1970-10-14

Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, today is survival day. That being so, I felt it might be appropriate if I were to mention one of our colleagues who has a survival rate rarely matched in the history of our chamber or, indeed, of Canadian politics. I refer, of course, to the celebration by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and his friends and colleagues of the thirty-fifth anniversary of the hon. member's election to the House of Commons. The hon. member was first elected a member of this House in 1935 and served here until 1944, when he became Premier of Saskatchewan. In 1961 he resigned that office to become the federal leader of his party and returned to the House of Commons in 1962. I am sure I reflect the views of all hon. members when I extend on their behalf and, indeed, on behalf of the people of Canada, our congratulations on this occasion and our very best wishes for continued health and happiness in all the hon. member's endeavours.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am seldom at a loss for words but on this occasion I am afraid that is the case. I had been hoping that my long period in public life could be kept secret. I want to thank Your Honour for your kind words and to say how much I have endured-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -enjoyed these years in the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Endured and enjoyed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I know how much the public and hon. members opposite have had to endure during those years.
When one has served this long in public life one approaches the end with mixed feelings. Someone described mixed feelings as the feelings of a man watching his brand new Cadillac going over a cliff with his mother-in-law inside. I have a feeling of satisfaction for the associations I have developed over the years and at the same time a certain feeling of sadness because as one advances in years one recognizes that one's parliamentary career must eventually come to a close.
I should like to thank you, Sir, for your kind words and to say what a great pleasure and honour it has been to sit in this House under your direction. I have sat as a member under many Speakers but I do not know of any other Speaker under whom I have sat with so much pleasure and with such a great sense of appreciation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should also like to say how much I have enjoyed the association with members of all parties in the House. We have our political differences but in the House of Commons, as in politics generally in Canada, there is a fellowship and an understanding of each other's viewpoints. We may not always agree but each of us recognizes and believes that other members are trying in their own way to serve the best interests of the country. I should like to say to my colleagues in all parts of the House that I appreciate very much the tribute they have paid me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table copies of Order in Council PC 1970-1781 which designates the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing as the minister responsible to Parliament for the National Capital Commission.
* sjs *



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I think it very fitting that this motion be put on survival day.
There can be no greater and more pressing necessity for action by any government than when the rule of law, the foundation and framework of any society which aspires to be democratic and civilized, is mocked. The rule of law is mocked when weakened by permissive

October 14, 1970
Proposed Flooding of Skagit River Valley
punishment for the ultimate mockery of murder. The rule of law is mocked when it is suspended by a government sworn to uphold it. Mr. Speaker, when the rule of law is both weakened and, so weakened, suspended, then indeed must a government act to strengthen and restore the rule of law or else adopt that mockery as its own.
With the unanimous consent of the House I therefore move:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code to restore the death penalty for the act of murder and to provide the death penalty for any person who, by an act of terrorism based upon the threatened sacrifice of human life, other than his own, intends thereby to force a government or a person who is charged with the safety of human life to conform to his purpose.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Battle River. Standing Order 43 requires that there be unanimous consent before the motion can be put to the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.



PROPOSED FLOODING OF SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43. In the brief explanation I am permitted to make may I say that members of all parties in the House are concerned about the proposed flooding of the Skagit River Valley in British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: Where is it?


Mark Willson Rose: It is because we are agreed that we should give our immediate attention to this problem that I believe there will be unanimous consent to the matter being considered by one of our standing committees. I therefore move:
That the whole question of the flooding of the Skagit River Valley in British Columbia be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for consideration and report.
Although my colleague the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) is ready to second my motion, I am certain he would be pleased to give way to any other member from British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. It also requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.



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 subcommittees 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 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 House of Commons on the Special Joint Committee, namely: Messrs. Alexander, Allmand, Asselin, Breau, Brewin, Dinsdale. Fairweather, Fortin, Gibson, Hogarth, Hopkins, Lachance, MacGuigan, Marceau, McQuaid, Osier, Ouellet, Roberts, Rowland and Woolliams; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders at the next sitting of the House.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether,
October 14, 1970

in view of statements he made outside the House yesterday, consideration is being given to the declaring of emergency police powers of the sort, for example, to permit the police to search without warrant and arrest and hold individuals for questioning without having to lay a specific charge or justify any such action? Is any such consideration being given?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Since the beginning of this emergency, Mr. Speaker, the government has considered all possible types of action including this and many others, but there has been no decision made along these or any other lines which is not obvious to the country and to Parliament.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that no action of this nature will be taken without the approval of the House of Commons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter of law. Quite frankly, I do not think this type of suspension of civil liberties, if I understand the Leader of the Opposition, would be possible without some amendment to our statute or some action by the government which would have to be brought before the House at some point.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the Prime Minister give the assurance that even if the government has this authority in law no such action will be taken without seeking the approval of the House of Commons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is completely hypothetical. I repeat that if such action were ever contemplated it would certainly be discussed in the House of Commons. Whether it would be immediately before or immediately after would depend, of course, on-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry to observe the lightness with which the opposition treats this question. It is obvious that if urgent action is needed at some time in the middle of the night we cannot ask Parliament to approve it first.


Mr. Aiken:: All these things happen in the middle of the night.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: You have no power to do it except through Parliament.



PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the Order in Council appointing the Prices and Incomes Commission will expire at the end of the present calendar year, is it the intention to extend the life of the commission by Order in Council? Will there be the same terms of reference or does the minister envisage some legislative enactment?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The commission will be continued as long as it is considered by the government to be playing a useful role, which it is certainly doing now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
ask the minister whether he expects to retain Dr. Young as chairman of that commission, bearing in mind that his credibility has been destroyed by his attack on the arbitrator-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize that the question as asked is not in order. Even on this day I do not think he should be allowed to ask a question in those terms.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the chairman has criticized the business community for its lack of readiness to face strikes, does the minister consider that the present chairman should be kept in that position?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a question which the Minister of Finance indicated he would answer yesterday in his speech but did not. Is it the intention of the government to continue the guideline policy for a further period when the year originally contemplated expires?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I think this is something to be announced in due course by the commission and by the government, as to what action will be suggested for January, 1971.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the emphasis placed by the Minister of Finance on stepping up the private sector, would the minister not agree it is important that the uncertainty as to government policy in this area be cleared up as rapidly as possible?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition is inviting the minister to express an opinion and the question is not in order in those terms.



STEINBERG WAGE INCREASES-CLARIFICATION BY CHAIRMAN OF PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION OF EFFECT ON PRICES

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: In view of the complaint by Steinberg's Limited concerning an inaccurate and unfair statement made by the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission, will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs discuss with Dr. Young

October 14, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
the necessity of issuing a statement making it clear that the wage increases recently negotiated have not resulted in price increases?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am not sure that Steinberg's will ever recover from the shock of being defended by the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: I might say that the consumer price index to be released later today will indicate the success the policies of the government and the commission have achieved over the last few months.


Winona Grace MacInnis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I raised the question of a company which is aggrieved and which has sent a wire to the minister alleging unfair treatment. I do not care who it is; if there is unfair treatment-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
He *	*



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Real Caoueile (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to address a question to the honourable minister responsible to Parliament for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Would the Secretary of State tell us whether he has been informed about the possible existence of an FLQ cell within the CBC in Montreal?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: No, Mr. Speaker.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. On the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary celebrations of the United Nations, when all leaders of governments which are members of the United Nations will be present at this historic event, would the Prime Minister explain to the House and through the House to the Canadian people why, when he has ten days available to visit the U.S.S.R. he cannot spare a few hours to represent Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that the question as asked is not in order. He is putting an argument, not a question. The hon. member for Grey-Simcoe.


Robert Norman Thompson: I will rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has recognized the hon.
member for Grey-Simcoe.



PROTEST AGAINST IMPOSITION OF QUOTAS BY UNITED STATES ON CERTAIN IMPORTS FROM CANADA

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the government making any representations to the United States government by way of protesting trade Bill H. R. 18970 now before Congress which proposes to impose quotas on several imports by that country from Canada which are vital to our economy?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I think that question relates more directly to the responsibilities of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and I shall be pleased to draw it to his attention.


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue. When he refers my first question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, will he also ask the minister whether the government is aware of the disastrous effect that the bill to which I have referred can have on the already depressed mink producing industry in Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I shall be happy to do that, Mr. Speaker.



PROTECTION OF CANADIAN TEXTILE AND FOOTWEAR MANUFACTURERS AGAINST IMPORTS FROM PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue in connection with the greatly increased trade and business contacts that are expected to follow diplomatic recognition of Red China. In view of the fact that many of our textile and footwear manufacturers have already experienced great difficulty because of foreign imports, what steps is the government going to take to ensure that these new business associations will not eliminate many of our well established commercial organizations and greatly increase unemployment?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, as far as my own responsibility is concerned, I shall certainly see that the department vigorously enforces the law under its jurisdiction in this regard. Also the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce recently announced to the House a new textile policy which is being put in place and which I think is designed to assure the interests of one industry the hon. member mentioned, while paying due regard to our trade relations with other nations.

October 14. 1970



UNITED NATIONS


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, if I may rephrase my question, I merely wanted to ask the Prime Minister whether he would explain to the House why he was not representing Canada at the anniversary celebrations of the United Nations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite simple. The invitation to visit the U.S.S.R. was extended to me nearly a year ago, I believe, by the then visiting Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union. Dates began to be negotiated between both governments, and some time last-


An hon. Member:: Who was it who arranged the dates?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, if you do not want an answer, talk to your own member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, with due deference to the right hon. gentleman I think we deserve an answer to what is a straightforward question. If the Prime Minister does not choose to answer that question, then could I ask the right hon. gentleman whether or not the FLQ precipitated crisis is going to interfere with his plans to visit the U.S.S.R.?


John George Diefenbaker: Ha, ha, ha!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Someone thinks it's funny. Ask the right hon. member for Prince Albert, who says "ha, ha, ha."


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Has the right hon. gentleman a
supplementary?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister pointed at me a moment ago, and I would like to ask him whether he is sure he is going to have the necessary protection, with armed guards in battle dress, when he goes on this trip?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think that question is acceptable.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, if I may interrupt the exchange between the two right hon. gentlemen, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which I asked him last Friday. I intended to follow it up by asking a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare but
Inquiries of the Ministry
he is absent even though he is scheduled to be here. May I ask the minister whether any investigation has been made into the question of sterilization of Eskimo women, particularly on Victoria Island in the Holman Island community?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I got in touch with the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I am informed that there is no program of sterilization of women in this government, I mean in this area. However, a few women from the Holman Island community and from other villages have been sterilized. I think there were seven such cases during the year at Yellowknife. In each case, the written consent of the wife and husband, as well as that of two physicians, have been secured.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, when the minister says that there was the consent of the woman and the husband-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And two doctors.


David Lewis: -and two doctors-by the way, Mr. Speaker, I was not talking about sterilization of the government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: -this conveys to me that somebody sought the consent of the people involved. I should like to ask the minister whether an inquiry has been made to determine if these people were approached by someone representing the health department seeking their consent and, if so, would that not represent a program of seeking consent? Were they talked to in their own language and, if not, was there an interpreter present? If the minister does not have that information, would he be good enough to And out these very important details about what happened?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I can find out all those facts for the hon. member but I think what happened there is exactly what happens elsewhere in Canada. There is consent of the people concerned and two physicians. I think that is a fair policy, but I can inquire to find out if there was any pressure. If there was some pressure it should be condemned, but according to the facts I have there was no pressure at all. It was done with the consent of the woman and her husband and after consultation with two physicians.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, to follow up the preceding question and the answer given by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, could the latter inform the House at whose request such sterilization was done? Was it at the request of the Indians themselves?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to know how this took place. Probably the women were admitted to hospital, the doctors discussed the matter

October 14, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
between themselves, and this solution was offered. The wife and husband both gave their consent and the two doctors were in agreement. I believe that is normal practice, a practice that is not incompatible with the freedom of individuals to make similar choices.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Following the study made by officers of his Department on sterilization, could the Minister tell us if sterilization is preferable to abortion which is so much appreciated by our friends of the NDP?



AIRPORTS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport but in his absence I should like to direct it to the Acting Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary. Has the minister's department any immediate plans to deal with the serious overcrowding of counter facilities, parking facilities and the congestion of people and automobile traffic at the Toronto international airport?


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



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Labour. Will the government of Canada be represented a week today when the appeal division of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia meets to consider constitutional questions involving labour relations of fishermen?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer that question at a later date. Whether the government would intervene at this stage before the Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia or at a subsequent hearing is something I have not had an opportunity to discuss with my colleagues.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I present a supplementary question to the minister for an answer at the same time. Will the government, when the announcement is made, indicate whether it will decide to accept the findings of the court? I ask this question because time is somewhat of the essence when dealing with long drawn-out labour problems such as this.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can make any commitment as to the acceptance or not of the findings or judgment of the court until we see the judgment.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baitleford-Kindersley):: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. In view of the difficulties that a Canadian firm is having in selling Russian farm equipment in Canada, has the government been requested or is it considering offering financial help to the said firm?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have had some letters and other communications in respect of the financing of some of these tractors in the normal or ordinary way that other imported tractors are financed for the farmers of Canada. We have had some discussions with the Department of Finance, but no consideration is being given to any special financing, only in the normal way under programs such as the Farm Improvement Loans Act so that the application to these equipment sales will be equal to other imported goods.



FARM MACHINERY PRICES-ACTION BASED ON BARBER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorkion-Melville):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the high farm machinery prices as pointed out by the Barber Commission report, can the minister indicate what action the government has been taking in accordance with the recommendations of that report?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to but there would not be time at this stage of the proceedings to make a detailed statement on what has been done.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was going to suggest to the minister that this is the kind of information which ought to be given by way of a statement on motions.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, will the minister be in a position to make a statement on motions within the next week?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, nothing has transpired recently that would be news to the House. I could provide my hon. friend with a resume of what has been done and what has been announced in the House from time to time.



FARM MACHINERY PRICES-LEGAL ACTION AGAINST MACHINERY COMPANIES

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the apparent monopoly practices by certain machinery companies in this country
October 14. 1970

as indicated by the Barber Commission report, is the department preparing any legal action against such firms?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we are acting on the recommendations of the Barber Commission.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he tell us when, as a result of his action on the Barber Commission recommendations, we can expect a decrease in the price of tractors? Can he give us an approximate time?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Many weeks ago there were alternatives offered to the farmers of Canada of tractors of the same horsepower at a much lower price, per horsepower.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellingion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Was the recent increase in pay of approximately 11 per cent granted to a group of civil servants by the Treasury Board with his permission and was the Prices and Incomes Commission consulted?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the Prices and Incomes Commission is independent of the government and is free to comment on any wage settlement it wishes and in fact has commented on some government settlements or recommendations made by government mediators and arbitrators. As to whether I gave permission or not, I am not in a legal position, of course, to give or withhold permission.


Alfred Dryden Hales: On what basis was the guideline of 6 per cent broken?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that question should properly be directed to the President of the Treasury Board.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to ask the minister. In light of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Wellington has a supplementary. I shall come to the hon. member in a moment.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to continue. I shall direct my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. On what basis was the guideline of 6 per cent broken?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member alleges that a guideline was broken. If he would be more specific, perhaps I could answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members will recognize that we are entering a field of argument between the hon.
Inquiries of the Ministry
member and the minister. I think we should give an opportunity to the hon. member for Calgary North.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether this is evidence of a new policy since he has vacated the 6 per cent guideline set out by the government?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker.



ALLEGED DEMOTION OF K.A. STEAD BECAUSE OF INABILITY TO SPEAK SECOND LANGUAGE

['Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.\nI should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, during his visit to Russia, he will take this opportunity to discuss the suspension of atomic tests in Communist Russia and in Communist China as well.']
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. On Friday last the Prime Minister, in answer to a question on this subject, advised the House that he would ask the Secretary of State to obtain a report on the charge levelled by the Public Service Alliance that Mr. K. A. Stead of the National Museums Branch had been demoted because of his inability to speak a second language. Has the minister received the report yet? If so, will he advise the House tomorrow on motions about this matter?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, it is a very short report. In answer to the question as formulated by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings I am informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows:
1.	Mr. K. A. Stead has never held the position of chief of the education and extension services branch of the National Museum.
2.	Mr. Stead continues to hold the classification of IS3 and to receive the maximum salary rate of that classification, which level he attained in 1968.
3.	Mr. Stead has been assigned duties which it is believed he is competent to perform. These duties are not considered to require a knowledge of a second language. Mr. Stead's inability to speak a second language was not a significant factor influencing the decision to assign to him these duties.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh



[Stage Direction]
INFLUENCE OF FLQ ACTIVITIES ON RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA Mr. Rene Malle (Champlain): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Have the activities of the Quebec Maoist FLQ had anything to do with the sudden announcement of the recognition of Communist China by the Canadian government?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I am under the impression that a somewhat similar question was put yesterday, and that the Chair raised objections thereto.

October 14, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister say whether discussions are continuing between the Soviet Union and his province of British Columbia regarding the depletion of our fishing resources? If so, how long will they continue and can he say when he will be able to make a report to the House on the discussions?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I hope these discussions will be completed either today or tomorrow and that I will be able to make a report before the end of the week.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the situation on the west coast and the overfishing which is depleting our resources on the east coast, can the Minister of Fisheries give any indication when action will be taken to close off the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Bay of Fundy as exclusive Canadian fishing waters in Atlantic Canada as well as Queen Charlotte Sound and Hecate Strait on the west coast?


John (Jack) Davis: Very soon, I hope, Mr. Speaker.

State for External Affairs. I ask the question because this does appear to many Canadians to be a snub to the United Nations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand that the hon. member is pursuing a question asked earlier in the question period.
%
*



Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Since the recognition of Communist China by the present government, does the Prime Minister know that this morning an atomic bomb was exploded on the Chinese communist mainland, and did the Canadian government, during the talks which resulted in this official recognition, demand that China stop atomic tests as a prerequisite to recognition by Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The
answer to both questions is no, Mr. Speaker.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, during his visit to Russia, he will take this opportunity to discuss the suspension of atomic tests in Communist Russia and in Communist China as well.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport or in his absence his Parliamentary Secretary. Was any attempt made by any government department this past summer to locate and salvage the 2,000 tons of light diesel and aviation gasoline which was lost with the sinking of a barge in Arctic waters just over a year ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think that this question could well be placed on the order paper.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I am wondering whether the right hon. gentleman would take the House into his confidence and tell us why, apparently at the last moment, his plan to make the lead speech at the United Nations today was cancelled-it would have taken only two hours-and was turned over to the Secretary of
[Mr. Speaker.)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the discussions will cover the problem of disarmament in general and nuclear disarmament in particular. It is also possible that we will talk about international relations in general and China in particular.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I will try not to take advantage of his bruised condition. Can he advise if his department has abandoned his commitment given in the House some time ago to establish a second national park in Prince Edward Island? If so, is he contemplating the provision of an equal or better value substitution?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member, I am sure, will admit that this is the kind of question which should be on the order paper. If there is urgency, I am sure we would profit from the pleasure of hearing the hon. member at the time of adjournment.
October 14, 1970



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is it his intention to produce at the present session of the House legislation on smoking, health and advertising?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This area of subject matter is on the proposed list of legislation, if it can be reached at this session.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the measure he proposed yesterday with regard to stimulating the economy is based on the assumption that the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment will remain the same or is this the policy of the government even in the event of the seasonally adjusted rate increasing?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: What I spoke of yesterday was not a single measure but rather a number of measures the government has taken which are very significant over the period since last March in order to stimulate the economy generally. The measure I announced yesterday for the first time was simply another measure and rather small compared with the vast measures the government has taken since last March.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that the measure taken is rather small, but I am asking the Minister of Finance whether he is prepared to take additional measures if the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment increases? When the next figure is produced, which I predict will be higher, will the minister produce additional measures?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to suggest to any hon. member in the circumstances that the question asked is hypothetical, but I would think that procedurally I would have to make that ruling.



HOUSING


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I should like to direct to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. Unfortunately he is not here this afternoon, but I should like to place it on the record and have it taken as notice. It comes about as a result of information I received to the
Inquiries of the Ministry
effect that some $18 million which had been earmarked for the city of Hamilton and district for the purpose of low-income housing has been reduced by some 60 per cent. I should like the minister to confirm or deny this statement. If it is a fact that the amount has been reduced, I should like the minister to give the House the detailed reasons for the reduction. If it has not been, I would like to have the assurance of the minister that the $18 million earmarked for housing in the city of Hamilton and district will be available until the time of expiration as set out in the criteria announced by the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume the hon. member wanted the question to be noted by someone on behalf of the government.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member that it was not quite correct form to ask that a statement be confirmed or denied, but I will take it that his question has been asked directly and noted.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If anybody on the other side is in a position to answer that question, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly appreciate it.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the importance of increased sales of rapeseed to our western economy and in view of the high level of erucic acid in present samples of rapeseed oil, which is being frowned on by the federal Department of Health, what steps is the Department of Agriculture taking to assure farmers of an ample supply of rapeseed low in erucic acid?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we are taking some steps now to increase rapidly the available supply of Oro seed which is not only low in erucic acid but registers zero in content of that acid.



HOUSING


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the same anonymous person who took note of the question put by the hon. member for Hamilton West. Would the minister responsible for housing indicate to the House when a policy decision may be expected with respect to the use of limited dividend housing legislation for the construction of nursing homes?

October 14, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



GREAT SLAVE LAKE LINE-ACTION TO ESTABLISH INQUIRY INTO CONTRACTORS' CLAIMS

John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. Can he say whether or not action has been taken on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Transport to establish an investigation or inquiry into the claims of contractors against the CNR with regard to the construction of the Great Slave Lake Railway?


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into this matter and take it up with the minister and then send an answer directly to the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS UNDER ROSTER SYSTEM

Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question of privilege at this time concerning the attendance of ministers of the Crown in this House. I do not raise it with any particular malice against any minister of the Crown, but I bring it up because this is the start of a new session and we in the opposition who wish to ask questions consider it important that ministers be present.
I direct my remarks to the right hon. Prime Minister and remind him that of the 20 ministers who are supposed to be present today five are absent, or some 25 per cent. I hope that during this new session we will be able to have a full complement of those ministers who are supposed to be here. I wish to emphasize that I am not in sympathy with the roster system for the attendance of ministers, but I will accept it provided they are in attendance when they are scheduled to be present.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of the session I am glad to try to clarify the position. I think the hon. member has made a valid point. If we are to expect the roster system to operate at all it is important that the ministers be here. But I must bring to the attention of the House that there are some occasions, as is the case today, where there may be three ministers absent. There are 16 ministers here. The three ministers absent, who should be here according to the roster system, are away from Ottawa, one at the United Nations, another one in the United Kingdom, and the third in Europe on government business. In cases such as this it is expected that the Acting Minister, if there is one, or the Parliamentary Secretary, if there is one, will answer questions directed to a minister. But of course there is no provision for anyone to answer questions when a minister is not expected to be here, which is the case with the housing minister to whom a question was directed a moment ago.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the new House Leader. In view of the fact that the right hon. Prime Minister has today indicated that when a minister is not due in the House according to the roster system no acting minister is appointed to answer questions, and in view of the fact that this was the case last year, can he indicate the reason for this downgrading of Parliament just one step further?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PROVISION FOR CONTINUING SPEAKER

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister giving consideration to the making of arrangements for discussions amongst all parties, either through the party leaders or other representatives, as to the possibility of making provision for a continuing Speaker for the House of Commons, especially in view of the fact that at the present time we have one who enjoys the confidence of the entire House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that this is a matter of urgency. Perhaps the hon. member might consider putting the question on the order paper.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, that this question be taken as notice by yourself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this is something in which Your Honour should not be involved, I wonder if the Prime Minister would perhaps take notice of my question. Would he consider arranging for discussions among the representatives of the parties on what I believe is an important issue so far as this House of Commons is concerned?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 13, 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).
Hon. Marcel Lamberi (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my first remarks should be to congratulate the mover of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel).

October 14, 1970

I have had the opportunity this year to get to know the hon. member for Bourassa since he was a member of the CommLtee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I can say, without fear of giving him a swelled head, that he is a very sensible man. We both agreed after all on the report of the Finance Committee and on taxation.
He has showed he is a most sensible man and the only thing I could have against him is that he is a member of the party in power.

At the same time, I would like to offer my congratulations to the seconder of the motion for the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas), whose constituency I have had some pleasure in visiting, not when he was the member but under other circumstances. It is a very pleasant part of the country. All I can say of both these hon. gentlemen is that their advocacy was polite and courteous, but I did not detect any sc'ntilla of enthusiasm on their part for the speech that they were asking the House to support. They did not seem to have conviction, or heart. One has only to look at the list of the legislation that has been tabled-


Mr. Gibson:: Yes, indeed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) loves to sit back on that part of his anatomy which seems to give the greatest sound, because that is all we ever hear from him. Many of the items listed are more or less pedestrian, housekeeping items. There are pieces of tidying up legislation, and that is the fate of most Speeches from the Throne.
Then, there is another category of bills which last year made part of the grade, but for one reason or another they died on prorogation. After all, some of those bills deserved to die; they were bad. In so far as others are concerned, the legislative hurry caught them so they died in committee. Then, there were other bills that had been announced but never made it to first reading. There is the very famous and hardy veteran, the bill on the Canada Development Corporation. It may be that because it is now somewhere around No. 10 on the list it has better priority than the Prime Minister gave it last year when there were 75 items on the list and this one would have been the 76th. Presumably, it has been upgraded.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Then, there are some new matters. Some will meet with approval in principle without hesitation, although there may be some differences in detail. Some others will obviously be more controversial.
In the last group-and here is a point that I wish to draw to your attention, sir-there appear some innocuous items simply titled "taxation legislation". We and the country are anticipating with a great deal of interest an early decision by the government regarding its tax proposals. I agreed with the issuing of a white paper on tax reform which allowed for a consultative process with the country, but that did not mean there had to be a
The Address-Hon. M. Lambert rush to consider the matters included in the white paper. Certainly, in the beginning, we did not give any approval in any way whatsoever to the contents of that white paper. The government must bear the full responsibility for the uncertainty that has been created in the country arising out of the proposals in the white paper.
It is not just the responsibility of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) but the responsibility of the whole ministry under the Prime Minister that this country has been thrown into economic doldrums, in part caused by the uncertainty over the rather wild and irresponsible proposals in the white paper on tax changes. Whatever the government decision may be, you may rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that all tax legislation will receive very close scrutiny in this House and some of it may face very protracted and bitter opposition.
Then there is another bill, No. 38 on the list, called an act respecting the auditor general. I can promise you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House, that if there is the slightest move on the part of the government to restrict the scope of the operations of the auditor general either directly or indirectly there will be fierce opposition. That office is responsible to Parliament. The government has nothing to do with it, either through Treasury Board control of its staff or as the result of any wish of the technocrats that occupy ministerial seats or their advisers. There should not be the slightest reduction of the freedom of the auditor general to comment on any or all matters that appear before him in the way of government expenditures.
Curbs have been imposed on Parliament before. We have a system of rules now that is a great gag, and I am surprised that some of the exponents of free speech in the House and some of those who allege to be the great exponents of our rules should have consented at any time to the curb imposed on Parliament by the last rule changes.


Colin David Gibson: So we go back to minority rule again.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Here is another emanation of the sound to which I referred earlier. In so far as the curbs on Parliament are concerned, we know what can be done to publicize government activity either on the floor of this House or in committee before the press who, apparently, do not attend committee meetings unless something highly sensational is likely to develop. The reports of the committees do not come out until weeks later.


Colin David Gibson: They do their best.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As a member of the Committee on Procedure and Organization, I know that efforts are being made to improve the publication of committee reports. However, until that is done and becomes a realized success, the work of this House will suffer. It is an indirect curb on the right of examination by the House. The delay in the publication of committee reports as a result of certain difficulties is an indirect choking off or snuffing out of information.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I confess that I do not know of a standing order that covers my point, but would it not be a matter of courtesy for at least one cabinet minister to be present in the House of Commons when an important member of the official opposition is making his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Fairweather:: The government does not seem to care in the least for Parliament.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I had been aware of this situation, but we know what the attitude of the government is towards Parliament.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It does not care for Parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In fact, we have only two parliamentary secretaries present.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I also know the direction in which the cabinet has run. There is a little red light in front of a television camera and cabinet members seem to be struck with the idea that they shall be stars at the moment. They have all run breathless to that idiot box. No wonder they do not appear in Parliament. This is not the first time that someone has mentioned this administration's contempt for this House. May I continue the point I was making about industrial production? I wish to quote from the September 18, 1970 DBS Weekly Bulletin. At page 4 under "Index of Industrial Production, June 1970..." we find:
The seasonally adjusted index of industrial production (1961 = 100) declined by 0.6% in July, falling to 170.2 from the revised June level of 171.2. All of the decrease was due to the durables-centered drop in manufacturing, as both mining and utilities rose fractionally. The durables' decline was largely caused by sharp drops in the primary metals (where labour disputes were a factor) and metals fabricating components.
It is interesting to note that the July figure of 170.2 is fractionally below the 170.5 figure for May.
This reflects the true picture of the economy at the present time. Let us look at the minister's speech. He has talked about investment in residential construction. It was very much lower in the second quarter of 1970. It is at a lower level than it was in 1969. The government put $150 million into the building industry as a result of changes in the budget provisions of March, but still housing construction, including residential construction, is off. The cause, first of all, is extremely high interest rates. In considering the construction of multiple residences and large apartment buildings as well as other large developmental projects, it is clear that the spectre of the proposals contained in the white paper has closed off every-
October 14, 1970

thing. It will take a long time before there is that degree of confidence that will bring businessmen and people with money to invest in Canada. And that is the name of the game-people with money who are prepared to put up their money for investment on which they will obtain a reasonable return.
We are told that business spending on new capital has been sluggish so far this year. Of course it has been. Businessmen have been stung by the proposals in the white paper. In the exporting industries, we note that since last May there has been a continuing decline in certain types of exports. Here, one must look at the heavy chemical and forest products industries, where Canadian exporters are now competing on a foreign market at a price disadvantage. Not only have there been inroads on their sales in Canada as a result of accelerating the Kennedy Round reductions on certain domestic products so that imports have been competing against domestic products, but their exports have also increased in price on foreign markets as a result of the floating of our dollar. Why is there this difficulty with industrial production and with the economy of the country? Mr. Speaker, it is the result, frankly, of a crisis of confidence in this government. Businessmen have lost confidence. The government does not seem to know where it is going in so far as its economic programs are concerned.
We saw the wild ideas contained in the white paper. They alarmed the country tremendously. They alarmed foreign investors who wished to invest in Canada. Actually, they have caused the withdrawal of some funds from Canada. A very successful foreign investor actually told me this past summer that at present there is just no case to be made for investing in Canada if one compares investment opportunities and returns on investments in the United States, Australia, South Africa and a few other countries which have demands that are as strong as our own for development capital. The United States, notwithstanding that it is a major country with a fully developed economy, still offers opportunities for development capital. I refer to innovating capital, with which people are prepared to take a chance. According to the white paper we, in Canada, were denying people the opportunity of taking a chance. This has created an element of uncertainty.
Let me refer now to the gyrations of our dollar. There may have been a case, since the minister explained that there was pressure on the dollar, for something to be done with respect to it; nevertheless, I suggest that the answer is not in bringing about a breach of our obligations under the International Monetary Fund and being the one left-footed soldier in all the squad. We got away with it once, years ago. Is it right that we should now go back again and say to all the other countries, "You must respect your responsibilities under the International Monetary Fund regulations but we, in Canada, choose to opt out and, when we find it suitable, we will come back in." That is not the way to conduct our financial relations with our trading partners. In so far as the Canadian economy is concerned, confidence will be restored when the government makes up its mind, I hope soon, to peg
The Address-Hon. M. Lambert the dollar. By saying that I do not for one moment want it to be understood that I approve of the narrow range of plus or minus 1 per cent existing under the present Bretton Woods Agreement. I suggest either that there be a wider range or that there be a moving average rate. Canada must return to a pegged dollar in order to give business the degree of stability that it requires and in order that our exporters can put into effect those plans and operations that must be implemented in order to compete internationally.
It is no answer to the problem put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to say that Chemcell is laying off 300 people in Edmonton-these are people with Phd's and other degrees-and that Dupont and other large chemical companies may lay off hundreds of people. People like these are not mere sweepers; the companies are laying off from the backbone of their work force. How does one expect them to start operating again a few months later or even a year later when the economy may have recovered? This is where we all lose as Canadians.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The other question is the crisis in confidence. The minister pointed out that there is now far more industrial unrest than ever before. This, of course, causes a lack of confidence both in businessmen and organized labour. As the minister indicated, we are now getting wage demands and wage settlements to cover future inflation because no case has been made that productivity is even approaching wage increases.
I am not going to get into the hassle of whether a 6 per cent or 12 per cent increase in wages is right or wrong, but if there is a consistent increase in wages, salaries and profits, and profits that are withdrawn are the wages of management, and if these are in excess of the increase in productivity there will be continuing inflation. A study made last year by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs amply proved that this is the case as far as Canada is concerned. We see the case being made in other countries where there are rapidly escalating wages which are ahead of the increase in productivity.
One does not quarrel with the disruptive effects of work stoppages. No one gains from a work stoppage, including the employee and employer. Where there have been work stoppages in major industries a great deal of consequential unemployment has resulted. Although this has affected the figures, the net result is that our rate of productivity has declined. This was discussed earlier. Why is it declining? It is simply because the base of operation has been narrowed so much that the overhead and fixed costs have to be paid for by the much narrower base of operation. The consequences are apparent.
We did not get any answers from the Minister of Finance. He mentioned an acceleration of payments to the provinces, but that is not encouragement to the private sector. This is where the government should have support for its programs. There should be incentives for business to invest in capital assets, but they are declining.

October 14, 1970
The Address-Hon. M. Lambert
The Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada and other members of the Council stated the year before last that the government's fiscal and monetary policies ought to be very carefully assessed and watched because it is very easy to overstep the mark. We must remember that these fiscal and monetary policies of taxation and tight money have very deep effects. All too often the federal government is unable to stop the downward trend. Adequate measures should be taken soon. Somewhere along the line the government economists and the advisers to the minister have missed the boat. They have not seen the warning lights.
The Minister of Finance talked about relaxation of fiscal and monetary policies, but it has been proved that he is too late. When the Economic Council of Canada gave a very mild warning they were bitterly condemned by the minister and his advisers for doing so. However, they were correct. The minister has said that the government has now taken certain steps. The government is going to pump some extra millions of dollars into the hands of the provinces.
The government is making available $150 million for housing and $60 million, which is peanuts, for advancing maintenance and repairs. What are they going to do? Are they going to paint garages of DND establishments? Are they going to renew doors and parti ions of government buildings? Are they going to overhaul and instal more luxurious furniture in ministerial offices and the offices of senior civil servants? What are they going to do with $25 million? There will be $15 million for certain work projects. I repeat, $15 million. This is like giving a man who is dying of thirst a drop of water. A much more massive injection must be furnished by the government.
I am conscious of the time I have left, Mr. Speaker. At page 106 of Hansard there is a table which is headed, "Federal government expenditure public accounts and national accounts reconciliation". It is the same table that appears at page 4749 of Hansard for the last session. This is included in the minister's budget speech of March 12.
Remarkably the 1969-70 preliminary figures in the left-hand column of the table shown on page 106 are somewhat different from those that appear at page 4749 of last session's Hansard. I do not know how preliminary figures can change, if they are preliminary figures. There is also a major change with respect to the 1970-71 forecast. The total expenditure on a national accounts basis proposed for 1970-71 is $16,150 million while the total of budgetary expenses is $13,250 million. This is again a big increase, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I am sorry to inform the hon. member that his time is over.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Could the House grant me a few additional minutes, Mr. Speaker?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel:) Does the House agree to the member for Edmonton West continuing his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and hon. members of the House. I have only a short bit to add.
In years past, we have been told by successive ministers of finance that what must really be considered are the surplus or deficit figures on a national accounts basis. Those were the true ones. I remember when the Hon. Walter Gordon instituted this basis. This was to be the real basis of comparisons. The budgetary basis was considered to be nothing, but strangely enough if the national accounts basis is to be considered on the revised figures as they appeared in the minister's speech on Tuesday, we have gone from a budgetary surplus of $250 million in March through the successive changes announced at the dominion-provincial conference to a deficit position of $450 million on a national accounts basis. In his speech the minister said that instead of having a budgetary surplus, we will have a budgetary deficit of $150 million on the basis of our present estimates.
I am often reminded of the time in February of 1968 when the present Minister of Finance stood opposite and said, "I guarantee we will balance the budget". In October figures were tabled showing that the budget was $825 million in the red. I have as much faith in the minister's figures now as I did at that time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. During this important debate on the economic condition of the country no minister of the government has seen fit to attend on this debate this afternoon, even though a point of order was raised by another member in the House of Commons. In view of that fact, I wish to move the following motion:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
That this House adjourn and report progress until a member of the government sees fit to attend this most important debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. member the fact that, according to the advice I have received, since, he rose on a point of order, it is not possible for him to make such a motion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What I did, in fact, Mr. Speaker, was to raise a question of privilege. A question of privilege can be raised at this time because this is a matter which affects the proceedings which are taking place in the House at this moment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the hon. member's motion should be related to the question of privilege. The point which the hon. member raised just now was made previously by another hon. member.
October 14, 1970

It is well taken but, in my opinion, I should not put the motion he suggests at this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I speak further to that question of privilege, Mr. Speaker? My motion is based on the question of privilege, one which affects every member of this chamber. It has always been the practice that when a debate of this nature, or, indeed, of any other, is in progress, one or two cabinet ministers, at least, are present. Members of the ministry have today seen fit to ignore this debate completely. As I say, this is a matter which affects the privileges of every member of this House. I ask that the motion be put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I repeat that there is some propriety to the comments which have been made, but the hon. member has heard the decision of the Chair and the Chair has no alternative but to call on the hon. member for Peel South.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a point of order. I move that this House do now adjourn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I am again informed that such procedure is not provided for under our rules. An hon. member is not able to rise on a point of order and then move a motion to adjourn the House, as the hon. member seeks to do. It is my feeling, if not my experience, that if this were to be allowed then at any moment during any debate, for any reason at all, an hon. member could get up, raise a point of order and move the adjournment of the House. Accordingly, it is my intention to adhere to my earlier decision and call upon the hon. member for Peel South.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would invite Your Honour to reconsider your decision with regard to this particular question. I said nothing on the subject during my speech, although my speech was interrupted while the point of order was originally raised. Nothing was said by me at that time, but the matter has now been raised at the first opportunity. I put it to Your Honour that a point of order with regard to attendance in the House is admissible at any time and, therefore, that the motion is not out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I wish to remind the hon. member for Edmonton West that the point of order raised while he was speaking was not followed by a motion. It was well taken, and, indeed, the point of order raised by another of his hon. friends was well taken. I have rendered a decision. I am ready to take this question under consideration with the Speaker for another occasion but, from the advice I have received until now, I have no choice other than to call on the next speaker who is the hon. member for Peel South.


Mr. Baldwin:: Before we leave this point, may I say this: I see several assorted Parliamentary Secretaries present; they might possibly send for a minister so that the cabinet might be represented.
The Address-Mr. Chappell


Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel Souih):: At the outset of these observations, Mr. Speaker, might I offer my congratulations to all those who have spoken before me and in particular to the mover (Mr. Trudel) and the seconder (Mr. Douglas, (Assiniboia) of the motion before us?
Some have criticized the Speech from the Throne, but I think when one considers it together with the list of proposed legislation tabled by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on October 8, it is a most comprehensive and excellent document. A debate on the Address gives each of us an opportunity to speak on what he believes to be the most important issue facing us. Mine is the need for quick and substantial changes to our criminal law.
Last year, at this time, I spoke of the need for discipline in democracy. Thinking of the George Williams University affair, the LaPalme lawlessness, the bombing and the airport riots, I said we had seen a glimpse of chaos which amounted to a gun pointed at democracy and I expressed the view that unless democracy immediately developed a stronger discipline we were on the way to a dictatorship. I thought then that we had five or ten years in which to make our choice. Now, one year later, we do not have any time left. The challange is here, now. Democracy in Canada is threatened. Can we quickly produce the teeth and muscle to save it? The eyes of the world are upon us. The stake is not just our national reputation but our way of life-democracy itself.
To obtain freedom, each of us gave up his jungle right to behave as he wished and submitted to a code of conduct called laws, in return for protection from those who refused to follow the code. Equal freedom of action and opportunity should exist within these rules. The criminal law deals with those who interfere with our rights within these rules. Without that protection, we are without freedom. The question is: can democracy provide it, or will we slip into dictatorship to provide the discipline and save us from mob rule or revolution?
Our criminal law mainly deals with those who interfere with the life or security of another individual or who steal from the state. These people usually have had protection from, and obeyed, the laws in other respects. For many years we have been humanizing the use of the criminal law sanction, hoping to rehabilitate criminals by more positive and less punitive treatment. This attitude led to the suspension of the death penalty except in very limited circumstances. What we are faced with today in the bombings, air piracy and kidnapping for ransom is very different from ordinary criminal activity. These groups would destroy the whole basis of our law and society. They fight to take away democracy and force their will upon us. Is the concept which we have developed for the criminal sanction of the individual suitable for application to these groups, or must we introduce a whole new concept?
So many Canadians have said in the last two or three years that this is the greatest country in the world. How many have thought to themselves that mob rule and organized gangsterism can not happen here, but only in faraway places. Some will now say, what a disturbing or unpleasant thought and brush it off in the hope that the

October 14, 1970
The Address-Mr. Chappell
police will soon catch a few of the FLQ and that the situation will return to normal. I ask you, is there not a gun at the nation's head when it is demanded that convicted criminals be freed and transported to a nation which encourages and trains them? I ask you, how many hostages need be taken, or how many of our police must be diverted to protecting rather than apprehending roles, before we consider freedom to be on the brink?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
We must realize these people are not ordinary individuals and ordinary products of our society. Neither are they political prisoners, as they are so often called by the press. A political prisoner is one who does not wish to live under the laws of a given country, and he is punished because he cannot conform. These "political prisoners" deliberately broke our laws, were apprehended under the law, tried and sentenced. They are led by international political gangsters who roam everywhere looking for a vacuum in authority and discipline and take advantage of it under foreign training and foreign support with the purpose of destroying our way of life. Needless to say these people always pick a group name associated with a local cause; thus they gain some sympathy and recruit the misguided and uninformed.
We have been living in an age of change and protest, of new demands and new strengths. Threats and selfish force have entered into protests, often joined by violence and complete disrespect for the rights and dignity of others. Important people in prominent places, both in the field of communications and in elective office, have often unwittingly, and sometimes deliberately, encouraged these people to violence by sympathizing with some seemingly worth-while element of their cause and by giving their acts excessive news coverage. People who commit violent and criminal acts are often given the chance to appear on television to try to justify them, by extolling some cause that they personally wish to espouse. This has tended to make heroes out of them in their own group, and thus has assisted their recruiting.
While protest was descending into violence and our criminal sanctions were being softened

I believe oroper-ly so far ordinary individuals-our social nies have accepted the philosophy of unrestraint md permissiveness. In this environment these selfish and destructive people have been allowed to flourish, often nurtured by the comfort that they may be accepted as the radical wing of a political philosophy. Their initial success has led them to think that if they act in mobs, and boldly enough, our laws are impotent to deal with them. If caught in crime they simply commit a worse one and demand exemption from penalty for the first.
Refusal to deliver hostages is not enough; we need tougher laws to fit this type of activity. As I said earlier, this is not ordinary crime by ordinary criminals; this is sedition and revolt against law and order. It is in fact a form of warfare. Our police are not sufficient in number to cope with such organized crime, and they are handicapped because of our strict rules which protect the suspected criminal. Our ordinary judicial process is slow,
and wisely so to avoid mistakes. But will it do for the present situation where those who are apprehended could be freed by commission of another crime? We must remember that many of these people already face charges which could lead to life imprisonment if they are caught. As the law stands now, they have nothing to lose from adding kidnapping and murder to their list of crimes.
Should we not amend the Criminal Code, first of all to provide the strictest penalty for those who kidnap people and hold them as hostages, or pirate a plane or vessel, or place bormbs where there is a reasonable chance of causing death?
Second, should we not also re-examine, and perhaps widen, the definition of "conspiracy" and "conspirators", so that those who openly support and encourage conspiracies can be charged?
Third, should we not re-examine, and if necessary enlarge, the section of the code dealing with treason and sedition, so that people who commit crimes of theft in order to finance revolutions are properly charged?
Fourth, should we not amend the Criminal Code to provide for speedy trial and appeal procedures so that the final penalty is carried out and attempts to rescue them by committing further crime are thwarted?
Fifth, should we not for a temporary period at least during this emergency, provide for a new type of hearing where people are forced to disclose the names of their fellow conspirators, and enable the police to use all reasonable means in order to apprehend? This would be a bold but I submit effective move, and this House has the authority to make such an amendment.
Sixth, should we not also consider making membership in organizations such as the FLQ a crime in itself? Lastly I suggest that we tighten our immigration laws to forbid entrance to Canada of those who preach the violent overthrow of our system; and I suggest we improve our intelligence in those foreign nations that assist such groups so that we know their plans in advance.
Liberty is precious. The pain and fear of those hostages and their families must be immense. But we must guard against oppression and act within the law. We cannot distort law and order by using their illegal methods-that is to say, by lining people up and shooting them-as many of our constituents have been suggesting to us during the last week end. If we did this then we would destroy that which we seek to preserve-the rule of law.
I do not call for any abandonment of the democratic or judicial process, but rather for proof that democracy can move quickly and toughen its criminal laws in times of emergency in order to save itself. I fear that if we do not show this firmness, use of the innocent hostage will spread like wildfire to other groups. Under fear of mob rule people seek protection at any cost, and we might be stampeded into a dictatorship.

October 14, 1970

In closing, may I speak for a moment for comparative purposes about my own riding of Peel South, which is composed of Mississauga, its port town of Port Credit, and Streetsville, the most dynamic and fastest growing area in the world. It demonstrates what can happen in a free and healthy democracy. Last year an immense amount of new industry settled there. By the second election to come we will have a population, I believe, of perhaps 400,000 people and will require four members to serve us. Quebec desires and deserves this same growth, and all of us look forward to similar economic growth there. But can it happen if we allow this lawlessness to continue? Surely for Quebec and for Canada the most important issue facing us is the need to strengthen immediately our criminal laws.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, as is customary I should like to join with other hon. members who have preceded me in this debate in extending my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply, the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas).
I too, subscribe to many of the thoughts expressed by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I find myself at this moment pre-empting some of the thoughts and observations that I had intended to make in addressing myself to the crisis facing our country at the present time. It is difficult if not impossible for any member to rise in his place during this debate without making some reference to the events that are taking place at this moment in this city of Ottawa and in the province of Quebec. The presence of armed troops on parliament hill is an awesome and frightening spectacle. It is so awesome and so frightening that we have to stop for a moment and ask ourselves over and over again, can this be happening here, can this be happening to us? What in the name of God is happening to our country?
As we contemplate these events, there is one thing that emerges very clearly, at least to me at any rate, and that is that this country will unhappily never be the same, no matter how successfully concluded are the negotiations now going on to free other unfortunate men who are the victims of this conspiracy. No longer can we, as Canadians, look at this world through rose coloured glasses. No longer can we view the violence, turbulence, and unrest of other countries with smug complacency in the knowledge that it cannot happen here. It is happening here and it is happening now.
I am one member of this House who finds himself at a loss to explain to my children just exactly what is happening. It is difficult for me to understand, hence it very difficult for me to explain it to them. Certainly, as members of this House, we at this time in this place can give voice to the thoughts of the vast majority of Canadians in this country who view, through the medium of television day by day and hour by hour, the drama and crisis that is unfolding before them. We can give voice to their
The Address-Mr. McGrath
concern on the floor of this House. We can give voice to that concern as Members of Parliament and we can express our own individual concern for the future of this country.
I believe that the majority of the people in this country feel that the Government of Canada has acted wisely in not yielding to the demands of these criminals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I believe that the government acted responsibly in placing paramount importance on the maintenance of the rule of law in this country. That is certainly the government's responsibility and they would stand condemned by the people of Canada if they did otherwise. We must ask ourselves whether the government, in their attempts and in their human desire to save the lives of these men, have gone a little bit too far? Have we perhaps in the process lost something?
There should be no question of absolution and there should be no question of a deal. A terrible and heinous crime has been committed. The only course to be followed now is that of the due process of law, otherwise where will this end? Who will be safe in this country? Certainly, there will be no security for those who have the responsibility of government or have the responsibility of representing other governments in this country.
At the same time, I cannot help but feel that we have perhaps slightly overplayed our hand with the presence of armed troops in Ottawa and on parliament hill. To my mind, this dramatically illustrated that we have overplayed our hand and have hurt the prestige of this country in the eyes of the world. Surely, the government did not have to resort to armed troops in full battle dress. Surely, this could only have the effect of aggravating an already aroused public and of hurting our reputation which has already been badly tarnished in the eyes of the world. I say that with all earnestness and at the risk of being classed as one of the Prime Minister's bleeding hearts. I say that because I believe that even though this is a time of great crisis some other provision could have been made. Some other forces could have been called upon without having to resort to calling in troops in full battle dress.
Perhaps the government would be better advised, while at the same time maintaining the security of our public officials, to look at the cause of the great problems that face this country. I cannot help but note that we are not going to solve the great economic problems of this country, the problems of regional development and disparity, as well as the attendant problems of unemployment, by the type of band-aid treatment announced in the House last evening by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). He laughs at the winter works program, yet he has had to draw in his horns and bring in a program which can only be classified as band-aid treatment. They will not get at the heart of the matter and will not in my view help to reduce the growing rate of unemployment, especially in the province of Quebec, the Atlantic prov-

October 14, 1970
The Address-Mr. McGrath
inces, certain parts of northern Ontario and the Prairies. Sixty million dollars is a nice round figure, amounting to about $3 for every man, woman and child in this country. This amount would not solve the unemployment problems in the province of Newfoundland alone, let alone the vast unparallelled unemployment which exists in this country today.
Having said that, I should now like to refer to another matter than concerns me. This is an item to which I have given a great deal of thought as of late. The hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell), who just took his seat, said among other things that democracy in Canada was threatened. He was referring to the presence of troops and the crisis in Canada today as a consequence of the happenings in Quebec.


Hyliard G. Chappell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member said I was referring to the troops on the hill that put democracy at stake. I referred to no such thing. I said it was the type of warfare that was going on that led to the kidnapping, and that unless this was stopped, democracy was threatened, not because there were troops on the hill, which I supported.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


James Aloysius McGrath: All right, Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. I was merely trying to paraphrase him, but he did say democracy in Canada is threatened as a consequence of what is happening. I am sure I am quoting the hon. member correctly.
I believe the greatest threat to democracy in this country is the destruction of Parliament by this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I believe that poses a greater threat to my freedom than what is happening in Canada today. When a government refuses to allow the legitimate expressions of the people in a free country, that is precisely what takes place. The armed troops move in. This brings me to the point where I am concerned about what is happening in this Parliament. As a member, I am concerned about what is happening to this Parliament. I am concerned about a debate which is taking place in this House in this moment of crisis without any ministers present.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


James Aloysius McGrath: Now, we have two but only after they were flushed out by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). We have some of the newfound Parliamentary Secretaries. They are here only because they are new to the job. Were it not for that fact they would probably join the other members of the cabinet elsewhere.
I believe what is happening in this Parliament and in this House is a cause for great concern. We have lost something since this government came to power. We, as Members of Parliament, have lost our rights, our privileges and our prerogatives. No longer do we have the
traditional rights, the long fought for right, to withhold supply to the government. Hence, we have no power and hence we stand accused by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of being nobodies. Let me quote what the Prime Minister said as recorded at page 11,635 of Hansard of last session:
The opposition seems to think it has nothing else to do but talk.
I suggest we are here to talk. That is our main role as Members of Parliament. Then, the Prime Minister continues:
They say: it there is a problem, we will talk.
That is precisely what we should do. We talk instead of resorting to armed troops because when there is no talk there is armed conflict. The quotation continues, and I repeat that these are the words of the Prime Minister:
If there is difficulty we will talk about it.
That is precisely our responsibility. I now quote the Prime Minister further:
It the government is going too slowly, we will talk about it.
That is what we have to do; that is our responsibility. That is precisely what we have to do. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues:
The best place in which to talk, if they want a forum, is, of course Parliament. When they get home, when they get out of Parliament, when they are 50 yards from Parliament Hill, they are no longer hon. members-they are just nobodies, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We are the only thing between him and tyranny.


James Aloysius McGrath: We are nobodies because the government has systematically set out to destroy this institution. It has taken away from the House the traditional right to grant supply.


Colin David Gibson: You are against participatory democracy.


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member who sits on his brains is making his usual contribution. The government has set out to take away the only right we have to withhold supply from the government when we have a grievance.
An hon. member spoke about the committees. What is happening to the committees? The committees are partisan. The chairmen of these committees consider themselves to be members of the government. They do not consider themselves to be non-partisan chairman representing Your Honour in the committees. They consider themselves to be stooges of the government and representatives of the government. Only in the past few months in my own province, I have seen two members who were committee chairmen during the last session. The hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) Chairman of Northern Affairs Committee, came to my province during the recess representing the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) at a ceremony. The hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Morison), who was chairman of the Committee on Regional Development, accepted a position as consultant with the govern-

October 14. 1970

ment of Newfoundland in the very department charged with the responsibility of administering the program under regional development.
We know of other instances where committee chairmen have been the stooges of the government. For example, when a committee brings in a unanimous recommendation to this House which just does not fit in with the government plans, and is not acceptable to the government, the committee chairman quietly acquiesces to the wishes of the Government House Leader. All that the committee chairman needs to do is to remain seated and not rise in his place to move a motion of concurrence in the hope that the report will die. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, that has not been allowed to happen because of the vigilance of the opposition in this House. Members of the opposition on more than one occasion have moved concurrence in committee reports, only to have the motion for concurrence talked out by government members. Then, the motion has been put on the order paper as a government measure and allowed to die a slow death.
The report of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development which studied the question of sovereignty in the North was moved by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk). It was talked out by the government and died on the order paper. I can think also of the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications dealing with the problem of transportation in Labrador and the north shore of Quebec which presumably was destined to die by virtue of the lack of a motion for concurrence by the Chairman. The motion was moved by the hon. member for Grand FaUs-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle). The motion was allowed to die. I could cite other instances to illustrate that the committee system is a failure as it is now constituted. It is an absolute failure and it is destroying Parliament. Let me quote the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker) who is one of the Parliamentary Secretaries who have been put out to pasture. I am quoting from the Financial Post of July 9, 1970:
The new committee system is working excellently, so well that it is superseding the work of the Commons. With so many committees (24) operating there is difficulty in getting a quorum in the House itself. That is a bad situation.
There are no committees sitting today.


An hon. Member:: Yes, there are.


James Aloysius McGrath: Well, I apologize. Perhaps there are one or two committees sitting. This still does not alter the fact that the government and its members choose to ignore the debate which is taking place at this moment of great crisis.
When the new rules were adopted by Parliament there was a debate, as indeed there should have been because these rules as we now see them would have the effect of taking away our rights and prerogatives. A solemn undertaking was given by the then President of the Privy Council that the rules would in fact be reviewed. I shall throw this undertaking right back in his face. I am talking about the former President of the Privy Council,
The Address-Mr. McGrath
the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) who is involved with soldiers on Parliament Hill at the present time. Perhaps that is why he is not in the House. The minister's remarks appear at page 3792 of Hansard. I quote:
I would be glad to give an undertaking on behalf of the government that after we have had experience with these suggested standing orders for the balance of this session, we would at the commencement of the next session in September or October of next year, be prepared to refer these amendments to the new committee on procedure and organization, which I trust will be established by this motion. That committee could consider these procedural changes if not within one year, within at least nine months later.
That brings us to the present time. In other words, Mr. Speaker, a solemn undertaking was given by the government that it would be prepared to take a long, hard look at these rule changes after they had been in operation for a short period of time, so drastic were they in their impact. Now, Mr. Speaker, I call upon the new Government House Leader, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), who has been called upon to pull predecessor's chestnuts out of the fire, to try and restore some of the lost prestige of this Parliament that has been taken away by the actions of the government. I call upon him to fulfil that undertaking made by his predecessor to refer these rules back to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, and to take a long look at the committee system of this House.
e (4:10 p.m.)
I suggest to him that consideration should be given to the following: That committees should not under any circumstances be allowed to sit without a quorum.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: That, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion is fundamental if this whole committee system is to be anything but a farce.
Secondly, I suggest to the government through you, Sir, that committees, except under special circumstances which have been predetermined by the House, should not be allowed to sit while the House is in session. I consider that to be a fundamental condition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, we must give
consideration to doing away with the roster system in this House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: -which, more than anything else, is taking away the rights and privileges of Members of Parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: -our inherent rights to represent our constituencies, to represent the people of Canada and to direct questions to the members on the treasury benches.
126

October 14, 1970
The Address-Mr. McGrath
That right, Mr. Speaker, I submit is being taken away from us by the roster system. It was only today, this third or fourth day of the new session, that it was pointed out that 25 per cent of the ministers were absent.
What about Standing Order No. 5, Mr. Speaker? Standing Order No. 5, which is still part of our Standing Orders, very simply says:
Every member is bound to attend the service of the House, unless leave of absence has been given him by the House.
I know, Sir, that this Standing Order has been taken under advisement by the Speaker. I know this matter has been raised on a number of occasions, but I believe this Standing Order was left in the rule book precisely for the reason to which I am alluding, namely, that no group of members may be absent from this House at any one time without the express consent of the House. But that is precisely what is happening under the roster system. When a group of members, especially a group comprising members on the treasury benches, are absent from this House then I, as a member of the House, am being deprived of my rights. This is nothing short of being deprived of my rights-it is contempt.


Mr. Jerome:: Would the hon. member permit a
question?


James Aloysius McGrath: I would be glad to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to ask questions when I conclude my remarks.
The other provision I would ask the Standing Committee to take a long, hard look at, an earnest and sincere look at, is a provision which in my opinion is making the committee system inoperative in terms of providing col-legiality, if you like, and expertise amongst the members of the committees. It is the provision whereby the membership of the committees can be changed. This is Standing Order 65(4)(b) which reads:
Changes in the membership of any standing, joint or special committee may be affected by a notification thereof, signed by the member acting as the Chief Government Whip, being filed with the Clerk of the House who shall cause the same to be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of that sitting, or of the next sitting thereafter, as the case may be.
That rule should go, Mr. Speaker. That rule must go if the committees of the House are to work effectively and if they are to work properly. Otherwise, we will continue to have this roving parliamentary goon squad which does nothing else but move into a committee where it feels the government is in trouble. This squad votes at the direction of the government, and then moves on to do its dirty work in the next committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: I say that is an obnoxious and reprehensible rule, and it should be taken out. If a member wants to get on a committee he should do so by resolution of this House. There is no other way that he should be allowed to sit in a committee which is charged with the responsibility of examining bills and the spending estimates of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we at least give consideration to restoring just a part of our traditional rights and prerogatives. We can do this by making provision to bring back into Parliament certain predetermined departmental estimates, without any time limit on their passage. This would be done by agreement of the different house leaders. These estimates would come before Parliament, and would be examined by the committee of the whole house, without a time limit, so that members could give voice to their grievances, question government expenditures, and indeed withhold voting money for a department for that year unless they received a legitimate explanation with respect to their grievances.
If we did that you might see a lot more interest in this chamber by members of the Treasury Board than is now manifest.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And an effective opposition.


James Aloysius McGrath: And you would probably have a more effective opposition, more effective Members of Parliament. This institution would be restored to its traditional role. Mr. Speaker, democracy in Canada is indeed threatened. Democracy in Canada is threatened because the government chooses to do away with Parliament very surreptitiously by taking away its rights, prerogatives and privileges. Until these rights, prerogatives and privileges are restored, then parliamentary democracy in this country is a farce and freedom is threatened.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to say he would permit a question at the end of his remarks. I wonder if the hon. member is in a position to commit his party to a general review of the rules by the Procedure Committee. That seems to be what he is anxious for, and I am sure he will find a good deal of support for that in the House. However, so far his party has resisted. Can the hon. member commit his party to having a general review of the rules by the Procedure Committee?


James Aloysius McGrath: Let me answer that question by asking the new Parliamentary Secretary if he is prepared to commit the government to the same?


James Alexander Jerome: Certainly.


Mr. Ricard:: What authority have you got?


James Alexander Jerome: That isn't an answer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) asked a question. He cannot make a speech at this time. I now call on the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai).


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join those who preceded me in this debate in congratulating the mover (Mr. Trudel) and the seconder (Mr Douglas (Assiniboia)) of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne for their well conceived addresses. By all standards, the Speech from the Throne was one of the best to which I have had the privilege of
October 14, 1970

October 14, 1970
The Address-Mr. Badanai
Some are transplanted Americans, others are Canadian born actors, writers, and others who've discovered their talents aren't duly appreciated on the U.S. side of the border and return to Canada frustrated and angry. Even an individual announcer with an anti-American streak can give a platitude a derisive note by the inflection of his voice.
And like it or not, this is the basis on which most Americans judge us on our attitudes-another instance of the silent majority being judged by the views of a few.
Last March I made the suggestion in the House that the time may come, when and if it is established beyond the shadow of a doubt that we could have a surplus of fresh water, when we can export this valuable commodity to the United States at a good profit. And why not? Since that time, I have seen nothing valid to change my views on the question.
The United States is our closest neighbour, our best customer, our main supplier, our major source of capital, and our shield against any possible military attack. The Hon. Lionel Chevrier, who was minister of justice when the Right Hon. Lester Pearson formed his government in April, 1963 and former Canadian High Commissioner to London, speaking to the Canadian Club in my constituency had this to say about Canadian-American relations:
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
We are pulled together by our bilateral trade relationship and by our joint defence efforts, not to mention the joint development of Canadian water resources.
He was referring to the Columbia River Treaty and the cultural exchange between our two countries. I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the new Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) on his onerous appointment to what I consider one of the most important cabinet positions. I express the hope that in following in the footsteps of his distinguished predecessor he may continue an aggressive immigration policy designed to fill this empty land of ours. This is still a country of few people. It still has a weak policy towards the acceptance of eager applicants who wish to be admitted to Canada as landed immigrants, notwithstanding some sincere efforts made by some previous ministers. I have stated before on several occasions, and I repeat now, that the Canadian government's immigration policy, while far better than that of former governments, is still like a cold water tap turned on and off according to the economic winds. I maintain that it is an arbitrary theory which defeats what ought to be the whole purpose of an immigration policy, the enrichment of national life, socially and economically, by a systematic flow of people. Australia, with half the number of habitants, admits nearly double the annual number of immigrants and pays their passage as well. Immigration has helped to give Australia a population of which 50 per cent is under the age of 21. At the present rate of admission, Canada remains a nation underpopulated, with whole regions seriously lacking sufficient people to provide those regions with the energy required for their development.
One of Canada's major industries has a problem that is rather unusual these days. Even though unemployment is high, the Canadian mining industry cannot get enough
[Mr. Badanai1
skilled, as well as unskilled, workers. The world demand for metals is growing steadily and Canada, being a major supplier of the world's requirements, has a social and international responsibility to continue to provide the world's needs which, at the same time, provide Canadians with employment and a higher standard of living. It has been reported that our birthrate is dropping, which is another important factor to be considered in relation to our growth.
I was pleased to note that the Throne Speech contains a promise of a white paper on immigration. I shall look forward to it with keen anticipation, coupled with great expectation, confident that it wiU spell out in no uncertain terms a new selection criteria designed to attract more people willing to help in our development.
A white paper on citizenship will be indeed welcome, because our present Citizenship Act contains a discriminatory section whereby a naturalized Canadian citizen under certain circumstances is subject to the loss of his citizenship. I submit that if a naturalized Canadian citizen were to commit an offence of a treasonable nature, there is a law that will take care of him. The same law would apply to a natural born Canadian citizen. The present Canadian Citizenship Act needs revision in another important aspect, which is this: at present citizenship is denied for various reasons which are not made clear to the applicant. I have in mind cases where applicants with a good reputation, with no police record and who have lived in Canada for more than 20 years, have had their applications for citizenship rejected time after time because at one time or another they have been members of certain organizations. I sincerely hope that the proposed white paper will indicate the repeal of these objectionable features in our present Citizenship Act.
The Prime Minister in his speech on Friday, October 9, indicated his concern for the plight of those on fixed incomes and said that something has to be done to alleviate a condition created by inflation, from which pensioners have suffered most. Increased benefits under the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security, effective on January 1, 1971, do not meet the increases in the cost of living. I, therefore, urge the government to consider, without delay, a reasonable upward revision of pension benefits in line with the reality of the rising cost of living index.
In a Speech from the Throne debate it is almost invariably the custom for a member to bring to the attention of the government some particular need of his electoral riding. I have a very special project to which I trust the government will give favourable consideration.
Fort William is the constituency that I have the honour to represent. It is an old city which, since amalgamation with the former sister city of Port Arthur, is now part of the city of Thunder Bay.
The Historical Society of Thunder Bay is composed of members dedicated to the preservation of its rich history, dating back 300 years. With the advent of the explorers Greysolon and Sier Dulhut, Fort Kaministigoyan was
October 14, 1970

built in 1687. It was later renamed Fort William after William Magillivray, one of the most distinguished governors of the Hudson's Bay Company. Here it was that a city was born, at a time when men developed a mystique about their land. The society has been active in a project to acquire the oldest surviving historic house built and occupied by the last factor, John McIntyre, of the Hudson's Bay Company post at Fort William. It is the hope of its members to restore this house as a living museum for this generation and generations yet unborn. The history of the early years of Fort William is best known because it was the rendezvous of the Northwest Company and because of the bitter rivalry with the Hudson's Bay Company.
When these two companies made peace in a merger of interests in the fur trading business, events of significance in the development of the modern city of Thunder Bay took place. John McIntyre was intimately associated with these developments. The life of this man spanned the great era of the fur trade and the early years of mining, railroading and agriculture. He lived in the spacious, white elegant house which he built. After retirement from his duties with the Hudson's Bay Company, he continued to serve the people of the district and the Government of Canada as Indian Agent, Customs Officer and Justice of the Peace. On behalf of the city of Thunder Bay, I appeal to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), who is responsible for the restoration and establishment of historic sites, to look upon this project which is near and dear to the hearts of the people I represent in this House as being worthy of being among the monuments of our nation which record the events of the past for the benefit of future generations.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The government is certainly going to do something about pollution, but it must be borne in mind that this is not a new problem. It is a man-made condition detrimental to the environment and threatening to our well being. It is a problem about which we have become aware only recently. It is ironic that today those industries which are considered to be the great polluters have, in many cases, credible records of battles to protect the environment.
The Great Lakes Paper Company in my constituency has a good record in this regard. The Canadian pulp and paper industry has reduced the load of suspended solids in water by 60 per cent in the last seven or eight years. It has spent millions of dollars in a joint effort to combat air and water pollution, and intends to step up its battle against the problem.
Pollution, in the sense that it is being looked upon today, is almost a universal threat to all forms of life. It is a threat that must be met in co-operation with every industry, and with our neighbour to the south, as it affects our waters. But we must recognize that this problem was a long time developing and we cannot expect instant solutions. What we can expect is that the government will put into motion measures designed to prevent
The Address-Mr. Broadbent the problem from becoming worse. Then, having stopped it, it will be our job to see that our environment is reclaimed from present contamination. The battle against pollution is not going to be easy; it will take a long time, but persistence will eventually pay off. Some industries, such as pulp and paper, are making an honest effort to solve the problem and they deserve credit for trying.
The Throne Speech also made reference to the visit of the Royal Family to Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and Yukon. Next year, when British Columbia celebrates joining the Canadian Confederation one hundred years ago, Her Majesty, the Duke of Edinburgh and Princess Anne will join in the centennial celebrations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hubert Badanai: These royal visits bring to the attention of Canadians the value of the Crown. While I have lived in Canada practically all of my adult life, I was not born under a British flag. Nevertheless, I began to appreciate the British concept of justice and freedom. I join with the newly appointed Senator, Eugene Forsey, when he stated in an address to the United Services Institute:
Let us have an end to ignorant chatter about the Monarchy having been imposed on us or the Fathers of Confederation having accepted it just because they were too timid or stupid or absent-minded to do anything else. We have a Monarchy because they uanimously insisted on it.
The Monarchy is part of what makes our Canadian identity, makes us different from the United States and almost every other country in the two Americas.
To substitute a republic would mean a political organ transplant, cutting out parts of ourselves and transplanting into our body politic something alien borrowed from other peoples with a different history, different traditions, different needs.
As a loyal subject of The Queen, I say in any revision of the Constitution let us uphold the principle of the Monarchy.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, before getting into the body of my speech, I cannot refrain from commenting on the observations of the previous speaker regarding the speech made by the leader of the New Democratic Party. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) suggested that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) is anti-American. On his behalf, I would like to assert in unequivocal fashion that that is absurd. At the same time, I should like to assert that people who talk about building an independent Canada, achieving control of our own destiny, need not and indeed, for the majority, should not be seen as being anti-American or anti any other group or nation in this world. This is one of the most specious arguments to present against that view, suggesting that it is based on an anti feeling of any sort.
The hon. member for Fort William said that he was proud to be born under a British flag. I recall that was the argument with which he concluded. The very real danger that a number of us fear is that the hon. member might well die under an American flag. That is the issue. It is not a matter of being anti-American. It is a very

October 14, 1970
The Address-Mr. Broadbent real, and I think legitimate, matter of concern for Canadians to preserve a distinctive Canadian society and Canadian nationhood. I hope we have heard the last of the kind of argument that he presented this afternoon against those who argue for a positive form of Canadian nationhood. I should like now to get into the main body of my comments.
The Speech from the Throne, in the opinion of some members, had some quaint and inappropriate phrases. I do not see them as such. There was a reference to a society as necessarily being "inspired by love and compassion" if it is to be worthy of the name of society. Further on, the same document calls for a society "which encourages imagination and daring, ingenuity and initiative". Again, in the text, there is reference to the importance of developing in Canada a spirit of friendship amongst our people.
Depending on the source, this kind of phraseology could be seen as merely platitudeness or as a genuine expression of some deeply felt intention, the kind of phrase that one now finds Rotarians and Socialists alike using. One has to make an assessment of the source in order to reach a serious judgment about the intent behind the phrase. I do not dismiss in any cynical fashion phrases of this nature which are found in the Speech from the Throne. To try to build a society with many of the characteristics of friendships, one which is conducive to producing people that are imaginative and daring, is something we should all try to achieve. What we should do now is pass serious judgment on the government's performance; how well it has established its record and decide whether it is to be believed to be likely to act to implement these goals.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has established himself very clearly as one of the most powerful Prime Ministers in Canadian history. He has the largest staff of any Prime Minister in Canadian history. He has established regional desks. He has reasserted the principle of cabinet solidarity and secrecy and has streamlined the organization of cabinet. All of these changes I think are desirable. All should contribute to effective government. In addition, the Prime Minister has improved or expanded his position of influence in the country by very effective and adept use of television and by very intelligently planned, well spaced trips around the country. He has communicated with the people of Canada. He has attempted to justify what he is doing. He has built his personal popularity and, therefore, his power as Prime Minister.
All of this taken together has established the Prime Minister as the most powerful head of government in Canada since Mackenzie King. I find nothing undesirable about what he has done to build up his position of power within the cabinet and within the office of the Prime Minister. In my view, it is constitutionally legitimate. From a democratic point of view it is quite sound.
The serious question we must put to the Prime Minister is not how he has built up his power, since that is essentially trivial for a man seriously concerned about
what is taking place in Canadian society, but how he is using that power to bring about the objectives stated in the Speech from the Throne presented to the members of this House and to the Senate. That is the serious question. If we are going to pass judgment or make Canadians guess about what this government is likely to do, the best we can do is look at its record in this area.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The Prime Minister has been in office over two years. He has had plenty of time to clearly establish for us and the people of Canada a certain pattern of behaviour and to establish certain expectations about what he is likely to do in the way of implementing the serious and desirable goals alluded to in the Speech from the Throne. I suggest that in the last two years the Prime Minister has accomplished almost nothing which could be described as contributing to these ends. We have seen during that period only four complex bills, two of which were hangovers from the previous Liberal administration. The first was the languages bill, a desirable item in the main and one which was accepted by the majority in all parties. The second was the omnibus bill amending the Criminal Code. Again, most parts of this measure were accepted by majorities in all the parties. I repeat, each of these pieces of legislation was a hangover from the Pearson administration.
The only other measures of any complexity introduced in more than two years of government were the Regional Development Incentives Act and the Canada Water Act. The first was good in principle and this party supported it, but the amount of money devoted to making it effective in the areas of Canada which most need assistance was about enough to buy a weekly subscription to a newspaper for every poor person in Canada. The Canada Water Act, a quaint piece of legislation which took up many weeks of parliamentary time last session was deficient in two crucially important areas. In the first place, it failed to set universal standards for pollution control; amendments which would have rectified this error were put forward on behalf of the New Democratic Party but were turned down. Second, the bill contained nothing which would have obliged the cabinet to bring before this House any proposal for the export of Canadian water to the United States. The New Democratic Party put forward an amendment which would have made this procedure mandatory, but again the Liberal government in its wisdom turned it down.
This, in my view, is the legislative record of the Trudeau government in the past two years. Let us turn, now, to an examination of the government's record in terms of policy decisions. I suggest it is, if anything, worse. Consider something which is very real and very important to millions of Canadians-housing. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time 20 per cent of Canadian homes lack flush toilets and another 20 per cent lack either a shower or a bathtub. In metropolitan Toronto alone, 22,000 families are on the waiting list for public housing right now. In terms of housing, in the opinion of the Canadian Welfare Council, and I am quoting, there is

October 14. 1970

now "an emergency for people of low income and a serious problem for middle income Canadians."
The current rate of starts, about which the government boasts, is some 180,000 a year but the Canadian Welfare Council says that even if 250,000 new homes-the target figure-were built each year for the next five years we should still fail to meet the immediate basic needs of all the Canadians who are doing without adequate housing or who are living in grotesquely inadequate housing.
What kind of people are able to buy, and live in, new housing today? The figures for home ownership by low income families have shown a marked change in the last five years. In 1965 people in the lower third of the Canadian income scale owned 17.9 per cent of the houses. Last year the figure had fallen to 6.4 per cent, a decline of some two-thirds. Let us bear in mind for a minute or so the significance of these statistics. They mean that thousands of low income Canadians see no prospect of owning their own homes; their number is rapidly increasing when it should be decreasing. Who, then, is getting the benefit of NHA subsidies, that is, of federal subsidies made possible by taxing the people of Canada as a whole? We find it is the rich who are being subsidized when they buy houses, not the average man or the poor. The average income last year of those receiving NHA mortgages was $10,810. I do not need to tell hon. members of this House how many people of Canada fall into this category. It means that the taxpayers' money is being used to subsidize the rich. It means that the poor people and the average people are not able to buy homes under the NHA. And this situation has not been changed during the term of office of the Trudeau government; in fact, it has become worse.
There is an alternative. It is that we subsidize NHA loans at 5 or 6 per cent for average or low income families and make sure that they get these loans first. We should prevent those earning higher incomes from getting them until the needs of our poorer citizens have been met. Second, banks, trust companies and mortgage loan companies should be required by law to put more money into housing. This could be brought about by amending existing acts of this Parliament. Something could and should be done now along these lines. Third, we need a great and immediate expansion of public housing. In 1969, only 3.9 per cent of all housing starts were in the public housing field. The federal government spent only $12.6 million in this field, amounting only to 60 cents per capita. And this, to repeat a point I made some minutes ago, is the situation in a country in which some 20 per cent of the people are badly housed or else housed in conditions vastly inferior to those in which the majority of Canadians are living, and where in one metropolitan centre alone some 22,000 families cannot get suitable homes. The federal government should immediately put money into this area, particularly to meet the needs of those in the larger cities.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Let us leave housing and take a look at this great progressive government's proposals for tax reform. These
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
proposals came from the Prime Minister, a man who talks of the importance of friendship, community and so on. What do we find? In the white paper presented to this Parliament we find proposals for tax reform. I do not say that literally, of course, but with some degree of irony.
One proposal is to reduce income tax paid by all those earning more than $35,000 a year. At the same time, people living at the poverty level in Canada are still taxed. Under the new proposals, a man earning $100,000 a year would save some $5,000 income tax. I pointed this out to a Liberal colleague, who will go unnamed. I said to him: "My friend, that great progressive party led by the Prime Minister keeps taxing the poor, as defined by the Economic Council of Canada, and don't you find this bizarre when a man who earns $100,000 a year will have his income tax reduced by $5,000?". He replied: "Well, Ed, you don't understand politics". That seems clear. So I said: "Well, maybe I do not understand politics".
Following that I did a little more thinking and I now think I understand the reason. My friend said to me: "Don't you see that we are introducing a capital gains tax in Canada?". We are the only country in the western world that does not have a capital gains tax! He went on: "(So we cannot really tax those poor people who are struggling to get by on incomes beyond the $35,000 a year level. We cannot impose on them a capital gains tax with the left hand without reducing with the right hand their level of income tax".
What this seems to suggest to me is that the Liberal party of Canada is saying, consciously or unconsciously, to its wealthy contributors: "Don't switch your allegiance to another political party. Don't abandon us or leave us in the lurch, you people who live in the middle class suburbs. We are not going to hit you too hard. We will reduce your income tax even if we do introduce a capital gains tax". This seems to me to suggest that the words in the Speech from the Throne are cynical, that they were written by those who really do not intend to redistribute power and income in this country.
What else do we find in the white paper? We find a proposal to give special tax credits to people who own shares in private companies, but no such credits to those who have purchased public bonds. Once again, this is important to the poor and to those of average income, because public facilities, whether they be a park, a hospital, a school, a community theatre-you name it-are shared by all Canadians on the basis of equality. Whether a child's parents are rich or poor, he can enjoy all of these facilities.
Real social progress, in my view, is achieved by expanding the public sector, by providing more such facilities on an egalitarian basis so that our children can grow up in a non-competitive way, knowing that many of the essential requisites of a civilized society are provided by the community, as they are presently provided as a matter of right only to the children of the wealthy.
The white paper on taxation proposes to maintain special tax incentives for investment in the private sector

October 14, 1970
The Address-Mr. Broadbent but not the public sector. This seems to me clearly to reveal the commitment of the Liberal party to the economic status quo. Those who attack the white paper for being a socialist document are, to say the least, a little misguided.
Finally, the white paper does nothing to bring about a real shift of the tax burden away from indirect taxation and toward corporate and income taxes. Canadians pay 52 per cent of all tax revenues by an indirect means. Both rich and poor Canadians pay the same form of indirect taxes. This is not the case with the corporate and income tax structure. Any reform that was directed toward the well-being of the average and poor families of Canada would have proposed some changes in this regard, a move away from reliance on indirect taxes, yet none are to be found in the white paper. An NDP government would have made shifts in all of these directions, shifts that the government, if it had so desired, could have made.
To turn to a different area, another practical day to day measure that involves people in our society is manpower retraining. We find all kinds of negative aspects of the manpower retraining program have lingered-I repeat, lingered-during the term of office of the Trudeau government. For example, at the present time an unemployed miner in Cape Breton of less than grade 5 or grade 6 education has virtually no realistic chance of completing a manpower retraining program to bring him up to a skilled level because there is a ceiling of 52 weeks on the amount of academic training that he can take in the program. In other words, the manpower retraining program is effective only for those who do not need it as badly as others, those who are half way there. It is useless for those at the bottom. In this respect we proposed a change, but it was not accepted.
Similarly, the manpower retraining act provides that only those who have been in the labour market for three years are eligible for retraining. This means that the young people of the country, the Metis, Eskimos and Indians, are effectively excluded under the act. I do not have to remind hon. members that the unemployment rate among the young is the highest of all age categories, and the rate is increasing. This is a change that should and could have been made by a progressive Prime Minister, but which was not.
Finally, under the manpower retraining program a man or woman with a family is given an allowance for the duration of the course. However, this allowance has not been changed for years. In other words, a man with a family taking a course has to live on an allowance that is at the poverty level as defined by the Economic Council of Canada. Once again, the NDP argued for a change in this regard so as to enable a man, not to live in affluence but on an income that would allow him to pay his rent and to buy food for his family while he undergoes retraining. But our proposal was turned down by the Trudeau government.
The policy that characterises this government more than any other is the government's magnificent war on
inflation. There was no justification for launching this war. Our trade figures have been getting better for the last two or three years. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), in his folksy way yesterday, pointed with great pride to the most recent trade figures showing that Canada is doing very well in terms of international trade. But we are not doing well for the reasons that he seemed to suggest, namely the austerity program. We are doing well on the basis of orders that were placed a long time ago, before his anti-inflation program. So the anti-inflation program was not justified by our trade figures. They could be and are an important reason for tightening up. But trade figures at the time did not warrant it. What did justify it? One argument that was used related to the increase in prices which affects our pensioners and unorganized workers. I will come back to that in a moment.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
One method the government used which need not have been chosen to fight that battle was the tightening of the monetary and fiscal screws. What effect did that have? Once again, it affected the public sector. It affected hospital building, school building, municipal street construction and so on. It did not affect in any significant way whatsoever the private sector of this country. It did not inhibit the construction of offices or the expansion of automobile factories and so on. Once again the people who were affected were those who most benefit by public facilities and public expenditures-all the average and poor in this country. The private sector was negligibly affected.
What is the reason for this? I should have thought the Prime Minister, who spent some time at the London School of Economics and even trotted off to Harvard for a while, would have realized that the modern corporation in Canada does not go to the market for most of its financing and does not respond in the main to the so-called market forces. General Motors in my constituency, for example, did not lower its prices. It did not cease to expand because of the Prime Minister's anti-inflation policy. The reason it did not, of course, is that it has operations all over the world. It does not just make cars and sell them in Canada. It is producing in the Argentine, Australia, West Germany and Great Britain. General Motors is only symptomatic of all big international corporations.
General Motors, in effect, said to our Prime Minister: Look, fellow, you have your quaint, old fashioned fiscal and monetary policy but we operate on a global basis. It is true that automobile purchases might drop. That is bound to be true with 750,000 Canadians out of work. You can be sure that will affect the rate of purchases of automobiles but it will not affect the pricing policies of General Motors. General Motors, in effect, says it will just sit this out because it is planning for profits not for the next year or for two years but for the next decade. General Motors is not only planning for profits in this country, General Motors is planning profit expectations determined on a global basis. General Motors, and all other major corporations in this country can sit back and ignore the Prime Minister, Mr. Young, the Minister of

October 14, 1970

Finance (Mr. Benson) and all those caught up in this quaint, old fashioned type of economic policy.
This policy did not affect the prices established in industries that are foreign owned or of an international nature. However, it certainly reduced our growth rate and it certainly did create the highest level of unemployment in a decade. I have been informed by a private source that when the figures for September are released we will see another increase in unemployment. Unemployment in Canada in September was 6.9 per cent, which is another increase in the number of Canadians out of work, with the consequential suffering families. That is the result of a needless anti-inflation policy, a policy which would not have been initiated by a Prime Minister who really intended to do something about those laudable goals referred to in the Speech from the Throne.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members and will try to conclude quickly. The other method used by the government to fight inflation was, of course, the 6 per cent guideline policy. I will be quick on this point because of the courtesy shown me by the House.
The point I want to make is that it was completely ineffective and that should be clearly known throughout the country. Again in this House the other day, the Minister of Finance referred to the efficacy of this great program. The fact is that we had settlements in the private sector up until August 1, 1970 averaging 8.5 per cent, well beyond the guideline. The way this policy did affect the working people was through the public sector, because the government could control that. The average wage settlement in the public sector up to August 1 was 5.5 per cent, below the guideline.
The postal unions, to their credit because they were a militant group, broke the guideline and got a settlement which exceeded the 6 per cent level. The point I make here is that all the verbiage which went into justifying and explaining this guideline policy-not justified in the first place-was a cover up for a program which had no effect on most Canadians but which did affect in a serious way public employees.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), after the postal strike, and after spending $30 million of taxpayers' money-that is what the post office lost trying to break that strike-had the gall, and I think that is the right word in a free society, to suggest that collective bargaining was now an anachronism. Any private company would have settled this strike long before the government did because it would have seen the drain on its
The Address-Mr. Fortin
cash. The President of the Treasury Board spent, and I say this deliberately, $30 million of the taxpayers' money in trying to break that strike.
This was not serious bargaining and that is the opinion of the working people of this country. This was part of the war against these working people. The war on inflation was not needed and not required in any way. It was fought by techniques that did not work. They have had no effect, quite contrary to what the government suggests. The reduction in prices I suggest is due to quite different causes.
I should like to draw these observations to a conclusion by suggesting there is no good reason at all for the people in Canada to take seriously the laudable objectives stated in the Speech from the Throne. This is true if we use as a test, and it is the only test available, the record of this government for the past two years. We have seen it in respect of housing, the manpower retraining programs, the proposals for taxation, and in the government's vicious anti-labour campaign. We have seen an attitude on the part of this government not designed in any way to cohere with what should be the ultimate objective of a democratic government; that is, to use political power for the benefit of the average and the poor. There is no reason to expect a change. Therefore, I suggest that in the days and months ahead the Liberal backbenchers of this government should talk to their Prime Minister. They should say to him, get away from your tough minded speeches, get away from your merely colourful existence and start doing something about the well-being of the average Canadian.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, with my first words at the beginning of the 3rd session of the 28th Parliament, I want to offer you my respectful greetings and assure the Chair of the constant co-operation of the Ralliement Creditiste.
Secondly, I take this opportunity to congratulate, as is customary, the movers of the Address in reply to the Throne Speech (Mr. Trudel and Mr. Douglas).
Mr. Speaker, in the Throne Speech, the Liberal government has presented the general program of the 3rd session, which comprises about 68 various bills. They also announce the publication of White Papers on communications, citizenship, immigration, national defence and income security.
As several other members said, it will be difficult to assess the various bills sponsored by the government before we know their content. But even now, basing our judgment on the experience of the two previous sessions, we can imagine the spirit and the great principles which will guide this government.
In short, it is nothing new; it is nothing more or less than the repetition of an old slogan never carried out, that of the just society and, in this connection here is
134

October 14, 1970
The Address-Mr. Fortin
what the Speech from the Throne calls upon us to do, and I quote:
-to share the excitement, to face the challenge, to pursue the distant ideal of a just society.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people shy away neither from excitement nor challenge and their most fervent desire is to see the advent of this just society which every citizen legitimately craves. But our population is on the brink of despair and I am altogether convinced that the social stability referred to in the Speech from the Throne and considered as already achieved is in fact only wishful thinking. Indeed not only do several thousands Quebecers and other Canadians unfortunately doubt the merit of the federal system and protest against it during electoral campaigns, but thousands of Englishspeaking citizens are doubtful about the usefulness of Canada as a separate entity, bearing in mind regional disparities, what they gain from it and what they pay for it. And this national disintegration, which no one can deny, will go on as long as our governments ignore the legitimate aspirations of our fellow-citizens, both in the social and the economic fields.
Protests, as a phenomenon, are not about to disappear because they are the result of a deep feeling of frustration. May I list some of the causes: increasing unemployment, lack of decent housing, closing-down of some plants, excessively high interest rates, social injustices of which thousands of citizens are victims, and many others of this type.
As long as our governments do not ensure, through concrete economic measures, the sound and normal development of each citizen, without at the same time adversely affecting economic liberty and security, a stable social climate, such as that in the existence of which the Throne Speech would have us believe, will not
Discontent is so widespread that people cannot endorse the idealized and unrealistic content of the Speech from the Throne.
This government is noticing it itself. In fact, we can read in the same speech and I quote:
-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.
Mr. Speaker, the wide spread phenomenon of protest in which an ever increasing number of citizens from all walks of life take part is a real fact and a power which governments, in particular the federal government, must acknowledge and compromise with. If the federal government keeps hiding in its ivory tower, refusing to recognize the daily reality with the ugly and frustrating aspect it takes for the greatness of the liberal party, this phenomenon will keep growing, and it is not sure whether the established order will last. Current events show where frustrating feelings may lead.
Besides, the government is aware of the situation while not doing anything to cope with it. I quote the Speech from the Throne:
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.
It goes on as follows:
It is an age frequented by violence as desperate men seek ill-defined goals.
In short, it is a period of frustration. But it is not good enough to recognize the evil. There most be a reaction, and not necessarily by resorting to force.
The people are not asking for hand-outs, but merely for their most legitimate rights, which are security of income, freedom of the individual within security and order, the opportunity for the individual to fulfill himself socially, economically and culturally, and finally the possibility for each citizen to get his fair share of the national production.
A study of the list of bills to be introduced shows, once more and once too often, that the present government is increasingly remote from reality, entrenched in its complacency and in an attitude or self-sufficiency which is highly offensive to the Canadian people, mainly the young ones who expect more than words, more than academic statements, more than stuffy sentences which are so numerous in the Speech from the Throne.
This government was elected two years ago and we are still waiting for the first positive step that would prove that the government actually wants to achieve the just society. I do not believe at all in this just society mentioned in all the speeches of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I do not believe in this just society as advocated by the Prime Minister because everywere in Canada there is misery in the midst of plenty. In fact, everywere in Canada, poverty, unemployment, slums, starvation wages, employees crushed by their bosses, uncertainty about income, political patronage, policies that discourage initiative and ambition such, as for instance, the dairy or grain policies, are a continuing scandal in a country which still is bursting with resources and offers plenty of opportunities.
No, Mr. Speaker, we do not believe in this just society and we look forward to the day when the government will listen to our Social Credit proposals. Our task is to build a country, not to create frustration for our people.
I do not believe in Prime Minister Trudeau's just society because I can see all over Canada young people dejected at not finding suitable jobs that could enlist their knowledge and their energy in the service of their country. I do not believe in this just society because the vast majority of our students have been unable to find jobs this last summer, and after they complete their education, nothing is changed; because all over the country, the people of Canada have had enough of this mock fight against inflation which the government carries on the back of the small taxpayer, of the labourer, in short, on the back of all those who cannot afford to withstand the effects of such restrictive and limiting policy.
[Mr. Fortin.1
October 14, 1970

[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, the immediate result of the sham fight against inflation that the government undertook last year was to send the unemployment rate sky-rocketing, thus preventing young people and grown-ups, fathers and students, old people and children from sharing fully in our rich production, from getting their share of national production, with the result that they are poorer and more dissatisfied. The government is responsible for that on account of its false policy on inflation.
Besides, this is a scandalous situation to be in, in a country as rich as ours.
In such a critical and desperate situation, the Credi-tistes have kept saying over and over again that every Canadian must have his share of the national production. We suggest that this should come about in a near future, otherwise things will get out of control in Canada. It is not a matter of taking away from those who have to give more to those who have not, as suggested by socialists, but of acknowledging everybody's right to his share of the national production. To achieve that, Mr. Speaker, changes will have to be made in the present monetary system.
Here is another extract from the Speech from the Throne:
It remains the goal of the Government to be concerned with the production of wealth. It also remains the goal of the Government that Canadians be given the opportunity to enjoy that wealth.
That is an example at a bombastic but meaningless speech. I go on with my quotation:
Income security programmes offer one means by which this latter goal can be attained. To this end legislation will be introduced.
Mr. Speaker, that is an indirect way of announcing what the Ralliement Creditiste has always been clamouring for, that is the vital minimum. The Ralliement Creditiste has always maintained that every citizen should have his share of the national wealth and production, through a national dividend of the compensated discount.
Since the government has announced that they will be concerned with these matters, we dare sincerely hope, at the beginning of this session, that they will study the Creditiste proposals in this connection. Whatever the suggestions of the government members, there is certainly something good in the philosophy put forward by the Creditistes.
We recognize that human beings must be free and respected in order to enjoy security and freedom.
Mr. Speaker, in the hours which we live now it is most tragic that this freedom is being eroded by the deliberate interference of the right hon. Prime Minister and this is due to a situation for which he is himself responsible.
We recognize that for a society to be just each human being must get his share of the national production or, in other words, a guaranteed minimum income. We recognize that our society will be truly human only when all
The Address-Mr. Fortin
our legislation will be focused on the well-being of the human person.
Social Credit provides the true and up-to-date answer to the problems faced by our society. Social Credit is truly the tool which would make it possible for every human being to get his share of the wealth through the national dividend.
The Social Credit, as I said before, provides the government with a solution in its search for a just society which will become a reality only if we seriously tackle the economic and monetary aspects of the question.
Once more the government agrees with the Creditistes when it says in the Speech from the Throne, and I quote: However worthy our goals, and however strong our will to attain them, they will nevertheless be denied to us in whole or in part should our economy be malfunctioning.
Mr. Speaker, this is why the members of the Ralliement Creditiste are so anxious to know what legislation will be introduced in that respect, if however the government is really conscious of the problem as it leads us to believe in the Speech from the Throne.
When we look at the list of 68 bills which are referred to, we notice that if, on the one hand, the government puts its finger on the major problems facing our country at this time, on the other hand, it does not offer any appropriate measure to actually solve them.
Everything in the Speech from the Throne is but rhetoric, because it is full of grandiloquent and bombastic sentences. Here is an example, and I quote:
This stability is not simply a matter of luck. Good fortune is a factor, but we should accept gracefully the fact that we are also more amenable to reason and, perhaps, more capable of wise decision than we are normally willing to admit.
Mr. Speaker, to say such words is to laugh in the face of Canadians. Here is one of those bombastic sentences which make the people despair of ever finding a dynamic government, or seeing the government take concrete action in order to bring about a just society.
And there is more. The Speech from the Throne ends on this line worthy of a lyric comedy, and I quote:
We stand on the threshold of greatness.
Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous! It is to make fun of the people to utter such bombastic and empty sentences, which show to what extent this government has lost touch with everyday reality in the exercise of power. The numerical strength of this government makes it forget its weaknesses in action, and indeed that is the drama of this administration.
Mr. Speaker, it is therefore not surprising to realize that large sectors of our Canadian population are dissatisfied, impatient, and that they question the efficiency of the democratic means used to improve society, in order to make it more human, more just and more sociable.
That is why the Ralliement creditiste has tried harder than ever to offer a clear, precise and modern answer to the normal problems of a modern economy.
23226-10J

October 14, 1970
The Address-Mr. Fortin
All the time, we have stressed national production and the means to increase it. Through our policies of assistance to industry and subsidies of all kinds, the productive sector of our economy has increased its efforts and efficiency, so that gradually, the machine has replaced man at an accelerated yet normal rate.
The citizen, who was above all a producer, progressively became isolated from production and, thus, the security of his income was jeopardized.
The Ralliement creditiste has always maintained not only that human beings produce wealth, but that they also are agents of consumption and that, consequently, the first responsibility of any government is to ensure human being security of income or, in creditiste terms, a minimum income so that they may have their share of the national wealth.
But this can only be achieved through a thorough monetary reform with a view to, at long last, having money serve man. Our needs are ever increasing. The cost of living keeps going up. Unemployment is beyond control because of the government, and this is inevitable in the present economic situation because of the modernization of our industries which tend to produce more at lower costs.
As a result, human beings are once again denied their share of the wealth as consumers.
Mr. Speaker, a national dividend and compensated discount are precisely the type of legislative and monetary measures that would enable every citizen to get his share of the wealth and to play his full role as a consumer. We claim, and rightly so, that only in consumption does production achieve its goal and value.
During the third session of the twenty-eighth parliament, in view of the present economic situation, we will endeavour with renewed vigor to make the government understand the importance of the consumer, of every Canadian citizen, and the urgency for the members, regardless of their political affiliations, to adopt legislation to ensure every citizen his rightful share of the national product.
Mr. Speaker, more than ever we, parliamentarians, must give priority to the interest of the citizens over political interests, and fulfil our role as spokesmen for the Canadian people in this supreme institution of parliament, that the people might renew their confidence in democratic institutions.
The old man who must be content with his meagre pension to survive, the mother who is scoffed at each time she cashes her family allowance cheque for $6 or $8 a month in 1970, the student who year after year is refused a scholarship and must go into debt and who during the summer months tried to work but could not find employment, the unemployed who spends his days going from one manpower centre to another, from one counselor to another, and spends his evenings completing his education with other adults and who, finally, is a gain refused a job, the industrial milk producer discouraged in his attempts to improve his herd and his

production, whose income is limited and who, besides, is taxed for his work, and who gives up one day or the other, dairy production, the wheat producer who is paid for not producing, all Canadians expect us, parliamentarians, to do more than just make speeches.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
If we should continue to be satisfied to listen to such empty speeches from the throne as the one we have heard recently, it would not be surprising to see the feelings of frustration now shared by thousands of Canadians change to feelings of anger and revolt.
It is not sure that the peace and social stability referred to in the Speech from the Throne will be our lot for very long.
Mr. Speaker, I am worried about the economic and social future of our country if the government does not immediately take concrete steps to satisfy those thousands of Canadians who at present are denied their share of the national production.
Seconded by the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), I should like to move following sub-amendment to the amendment proposed by the official opposition:
That the amendment be amended by replacing the final period by a coma and by adding, immediately after, the following words:
"and we particularly regret the failure of the government to increase family allowances as a first step towards the establishment of a system ensuring a guaranteed annual income which would facilitate the advent of a just society.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) if he has completed his remarks.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I was just reaching the end.
To really show the significance of this subamendment and also the importance of stopping fighting inflation on the back of the Canadian taxpayer, it is necessary to understand the contents of this subamendment. Interest rates are excessively high and they should be reduced.
In the constituency of Lotbiniere, La Fonderie de Sainte-Croix needs coal which it buys from its supplier, Lasalle Coke Company. Besides, it is the only supplier of the kind in Canada.
The cost of a net ton of foundry-size coal was $38.25 in 1966, and $38.75 in 1967. The same ton cost $40.25 in 1968, $43.25 in 1969, $48.25 last March 23, and $59.25 on September 29. Therefore, the directors of La Fonderie Sainte-Croix are getting worried about that, and rightly so, since their costs have greatly increased. This is a factor of inflation, according to the reports of the Young Commission.
I obliged to the request of the directors of La Fonderie Sainte-Croix. Upon the request of the Lasalle Coke Com-
October 14, 1970

pany, I got in touch with members of the Prices and Incomes Commission to let them know about the steady and uncontrollable increase of coal and the control the companies have on that product.
I therefore wrote to the Prices and Incomes Commission asking for action, as increases are in fact about 10 per cent every time, which is tremendous.
Well, here is the answer from the Prices and Incomes Commission dated April 30th 1970 to a request made on March 23rd.
On March 23rd, the price of coal had gone up 10 per cent per ton. We therefore lodged a complaint and received from the Prices and Incomes Commission the following reply, and I quote:
We acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 14th in which you inform us of the recent increase in the price of smelting coke.
We called your office on April 21st to let you know that we were preparing our reply. Lasalle, the supplier, has informed the Commission that the increase in price of $5 per ton as of April 1st 1970 was due to recent advances in the cost of raw materials.
To our knowledge, the Lasalle Co. purchases large quantities of coal in the United States. Coal prices have increased by as much as 44 per cent, without taking into account tariff rises on goods in the United States.
Considering that one ton of coal produces only half a ton of coke, it is obvious that the increase in price by Lasalle will barely cover the cost of the coal.
Lasalle's production costs, labour included, have also gone up considerably. Furthermore, the price of coal may rise again later in the year when the miners receive the last increase provided for in their present agreement.
Mr. Speaker, it is not the Lasalle Co. that said that the price would rise again, it is the Prices and Incomes Commission. And that was said on April 30, at which time there had been a 10 per cent rise in the price of a ton of coal. With the blessing of the Prices and Incomes Commission, the Lasalle Co., once again, on September 29, announces another increase in the price of coal of about 10 per cent, thus bringing the price to $55.25 a ton. This means that in 1966, it was $38.25 and $55.25 in 1970.
I sent a copy of this answer to the Fonderie Sainte-Croix as a proof of the steps we had taken. They evidently protested and rightly so.
If the government cannot control this increase, if the Prices and Incomes Commission can only consider without making any suggestion, without proposing any solution, this means that the fight against inflation by the government is only a joke. In fact, it would have been possible to tell the coke company that a 30 per cent increase per year on the price of a ton of coal was too much.
As a result, the prices of products manufactured by La Fonderie Sainte-Croix, which employs 135 workmen, are increasing at a galloping rate.
That is why I say that the fight against inflation, in the light of experience acquired in our respective districts, is a monumental hoax and that the government cannot disprove it. Let us take as an example La Fonderie Sainte-Croix, which must submit to the increases of The
The Address-Mr. Fortin
Lasalle Coke Company, which in turn will probably have to increase its costs some day.
In reply to a question put by an hon. member, the Prices and Incomes Commission could give no better explanation of the situation than a statement to the effect that they hope there will be no further increase or, at least, that they do not anticipate any.
Mr. Speaker, the Ralliement creditiste moves an amendment in order to remind the government that in raising the spectre of inflation, it succeeds at the most in making our people believe that they can be destroyed by it. What a laugh, as inflation is being fought on the back of Canadian taxpayers, especially the little people.
Therefore, we want to remind the government that family allowances, in particular, have not been raised for quite a while, being still at $6 and $8 per month, which is ridiculous, considering that the government approves increases in production of 30% per year for a single company.
Mr. Speaker, if the government can allow private enterprises to keep on increasing their prices in such a way, thus raising the cost of living, it should realize that, on the other hand, the people of Canada cannot live on peanuts, that children cannot be fed with prayers. The rate of unemployment and the lack of income for these people are well known. The authorities should once and for all acknowledge that these people need financial support from the government to fight inflation in their own right and to cope with the cost of living increases backed up by the government.
Those are the reasons why, Mr. Speaker, by way of this sub-amendment, we assert that the Speech from the Throne does not forecast any positive or forthcoming action to revise family allowances and we want to urge the hon. members and ministers to ponder over the issue and to submit a bill during this session to increase family allowances, because we still claim that the basic unit in Canada is the family. It is high time for the government to take a concrete step to encourage the raising of families instead of discouraging it as it is doing now with all kinds of measures.
The basic unity, the family, is still the best guardian of our values, of our traditions and of order in Canada. This government, by measures such as those on abortion or the fight against inflation, which end up by increasing unemployment, are depriving family heads from their means of living, etc.
If a student is unable to obtain a scholarship or to find work, his father is obliged to go into debt. The mother is often compelled to borrow money to buy food for the family. If the father cannot afford a car to drive to his place of work, he must borrow. Then, the basic unity in Canada is no longer the family but the finance company.
It is high time that the government takes sides with the citizens and not with the companies. It has to take sides with the human person and not with the finance companies so that at last man can find his place within this system. Indeed, money has to be in man's service. Man has not always to creep before money.

October 14, 1970
The Address-Mr. Fortin
Considering that it is important and necessary to give back to the Canadian family its prime importance in order to encourage the parents who have at present so much difficulty in enforcing order and justice, it is important that the government realizes the urgency of the situation and proposes a measure to increase family allowances up to an adequate level.
It would be better-and I say so straight out-not to pay any family allowances at all than to give $6 or $8 a month, because it is more or less to laugh at people.
I know that for a family of ten children the amount paid may sound interesting, because these allowances represent $60 or $80, but a family of ten has even more financial responsibilities than a family of three.
I renew this request on behalf of my colleagues in the sincere hope that base party interests will be overlooked and that, at least, once during this session, we will consider the interests of the Canadian family, of the human person, in order to achieve in our society law and order and to allow every human being to live in freedom and to enjoy political, social and especially economic security.
In conclusion, I want to thank my colleagues for their attention and patience towards me and to assure them of the co-operation of the members of our party during the
debates of the House, hoping finally that the work of this session will benefit the whole population, in particular the voters whom I represent, those of the electoral district of Lotbiniere.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, many previous speakers complained about the lack of members in the House. I do not mind that, prefering to speak to a small group. I think that is a little more intimate. I wonder if Your Honour would mind calling it six o'clock. There are only a few minutes left.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 2.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 15, 1970