elapsed have not yet brought the expected profits of results. This could be discussed at length. However, where the milk producers are concerned and taking into account their good faith in relation with quotas, I urge the minister in charge to rectify as quickly as possible the iniquities they have been suffering s.nce last April. Because of that iniquitous situation-and many of you know it-several dairy farmers have disappeared. The minister had undertaken to put an end to that anomaly as soon as the good faith of the dairy farmers could be established. Having said this I hope that the minister will act without any delay so that these producers can get the grants they need desperately. We have perhaps forgotten during the last two years to readjust the pensions of the blind and the disabled. Those pensions set at $75 monthly are insufficient, and this has been the case for a long time. I hope that this year we will be able, after discussion, to increase the pension of the people who, in addition to living alone, need someone to help them. This $75 pension, in view of the need for a companion, is ridiculous surely, considering the cost of living today. Since April 1964, a blind person cannot earn more than $1,600 a year or his pension will be reduced. I hope the government will reconsider this measure and will allow a blind man to become less dependent and thanks to his skill, to increase his income without losing his pension.
Mr. Speaker, if we make a quick survey, it is hard to believe that we will gain the confidence of the people in this manner.
Last year, I spoke at some length about objectivity. I thought that, which the good will of all hon. members, we could achieve a greater degree of objectivity, act more as administrators than as politicians. Such objectivity, I feel, has not been exercised in the manner that I and the whole population of Canada would have wished to see in the House. This year, I hope that there will be more objectivity here than heretofore. We can never gain the confidence of the people so long as suggestions brought forward and likely to help our fellow-citizens are being rejected.
I dare hope that we may still prove our Parliament to be truly democratic.
To my way of thinking party discipline is much too rigid in certain cases.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I know that the party in power is often embarrassed. I also know that, according to an old tradition, any legisla-
The Address-Mr. La Salle
tion introduced in the House, if rejected, necessarily brings about the fall of the government.
In my view, this tradition could disappear. I feel that the government should be defeated through a vote of non-confidence. If this measure were more clearly defined we could ask the political parties to be less rigid when party discipline is involved.
I do not accept very well that party discipline should involve the conscience of the members, because this practice leads us to deny certain commitments we have made and forces us to vote against our own convictions. Obviously, the party in power is often placed before this dilemma. By changing that attitude or those old traditions, we could give more freedom to the members and thereby prove to the Canadian people that a democratic parliament can really be achieved.
As long as party discipline is that rigid, it will continue to bind the conscience of the members. There are striking examples.
Indeed, last spring, the matter of dairy policy came up.
I remember full well that the majority of the members, who represent rural areas, were not in favour of the government policy. But the party discipline was strong enough to silence the members of the party in power and the government cut back the subsidies by $10 million, which did excessive harm to milk producers.
Today, we are still trying to get the situation back to normal. But the fact remains that party discipline forced a number of members to vote, I am convinced, against their convictions. They would have liked to have fought for the interests of the riding they promised to represent well, but they were unable to do so.
Now, I dare hope changes will be made to that effect, to enable Parliament to allow all its members to be more honest and honour their commitments towards their electors.
Mr. Speaker, a while ago mention was made of a bill allowing greater freedom in the matter of abortions. I am sorry that the Speech from the Throne did not refer to a bill that would have given us the opportunity of discussing abortion this year. I feel that the impressive statistics published in the last three years and a half justify a new debate on that law.
I would have liked better during this session to see a debate on capital punishment rather than on further liberalization of the legislation on abortion. I would have preferred that we should try to get rid of our criminals rather than consider doing away with innocent people.
Mr. Speaker, I shall take this opportunity to mention a problem of some significance in my riding which does not have only advantages but also its own problems.
For the past few months I have made representations to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) in order to get, on behalf of my riding, information concerning the current unemployment rate. I consider myself justified in asking the minister for a better understanding of the difficulties we experience at this time.
There are various reasons for the 15 per cent unemployment rate in my riding. We should also be able to find work for some 1,500 students who enter the labour market each year.

The Address-Mr. La Salle
The training programmes that have been made necessary by the work done at the international airport and that normally should help reduce unemployment will certainly not be felt before 1980. As there were reductions in some areas of the textile industries in my constituency, unemployment has gained momentum.
I am convinced that the minister understands the situation and that he will attempt to give it special attention. I will have the opportunity in the near future to present him with a petition from my constituency, namely from all the municipalities, the Chambers of Commerce, the Regional Economic Council and from cities such as Joliette and l'Assomption. I think that, in the light of claims which will show the difficulties we are experiencing, the minister will seriously consider the possibility of including my constituency as a designated region or at least setting up special areas which would be a great help for us.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about severe unemployment throughout Canada and particularly in the province of Quebec.
I made on occasions some suggestions aimed at curtailing unemployment. There are works to be done in each municipality. I wonder whether we could not ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his government to give special attention to the organization of winter works this year. This is something that was going on previously, but that has been called off by the government. I wonder whether we would not have reasons re-establish them, at least with respect to public services in each municipality.
I wonder also whether it would not be desirable to have students work during the summer at cleaning up our waterways; this would give employment to students and help fight pullution at the same time.
These works would confer a tourstic attraction to our cities.
I would like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion as well, to consider very particularly the possibility of granting assistance to industries.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has greatly improved the situation by allowing certain expenses in different areas of Canada, especially in the province of Quebec. We have, therefore, profited by a reasonable part of those works.
But I wonder if it is adequately considered to protect the industries. It is very interesting to see a certain number of new industries come into being, but I believe that we unfortunately forget to give them adequate attention. In my opinion, it would be much less burdensome to allow these industries to have a certain expansion or, at least, to continue their operations.
Before concluding my remarks, I would like to say a few words on a question which has not been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, namely the measure to amend the constitution. Some hon. members talked about the matter and discussed it, but I regret that that question has not received the priority which it deserves.
I think that in the opinion of Quebecers and of all other Canadians, such a change is becoming increasingly essential and should have been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. People are worried right now because
October 13, 1970
we are living anguishing hours. Still, I believe we should ask what is behind this phenomenon.
I think that over the past 10 years Quebec has made quite normal claims at federal-provincial conferences. Perhaps the federal government has refused for too long to recognize the particular situation of Quebec in Canada. In fact, 80 per cent of Quebec's population is nevertheless represented by French speaking people.
The history of the French Canadian nation leads us to recognize differences. It is also the responsibility of Quebec to see to the preservation of our traditions, of our turn of mind and of our views which are not necessarily identical to those of other Canadians. I think that these are quite rightful aspirations. We share much in common with all other Canadians: we want well-being and affluence but, at the same time, we want to keep our language and our habits, desires which are quite legitimate.
I regret, however, that the federal government should be reluctant to revise the Constitution, which discourage, to a certain extent a number of Quebec people. It may be that the federal members from the Province of Quebec should have given their colleagues from the other provinces more precise information on the difficulties and the aspirations of Quebecers. It may have been to often said that only a few people, a gang of bums, were involved, and that the matter did not have any great importance.
If that is so, then it was not the truth. A wish for emancipation was coming alive in Quebec. I believe that, to a certain extent, it was due to some hesitation in granting this wish that the movement for independence came into being, and, through all this, it happens that some groups go further than those who wish to remain peaceful.
Some will say that at the last election, the Province of Quebec, being well satisfied with the present system, elected a majority government which favoured federalism. But perhaps no attention was drawn to the fact that 66 per cent of the French-speaking population of Quebec voted for opposition parties, and this proves the dissatisfaction of a large number of citizens.
I say that because we already have a committee whose very first task will be to tackle the problem of improving the constitution.
I also believe that the briefs submitted by the Quebec governments since 1960 were aiming at the same goal and emphasizing the needs of the whole Canadian population.
The brief tabled at the last conference was almost the same as those from the precedent governments although its tune was a little different.
If on occasion we have perhaps changed our tune, it might be because we used the appropriate tune at the time, which made it possible for the Quebec premier to change his tune and perhaps his words while still taking into consideration Quebec's objectives and needs and also the conditions by which this province could remain in our great country, Canada, so that the Quebec people could be happier and more content.
I do not think that by passing one single piece of legislation we could settle the problem of national unity.
I believe in differences. Some are found in our province

October 13, 197 0

but also elsewhere. We are prepared to recognize them and we have proved it.
Should we also ask to the majority oi hon. members to understand these differences in order that each citizen can get his share of happiness and satisfaction in Canada?
We are willing to accept-and we have proved it-the differences that exist in other provinces. I must say that so that there can be a better understanding in our country, since I am convinced that, if we were better informed and more open-minded, we would be able not only to accept the province of Quebec, but to keep it within Canada and to make it easier for it to obtain the particuler rights which would enable its inhabitants to be happy. Under these conditions, we will build our country-and this is surely the desire of the vast majority of Quebecers-while respecting the differences existing not only in Quebec but elsewhere as well.
After all, I still think that in the future, thanks to a better understanding from those sitting here, the province of Quebec will develop further in this beautiful country which is called Canada.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, during the next few minutes I should like to express my opinion on the Speech from the Throne delivered on October 8. I commend the government for it because I am convinced that its devoted civil servants must have taken a lot of time to prepare as perfect, as eloquent a piece of oratori-al art as this with such high-sounding but absolutely meaningless words.
In my estimation, this speech could easily be compared to a stuffed animal. One admires the art of the craftsman who has given it an appearance so near to reality; one admires the finish, even the elegance of this so-called work of art, but everyone knows very well there is no consistency inside this beautiful body, that this lovely decor hides only a few pounds of straw and that the whole thing rests on the ability of the craftsman to give it its striking appearance.
Once again, as usual, we are given pompous statements devoid of meaning.
Mr. Speaker, one reads in the Speech, and I quote:
Canada continues to enjoy social stability to an exceptional degree.
Incidentally, I should like to say that when the Speech from the Throne was written our situation was not what it is today. Still, we knew something was wrong. Today, the situation is far more serious than we thought.
They dare say that Canada enjoys exceptionoal social stability. I wonder where the staff of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) get their information.
Perhaps the people working for some of the hon. opposites still believe in Santa Claus. If the members of the government believe in Santa Claus, I beg of them to dispense with trying to make us believe in him. Obviously, we no longer do.
The Address-Mr. Beaudoin
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, someone should ask the employees of G. Lapalme Inc. if they believe in Santa Claus! We should ask the farmers of Eastern Canada if they are still expecting Bill C-197 from Santa Claus! Western farmers who are at grips with the famous Lift program should be asked if they think Santa Claus exists! We should also ask Canadian shoe manufacturers, Indians of the North, as well as foreign investors whether they believe in Santa Claus!
In one word, Mr. Speaker, government members should leave their offices and look around.
If the Prime Minister's statement is true, what are we doing here? If everything is fine, why keep trying to improve the situation? We are now at the beginning of the third test year of the present government which is repeating its usual story, the establishment of its just society.
I sincerely wonder if it is a just society for fun or a just society for a few. According to the Winnipeg Free Press of April 21 last, Governor Louis Rasminsky of the Bank of Canada stated that average salary increases of 7 to 8 per cent a year too high to allow the federal government to successfully combat inflation.
Well, in the course of last year, no doubt as an active participation in the anti-inflation fight, this same Mr. Rasminsky raised his own salary from $50,000 to $75,000 a year, or 50 per cent, which is only six or seven times more than what he had considered too high. A just society for whom, Mr. Speaker?
I am not against the principle of "just" salary increases. I use the word according to the meaning it has for us Creditistes, that is, equal justice for all.
Justice demands, I claim, that the wage increases to be granted to Canadian workers be proportionally equal to that given to Mr. Rasminsky.
But you will say that this would be absolutely impossible, and you are right. Then why not keep wages at a stationary level and cut down commodity prices? Impossible again, you will reply. And again I agree; such action is impossible in this unhealthy system. The solution to the problem lies in the implementation of Social Credit policies.
I know for sure that nobody will ever accept this truth without being compelled to do so. And in spite of it all, it is considered that Canada enjoys exceptional social stability. Words! Words! Words! Preposterous I say!
Where is that so-called just society? Are we talking about true distributive justice, or about the hollow concept of "justice"? Speaking of "justice", I think that at the present moment, we know nothing about it in Canada.
I would like, at this stage, to relate a conversation I had with somebody whose logic was perplexing.
In view of all that is happening in Canada, this person asked me simply: "Why should the federal government not decide to be honest once and for all and enact legislation which would confiscate to the benefit of the government all private property in Canada?*

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. Beaudoin
This person told me that he considered the present governments as true usurpers taxing indispensable commodities in order to take over, by indirect means, what belongs to the people.
Why not, then, frankly be usurpers and do it directly, without hiding behind taxes? What do you answer to such advanced logic? In my opinion, such a statement leads us to doubt the exceptional social stability we enjoy in Canada, according to the Speech from the Throne.
Every day there are edifying news about attempts made to bring about a just society. Thus, in looking through the annual report of the Canadian Film Development Corporation for 1969-70 I was quite surprised to find out that such films as L'lnitiation and Les deux femmes en or had received financial assistance from the said corporation.
Mr. Speaker, here is what it says on page 9, and I quote:
"Under Section 10(2) of the Act establishing the Corporation, a completed film, in order to be eligible for a grant, must have a significant Canadian content.
Mr. Speaker, it is conceivable that a producer could decide to include in a film obscenities, insults to justice, words that vilely sully the beliefs of the majority of Canadians, and all sorts of things we all, I am sure, condemn, since he alone assumes moral and financial responsibility for them.
But that taxes paid by Canadians should contribute to the financing of such films, that, I repeat, is revolting to me. I strive to bring my children up in the natural respect of genuine love and of the most elementary human values, hereas the government, using funds raised from the fruit of my labours and those of all Canadians, allows producers to show such films in all our movie houses, accompagnied by spectacular and well-orchestrated publicity. That, Mr. Speaker, is beyond my understanding and I am squarely against it.
Is this the "just society" which means to shake the foundations of a self-respecting society? We should not wonder at the trouble our young people have been giving us lately. And to think that in the report it is said that such movies have a significant Canadian content. Supported, I suppose, by some kind of foundation garment. Is this what should be used to identify our society, as basic principle? Perhaps it is one of the objectives sought in the creation of the "just society"!
Moreover, we are spending thousands of dollars to find the reasons why so many young people take drugs. In fact, we are degrading them with all kinds of things and they have no hope left in the future.
There is no logic in the government's attitude, Mr. Speaker. Thousands of dollars are spent on research into the harmful effects of cigarettes, drugs, etc., and at the same time, tobacco farmers are granted subsidies to increase their production. As for me, I do not really see the logic in such a reasoning on the part of a government deemed reasonable.
We can also see in the Speech from the Throne that the government has just found a miracle solution to the problem of housing and pollution by establishing federal
departments. We really feel that the matter is being dealt with, that we need no longer worry about housing and pollution. The creation of these departments is so ridiculous that it is virtually impossible to say a word about it to our constituents without making them laugh, and I do understand them!
This reminds me of the fine books and documents that I keep preciously on the shelves in my office, here, in the parliament buildings. They all deal with bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada. So many words which mean nothing.
In my opinion, bilingualism in Ottawa is, in fact, a French Canadian who speaks English.
Most of the messengers of the House of Commons, whose mother tongue is French, speak English, while those whose mother tongue is English are very seldom able to speak French. The same applies to elevator operators, members of the protective staff, etc. And yet large amounts of money are used to publish rubbish submitted by young people who are not much more intelligent than their proposals.
What is the use of special commissions, task forces and even departments, when we know very well that this will in no way change the views of our devoted Prime Minister? Where is the democracy of which we have been hearing for 20 years? We should call this a dictatorship, because here in Ottawa, there is only one man who governs. We see this every day. I am thinking of the worthwhile efforts of hon. members who sit on committees and of the reports of which no account is ever taken.
* (4:40 p.m.)
We are informed of a possible series of debates on consumer protection, reorganization of the textile industry and the study of the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, etc. Even people outside politics could easily see, upon reading the speech, that the present government is beating around the bush to save time. The Prime Minister is the only one who knows what the immediate future of the country will be.
The uneasiness we are plagued with is an economic one. All efforts to protect the consumer, to reorganize the textile industry and to raise unemployment benefits, will have to be made all over again soon if we do not change the foundation of our economic system.
And the foundation I am talking about here is that of the monetary concept.
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to note how easily certain people get lost in the clouds. In conclusion to his brilliant speech, our clear-sighted Prime Minister stated, and I quote:
We stand on the threshold of greatness.
I am convinced that this sentence will remain famous in our records for posterity. It is about the 30th time that at the opening of a session of Parliament, our poetically-minded prime ministers have really felt they stood on the threshold of greatness. This is where we have been standing for the last 100 years. What a joke!

October 13, 1970

Extreme poverty exists in the St. James district, in my riding. People there no longer believe in beautiful and bombastic tirades.
We must put an end to this once and for all.
Some government members may tell me that this time, it is for good that our poetically-minded Prime Minister is truly on the threshold of greatness.
This has been said so often that I feel people like us should not let ourselves be forever taken in by the same thing.
For the last few days, we have been living in the climate which prevails on the other side of that threshold. For my part, I do not believe that it is the threshold of greatness. The people who are active in the FLQ are surely to be condemned, and I condemn them very strongly. Actions such as those taken recently should, in my opinion, be most severely punished. However, I do understand them! For quite a long time, especially in Quebec, certain demands have been made, and, as long as the authorities do not get their arm twisted, nobody will do anything. We are floundering about in a completely obsolete system. The poor are telling us that. It is most difficult for a student, a small wage earner to work and survive.
The government is resorting to handsomely paid publicity to fool the people. It is using funds coming out of the tax-payers' pockets to finance pornographic films. It sets up inquiry commissions by the dozen without achieving any results. Their reports are only so many beautiful books. Furthermore, it is claimed that our country enjoys "social stability to an exceptional degree" and that we are "on the threshold of greatness."
Let us put the question to some 1,500 businessmen or others who went bankrupt this year in the province of Quebec. It will be seen if we have reached the threshold of greatness, especially the threshold of prosperity.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks, I want to assure the hon. members that as long as I have the privilege to make my views known in this House, I shall do so with vigour and determination in an attempt, against all hope, to bring them to open their eyes and see the "greatness" on the threshold of which we are standing, a greatness that wallows in violence, in a total lack of respect for the fundamental rights of society, in the tolerance of all known vices, in the recognition of the greatest agitators in the world, among other things.
I want future generations to know that it will not be people like me or my colleagues who will have brought this so-called just society, this so-called greatness but the present so-called government.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) told us a few minutes ago that the Speech from the Throne was a mere list of good intentions. Knowing him and having spoken with him at noon, I feel he is attaching a derogatory meaning 'o the words "good intentions".
The Address-Mr. G. LeBlanc
I also believe that a Speech from the Throne should represent a program being implemented by people, as a team, with good intentions.
First, I want to congratulate the movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne (Mr. Trudel and Mr. Douglas) who carried out their task with sincerity and conviction.
In the hon. member for Bourassa, I have recognized the realistic businessman who is used to aim straight at the target and speaks his mind.
In the other mover, the member from Assiniboia, I have recognized a most serious man, with a sense of humour which is a quality we should keep if we really want to be objective and positive in our daily tasks.
The member form Assiniboia spoke with great competence on the agricultural problem, all the more so since all hon. members and many Canadians are aware that he is in a position to speak as an expert on agriculure as he is himself a master in this field.
During the few minutes at my disposal, I propose to express my own modest opinion on the opposition's motions, which I would call negative, and to state why I fully support the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I am opposed to the opposition's motions. The subamendment of the New Democratic Party, for instance, states in the first place that the government failed to deal effectively with the threat to Canadian independence which is dear to all of us.
However, I believe that the government did take effective measures to protect the economic independence of our country.
I believe we could give a lot of examples to substantiate this statement, but I intend to mention just one: the industrial incentives legislation which has been improved over the past few years and which has been most beneficial in our areas, especially in mine where employment was provided.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Besides, the government intends to take further steps in this connection. For instance, the bill on the uranium industry with regard to foreign control is a concrete example of what is contained in the Speech from the Throne as to the government's program.
When I speak of negative attitudes, I have in mind certain positions taken by the New Democratic Party and, as a case in point, I will mention a topic which is of particular interest to us from the lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe region.
I have in mind a debate on a private bill concerning the population of low-wage earners of my region, the Quebec Telephone bill regarding the Compagnie de telephone Bonaventure et Gaspe Limitee.
Members of the New Democratic Party did not allow representatives of the latter company to appear before Parliament and expound the situation. And those people talk about freedom and democracy. When people wish to come and explain what they want to do for the citizens

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. G. LeBlanc
of my area, they are not allowed to speak. Our friends of the New Democratic Party did that!
The New Democrat subamendment deals with the high rate of unemployment. According to that party, the government has not done anything. But we all know that the government has set a policy to reduce unemployment. I mean the professional training and retraining as well as the Canada Manpower Mobility program.
Every day many unemployed Canadians benefit from this program and from retraining courses. I know that education, curriculum preparation and complete jurisdiction in education comes under the provinces.
However there is nothing to prevent us, economically speaking, from encouraging our young people and our unemployed citizens to complete their education, their training.
As mentioned in the Speech from the Throne and as all Canadians can see for themselves, inflation which has been a very serious problem, not only in Canada but in many other countries, is on the wane.
The fight against inflation has not helped the government to deal with the problems of unemployment but, with inflation decreasing, we can hope it will be easier for the government and for all citizens to work on bringing down the high rate of unemployment.
The government intends to continue its action to this end. We will just mention the various regional development agreements the government plans to revise or renew. And we could mention many other steps the government intends to take.
The sub-amendment also deals with the guaranteed minimum income, in order to abolish the poverty from which at least five million Canadians are said to be suffering. We are all for it, because all of us want to carry on the fight against poverty.
However, it would be a mistake to say that this government has done nothing or is doing nothing to ensure a minimum income to Canadian citizens, because that is what it has been trying to do since 1968.
Take the social programmes that have been improved and will be further improved. Let us also consider the efforts made by the Economic Council of Canada in order to advise Parliament, the government and the Canadian people. And the government wishes to continue to guarantee such an income since a measure to that effect stands in the name of the government.
At this stage, I should like to add a personal remark. When it comes to providing an income, we must also think of providing jobs, and since the people are willing to work, it may be more practical, and we would thus perhaps show more consideration for the pride of our fellow-citizens, to take steps to find them jobs.
And I come now to the amendment in the name of the official opposition. It states in part, and I quote:
-of the indecision and the failure of Your Excellency's advisers-[DOT]
In my humble opinion, there has been no indecision nor have there been failures.
If we consider realistically the 1968 program, without thinking of any Christmas gifts for Santa Claus, as the previous speaker mentioned, it may be said that it has been completed.
The idea of a balanced budget was put forward. Certain steps have been undertaken in order to balance the budget, and I believe that all Canadians will agree on that point.
At that time, the government made it known to us that it wanted first to pass the bills under consideration by this House, which we have done.
The new program shows the good-will of the government. The negative approach of the opposition can also bring about failures. I think of the famous Bill C-197 which the previous speaker mentioned. That legislation, which was designed to aid farmers and to make trade easier between the provinces has now been studied for months. Even during the period of adjournment, the members of the committee came back to consider that bill. Why? In order to be able to pass it during the session which ended a few days ago. And I think that the provincial authorities were hoping that we would adopt that measure before the end of the last session. It turned out to be a failure.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The destructive opposition makes of the just society which is proposed a remote ideal. When one speaks of an "ideal" one always thinks of something that must be relatively far-off. Far-off, yes, but where and in what place? It is, in fact, the same ideal that individuals and societies have always wished to attain, a purpose that is relatively far-off. A program such as the one contained in the Speech from the Throne represents, it seems to me, the research for a far-off ideal.
In 1968, the government has spelled out his "philosophy" of the just society. I use this word even if some members have used it in a disparaging sense. Someone said it was time to live through justice and not off charity, and to do everything possible to achieve a just society. I fail to see why the opponents of the government, the members of the other parties, should chide the government or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for speaking to us of a just society. Its achievement is not the promise of Santa Claus, or the promise of a miracle for tomorrow, because no one can tell us today that, tomorrow, we will have a just society. However, someone who is sincere can promise to use all the means at his disposal to achieve a just society. We can, for instance, even today, make an ideal of our concept of a just society and the Speech from the Throne, according to me, is a proof of that.
As a whole, I think the attitude of the opposition is negative. I am proud to express my views on behalf of my electors of the riding of Rimouski. That negative attitude of the opposition is surely harmful. That it should harm our party, in the face of the problems now facing us, has no importance.
Some time ago I read that a statesman must work for the generations to come but that a politician, in the narrow sense of the word, works solely towards the next

October 13, 1970

elections. To my mind, some members of the opposition could meditate upon that statement. Such an attitude is harmful to the good features of our system, and it is certainly harmful to parliament which is the expression of our freedom, and a tool that has proved itself and will continue to do so provided we can continue to improve it.
I feel that attitude has lessened the confidence Canadians have in the system, in parliament. That is why I think it might be wise for the opposition, instead of acting as it has done in the last few days, instead of refusing to see what is good in the program of the Liberal party, and saying that it is all wrong, that the government achieves nothing, to at least admit that there are good things in the Speech from the Throne which, as I said a while ago, illustrates a philosophy and a program.
Everyone will agree, I hope, that it is quite normal to bring to mind certain principles, to say why we want to work towards this or that end, before preparing a program like that one.
Philosophy and program, both are necessary since it is impossible that everything can be bad and, in line with this, I will refrain from adopting the extreme standpoint of our friends in the opposition. When I tell them that they find everything bad, I do not suggest that all is fine in Canada, which would be naive from me. In fact, some problems do require a solution in this country, and this is a truism. This is why we should always have governments and other structures designed to solve our problems, such as that of the Constitution for instance. It is said that the government is ignoring it, but a special joint committee has been created by this House to make a survey of all the constitutional issues which have been discussed for years.
The question of tax reform is dealt with in the famous white paper which has been talked about so much lately. We all have fears, in spite of the committee report published recently. We think it right that the small wage-earner will no longer have to pay taxes in future, if legislation is passed accordingly. But we believe that the load of the middle class should be lightened, because middle class people work very hard to maintain the economic stability of this country. It seems to us that there should be a better balance between the tax paid by the middle class-business men, professionals and others-and the wealthier classes, corporations, etc.
There is also another problem, the partiality for the C.B.C. which has been criticiezd by many members on all sides of the House for many years. We are proud to be able to say that in Canada we enjoy freedom of the press, but a good many people seem to think that in the name of freedom anything goes. It has been said that our freedom begins where that of the other ends. It has also been asserted that freedom consisted in abiding by the law.
In my opinion, our bill of rights should state once and for all and for the benefit of the public at large, what is freedom. Are we deprived of our freedom when those who want to read or to make some research in libraries are required to abide by the rule?
Let us deal now with the problem of unemployment. What about some of our fellow-citizens over forty who
The Address-Mr. G. LeBlanc lose their job because of unfortunate and uncontrolable circumstances and who cannot find employment? At that age, most workers are still quite productive.
As regards unemployment, I think a useful method would be to make every effort to offer a wide variety of suggestions to our youth.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Young graduates are looking only for interesting and remunerating employment. But it would not be exaggerated, I think, to remind them that, on leaving school at 18 or 19, they can be ready, in a relatively short lap of time, to create jobs in small undertakings or businesses.
Regional development is a problem of particular interest to my friends in the Gaspe region and the Lower St. Lawrence, where is located the Rimouski constituency which I represent. For many years now, governments have spent millions of dollars to set up a program and my electors are becoming more and more concerned in that regard. They want to know if they have not been misled and when they will be able to see concrete achievements.
I am referring here to a measure taken in my riding, about which my fellow-citizens and myself feel proud: the creation of an inter-municipal committee for the Rimouski-Mont-Joli-Price zone. This initiative was taken by our own people, by citizens who think the government can help them, but who also believe that they must begin by helping themselves.
With regard to the projects of this inter-municipal committee, I hope that, in the fields coming under its jurisdiction, the federal government will give serious consideration to the requests of the members of this committee with regard to the improvement of the airport of this urban centre, and of the port of Rimouski, a very important port, to the creation of an industrial park and to improving both ocean and river shipping.
I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the policy of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in connection with the building of low-cost housing. Back home low-cost housing units are being built as everywhere else in Canada but, although our directors, the officers of the Corporation, mean well, they have lost sight of the fact that what is a low price in Toronto, or Montreal is not so in our area, as when we speak of low-cost housing, the price must bear some relation to the salary scale prevailing in this particular area.
So, either the cost of housing remains at the same level with the possibility of increasing wages, or what would be even better from certain points of view, the price of those supposedly low-cost dwellings is reduced, so long as my fellow citizens obtain what they require.
I also have in mind a certain policy of the Canadian National Railways in regard to our region. I am thinking about the fate of some employees of this company, while everybody is talking about the protection of workers. I am one of them, as are most of the members of the House. I know that a man who has been employed by the company for one or two months perhaps must sleep in

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. Marshall
his car because the company does not provide him with a place to live or does not pay his expenses.
I have in mind some investigation methods it uses to discuss...


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Louis Guy LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, would the House allow me to continue for a few more minutes?


Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Has the hon. member for Rimouski the unanimous consent of the House to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Agreed.


Louis Guy LeBlanc: I thank my hon. colleagues for giving me this permission. I will not exceed my time and I shall finish my speech as quickly as possible.
There are many other points which I would have liked to deal with. I might be able to come back to them. I would have liked to refer to in particular, the problem of the farmers and the producers of industrial milk which are of prime concern to us.
Before closing I should like to say again that, like several of my colleagues, I sincerely and earnestly support the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne because this speech gives us an image of the just society. I cannot understand why anyone could object to our desire that justice prevail among our people.
In addition, if we consider as a whole the three Speeches from the Throne since 1968, we notice that the last one is a consistent follow-up of the other two, with regard to the establishment of the just society. The second Speech from the Throne set up a program for drafting white papers for the purpose of establishing the structure or the framework of that society which the government wants to create in order to prepare, for our young people, and for all our fellow citizens, the Canada of the 80s or of the year 2000.


Jack Marshall: The answers have been in front of the government's noses for years. The Economic Council of Canada had the answer over four years ago. They proved after countless reviews and studies, conferences and reports, that poverty was real. The Canadian Welfare Council and other Canadian organizations have produced answers on poverty. We are all aware that the Senate Committee on Poverty has travelled across Canada and produced answers. Now we are to have a nutritional study across Canada. And do you know what this committee is going to find out, Mr. Speaker? It will find out that poor people need more food which contains the correct vitamins. The government will study this report and print it in two official languages for the committee: the bodies of some 4 million Canadians will continue to deteriorate while this government continues to procrastinate.
Let me give you some examples of poverty, Mr. Speaker, as I have found it while touring the remote areas of my constituency. Picture if you will, Mr. Speaker, a Canadian citizen, bedridden for years in a room just large enough for himself and his wife who sits in a chair for hours and days on end without sleep because she does not have a bed to sleep in, and the room is only granted by the good graces of the family that has taken them in. Picture an elderly citizen with a mechanical heart, miles from a hospital and existing only by the grace of God, or imagine my dismay when I visited a family of six living on a meagre allowance and saw two invalid children suffering from chalk-bone, and our regulations restrict the special care required; how about the old age pensioner who wrote to me recently wondering why he has to pay back some of the $240 he earned last year selling newspapers to supplement his income.


James Aloysius McGrath: Shame!


Jack Marshall: I could mention many cases of people going blind because they cannot afford the necessary periodical corrective care or the cost of transportation to visit the proper care centre. This is not to mention the hundreds of families in remote areas who cannot afford decent accommodation and are living in shelters that you wouldn't believe. And yet this government and its experts hide their heads in the sand and brag about what they are doing about overcoming the housing problems in the cities. Does anyone ever hear of what they are doing to meet the housing requirements of those in the rural communities, or to provide the necessary water and sewage facilities? No, Mr. Speaker. They are going to wait until 1980, when they believe, in what can only be termed gross ignorance, that all the people in Canada will be moving to the larger centres. What hypocrisy!
I think it is time, Mr. Speaker, that we substituted a little human consideration and feeling for scientific studies. Here we are, in our concern for pollution, prepared to spend billions of dollars to control and prevent the pollution of the environment and we hesitate to spend money which is long past due to prevent the pollution of the bodies of millions of incapacitated Canadians both young and old. We continue to spend millions on medical research to prevent sickness and to learn the reasons for
The Address-Mr. Marshall
death by disease, yet we will not provide the moneys needed to prevent undernourishment of the bodies of the poor when we are so well aware of the cure. No, Mr. Speaker, the answer is not in more studies; the answer is in concern for our fellow man-and the sooner the better.
What about our youth in the remote areas of Canada? If we want a better Canada in the future and a better Canadian, we should be concentrating on providing a program of development for all the youth of Canada, and not just for the chosen few who happen to be living in the larger cities. We need a nationwide youth development program with proper guidance and leadership interwoven with our school systems in every nook and cranny in this country. I ask myself this question: Why is so little attention given to youth development and recreation in our list of priorities, when this is the basis of producing a better citizen and of finding in the future the better Canada for which we are looking? Again, we have reports, Mr. Speaker, the P. S. Ross report and the Harry Jerome projects; and the government expects to produce results with a $5 million Canada-wide physical fitness program. What we need, along with the new ministers of state, is a minister of youth development. Let us allocate money out of our budget in this direction. The return in champions and better citizens in the not-too-distant future would be amazing.
In my district of Humber-St. Georges-St. Barbe, Mr. Speaker, I have become well aware of those problems which can only be solved by properly thought-out and programmed development. The process can only evolve around the development of our natural resources. We have found, to our sorrow, that the basis of our economy for many years-the cod fishery-is being fast depleted. The minister is well aware of the problems in this area. While I realize that the problem is a delicate one from the point of view of enforcing restrictions to protect our fishing zones, I am convinced that the present minister is doing all he can to overcome the weaknesses of past governments in coping with these difficulties. I hope he will make progress in continuing liaison with foreign countries to respect the exclusiveness of our waters and at the same time provide that protection which is required to keep foreign draggers away from our Newfoundland shores, so that our people can survive against the deliberate raping of their livelihood.
I commend the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) for his efforts in that portfolio, but I hope he can do more to convince some of those in other closely associated departments that more assistance is required in the way of fisheries improvement loans and in the provision of better facilities to enable the fishermen to cope with new methods which are being introduced and to take advantage of the other species of fish which have been found, with success, through the development branch of his department. I hope, too, that he will look with favour upon my private member's motion which would make available subsidies to fishermen so they could provide themselves facilities which are vital to their success in this fast-changing industry. I was glad to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) announce that

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. Marshall
more funds will be directed in order to assist in this area. I hope too, Mr. Speaker, that we will see during this session the promised catch insurance plan for fishermen and that it will be ready with the bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I should like to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, on regional economic expansion. In my opinion, as I have stated many times in this House and in my province, this department could be the answer to the problems of the regionally despaired if, indeed, the plan were carefully studied, thought-out and programmed to achieve its aims and objectives. While I am more familiar with the plan from the viewpoint of Newfoundland, and especially my district, I am very disappointed due to the fact that the plan is going the way of the FRED program, which was studied for some years and scrapped here in Ottawa as being unacceptable in the form in which it was presented. I have to say that while the new development plan that is now being studied shows signs of better organization, the first phase of the plan as announced some months ago, and the projects approved, again show a lack of carefully thought-out, projected aims and a lack of intergovernmental co-operation.
To give a glaring example of one project I quote the case of the potential industrial development of Stephen-ville where, through the good graces of the American government, the province was handed over a modern complex of real estate, worth millions of dollars, which lends itself to a ready-made industrial park. The establishment of a liner board mill was supported by grants and loans under the federal department to support the industry with water and sewage systems, new roads, bridges and a high school. But there was the glaring, fundamental omission of common sense, fundamental plann'ng. The mill, which already employs over 200 people in the construction stage, was responsible for bringing in people from surrounding areas under relocation and has already created for the town of Stephenville a housing problem with which it cannot cope.
Eventually, when the mill goes into production it will employ some 700 people. By simple mathematics, Mr. Speaker, if you multiply 700 by a conservative figure of three per family, you will have some 2,000 human beings who will require housing. There will be the associated need for water and sewage, schools for the children, recreational facilities and other services which should have been foreseen from the outset. But instead, the town of Stephenville and the school authorities already cannot cope with the problem and there is a need for emergency measures to be taken, which can only result in extreme difficulty and eventual chaos. This is not only unfair to the local authorities but it is downright stupid fundamental planning by the supposed experts who are falling all over themselves in offices instead of listening and paying attention to the briefs which have been submitted by interested citizen organizations. It makes me wonder how sincere are the minister's words when he keeps repeating the now empty phrase that no development plan will be successful unless grass roots organizations become involved in the creation of a development plan.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I point out these facts to the minister, not for the sake of criticism but to emphasize that he has the co-operation of every organization in my district. They have listened, and want to participate for the good of their own community or area. I hope that every brief submitted by organizations from my district will be given the courtesy of consideration. I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that the new senior appointments to the staff of the Department of Community and Social Development in the province will give that consideration.
The Regional Development Incentives Act as it applies to Newfoundland is almost a lost cause, Mr. Speaker, because it completely misses its objectives in so far as that province is concerned. The reason for this was given by the minister when he stated that it excludes some areas from types of activity such as the development of natural resources, which in some regions is the main, if not the only, source of development. Another bad feature is that it fails to provide assistance to those who want to expand small industry, through lack of capital. One example is a fish plant operator who was denied a grant because of some technicality of commitment. The applicant, who was expanding his fish operation, had to order new equipment from Germany six months in advance in order to get it in time for the fall herring season. He was turned down because he had made the commitment beforehand. Another example is that of an electrical plant operator who almost daily must refuse contracts because of lack of capital for expansion. The act should be flexible in order to give special consideration to those in regionally despaired areas who require more help than the industrial giants who will not come to Newfoundland when they can locate more centrally in Canada.
I cannot blame the federal government for not being willing to provide the funds for the development of a national park in my district. I sincerely hope that the government member from my province, a member of the cabinet, will do his utmost to convince the provincial government to turn over the necessary land to create the Bonne Bay Park, which will give an effective impetus to the economy of the province.
The need for public services induces me to make a plea to the new minister responsible for the Post Office. I was pleased to hear that the closing of post offices will halt and that the situation will be reviewed. The post offices in isolated communities of Newfoundland are still an important communications link, even in this day of satellites. I welcome the announcement. Another important item which should be reviewed is the salaries of postmasters in many communities. These salaries are, to say the least, shameful. I hope these salary scales will be reviewed as quickly as possible.
Still on the subject of communications, Mr. Speaker, there is a breakdown between the responsible federal department and the provincial government of Newfoundland. While I commend the CNT for the expansion program to extend telephones to the northwestern peninsula in my district, there are two failings. One is that the provincial government have failed to provide

October 13, 1970

the related power facilities, thus denying many communities this much needed telephone service. The other matter which has been forgotten is the cost to the consumer. Already one community has had all its telephones disconnected because the residents cannot afford to pay the charge. Is this good planning, Mr. Speaker? Is this equality?
I have reviewed the 68 measures mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. I hope they will not be taken in the order in which they appear in the list. I sincerely hope that legislation relating to income security, veterans' pension legislation and the bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act will receive immediate consideration in this House. There is a fundamental military lesson which can be applied and of which the government should take note. An advancing army can progress only as fast as its slowest elements, and after success in reaching an objective it should consolidate its position before advancing further. I say to this government that our aims in science and technology are running away with us. We cannot cope with the situation. We have already discovered that all the wealth we have gathered will be of no avail because we will have to spend it to control and prevent pollution.
We must consolidate our position. Our wealth in resources has been in the ground and in the sea for hundreds of years. It will still be there in a few years hence. We should look over our shoulders and raise the standard of living of those who lag behind and are unable to catch up without our help. This is our duty and responsibility as a state. Each day we delay, we must remember in our conscience that we are responsible for bringing closer to death those who are incapacitated, maimed and whose bodies are deteriorating because we are not living up to our responsibility. We must concentrate immediately on helping the aged, sick, maimed, incapacitated, blind, deaf and retarded. This is our duty as a state. We owe this to these citizens because they are unable to care for themselves. This is their equality of opportunity. I hope the government will direct their immediate attention to this part of our society, to give some meaning to their concern for the disadvantaged people and areas of our nation.


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to add my congratulations to the mover and to the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Both these members have displayed their ableness in moving and seconding the Address in Reply.
I want to concentrate on the aspect of urban affairs in the few minutes available to me this afternoon. The riding which I represent is not considered an urban riding although a very small portion of the city of Calgary is located within it. I want to emphasize the importance of urban development to the small, growing communities of Canada rather than dwelling upon the importance of an urban affairs department for the burgeoning, large cities of this country.
All who have a concern for the direction of social and economic development in this country will welcome the
The Address-Mr. Sulatycky
announced intention of the government to designate a minister solely responsible for urban affairs and housing. The problems of the cities are well recognized by citizens of this country, whether they live in the cities or elsewhere. It is also recognized that the federal government is greatly inhibited by the Constitution from taking any firm and unilateral initiatives with regard to cities. Hopefully, all provinces will co-operate in any attempt by the national government to act in this area in which the provinces have the greater, and virtually exclusive, jurisdiction. While we await a redistribution of powers among the various governments in the country we will have to do the best with the system which exists at the present time. We do not do our best if we exclude the national government from an active role in urban policies. The new ministry will give it such an active role.
Fortunately, though we may have problems in our cities, they lack the severity of those faced by cities in the neighbouring country to our south or in other highly-industrialized and urbanized areas of the world. No less an observer than Buckminster Fuller has said, for example, that Toronto is a city without problems. All of our larger cities display in general a very attractive face, making them appealing to the visitor or to the residents. But behind this face are problems which will soon become insoluble if we do not quickly come to grips with them.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Solutions to the problems of our cities have been suggested by many who rank as experts in the field. It is a field which is perhaps best left to experts and I, for one, will not presume to offer my own solutions. My concern runs in another direction. Basically, it is that in attempting to develop cures for the ills of the city we do not lead to its further degeneration. We shall avoid this pitfall only by setting a clear course of action based on the conscious choice of the type of settlement pattern we wish to see. Do we wish to have only a dozen or so extremely large cities in which almost all of our population is concentrated or do we wish to have many cities of differing sizes offering our citizens the greatest choice? Do we wish our cities to be located only where large concentrations of people are found, or are there more desirable locations elsewhere?
The answers to these questions are already determined. If we do not make a conscious choice to the contrary, within a very short time most of our population will be living in the two dozen larger cities already established. The rapid influx of people may well prevent the solution of the ills which the cities now face, because we shall constantly be a step behind the growth of the population.
If we are to design a sensible system of settlement in Canada we must first discard two common Canadian characteristics. The first is the sense of inevitability associated with the growth of our larger urban centres. This is evident in our constant prognostications of population patterns in Canada ten or twenty years from now. It is displayed by those who announce that at a stated point in time a certain percentage of our people will be concentrated in only a few areas. It is shown, for exam-

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. Sulatycky pie, in the statement by a Canadian trade magazine that such an influx-and I quote-"cannot be stopped any more than the ocean surf can be turned back". It is reinforced by civic politicians who make statements such as "this city has a certain momentum which it must maintain." Any more of such momentum is likely to lead to destruction.
The second characteristic of which we must cleanse ourselves is our "mining camp" psychology. In the development of human communities we have tended to concentrate our efforts on barely a handful of communities, establishing other settlements only temporarily to serve the interests of the dominant communities. This is a pattern which began with the earliest of Canadian industries, the fur trade and which still continues today. In the era of the fur trade many trading posts dotted the landscape, built only to serve immediate needs and having no other purpose than to satisfy the commercial interests of embryonic cities hundreds of thousands of miles distant. The pattern has repeated itself a number of times since then. Today, as we survey the landscape of Canada, we find that outside southern Ontario and the St. Lawrence Valley area there are fewer than ten major cities. Scattered about the country are hundreds of smaller communities. We find them wherever there is a mine, an oilfield, a pulp mill or another resource based industry. Some of these communities are as old as, or older than, the Canadian nation, and others are new having sprung to life only within the last few months or years.
Most often those that are old are struggling for survival, while those that are new are too blinded by hope and confidence in the future to envision themselves as tomorrow's Barkervilles and Belle Islands. Canadians are slow to recognize this very evident demographic characteristic. Even the government's task force on housing and urban development did not note it. Its only reference to the communities between those considered rural and those considered urban, said:
As a sort of half-way house between rural Canada and the burgeoning urban areas lie the small communities which dot the landscape, particularly across the prairies. They are a mixed bag. In regions where agriculture is strong, one finds prosperous and growing service communities meeting the needs of the surrounding population, generating a growth factor of their own and seemingly on the verge, in a few cases at least, of that "great leap forward" into full urban status. In areas where the rural economy is weak, so are the towns, many of them struggling with local industries of varying relevance to ensure that a baby born or a new resident acquired is a net population gain and not merely an offsetting factor against the drain to the city.
This is not an accurate picture of the pattern of settlement in Canada. Our settlements are not concentrated only in the large cities and in farming areas. There are many communities which do not rely solely on agriculture, settlements which do have an industrial base, narrow though it may be, and which are capable of sustained growth if they are given a chance and not forced to compete unfairly with the large urban centres of this country.
Our mining camp psychology is at the core of regional economic disparity in this country. Many of the areas which suffer from a weak economy do so because of their
reliance on a single industry which is no longer viable. What I recommend is that in dealing with urban affairs we should devote all our efforts to developing as many urban communities as possible, the greatest attention being given to the sound economic development of the smaller towns and cities which show a potential for urbanization. Some very eminent people are making similar proposals. Earlier this year the United States Secretary of Agriculture, Clifford M. Harding, called for national policies specifically designed to bring about unprecedented growth in rural areas. He advocated the creation in and around the smaller cities and towns of "sufficiently good employment opportunities and living environments that larger and larger numbers of families may choose to rear their children there."
Throughout Canada there are many small towns and cities which are well suited to sustain a larger population. Some of them are growing, others are not. The one certain thing is that in the absence of a changed attitude on the part of governments in Canada, and Canadians, these communities will all gradually decline because of the present overwhelming trend to concentrate all our economic activity in the largest centres.
The difficulties which these communities face in maintaining their growth are similar to those faced by others in their situation wherever they might be in Canada. I am sure this applies to such communities in my own riding of Rocky Mountain, communities which, as a matter of fact, are among the fastest growing in the country. Grand Cache, for example, in the northern end of the constituency is Canada's newest community, having been built only in the last two years to serve the huge coal mining developments associated with the Mcln-tyre-Porcupine Mines near the Smokey River. A number of other communities in the riding have doubled or even tripled their population in the last ten years. Among the growing communities of western Alberta are Fox Creek, Whitecourt, Drayton Valley, Edson, Hinton, Canmore, Black Diamond and the communities which comprise the Crowsnest Pass region. As I say, the problems which face these communities are similar to those confronting any small growing community wherever it is situated in Canada. The basic difficulty is that they must compete with the large cities for capital, labour and industry. This is the unfairest competition imaginable. The small community always comes out second best.
While there is a drastic need for housing in the large cities, there is also a similar need in the small centre which is growing. But the sources from which a person may obtain capital for constructing housing are very much more limited in the small community. Indeed, often it is impossible to get financing for housing in many towns. In large cities there are many branches of chartered banks, various trust companies and usually a wide selection of mortgage companies with which a developer or an individual may arrange financing for housing projects. In the average town, there may be one or two, perhaps three, branches of chartered banks, and often they are reluctant to make housing loans except for single family dwellings.

October 13, 1970

[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
As in the cities, there is demand for various types of accommodation in smaller centres also, but the financing of such accommodation is very, very difficult to obtain. In many communities only the banks and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will finance housing of any sort. It is also evident there are more CMHC programs available for cities than for smaller centres.
If one should try to borrow money for a housing development from a trust company or life insurance company, for example, one is given the cold shoulder. A number of months ago I had an opportunity to see just how much the cards are stacked against the growth of smaller centres. A person who was interested in developing a number of housing emits in a town in my riding invited me to attend with him at the office of a major Canadian mortgage corporation in Edmonton. We were invited into the mortgage manager's office and he proceeded to tell us that his firm had vast amounts of money available for investment and housing purposes. He displayed a very lively interest in the project as it was described to him by my constituent, who saved to the end the fact that this particular project happened to be in a town of some 3,000 people situated some miles outside the city. When this fact was made known to the manager, his attitude changed remarkably and he simply stated that no funds were available for mortgages outside the city.
This is not an isolated instance. I have experienced similar examples during my law practice in rural areas of Alberta. It is a very common occurrence for financing for very worth-while projects to be refused simply because the projects are situated in a community that is not one of the major urban areas of Canada.
The problem of providing housing to growing small communities appears to prevail throughout Canada. A Calgary firm, Atco Industries, has had a great deal of experience in providing prefabricated housing for resource communities, not only in Canada but throughout the world. In an article written in January of last year the president of that firm, Mr. R. D. Southern, said the following:
While the problems of providing low cost acceptable housing to isolated and urban areas are largely similar, one major difference precludes any sensible plan for providing housing to the population presently moving into and required for industrialization and expansion of Canada's isolated northern regions. That problem is an almost complete lack of ability to provide mortgaging for normal residential purchases. This inability is not hard to understand, when the sparseness of population and vastness of the isolated regions are considered, but it also extends to the small towns that are the nucleus of northern and isolated area growth.
It is incongruous, in a country like Canada, which has been and should be committed to the industrialization and expansion of its northern territoriesand, I might add, other areas capable of sustaining economic growth-
__for the future economic benefit of all Canadians, that rather
than providing incentives to locate in these areas, there is a complete and devastating road block to the provision of a dignified class of housing.
The Address-Mr. Sulatycky
I should like to emphasize the last statement, that there is a complete and devastating roadblock to the provision of a dignified class of housing in these small communities. This extends not only to housing; these communities run into difficulty in arranging financing for such things as services, the ordinary requirements of any community. As well, businesses have difficulty in arranging financing for commercial expansion. I believe this applies equally to growing small communities in other parts of Canada as well as to communities in northern Canada.
As I said, the problem does not stop at housing; in the area of commercial development availability of financing is just as critical. I have had many businessmen in a number of small communities tell me that they have run into obstacle after obstacle in attempting to obtain capital for expansion purposes. Other businessmen in large cities have the necessary capital made readily available to them, but it seems that when a small town entrepreneur comes to draw from the well, it suddenly runs dry.
These are problems that we must solve soon. In solving them we may very well help to solve some of the problems in the large cities. But we will not solve them by letting current economic and technological advances take their own course. It is certain that the end result of that course will be a greater and greater concentration of population in fewer and fewer locations. I do not think this is necessary or desirable. It is certainly not inevitable.
I find comfort in the words of the distinguished American public servant, John W. Gardner, who served as secretary of health, education and welfare in President Johnson's administration in 1965. Before I refer to his comments, Mr. Speaker, perhaps this would be a good opportunity to call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the Chair. The sitting will resume at eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Allen B. Sulatycky: Mr. Speaker, before we rose for dinner I was saying that it is neither inevitable nor desirable that all, or even an extremely large portion, of our population be crowded into only the very largest cities. I was about to quote the words of John W. Gardner, former United States secretary of health, education and welfare, who said:
Within the past 20 years the urge on the part of large numbers of people to pile into cities has become anachronistic. For ten thousand years people had excellent reason to crowd them-
94

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. Sulatycky
selves into cities. Only there could they find the richness and variety of stimulation that make for creativity, the massed resources and economies of scale that make possible the greatest enterprises. But today, thanks to advances in communication, transportation and the arts of organization, we can provide these conditions at any point on the map that strikes our fancy. So the questions become: How can we best use land space? What patterns of settlement and open space best serve our purposes? How can we revitalize rural areas, create new cities, and overhaul existing cities in ways that serve human needs, the requirements of economic vitality and the claims of beauty?
The answer to these questions is certainly not by crowding more and more people into the largest cities. One further observation which one can make from viewing the developments of urbanization in the United States is that although more and more people crowd into and around the cities, fewer and fewer people wish to live there. In a Gallup poll taken last year it was found that most Americans would live in a small town or on a farm if they had their choice. Only 18 per cent really desired to live in cities.
In Canada we have the opportunity to create for our people the greatest variety of living environments. That should be the prime objective of the new ministry of urban affairs. To reach it we will have to devise acceptable means for influencing the location of economic activity. We should not hesitate, if necessary, to conscript capital for this purpose. There is no doubt that government alone cannot provide all the funds necessary for this purpose. If our existing financial institutions fail to meet the needs and the demands of growth in smaller centres, mechanisms must be developed to compel these institutions to apportion some of their available resources to such communities. I would say that if the same institutions fail to meet the needs of the larger cities, we should not hesitate to compel them to apply their resources in ways which are of the greatest benefit in the opinion of the people of the country rather than in the opinion of the directors of the corporations alone. These funds should not be limited to housing and to industrial activity but should provide capital for industrial expansion and commercial expansion as well as for the services usually required in municipalities.
Any program that will improve our large cities will succeed only if it is tied to a program to increase the over-all number of cities in this country. We must ensure that we have not only a number of very large cities but that we have many small cities-small, but lively and thriving-spread throughout the country. I suggest this is the direction which must be followed if we are to succeed in any urban policy in this country.
In summation, I should like to refer again to the points I have attempted to make. I believe one of the tasks of the ministry of urban affairs should be to take an inventory of existing communities in Canada to determine which are capable of sustaining public growth and to ensure that these communities do not suffer because of increased emphasis being placed on the larger cities. I believe we should ensure that capital for housing, commercial and industrial development is made available to the smaller as well as to the larger centres. Only then, I believe, will we develop a sound system of geographic

development in this country and a sound settlement pattern providing for the people of Canada the opportunities which this land should make available to them.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to the movers of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne (Messrs. A. B. Douglas and Trudel). They performed their tasks extremely well.
This debate is giving me and other hon. members a chance to criticize the present government for its lack of decision and imagination when it comes to meeting its obligations. This debate enables me also to let the proper authorities know of the conditions prevailing in my constituency and of the needs of my constituents.
Taking into account the promises made to them during the 1968 election campaign, Canadians were justified in believing that a Liberal government would offer them favourable conditions in all fields, and would solve problems quickly and completely.
However, even a brief examination or hasty review, of present conditions will show that the problems are still numerous. While they pile up one on top of the other, the government fails sadly in its obligations and does nothing to solve them.
Thus, I am not telling anybody anything when I say that inflation is still solidly established, that taxes have never been so high, that the present rate of unemployment is very high, that thousands of householders cannot earn a living for their families and that our industries, especially the textile and shoe industries, operate at a slow-down rate, when they are not completely closed, while imports increase at a frightening rhythm.
According to data from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the gross national product increased only by 1 per cent during the second half of the current year. For the first six months of the year, the number of dwelling units started was 40 per cent lower than last year.
From January to June new car sales were 15 per cent lower than for the same period last year and there were 75 per cent more bankruptcies.
This is in short where the Liberal government has led the country in return for the confidence the people put in it at the 1968 elections.
Mr. Speaker, since the present debate began, some Liberal members have accused the official opposition of obstructing the legislation proposed in the field of agriculture to help that deserving group of our society. They mentioned Bill C-196 and Bill C-197, blaming the opposition and particularly the official opposition for systematic obstruction.
We are conscious of having done our duty in this field as well as in others, and of having acted in the best interest of the farmers.
If we had accepted Bills C-196 and C-197 as they were introduced, the Canadian farmers would have been embarrassed by these two measures since, in both cases,
October 13, 1970

many amendments have been proposed then rejected by this government. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has never agreed to take into account the views of the opposition. All he wanted was to have the House approve these bills as introduced and they were so flawed that we thought it our duty to delay their passage as long as possible, mainly that of Bill C-197, to help the population and particularly the farmers.
Our attitude in this field has been identical to that we had regarding the White Paper presented, some time ago, by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). Had we heeded him, we would have passed the legislation sponsored by him as it was, whereas today a joint committee of the Commons and the Senate has adopted a great many of our views on fiscal reform.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, far from seeking to create obstruction, we have had as our sole purpose to see that the people of Canada get the legislation they deserve.
Returning to Bill C-197, Mr. Speaker, when speaking to farmers we realize that those the legislation would most affect know very little about it. Few of them are aware that the council responsible for applying the legislation would be fully government-appointed. The farmers expect that they will have their say in an area which concerns them so closely. In fact, I think that those on the front benches opposite have missed the chance to tell the farmers, for instance, that the Council, entirely appointed by the government, and not elected as we want it to be, would control quotas, marketing, storage, labeling and distribution and would have the right to collect charges from the farmers.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
They are completely unaware of that. Ministers should therefore go to the province of Quebec and clearly explain this provision of the law. They would realize that farmers have a lot of objections.
Mr. Speaker, within the few minutes left to me I would like to particularly call the hon. members' attention on the conditions prevailing more especially in my constituency. Needless to say that the city of St. Hyacinthe is considered as a natural centre of culture and regional attractions. Over there, farmers and factory workers are familiar with each other and there is complete agreement between these two groups of our society.
Of course, my riding is affected as much as any other by the general conditions prevailing in Canada at the present time. However, the city of Saint-Hyacinthe being a textile centre, the problems of that particular industry affect especially the workers of my riding.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that I have had occasion to speak about this matter here in the House. Since the present government has been in power, I have taken every opportunity to point out to the responsible minister, and the government as a whole, that some action was urgently required in order to maintain this industry in our area.
Unfortunately, all my requests fell into deaf ears with the result that today our textile workers wonder how long they will be able to keep their jobs.
The Address-Mr. Ricard
The textile industry deserves the attention of this government. It provides work for at least 83,000 people, 47,000 of whom live in the province of Quebec. Its yearly output in my province is estimated at $850 million. Every year several millions of dollars are invested in equipment and in the construction or renovation of buildings.
In spite of the importance of this industry, this government has waited until it is almost too late to take the necessary action.
We have warned the government, particularly about the field of shirt making, that imports were much too heavy for the Canadian industry to feel at ease. Nothing was done, except after the damage was irreparable. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce did take some action, but it was too late. The harm was done.
In St. Hyacinthe, for instance, the Yamaska Shirt which once had 350 employees cut its staff by 75 per cent. In factories such as Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and Penman's Limited which employed hundreds of workers a few years ago, there are much less now.
As far as the footwear industry is concerned, official statistics show that since 1963, 45 manufacturers have gone out of business. Some industries are getting ready to reduce the number of employees or to close down.
In 1960, there were 249 Canadian plants in the footwear industry, while in 1970, there are only 189 shoe manufacturers in the country. In 1966, there were 25,360 employees while, in 1970, there were only 22,000.
On the other hand, shoe imports in 1956 amounted to 6,898,315 pairs as compared with 46,100,000 pairs in 1969.
Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the government trading with underdeveloped countries, but I believe our first responsibility is to ensure employment for Canadians before throwing our doors wide open to imports.
Last week I had the opportunity to go into a shoe shop in Saint-Hyacinthe, and in talking with the owner I found to my amazement that 80 per cent of his inventory was imported.
It means that the Canadian market-and the other stores are identical to that one-supplies only 20 per cent of the domestic consumption. That is an anomaly when one knows that workers, in the Canadian shoe industry are amply equipped and able to make a product that will meet the needs of Canadians.
Canadian footwear can favourably compare with any other. However, in certain government quarters, it is suggested that if we favour imports on so large a scale, it is because we want the protection of the Canadian consumer.
Mr. Speaker, in the light of my personal experience, even with the wave of shoe imports from foreign countries, far from paying less for my shoes in 1970, I have to pay more than when the Canadian market was supplied mostly by Canadian plants.
This argument does not hold and before making people believe that we want to protect them, it would be better to take the necessary steps to protect Canadian workers.
Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to discuss many other subjects, but since time goes by and that I have only a
23226-'n

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. M. Lessard
few minutes left, I would like to discuss the measure concerning designated areas.
The area of Saint-Hyacinthe has all the essential criteria in order to be declared a designated area. On many occasions, I have made to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) personal representations which have been followed by those of the city council and trade unions of the city of Saint-Hyacinthe. Unfortunately, they have not been taken into consideration.
That attitude, I am sorry to say, induces the people back home to think that the riding is not being treated fairly.
I say it again: the Saint-Hyacinthe area has all the criteria required to be recognized as a designated area. At least 20 per cent of the work force is unemployed. All these things have been pointed out to the responsible minister, delegations have come here to meet him; but justice has been denied the area of Saint-Hyacinthe. I do not hesitate to say so, this is injustice, even gross injustice towards the people of Saint-Hyacinthe. It is injustices of that kind that breed the events we have witnessed in the province of Quebec in the last few days. Such injustices give certain elements of the population springboards from which to demonstrate and attack the government.
Once again. I urge the government to eradicate those injustices because they are detrimental to mutual understanding and national unity.
Mr. Speaker, those were the remarks I wanted to make. I trust they will be taken into serious consideration, this in the best interest of the electors of my riding.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I should like to offer you special greetings and to tell you how reassuring it is for the members to see you preside over the proceedings of the House. Your competence gives you the authority required to ensure the freedom of the members while protecting our parliamentary institutions. I think that I speak now for the majority when I offer you our best wishes for good health at the beginning of this session and I hope that we shall have you with us for a long time during other sessions and perhaps on a permanent basis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, when moving and seconding the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. members for Bourrassa ( (Mr. Trudel) and for Assiniboia (Mr. A. B. Douglas), proved to those who might have doubted it, that they were worthy of the confidence the Prime Minister (Mr, Trudeau) had placed in them. I join with those who spoke before me to offer them all my congratulations.
In the past, on the occasion of the Speech from the Throne debate the members revealed the interests of the citizens they represented. Since I had the opportunity, on several occasions, to avail myself of this advantage I am certain that the people of the Lac-Saint-Jean riding
whom I have the honour to represent, will not take offence if during my speech I do not bring up the specific problems which concern them, in view of the new responsibilities which the Prime Minister has seen fit to entrust me with. It is my duty to make known in this House and to those who will be good enough to read my remarks in the official report of the debates of the House my opinions on Canadian agriculture and what it might become if only we would all agree to show some understanding.
Canadians have never, generally speaking, felt the pangs of hunger since they have been accustomed to taking for granted that Canadian farmers would provide them indefinitely, and very cheaply, with a wide variety of products, thus accepting only in many cases a ridiculous return as a reward for their efforts. We have forgotten that our farmers did not share, to the same extent, this increase in the standard of living which has been brought to us by the development of our country, with the result that they are today among the Canadians with the lowest incomes in spite of their long hours of work and the very high risk investments they have to put up.
It is quite obvious that this situation could not go on and on. It is the reason why we have witnessed these past years the birth of a counter-movement whereby farmers question the somewhat old-fashioned notion prevailing in this area of economic activity.
The farmer has always been exploited, and he wishes today to take or is taking the situation into his own hands, so as to set up a production or distribution system which will protect him against the cyclic trade recessions from which he has always come out the loser, and which will guarantee him a better return on his investments and labour.
Recently I flew over the north shore of the St. Lawrence, east of Montreal, on a clear and sunny day; looking at those wonderful farms with their multicoloured fields unfolding under my eyes I thought I was in dreamland. And I could not, Mr. Speaker, but rejoice as a Canadian about all that partly-developed potential which is our common heritage, and I was telling myself that the day is not so far off where the man owning that land, the farmer, at least I hope so, will get all the consideration he deserves, as well as a fair remuneration for his labour.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
We must all agree with these objectives, even if this were to entail in some cases an increase in consumer prices. However, we should not press on or the end result might be disastrous.
One only needs to cast a glance around to realize what is the situation at present. One of our main difficulties stems from the vastness of our land and the diversity of its potentialities. Our federal system which involves the sharing of responsibilities and jurisdictions is both complex and profitable since it provides for the evolving of a national policy which may be effective inasmuch as understanding and co-operation prevail between the various levels of government.

October 13, 1970

The present policies adopted by the marketing boards bent on raising tariff barriers between provinces are clearly to be condemned. No one will object to some kind of order in the production and marketing of farm products that will ensure security to the producers as well as a reasonable return for their efforts. However, we cannot let certain groups be able to destroy our country by preventing some products from being sold in other provinces.
I do say "destroy our country", because never before has the Canadian common market, which is the very essence of Canada's existence, been threatened as it is now.
At the last session, during the study in committee of Bill C-197, which provided for setting up of national marketing agencies, it was rather obvious that some provinces, taking advantage of what I would call a mistake made by a marketing agency in Quebec, had made excessive and extremely dangerous reprisals.
I do not intend to exonerate the Quebec group which, while meaning well, probably wanted to go a little too fast and apparently committed a tactical error because it is one thing to prevent products from another province- in this instance eggs-, from entering Quebec, and another to want a specific group of producers in another province to be allowed to supply the Quebec market.
In my opinion, and the comparison may seem somewhat stretched, Rene Levesque and his group would have been unable to devise any better way of ruining the country than this embargo which several provinces have placed on certain products coming from Quebec and, since they can be mentioned, on broilers.
Ontario, particularly, should lift this embargo, that province being, in my opinion, little affected, if at all, by the decision made in Quebec by the egg marketing agency. At least 55 per cent of the Quebec egg market is still being supplied by Ontario, only 45 per cent of Quebec's egg consumption being produced locally.
There is some control applied, but Ontario eggs are not prevented from entering Quebec. A limit has been set as to the number of Ontario producers shipping to Quebec, and I am against that. Just the same, there is a difference between limiting the number of producers of a province allowed to ship their products to another province and preventing any producers of one province from shipping their products to another province. And that is the problem we are again facing today.
In short, what is the purpose of all this? Is it the intention to ruin a Quebec industry which made the mistake of being efficient, of being in the forefront, of being forward-looking, of being competitive, that is the broiler business.
It is claimed that the Quebec broiler producers do not pay their workers adequately. That is quite possible. I tried to check that and in some places I was told that it was not true. I agree that it is probably true in some cases, but I will not generalize by saying that the Quebec egg producers are not paid as they should be. It is likely that this new competition by the province of Quebec on
The Address-Mr. M. Lessard other markets may have come as a surprise because it was so unexpected and in the past there was so little competition from Quebec producers. This is understandable because I am myself greatly surprised to see that we have been able, in the province of Quebec, to produce so much and to reach such a degree of efficiency that we can sell our products to our friends in British Columbia.
If the aim is to destroy this industry in Quebec, to bring it to heel, as we are told by some people, I have figures which prove that this war of the markets may take us very far, and that we all run the risk, as consumers, to have to foot the bill which will probably be quite high.
I have with me a table extracted from the report of the Federal Bureau of Statistics, Agricultural Section, issued every four months.
It can be noted that for 1968 the total value of the Canadian agricultural production amounted to $4,390,-
767,000.
Who was producing it? The province of Quebec? No, at least certainly not alone. Ontario, the most industrialized province, was producing the most part of it with a total of $1,328,163,000, followed by Saskatchewan with $900,-
491,000.	Coming third was Alberta with $808,770,000 and, fourth, Quebec with $634,637,000. Then there was Manitoba with $368,315,000, British Columbia with $211,-
914,000,	and then Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
The total figures do not necessarily tell the whole story. I tried to assess what could be the per capita production and I looked into the figures of the Canadian population as of June 1, 1968. So, I discovered, that, with regard to agriculture, Saskatchewan headed the list with a per capita production of $938, followed by Alberta with $530, Manitoba with $380, Prince Edward Island with $312, Ontario with $182, Quebec with $107, British Columbia with $98, New Brunswick with $80 and Nova Scotia with $72.
There is no doubt that Quebec overproduces in some lines. Let us take the dairy industry, for example. There is no one who has not heard of over-production in the Quebec dairy industry. However, again looking at statistics, I find that for 1968, dairy production in Ontario was valued at $248,214,598, while in Quebec it had totalled only $232,781,566, that is 38.6 and 36.2 per cent respectively of the total value of Canadian production.
In short, even in the dairy industry, Quebec was accused of being responsible for the dairy surpluses while the volume of our production was even lower than that of Ontario.
Therefore, I ask you who is overproducing in Canada? Have we ever heard any recriminations against Ontario producers? Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker. Here again people have raised their voices against the Quebec producers. Too many Quebecers were producing too much milk. It is the only thing they overproduced.
Now it appears that we overproduce broilers. Hold on, that it has no sense whatever! In short, I ask the question once again: What do they really want? More uncmploy-

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. M. Lessard
znent in Quebec or that Quebecers remain idle and live on social welfare? Should that be the aim I have but one thing to say: people will have to accept to pay more taxes in order that Quebec may have higher equalization payments, to enable her to buy certain products. It will be one of these two things. Either we will produce or else the other provinces will do it and give us the money to buy their products. This is a decision that will have to be made.
As for me, I will not accept that. We have too much self-respect, I believe, to do so. The total manufacturing value and the total value of farm production in Quebec are clearly inadequate and there is no question of reducing them. On the contrary. With more than 40 per cent of the unemployment in Canada, Quebec must increase its production and ensure the necessary jobs through a growing manpower.
Raising barriers between provinces will surely not enable us to solve the many problems that are facing us.
The Speech from the Throne says that a federal legislation will be necessary to institute a national marketing agency. We all know that at the end of the last session, similar legislation had been proposed in Bill C-197. Unfortunately, it was not passed in time and the situation has so rapidly deteriorated that it has to become now an urgency.
It is likely that a similar legislation will soon be proposed to this House, and I hope that hon. members will want to give it priority and consider it with all the possible dispatch which requires this decisive situation in the marketing of Canadian farm products.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
tEnglish]
Mr. Speaker and hon. members of this House, I strongly urge you to consider the present situation in the field of marketing agricultural products as highly serious and dangerous. The balkanization of our country has started. There is a real danger of escalation if we do not act rapidly, firmly and in full collaboration with all provinces. I urge all members to use all their influence in their home province to stop this dangerous trend, bearing in mind that we are all bound to lose in such a game, some more than others.

It will be easily understood that I cannot resume my seat without saying a few words on the dairy industry.
It is indeed too early to claim a victory because there are still many problems to solve. But, one thing seems sure now and, barring any unforeseen circumstances, the end of the current milk year will restore a reasonable balance between consumption and production of these goods in Canada.
That result has not been easy to realize, and Quebec producers in particular know it well. But, after all, the difficult decisions which the government has been forced to take last year have borne fruit and today, we can look at the immediate future at least with more optimism.

Our supplies of powder milk are now normal and prices have levelled off. The production of cheese will all be sold at a good price and we might perhaps even be slightly short. As to butter, the very high supplies of last year will have been reduced by more than half and, for all practical purposes, will become normal.
Mr. Speaker, if we have at all the co-operation of interested groups, it should be possible to maintain the balance, which would subsequently permit better prices and therefore greater net income for our producers.
We have asked that milk production be reduced and we have had our wish. It is therefore normal for the producers having left that line of production to go into other fields, and more particularly in the province of Quebec where the number of those having done so is quite high. Farm production in Quebec will therefore have to diversify and needless to say competition will be stronger. Hence the importance of having a good network of marketing boards administered under a national legislation which would enable farmers to share in the Canadian market on a sound competitive basis.
Something will have to be done to prevent the provinces, through provincial marketing boards, from trying to go their own way by sacrificing the efficiency of costs and quality at the expense of consumers.
As a rule, I think that we can feel moderate optimism for the years to come. The great situation has greatly improved and it is obvious that the enswing good results will be felt in other related areas.
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all my colleagues for the good words they had for me and they may rest assured in advance that I will continue, as in the past, to work in co-operation with them in the best interests of all Canadians and, in particular, of farmers.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected to Parliament in 1962, the day of the opening of the session and especially the Speech from the Throne were for me quite an event. I had hoped to discover a wonderful program for the new session and I was somewhat disappointed.
In 1963, I felt less enthusiasm and in 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 I had a totally different opinion so that in 1970, with this Speech from the Throne, I am confirmed in my opinion. In fact, this speech is but a wonderful piece of fireworks.
Through this torrent of words and all those high-sounding sentences, the awful reality still remains. I shall attempt now to present it to this House.
Before going any further, I cannot avoid an old tradition whereby congratulations are offered to the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne (Mr. Trudel and Mr. Douglas). They have shown some talent in speaking in such great length.
After the first sitting, I retired to my office in order to read over the text of the speech which had just been given to us. I had received several invitations to attend official functions but I was unable to go because I had to
October 13, 1970

analyze the current events in my province in order to visualize Canada in the future.
And since history is still the best teacher, I studied all day long in the light of my readings about the past. We can compare the life of a people, a dynasty, a kingdom, a dictatorship or a system to the human life: birth, adolescence, maturity and death.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I hope we are witnessing the peak of financial dictatorship in Canada.
When one reads history, one realizes that when the great become so powerful as to forget the sufferings of those who have allowed them to reach such heights, the people tired of sacrifices will smash the very shadow of its oppressor.
The financial dictatorship which reigns in Canada today and remains insensitive to human sufferings, refusing to loosen its grasp in order to alleviate the rising tensions in all parts of the country, will shatter Canada unless an energetic government rises to overcome this monster.
The Speech from the Throne read by His Excellency the Governor General of Canada shows clearly that this third session of the 28th Parliament must be different from the previous ones. The speech says this:
-Canada faces a new age; an age which will be subject to forces not all of which are yet comprehended or understood, forces which will proceed from external as well as internal origins. It is a new age not so much because of changed circumstances, but new because of changed values and attitudes.
Because of the clash between these new values and the old, because of the quest by the young and the disillusioned for some resolution of attitudes, we live in a period of tenseness and unease.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that these are times of awareness for the new generation which does not accept without recrimination the fate of our generation, any more than we did that of our fathers. The difference lies in the fact that means of communication have greatly developed, allowing our youth contacts that would have been unthinkable a few years ago.
The Speech from the Throne says this, and I quote:
-It is an age frequented by violence-
I will add, since no one dared be specific in the Speech from the Throne, that this time that violence is directed more against the powers that be. That should encourage the members of this House, and the officials who often act as liaison officers between the departments and the big financiers, who control the economic blood of the nation, to seriously examine their conscience, if they still have one.
We must ask ourselves seriously whether our obsolete system has not always been the cause of a certain violence against the little people, violence far more subtle than that which manifests itself today, but which is no less cruel for it is applied to people who are totally
The Address-Mr. Gauthier
helpless. I say this to the masters of finance, to their faithful servants the governments which have succeeded each other to this day, who should from time to time visit our under-developed areas: Go share the life of families in shantytowns or simply ask those fathers and mothers who must sometimes feed eight or nine children on $80 or $90 a week and, moreover, are unemployed three or four months a year, being forced to live on weekly unemployment benefits of $47.
In a tour of my constituency, I had the opportunity to see for myself all the deficiencies of the federal policy and I cannot forget the words of a mother of ten, who is living on a settler's lot and who had just been refused the assistance of a loan which was essential to the survival of their little farm: Ah, were I not such a devout Catholic, I would take some desperate action!
Is this not disturbing enough for a member of Parliament fighting for social justice? And this is but one example among hundreds of similar cases. You merely have to drive around in our rural areas to see for yourself the large number of our derelict farms and homesteads on the verge of bankruptcy. Half a century ago, many of these farmers were happy people living on unmortgaged land. Today, this is what I have heard from one of them: "We had to modernize to comply with government requirements, to a point where our entire inheritance which represents the hard work of two or three generations is mortgaged. It is thus that we have gone through all those efforts only to surrender the whole thing to the finance company. Such are the consequences of our system of perpetual indebtedness."
And as a crowning injustice, Mr. Speaker, while the federal government is paying western farmers not to produce, the Quebec farmers pay a fine of $1.25 per cwt. of milk, because they are unable to reduce their production.
You do not have to wonder why Quebec is on the brink of revolution. We are certainly passed the time when the father and the mother had to toil 20 hours a day to ensure three meals a day for their children, but we still live at a time-and this more than ever-when Canadians must pay three or four times the price for a small family home.
You will say I exaggerate. Even though we have already quoted all the relevant figures in this House, as proof of our statements, I want to give you, once again, a slight example.
If a young couple want to have a house built for around $12,000-it is certainly not a big house-they will have to pay 12 per cent for the federal excise tax included in the retail price, plus 11 per cent for the federal tax on building materials, plus 8 per cent for provincial tax. Thus, they will have to pay 30 per cent of the cost of the house or $4,000 on $12,000. The house value is then only $8,000 but the owner will have to borrow $12,000 because the federal and provincial governments will grant no credit. Our young couple will therefore apply to the CMHC, a federal agency, to finance $12,000 over 30 years at a 10 per cent interest rate. After 30 years, if still alive,

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. Gauthier
they will have payed over $55,000 for their small hut. If you add up the municipal and school taxes and the insurance premiums, you get a fabulous amount. You will understand that the house is to be rebuilt after 30 years. Bearing this in mind, how can we reasonably invite the middle income families to own their houses? This is mathematically impossible.
Our young people, who can count very well now, see in this system the most glaring theft ever supported by any government.
To quote again the words of the leader of the Rallie-ment Creditiste (Mr. Caouette): The cause of our social and political dissensions is mostly an economic and more especially a monetary one.
Quit playing the ostrich and be frank for once in your life.
Frankness that is what the people clamour for in all their demonstrations. They are fed up with all that hypocrisy in which our governments have so sumptuously wrapped themselves since Confederation.
Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time the system is contested. In his younger years, when he was a student, the right hon. Prime Minister himself could not escape the desire to tell what he thought of our capitalistic system. I think that he was sincere then when he founded Cite Libre with all his partners: Gerard Pelletier, Pierre Juneau, Roger Roland, Marc Lalonde, Naim Kattan, Jean-Louis Gagnon, Jean-Pierre Goyer, Jean Marchand and other leftists of that time.
Now that our rotten system has absorbed them, they should be seen now in their present positions. What has happened to their sincerity of the past? Has the safeguard of the millionaires overridden the just society they wanted to establish? Why do they tolerate, I would even say protect, that financial dictatorship which chokes the people?
If the Right Honourable Mackenzie King entrusted the Bank of Canada with the absolute control of the printing and issuing of legal money in order to pull Canada out of the financial slump into which she had been thrusted by the chartered banks of that time, why does not this government direct that same Bank of Canada to issue itself and control as strictly as then the new monetary credits which represent more than 90 per cent of the money supply? That is the crux of the problem and all those whom I named a moment ago know it well. Why, since they are in power, are they acting like puppets and high financiers? How long are we going to allow private corporations, such as chartered banks, to play the main part of the Bank of Canada?
All young people know pretty well today that owing to that extraordinary privilege granted by the government, chartered banks take hold of the money of the citizens to lend it to those same citizens whom they just robbed. Indeed, if someone deposits $6 in his bank account, the chartered bank will lend him $100 at a 10 per cent interest rate. This trick is marvellous and especially profitable.

Therefore, as long as this government does not remove this capital injustice by improving our monetary system, it will continue to finance its whole administration thanks to the money provided by taxes, without allowing the population to benefit from the issuing of new credits, the product of its work.
The government will continue to levy taxes on the citizens of the provinces and tell the latter that it has no money to transfer to them. All this will be another opportunity to get more and more involved in the provincial fields of taxation, leaving the provinces with the scraps from the table, in order to dominate them all the better by keeping them in poverty.
And, in an attempt to make people forget all that, they will try to stretch the time by promising to amend the constitution. What a farce, Mr. Speaker! They want to amend and even to renew a constitution which they were never honest enough to respect.
If the new constitution is to get the same treatment as the old one, it is really not worth sinking more millions of dollars into research and studies of all kinds.
This is the old story of the vicious circle, as when a hypnotist repeats the same formula to put his medium to sleep.
We have gone through the period of royal commissions which enabled the government to remove ticklish questions from the House for one, two or even three years, while getting good jobs for a number of their supporters. However, that cost Canadians tens of millions of dollars.
I hope last year saw the end of the big studies such as the ones undertaken by the BAEQ which meant jobs, during about three years, for 80 federal civil servants, but ended finally in utter confusion.
And now, we are entering the period of white papers, issued in order to tell the people why we have no money. We have none because a few of the big financial and banking interests control the release of today's economic blood, that is new credit to be doled out as they see fit and for their profits to government and municipal agencies, to school boards, because our governments do not have the courage to take steps that would make of Canada its own master.
The present government, far from assuming its responsibilities, likes to blame everything on inflation. However, it does not state that the problem is in the big finance companies and in the banks, whose profits are constantly increasing.
The people are faced with complete deflation since they do not have the money to buy products. As far as I know, inflation is when there is too much money in relation to the products on the market.
What is missing today? Certainly not the products since surplusses must be destroyed and farmers are fined for over-production. Financiers are still the ones who cry out against inflation and still, the people are the victims of this evil.
The first step of the government in his fight against inflation should have been to freeze banks interest rate.
October 13, 1970

To the contrary, every ceiling was eliminated. Big financiers were also allowed to raise their prices before they were asked to please refrain from increasing them for a little while.
And today, workers are accused of asking for wage increases because the administration fees charged by the bank have increased. Indeed, loans and taxes cost him more.
Therefore, I ask the government to revert to a more logical approach if it wishes to establish the justice of which our society has such a great need today.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Mr. Hu Harries (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate both the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) on their contributions. I should particularly like to say how much I admire the contribution that is being made by the hon. member for Assiniboia toward a better understanding of the Prairie grain economy. I think his efforts are dedicated, sincere and quite obviously effective.
As a new member from western Canada, I was initially distressed to find that some hon. members from outside the Prairies seemed to fail to understand the critical and continuing importance of the grain industry to all of Canada. While I sympathize with my colleagues on both sides of the House for what sometimes seems to be an unnecessarily protracted discussion on western grain, I nevertheless believe that western members must continue to press upon the House a full realization of the economic importance of wheat and coarse grains.
It is my view that alone among the major industries of this country, agriculture has been forced to adjust to a wholly new technology unaided by any control of the price system such as is found in so many other industries. Agriculture has faced production adjustments by exacting a fierce toll from the little farmer and small producer. Our economy today is cheap food at the farm level only, because virtually all the increases resulting from automation and technology have been passed on to the consumer and have not been, as in so many other instances, usurped in part at least by labour and capital. Imposing this new technology upon the usual climatic uncertainties of Prairie grain growing areas has meant that the normal economic instability of that region has been greatly increased.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Contrary to what some of my eastern-oriented friends seem to believe, the Prairie grain economy has not been and is not today being nurtured by public financing. On a per capita basis or on a basis of per dollar productivity, the grain economy gets virtually nothing from the government but, on the contrary, makes an enormous national contribution. People such as my friend the hon. member for Assiniboia know the grain industry of the west, its importance and its continuing impact upon our nation. Again I congratulate him on his seconding of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
The Address-Mr. Harries
I should like to deal very briefly with two matters. The first is the question of student employment. Because of the nature of the school population distribution that faces us today in Canada, we face a major problem over the next five years to find productive seasonal employment for senior high school students and post-secondary school students. The problem was made more difficult this year because of the generally quiet tone of the economy, but it would be wrong to suppose that this was the fundamental reason for the lack of adequate student employment opportunities.
It is quite clear that this problem will become worse and will reach very substantial proportions next year even if there is an economic recovery in the meantime. This, of course, is a problem that the government recognized and took steps to meet. I think many members will share my enthusiasm for the steps the government has taken, particularly in making hostel facilities available to the young people who were travelling across the land this summer. I believe this kind of activity ought to be encouraged.
It seems to me that with a nation which spans a continent, if we cannot do everything possible to encourage our young people to move from one part to another and visit people in other areas, we cannot possibly suppose that Confederation will be the success it ought to be. The idea of making money available in order to employ young people in government offices and government activities is generally one that is commendable, if not very imaginative. In view of the crash nature of the program this year, I think the results were quite clearly worth the effort; but surely we can conceive employment programs which do more than simply put young people into an office environment wherein they are clearly appendages and, for the most part, unnecessary to the successful functioning of the office. Apart from that, I believe it would be unfortunate if we educated the young people of this nation to believe that one can find the action in a government office while following summertime employment. I think there is a much broader sphere available to us.
I hope that during the next several months the government will find the opportunity to develop ideas that will look to the development of smaller group activities related to projects that have the support of the youth of this country. It is not everyone's bag to be a cadet for the summer. Surely, with the clear and continuing interest that youth has in environment, there are many places in which their enthusiasm, their talents and their energies can be profitably employed.
It is quite obvious that in the price system which we generally accept as a regulator of our economic activities there is a very large gap when it comes to costing the real social aspects of a particular activity. Surely, in both rural and urban settings we can find programs which will appeal to youth, give them the opportunity to work in areas they find challenging and, at the same time, enable them to make a significant and continuing contribution to national development. If we cannot keep youth involved in the system in which we believe, or alter that system to
102

October 13, 1970
The Address-Mr. Harries
make their contribution effective, then Quite clearly we have failed.
My party owes much of its current success-and I am not thinking particularly of the recent election result in Nova Scotia-to a resurgence of interest by youth in the political process. I know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his government are alert to both the challenge and the responsibility. I am sure that this House will do everything it can to encourage them to bring forward programs that appeal and are challenging to the youth of this country. It seems to me that this matter has No. 1 priority.
The second matter on which I want to speak for a moment or two is the oil and natural gas policy of this country. First, because export as it is conceived and presently controlled is so clearly in the interest of Canada, I am amazed that the obvious evidence can be so readily overlooked or misread by some hon. members opposite. It seems to me that talk of the need to use natural gas for the establishment of secondary industry ignores both simple petrochemical facts as well as the basis upon which the National Energy Board calculates Canadian need. If the record of the Energy Board is carefully examined, I am sure you will find that when there is any doubt about the need for gas for domestic, industrial or commercial use, that need is reflected in the volume of gas that is set aside and reserved for the national economy. So there is no constraint imposed upon the development of secondary industry as a consequence of exporting to an excellent market such as we have in the United States that which is clearly surplus to the needs of this country.
[DOT] (9:30p.m.)
If the government can be criticized at all in respect of the export of gas, it can be criticized in that it took too long a time to arrive at a fairly obvious conclusion and that, if anything, it was too cautious in its calculations as to reserves. I remember the first gas hearing before the Dinning commission some 20 years ago. At that time exactly the same kinds of arguments were made as are made today. Surely, when we see what has happened in the past 20 years we must downgrade any argument that has attached to it the antiquity of those which we hear and which have been resurrected in respect of current permits.
The gas export policy, after the initial inquiries of the Dinning commission, the Alberta Oil and Gas Conservation Board and, latterly, the Energy Board, has brought gas not only to parts of the U.S. but also to the vast eastern Canadian market. It has brought millions of dollars into Canada by virtue of sales and in money saved on foreign purchases, because let us never forget that so far as energy is concerned, for a number of years we were in a most disadvantageous position. In view of the sales that have taken place over the last 20 years, surely it is not necessary to remind the House that the reserves available today are many hundreds of times greater than those available 20 years ago.

The geology of the great producing basins of western Canada shows beyond doubt that, given the incentive for exploration which comes with gas export and with a growing oil market, there are vast undiscovered resources which will be found and which will contribute to the requirements not only of the export market but, more particularly, of the Canadian consumer-so that 20 years from today we will be able to look back and will find the same ratio of reserves to requirements. This seems to be quite apparent from the history of the last 20 years.
There is one problem which I suggest the Energy Board might find time to consider. That is the question of the price differential which exists in areas proximate to the sources of gas. Here there is a problem that accounts largely for the overhead costs. I believe it is a problem that can be readily solved.
With respect to the national oil policy, one fact comes through clearly. It is that the policy we have been following for ten years must be drastically changed. The continuing insecurity in regard to Middle East oil supplies surely demonstrates beyond doubt that the first step in Canadian oil policy must be to ensure that the Canadian market can be substantially served by domestic oil supplies. There does not seem to be any sense in kidding ourselves that we can continue to expect the United States to carry for us the insurance policy in respect of our oil marketing.
More than 50 per cent of the Canadian market is served by foreign crude. It is apparent that so long as that situation continues, we cannot expect to have western crude serve the logical middle west U.S. market that is available to it. It seems to me that the construction of a 300,000 to 350,000-barrel line eastward from Toronto is a clear, first requirement in a revised oil policy for Canada.
I know that many people place reliance, with a good deal of reason, upon the eventual development of large reserves of crude oil on the Atlantic shelf. If these reserves are discovered, there will be still a very significant time lag between the initial discoveries and the development of an oil field capable of supplying part of the deficit that we now have in our balance of international crude. So I say that the mere possibility of the development of sources of crude on the east coast is not, and cannot be, sufficient reason for continuing to procrastinate with a view to making certain that the Canadian domestic market can be adequately served by domestic crude over which we have virtually complete control.
I think history shows that the major disability with respect to the eastward extension of the interprovincial pipeline from Toronto relates to a supposed price differential. Surely, the pricing policies pursued by the international oil companies are not so obscured as to hide from us the fact that talk of a price differential, when western crude goes to a market east of Toronto, is nothing but a red herring and that there is not an effective price difference.
October 13, 1970

The United States needs our crude oil, and will need it in increasing amounts. But it is obvious that we will not obtain any substantial increase, on a long-term basis, in our exports to that market until we remove the insecurity that attaches to our ability to serve that market when there may be difficulties in obtaining Middle East supplies of crude. They do not want us just on the days that we happen to have oil available; they want us on a continuing basis, one that ensures that their own security will not be placed in jeopardy. Surely this is not an unreasonable demand. There is no question that it is now economic to extend the interprovincial pipeline eastward as far as Montreal. If this is done on a basis that will capture approximately half the existing market, then as northern oil development proceeds it is entirely reasonable to suppose that a transcontinental crude line of substantial proportions can be tied into the whole eastern seaboard market of the United States and the mid-continent area of both that country and Canada.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
In these circumstances we would be in a position to take full advantage of what seems to many people who have studied the question to be an economic opportunity that would be of very great benefit, not only to the provinces of western Canada which now have a modest crude production but to that part of northern Canada wherein the mineral rights are held largely by the national government; to that part of northern Canada where unquestionably there will be found large reserves of crude. What we are looking at now is a gradual development of a market approach to reserves, the ownership of which is vested in the people of Canada and which can mean tremendous benefits for the whole of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the subamendment lost.
On motion of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) the debate was adjourned.
It being ten minutes after ten o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


October 13, 1970



APPENDIX

[Stage Direction]
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA CASH REQUIREMENTS (Millions of Dollars)
1969-70	1970-71
Forecast
Budgetary Transactions
Revenues	
12,313	13,100Expenditures	
-11,938	-13,250Surplus (-f) or Deficit (-)	
+	375	-	150
Net Non-Budgetary Transactions
Excluding foreign exchange transactions__ -	293	-	1,185
Amount Required to Date to Finance Foreign
Exchange Transactions	
-	335	-	1,222*Total Government of Canada Cash Requirements Excluding future foreign exchange Transactions	
-	253	- 2,557
*As of October 1, 1970

[Stage Direction]
(Millions of Dollars)
1969-70	1970-71
Forecast
Budgetary Revenues
Personal Income Tax	
4,562	5,270Corporation Income Tax	
2,612	2,440Non-Resident Tax	
249	255Estate Tax	
101	110Custom Duties	
818	820Sales Tax	
1,717	1,785Other Duties and Taxes	
897	995Total Taxes	
10,956	11,675Non-Tax Revenues	
1,357	1,425Total Budgetary Revenues	
12,313	13,100
Old Age Security Revenues
Personal Income Tax	
1,027	1,140Corporation Income Tax	
227	215Sales Tax	
577	600Total Old Age Security Revenues... 1,831	1,955
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ON A NATIONAL ACCOUNTS BASIS (Millions of Dollars)
1969-70 Forecast
A-Revenue
Direct Taxes, Persons	
6,790	7,630Direct Taxes, Corporations	
2,256	2,105Direct Taxes, Non-Residents	
252	255Indirect Taxes	
4,024	4,200Other Current Transfers from Persons....	4	5Investment Income	
1,059	1,275Capital Consumption Allowance	
214	230Total Revenue	
14,599	15,700
B-Expenditure
Current Goods & Services	
4,453	4,875(Non-Defence)	
(2,610)	(3,030)(Defence)	
(1,843)	(1,845)Transfer Payments to Persons	
3,702	4,150Subsidies	
571	690Capital Assistance	
97	160Current Transfers to Non-residents	
196	200Interest on the Public	Debt	
1,675	1,885Transfers to Provinces	
2,719	3,590Transfers to Local Governments	
88	100Gross Capital Formation	
450	500Total Expenditure	
13,951	16,150C-Surplus (+) or Deficit (-)	
648	- 450
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND NATIONAL ACCOUNTS RECONCILIATION (Millions of Dollars)
1969-70	1969-71
Preliminary Forecast
1.	Budgetary Revenue		12,313	13,100
Deduct			
2.	Budgetary Return on Investment	
-	860	- 9503.	Post Office Revenue	
-	355	- 3454.	Other Non-Tax Budgetary Revenues	
-	142	- 130(-	* 1,357)	(- 1,425)5.	Corporate Income Tax, Excess of Accruals	(+) or Collections (-)	
-	583	- 550Add Extra-Budgetary Funds Revenue:	6.	Old Age Security Taxes	1,831	1,9557.	Unemployment Insurance Fund, Em-	ployer-Employee Contributions	494	5158.	Government Pension Funds, Employer-	Employee Contributions	494	5359	Prairie Farm Assistance Act Levies	6	5(	2,825)	( 3,010)Government Investment Income:	10.	Interest on Loans, Advances and Invest-	ments	423	50011.	Interest Receiots on Social Insurance and	Government Pension Funds	285	40012.	Profits before Taxes (Net of Losses) of	Government Business Enterprises	351	375(	1,059)	( 1,275)13.	Capital Consumption Allowances	214	23014.	Miscellaneous1	128	6015.	Total Revenue, National Accounts Basis.	14,599	15,700
1 These miscellaneous adjustments represent insurance companies tax revenues, miscellaneous indirect taxes, miscellaneous transfers from persons and adjustment for the supplementary period. In the national accounts, revenue in the supplementary period is shifted into the following fiscal year.
[Stage Direction]
October 13, 1970

[Stage Direction]
1969-70	1970-71
Preliminary Forecast
1.	Budgetary Expenditures	
Deduct
2.	Budgetary Transfers to Funds and Agencies1	
3.	Post Office Expenditures	
4.	Deficit of Government Business Enterprises	
5.	Reserves and Write-Offs	
6.	Purchase of Existing Capital Assets..
7.	Budgetary Revenue Items Offset Against
Budgetary Expenditure2	
Add Extra-Budgetary Funds Expenditure
8.	Old Age Security Benefits	
9.	Unemployment Insurance Benefits...
11,938	13,250
551	- 570
341	- 385
77	- 85
323	- 60
9	- 10
80	- 60
1,381)	(- 1,170)
1,732	1,905
176	220
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Government Pensions	
Prairie Farm Emergency Payments	
Expenditure of Government Funds and
Agencies* 1	
Capital Consumption Allowances	
Miscellaneous3 4 5 6 7 8 9	
Total Expenditure, National Accounts
Basis	
Surplus (+) or Deficit (-), National
Accounts Basis	
Surplus (+) or Deficit (-), Budgetary Basis	
542	745
4	5
(2,454)	(2,875)
646	660
214	230
80	305
13,951	16,150
+ 648	- 450
+ 375	- 150
1	In the national accounts, budgetary appropriations to various funds and agencies are replaced by the expenditure actually made by these funds and agencies.
2	This item mainly consists of revenue from sales of goods and services by the government. These sales appear as final expenditure of the private sector and are deducted to avoid double counting.
3	This item includes the supplementary period adjustment. In the national accounts, expenditures on goods and services in the supplementary period are divided between adjacent fiscal years; most other expenditures are shifted entirely to the next fiscal year.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 14, 1970