1970-10-20

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker,
1	rise on a question of privilege affecting all members of the House of Commons and in particular those members who took a strong position that the government should have brought in and should bring in a special bill to cover a special situation, namely, the crisis created by the FLQ in the province of Quebec and indeed elsewhere. This morning's Globe and Mail contains the following statement under the heading "War Act Supported 190-16":
"they have swallowed their own convictions because of fear of political consequence," Andrew Brewin (NDP Greenwood) said.
"We know the stand we were going to take was an unpopular stand-but do you abandon your principles because of that?"
This statement is reported to have been made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). The statement is false and implies wrong motives. It reflects on the voting position of many Members of Parliament and particularly on the position taken by many members of the opposition, including my leader, in reference to this serious situation. We voted in accordance with our principles for what we considered to be a solution, for unity and I hope for the good of Canada. We asked for a special bill for a specific purpose. When that request was accepted I considered, like many other hon. members, that the principles we had enunciated had been effectively assured. I personally voted accordingly and in accordance with my conscience, as indeed I am sure other members did, with the sincere hope that the course followed would promote justice and unity. I am sure all members followed the same course.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has given the Chair the notice required by the Standing Orders. The Chair spent some time reflecting on the very important and serious matter raised by the hon. member. I would take from his statement that he took the opportunity of raising the question of privilege to restate what he considers are the correct facts in relation to the vote taken yesterday. I assume that the hon. member does not wish at this time to press the matter further. There is no suggestion of a motion being submitted to the House. In the circumstances, the matter will not be considered further by the
House, and no ruling will be made whether there is or is not a prima facie case of privilege.



TABLING OF EXTRACTS OF MINUTES OF MEETINGS OF COMMISSIONERS OF INTERNAL ECONOMY, FEBRUARY 9, MAY 5 AND JUNE 23, 1970

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay before the House extracts from the minutes of meetings of the Commissioners of Internal Economy of the House of Commons held on February 9, May 5 and June 23, 1970.



ADJOURNMENT FOR FUNERAL OF PIERRE LAPORTE

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the funeral of the late Mr. Laporte, I should like to suggest to the House that we might make arrangements to adjourn the House for the afternoon to provide an opportunity for hon. members to attend the services either in Montreal or in Ottawa. This would mean we would rise at one o'clock and return to the House at eight o'clock, with the understanding that this day be regarded as one of the appointed days for the debate on the Speech from the Throne.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, it has been the practice at the outset of the past several sessions to give, by unanimous consent, first reading in a group to the numerous public bills standing for introduction by private members and thereby allow such bills to proceed to the second reading stage with a caveat to the effect that every bill would be examined by the Chair before it was proposed for second reading in order to ensure that each bill met the requirements of the rules and practices of the House. The reason for such a procedure is of course the great number of bills which have been received and which, on this occasion, has reached an all-time record. Time did not afford an opportunity to examine the bills in detail.

October 20, 1970
Business of the House
Before suggesting to the House that this procedure and practice be followed again this year I should like to make a few references to certain procedures which seem to be evolving in connection with such private members' bills. In the first instance, the number of bills being introduced far exceeds the number of opportunities that will be provided for the consideration of such bills in this session. In like manner, some members have given notice of several or more bills. Indeed, in one case an hon. member has filed notice of more than 40 private members' bills in his name. I would not like to suggest in any way that it is not the hon. member's right to do so. The rules as they stand at present allow any hon. member to propose for consideration by the House any number of private bills. Inevitably, however, the bills proposed by that hon. member will take up a disproportionate share of the time allotted for the consideration of private members' bills.
Another related factor is that a great number of bills that cannot be reached at this session will be printed at considerable cost. It is for hon. members to determine whether it is advisable to continue the practice whereby so many bills receive the usual pro forma first reading and are ordered for printing at substantial expense when the Standing Orders will prevent most of these bills from ever being considered in the House.
It is obvious that in many cases there is much value in having private bills circulated and considered by hon. members of the House and by interested members of the public. There are arguments on both sides of the question. But the fact remains that from year to year there is an ever-increasing proportion of private bills proposed by hon. members that will never come before the House for consideration and debate.
The Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization may wish to have a look at the situation to determine whether a more equitable procedure can be devised for the consideration of such bills.
Another aspect of the matter is that there is an increasing tendency to include money provisions in private members' bills. Hon. members know that the time-honoured practice has been to include such proposals in the form of a private member's motion rather than in a bill.
In many cases in the past, in order to meet the convenience of hon. members the consideration of the second reading of such bills was entered upon. It seems to the Chair that this procedure is not good parliamentary practice.
May I enumerate a number of bills which, at first glance, appear to include money provisions. Initially, there is a bill entitled "an Act respecting the employment of women in federal jurisdiction before and after childbirth", standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. Then there is an act to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and also an act to amend the BNA Acts 1867 to 1965. Then there is a bill to amend the Canada Pension Plan, standing in the name of the hon. member for Hillsborough; a bill to establish a
Newfoundland tunnel authority, standing in the name of the hon. member for Humber-St.George's-St. Barbe; a bill fo amend the Atlantic Freight Assistance Act, standing in the name of the hon. member for Moncton; a bill respecting fares for disabled persons on federal modes of transport, standing in the name of the hon. member for Oxford; a bill to amend the National Housing Act, standing in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West, and a bill to provide for the constitution of a federal transport commission of inquiry, standing in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East. There are many other such bills. I am sure hon. members would not want me to go through the whole list, so I will stop my enumeration there.
The Chair considers that in the drafting of bills more care should be exercised to ensure that financial provisions are not included in such bills. When the aforementioned bills and any others which, on closer examination, appear to contain financial provisions are called for debate, I propose to examine the question of whether or not such bills are in order from a procedural standpoint. At that time hon. members who have sponsored these bills will have an opportunity to satisfy the Chair that the bills are in order from such standpoint before proceeding to substantive argument on the merits of the bills.
I apologize to hon. members for taking up so much of their time but this is a matter which, as they know, has given some cause for worry to a number of hon. members interested in the procedural aspects of the matter.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
Finally, may I refer to the practice which has been developing in some cases of including as purported explanatory notes to the provisions of such bills that are, in reality, matters of debate. In one instance there is included as an explanatory note a statement of some length made on April 20, 1970, by the occupant of the Chair. That statement may have a place in our proceedings but it does not strike me as providing an explanation of any provision of the bill to which it refers. In another case there is an interesting quotation of six or more paragraphs from a statement made in 1796 by George Washington. With all due respect to that late, great and honoured gentleman, I suggest that the inclusion of such material under the guise of an explanatory note offends the rules of the House.
I conclude by asking the House whether there is unanimous consent to an order that all private members' bills listed on today's order paper be deemed to have been introduced, given first reading, ordered to be printed and allowed to stand for second reading at the next sitting of the House subject, of course, to subsequent examination as to the regularity of each bill? Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 20, 1970



PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill C-6, respecting the employment of women in federal jurisdiction before and after childbirth-Mrs. Maclnnis.
Bill C-7, to amend the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
1 Bill C-8, respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day-Mr. Macquarrie.
Bill C-9, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965 (financing of private members' public bills)-Mr. Baldwin.
Bill C-10, to amend the Canada Council Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-ll, to amend the National Capital Act (National Capital Commission)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-12, to amend the Canada Elections Act (qualifications of electors and candidates)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-13, to amend the Statistics Act-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-14, respecting tobacco as a health hazard-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-15, to better assure the public's rights to freedom of access to public documents and information about government administration (administrative disclosure)- Mr. Mather.
Bill C-16, to amend the Criminal Code (abolition of corporal punishment)-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-17, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (Advisory committee)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-18, to amend the Farm Credit Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-19, for the protection and humane treatment of animals used in scientific research-Mrs. Maclnnis.
Bill C-20, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (notice and payment to employees in case of discharge or lay-off)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-21, respecting the Electoral Boundaries. Readjustment Act-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-22, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act and the Interest Act (off-store instalment sales)-Mr. Orlikow.
BiU C-23, to amend the Financial Administration Act (parliamentary commissioner for administration)-Mr. Thompson (Red Deer).
Bill C-24, to govern, license and regulate the operation of rainmaking equipment in Canada-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-25, respecting Canadian national pollution awareness week-Mr. Goode.
Bill C-26, to amend the National Trade Mark and True Labelling Act (octane rating of gasoline)-Mr. Francis.
Public Bills
Bill C-27, to amend the Canada Labour (Safety) Code (marine workers)-Mr. Skoberg.
Bill C-28, to amend the Criminal Code (battered child)-Mr. Southam.
Bill C-29, to amend the Broadcasting Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-30, to amend the Divorce Act-Mr. McCleave.
Bill C-31, to amend the National Museums Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-32, to amend the Criminal Code (abortion)-Mr. Chappell.
Bill C-33, to amend the Criminal Code (Control of motor vehicle)-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill C-34, to amend the Canada Pension Plan (pension index)'

Mr. Macquarrie.
Bill C-35, to amend the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-36, relating to the control and management of the water resources of Canada-Mr. Baldwin.
Bill C-37, to amend the Government Organization Act, 1969 (Royal Canadian Mint)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-38, to prevent the invasion of privacy resulting from the misuse of information stored in data banks- Mr. Goode.
Bill C-39, to amend the Food and Drugs Act-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-40, to amend the Interest Act-Mr. Chappell.
Bill C-41, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (three weeks annual vacation after three years)- Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-42, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (provision for a ninth general holiday with pay)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-43, to amend the Farm Credit Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-44, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Bill C-45, to amend the Criminal Code (Vagrancy)-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-46, to restrict the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-47, to amend the Railway Act (Notice of accidents)-Mr. Skoberg.
Bill C-48, to amend the Canadian Film Development Corporation Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-49, respecting environmental control-Mr. Goode.
Bill C-50, to amend the Criminal Code (adjournment for accused to obtain legal representation)-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-51, to amend the Small Loans Act-Mr. Orlikow.
[Stage Direction]
October 20, 1970
Public Bills
Bill C-52, respecting the designation of the Speaker of the House of Commons as the Member for the Electoral District of Parliament Hill-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-53, to establish a National Capital Region Planning Board-Mr. Francis.
Bill C-54, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (time off without loss of pay for appearance in Citizenship Court)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-55, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (labelling of dates on perishable commodities)-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-56, to amend the Government Organization Act, 1969-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-57, to amend the Fisheries Prices Support Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-58, to amend the National Film Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-59, to establish the Office of Parliamentary Commissioner-Mr. Thompson (Red Deer).
Bill C-60, to amend the Air Canada Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-61, to amend the Criminal Code (company-censored housing)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-62, to control air pollution-Mr. Haidasz.
Bill C-63, respecting the labelling of detergents and cleaning agents containing phosphate compounds-Mrs. Maclnnis.
Bill C-64, to amend the Public Service Employment Act (age discrimination)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-65, to amend the Criminal Code (attempted suicide)-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-66, to provide for the constitution of a Federal Transport Commission of Inquiry (impartial investigation of transport accidents)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-67, to amend the Hazardous Products Act-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-68, to amend the Criminal Code (young offenders)-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-69, respecting the presence of the National Flag of Canada in both Houses of Parliament-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-70, to amend the Fisheries Act-Mr. Barnett.
Bill C-7I, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (floor penalties, criminal joint tortfeasors, and moieties)- Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-72, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-73, to establish a Newfoundland tunnel authority-Mr. Marshall.
Bill C-74, to amend the Bank of Canada Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-75, to anend the Bills of Exchange Act (instalment purchases)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-76, respecting Human Rights-Mrs. Maclnnis.
Bill C-77, to amend the Indian Act (Rights of Indian woman upon marriage)-Mr. Rock.
Bill C-78, to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-79, to amend the Telesat Canada Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-80, to amend the Economic Council of Canada Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-81, to amend the Livestock Feed Assistance Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-82, to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of the result of election polls)-Mr. Coates.
Bill C-83, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Bechard.
Bill C-84, to amend the National Defence Act (Defence Research Board)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-85, to amend the Criminal Code (kidnapping)- Mr. Caouette.
Bill C-86, to amend the Criminal Code (preventive detention)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-87, to amend the Victoria Day Act (last Monday)-Mr. Scott.
Bill C-88, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-89, to amend the Science Council of Canada Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-90, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (increased minimum hourly wage)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-91, to amend the Saltfish Act-Mr. Stewart
(Cochrane).
Bill C-92, to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-93, to designate Major's Hill Park-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-94, to amend the Criminal Code (Air and water pollution)-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-95, to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-96, to amend the Criminal Code (Wire Tapping, etc.)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-97, to amend the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act-Mr. Thomas (Moncton).
Bill C-98, to amend the Official Languages Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-99, respecting the protection of endangered species-Mr. Watson.

October 20, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-100, respecting the metric system-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-101, to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act (age or sex discrimination)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-102, to amend the Broadcasting Act-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-103, to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-104, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-105, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act-Mr. Barnett.
Bill C-106, respecting Little League Week-Mr. Whelan.
; Bill C-107, to amend the Broadcasting Act (cigarette advertising)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-108, respecting the hunting and fishing rights of Indian Canadians-Mr. Simpson.
Bill C-109, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (National Capital of Canada)-Mr. Isabelle.
Bill C-110, to amend the Criminal Code, (attempt to commit suicide)-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-lll, respecting the labelling of hazardous household products-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-112, to provide for the protection of news sources (press privilege)-Mr. Fairweather.
Bill C-113, to establish the area of the Gulf of Georgia off the west coast of Canada as a national underwater park-Mr. Goode.
Bill C-114, to amend the Surplus Crown Assets Act (Crown Assets Disposal Corporation)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-115, to restrain the use of Tobacco-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-116, to amend the Government Organization Act, 1969 (Medical Research Council)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-117, to amend the Supreme Court Act.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill C-118, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (freedom of conscience)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-119, to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act (consultative committee)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-120, to amend the Immigration Appeal Board Act-Mr. Haidasz.
Bill C-121, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-122, to amend the National Arts Centre Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-123, to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-124, to amend the Food and Drugs Act-Mr. Mather.
Public Bills
Bill C-125, respecting noise in factories-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-126, to amend the Municipal Development and Loan Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-127, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (severance pay)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-128, respecting fair credit reporting-Mr. Rose.
Bill C-129, respecting the disclosure of financial interests by Senators, Members of the House of Commons and certain other persons-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-130, to amend the International River Improvements Act-Mr. Goode.
Bill C-131, respecting the control of lobbying-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-132, to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of straw poll results)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-133, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-134, respecting the protection of records of Canadian business concerns-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-135, to provide for the establishment of the Alaska-Yukon Highway Authority (Alaska Highway)- Mr. Thompson (Red Deer).
Bill C-136, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (age or sex discrimination)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-137, to provide for the protection of news sources (press privileges)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-138, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (charity versus closed-shop union dues)-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Bill C-139, to amend the Criminal Code-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-140, to provide for the humane treatment of vertebrate animals used in scientific and industrial experiments, tests or training by recipients of grants from the government of Canada, by agencies of the Government of Canada and by persons manufacturing or testing pharmaceutical or biochemical products for sale to the government of Canada or to any of its agencies- Mr. Groos.
Bill C-141, respecting rate fares for disabled persons on federal modes of transport. (Free or reduced rates)-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill C-142, to amend the National Research Council Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-143, to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act-Mrs. Maclnnis.
Bill C-144, to amend the British North America Acts 1867 to 1965, (duration of House of Commons)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-145, to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
390
[Stage Direction]
October 20, 1970
Public Bills
Bill C-146, proclaiming the Canadian Flag Day a National Holiday-Mr. Haidasz.
Bill C-147, to amend the Fisheries Research Board Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-148, respecting disclosure of names of drug addicts-Mr. Haidasz.
Bill C-149, to amend the Canada Evidence Act (incriminating statements)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-150, concerning the exportation of the growth and produce of Canada-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-151, respecting Canada Day-Mr. Gibson.
Bill C-152, to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-153, to amend the Canadian National Railway Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-154, to amend the National Library Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-155, to amend the Statistics Act-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-156, respecting research on drug use-Mr. Goode.
Bill C-157, respecting the Port of Toronto-Mr. Chappell.
Bill C-158, to control the tar content and nicotine level of cigarettes-Mr. Howe.
Bill C-159, to amend the Identification of Criminals Act-Mr. Hogarth.
Bill C-160, to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-161, to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act-Mr. Baldwin.
Bill C-162, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954 (municipal water and soil pollution projects)-Mr. Alexander-
Bill C-163, to establish a National Capital Region Pollution Control Board-Mr. Francis.
Bill C-164, to amend the Export Development Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-165, to amend the Criminal Code (abortion)- Mrs. Maclnnis.
Bill C-166, to amend the Canada Assistance Plan-Mr. Lewis.
Bill C-167, to amend the Inquiries Act (publication of reports)-Mr. Baldwin.
Bill C-168, to amend the Immigration Act (mental retardation)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-169, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-170, to amend the Small Loans Act (advertising)-Mr. Orlikow.	,	-	.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he would make a statement, not today of course but at the first opportunity thereafter, indicating the success of the operations under the War Measures Act, what procedure we may expect to be followed with regard to disclosure of the number of persons arrested, their names, and what the charges are, and also what assurances there may be with regard to the right to counsel and the arrangements with regard to review? Would the Prime Minister consider making such a statement?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will gladly consider that suggestion. I am sure it will be most helpful to the House to know how the procedures under the Act are being applied. Perhaps I may have one of my ministers make a statement rather than myself. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition realizes that the regulations under the Act foresee that it is the provincial Attorney General of course, who is entrusted with the application of the Act. It will be our role to co-operate with him and to ensure that we can give him any assistance required in making certain that the regulations and the Act are interpreted along lines that the members of this House would desire.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
As several people have lately drawn attention to the fact that following possible arrests they have no idea where their children or relatives are, could the Prime Minister request the Attorney General of the province of Quebec to publish daily the list of people taken into custody as well as the place where they are held so as to reassure their families?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The suggestion seems to have merit, Mr. Speaker. I will make sure that the Attorney General of the province of Quebec, who is responsible for enforcing the regulations in that province, is informed of the hon. member's suggestion.



ASSOCIATION OF FOREIGN EMBASSIES WITH FLQ ACTIVITIES

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister is in a position to tell the House whether or not any foreign embassy or embassies have been associated directly or indirectly with the activities of the FLQ? I realize there may be some dif-

October 20, 1970

Acuities in this regard, but can the Prime Minister indicate one way or another whether this has taken place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no information that there is any association of foreign embassies in this activity.



ADDITIONAL ORDERS IN COUNCIL UNDER WAR MEASURES ACT

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether any Orders in Council other than the one which the House has seen have been passed under the War Measures Act or whether any other Orders in Council are contemplated under the act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The
answer to both questions is no, Mr. Speaker. I would remind the hon. member that we did undertake, I believe in my statement on Friday, that if or when we had to make amendments to the regulations we would bring them before the House forthwith so that the House could take cognizance of them.



LACK OF FRENCH-SPEAKING MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES ASSIGNED TO SECURITY DUTY IN HULL

Mr. Real Caouetle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister inform the House whether the military personnel now on duty in Quebec will come under provincial police authority?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is a question of law, but, provided hon. members will bear with me, I would say yes, the armed forces were called out following a request from the Attorney General of Quebec. Therefore, they are under the general authority of the Attorney General, not so much as armed forces but as peace officers.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The government is giving protection to the leaders of the political parties and to some diplomats. I thank him for this.
Until this morning, I was under the protection of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Hull municipal police. But this morning the guards were replaced by Canadian forces members. I would ask the Prime Minister whether it is normal that, in Hull, I be given guards who do not speak a word of French, when my wife and my constituents do not speak English? Could the Minister of National Defence not do something so that we could be protected in Hull by someone who speaks French?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we have taken note of the remarks of the hon. member in that regard. I took measures to
Inquiries of the Ministry
have the English-speaking soldiers replaced today by some who speak French. I must tell the House that, as everyone knows, French-speaking soldiers were in great demand in Montreal. That is why English-speaking detachments were sent to Ottawa. However, we have made the change requested by the hon. member.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance regarding the report of the Economic Council of Canada which was released yesterday. In view of the council's statement that rates of unemployment in Canada are unacceptably high, indeed, the highest in any of the more industrially advanced nations of the world, does the government intend in the near future to introduce any other measures to deal with the situation in addition to the items the minister outlined in the speech he made during the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: We are, of course, keeping the matter constantly under review. If there are any further measures we shall announce them in the House.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Having regard to the statement by the Economic Council of Canada to the effect that Canada's rate of growth is less than half what is required to maintain even a reasonable rate of employment, and that this involves a loss in potential wealth production of $3 billion to $5 billion a year, does the government intend to do anything about the recommendation of the council that there is need for growth measures particularly in the fields of housing, pollution control and transportation? May we anticipate some statement from the minister in the near future in line with the recommendations of the Economic Council in this respect?


Edgar John Benson: We are, of course, interested in speeding up economic growth in Canada and we do announce measures from time to time in this connection.



SPECIAL ECONOMIC STIMULATION PROGRAM

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Does the government have in effect a program known as the special economic stimulation program? If so, can the minister tell us what this program entails?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have never used that term.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplmentary question to the minister respon-
23226-26J

October 20, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
sible for manpower and immigration. The other day the minister said he would check and advise whether or not the manpower department had sent out a circular advising manpower offices to curtail additional facilities-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether this should be considered as a supplementary question. Perhaps the hon. member might ask that as a separate question. I will come to him in a few moments. I believe the hon. member for St. John's East wishes to ask a supplementary.


James Aloysius McGrath: Does the government have in effect at the present time a program designed to stimulate employment by pumping additional funds into public works in Canada, and is this program known as the special economic stimulation program?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, it is not known by that name to me. We certainly have a program which I mentioned last week under which we are putting additional moneys into public works.



HOUSING


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the minister in charge of housing. In view of the increasingly gloomy picture house builders are facing regarding sales this winter, is the minister planning, together with the Minister of Labour, to reintroduce a monetary form of incentive bonus for winter house construction, thereby giving an incentive to builders, realtors and buyers?


Hon. Roberi K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members are trying, I suggest, to ask supplementary questions which do not really relate to the original question asked. I think these questions ought to be asked in due course as separate questions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It has to do with a matter that will come before the United Nations shortly, namely, a resolution to the effect that Communist China shall be admitted to the United Nations. Does the government of Canada intend to follow the course it has followed in the past, that such a resolu-

tion constitutes an important question and thereby requires more than a bare majority for acceptance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs dealt with this question last week.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the Prime Minister, then, whether there is any basis for the suggestion that the government is giving consideration to or has already decided that Professor Paul Lin will be appointed ambassador to Red China, as he is a Canadian-born Chinese who visits Red China and who, when writing about "our country," refers to Communist China?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, several times in the past year or two the right hon. member has been concerned about this friend of his, Paul Lin.


John George Diefenbaker: He is the Prime Minister's friend, not mine.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can assure the right hon. gentleman that we do not name ambassadors on a patronage basis, even if recommended by the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when this government makes appointments one can be assured that they are patronage appointments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman has a supplementary question.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked whether or not Lin, who has made it plain that he is a revolutionary, is being considered for appointment. That was a simple question. When it comes to friendship, the association between the Prime Minister and this man in the past has been such that I am surprised-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I know the right hon. gentleman has said this a few times. I assure him, of course, that I do not know Paul Lin and that I never met him. I should like the right hon. member to state to me, on my question of privilege, where he got this information and why he thinks Mr. Lin is a friend of mine-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -or is he just interested in telling lies to the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton West.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is it a lie or not?
October 20, 1970


John George Diefenbaker: That is a most unusual question of privilege.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is it a lie or not?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister tell us what steps he is taking, along with the Governor of the Bank of Canada to review the procedures and to establish a monetary policy that will avoid the uneven movement in the money supply, as indicated in the report of the Economic Council of Canada, which has led to considerable disruption in economic policies in the country during the past year?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the governor and I discuss this matter every week.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It may be discussed every week, but what are they doing to even out some of the uneven applications of the policy with the results pointed out by the Economic Council?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Inasmuch as the Economic Council of Canada states that the exorbitantly high interest rates in Canada are the main factor in holding back economic growth, may I ask the minister if he is contemplating any meetings with the representatives of the chartered banks to deal with this matter or, failing that, is he considering the advisability of introducing legislation to impose a ceiling on interest rates under the Bank Act as was the case formerly?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Rod Thomson (Batileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the Supreme Court's rejection of Manitoba's application to have certain marketing board regulations respecting interprovincial trade brought before that court for a decision, will the government, through the Department of Justice, now initiate some action to bring these regulations before the Supreme Court?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice replied to a question of that nature last week.


Mr. Baldwin:: He waffled on it.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: As the federal government has taken no action with regard to the legal question involving marketing board legislation and in view of the urgency of the situation with regard to chicken and egg prices, will the government not consider some form of surplus purchasing of eggs, broilers and turkeys to help to solve the problem immediately?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, requests have been made for that kind of action. I should draw to the attention of the hon. members that I am ready to pass the marketing legislation any day that the House indicates it is ready to do so.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why does the government not use the War Measures Act?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Why does the hon. member not help us to maintain unity?



FARM MACHINERY PRICES-INVESTIGATION BY DEPARTMENT-REFERENCE OF BARBER COMMISSION REPORT TO COMMITTEE

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Inasmuch as the move to float the Canadian dollar has not resulted in a corresponding decrease in the prices to the farmer of farm machinery and repair parts, would the minister say whether his department is conducting an investigation into this matter and undertake to make a statement on motions?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Barber has indicated to me, and I think I conveyed this message to the House some time ago, that in his final report, which we expect shortly, there will be a chapter dealing with repair parts, services and prices. I presume that he has the very same situation the hon. member alluded to under review.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Since the Barber report has been in the hands of interested parties for some considerable length of time and as a fair amount of public debate has gone on, can the minister say whether any consideration is being given to referring the Barber report to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, as well as other matters relating to farm machinery prices?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the government has not received the report of the Barber Commission. What we have received are special research reports on specific subject matters. The report and recommendations of the Barber Commission as such have not been presented to the government.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received

October 20, 1970
394____________________________________
Inquiries of the Ministry any representations to the effect that the floating of the Canadian dollar has not resulted in a decrease in the prices of farm machinery?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, not in that exact context-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not in order. It is not sufficient to ask whether the minister has or has not received representations.



REPRESENTATION AT AGRICULTURAL, CONGRESS

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, may I also direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the announced intention of the government to hold an agricultural congress in the near future and the importance of that congress in view of the condition of Canadian agriculture, can the minister indicate whether all agricultural organizations will be represented and if an invitation will be extended to the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that the members of the standing committee will be invited to attend, if not as
delegates, at least as observers. I believe that was the arrangement wTorked out the last time, and it is what the members prefer. In so far as all agricultural organizations being invited is concerned, I cannot give an undertaking that every one of them will be invited. I know that we are trying to arrange for about 350 delegates. These invitations will be distributed as fairly as we can through the farm organizations in the country.
$ * *



NATIONAL SECURITY


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
A few days ago an FLQ cell manifested itself in Paris, predicting that the organization will carry out further acts of violence in the coming weeks, and this, outside the province of Quebec, directing their attacks against air and railway transportation in Canada.
Has the government taken or is it taking steps to locate the Paris cell and does the government also intend to adopt measures to prevent acts of violence and sabotage in Canada's other provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall see that the Solicitor General be informed of the facts reported by the hon. member.
Personally I would tend to believe those people belong
to the "Pantoufle" cell set up by Michel Chartrand.



RESEARCH


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question arising out of the summary and recom-

mendations of the seminar between Canadian and United States scientists with regard to Arctic research problems recently tabled in the House. I address my question to the President of the Treasury Board who reports to the House on scientific matters unless, because of the fact that social sciences are included, I should more properly address it to the Prime Minister. Has the government made a decision on whether it will accept the recommendation of this report for joint scientific studies by Canadian and United States scientists? If not, is the government seized of this matter? May we expect shortly a government decision on whether we will undertake co-operative research with the United States on the question of the management of the Arctic and the future of its population?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: As I think members are aware, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions going on for some time with the United States scientific authorities in connection with joint cooperative projects. I think it is realized that we both have a stake in the Arctic. Approaching these larger ecological problems by using the combined resources of both countries is likely to produce more effective results than our going it alone. We are conscious that in respect of the Arctic we have a particular and special proprietary interest. With this in mind we are continuing the examination of possible joint projects.



HOUSING


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My question is for the
minister responsible for housing. Is the minister prepared to table the feasibility study with respect to the operations of Rochdale College?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the situation of Rochdale College is being examined very carefully, in great depth and in consultation with others involved at the present time. I hope to be able to disclose the details of that examination and the possible decisions that will flow at the earliest possible time. That might be a matter of two or three weeks from now.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Will the minister also be prepared to reveal the amended mortgage arrangements with the college at such time?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker.



PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR PERMIT BOOKS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who answers
October 20, 1970

for the Wheat Board. It is now four months since applications were originally made by some producers to the Wheat Board for permit books and they are still waiting for them. How much more time is necessary before these applications are processed? Will the minister ensure that the issuing of these permit books will be expedited, because these producers cannot now make any deliveries?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: If the hon. member has a specific case where it is taking this length of time, I will be pleased to receive information about it and to look into it. Certainly the bulk of the permit books for which applications were received in good time have in fact gone to the producers. Indeed, many of the late applications have been serviced as well. I will be pleased to receive information on a specific case.
H:	^	$



MANPOWER


Alfred Dryden Hales: I wish to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if he would answer the question I directed to him on October 9 concerning a directive that may or may not have been issued by his department to the Manpower offices asking them to curtail applications for adult training for unemployed people in view of the great burden on the budget.


Otto Emil Lang: I have checked this matter with my officials, Mr. Speaker. Of course they do not know anything about such a directive. The hon. member should know from the announcement by the Minister of Finance to the House some days ago that not only has the budget not been curtailed but that there is additional money available for the purpose of manpower retraining this year.



HARBOURS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say whether a port authority has been set up for the Port of Churchill under the national port authority concept?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: No,
Mr. Speaker, no authority has been established. However, I have been in communication with the Premier of Manitoba and have indicated to him that we would be pleased to consider Churchill in terms of the application of the new proposals now before various ports across Canada. I will be meeting with the Premier of Manitoba and those whom he designates in a comparatively short time regarding this matter.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Simpson: When preparations are made to set up this authority, will the minister give full consideration to having local representation on the Churchill port authority?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, one of the main objects of the new plan is to ensure a good deal of local autonomy. That will be the case in Churchill and elsewhere.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the complete unanimity which has been evident at every stage concerning the proposals to improve the pensions of Hong Kong veterans and their widows, can the minister say whether we might expect legislation implementing these proposals to be before the House at an early date?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, legislation is being prepared in that connection. I am not in a position to anticipate exactly when this legislation will be before the House but as far as I am concerned, the sooner the better.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If there is going to be any unusual delay with regard to the whole question of veterans legislation, could there be early introduction of the legislation regarding Hong Kong veterans?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there will be any unusual delay. I expect this legislation will be before the House at an early stage. I hope that at that time we will have the co-operation of all hon. members, including the hon. member who asked the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 

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

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. This matter was to be referred to him by the Minister of National Revenue on October 14th. Perhaps I can repeat my question. Has the government made 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 Canadian imports that are vital to our economy?

October 20, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of bills before the United States Congress at this time. It is impossible to comment on them en bloc because some parts of them are favourable and others are not. With respect to those that are not favourable to our trade relations and, we believe, to world trade patterns, we have made the proper representations and drawn attention to the effect of these possible legislative acts on Canadian trade, in particular with respect to mink skins which the hon. member has in mind.


Percy Verner Noble: Has the government given consideration to introducing measures to assist industries that will suffer from the passing of the Mills bill?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 

TRANSPORT


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-Si. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister advise the House whether he has had submitted to him a report dealing with the unsatisfactory conditions on the ferry service between Newfoundland and Labrador, and will any corrective action be taken in view of the recent accident?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have had a report with regard to the seaworthiness of the vessel concerned. My officials advise that they have checked her out thoroughly in accordance with all the procedures of the regulations and that the vessel is seaworthy. The conclusion subsequent to that was that most of the problem arises from the fact that the ship is not wholly perfect in terms of design for ferry service, and there are also difficulties with the facilities at each end of the run. I have asked for a special and further study of these questions and I will be glad to keep the hon. member informed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Before I proceed, may I congratulate the minister on the honour bestowed upon him last week by Memorial University when he received an honorary law degree.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter C. Carter: May I ask the minister whether he is now in a position to say if the investigation promised last year
into the accident near St. John's involving some Canadian National snow removal equipment has been completed and, if so, what has been the outcome of the investigation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind words. I will now have to reduce some of my general mistrust of lawyers, under the circumstances. As for the question, this is a matter for the Canadian Transport Commission. The report has not yet reached my desk, but I will be glad to make inquiries and to provide an answer as fast as I can.



HOUSING


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. I gave him notice of the question last week. It concerns the $18 million that was promised to Hamilton and district. I believe there has been some indication that the amount has now been reduced to $12 million, the balance having been promised to other parts of the country. Has the minister a statement for me in this regard?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I regret that perhaps due to my absence last week on official duties this question was not brought to my notice. I will correct that situation forthwith and give an answer to the hon. gentleman as soon as possible.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that the minister would give this matter his immediate attention because it is causing some problems in the city of Hamilton and district.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that a 15-year-old youth was shot to death near Saskatoon last week by an officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, can the minister say whether his department is conducting an investigation into the incident?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicilor General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. John Burion (Regina Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Solicitor General supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville. When the Solicitor General is investigating the incident referred to by the hon. member for Yorkton-

October 20, 1970

Melville, will he also investigate changes in the description of the incident in reports which were attributed to the RCMP? I ask this question in view of the fact that I understand it was first denied and subsequently admitted that the death occurred as a result of a shot fired by an RCMP officer.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to do that. I noticed one discrepancy of some significance in the newspaper reports, and I will be very glad to see that the question the hon. member has now raised is considered and dealt with when the other question asked earlier is being answered.



NATIONAL SECURITY


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the security arrangements that have been made and have been in effect for several days, under which either armed forces members or Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers are acting as security guards. Do these security measures apply to the individuals to whom that protection has been accorded when they leave Ottawa or do they not apply? I am simply asking for information so that those who are subject to the security measures that have been taken, which incidentally are most commendable, will know the facts.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the arrangements vary from person to person. If the right hon. gentleman is interested in knowing what type of security he deserves, he can consult with somebody in the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister shows today that mean truculence that is not in keeping with Parliament.



INDUSTRY


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, there is a question I would like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Is the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in a position to say whether the government is taking any action to expand the mining industry in Northwestern Quebec in particular and to open new mines?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This question is really a little too broad, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly discuss this matter with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and report to
Inquiries of the Ministry
the hon. member on any mining developments at present being carried out in that area and on whatever action has been taken concerning other projects.



FISHERIES


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he knows of any nations other than the ICNAF member nations that are fishing on George's Bank, and can he tell the House whether the government has reached agreement with such countries in regard to closing haddock fishing on George's Bank from October 23 to the end of the year?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the haddock fishery is closed to all nations. They are all observing the sustained yield quotas instituted this spring.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Labour or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. May I ask either gentleman whether he will inquire into the long delay in making public the report of the conciliation board on negotiations conducted between Northland Navigation Company, on the one hand, on the coast of British Columbia and the SIU and the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers on the other, a report that has been hanging fire since mid-July?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to make inquiries and advise my hon. friend.



AVAILABILITY OF SPACE FOR DELIVERY OF HIGHER GRADES

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in his capacity as the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Taking into consideration the fact that we are now entering the third month of the new crop year and that producers have been unable to deliver any of the top three grades of grain because of lack of space, could the minister say what action is being taken or can be taken to alleviate the situation?

The Address-Mr. Otto


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the only extent to which the hon. member's question is accurate when he says that the problem is due to lack of space is the fact that the space available is being filled by barley and Durum and lower grades of wheat which are required to be moved to the considerable markets for them. The Wheat Board has under consideration the appropriateness of opening quotas for the higher grades of wheat and is daily watching the space situation and the availability of space for these grades.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, October 19, 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.
Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: was started in the Collingwood area. At about the same time, Mr. Jozo Weider of the Blue Mountain ski area was ordering ski lifts. When we talk about a ski lift, we are talking about a $200,000 investment. The only available source to this day, quite frankly, is France. The ski lifts are manufactured there and brought here. Jozo and I went over to the shipyard and said: Look, you have the steel, the pipes and the welders, why don't you manufacture ski lifts? Jozo said that he would be their first customer. The answer was: Oh, good heavens no. We are boatbuilders, you know, we don't touch ski lifts. There you have a perfect example of the static thinking which is common to many of our industries.
What we require is government assistance to a group that will dare to follow good advice from market research experts. At this time Collingwood would have been as busy as any place in Canada manufacturing ski lifts, not only for Canada but for the United States as well. Instead of that, to this day we are still importing ski lifts from France. This is the type of development that is necessary but it will not come about as a result of the boards and commissions we have, or through the efforts of the department which is now attempting to deal with the problem. This task has to be given to individuals who know the business and the results of market and production research.
Let me now give the minister another bit of advice. At the moment the country, the communities and the people are sitting on a razor's edge. They do not know what to do. If we tell them to anticipate trouble, we are going to have trouble. For the minister and for this government to say that we are completely overshadowed by the United States economy is nonsense. We can survive independently. In fact, we can do better than the United States in every phase but it requires the minister and this government to make a statement and a move of confidence.
Psychologically, businessmen and entrepreneurs are waiting for some sign of confidence. They are not getting it from Mr. Young and they are not getting it from this government. They certainly are not getting it from^the advisers to this government. I want to say a word about these advisers. Sooner or later, the minister has to recognize that the present government advisers are old-time economic thinkers. They left their schools and universities some 30 years ago and now find themselves in a static milieu. They talk to each other and not to anyone else. They have firm policies that are ancient, decrepit and absolutely useless. They believe in policies of economic restraints, so called confinement of capital expansion and policies of restriction rather than policies of expansion.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
It is up to the minister now to develop new methods and new advisers. We have some in this House. We have the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Harries), a man who is experienced in industry and economics, and who is not hidebound by the old theories that circulate around Ottawa itself. We have the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Smerchanski), who at times is a little radical but nevertheless has proved his theories by him-
The Address-Mr. Hees
self. He has made a remarkable success of his life and is in daily contact with business as is the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and the minister from Winnipeg South. There are many members here who could advise the minister in a confidential way. The minister must develop a method by which he can take advice from persons, other than those in his department, who will seriously guard the government's position and not allow anyone else to befuddle his mind. This would be a bureaucratic tragedy. We must take into consideration new economists like Miss Cohen and Mr. Weldon from Montreal, people with new ideas, and not the old Bryce ideas. Mr. Bryce has lost his job as deputy minister and will not be financial adviser to the cabinet.
The minister must take a new approach so that he can benefit from the views of people who are active in industry and business. I see that my time is almost up. I should like to remind the government that we need not preach gloom, but that if we preach confidence we must take radical steps. We must introduce reform measures in giant strides and not in little, mincing steps. The Prime Minister must remember he was elected not to be cautious. In the past, we have had cautious prime ministers. He was elected to be daring and it is up to his government and his ministers to be daring.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: Mr. Speaker, as members of the House know only too well, during the past two weeks the whole country has been deeply shocked by the tragic kidnapping of Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte and most recently by the cold-blooded, callous murder of Mr. Laporte. As we are aware, on Friday at 4 a.m. the government invoked the War Measures Act to provide the forces of justice with the powers required to rescue, if possible, the two hostages and to stamp out the forces of evil from our country. Mr. Speaker, there are those who say that these sweeping measures should not have been taken by the government because they would have the result of restricting our democratic freedoms. I believe one of the most important democratic freedoms is the freedom from fear; the right of a man and his family to walk the streets and live in their homes free from fear that they could be suddenly whisked away by terrorists and held for ranson, and if that ransom is not forthcoming brutally murdered.
Had the government introduced legislation asking for only the restrictive powers it needed to deal with this tragic and very serious situation before the police forces moved in to make the arrests and apprehend those whom they suspected of having some connection with this series of events, those criminals would have been well advised long before it was possible for the police to make their move. Then, of course, by the time this move was made those criminals would have been many miles away. We in the official opposition believe, therefore, that the sudden invocation of the War Measures Act early Friday morning to give the forces of justice the element of surprise which was so badly needed to assist them in their task was completely justified. It is for that reason we have solidly backed the move the government has made. We hope sincerely, along with all Canadians, that

October 20, 1970
The Address-Mr. Hees
the invocation of the War Measures Act giving the government very wide and sweeping powers to enable the forces of justice to operate completely freely and effectively will lead to Mr. Cross' safe return to his family in the near future as well as to the blotting out of the FLQ menace from the face of this land for all time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak for a few moments about a matter of great importance to this country. I refer to the fight against pollution. When the Canada Water Act was passed four months ago, the country believed that at long last we would see the government begin to take action to effectively combat pollution, which action the minister assured us was only awaiting the passage of the bill. But, after four months of waiting, there has been no sign of action, nor is there any indication that any will emerge in the near future. In strong contrast to the lethargic attitude of the Canadian government to this very pressing problem is the kind of action taken in the United States. On July 9 President Nixon announced plans for a new super agency to coordinate the government's fight against pollution and to clean up and protect the environment. The president put teeth in this new agency in the form of a budget for the current financial year of $1.4 billion. This budget makes it possible for the new agency to immediately implement antipollution measures across the country.
Since the gross national product of the United States is fourteen times that of Canada, a comparable budget for antipollution operations in this country would be $100 million a year. However, our Canada Water Act, a toothless tiger if I ever saw one, provides no funds for grants to finance antipollution projects. Although the act permits loans to be made in certain circumstances, and small amounts of money to be made available for studies, no funds have so far been appropriated for either and there is no indication that any appropriations will be made. A very large part of the $1.4 billion which the United States government has allotted for the first year to fight pollution will be used for loans to be made to industries and municipalities to help them finance the usually high cost of antipollution machinery. The reason such financial assistance is necessary in both the United States and Canada is that small and medium sized industries and municipalities simply cannot afford the large outlays necessary to finance this expensive machinery. Such expenditures are non-revenue producing and therefore are very difficult to justify to shareholders and ratepayers. If the money to buy such machinery is not forthcoming, the machinery will simply not be installed and pollution will continue to run rampant in our country.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
In order to make it possible for industries and municipalities which are polluting our air and our water to purchase the expensive machinery they need, I suggest that we employ the same method which we used during wartime to make it possible for industry to convert to war production. At that time the federal government made available low interest loans on a long term basis
and allowed industry to write off the cost over a relatively short period of time. This made it easy for industries to switch to war production, and the results were, as we know, spectacular.
Loans bearing 5 per cent interest to be paid off over 15 years with a three year write off period will enable industries and municipalities, particularly small industries and municipalities which have not yet established a high credit rating to purchase the antipollution machinery they need without imposing a crippling financial burden upon them. The government should now announce that $100 million will be made available for such loans during the next 12 months of operation of the Canada Water Act so that an effective antipollution program across the country can become a reality. After the first year of operation, it will be apparent whether this amount should be increased or decreased for the next year.
I, like all Members of Parliament I believe, was glad to learn from the Speech from the Throne that the government intends to establish a department to "co-ordinate and consolidate our antipollution efforts in an effective fashion". It is to be sincerely hoped that this co-ordinating effort will end the overlapping of responsibility and the confusion which have greatly reduced the effectiveness of antipollution efforts in this country.
I am glad to see that the minister who will be in charge of this department is in the House at the moment, and also that he is paying close attention to what I am saying. I say to him that he must not only co-ordinate the antipollution efforts of the five federal departments which presently deal with it but must also work closely with provincial ministers to ensure that the country's efforts are as well co-ordinated as possible.
One of the best ways to bring this about would be to persuade the provinces to adopt a uniform antipollution code which each would put into effect in his own jurisdiction. Such a code would remove the pressure on the province not to crack down on a polluting industry for fear that it might move to another province where antipollution regulations were not so strongly enforced. It would also make it impossible for an industry to play one province against another when deciding where to locate in the first place.
One of the minister's important functions must be to work closely with the U.S. government, and the governments of the States, with which Canada shares common waters to ensure that the legislation on both sides of these waters is as similar as possible. It is obvious that bringing in effective measures by governments on the Canadian side will be ineffective if similar legislation is not enacted on the U.S. side, and vice-versa. As we know only too well, pollution does not stop in midstream.
During the annual meeting between the U.S. and Canadian parliamentarians in Washington last March, the subject of pollution control was given the number one priority for discussion. There was complete unanimity that similar legislation must be enacted on both sides of the boundary if protective pollution control is to become

October 20, 1970

a reality. Both sides passed on this unanimous opinion to their respective governments.
In conclusion, I would like to say I am confident that if we take the steps I have outlined, we will eliminate a great deal of the confusion which today is making our efforts to clean up the environment largely ineffective and will make it possible for industries and municipalities to start installing the machinery they need to eliminate pollutants from waste before they are discharged into the environment.


Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: Last week it was my privilege and pleasure to accompany the minister responsible for housing on a visit to most of the huge territory of northwest Ontario. We travelled to many communities and discussed many subjects with many individuals, but the unprecedented events which were taking place in the city of Montreal, the province of Quebec and in Ottawa, could not help but become the most frequent and serious subject matter of our deliberations. Our citizens in that part of the country, as in all other parts, were shocked practically to disbelief at what was happening in Montreal. Not one person who spoke on our tour expressed disapproval of the government decisions that were taken as events unfolded. Indeed, the invocation of the War Measures Act at the request of the Montreal and Quebec governments, was welcomed with the largest possible degree of approval. I was left with the clear impression that these Canadian citizens would have lost confidence in the capability of the government to govern had this decision not been taken at that time.
Even as I detected at times in northwestern Ontario some feeling of detachment and of distance from the problem, I also felt the concern for and the bitterness at the brash and arrogant performance of the FLQ terrorists, the leaders and members in our communications media, and the stupidity of the media in providing these people with a platform from which they could disseminate their hatred and their objectives of destruction. When we returned to Timmins, the feeling of remoteness from the events was completely dispelled because these areas are heavily bilingual with a large number of Canadians who are French speaking. The significance of the frightening events in Quebec touch our people much more directly because these families have direct blood and racial ties which have been established over generations and remain ever so strong, binding them with extraordinary firmness, especially during crisis and adversity.
Here, in the heart of northeastern Ontario, our backgrounds and roots are from Quebec but our characters and mentalities have been tempered and developed in Ontario. Our feelings are of indescribable sadness and gloom in this crisis for our compatriots in Quebec, feelings of a brother who has lost his favourite sister, feelings of a frustrated onlooker's terrible concern for the series of ever worsening developments. This series of developments has lasted for so many years it has created feelings of deep anxiety at the seeming irreversibility of them. There is incredibility at the paradoxical situation
The Address-Mr. J.-R. Roy of a people in semi revolt against the church which was once their most sacred institution, at large numbers of teachers who prostitute their noble purpose of educating youth for the scurrilous political indoctrination of youth, at students wishing to destroy an educational system which was practically non-existent when they were born, and at labour leaders who are taking away the individuality of the men who were the most individualistic in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we French Canadians from Northern Ontario feel deeply confused and concerned about our brothers. We are not ashamed because the FLQ assassins do not deserve to be called French Canadians. They are, as someone said, wild beasts. No other characteristic, be it racial, national or other could have the least importance or supplant this description.
We are rather confused that these events should take place in Quebec. We want to reaffirm our support, our confidence and our encouragement to Quebecers and assure them of our understanding and solidarity.
Quebecers, the people from Northern Ontario always remain sympathetic and grateful to you in these extremely difficult hours. Be assured that you are not alone in your misfortune. Your fellow countrymen, across Canada regardless of race or language are with you.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)

Along with all Canadians in all provinces, Mr. Speaker,
I learned with terrible grief and sadness of the news of the Hon. Pierre Laporte's death. My immediate reaction was one of such anger that I might have been unbalanced. Yet how do you keep a proper balance, reason and judgment, when confronted with such senseless actions? How do you detect justice and order, values and meaning when confronted with such events? How, and when do you return to rational existence? When do you disperse the fear and eliminate the hate? How do you rediscover the meaning and understanding of life, society, humanity, good, evil?
Anger is bad. No human being should have to live with anger and hate in his heart. If I felt deep resentment when some of the opposition leaders and members were playing politics with a situation the like of which we have never seen in this country, when they stupidly refused to see the need for unity and the need for firm, immediate action to halt the destruction of our society, then I must say I felt absolute disgust when I saw the NDP members rise to vote against the motion proposed by the Prime Minister in order to restore sanity in Quebec, in order to crush the insidious revolutionary hands of murdering terrorists active in Quebec and most probably in the rest of Canada. These NDP members will have to answer to their constituents for their vote because by that vote they in fact extended their support to the murderers. They, in effect, encouraged these people-

October 20, 1970
The Address-Mr. J.-R. Roy


Mr. Winch:: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker; the hon. member has just brought into question the motivation behind not only the speeches but also the votes of members of this House. A vote was taken yesterday. The members of this group did not all vote as one but whether, Sir, as members of the N.D.P. or as members of this House of Commons, we voted one way or the other. We voted according to principle, conviction and conscience. And therefore, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member says that because certain members of the House of Commons voted in a certain way they have aligned themselves with the murderers in Quebec, I say that that is a shameful statement. That is not permissible in this House of Commons. It should not only be withdrawn immediately but the New Democratic Party and all the members of this House of Commons have the right to insist on an apology as well as a retraction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair is in agreement with the main point made by the hon. member, if not with all of his remarks. I take this opportunity to read Standing Order 35, the latter part of which reads as follows:
No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
At this time, I think I should remind the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) that he may comment on the situation and the events that have occurred, but he may not be permitted to reflect on the vote taken by this House or any position taken by members of the House. I think if he sticks to that he will abide by the rules of the House. As far as the other point made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) is concerned about the withdrawal of the remarks, I am sure that the hon. member for Timmins in his further remarks might add some comments that might satisfy the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, Sir; I am very sorry, but I think you will understand that I must get to my feet again. I am not seeking clarification by any further statements. I believe I have the right, and I must insist, that the hon. member now withdraw the remarks which he made, and the insinuations therein contained.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I see the exact point the hon. member for Vancouver East is making and I think I will agree with him. I will ask the hon. member for Timmins to withdraw that part of his remarks.


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to withdraw any part of my remarks that is contrary to the rules of the House, whichever part that may be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Robert Roy: If this satisfies the hon. gentleman I shall try to continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Timmins.


Jean Robert Roy: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that this party has never been able to obtain support from the electorate of Quebec? They have never understood the people of Quebec. They have never been concerned about them. They would now abandon them and throw them to the extreme socialists; the anarchists, the Maoists and the FLQ. No doubt chaos and disorder in Quebec would help the socialist cause. They thrive on that sort of adversity, but what a price for Canada to pay for the sake of cheap politics.
In addition, they hypocritically hide this gruesome gesture under the cloak of defence of individual liberties. This attitude is taken by people who have on so many occasions denied to others the rights and liberties which they claim for themselves, who on so many occasions would impose on others the morals that are theirs, who on so many occasions have taken unto themselves the decision of what is just and what is not, confusing justice with their own diabolical designs. Witness the civil disobedience of our laws and governments so often proposed by members of that party. Witness their disregard for our laws in so many labour confrontations and strikes. Witness their callousness and lack of human respect for workers who are not of their unions. Witness their fixation for criticism of non-socialist countries while approving by their silence all socialist dictatorships. Indeed, along with such misguided people as Levesque, Chartrand, Lemieux, Laberge, Pepin, and their leftist socialist friends, their leaders and members are the ones who sow the seed that gives birth and strength to the anarchists, the terrorists, the Maoists and the murderers. They are the ones who fan the flames of dissension and confrontation, who constantly twist the truth, who give tacit support to all sorts of extremes by their silence, who condone violence as a sometimes necessary activity in labour disputes-
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Harold Edward Winch: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am certain you have noted the remarks of the hon. member for Timmins. You have noted his references to the party which I have had the honour to represent in this House for the past 17 years and for 24 years before that in the British Columbia legislature.


An hon. Member:: About time you left.


Harold Edward Winch: Shut up! He implied that because of our policies, our principles and our statements we were responsible for certain things that have taken place in this country.


Mr. Francis:: On a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. There is already a point of order before the Chair. If the hon. member for Ottawa West wishes tc speak afterwards, he may do so.


Harold Edward Winch: I say that the allegations which have just been made by the hon. member are not such as can be

October 20, 1970

made in this House of Commons at all, and that they should be withdrawn-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair
cannot permit the hon. member for Vancouver East to make a speech at this time. He should make his point of order if he has any complaint about what the hon. member has said, and that is all. Perhaps I should take the opportunity to say that the Chair listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Timmins and was worried at one point about whether there was not a danger of getting on to thin ice. However, listening closely, the Chair took it for granted that his remarks were not directed to any members of this House or to any party of this House. Maybe it is a question of grammar or syntax, but I think they were related to the group that is called the FLQ or to the revolutionaries. Maybe the Chair should leave it to the hon. member for Timmins to clarify his point; I am not certain as to the conclusion to which he was coming.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask, Sir, that you read Hansard tomorrow.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I listened carefully to the hon. member who has the floor and while he did retract those remarks to which objection was taken, possibly correctly, by the hon. member for Vancouver East, he has not since that time made any reference to the party or group to which the hon. member for Vancouver East belongs. In those circumstances, it is improper for the hon. member for Vancouver East to make an interjection.


Harold Edward Winch: Then you read Hansard tomorrow-uncorrected.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: As I said before, I would expect the hon. member for Timmins to clarify the point he has made, then we might not have to read Hansard tomorrow.


Harold Edward Winch: I would appreciate that immensely.


Jean Robert Roy: Possibly I could clarify the matter by saying I was referring to the extreme socialists who are causing such disturbances in our country today, wherever they might sit.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member implies that his remarks might refer to a member of this House, and this the Chair cannot permit. If he means "sitting anywhere in Canada or the world" I might take a different view, but if there is somewhere in his remarks a reference to members sitting in this House, the Chair cannot accept it.


Harold Edward Winch: Hear, hear.


Jean Robert Roy: I am puzzled by the fact that the hon. member should see himself as an extreme socialist. I will say my observations applied to no member of this House. I will except members of this House-while they are sitting in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.
The Address-Mr. Mazankowski


Jean Robert Roy: It is these extreme socialists, as I say, who condone violence as a sometimes necessary activity in labour disputes, who condone the destruction of property in the same disputes and then scream for justice having derided the laws. They may stop short of condoning sedition, they may stop short of condoning insurrection or treason, but there the terrorists start, continuing their work beyond the bounds of civilized society, beyond the intentions of these so-called reformers, but helped by their advance to the brink of disaster and social impropriety.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, the socialists have misread the feelings of our citizens. The vacillation of these people would bring more terror, but Canadians want this terror to stop; their hypocritical, confusing words would bring confusion, but Canadians want clarity; their sinister politics would bring help for the terrorists, but Canadians want these terrorists eliminated; their soft-pedalling would bring more senseless murders, but Canadians are sick of all violence; their desires would weaken authority, but Canadians want a restoration of authority; their bleeding hearts would bring anarchy and the termination of our freedoms, but Canadians want their liberty, with law and order.
For my part, I pledge myself to be ever vigilant and watchful for any unnecessary encroachment on the rights of Canadian citizens which could result from the application of the War Measures Act, but I have no hesitation in supporting what is necessary in order to stamp out these murders and terrorists with their violence and hideous crimes. Thank heaven we had a government with the courage and wisdom to act.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: May I say at the
outset, Mr. Speaker, how pleased I am to have this opportunity to take part in the debate in this House. I should like to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) upon the honour bestowed upon them in being chosen as mover and seconder of the Address. I had the opportunity to serve with both these hon. members on parliamentary committees, and I must say I found them very good members to work with, men who were certainly acting in the interests of all Canadians.
The Speech from the Throne which traditionally marks a new session of Parliament was again filled with the usual flowery phrases, catchy cliches and challenging invitations reminiscent of words we heard so often during the election campagin of 1968. What is disappointing is that after two years of this regime we are hearing basically the same old rhetoric-somewhat more dramatic and more passionate on this occasion, with a little more ambivalence and ambiguity.
To use an expression we use out west, if we separate the wheat from the chaff, the tangible and concrete contents of the speech can be summed up adequately in a dozen sentences. We are told the just society is now but a distant ideal. We are told we stand on the threshold of greatness. We are told not to be cold and impersonal for the sake of efficiency but rather to be warm from the

October 20, 1970
The Address-Mr. Mazankowski heart, as between friends. I cannot help but recall the tone of the task force report on agriculture which consistently referred to the need for agriculture to become more efficient at any price; there is somewhat of a contradiction between the policy spelled out by the Liberals for agriculture in the seventies and the sentiment contained in the Speech from the Throne.
We are told, again, that there is to be more planning; that there are to be more studies undertaken in many new and diverse fields. This has been going on, now, for 24 months. We are told we can expect new forces, some of which we do not yet understand; some of these forces will originate internally, and others will originate externally. We are warned of the consequences of rapid change brought about by advances in technology, and the growing difficulty we are likely to encounter in controlling our destiny. Despite all this advice, we do not see much in the Speech from the Throne which prescribes a remedy for many of the conditions we are likely to face in the forthcoming year, or for that matter, in the forthcoming ten years.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
We are told that 80 per cent of our population will reside in a few large metropolitan areas. As one looks at these areas, one can reaffirm one's opinion that this government totally lacks any feeling for our rural areas, the people of which are feeling a growing sense of alienation. We are adding to our problems by making large cities larger, at the expense of our rural areas, the populations of which are declining. We are aware of the quality of life in the cities. Their problems result from pollution, crime and the crowding of many people into a very small area.
We are told that there will be problems relating to housing, pollution and drugs in our cities. In Toronto alone, there is a backlog of something like 2,000 drug cases waiting to be dealt with by the courts. One wonders whether new measures will be introduced to improve the method by which we deal with the matter of drugs. I wonder also whether the minister will soon be able to table information relating to the records of cases involving drugs so that we may ascertain whether there is any disparity between sentences.
I do not believe there is a Canadian in this country today who is unaware of the problems outlined in the Speech from the Throne and who is not willing to sacrifice something in order that we may overcome the problems which face us in the 1970's. What I say we need is a co-ordinated attack on our problems, under proper leadership. Certainly, the setting up of a ministry of urban affairs and a ministry pertaining to environmental control is a start and is, I think, commendable. At the same time it is clear that appropriate policies and programs are essential if those ministries are to be effective. What we must ask ourselves is, why has all this taken so long? Perhaps the government will again use the constitution as a scapegoat. After hearing this government constantly weaseling out of its responsibilities by using the constitu-

tion as an excuse, one wonders how this country
managed to survive for 103 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The point is that the constitution is as good as the participants within it, and if co-operation and co-ordination to achieve a goal or overcome a problem cannot take place within the present framework, we are hardly likely ever to arrive at a way of achieving a satisfactory amending process.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am referring to a process under which the constitution will be all things to all participants.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The previous Throne Speech
referred to the fact that something like one million new housing starts would take place in the next five years. There was particular emphasis on low cost housing, social progress and urban employment opportunities. The present Speech from the Throne makes no mention of this goal. One can only assume that the ministry of housing and urban affairs will accomplish these goals as the result of co-operation with the provinces and municipalities. I say that this is the logical and sensible approach. This was the main theme and essence of the Task Force Report on Housing. Why have we had to wait for two years for its implementation?
The matter of pollution and the preservation of our environment quite rightly is an issue which must be attacked by all levels of government and by all sectors of society, by the young and the old, the rich and the poor. I believe that all Canadians will be prepared to work together in a planned and effective approach in overcoming this most threatening problem if they are given adequate leadership. As I said before, I certainly welcome the intention of the government to establish a department concerned with our environment. I hope that the many young people who have corresponded with their elected representatives throughout the past year, and expressed their deep concern over matters relating to pollution and the disturbance of our ecology, will have their fears allayed somewhat by proposals such as those contained in the speech. We have received literally hundreds of letters from young people drawing to our attention their concern over the destruction of our environment and the disturbance of our ecology. I believe that all Canadians will be compelled to share in this exercise if we are to preserve this great land for future generations.
Specifically, I hope that young peonle will engage in more positive methods of assistance instead of merely criticizing. I hope that the minister will display the initiative and ingenuity to develop programs that will harness the energies of these young people, which can be used in
October 20, 1970

fighting pollution and preserving our environment. To date, Mr. Speaker, I believe that in some areas the young people have not been as co-operative and enterprising as they might have been. Some have displayed a contempt for authority and engaged in litterbug tactics which, to me, destroy the credibility of some young people when they cry for business, government and industry to clear up the mess. I suggest that they, too, may be caught in the web of disorder and find it expedient merely to criticize instead of engaging at working co-operatively in the finding of positive and meaningful solutions to some of these very pressing problems.
As I said before, the Speech from the Throne suggests that there will be more white papers and studies during the present session. I ask, Mr. Speaker, what has become of the white paper on Indian affairs and the subsequent response made by the Indian Affairs Association of Alberta? Since the commencement of the twenty-eighth parliament, a vigorous debate has taken place with respect to the policy to be followed in dealing with our Indian peoples, yet very little has been achieved in a concrete way to improve the welfare of our native peoples and to put right some of the social injustices with which our native peoples have been confronted. Perhaps they are more frustrated today than they have been at any time previously as a result of the expectations aroused by the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being one o'clock, and pursuant to the special order made earlier this day, the sitting stands suspended until eight o'clock, p.m., later this day.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
At one o'clock the sitting was suspended.


[Stage Direction]
MRS. MacINNIS-STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF MEMBER FOR GREENWOOD CONCERNING ARTICLE IN GLOBE AND MAIL
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This morning a complaint was made against my colleague the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), arising from a news item in the Toronto press. My colleague was not here at the time and the matter was drawn to his attention later. He is not able to be here this evening and has asked me to read the following statement on his behalf.
The Address-Mr. Mazankowski
I understand that the attention of the house was called to a statement in the Globe and Mail-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have very serious doubts as to whether the question of privilege is in order. Mr. Speaker heard the question of privilege raised by the hon. member and made a ruling thereon. It is my impression, unless I am mistaken on the procedural aspect, that the subject was closed with Mr. Speaker's ruling.


Winona Grace MacInnis: With deference, Mr. Speaker, my colleague was not here this morning. As soon as he heard about it, he decided he would like to deal with the matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the House would give unanimous consent so there would be no question about impropriety in allowing the hon. member to read the short statement?


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I happen to know that the statement which the hon. member for Greenwood would like read on his behalf is, in fact, an apology which he felt should be made to the House at the earliest opportunity. I believe under those conditions the House will want to grant that privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With the explanation of the hon. member, does the House give unanimous consent?


Steven Otto: I am surprised that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would try to promote such a thing. Surely, it cannot be the rule that a member can have another member make a speech for him when he is absent. I ask the member for Winnipeg North Centre, a man learned in the rules, whether he really thinks this is the type of-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is obvious there is not unanimous consent, and I think the House might proceed. The hon. member for Vegreville.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Jacques-L. Trudel, for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Prior to the adjournment of the debate this afternoon, I was dealing with the white papers referred to in the Speech from the Throne and the various studies to be continued this session. I am somewhat concerned about the fact that the white paper in respect of Indian affairs was not mentioned

We all welcome the aggressive sales approach that has been taken in the last ten months. This only proves to me that markets have been available, and they will be available providing someone is prepared to go out and merchandise particularly our teed grains. We in this party have continually pressed the government for a more progressive merchandising policy, above all headed by someone who understands the business.
I cannot help but once more refer to the task force report on agriculture which draws attention to our blatant disregard for market research. Of the total amount of research devoted to agriculture, only 1.2 per cent has been set aside for marketing research. Another glaring weakness in our policy is that research data is not readily available in Canada. As a matter of fact, the data that was tabulated in the task force report was obtained largely from foreign sources, mostly from the United States.
I am sure there is no member of the House who does not welcome any measure that would improve the market potential of our agricultural products. However, the Speech from the Throne only touches on this subject very vaguely, merely suggesting that the government will continue to introduce programs designed to improve market potential for agricultural produce and to assist in the adjustment to changes in this vital sector of our economy.
The task force report clearly suggests that the need for more than that is obvious. If anyone is to place any credence in the report, it is abundantly clear that we will have to do much more than just continue along the lines we have adopted in the past. We must aggressively engage in market research programs that will provide the ways and means to anticipate, to plan, to implement, and of course to assess, the appropriate measures to capture the full market potential of our products.
Above all, in discharging this duty I believe it is of paramount importance that we engage qualified and knowledgeable people. I hope that hon. members will not be misled into the belief that the problems of agriculture in western Canada have been overcome by this vast array of publicity brought about in respect of improved grain sales. The lack of grain sales has been a chronic problem experienced by the Liberal government, and our sales performance has been nothing short of dismal in the last few years. There is a lot of catching up to do.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
May I remind you as well that the grain which is being sold is largely barley at an elevator price of 60 cents a bushel. The elevator price for wheat is $1 per bushel. When you subtract the advances of previous years, I suspect that the effective cash influx will be much less than the anticipated $500 million figure which has been quoted.
Referring again to the task force report on agriculture, we see in it a broad approach to agriculture in the 1970's. Certainly, one could find ample opportunity to debate many of the recommendations contained therein. There is one area in which I feel the government will soon have
The Address-Mr. Mazankowski to make its plans known, and that is the future position of the small family farm.
It is clearly evident that the policies we have been dealing with in the past two years are directed toward larger, so-called viable enterprises, with little emphasis or consideration being directed toward the small enterprise. I believe this is a most pressing and urgent situation and the government owes a statement of intent in this regard because the small operators can no longer adjust to the arbitrary quotas on grain and on cream which are being discriminately placed upon them. The abolition of the 400 bushel unit quota has placed a severe hardship on small family operations. They, too, are being dealt a blow by the discriminatory practices of the Farm Credit Corporation in that they are not able to obtain any capital to expand.
These small family farm operators are concerned about the reference to the sorting-out process in the report on agriculture. This sorting out process suggests that only those farmers who operate aggressive and viable enterprises will survive. This matter creates a certain amount of apprehension and fear, particularly when we consider the high level of unemployment. Many of these people will be faced with little or no option other than to go on public welfare.
The mention of quotas leads me to the subject of the farm products marketing bill which has been referred to as a contentious measure. We in the Conservative party were accused of filibustering and killing the bill during the last session, even though many of our members cut our summer recess short to attend committee meetings studying this bill. Let me say here and now that this is a sweeping measure which demands comprehensive study.
I make no apologies for being associated with a party dedicated to a thorough study of such a measure. The simple fact is that many people throughout the country have had some very serious second thoughts respecting this legislation, having had an opportunity to study it and realize its far-reaching implications. I remind you that the majority of those presenting briefs to the committee found many inadequacies in this bill. In practically all instances, the matter of producers' rights was clearly overlooked. This is particularly so in view of the fact that the intent of the bill was supposed to be directed toward the interests of producers.
I see you are sitting on the edge of your chair, Mr. Speaker. May I conclude by saying simply that a grain act, designed along similar lines was introduced. Again, in this regard, we have been accused of killing this bill. I want to remind hon. members that we are concerned about the direction in which the government is moving in respect of agriculture. I think it is very appropriately summed up in an address by Mr. D. R. Marshall, the president-


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.

October 20, 1970
The Address-Mr. Latulippe


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members for your indulgence. I merely want to conclude by quoting a concern which was expressed by Mr D R Marshall, president of the National Dairy Council of Canada in an address he made to the 53rd annual convention in Toronto. In part he said:
The march toward "concealed" socialism in agriculture in this country is now well advanced and I am sure that is not the wish of the vast majority of Canadians that it should be continued, no matter under what camouflage.
If this is an accurate assessment of that trend in agriculture-I see the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) indicating that it is not and I wish I could agree with him. If this is an accurate assessment, I am proud to be one of those who is fighting this measure. I will continue to do so in order that those freedoms of choice which remain to the producer may be preserved and not destroyed by multi-corporations or integrated companies or the bureaucracy. I am convinced that these two measures seek to destroy these privileges.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to take part in the debate on the Address in reply to the Throne speech.
Mr. Speaker, how could anyone speak today without referring to the death of a minister of the Quebec government?
Without going through the complete details of this event which saddens the whole population of Canada, I think I must draw the attention of hon. members to its distant cause. Someone once said that the violence of the weak is a reaction against the inertia of the strong. Because Louis XVI and Louis XV had remained indifferent to people's demands, Louis XVI was eventually executed.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Violence is only the normal escalation of democratic procedures followed to stir the dormant conscience of competent authorities. The intuitive judgments of the people are sounder than the deductive judgments of misled intellectuals.
Justice and harmony are so deeply rooted in the heart of the man in the street that they are at the origin of the most efficient revolutionary movements.
While congratulating the government for having taken emergency measures to control aggravating and dangerous conditions, I would like to point out that those are only superficial steps which will never put right the causes of the deep dissatisfaction of the people before the procrastination of competent authorities who for too long have remained conservative while calling themselves Liberals or advocates of political economic liberalism.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking the following question: do people revolt against honest, fair and humanitarian governments?

Current events oblige us to much soul-searching and self-accusation as to the way we in Parliament have conducted the personal, family and social affairs of all Canadians.
One aspect we must not forget: the Canada we represent is in 1970 a country with a population of nearly 22 million people who all have the right to a living standard in keeping with our gross national product.
Mr. Speaker, that is the essence of the problem. Have we settled it? Does the last Speech from the Throne propose appropriate solutions? Can our people wait any longer for an honest distribution of the production from a prosperous economy? I do not think so.
The people are not asking for promises, resolutions, wishes, words, laws, white papers, slogans and investigations. The people want a fair and honest distribution of Canada's magnificent annual production, according to the needs of all citizens who live in Canada and according to the merits of the Canadians who work and who provide capital.
Mr. Speaker, the first right of the 22 million Canadian citizens is the right to life. That should not be forgotten, even faced with the death of a noble citizen who has paid with his life for the inertia shown by governments in recognizing the right to life of all citizens. Mr. Speaker, thousands of children may die every year through lack of proper food and care, heads of families may get so discouraged that they want to kill their wives and children because they feel unable to feed them and give them a decent living, on account of the inaction of governments which are too slow in bringing the necessary reforms, but we do not seem to care. We find all kinds of excuses.
But if a selective assassination is committed, we are touched. Well, if we do not want any more selective assassinations, we will have to consider most seriously our grave responsibilities. Let us prevent collective assassinations, an obvious result of our inertia, ensure a guaranteed personal income, an adequate and proper purchasing power consistent with our national production.
There is of no need, here, to give a university lecture in economics. Production must first be used for consumption and then, for capitalization. Nothing is more simple. Even citizen in this country can understand that.
Our production amounts to $84 billion, which represents $3,900 per person, or $19,500 for a family of five as an average. We should demand a personal minimum allowance for every child in Canada and every young people. We should establish it at least at $90 a month for adults between 18 and 59 and at least at $120 for old people and pensioners of 60 and over.
As for family allowances, established in 1945, they have been increased only by $1. Their rate ranges only from $6 to $8 while the cost of living has considerably increased.
The right to live is a normal and proper one, in fact the first right of each citizen within a civilized society. It is therefore the first to be protected by legislation.
October 20, 1970

As can be seen, no political partisanship is involved, any more than nationality, religion, language, race, colour, different provinces or even the Constitution. It is just a matter of elementary justice for all citizens of the land.
Nor are capitalism, socialism or communism involved. In all countries, whether capitalist, socialist or communist, goods and services are produced by the nation's adult population and apportioned between consumption and capitalization. That is the purpose of an economy, to be kept well balanced by simple means consistent with facts and economic realities of our country.
Nor is it entirely a matter involving a monetary system. The situation does not depend on that only.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
In any economic and political system, the production of any year should be used by the living citizens before being made available to citizens who will be living during the following years. We should consume enough before capitalizing too much.
There are great academic people, famous men who believe they are the centre of the world, who maintain they are increasing production and who increase capitalization without worrying about consumption.
Such is, Mr. Speaker, the crucial problem that must be solved. If we can produce, then to be logical, we should be able to consume our products. That production should meet all needs, at least the essential needs of everyone, otherwise, our economy will be unbalanced, even unjustified.
That is important and simple. One does not need a university degree to understand that. It is simple common sense. Even a very young child will think of eating today before thinking of saving for tomorrow. The little squirrel eats the peanuts people give it and hides the rest for winter when it is not hungry any more.
Therefore, in order to act according to the laws of nature in Canada, if our production is worth $84 billion in 1970, every Canadian should consume enough before we capitalize $34 billion.
That is the rub. That is the core of the problem. There is too much capitalization and not enough consumption and frustrated people are dissatisfied, and rightly so. It is up to the government to correct the situation. But who is the government? At least 264 members and ministers, elected by the Canadian people to look after the management of the Canadian economy for the 22 million people of Canada.
I believe that at present, we consider the Canadian economy in the abstract. Living from hand to mouth, most people laugh on Friday and cry the next Monday. The future of a community must not be built on present sorrows, but on economic facts and realities. From now on, Canadian prosperity will keep publishing analyses on the economic life of Canadians.
States are duty bound to become aware of national problems and of conditions required for their solution.
The Address-Mr. Latulippe
Can we define and detect the problems? Several organizations have been making inquiries and reports of all kinds in order to detect poverty and unemployment for many years. But the number of unemployed is still on the increase. Those inquiries and plans of all kinds, and so on, have cost millions to the government, but they failed to solve the unemployment problem.
Unemployed are found in all municipalities. The idleness and helplessness of so many men being such a serious problem, members of the House and economists as well are seeking effective solutions.
Technocrats set up great programs, economists consider, analyze and seek solutions. Intermediate bodies demand, call for and condemn; realistic publications voice opinions and think.
But few people reflect on the true composition of the puzzle we have to solve. Unrest and dissatisfaction are now widespread.
The solution seems immediate and concrete. Everyone could bring an element of solution to the anguishing problem of unemployment. But that evil is not the responsibility of anyone in particular, and no one works positively towards its solution. A solution is not a plan, an idea, a program, or an invention, but the answer to a problem! It is not a conclusion, but action!
I defy anyone to tell me that in this Parliament, in the last ten years, steps were taken to solve the serious problem of unemployment.
Are the Canadian people really incapable of innovating, of creating, of foreseeing the needs in order to enlarge or develop the required markets? Are we short of imagination, initiative or competence? Needless to say, initiative would upset many comfortable habits but if the elite does not move within the next months to relieve human hardship, considerable upheaval and disastrous consequences can be expected.
If credit unions do not make money more accessible nor use it to raise the living standard of their most disadvantaged members, it is all the more unlikely that capitalist philanthropists should put an end to the ills of Quebecers and other Canadians.
Those in charge of government who appreciate what the economic development of a state or a country means should feel extremely concerned. Mr. Speaker, it is quite customary to find in any Quebec village a $600,000 school, a senior citizens' home valued at $800,000 or $1 million and a quite comfortable church, whereas, in hundreds of municipalities, not a single industry exists.
The young people may attend school, the older people stay in a home for the aged, the whole population goes to church yet, the young people have to rely on welfare or unemployment insurance payments. For their part, the workers must leave for the large cities. In many rural or semi-urban centres, the population happens to be much lower in 1970 than it was in 1950.
Soon we shall have a great metropolis inside a desert, inside a territory almost uninhabited. Meanwhile experts

October 20, 1970
The Address-Mr. Latulippe
continue to study, analyse and forecast fully expecting that the economy will pick up with time.
Mr. Speaker, for an analysis of our public financial position, one has only to refer to statistics and check expenditures by the central government and the province of Quebec, where my constituency is located. In 1970-71, the federal government spent $12.9 billion, the Quebec government, $3,982 billion, the Quebec municipalities, $810 million and the school boards, close to $1 billion. Nobody has the exact figures since it is impossible to obtain accurate statistics for the Quebec school boards. But this year, for every citizen, young or old, male or female, Ottawa is spending $845, Quebec, $665, the municipalities, $135 and the school boards, $135 or more. The annual expenditures of the Ottawa and Quebec governments, of the municipalities and school boards, total $18,492 billion, i.e. $1,579 per capita. It is the highest per capita average in Canada and it applies only to the province of Quebec and to Ottawa; I am not talking about the other provinces.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, can we afford to finance this display of grandeur with part of the money borrowed? This is a sure way to compromise our future.
On March 31, 1968, the direct federal government debt was $32,575 billion and the indirect debt $8,335 billion. On March 31, 1968, the consolidated debt of the Quebec government stood at $1,678 billion and the indirect debt at $2,799 billion. The 1,652 Quebec municipalities owed $283 billion on December 31, 1967. The bond debt of the school boards amounted to $485 billion and even more in 1963 and it has increased at a fantastic rate since.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, each Canadian is in debt to the tune of $1,971 at the federal level, $755 at the provincial level, $355 at the municipal level and possibly more at the school board level. So, each Quebecer sees his future income mortgaged for about $83,436. The government debt exceeds $50 billion in 1970 and to this must be added close to $10 billion in personal debts. The total Canadian debt exceeds $60 billion. Considering the rate of interest to be paid and the amounts needed for bond renewal, no country, much less a province, can survive. I challenge anyone to find somebody smart enough to finance that.
Debentures are renewed at new interest rates, the rich are getting richer, but there is an increasing number of poor people and welfare recipients. The frightful rate of public debts does not frighten anybody, neither the governments nor the governed; the former bring in more social measures and increase expenditures, the latter call for more without thinking that eventually they will have to foot the bill.
Is it possible, Mr. Speaker, to find an adequate financial system that will put some order in all this and enable the citizens and the government to pay their debts? But, in order to pay their debts, interests rates have to be reasonable, debentures have to be renewed under reasonable terms and not under the exorbitant conditions existing today.

Such conditions are senseless. We make the rich richer and the poor poorer. This causes general discontent and brings about developments such as we have never seen before in this country. We will see more of them if we do not control the situation, if we do not put our economy in order, if we do not allow each citizen to live decently in a rich and prosperous country. We will pay for our mistakes. We have paid part of our dues, but there is more to come. This is only a beginning.
To administer billions of dollars, the people elect representatives most of whom are unable to administer a single million and are even less able to understand the nature and operation of orthodox financial mechanisms. These only pile up public debts that will never be paid even if all our real wealth is used for that purpose. It is therefore normal to find that the application of fiscal policy, the dispersion of loans, the scarcity of investments and the inconsistency of administrative measures greatly increase the costs of public services.
Those facts are sufficient to show that an economic problem does exist, that it is becoming more and more serious from year to year in our country, and especially in Quebec. Prosperity cannot grow by itself, and the people must truly want it. Can we imagine what tomorrow's society will be like, to guess what the future will bring and to plan accordingly? Can outside influences, which we are unable to control, prevent us from becoming what we want to be?
We are assured of being able to realize this on the one condition that we once again become masters of our money and our credit and make use of them for the realization, in answer to real needs, of attainable objectives.
A balanced system must make financially possible what is physically workable, whereas the present system makes impossible financially what is physically workable. This is nonsense but such is the way things have been for decades.
As for the Speech from the Throne, it proclaims the definition of a just society in reasserting the slogan which brought the present government to power. We can say that the definition is a good one, and we accept it:
-a society in which individual freedom and equality of opportunity remain as our most cherished possessions;
We are convinced that by its housing policy the government did not achieve that high ideal. A decent home-


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


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I have still a few remarks to make. May I be allowed to go on?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree to let the hon. member for Compton conclude?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
October 20, 1970

[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that we are convinced that the government did not attain its lafty ideal through its housing policy.
The policy of individual freedom and of equal opportunity is still very far from the social justice advocated in the "just society" slogan, considering the number of slums where too many Canadians live.
The 12 per cent tax on building materials, the 8 per cent interest rate on capital loans, the 8 per cent tax on material purchases in the province of Quebec, the 10 or 12 per cent interest on bank loans for the construction of houses, all those things further contribute to raise the cost of materials and services that the people and the municipalities must pay.
By increasing taxes and interest rates, the government contributes to raise the price of real estate and construction, so that an individual can no longer afford to own his home.
Under our present economic system, the individual is made to bow to the whims and demands of money-lenders, instead of the economy adjusting to his needs and those of his family. If money-lenders decide to build sky-scrapers so that their investment will yield a higher interest, families are packed together in superimposed bird-cages and charged prohibitive rents, considering the low income of the citizens.
Our just society, by its taxes and its housing policy, deprives the individual of his right to ownership. Can it be repeated too often? Only those with a high income can become home owners. Low wage-earners will always be tenants from generation to generation.
But interest on large investments keeps increasing, both in private and public enterprise. The value of a bond bearing a 10 per cent interest doubles in seven years, quadruples in 14 years, multiplies itself eight times in 21 years. And this is how capital controls the whole economic life of the nation, while wage-earners live from hand to mouth, without being able to make both ends meet.
In order to realize the present state of our economy let us consider this aspect of private ownership of individual and family housing, and we will find that the situation is impossible, unfair, unacceptable, for the present as well as for the future.
What is the use of having a Minister of Urban Affairs and Housing, as mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, if we make ownership more and more difficult, if we prevent individuals from becoming property owners?
How is it, Mr. Speaker, that so many people could find more suitable and cheaper houses in all our towns and villages hardly fifty years ago? Is this situation merely due to chance? Is there no one responsible? And if someone is responsible, are we to blame? Is it the passenger or the driver who is responsible for an accident?


Mr.   Gaeian-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, following the unfortunate events taking place in our country
The Address-Mr. Serre
these days, it is with deep emotion and great anxiety as to what the future holds for us that I take the floor in the House, the seat of democracy cherished by all worthy Canadians.
In my own name and on behalf of all my fellow citizens of Nickel Belt, I hasten to express my most sincere sympathy to Pierre Laporte's family, to all his colleagues in the National Assembly, to the Prime Minister and all government officials. I wish them the courage required to meet the challenge now facing us.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we shall soon hear that Mr. Cross has been safely released.
The events of the last few days have consequences that go far beyond the captivity of Mr. Cross and the assassination of Mr. Laporte. I hope that thanks to the indomitable courage shown by our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to the co-operation of governments at all levels as well as of every Canadian citizen, it will be possible to restore order and to ensure the security of all Canadians.

I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, we are presently faced with the worst crisis in Canadian history. Anyone who believes the present situation can be solved by arguments about a possible threat to our civil liberties is fooling himself. There is no room at this time for opportunism and party politics such as the leader of the New Democratic Party and some of his hon. friends in that party have shown in the last few days. The political opportunism and lack of sincerity displayed by th NDP will never be forgotten by the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member is imputing motives, and that is contrary to our rules. I, for one, can say I was not insincere in my stand. I was very sincere as, I am sure, were other members of my party. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his last remark.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I must tell the House that I was busy talking to somebody here so I did not follow the last part of the hon. member's remarks. It is difficult, therefore, for me at this time to judge the remarks about which the hon. member is complaining. But if that part of the hon. member's observations were comments about a vote in the House of Commons, I might take the opportunity to read again the last sentence of Standing Order 35, which states as follows:
No member may reflect upon any vote of the House except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
This is the second time today I have had to read the Standing Order and I hope hon. members will keep it in mind in order that the Chair may not be confronted with points of order similar to those which have been raised earlier.

October 20, 1970
The Address-Mr. Serve


Mr. Serre:: I should like to tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that I was not referring to the vote which was taken here yesterday.
This is a time for statesmanship, for leadership such as our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been giving us all along during these difficult moments in our history. Even though these sad events are most deplorable, it is my firm belief that they will have served to unite us all more strongly than ever.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in congratulating the two members who distinguished themselves so much by moving and seconding the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, namely the member for Bourassa and the member for Assiniboia (Messrs Trudel and Douglas), the former, an accomplished businessman and the latter the farmers' untiring spokesman. Both performed their task in a masterly manner, and have shown once again the great worth of the men recruited by the Liberal party at the last election.
Mr. Speaker, on reading carefully the Speech from the Throne, one can find a keener desire on the part of the government to take concrete steps aimed at establishing the just society, which is the ideal of any true democracy and of most Canadians.
With a view to enabling the Canadian people to participate in the establishment of a sound policy, the government intends to pursue its policy of issuing white papers, while implementing bills carefully prepared in the past two years with the help of the whole population.
I am delighted to find that the government will keep on intensifying its fight against air and water pollution by setting up a department responsible for the environment and by introducing a piece of legislation on air pollution.
[DOT] (9:10p.m.)
God knows that the pollution problem worries us in the Nickel Belt. Needless to say, the situation has become alarming. The main industry, INCO, has been allowed far too long to deteriorate the ecology of the area. To be sure, great efforts have been made recently and the company spends fantastic sums of money to remedy the situation, but it is rather late in the day.
The provincial government, which has jurisdiction in that field, has certainly been remiss in its duty. It should have forced the company to take the necessary preventive measures. It even should, in the present context, punish the polluters severely, be they giants like INCO, a small industry or even an individual.
Since the provincial government has been unable to control pollution in our part of northern Ontario, the federal government should take the initiative and set up a pollution research and control center at Sudbury's Lau-rentian University, right in the center of northern Ontario. Such a center could co-ordinate the initiatives at every government level. People are becoming extremely
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
impatient and I am sure they are favourably impressed by what our government is doing in this regard.
Mr. Speaker, our life in the Sudbury area has far too long been conditioned by the mining industry, the only major industry controlled by foreign capital. INCO has always exploited our abundant natural resources, making enormous profits every year, without concerning itself enough with the living conditions its operations create for the people in the area.
I feel that it should contribute more to the various community services such as housing, transportation, education, recreation and so on that are required by its employees and all citizens in the area.
Such an operation being controlled by foreign interests, of course, it cannot be totally sensitive to local problems. Therefore, my constituents and myself shall certainly follow with interest the developments resulting from the white paper on the control of our economy shortly to be tabled by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray).
I recognize that foreign investments have been and remain necessary to the development of some of our resources. However, I consider that the government should take the necessary means, as soon as possible, to make sure that we have better control over our economy.
The recent proposal of the Ontario Liberal party to the effect that 50 per cent of our national interests should be controlled by Canadians seems to be quite reasonable in the present circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, our area is greatly in need of both secondary industries and investments. But prospective investors are often afraid of moving into our area because we lack adequate means of transportation.
The cost of living is higher than elsewhere, especially owing to lack of competition and to exorbitant freight rates. For instance, I believe that the railway companies exercise discrimination against northern Ontario, where they have set the rates higher than in other parts of the country.
I have asked and I am still asking that the Department of Transport undertake a full study on this problem and insist that this abnormal situation be rectified as soon as possible.
When I talk of inadequate transport facilities I refer specifically to air transport, the worst in my opinion. For example, our only airport, operated by the city of Sudbury, is too small to give good service to the 200,000 odd citizens of the area. An expansion program is imperative. The increase in air traffic makes it long overdue. Aware that the city of Sudbury is not in a position to undertake such an expansion program entailing expenditures of a few million dollars, I suggest that the Department of Transport take immediately the necessary steps in order to take over its operations.
After all, Mr. Speaker, that airport has to become regional because it has to service not only the city of Sudbury, but dozens of surrounding municipalities. I therefore hope that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) will take notice of my suggestions and that he
October 20, 1970

will deem it advisable to transfer the jurisdiction from the city of Sudbury to the Department of Transport in order that the population be offered an adequate service.
For example, it is high time that our area be serviced by jets as is the case in centres much smaller than ours at the present time.
In perusing the program proposed by the government for this third session, I am pleased, like all my constituents, I am sure, by the fact that the government will give special consideration to all citizens without exception, at all levels of society, and mainly to the disabled, both young and old.
I do not have time to comment on the numerous measures which will be introduced these next few months. I will mention only a few like, for instance, the establishment of two new departments: Urban Affairs and Housing, to remedy the problems created by the influx of people into our great cities and to give particular attention to the housing crisis and to the pollution of our environment. A number of measures will be introduced especially on air pollution and tax reform, designed to divide more equitably the economic burden and improve the small wage-earner's lot.
There will be amendments to existing legislation on labour-management relations so as to improve the collective bargaining process and establish a more modern legal framework to that end.
Mr. Speaker, as I have the honour to represent people who are for the most part wage earners belonging to a powerful labour union, I am sure they will watch closely the new amendments to the Labour Code.
New measures will also be introduced to give consumers better protection so that they know better what they buy and so as to protect them against unfair practices.
The existing unemployment insurance system will be amended so as to increase the number of eligible people. Special consideration will be given to the possibility of providing assistance to the unemployed so as to enable them to secure decent employment.
As I said earlier, and again in order to enable people to take part in the preparation of measures concerning them directly, a number of white papers will soon be issued on foreign ownership in the Canadian economy, national defence, citizenship, immigration, the status of women and social security.
In the white paper on social security, special attention will be given to the old age security pension plan and family allowances.
It is high time that we show greater concern for our old people. Many of them may well be the poorest citizens in Canada, while they actually were the ones who built up this prosperous country in which we live today. For several of them, the pension cheque is hardly large enough to pay the rent. I hope this government will increase by a substantial amount the pension payments which are the only income these old men and women ever get.
The Address-Mr. Howe
As regards the old age security pension, as in the case of family allowances, may I be allowed to suggest that the benefit rates be increased considerably but that eligibility be limited. In other words, it could be withdrawn from those whose income is large enough to provide for their own needs, and it could accordingly be increased in the case of lower income citizens.
There is a group of pensioned citizens who are not treated fairly and I refer here to retired railwaymen. I do hope that the CNR management will find their way to accept the last recommendations of the Committee on Transport and Communications that the already pensioned employees and those who will retire in the future may enjoy the same advantages as the employees of other sectors. As of now I urge the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) and the Minister of Transport to nut the necessary pressure on.
[DOT] (9:20 D.m.)

I certainly hope that during this third session of our 28th Parliament, our colleagues in the opposition will choose to be less negative and more positive, less irre>
sponsible and more constructive, so that we may stand firm and united during these difficult days that lie ahead, and so that we may each contribute more fully according to our talents and experience toward the fulfilment of our common ideal; a just society in a united Canada.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Grey-Dufferin-Waierloo):: As has been customary over the years, Mr. Speaker, 1 offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Trudel) and seconder (Mr. Douglas) of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. However, I say to them that they should not be carried away by all the congratulatory remarks that have been made, irrespective of the fact that their contributions were good and their efforts in this House , have been commendable. There have been a great many members chosen to move and second previous Speeches from the Throne who are not here today. Other criteria are necessary to win the confidence of the people who are in this great House of Commons.
My wife and I would like to join with the thousands who have tendered their sympathy to Madame Laporte and her children, and well as the colleagues of Mr. Laporte. I sincerely hope that the memory of the happy associations and the pride in the outstanding achievements of a husband and father will be a great consolation in the days of trial ahead.
My constituency is mainly rural. I was rather surprised that there was not more said about agriculture in the Speech from the Throne. Just one small paragraph referred to export sales, the Lift program, marketing and a few things in that connection. I wish to quote from an article which appeared in the September 14 issue of the Globe and Mail. The article is headed "Applied research felt need for agriculture", and reads:
A special study for the Science Council of Canada recommends creation of two federal boards and five specialized research centres to co-ordinate agricultural research and shift the emphasis to applied research.

October 20, 1970
The Address-Mr. Howe
The next paragraph is very profound:
The three-year study by an eight-scientist commission under Dr. B. N. Smallman of Queen's University, Kingston, says agriculture is still "the most important primary industry in Canada" and research is largely responsible for its success.
I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) applauding because the leader of this commission is from Kingston. Those of us from agricultural areas have always felt that the prospering of most nations depended on the top six inches of the soil. We feel it should not have taken an eight-scientist commission three years to determine that agriculture is still the most important primary industry in Canada. For that reason, I am critical of the government because there was not more said in the Speech from the Throne on ways and means to improve agricultural processes and procedures in this nation. The article continues:
However, an increasing degree of specialization has resulted in an inadequate communications system among researchers and with farmers.
Dr. P. D. McTaggart-Cowan of Ottawa, executive director of the science council, says the Smallman report's conclusion may seem controversial to some but should serve as "a useful starting point for informed public debate" on agricultural research.
Was anything mentioned about agricultural research in the Speech from the Throne? After sitting for three years, an eight scientist commission presented a report, but this matter is not referred to in the Speech from the Throne. If agriculture is going to maintain a position of importance in the years to come to assist in feeding the many millions of people who need to be fed, improved agricultural research programs must be given more consideration. In the field of marketing, crop specialization, animal husbandry and practically all other fields of agriculture there is room for a great deal more research in order that agriculture will continue to be the most important primary industry in our nation.
I sincerely hope that as this session proceeds legislation will be introduced regarding marketing programs that are necessary. We hope this legislation will be better drafted than previously so that it will not be so difficult to bring it to completion in this House and in committee.
I hope the Minister of Finance will give consideration to ensuring that farmers can get the farm improvement loans they require. There has been some reticence on the part of the banks to providing the farm improvement loans that many farmers require. They would rather lend the money on their own terms. I ask the minister to do his utmost to see that this money is readily available for those who need it.
There are many other fields to which continued thought should be given. This government has received adequate assistance. There have been commissions, the task force on agriculture and the Barber Commission on farm machinery, as well as the commission on research to which I have made reference. Many people are working to find ways and means to assist the government. I hope the government applies some of the programs and suggestions of the commission.

The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) intimated that little had been done as a result of the Barber Commission report which indicated that Canadian farmers should be able to get their farm machinery and replacement parts at lower prices than are presently being charged.
I intend to use the rest of the time available to me to mention two or three matters applicable to my own constituency to which I have referred on many occasions. The first matter is the building of post offices. I am happy the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) is in the chamber tonight. He has given very kind consideration to the post office in the village of Elora. About two years ago, the post office authorities in Elora decided that they wanted more space, more modern facilities, and decided to tear down the old post office building, find a new site and build a new post office. We must remember that there are communities in this nation that are not so ready to brush off the old and take on the new, but Elora is one of them.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The reason for this is that Elora is a beautiful community. The Elora rocks have always been an outstanding tourist attraction for people passing through or staying in the vicinity. Many of the homes in Elora were built of limestone, and they are beautiful structures. This is the case with the existing post office. The building is an asset to Main Street. It is a landmark and is as strong and sturdy as the day it was built. With some renovation, changes and additions, I feel, along with an outstanding architect who has looked into the subject, that it is not necessary to destroy this beautiful old post office in order to erect one of these new match box buildings the Post Office Department favours today, which are rarely things of beauty no matter where they are sited.
The people of Elora rose up in arms and presented petitions to me, to the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), and Minister of Public Works, (Mr. Laing). I have been very happy that the Minister of Public Works has been able to hold back his people, so nothing has yet been done. I sincerely hope that the plan the people of Elora would like to see implemented, which is the retention of the old post office building after renovating it and improving its facilities, is the plan adopted. I hope also that the Minister of Public Works, as he promised me, will some day go to Elora to see the post office building.
The second matter I want to bring to the attention of the House is one I referred to last April and have spoken about innumerable times in this House. I refer to the attitude of the Canadian National Railways to the passenger service which it provides in a great many areas in Canada. When I spoke about the matter in this House last April, I said that except for Newfoundland we in this part of western Ontario felt that we were being used as guinea pigs, since the second application that had been made to the Canadian Transport Commission to reduce passenger service related to this area.
October 20, 1970

I attended the hearings of the commission at Owen Sound during the Easter recess. I was rather encouraged because I could not help but feel that, in view of the tremendous pressure brought to bear by the representations made to the Canadian Transport Commission at the hearings, the commission could do nothing else but maintain passenger rail service in this area. However, along with a lot of other people in the area I was shocked when I saw the decision handed down on September 30 by the Canadian Transport Commission. The commission decided to cut off all passenger services north and west of Guelph, including those serving my part of western Ontario, the city of Owen Sound, the town of Southampton, the town of Kincardine, Stratford and Goderich.
I do not think that this is a good decision or a fair one, because I do not think that attention was paid to all the representations made at the hearing. In fact, when I see commissions like this in operation, I sometimes wonder whether we are living in a democracy or in a country where commissions and bodies of this type make the final rulings that destroy the right of the individual not only to be heard but to have his representations considered. Believe you me, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the commission listened carefully to the words of the people who made representations at Owen Sound.
I should like to refer to that part of the decision which relates to the cutting off of the railway services which I have mentioned. Paragraph (a) of the decision reads:
The Committee finds that the actual losses incurred do not justify the continuance of these passenger train services for the convenience of the number of passengers that have used them and that, in the opinion of the Committee, would be likely to use them if the services were not discontinued.
It was elicited at the hearing that the commission did not even consult with the mid-western organization that was making surveys of the requirements of this particular area. Neither did it listen to the representative of the province of Ontario, which is making a study of the transportation needs of the region. The Commission went ahead without waiting for the completion of these surveys and studies, and as a result did not get the true picture.
The next paragraph of the decision reads as follows:
The Committee finds that the highway system serving the points in this region of Ontario served by the passenger train services is excellent and is probably as extensive as could be found in any comparable area of Canada. The Committee further finds that the existing bus services in the area constitute a satisfactory alternative public transportation service and the Committee accepts the evidence adduced at the hearings that these bus services will be adequate in capacity and will be increased in frequency as required by traffic demands resulting from discontinuance of passenger train services.
On talking to the mayor of Southampton, one of the towns affected, I learned that if you go to Toronto from Southampton, a distance of 120 miles, by bus, you travel via London, which adds another 80-odd miles to the journey. So, the suggestion that the bus service is a
The Address-Mr. Howe
satisfactory alternative is not correct. The decision continues:
The Committee agrees with the submissions of both railways that discontinuance would have a minimal effect on other passenger train services.
One thing that I found most difficult to understand was that one of the railroads said that if the other's services were discontinued, it would take up the slack. But what has happened? Both services have been cut off. The CPR service from Toronto to Owen Sound has been discontinued, and if this decision is upheld there will be no passenger service by rail from Toronto.
Then, the committee report has this paragraph:
Finally, the Committee further finds that discontinuance of these services would not, in its opinion, conflict with future plans for the area to be further studied by the government of Ontario in accordance with the guidelines of the report, Design for Development:	The Toronto-Centred Region, which was
adduced in evidence by the government of Ontario.
I do not think there is any justification for this particular decision. In fact, I feel that the whole thing was already cut and dried between the railways and the transport commission before these hearings at Owen Sound, commenced. The hearings were a sop to the people of the area, an attempt to convince them the commission was doing the job it was supposed to do. This is just not good enough.
I also find it hard to understand why the things we asked for, such as improved service, a survey of the requirements of the area and a possible alternative service, were not taken into consideration. However, in denying the railroad company's application to cut off train service from Guelph to Toronto, the commission used the very reasoning we had asked them to use in our case. I should like to put on the record what the commission said about maintaining the service from Guelph to Toronto. Incidentally, there are a lot of passenger trains passing through Guelph en route to Toronto, irrespective of this particular service, so it would not have meant too much to the area had this service been discontinued. However, it meant a lot to the area I represent. The commission says:
None of the evidence convinces us that the actual losses incurred could not be substantially reduced by changes in equipment assignment, and by providing more convenient and more suitable service based on surveys using modern methods, of the requirements of passengers, both actual and potential.
We have been asking the railroads for years to upgrade their equipment and to make more modern rolling stock available. If they were to do this, they would attract more passengers and make the service more sound economically.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I was interested in a little booklet that came to my desk the other day entitled "News briefs from France". There is an article in it about transportation in France

October 20, 1970
The Address-Mr. Howe
where they have been carrying on a transportation system a lot longer than we have in Canada. This article appears under the heading: "More comfortable and faster trains for the French railways" and there is a picture of a turbo train. It is one of the latest and is a very attractive, modern, efficient looking train which I imagine has one or two coaches similar to our railiners. It is certainly a lot more attractive and much more comfortable than the 25 year old trains our transportation system requires us to use. These trains are not comfortable; they are often dirty and certainly do not provide the best type of transportation or even an adequate transportation system in my area.
I appeal to the minister in this particular case because I feel that, irrespective of commissions, rules and laws, as in many other departments of government, the minister has the right to make whatever ruling he wishes. I say this because of a statement the minister made regarding changes in the role and structure of the federal transport portfolio. This appears at the bottom of page 4 and reads:
The Canadian Transport Commission will continue to perform its economic regulatory role independently, subject to Ministerial and governmental review as established in the National Transportation Act.
On the following page there is a paragraph which reads:
Canadian National Railways, Air Canada and Northern Transportation Company Limited, being outside the Public Service, will continue to exercise freedom in their personnel policies, but policy issues or public interest matters will require continuing close consultation with the Minister in the light of the Government's general policies.
I sincerely hope that the minister will give his earnest attention to this particular matter. The paragraph then continues:
Administrations and authorities, although largely made up of public servants, will be exposed to the normal forces of the commercial environment and will need a capability to be responsive and adaptive to changing conditions. A high degree of authority will therefore be delegated to the heads of Administrations and Authorities allowing them to make managerial decisions on many day to day matters but subject to Ministerial decision on all policy issues.
I do not see the minister in the House tonight, but I hope to see him one of these days to put this matter to him personally. I hope he will insist that a clearer picture is provided and that another look will be taken at the importance of maintaining this particular service in that part of the province of Ontario. This service is required for the future development and organization of that part of the province. If this service is taken away it will be a tremendous blow. I sincerely hope the minister will give this his earnest consideration before the thirtieth of this month, at which time this service is to be cancelled.
One other thing that worries me is that when actions of this kind are taken they are not taken for today or for tomorrow but forever. For this reason, I think the government should have another look at this decision by the Canadian Transport Commission. On other occasions
when the commission has made decisions, the government has reversed those decisions after further consideration.


An hon. Member:: They didn't in Newfoundland.


William Marvin Howe: No, they did not do that in Newfoundland but we hope that is not the pattern to be followed. We hope the minister will look into this question seriously and insist that the railways continue to give the passenger service so badly needed in that area.
Another thing of particular importance to my riding is the discussions taking place and the studies being made regarding the development and construction of a new airport in the area of Dufferin County, particularly in that part encompassed by Amaranth township. I feel this is a good site. I feel that a decision should be taken in this regard very shortly. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan), in his speech the other day, mentioned the fact that the present airport facilities at Toronto are inadequate. The traffic is very heavy and the highway facilities in and out are inadequate. A decision should be made in this regard very soon and I sincerely hope that attention will be paid to this particular area because it would be a good site for an airport of this magnitude.
An airport of the type anticipated will cost a great deal of money and should be designed to be useful for many years to come. In the area to which I have referred there is sufficient land at reasonable cost. The area is not that far away from the large centres in southern Ontario. It can be conveniently reached, perhaps by some of these turbo trains, monorails or special highways. The area is not highly developed and the noise or pollution resulting from the operations of an airport there would not create a great deal of trouble. I hope the Minister of Transport will give serious consideration to the suggestions I have made tonight.
It is my hope that the Minister of Public Works will have another look at the Elora post office before making a final decision to tear it down.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the speeches made by my colleagues the hon. members for Bourassa and Assiniboia (Mr. Trudel and Mr. Douglas). I must say that I felt proud listening to them. I am sure their constituents are proud of them too. I congratulate them.
[Englishl
I want to focus my remarks tonight, Mr. Speaker, on the references contained in the Speech from the Throne to the recognition of a federal responsibility in the area of urban life in Canada. It is proposed that there be established a Minister for Urban Affairs and Housing. The same proposal has been expressed before and has generated a lot of excitement in this House and across the country.
A number of factors have been dealt with by hon. members who have spoken on this subject in the House.

October 20, 1970

Some people are asking that there be a greater investment by the federal government in our cities and that the federal public sector be enlarged. Other people have recognized that there are already a large number of programs of the federal government which are carried out in the cities. They are asking that, in respect of this new ministry, these programs be co-ordinated and that policies be established which would comprehend all of the programs of the federal government within the cities. It is also suggested that there be new programs.
The third approach being taken by members and other people commenting on the Speech from the Throne has been based on constitutional considerations. It has been observed that the federal government is not the only government with urban responsibilities. The constitutional questions have been considered. The participation of other levels of government is being considered. A wise government policy, as the minister himself observed, would be a national policy, not just a federal policy, planned, agreed upon, and implemented at all levels of government. A number of members have made suggestions concerning tri-level political instruments focusing on housing, airports, harbours, or urban ground transportation.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
Hopefully all these ideas I have itemized can now be considered in a broader context than before, when the minister was nominally only responsible for housing. The reference to urban affairs in the new title of the minister is in itself encouraging. To me it suggests what I hope will be a new focus, broader than housing and broader even than the term "urban development" which was the expression used in the past. These limited terms of reference, that is housing and urban development, seem to be oriented to the idea of growth and a concept of futurism rather than to intensification of the use of existing facilities and an interest in the present condition of urban life. This is the subject I should like to discuss in the short time available to me. The reference to urban affairs reflects recognition of the potential that urban life presents for Canadians.
I should like to suggest that Canada become an urban nation and that we should commit ourselves to giving all Canadians the opportunity to be urban people, whether or not they live in cities. I refer to urban in the sense of being plugged in and aware of the opportunities there are for experiences of the type which always draw men to live together in cities and which have characterized the great cities, that is opportunities to communicate, to learn, to grow as people; opportunities to make choices of life styles and choices of association; the opportunity to have access to the greatest variety of experiences, of goods and services, leisure activities and entertainment.
In a recent speech the minister responsible for housing, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras), who will become the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, proposed new terms of reference as his criteria for future urban programs. He asked this question: Does the program pay in terms of social comfort and stimulation of people?
The Address-Mr. Kaplan
Does it quicken the pulses of the large cities that are becoming the homes of most Canadians? This is an intriguing question and may imply, as I hope it does, that there will be new standards for government action along the lines I have outlined.
Ottawa in the past has searched for a handle on the urban environment. It has been natural to look to the BNA Act for something that would give Ottawa the right to play a role in shaping the cities. Transportation, housing, and sewers are the subjects Ottawa has chosen to use in the past. I should like to suggest that our past approach has been too much obsessed by the hardware of city life and not enough by the software. We have thought the answers to urban problems lay in physical solutions, such as a better stock of housing, more rapid and efficient transportation systems and better sewage treatment.
These programs are important and there should be no reduction of our commitment to them, but I believe we are putting too much faith in hardware. In addition, hardware solutions imply the destruction and replacement of what we are already living with and these "scorched earth" approaches are beginning to revolt even those people in the cities whose physical surroundings are the worst.
Lately there has been a trend to downgrade physical growth as a valid standard of urban progress in favour of a new standard which has been given the name "Quality of Life". But even this expression has come to mean something physical and a new kind of hardware. It is used to refer to the level of pollution, the conservation of wild life and again, it is a growth standard, but in this connection growth of public capital investment. These so-called quality of life priorities are also important, particularly the attack on pollution. We must fight pollution and fight it with hardware until we reach what the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) has called the plateau at which further deterioration of our environment is arrested. We must assure the preservation of a liveable environment for ourselves and for the plants and animals on which we depend. But, Mr. Speaker, concentration on these physical priorities has dominated government thinking about cities and urbanism itself has been forgotten.
All the programs I have described are designed to produce physical comfort and, as important as that is, it is different from the minister's phrase "social comfort and stimulation". I suggest that if physical improvement alone were the answer we would already have a great urban life in Canada because it is a fact that we are the world's best housed nation. I do not say this in a sense of complacency. On the contrary, there are big urban problems in Canada, but there are worse problems in our large cities than physical comfort and standards. There are problems manifested even in those areas of large cities where physical standards are adequate and more than adequate. There is a growing feeling that there is a lack of contact with the environment, not just the natural environment but the urban human political environment.

October 20, 1970
The Address-Mr. Kaplan
It is a sense of lack of access to social institutions, private and public. It is a sense of alienation from established political functions. It is a lack of awareness of the rich potential of urban life. It is a lack of influence over one's surroundings.
In the approaches we have taken in the past we have virtually ignored all the opportunities which exist within the housing stock we have, within the given hardware, to
enrich urban life by policies which encourage Canadians to define their interests and to relate more to each other.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock at this point?


Mr. Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.
At ten o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



Wednesday, October 21, 1970