1970-10-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions about continuing the work of certain committees and in particular the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration with regard to unemployment insurance. If there is general consent, I wonder whether the following could be made an order of the House:
That the White Paper entitled "Unemployment Insurance in the 70's" laid before the House, June 17, 1970, and the evidence adduced by the committee in its study of the aforementioned matter during the second session of the 28th parliament be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the acting House leader is correct in assuming that there is general agreement that this be made an order of the House. In fact, it is in keeping with the request of the standing committee in the last session. I would just like to express the hope that if there is any delay in dealing with the white paper and the legislation to follow on the subject the government will consider bringing in interim legislation regarding unemployment insurance benefits so that in the intervening time adequate benefits will be available to meet the situation that may obtain this winter. Perhaps some time soon the government might indicate whether the bill listed by the Prime Minister yesterday, specified as a bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, is such an interim bill or whether it is the major bill to be introduced later.


Mr. Baldwin:: Maybe he will put out a white paper on that.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the acting House leader. Is it the pleasure of the House to agree to this proposal?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: should like to direct a question on another subject to the
Minister of Finance, but first of all I wonder whether the right hon. Prime Minister has anything further he can tell the House in connection with the Cross case.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has in mind proposing any concrete measures to combat the threat of rising unemployment this winter? If so, could he indicate very briefly what these measures are, because none were mentioned in the Speech from the Throne?


Mr. Speaker:: The statement to be made by the minister should be very brief. I appreciate the form in which the statement is suggested because normally if it were to be an extended statement it would have to be made on motions.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: I will be saying something about this matter in a statement to be made during the throne speech debate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When he makes his statement, will the minister be prepared to detail the measures that the government intends to propose, and would he also undertake to indicate clearly the direction in which the government intends to guide the economy?


Edgar John Benson: My hon. friend will have to wait for my statement.



FINANCE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has now had an opportunity to consider the suggestion I made the other day-he said he would consider it-of approaching the chartered banks and suggesting to them that there is no justifiable excuse for not starting to lower interest rates as the Bank of Canada and United States chartered banks have done, would he answer my question now and advise us whether he has considered calling a meeting of chartered banks to tell them that they should get on with the job of lowering interest rates in Canada without further delay?

October 9, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: I have considered the matter and decided against it.



MANPOWER


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration if I can get his attention. Can the minister in his new role inform the House whether or not his department has conducted any studies involving the forecasting of unemployment levels this winter and, if so, would he consider tabling such studies?


Hon. Oiio E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the department, of course, is constantly reviewing the situation. I shall have to look into the question of whether there is anything that would be suitable for tabling at this time.



ALLEGED CURTAILMENT OF ADULT TRAINING COURSES

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has a directive gone out to the Manpower offices asking them to curtail applications from unemployed people to take adult training courses in view of the great pressure on the budget because of the high unemployment rate?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much whether any such directive has gone out, but I shall check.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Are any plans being considered by his department for the granting of financial assistance to a consortium of South African and American corporations to re-open the iron mines on Baffin Island?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we are studying the Merry River project undertaken on Baffin Island. We have not yet defined any final policy. The interested companies are in contact with the experts of my department, and if they submit a definite plan, we shall see what the government can do to help them.
As far as I am concerned, I would like to see this important iron ore deposit developed one day. This would allow for the creation of many permanent jobs for the native population of the area.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that seven out of the eleven companies now undertaking development in the Northwest Territories are foreign-owned, would the minister undertake to make a statement to the House on motions before this agreement is finally entered into, giving the House such information as the total amount of government assistance and the companies to which this assistance will be granted?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Naturally, if the government comes to a decision, we shall make a statement in the House of Commons, but I do not think we can reach a concrete proposal for several months and perhaps a year.



POLLUTION


Mr. Real Caouelte (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Is the minister taking concrete measures to check pollution in James and Hudson Bays, which is actually threatening our natural resources?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Here are the facts, Mr. Speaker. The plants polluting James Bay are not located in the Northwest Territories. They are rather to be found in Ontario or Quebec.
We are now conducting studies to determine what the sources of pollution are and we will immediately get in touch with the provincial authorities concerned, in order to make them aware of that problem and ask them to act accordingly.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Is the minister aware that the Domtar plant at Lebel-sur-Quevillon is a source of pollution of the James Bay waters?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not know if it is exactly that plant. It is possible and should that be the case we will advise the proper authorities to take the necessary steps to protect James Bay and its natural resources on which the Eskimos and the Indians of the area depend a great deal for their livelihood.


Mr. Andre Forfin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
[Mr. Hees.f
October 9, 1970

Could the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tell the House whether the companies concerned have been informed of the study conducted by the department and whether they have been requested to co-operate in the matter?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I could not give a definite answer to this question. I will make inquiries and will then be pleased to pass the information on to the hon. member.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has his department been checking this particular pulp mill for effluent containing mercury in the James Bay area?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. I gave him notice yesterday and I feel sure he has looked into it. Has the Prime Minister investigated the charge made by the Public Service Alliance that Mr. K. A. Stead, a civil servant of 30 years standing, has been demoted from his position as chief of the education and extension services branch of the National Museum to a clerical job because of his inability to speak a second language even though he is at present taking a second language course and, I am told, doing very well at it? If the charge is correct, would the Prime Minister advise the House what action the government is planning to take to correct this injustice?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did inform me that he would be asking the question. He would perhaps get a more lengthy answer if he could wait until the minister in charge of the department is on duty in the House but, as best I am able, perhaps I can deal with the question.
I did discuss the matter with the Secretary of State who told me he asked for a report on the complaints to which the hon. member refers. He has had no report as of the moment I am speaking. I might say that it remains the government's policy that supervisors are expected to communicate with their subordinates in the language of the subordinate. In the matter of establishing French or English-speaking units within the Public Service, our policy remains the same. I did write to all deputy ministers quite some time ago suggesting that they come up with a list of possibilities for the establishment of unilingual services. It is only after I have had that list and after I have had their recommendations as to the possibilities of implementing them that such units will be established.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister has not advised the House whether or not this charge of demotion is correct, and has not said what the government intends to do about it. Will he ask the minister to report to the House on his first appearance here next week on this specific matter and answer the specific question? In view of the fact that this sort of thing appears to be occurring fairly regularly at the present time, would the Prime Minister give serious consideration to making amendments to the Public Service Employment Act to guarantee by law the kind of protection to civil servants who speak only one language that was promised to the House and the country by Prime Minister Pearson when he introduced the legislation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the first question I repeat that the minister has asked for a report and, as I said, the report has not been received yet, so obviously I cannot comment on this case at the moment. The hon. member should know that the minister does not administer the National Museum. It is administered independently and he is only answerable for it. It is not something that happened within his department. Therefore he has to ask the museum for a report, which has not come in. In answer to the second question, I do not admit the premise.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary to the Prime Minister.
Does he not think that the hon. member who is so touchy regarding unilingualism and bilingualism should be reminded that people speaking French only have been bearing for over 50 years what he now fears suffering?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we appear to be entering the field of debate at this point. This is not really the time to enter on a debate and the Chair is now prepared to recognize the hon. member for Peace River.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. What I said was attacked by an hon. member. I say that my objective in all of this is to protect Frenchspeaking civil servants in exactly the same way as I hope to be able to protect English-speaking civil servants.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AGRICULTURE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Justice. Now that the province of Alberta has become the sixth province to let down the iron curtain against the importation of agricultural products, a situation which means that more

October 9, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
than hall the country is involved, will the minister give serious consideration to preparing terms of reference under the appropriate section of the Supreme Court Act so that this illegal procedure on the part of so many provinces can be challenged at the earliest possible date?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Indecision and delay.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Acting Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to take that question as notice.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to respond to the proved master of indecision and delay who sits opposite me.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not quite, yet. The hon. member will have to move over one seat. He is not leader yet.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I trust that I may now be permitted to ask my question. Will the minister give consideration to the proposal which I advanced to the Minister of Agriculture a few days ago that the government appoint counsel to appear in the constitutional case now taking place in the province of Quebec involving the extent to which the regulations of that province contravene section 121 of the British North America Act?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, as to the premise preceding the formal part of the question, 1 want to make it very clear that 1 not only cannot accept it but that I deplore such language being used in these circumstances-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George James McIlraith: -by an official spokesman for the official opposition in the House. As to the question itself, I will be very glad to look into the matter.


Gerald William Baldwin: What does the minister deplore? What have I done?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on a rather serious matter. Is the minister aware that a program of sterilization of native Eskimo women was apparently introduced in the Holman Island community on Victoria Island, that five women have been so sterilized and that some others are being considered? If he is aware, will he inform the House who authorized this unnecessary and inhuman program, in view of the availability of birth control methods?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have no information on this problem. The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his question, so I have had an investigation made but I have not yet received any report.
I am not aware that any authorization was given by my department. Health services in the Northwest Territories are under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I therefore asked one of my department's officers this morning to get in touch immediately with the representatives of the Department of National Health in order to determine whether any authorization had actually been given or whether the facts alleged by my hon. friend were correct.
As soon as I obtain further information, I shall be happy to inform the House, but, at this time, I do not believe that such an authorization was given. If such action took place it must have been because of some local or individual initiative, rather than under a government policy.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a supplementary question to the minister and express my appreciation for his announcement.
It is not possible that such a program should be implemented without any authorization. I should like to ask the minister to draw the attention of the Minister of National Health and Social Welfare to this question and the program I just mentioned.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it was done this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Malpeque.



GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the indication in Hansard that the services of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence have been terminated in that capacity and that as yet no replacement has been appointed correct? Second, when will this omission be rectified?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can they not find anybody to work with him?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is provision in the law for the appointment of only 16 Parliamentary Secretaries. I recognize the matter

October 9, 1970

alluded to by the hon. member and hope we shall have his support when we ask the House to increase the number of Parliamentary Secretaries.


Gerald William Baldwin: What about appointing a backbencher?


John Angus MacLean: In the interval, can the Prime Minister assure the House that this omission to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to a minister who is in great need of one-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: -is not an indication of a further downgrading of the government's estimation of the importance of national defence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I can give that assurance, Mr. Speaker. Able though the minister is, I am anxious to have him assisted by a Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope the House will perhaps give unanimous consent so that we can increase the numbers very soon.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY PUBLICATION OF CARR REPORT ON TOLLS

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether the Carr report respecting tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway has already been published or will soon be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I did not understand the question very well. I think it has to do with tolls, but it is not a matter that comes within the purview of my duties. I shall take it as notice and bring it to the attention of the minister concerned.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might direct a supplementary to the Minister of Transport who may be in a position to tell me if the Carr report on tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway has been published or will soon be?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the first report of Carr and Associates has been received. It is only a partial report and we are waiting for the final document. At that point we will assess it. There is an obligation on our part to consult with the United States in terms of the operations of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Subsequent to that we will make a decision whether the document or parts of it can be made public.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport.
Inquiries of the Ministry
May I ask the Minister to assure the House that reports on the Carr survey will also be submitted to the House for study?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I feel quite certain it will be possible for the House to study the whole question of the future of the St. Lawrence Seaway and its operations in, for example, the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications when the estimates or some other matter dealing with the Authority are before the committee. In addition, it is possible that we could have discussions on the basis of the Carr report or at least the findings which emerge from that report. I will be glad to consider it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. It is in connection with questions that have been asked with regard to the destroyer construction program. Will the minister give every assurance that the delay is not due to a complete change of policy with regard to the anti-submarine role?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National
Defence): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will give that assurance.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister also give an indication of the definite date when a decision will be made, because the slippage of time and money continues at an alarming rate each day in the absence of a definite decision?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member took the words right out of my mouth, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO TABLING OF WHITE PAPER

['I will take the question as notice and direct it to the minister who is responsible.']
John Angus MacLean: Can the Minister of National Defence say when the government intends to table the white paper on defence referred to in the Speech from the Throne?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I expect some time after the turn of the year, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Turn of what year?



Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I intended to direct this question to the Minister of Justice or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Possibly the Prime Minister or the Acting Minister of Justice could

October 9, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
answer it. A Canadian citizen by the name of Mrs. Chao has apparently been held in jail, without charge, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for a number of weeks. Will the Prime Minister or the Acting Minister of Justice investigate this matter and make a report to the House? Mrs. Chao is a Canadian citizen from Vancouver, British Columbia.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take the question as notice and direct it to the minister who is responsible.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Before asking my question I wish to congratulate him on his appointment to that important post. Is the white paper on immigration mentioned in the Speech from the Throne ready? If not, will it be ready soon so it can be examined by the appropriate committee of the House in order that the urgently needed legislation and changes in the regulations can be introduced at an early date?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the white paper is not ready. Certainly we consider it an important matter and therefore we will attempt to bring it forward as expeditiously as possible.



APPEAL BOARD CASE BACKLOG-AVAILABILITY OF STUDY

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: In view of the many cases being referred to the Immigration Appeal Board, the number having reached serious proportions with the backlog increasing at the rate of 300 per month, can the minister advise when the study of this serious problem undertaken by Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C., will be available?


Otto Emil Lang: It is expected that this report will be available within a month.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Will the minister at his earliest convenience make a statement on motions as to the steps his department has taken in the meantime to reduce this serious backlog?


Otto Emil Lang: I will certainly give consideration to that suggestion. I am not sure that a statement on motions would be the most appropriate method of conveying the information, but I will certainly look into the matter.



TAXATION


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is aware of a campaign being carried on by province of Quebec

radio stations jointly with Chambers of Commerce against taxation of capital gains? Are the Minister or the Government conscious of this violation of the Broadcasting Act, and of the injustice being perpetrated against those who would benefit by the measure, i.e. the silent majority? What steps does his department intend to take in this regard?


Edgar John Benson: I cannot answer that question-I do not believe the translation came through in English-but I will be most pleased to look into it.


Mr. Speaker:: My suggestion is that the minister take notice of the question asked by the hon. member and answer it in due course.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that only three publishing houses in the English textbook field are in Canadian hands, does the government intend to introduce legislation to protect our publishing houses from being sold to foreign corporations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This matter was dealt with a few days ago at some length by the Minister of National Revenue who is looking into the question of foreign ownership on behalf of the government. I have nothing to add to what he said at that time, though I would remind the hon. member that my colleague did say he would be taking up the particular subject of textbooks with the relevant provincial authority. As the hon. member knows, the provincial authority, in the field of education, can take action in this area.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Of course they can, Mr. Speaker, but so can the federal government. This is a publishing matter, it is an elementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has been given the floor for the purpose of answering a supplementary question, not to make a speech.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Is the government aware that another publishing house, Ryerson Press, is being looked over by a foreign buyer, an American buyer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take the liberty of reminding hon. members that it is not in order to ask whether the government is aware that something is being done, not being done, or might be done.
October 9, 1970



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the serious decline in housing starts in the first nine months of this year, what immediate steps does the right hon. gentleman intend taking to help solve this serious problem other than setting up a ministry of housing and urban affairs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that he is inviting a general statement which should not be made during the question period.


John Gilbert: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cannot ask a supplementary to a question which has been disallowed, but the Chair will permit him to ask another question.


John Gilbert: Would the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing make a statement on motions with regard to the serious problem arising from the decline in housing starts and tell us what immediate steps he proposes to take to deal with it?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: shall be glad to refer to the matter during the remarks I hope to make in the course of the debate on the address. I shall probably allude to the fact that housing starts are taking an upward turn and that September starts were at the rate of 185,000-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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



POST OFFICE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of Communications is still the Postmaster General of Canada and that the hon. member for Longueuil has the problems but not the portfolio, can the Prime Minister advise us whether we may soon expect the introduction of legislation to correct this seemingly imperfect situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for being so helpful. We did announce yesterday through the mouth of the Governor General that we would be asking the House to approve a minister of state system, and it would be my intention to ensure that my hon. friend from Longueuil shall at that time be a minister of state in charge of the Post Office. I hope the opposition will co-operate with us in expediting this arrangement.


George Harris Hees: Don't you worry about us.
Inquiries of the Ministry



RURAL CLOSURES-AMELIORATION OF POLICY

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio with responsibility for the postal services. Under the new and more humane approach he announced, will he be reversing government policy on the closure of rural post offices which has had such a devastating impact on the stability of rural communities?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that the question has been asked in the proper terms. But the minister, I am sure, is anxious that he be given an opportunity to reply.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot quite accept the assertion of the hon. member that the closing down of some post offices has had such disastrous consequences. But as I took over the department I decided that no more post offices would be closed until that matter has been reviewed.


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: My supplementary question is directed to the minister in charge of the Post Office. Will the present criteria continue to be used in considering the closure of rural post offices?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the minister's reply covered the question now being asked by the hon. member.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
In Hull, not very far from Parliament hill, there is a federal wharf where boats can be put afloat. However, as the "Escale" is anchored there, nobody can use it.
Is the minister taking steps now to get the old "Escale" out of the way?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation and he must take it for granted that the minister will consider the matter.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In keeping with the new thinking which the government has now adopted in relation to urban problems-a change which I suggest, with all respect, has

October 9, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
come about as a result o 1 the prompting of the opposition-I ask the Prime Minister whether he will say now that the government intends to implement a procedure under which a standing committee on housing and urban affairs can be set up?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would prefer that this matter, if it is to be dealt with at all, be touched upon by the minister responsible. I can say at this stage that there is no intention in my mind of recommending the establishment of such a committee. However, as the hon. member knows, I have an open mind on all these things.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am glad to learn that the Prime Minister has an open mind on this question. He will understand that in the absence of a standing committee on housing and urban affairs the new portfolio he is developing will have no credibility whatsoever in terms of participatory democracy.


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



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the government take steps, or has it already done so, to bring to the attention of the Canadian National Railways the recommendation of this House set out in the fourteenth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, tabled and concurred in a few days ago, concerning an increase in the pensions of Canadian National employees, in the hope that action on this matter might be taken at an early date?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to do that formally, but the slight tremor noted in Montreal on Tuesday seems to be pretty clear evidence that the CNR already knows of the action taken by this House.



FAILURE OF CHATEAU LAURIER HOTEL TO COMPLY WITH MINIMUM WAGE LAW

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question along the same lines. Has the Minister of Transport told the president of the CNR to have the Chateau Laurier and other CNR hotels pay the minimum wage in effect of $1.65 an hour and to stop trying to cut down on the payment of its employees?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that that question has already been asked.



POLLUTION


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would the minister advise the House whether any steps have been taken toward establishing a water quality management area under the jurisdiction of the Canada Water Act to facilitate the cleaning up of rivers in the Ottawa area?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, discussions are going on with the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec under the aegis of the consultative committees appointed pursuant to the philosophy of the Canada Water Act, both provincially and federally. I am very hopeful that we can achieve an agreement in the not too distant future which will embrace the two provinces and the federal government.
* sis *



NATIONAL DEFENCE


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire whether the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence is in a position to enlighten the House as to the purpose of moving 30 truck loads of troops to Montreal in the middle of last night, I believe it was. Was this just an exercise, or since it is alleged that most of the vehicles were of a medical services nature has the government of Quebec asked the federal government for assistance in connection with the provision of medical services in that province?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this was a night training exercise between Canadian Forces Base Valcartier and Canadian Forces Base Camp Bouchard, and was not at all in relation to the situation referred to by the hon. member.


John Angus MacLean: I thank the minister.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. How soon does he or the government expect to announce the appointment of the new chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board? In addition, can he assure the House that whoever is appointed will not be someone who was either formerly or is at present in the private grain trade?
October 9, 1970


An hon. Member:: How about me?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it seems that we have volunteers right here. We will certainly try to see that the best possible candidates are examined for the position of additional commissioner, but I have no prediction to make at the moment as to when the appointment will be made.



BARLEY-ACTION TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EXPORT OPPORTUNITIES AND STIMULATE DELIVERIES BY FARMERS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of persistent reports that the Wheat Board is not offering barley for sale on the export market because of uncertainty as to how much barley farmers will deliver, can the minister responsible for the Wheat Board inform the House what action is being undertaken to take advantage of export opportunities so that farmers will be encouraged to bring the grain forward?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board, of course, has this question very much on its mind in deciding what in fact will be available for sale. I know the commissioners are reviewing the situation daily, and I am sure we can be confident in their ability to handle the question.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I ask the minister in charge of the Wheat Board whether he will consider increasing the initial price of barley so as to assure that there is a sufficient supply of barley to the Wheat Board for our customers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate to consider a change at this stage for this year. It is far too early, of course, to think about the situation for next year.



REQUEST FOR BREAKDOWN OF EXPECTED SALES

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Would the minister responsible for the Wheat Board make an early statement on motions giving a breakdown of the 700 million bushels of grain grown in the crop year that is expected to be sold as stated, and showing for the information of the House how much of the grain is wheat and how much is barley and other grains?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that this would be a subject matter suitable for a statement on motions. When it is possible to provide additional detailed information on sales, the information will of course be supplied, though as I have indicated to the House on previous occasions there is some limitation as to what can in fact be made known because of commercial considerations.
Inquiries of the Ministry



AIRPORTS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the construction of a roads network is of basic importance to the development of the Ste Scholastique airport, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether a program has been prepared jointly with the province of Quebec in connection with this project or whether Ottawa intends to disclose shortly the contents of the agreement reached with that Province about this roads network?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this question should be put to the Minister of Transport. I am aware that ministers and officials have met many times in this connection while I have not been involved myself except at the very beginning.



INDUSTRY


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Following a record year for the export of automobiles from Canada to the United States, can the minister inform the House what steps he is taking to ensure that during the coming year there will be price parity in the sale of automobiles as between the two countries?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this information should be given to the House in the form of a statement. I would not think it could be replied to by way of an answer during the question period.


John Edward Broadbent: Then may I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister assure the House that such a statement will be forthcoming in the early future?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisler of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there will be many occasions to talk about this particular question, but there is already an indication that the differential, the gap, is closing. I know my hon. friend will not agree with me on these matters, but I expect that and am not surprised. The rise in the suggested list prices in Canada is up by about 3 to 5 per cent over last year. In the United States it is up by about 5 to 6 per cent. In other words, costs are rising faster in the United States than they are in Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -and as a result the gap is diminishing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

October 9, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



CLOSING OF RIVERS AND GIMLI AIR BASES-MEETING WITH MANITOBA GOVERNMENT

Donald Craig Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether a meeting between himself and the Manitoba government concerning the closing of the air bases at Rivers and Gimli has been requested and, if so, when the meeting will take place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there has been some correspondence between the premier of Manitoba and myself on the question of base closures, but I do not believe a meeting with me has been scheduled. There have been a considerable number of meetings at the official level, and also the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister of Supply and Services have been involved in the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
Sfc * !js



AIRPORTS


Roch La Salle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of the invitation of the Prime Minister to direct my question to the Minister of Transport and the urgency of this question.
We all know that there was a meeting between the Minister of Transport and the Quebec authorities about the development of the Ste Scholastique international airport. Could the minister tell us if, following this meeting, agreements were reached?


Mr. Speaker:: At this stage there is no need for a point of order. Besides, if the House allows the minister to answer now the question asked by the hon. member for Joliette, I have no objection.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think that the short answer is that the province of Quebec and the government of Canada have agreed to co-operate in the general planning for the area surrounding the airport and for access to the airport.
Studies are under way to determine what is the best means of achieving better access. It may be better highways or a better rapid transit system or a combination of these. These studies are continuing but at the moment in any event no agreement has been reached in the specific sense my hon. friend, I suggest, is implying.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 8, 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.
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. The hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) spoke very well and very briefly. That is always meritorious and I think particularly meritorious in respect of anyone speaking in support of the Speech from the Throne that was read yesterday. I must say I would like to follow this example, but since I am speaking from a somewhat different point of view it might not be possible for me to be quite as brief today, Mr. Speaker.
In respect of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas), who seconded the motion, may I say that I enjoyed his remarks. I appreciate the praise he had for his own constituency and I appreciate the praise he had for his government. I sympathized with him somewhat when he was attempting to pay due respect to his government and at the same time give the proper emphasis to the difficulties related to agriculture in his constituency.
Certainly, both members discharged their responsibility very well indeed. As to the Speech from the Throne, I might say it reminds one of the style of the government; words take the place of substance. There is certainly a very stark contrast between the high-flown language in the speech and the actual proposals made which, for the most part, were flat, repetitious and vague. In fact, there seemed to be very little relationship between the high-flown phrases and the proposals.
We were exhorted, we were praised, we were told of a new age, of a world-wide crisis and of the need for bold enterprise. These are fine words. At one place we were told:
The Government continues, therefore, to direct its efforts in increasing measures to those tasks where Canadian initiative and Canadian competence may prove to be as effective as has other Canadian enterprise in the past.
I do not know what that means, but I consider it to be a reference to the Post Office.
The Throne Speech comes out flatly and unequivocally for such things as human differences and freedom- sometimes called liberty-equality of opportunity, tolerance, and in one never-to-be-forgotten phrase, pride and modesty at the same time. It also mentions favourably in passing, imagination, daring, initiative, ingenuity and warmth. Just in case after all that we might not quite realize what it is all about, the speech tells us that we Canadians are reasonable and wise.
I should like again, Mr. Speaker, to quote a sparkling remark:
-we-
October 9, 1970

That is Canadians.
-should accept gracefully the fact that we are also more amenable to reason and, perhaps, more capable of wise decision than we are normally willing to admit.
There is a corker, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes; reasonable and wise, I suppose to have chosen such a government-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -which in its turn is reasonable and wise in its handling of the administration of this country under its terms of office. I suppose that is the message we are supposed to draw. Its wisdom and rationality, presumably, are demonstrated by the fact that the government seems to find so little to do. There are actually fewer concrete proposals in this year's Throne Speech than in last year's, despite the fact that this was to be the year of big things, big activity.
This year we are treated to vague promises and declarations that the present government believes in tolerance, in freedom, in equality and in several other things.


An hon. Member:: Don't you?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So do we all. But what does that have to do with the serious practical problems this country faces! Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to go back through all the Speeches from the Throne, but I think this one must be the most stupefyingly complacent Speech from the Throne the government of Canada has ever imposed upon the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If I did not have such a high opinion of the personal standards and conduct of members of the government, I would think they must have been "hopped-up" when they advised His Excellency the Governor General with regard to this speech.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the language used in the Speech from the Throne is so pompous that I am wondering if it was not an attempt to conceal the sad truth behind verbose oratory. The speech was designed to drown us in words, slogans and platitudes.
There were surely worthwhile efforts made in this regard, but if this time the rhetoric is fascinating, we will nevertheless look into the substance of the speech and what we find there is incredible self-indulgence.

For example, Mr. Speaker, I shall quote again:
Let us recognize with pride and with modesty what so many strangers admire and see in us:
I think, Mr. Speaker, some of those fellows opposite must have been spending too much time watching the "Forsyte Saga".
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
I shall not go on and take the time to speculate concerning what these gawking strangers admire. I am sure there are many things, including the patience of the Canadian people confronted with such fatuity, such pomposity and such foolishness. But I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that the government did, quite unintentionally no doubt, liven up the speech quite a bit with such sparks of unintended humour and unpremeditated wit. But, when a government has aged as quickly as this one has, it is rather cruel to laugh.
The first reaction I had on reading the Speech from the Throne was that it must have been written by somebody who had received a Canada Council grant, but I very quickly came to the conclusion that the scale of asininity far surpassed anything that a Canada Council grant could possibly produce. Only an organization operating on the scale of the Prime Ministers' office could produce asininity on such a massive scale. I do not wish to sound ungrateful, sir, because this Speech from the Throne will long be treasured by those who appreciate absurdity on a grand scale. I am sure it surpasses anything in the past, and I am reasonably confident that we shall never see its like again.
[DOT] (12 noon)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Barring one.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Obviously, it was the work of a superlatively organized team, the greatest collection of fatuous, pompous and sententious writers ever assembled in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Of course, no personal offence is meant.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They seem to be getting stirred up a little. We have not really started yet.
Complacent in its language, the Speech is also complacent as to substance. It brushes off most contemptuously not only unemployment but the very thing the government is claiming to be fighting, inflation. The fight is virtually won in the latter case, it suggests, and as for unemployment, it does not seem to matter very much because as long as people are out of work this kindly government suggests it will look after them. Personally, I find this attitude worse than unacceptable; it is arrogant and it is cold. The complacency does not stop here, it runs through the speech like a thread.
I suggest that probably nowhere is there greater complacency expressed than with regard to agriculture. So far as fisheries are concerned, no doubt some of my colleagues will have something to say on the matter, but I doubt the subject is even mentioned. So far as agriculture is concerned the government says that the problem has been largely solved. There has been some improvement in the west; enough, I think to give some confi-

October 9, 1970
The Address-Mr. Stanfield dence in the future, confidence that certainly the government was lacking last spring and last winter. There has been some progress through diversification, and farmers in the west deserve a great deal of credit for the way in which they have diversified. Recently, I was able to stay on a large grain farm-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A substantial number of farmers are not growing any wheat other than durum and great efforts are being made to diversify, but the situation on farms throughout the west in general is very difficult. The problems are far from over and the cash position is most unsatisfactory. For the government to create the impression in the country at large that the western agricultural problems are largely solved, I suggest, is irresponsible.
As to the speech itself, it proposes some legislation, largely legislation we had in the last session. I hope it is vastly improved, and if it is sensible and positive it will certainly receive full co-operation from this side of the House.
Certainly the government made at least one serious slip in the Speech from the Throne. At one point, in a moment of honesty or perhaps forgetfulness, the speech referred to "the distant ideal of a just society".


George Harris Hees: It is getting more distant every day.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is what the government says it has been giving. I thought during the last couple of years that was the slogan. It seems that by its own admission the further the government moves in its chosen direction, assuming it has one, the farther the goal recedes from view.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is an indication of the achievements of this government. It marches boldly ahead to the sound of its own slogans in no particular direction. But that does not matter. As long as the slogans, of which the just society is the main one, and the pretentious declarations are still there to roll off the tongue, then all is well. It is not a battle against real problems; it is the sententious verbalizing, the glorious preparations, the bands, the parades, the cheers of the faithful, those are the things that count. The government accepts the task in its own style.
We were supposed to get a couple of years of housecleaning, of thinking and of white papers, and then a lot of action. A science policy is pretty important in a modern nation. Here we are, more than two years since the election, with no science policy. We heard the declaration that the government will consider carefully the recommendations of the Senate Committee on science policy and the Science Council of Canada. That certainly shows some profound thinking and some courage.
As to the use of drugs, which is a growing problem, again the government says that we will have to consider 
carefully the recommendations in the report of the LeDain Commission. Obviously, nothing has been done in this area. As to the abortion, we are going to have a day's debate on it.
We are still being promised white papers, and we cannot even get those in time. Last year we got a couple of dillies: one on tax reform and one on foreign policy. Can you imagine any government spending two years on producing a white paper on foreign policy? Now, when we are supposed to be past the era of white papers and entering the era of action we are promised white papers on communications, citizenship, immigration, national defence, and income security. Last year we were promised seven white papers and we got three. This year the same old white papers are promised, but, ones on immigration and communications have been added. Does communication mean the Post Office? If it does, we were promised a white paper on the Post Office last year. But I can readily understand that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) might ask the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) to produce a white paper on communications. It will be a relatively harmless occupation in which to indulge I think.
Here we are more than two years after the election during which the Prime Minister of Canada invited Canadians to come with him. Where has he led them? He has led them further away from the just society. I say that in the past two years this government has dissipated the spirit of 1967. Constitutional reform is not even mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, although last year it was emphasized and so was the importance which the government attached to it. This was the big appeal in 1968. We would have an entrenched bill of rights. Since then we have had failure. I think it is fair to say that in the area of constitutional discussion no progress has been made, with the exception of some assurance with regard to regional disparity. You would think from the speech we heard yesterday that no constitutional problems existed in this country and that no tensions existed. Is this the view of the government? After the Quebec provincial election many Canadians felt that the problem of the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada was settled, and that it could be forgotten. Is that the view the government of Canada is encouraging, in spite of an election in which 23 per cent of those who voted supported a party dedicated to the cause of separatism?
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They could not vote for the Conservative party.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No, they could not vote for the Conservatives, and I hope those people don't start voting Conservative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since then we have had another federal-provincial conference with no visible progress, at least no progress visible to the naked eye. Recently, the Prime Minister of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, who had previously been emphasizing the importance of creating jobs, and I
October 9, 1970

am sure is still emphasizing this, nevertheless gave up his portfolio as minister of finance, or provincial treasurer, in order to be able to devote more time to constitutional questions. To me this indicates he attaches an increasing urgency to this matter. But does the Prime Minister of Canada, and do the members of his government? After yesterday I get the impression that the Prime Minister wants to drop the constitutional question.
In terms of tension, we have gone through a period of turbulence. Are we now in the eye of the storm? Have we been in the eye of the storm for the last two or three months? Mr. Speaker, I suggest-and I know I have heard the Prime Minister of Quebec say this-that we have a limited amount of time. But there is no new approach suggested in this Speech from the Throne. The question is not even mentioned.
I was interested to see the Prime Minister of Quebec raise a question that was discussed a number of years ago, one that used to be actively sponsored by my predecessor in Nova Scotia, a famous Liberal, the late Angus L. MacDonald. I refer to the question of delegation of powers. Mr. Bourassa said:
Within the range of discussions pertaining to a new distribution of legislative competence I further suggest that we examine most attentively the possibility of including in the revised constitution a clause to allow delegation of legislative powers between the two orders of government.
He went on to mention the advantages that this might have, allowing flexibility in rigid distribution of powers, correction of judicial interpretation, the elaboration of programs on a regional basis, and the fact that provisions like this exist in other federal constitutions.
I think this proposal should be considered, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know whether it is the intention of the Prime Minister to pursue this kind of course that might lead to some flexibility. I think it ought to be examined.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we believe that the constitution can be amended, and we are of the opinion that this should be done in a climate of mutual understanding between the provinces and their peoples. We cannot forecast with any accuracy what the final solutions will be. In the meantime, we owe it to ourselves and we owe it to the whole country to pursue our effort in order to find pragmatic solutions in the special fields with which we are concerned: pollution, urban problems and others. We have no wish to interfere with provincial jurisdiction, but, we feel that, at all levels of government, co-operation is possible.

I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that in constitutional terms regional disparity is one of the few areas of progress. But in terms of the just society what has happened? The minister concerned has introduced some new concepts, such as growth centres. I think the government is not applying them too rigidly, but the Speech from the Throne said yesterday that we now see signs of results. I say, Sir, that regional disparity has deepened, deepened because of the general slowdown in the country, which is always particularly hard on areas of slow growth.
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
You cannot effectively fight against regional disparity while at the same time there exists an economic slowdown and substantial unemployment across the country. This cannot be done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The situation, unfortunately, is worse than it was two years ago. In this respect again we are further away from the just society than we were.
Unemployment figures do not show the whole story because strikingly enough, Sir, during last winter and spring when the population of those over 14 years had very substantially increased in the Atlantic provinces the number in the working force had actually decreased, indicating that a very substantial number of people were not even thinking it worthwhile to apply for work.
We need a fully co-ordinated attack on regional disparity in a context of national growth. We have not got it, and there does not seem to have been any recognition by the government that the two are related.
As to the economy generally, after two years of this government again we are further away than ever from the just society. May I quote the Speech from the Throne:
It would be irresponsible to suggest that the economy is now in a satisfactory condition.


George Harris Hees: That is the understatement of the year.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, consider the kind of strange, twisted minds that would believe it necessary to make a remark like that, with nearly 7 per cent of the work force of the country, seasonally adjusted, out of work. Further, The Economic Council of Canada has told us time after time that we need an annual rate of growth of something like 5 per cent in order to provide a satisfactory level of employment in the country, yet we know the economy of the country is virtually stagnant.
Growth is important. It is essential in the first place to maintain satisfactory employment and to provide opportunities to an expanding work force. But now, for the second year in a row, our rate of growth has fallen away below the rate of growth recommended by the Economic Council of Canada as essential for any satisfactory employment position. What is the government's attitude? As far as we can tell from the Speech from the Throne it does not matter much. The speech says something to the effect that "we will take care of it."
Secondly, dealing with poverty, Mr. Speaker, we are further away from the just society than we were two years ago. Poverty is wasteful economically. It has been deepened by the increasing number of hard core unemployed. We will have to see what the government means by income security when we see its measures.
Thirdly, consider the position of youth, of young Canadians, in relation to a just society. They are far worse off than two years ago. Think of their difficulties, the difficulties they face in securing employment when they leave school or college, or even when they are

October 9, 1970
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
trying to stay in school or college. Think of the cost of this to the individuals concerned, and think of the loss to the nation.
Then, there is the cost to government treasuries involved in a long period of slow growth such as this government has encouraged. Think of governments trying to meet the increasing costs of programs in areas of education, health and welfare, with their revenues levelling off as a result of stagnation in the economy.
There has been a lot of concern expressed about the rising costs of these programs. We ought to be equally concerned because the level of revenues is falling off, creating further pressures upon these governments to increase their taxes, or to provide inferior service in important areas such as education. The longer this shortfall continues, the longer we have this relative stagnation in our economy with its affect on unemployment and with its affect on government revenues, the more serious the difficulties become, and yet we have no recognition on the part of the government, in the Speech from the Throne, of these difficulties. This is irresponsible, Sir. Our present situation is the result of deliberate government policies. Relative economic stagnation with unemployment at nearly 7 per cent is the result of deliberately adopted government policies.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
In 1968 the Prime Minister said to the people "Come with me". Where has he led them? He has led a lot of them into misery, yet the Speech from the Throne says that in recent months the unemployment rate has not increased significantly. That is not true. That is as complacent a statement as it would have been if it had been true. All this is being done in the name of fighting inflation, yet we have the highest rate of unemployment in the developed world.
The government seems to be happy because international bankers tell them to keep it up. The government is going around saying this is all the fault of the unions and business. The Prime Minister says he is a friend of the little man; some friend, Mr. Speaker. He is some friend to young Canadians looking for work and some friend to older Canadians trying to live on fixed incomes.
This is the modern outlook. This is the outlook of this modern, sophisticated, computerized government. We have 7 per cent unemployment. Is this to continue?
Does the government intend to maintain this slack in the economy? There is no real indication in the Speech from the Throne as to what its plans are. I said in 1967, when I entered this House, that to fight inflation by the deliberate creation of unemployment is inhuman and unacceptable. I say it again and I emphasize it. I deplore the cold-blooded acceptance of the situation by the government of the day. I say that unemployment insurance and income maintenance programs are no substitution for an adequate policy of employment. The government created this situation and the government can undo it. The government can correct it if it only has the will and the intention to do so.

No country in western Europe accepts the creation of unemployment as an acceptable method of fighting inflation. In Germany, for example, they have something like 4 per cent inflation but they have 700,000 unfilled jobs.', The amount of unemployment that exists in Canada today is not necessary, and it certainly is not the view of the Organization for Economic Development that this is the appropriate approach. The Economist has repeated time and time again that a policy of deliberately running the economy for a long period of time below its potential just will not work. This unemployment cannot be justified. What is the policy today? Are restraints to continue? I want to make it very clear that I think an economic policy of some sort is necessary in support of monetary and fiscal policy. I have said this for several years. It is clear that it is difficult to work it out, and I admit that. It is very clear that such a policy cannot be imposed on the economy. It has to be worked out in co-operation. Consequently a persistent policy of taxation by the government upon the unions and business is making the adoption of an incomes policy in this country virtually impossible because the government continues to poison the atmosphere.
The importance of growth, of course, suggests debate on tax policy. I will not take the House through this. Again, the Prime Minister invited Canadian people to come with him in this area but fortunately few have been prepared to come. After nearly a full year of debate, at considerable cost and with a good deal of uncertainty, the House of Commons committee has in fact torn up the government's White Paper and thrown it back in the government's face. The report of the committee is, in effect, a new white paper adopting, I would say, some 80 per cent of the views we in this group have been expressing in the House.
The question now is, what does the government propose to do? The language of the committee is polite but there is no question about the review. Will the government listen and will the government heed? I ask again, will the government proceed immediately to give some income tax relief to Canadians with low incomes?
Speaking of the just society, what has been done for the quality of life in Canada? I have spoken about unemployment; I have spoken about poverty and I have spoken about youth. In all these areas, we are further away from the just society than we were two years ago. Housing is well below the need. The government's objective was one million homes in five years. We are running well below that at this time, yet what is the policy? We have seen it reported that the minister responsible is pleading with financial institutions in this country to put more money into housing. What sort of a policy is that? That is merely pleading. The government has used housing, as the Economic Council of Canada warned it should not do, to serve as an economic balance wheel. It has slowed things down and now the people are paying the price. The increasing shortage has increased the price of homes, and pushed up the cost of loans and made student accommodation scarce.
October 9, 1970

2?
We need some new approaches, none of which were hinted at in the Speech from the Throne. We need a removal of the 11 per cent tax on building materials for housing. We need active programs in conjunction with the provinces and cities to make more serviced lots available in order to bring down the price of lots. We need inducements, not pleas to lenders to put their money into housing. We need an active program.
Let me refer to urban problems. Here again, the best that one can say is that we have lost two years. I think the problem is worse than it was two years ago in terms of urban renewal and assistance to transportation. Again, we have had nothing much except talk as far as the government is concerned. I welcome the appointment of a minister in this area. If the government had been prepared to do this a couple of years ago, the minister who was then in charge might have been prepared to serve the government and push forward a policy. This approach has simply lapsed for the last two years, yet I cannot help but ask-as perhaps that same Member of Parliament is still asking-how much this statement in the Speech from the Throne really means.
One must go back to the statement made by the Prime Minister in this House in a debate on February 14, 1969, when he said:
Until the constitution is brought into the 20th century, governments are, to a large degree, powerless to solve the problems either by activity alone or in co-operation-
This statement was made during a debate in the House of Commons on urban affairs. To what extent, then, has the Prime Minister's mind really been opened, and to what extent will he really allow the new minister to tackle this problem of the cities with earnestness? We shall have to see.
As to environment generally, we still have no body in this country that is responsible for examining the effects of our total environment. To date, there has been no adequate co-ordination of antipollution efforts within federal services. I welcome the new department. We and many others have been advocating this new department and we hope it will enable the federal government to co-ordinate its own activities within this area of fighting pollution. There is still no suggestion of any adequate authority or mechanism to co-ordinate antipollution efforts throughout the country. There is no suggestion of any body which would have the overriding responsibility for surveying and advising on the protection of our total environment. The department is fine as far as it goes, but we also need an environmental council.
I realize that there are many who are very concerned about the deterioration of our environment but who would also consider the preservation of our environment inconsistent with our economic growth.
I certainly agree that we must not worship the gross national product and that we must have a higher objective than that. But I want to make it very clear that I believe we shall need continued economic growth for some time to come, at least if we are to tackle our problems of unemployment and poverty and if we are to finance the social plans we have adopted, the measures such as educational programs in which we are involved. This does not mean for a moment that we ought not to
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
be examining the environmental effects of certain forms of economic development and growth or, on the other hand, conducting certain forms of examination. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, there is no sign in the Speech from the Throne of any awareness of these problems. We need more than a department. We also need an organ to guarantee the preservation of the total environment in our country.
Sir, there are many other areas I could touch on, areas such as external affairs. Because of the white paper that was produced, probably the less said about that the better. Yet there is a question of great importance, of great concern to many Canadians, that I should like to touch on before sitting down. It is the question of Canadian sovereignty, the question of economic autonomy. What do Canadians want? I think Canadians want to have pride in themselves and in their country. They want to be sure that we have a government that is looking after the national interest, a government that is concerned with the interests of all Canadians taken as individuals and as Canadian citizens. I think we want a Canada that is friendly to the United States while keeping its distance. We want a country that intends to preserve its autonomy. What has the government done?
It has jumped from one position to another-at least, its ministers have. It has gone from insipid continental-ism to insulting attacks on the United States, and back again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It has gone from an apparently abject fear of the United States adverse reaction on declarations concerning Arctic sovereignty to rather petty squabbling in other spheres. This is a sign of weakness, not of strength. The government has floundered out of its depth on the question of the control of our economy. There are times when it seems to be saying that the question is not really important; but there are other times when one seems to be able to detect some concern on the part of the government. Once again we have a climate of uncertainty. We owe it to our respective investors, we owe it to our economy and, above all, we owe it to the Canadian people to dissipate this uncertainty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will not go through all the perambulations of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene). They are pretty well known. As for the Prime Minister, let me say this. When he took over the leadership of his party, it was generally understood that he had a very poor opinion of nationalism. The subject may be of no interest to him. I think it would interest the Canadian people to know what his views are on this question today. Certainly, there is very little in the Speech from the Throne which can give any indication.
What do we propose? I propose an approach based on realism and on the survival of all Canada. We need foreign investment, foreign technology and initiative in order to maintain our prosperity. Yet, surely we can reach a policy which protects the interests of our own country. What I am suggesting is that we need a flexible

October 9, 1970
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
approach, one that is sensible, one that is efficient and one that will preserve our autonomy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will go for that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It must be an essential priority for the Canadian government and this Parliament, after advice based on careful and continuing study-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Good.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -to decide-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -which are the industries-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Right.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and which are the sectors of our economy-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Sure.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -where Canadian ownership is vital-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Name them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and where it is less so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Good.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister asks me to name them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He may be quite content to talk off the top of his head. I am saying that this is a process that we should enter into carefully.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member has not done that yet.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And the decision should be made on the basis of careful and continuing study.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Good, good. Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is the only way we can escape from the present pattern of confusion-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is no confusion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and of potential injustice. It is not an easy task, but it must be done; otherwise, we shall continue to go blindly down the path to nowhere.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hurray.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am suggesting that we must adopt an approach based on the principle of the danger point. There are some areas of business enterprise in this country where I think the importance of Canadian control would be very limited indeed. There are others where, in all aspects, Canadian control would be regarded as vital as in, for example, the control of television and certain areas which have already been designated. There may be other such areas.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But the hon. member does not know what they are.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am suggesting a pattern we should follow. It is a procedure we must follow if we are to obtain a sensible result.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is suggesting a white paper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am suggesting that there are areas in which we need not be much concerned at all and that there are other areas in which we have to insist upon Canadian control.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But where are they?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is a third category, clearly-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Go on.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -where, without being exclusively Canadian, a strong Canadian presence is important. Examples of this, presumably, would be in the insurance business and financing business. The main thing is that we should move ahead. I suggest that this is an approach that would work. It would be a positive approach that would not discriminate. Certainly, it would not discriminate against the different regions of the country. There must be consultation and co-operation with the provinces. We must have an approach that allows us to indicate clearly what the policy is in the various sectors of our economy and we must avoid as much as we can in future the kind of retroactive decision we saw in the case of uranium.
The Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, asked me to name various industries. I would deplore it if anybody tried to stand up and categorize, on the basis of limited individual knowledge, what these industries are. What I am saying is that we should start the process. We should establish the mechanism to recommend carefully, after study and continuing study, what our attitude should be.


An hon. Member:: That means a white paper.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It does not mean a white paper. It means that we shall be moving in a tangible and concrete way towards this process.


An hon. Member:: No doubt a concrete paper is meant.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Surely, that is the only sensible way in which to proceed. The fact that the Throne Speech mentions uranium and nothing else in the matter of foreign ownership is illuminating. So far, the government has been reacting to existing situations. It is less than a poor excuse for policy; it is no policy at all.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is dishonest.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say that it is time the Prime Minister indicated to us what his general attitude is. It is time that we establish in an orderly way a continuing process of categorizing the various industries in this country. There is no other sensible way of proceeding. There is no sense in proceeding in terms of sweeping generalities. We must proceed pragmatically, and I think our approach would work.

October 9, 1970

In addition to the question of control in Canada, there is the question of the diversity of our trade which I think is just as important to our autonomy as the question of foreign ownership. If the great bulk of our foreign trade is with one customer, then our dependence on that customer, of course, has to be very substantial. The United States is an obvious market for many of our products, not only gas and oil from the west but many refinery and other products from the Atlantic provinces.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
In terms of diversification, have we really been trying? At the moment I think we are doing pretty well with the European Common Market. However, in recent years our exports to that market have been growing at about half the rate of growth of imports into the European Common Market. Despite the importance of this, the biggest importing market of the western world, we have had no ambassador in Brussells since February. There has been no ambassador to the Common Market since February.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has been to Europe. I get the impression, from reading dispatches, that the significance of the Common Market, particularly the enlarged Common Market, is now becoming somewhat apparent to him. He is becoming aware of what this means to the traditional concept of multilateralism, namely that if the countries of the outer seven enter the Common Market the developed world will consist of two or three large trading blocs. Outside of these blocs, there will be a few relatively small countries such as Canada and Australia. The world might look quite different with regard to trading.
The minister indicated he would be making a proposal before some international gathering of some concept of agreement between Britain and the European Common Market. The minister has not disclosed any details. I hope he will give us his conception of this in the near future because, in my opinion, time is running out. It is time that we established on the record where we stand with regard to the European Common Market and the methods we are going to use to protect our interests.
During the last two years we have moved farther away from the just society. The slogan of the travel agent is that half the fun is getting there. In this instance, most Canadians would have preferred to stay home. We have had the constitution, regional disparity, growing unemployment, deepening poverty, no science policy and a housing failure. Two years have been lost with regard to the urban problem. We are now getting started on the problem of pollution. As far as Canadian autonomy is concerned, the government has just been messing around. It is time the Prime Minister indicated which decision of "Jumping Joe" is really the position of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What we have been given in the Speech from the Throne is a grab-bag of thin proposals, ones left over from last year, plucked from other sources or areas
and which have been laying around waiting to be picked
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
up. It is important to note there is no hint of a general philosophy or a general pattern. If the government really did mean anything by its slogan of a just society, there should have been a precise, recognizable pattern. The government, if it has a direction, should tell the Canadian people what it is. It should fit its acts and decisions into that pattern, because surely that is what a just society means.
I think the just society slogan has now become, justice if necessary, but not necessarily justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We must recognize that the just society
is just a slogan.
This was the year that the government had promised to reveal itself after two years of housecleaning and thinking. It has revealed itself. It has revealed itself as largely devoid of constructive ideas. The just society slogan is revealed in its emptiness. As a Canadian citizen I am rather sorry, but at least the position of the government is now clear.
There was one quite unpremeditated touch of realism at the end of the Speech from the Throne and I quote:
We stand on the threshold of greatness.
At first, I thought that was just another pretentious statement but now I consider it was really a reference to the Progressive Conservative victory in the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In the Speech from the Throne the government has shown itself to be a fellowship of tinkerers who believe that the basic things have been done and that it must merely adjust a screw here, tighten a nut there, or something like that. I do not think we have yet reached that stage. I do not think the Canadian people believe that either.
We realize, even if the government does not, that there is a great deal to be done. There is a challenge for the Canadian people to build the kind of country that they want. To do so, the first challenge is to rid ourselves of this government. Canadians must get rid of the government so we can really get to work, not just on slogans but on changing the reality of Canada. I therefore, move that the following be added to the Address:
-but we respectfully regret that because of the indecision and failures of Your Excellency's advisers, the Just Society is now a "distant ideal".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I had a hunch the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) would not be completely enthusiastic with the Speech from the Throne. That hunch was justified this morning. He has spoken according to a traditional pattern, a feeling of being under obligation to disagree with everything in the Speech from the Throne, except perhaps with the Throne itself. I do not suspect him of downgrading the Monarchy or anything like that.
In his reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Leader of the Opposition was not entirely consistent and not funny throughout. It was better at the beginning than at
30

October 9, 1970
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
the end. The contradictions, Mr. Speaker, were about the only thing consistent in his speech.
First, we heard from the Leader of the Opposition that there was too much philosophy in the Speech from the Throne. Before he resumed his seat he complained that in the speech there was and I quote, "no general philosophy or recognizable pattern". The Leader of the Opposition does not want to see philosophy, then he would like to see philosophy, in the Speech from the Throne.
If we repeat anything that appeared in the last Speech from the Throne it is repetition, left-overs, and the Leader of the Opposition cannot agree with that. If we do not repeat things, for instance, our position on the constitution, then it is because we have lost interest in those things that we do not repeat them. If we do repeat them, we are guilty of repetition. It is a little difficult, Mr. Speaker, to completely satisfy a leader of the opposition. I realize that this is part of the rules of the game. The Leader of the Opposition is playing that game to the best of his ability. I am sure, with a certain amount of years of experience, he will learn to be quite a good Leader of the Opposition.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am told some of the opposition members do not agree with the statement I have just made. But there may be further meetings across the country, in secret or otherwise, to discuss the question. The place is not here.
I was scorned because, it was said, I am not a friend of the little man, as the Leader of the Opposition put it, but rather a friend of big business. A very few phrases later I was scorned because I was poisoning the atmosphere by attacking big business and big unions. So, on the one hand, I am too friendly toward big business while, on the other, I am not friendly enough and ruining the chances of having an incomes policy.


Gerald William Baldwin: Shows how inconsistent you are.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: These inconsistencies are really not very important because no one expects a leader of the opposition to agree with what is said in a Speech from the Throne. But it is sometimes expected that there will be constructive advice in some areas and that the hon. gentleman will use this important occasion to state some of the policies of his own party. I listened attentively to the scorn heaped on us for not solving the problem of foreign ownership, expecting this would be followed up by concrete proposals. But it was a disappointing performance. We on this side have said, through the offices of a minister reporting to cabinet, that we are in the process of trying to enunciate government policy in this important area in order to avoid a pragmatic or ad hoc approach. But we knew we did not have the support of the opposition on this. They have heaped scorn on our policy of using white papers or policy documents; they have always chided us for our studied approach and the long lead-time taken before we enunciate policy on any precise matters. We have confessed we cannot speak off the top of our head on such important subjects and that we

do not intend to lead the country to and fro according to the whims of the day. We want to have as good an enunciation as we can of our policy in this and other areas. So when the Leader of the Opposition chided us for our studied approach to this question of foreign ownership, I thought perhaps he would have finished his own studies and be in a position to say: We no longer need to study this matter; here is our solution.
We did get a number of phrases at that point, though, and no doubt they do represent good advice. I have some of the hon. gentleman's words here in quotes. After hearing him say that the government had no policy I expected that the Leader of the Opposition would tell us what he himself proposed. What he did propose was "a study", a "continuing study", certainly "nothing off the top of the head"; it would be "thought about in an orderly way"; it would be "a continuing process".


John Edward Broadbent: Sounds like the Liberal government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Indeed. It sounds like what we are saying we are doing-following an orderly process. There are certainly no grounds here for chiding the government for doing what the opposition says it is in the process of doing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am glad I have the agreement of the members of New Democratic party. I know they have some difficulty themselves in arriving at a policy on this question of foreign ownership. I understand they have an advantage of the Leader of the Opposition and ourselves inasmuch as they do not need to do any thinking about it. Mr. Watkins has done all the thinking. The trouble, of course, is that the party does not agree with Mr. Watkins and they are therefore in a dilemma which I do not envy them.


An hon. Member:: They must miss you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Either they reject Mr. Watkins, in which case it appears they, too, will have to embark on a series of studies and continuing studies, or they accept Mr. Watkins and not only the party falls apart but the union leadership ceases to support them. They are in a terrible jam.


Thomas Miller Bell: They are in the Senate, now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A member opposite suggests that some of them are in the Senate. I cannot promise that I shall be able to put all the friends of the New Democratic party into the Senate but if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is interested I shall perhaps save a place there for him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Absolutely no. I decline, absolutely.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At one o'clock the House took recess.
October 9, 1970



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, before the luncheon
adjournment I was able to disagree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on a certain number of points on which he had disagreed with us. However, 1 do want to say now that there is one point on which I wish to join him, and that is in his congratulatory comments to the two hon. members who distinguished themselves yesterday when they moved and seconded the resolution adopting His Excellency's address.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Each brought to the task the experience and outlook of his own region of the country. As well, however, they placed those views and points of opinion in the wider perspective of all Canada, a task which is required of each of us in this chamber.
The two hon. members bring to this debate a happy combination of backgrounds. Both took their seats in this House for the first time following the general election of 1968 and so bring a freshness of opinon to this debate. One is from a rural constituency in the Prairies, the other from a large metropolitan community in eastern Canada. One has pursued an agricultural life, the other has engaged in business. One is English-speaking, the mother tongue of the other is French. Between them, they represent and reflect much of what is Canada.
The hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) has shown his competence in this House through his active work and contributions to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and through his membership in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) has been a very active member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, a subject with which he acquainted me in delightful fashion when I had the opportunity to visit his farm a year ago.
I listened with interest to the speech earlier this morning of the Leader of the Opposition, and I should like to make a few comments on his participation. First, I most sincerely want to congratulate him on the very statesmanlike attitude which he displayed throughout his European tour this past summer. It was clear from the things he said last July in Europe that the hon. gentleman felt the same pride in Canada and its accomplishments as do all Canadians when they have the opportunity to look back upon their country from abroad.
Indeed, I had assumed, it appears now prematurely, that the hon. gentleman had gained some perspective in his outlook. It was clear, however, from his remarks this morning that all he gained this summer was a good dictionary.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I need another trip.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the hon. member might feel that I am unfair. I really tend to forget that the Leader of the Opposition has been involved in politics for so long-I choose the word "involved" deliberately; I would not
23226-3J
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
want to use the word "active" because it does not seem quite appropriate-that he can continue to talk in 1970 in Ottawa in the same terms and in the same tone as he employed 10 years ago in Halifax.
I wonder whether he will continue to display this magnificent stolidity throughout the next few years. If so, I am sure that the disappearance of the Progressive Conservative party as a relevant element in Canadian life will then be guaranteed. He may find that his party's platform is replaced by the well-known Dr. Marcuses, because the sum total of his speech this morning and his concluding words were really marcusian in nature: he concluded that the only thing that mattered was to throw out the government.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Pretty smart, I would say.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That shows the readings you have.


John Howard Lundrigan: Your readings are reflected in your writing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think one point is certain, and it is that Canada appears when looked at from abroad-I admit I sometimes have occasion to do this myself-to be not so much a magnificent expanse of geography or a cluster of surging cities; rather it appears as people. Canada is Canadians. The great strength of this country lies in the good nature, the good sense and the goodwill of her men and women. Often, when we see this country from far away, we realize this. We see Canada as others see us.
One of the most touching tributes which was given to our country in this respect was paid by Queen Juliana of the Netherlands, when she told her children that they would like Canadians because they smiled easily. I think that is a beautiful description of Canadians, and I am sure that if her children had been in the gallery this morning they would have smiled very easily.
If Canada's strength is in her people, her vigour is in the future toward which Canadians have turned instinctively for centuries. I personally do not share with any acuteness the sense of regret expressed by some commentators that Canadians pay insufficient heed to their past. The past we must understand and respect, but it is not to be worshipped. It is in the future that we shall find our greatness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Canada is a young country, and it is in the youth of our country that we seek our future. To the youth the past is of relatively little consequence: their lives are still to be lived.
A poet once wrote that "a land without ruins is a land without memories". Our lack of ruins is in some ways a tribute to our ability in the past to adapt to change.


An hon. Member:: As long as it is not the Tories.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The challenge today is not simply change; it is more the pace and the scale of that change.


John Howard Lundrigan: You are changing our traditions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can understand that the hon. member does not like being described as a ruin.

October 9, 1970
The Address-Mr. Trudeau


John Howard Lundrigan: That is correct.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He may escape that fate, but I cannot guarantee that he will not become a wreck if he stays where he is. I believe strongly that no country is better able to adapt to the present and to the future than is Canada, for no country is more fortunate in its basic attributes.

Space on a continental scale; a population which commands immense and near-empty territories, and to which is still unknown the almost universal anguish of overcrowding; natural resources so vast that their inventory is constantly swelling; an enormous economic potential; a very high standard of living; an invaluable asset linked to ethnic diversity and cultural pluralism; two official languages corresponding to two principal mentalities which are among the supreme expressions of western civilization; as the principal of national identity-federalism, the most evolved of political forms; a democratic regime guaranteed by a parliamentary system closely derived from a most admirable model; and peace and freedom. Because of all these goods, because of all these blessings, Canada stands as one of the most happy and enviable facts of the times. Because of all this, our country can be looked upon as a global environment, as an environment exceptionally favourable to the fullness of human development.
This has often been said. Nevertheless it is all the more seasonable to repeat it as too many among us are prone to consider such utterances as a litany of commonplaces unworthy of one's attention. On this solemn occasion, may all Canadians be incited to a renewed awareness of the riches and privileges by the virtue of which they have become such a fortunate people, and which constitute the living scene and the vital implements of their destiny. From either a collective or an individual point of view, no awareness of this kind can be decisive or final. In that connection, we must then have the courage and even the heroism to repeat ourselves. For our commitment to our country is the very style of our commitment to life. Let us all understand that Canada is not made up of a complaisant mass of data, but, rather, results from a priceless and demanding combination of providential gifts.
If Canada is a privileged fact, never has our country recognized itself as an accomplished fact. Knowledge of our national deficiencies and the obvious difficulties of the times protect us against such a dangerous illusion.
We are too young a nation and too enterprising a people to fall into the illusion of final accomplishment. Besides, our history, our very short history tells us that ever since its adventurous beginnings our country is in constant and rapid evolution. And today, vast regions of the Canadian territory are going through an accelerated humanization process, are beginning to acquire a political structure and are preparing themselves for a full identification with the national entity. Canada is in a continuous process of invention and it is as a steady and permanent enterprise that it must be understood.
The foundations and the elements of our country, and its prospects confer to the Canadian project a quality that is extremely stimulating and exciting. In accordance with the contemporary tendency to participation and collective action, all our fellow citizens should espouse eagerly the Canadian design, and get involved as fully as possible in its formulation and in its realization. This can be accomplished through the constant exercise of their right to criticize and demand through the free expression of their feelings and of their thinking to the legislators. A country is truly meaningful if it is the joint undertaking of the legislator and the citizen. Only then does a country become a fatherland.

To be vigorous and forward-looking is not enough to guarantee our future, however. We will be called upon to look upon it with imagination, to approach it with spirit, to plan for it with boldness. Daily problems will always be with us, but the government is not permitted the false luxury of concentrating only on the moment at hand. That opportunity, as was shown this morning, belongs to the Opposition. Governments must deal as best they can with current difficulties; they must discharge as well the responsibility of preparing for the future. This government accepts that responsibility. We shall continue to lay before Parliament the product of our planning. We seek a future over which Canadians will exercise some control, not a series of events by happenstance. Canadians have demonstrated in the past their disenchantment with governments which careened with uncertainty from one crisis to the next.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They cannot even get a crisis going in this government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Exciting as that erraticism might seem to those who are stimulated by the froth and foam of uncertainty, it is not the choice of Canadians. We are called upon to work toward a secure and independent Canada within a peaceful world; a Canada in which social justice and economic growth are norms which apply to the lives of men and women in all parts of this country; a Canada situated within a harmonious natural environment; a Canada in which all Canadians take pride because of the opportunities available to them to participate in its governance and to contribute to its unity. That kind of Canada, that kind of future, we believe in, Mr. Speaker, and we believe the Canadian people find it truly exciting.
The program of this government, Mr. Speaker, is designed to contribute to that kind of Canada. It is a program which is operative in all sectors of Canadian life-political, economic, social and cultural. Through a combination of white papers, of legislation, and of administrative acts, we are seeking to deal with the problems of the present at the same time that we anticipate and minimize those of the future. A good number of those activities have been revealed in the Speech from the Throne, others are contained in the list of legislation which has been tabled in this House. A few examples will reveal the breadth and the depth of our concern:
To improve and strengthen the climate of liberty and the tradition of a fair and just administration of the laws

October 9, 1970

of this land, we shall introduce provisions respecting bail and pre-trial detention, electronic eavesdropping, statutory instruments and the treatment of young offenders.
To assist the millions of Canadians who are consumers of goods, of services, of credit, there will be introduced measures which will permit them to know more accurately what they are getting for their money and to protect them against unfair and unscrupulous practices.
To enhance the position of members of the work force, we plan legislation which will raise the standards governing terms and conditions of employment in industries within federal jurisdiction, and to improve the quality of the collective bargaining process for the benefit of both labour and management there is legislation providing for a modern, legal framework for relations between them.
To reflect the growing belief within Canada that a rational program of income security is required, a white paper will be tabled shortly which will have a wide and, it is expected, profound impact on Canadians. Complementary to that paper and to the government's thesis that all Canadians should be assisted if need be to help themselves, that they should not be made responsible for economic difficulties over which they have no control, there will be introduced legislation to provide more and better benefits to those persons temporarily without employment. This legislation will place emphasis on assisting persons to become re-employed.
These are among the measures which we propose in order to create within Canada a better society for all Canadians, a society whose strength is derived from the individuals who live within it. For the well-being of those individuals-the men, the women, the youth-government must be concerned constantly and actively. The dignity and self-respect of every Canadian are necessary elements in the kind of Canada of which I speak. Should any of the ingredients of human dignity be absent, we must act. Fortunately, most of them are present in Canada-individual liberty, the several rights and freedoms spelled out in the Canadian Bill of Rights, equality of opportunity. Another ingredient, one that ranks with these but is more elusive of attainment, is the ability to maintain an adequate standard of living for oneself and one's dependants. Some are unable to maintain such a standard because of a lack of education or an absence of the skills necessary in today's world; others are unable to stretch their fixed incomes to meet the increased costs of necessities; still others are temporarily without employment through no fault of their own.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
We must understand the needs, and attempt to assist, persons in each of these categories. There is a personal tragedy whenever a person who seeks gainful employment is unable to find it. There is equal personal tragedy whenever the cost of living overtakes and passes the total income of any person. The tragedy in each case becomes the more keen if a contributing factor to the absence of work or the advance of inflation is the greed and over indulgence of other members of the community.
The government took the position a year ago, and was supported by the vast majority of Canadians, that inflation was harmful both to our present well being and to
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
our future economic growth. Reasonable price stability was a key economic goal. Everyone suffers, no one gains, from uncontrollable rise in the cost of living. Pensioners suffer, unorganized wage earners suffer, and by their own admission even the minority of Canadians suffer who form the membership of professional groups and labour unions. These latter are concerned about inflation, they say, yet they express their concern by raising their fees and by demanding higher wages. They are entitled to do so, they claim, so long as corporate profits remain high. This is their belief. They can claim higher wages and fees so long as corporate profits remain high. Since early 1969, however, profits have been falling markedly, and there are obvious limits to this process if we are not to damage the economy's ability to create new jobs in the future through productive investment. Consequently, we say that no one is entitled to take advantage of his fellow citizen. We saw that inflation must be attached with determination by all Canadians for the good of all Canadians.
To this, the Opposition replied with ridicule throughout the last session. At every increase in the cost of living index they trumpeted in this House and outside it as if this increase represented a triumph for their side. I doubt that it was a triumph for them; I know that it was no triumph for millions of Canadians. What do we hear from the Opposition now? What we hear is rather strange. What do we hear from them now that government policies have taken the wind out of the sails of inflation, now that the cost of living index has levelled off? What have they to say in reply to the fact that official OECD figures show that the Canadian struggle against inflation has been more effective than that of any other major industrialized country in the world?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What do they say? They say that we have devoted too much attention to inflation. They say that the price we pay for fighting it is worse than the evil of inflation, and they charge that the government favours unemployment. The kindest thing I can say about these comments is that they are stuff and nonsense.
This apparent readiness to sacrifice our newly achieved and still precarious price stability is surely a very shortsighted prescription for our present problem of unemployment. True, a linkage has been established by economists between the behaviour of prices and wages and the rate of unemployment. But it has also been shown that this trade-off is a short run phenomenon and that sacrificing price stability will not by itself aid in improving a country's long run employment situation. For this reason, the government rejects the argument that only by allowing inflation to run rampant can we reduce the rate of unemployment.
Instead, another less simplistic route must be followed. We on this side claim no magic formula, but we do promise honest attempts to meet the pressing problem of generating a sufficient number of new jobs, not only to absorb the record number of new entrants into the labour market but also to reduce gradually the distressingly high level of unemployment in many parts of the

October 9, 1970
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
country. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will have more to say on this subject when he participates in this debate.


Thomas Miller Bell: We can hardly wait.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, any government is responsible for a society and it assumes and exercises that responsibility according to certain principles, to a certain ideal that it has set for itself.
Now, if the ideal sought by the government is to establish a just society, it is because it believes that this should be the objective of any real democracy. Universal franchise, the equality of everyone before the law, which are the attributes of a democratic system, are obviously imbued with a spirit of justice. But those rights, however valuable they may be, are only illusive if they are not embodied in a still more basic right, which is, for the individual, the right to his vital self-development, according to his talents and capacities.
So when we talk about a "just society", we refer to a justice applied to the reality of every day life, embodied in the life of everyone. There is justice when everyone's essential needs are satisfied. This implies a reasonable access for all to the goods owned and produced by the country. Now, work is the normal mode of access to the goods on which life depends; it therefore cannot be disassociated from the right to live.
But since the state of the economy determines work possibilities, one of the primary expressions of the social philosophy of the government must be its economic policy.
Because of the rate of unemployment, the present economic situation can hardly be accepted; this we all know, Mr. Speaker. The difficult times we are going through exist throughout North America and, frankly, will probably persist for several more months. However, the steps we have already taken allow us to foresee increasing improvement during 1971.
As I have said, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will have the opportunity to outline what other measures the government is taking and intends to take to strengthen our economy. But that field is so vast and complex that there is no single solution or remedy. Above all, there are no quick and immediate solutions. At first sight, some solutions may seem annoying, when they are always intended to ensure in the nearest reasonable future the economic stability and expansion of the country, for the greatest benefit of all its citizens. May I repeat at this point, Mr. Speaker, that the first step that was imposed to us was the fight against an inflation which had become a threat to the whole economy. Courage was needed to take that step. But it has not prevented the government from being concerned all the time about the problem of unemployment, particularly in the less developed areas of the country. And this government did not remain indifferent to the daily distress of all of our fellow citizens who have been its victims.
We can rejoice today at seeing that the situation, far from deteriorating further, as it would undoubtedly have
had we not acted as we did, is beginning to be restored. So much so that owing to our incentive programmes to productivity, owing to our assistance programmes to industry in under-developed areas, the commercial situation being favourable, our exports this year reached an unprecedented volume and, next year, we shall experience a new prosperity leading to a marked decrease in unemployment.
The only true prosperity is that which is equitably shared. However elaborate the distribution, it could not be completed or maintained without the help of a tax reform.
In political economy, taxation is the immediate means for equity, the pre-eminent way of serving justice. For, owing to its taxation power, the state is basically a Tighter of wrongs. In fact, property spontaneously tends toward concentration and not distribution; in ordinary circumstances, the distribution never happens unless compulsion is exercised by public authority and endorsed by a majority of citizens. But prejudice due to uneven distribution of the national wealth changes in the course of time. Therefore, fiscal means should be modified accordingly, so that the balance of contributions might be adjusted as much as possible.
Public reaction to the proposals of the White Paper on tax reform was strong indeed. The purpose of that paper was precisely to prompt public opinion to express itself. On the other hand, a Senate committee and a House of Commons committee, appointed to study the White Paper proposals, have just turned in their reports. These reports, as well as the criticism voiced by the public, will be seriously considered. We are willing to amend certain proposals, those, for instance, that might, after consideration, prove detrimental to our industrial growth. This is what we did in the case of the mining industry.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of our action should be kept in mind. During a long debate which answered very well our expectations of an active democracy, several groups and many citizens defended their interests intelligently and vigorously. That is gratifying. It is now up to the government, bearing in mind the general interest of the citizens, to bring before the House some amendments to our tax system, which we feel would achieve the two-fold objective of ensuring a more equitable distribution of the tax burden and a high rate of economic growth, without which our society cannot develop.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)

A number of ministers will be speaking in this debate, Mr. Speaker, and they will deal in some detail with those areas within their responsibility. For my part this afternoon I should like to touch on only a few further matters. I do so because of the emphasis that the Leader of the Opposition has quite properly given to them. These areas of which I speak are of concern to Canadians and are, to a degree, products of the rapid changes which have been visited upon us in recent years. Some changes are wonderful in their promise; others bring bitterness in their wake. We should not assume, however, the results of change to be preordained. To guarantee beneficial conse-

October 9, 1970

quences, it is necessary that we plan and work; to prevent unwanted consequences, it is necessary that we plan and work.
I shall deal first with the environment. How many members of this House, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, have walked through the main entrance of this building over the years either accepting without question, or failing to notice, the words carved in the stone above the doorway? How many today could agree with the language employed there? The inscription reads:
The wholesome sea is at her gates; her gates both East and West.
Wholesome though those seas may have been when the sculptor was at work, the excesses of shipowners and operators, combined over the years with the complacency of public and government, have led to foul water, unfit in places for any but the lowest forms of life.
These are the kind of changes that must be resisted. Today, when we look to the seas at our gates, we gaze not in two but in three directions. Our third, northern, sea must not be permitted to lose its present wholesome state, and to that end legislation was introduced into this House last session. Hon. members on all sides accepted the necessity for and the wisdom of this legislation and passed it through the House in a rare display of unanimity. I am grateful to them for doing so. Steps are now necessary to contain and remove the conditions of pollution on our western and eastern gates, and legislation to that end will soon be introduced. The battle against pollution elsewhere than in our coastal waters is to be waged with increasing vigour and efficiency. The waging of that battle will be intensified by the new departmental structure mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.
The government will shortly be taking steps towards the establishment of a new department by assigning to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) the responsibilities and related elements of the public service which would permit him to take a broad ecological perspective in the discharge of his responsibilities, and in particular to take the lead in the enhancement of the quality of our environment.
A bill relating to the organization of the government will also be introduced shortly, proposing the establishment of a department concerned with renewable resources and environmental affairs which would have as its core the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, whose functions will be expanded to bring under the direction of a single minister the principal governmental activities relating to environmental quality in general, and pollution in particular.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: By transferring to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry elements of the meteorological branch of the Department of Transport and the general responsibilities related to air pollution of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the principal governmental activities relating to the fight against atmospheric pollution will be brought together within one department.
The transfer of the bulk of the water sector of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
transfer of the responsibility for the Canada Water Act from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry will combine under the direction of one minister and his department general responsibility for the development of our water resources and the more particular responsibility of the protection of the water habitat of our marine life.
Finally, the transfer of the Canadian Wildlife Service from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry will bring together in one department responsibility for our renewable resources including, notably, the related research activities required for the effective discharge of these responsibilities.
The establishment of the new department that Parliament will be asked to approve through the enactment of a government organization act will not result in the creation of a super agency to be responsible for all matters relating to the environment. The fight against the pollution of our environment is far beyond the capacity of one minister and his department. Indeed, it cannot be waged effectively by the federal government alone, or the provinces individually, or even just by Canada. It is a fight that must be waged by all ministers, all governments and all people.
There are many departments in the government which have and will continue to have important responsibilities for the preservation of the quality of our environment. These departments will co-operate with the proposed Department of the Environment which will have the principal tools to lead the fight against pollution and to help co-ordinate the efforts of others.
These transfers are not to be regarded simply as a re-tuning of the present apparatus. They are part of a carefully balanced, freshly designed effort for environmental protection.
It should be clear, however, Mr. Speaker, that when the Leader of the Opposition says, as he has, that the government hasn't done much in the way of the environmental control, that such statements do little more than contribute to pollution-noise pollution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps the hon. gentleman was elsewhere when the several statutes relating to the environment passed through this House last session.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about the million and a half tourists pouring raw sewage into the river at Banff?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Indeed, what about it!
A complementary aspect of environmental management is resource conservation. Both the present and future growth of our economy, as well as the preservation of our environment, emphasize the increasing importance to Canada of our energy and mineral resources. The responsibilities of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for the development of co-ordinated and comprehensive policies in these areas have become substantially greater in the last year or so. Indeed, the burden of the work which led to the presentation in the

October 9, 1970
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
House last session of the Canada Water Act was borne by that department. There is an inherent conflict of interests, however, Mr. Speaker, between those who are seeking the exploitation of non-renewable resources and those who are charged with the responsibility of protecting the environment. This conflict is not irreconcilable, nor is there anything evil in it. Nevertheless, the government is of the opinion that these differences are better debated and resolved by ministers in council and not by officials within a single department. For that reason, certain responsibilities have been transferred from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, as I mentioned a few moments ago.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The transfer will permit that department, which has been increasingly engaged in recent years in the formulation and administration of energy policies, to concentrate even more on this important work. Should additional strength and resources be required for it to meet the increasing challenge of this work, they will be provided as a matter of high priority. Our goal must be a national policy which will balance adequately our economic objectives and our environmental values.
I wish now to say something about the cities. Let me make crystal clear at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that the government is deeply conscious and aware of the constitutional responsibility and role of the provincial and municipal governments. Proposals of the federal government in the area of urban affairs should not be interpreted by the other levels of government as a desire or an intention to act other than within clearly defined federal jurisdiction.
Let me say as well that it is false to suggest that the federal government has not been active and welcome in the cities of this country for many years. More than 20 departments of the federal government are now present and engaged in the cities. And some of them are very active. In the field of low income housing, for example, 44 per cent of all the activity undertaken in Canada since 1950 has been achieved in the past two years.
The cities, Mr. Speaker, are as much a part of Canada, and as much a concern of the federal government, as is the countryside. The federal government is a partner with the provincial governments in this respect, and can in many instances perform in a catalytic role to assist in the attainment of agreed goals. The constitution gives to the provinces the responsibility for municipal government; it does not deny that city dwellers are as qualified to seek the assistance of the federal government in the solution of their problems as are rural dwellers.
This government has not been unaware of the need to offer more assistance to the cities, Mr. Speaker, as the housing statistics I mentioned a moment ago prove. Nor has it rushed into the cities like a bull into a china shop, as the opposition has urged us to do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Do you want to say something about it?


An hon. Member:: I have never heard anything like it. It's a lot of bull.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Mostly static.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You need a new scriptwriter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, I don't need a new scriptwriter, I need a better memory. I wish I could give the date when the Leader of the Opposition spoke so firmly of the need for this government to rush forth into the cities and do more. The next day he was disowned by the Premier of Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Didn't Ivan Head put that in the
speech for you?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, the NDP doesn't have this problem because they do not have to worry about getting elected.


An hon. Member:: That's just whistling in the dark.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The reorganization of our urban activities is the result of detailed consultation and planning with other levels of government. They will be directed by a minister whom we propose to designate as a minister of state, who intends to participate in this debate.
Ministers of state are a new concept, Mr. Speaker, and are intended to permit government more effectively to deal with modern conditions. The proposed legislation regarding governmental organization will contain provision for the creation by order in council of offices of ministers of state for designated purposes; they will have a status and a salary equal to a minister with a department. These ministers of state generally will be responsible for developing new and comprehensive federal policies in areas where the development of such policies is of particular urgency and importance. The mandates of these ministers will be of a temporary nature, of such a duration as to enable them to come to grips with the policy problems assigned to them. They will not generally have departments, but only relatively small secretariats with no program responsibilities. The new system will give to the Prime Minister more flexibility in assigning senior ministers to tackle important problems that require policy development.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, the legislation planned for this session flows naturally from the programs of the government in the past two years. Part of the legislation is an extension of our earnest belief in the need for rational, relevant criminal laws; part of it is a product of our affirmation of the need for a humane and sensitive, but stimulating and enterprising, social system, part of it is a desire for a burgeoning, well-distributed economy. All of it is a consequence of careful examination and preparation. Through the medium of white papers, we shall continue to reveal, to a degree unmatched by any previous Canadian government, our analysis of problems and our proposed solutions. We shall continue to offer legislation based upon those white papers. We shall do so in the belief that the people of Canada desire to participate in the preparation of sound policies; we shall do so undeterred by a Don Quixote racing across the land

October 9, 1970

from luncheon table to luncheon table vainly seeking confirmation that he has sighted a dragon.
We have been reminded in recent days that the violence which is now so familiar to so many countries is no stranger to Canada. We have seen evidence in Canada this past summer of challenges to some of our most cherished concepts. We have been told by some that the air that we have so long believed to be as free as any in the world, that the equality which we thought was so widespread in practice, that the simple tolerance and goodwill of one Canadian to another-that these beliefs and these criteria are misleading or false. We are challenged and we must respond. The response cannot be a forfeiture of our values, but it must include a sincere attempt to ensure that all Canadians have available to them effective avenues for social change and political action. It must include as well, however, an expression of our strong belief that liberty and anarchy are contradictory, that democracy and violence cannot co-exist, that our freedom is dependent upon wise restraints.
If Canadians are unable to pursue a system of peaceful resolution of problems, then what persons are? If we, who associate one with the other within a framework as flexible as is federalism, who are predisposed to tolerance, and who enjoy the benefits of linguistic and cultural differences-if we still depart from reason, then surely we are in no position to criticize other countries for their social difficulties.
I believe that we can profit from the knowledge that violence begets violence, that the experience of man demonstrates with blinding clarity that in a jungle all are not equal, but all are vulnerable.
Freedom and liberty are neither gained nor retained without cost. The cost takes the form of a burden which demands of us all the human elements of responsibility, trust and common sense-responsibility, because every Canadian is a participant in the democratic process; trust to promote reasonable, reasoned argument; common sense to enable us to see what is, and what is not possible and desirable.
In these respects, we here in this House have both the opportunity and the responsibility to demonstrate to all Canadians that in our common commitment to Canada and to the democratic process we are capable of producing enlightened debate and wise decisions. I look forward, Mr. Speaker, as I know do all hon. members, to a session which will bring distinction to this Parliament and to those who have the honour to sit within it, and which will contribute to a better Canada in a better world.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted, at the outset, to extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder, and to say that we all enjoyed the speeches made by the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas). I assure the hon. member for Assiniboia that I, and I hope many hon. Members of Parliament, will accept his invitation to return to Saskatchewan next year. The hon. member said that we might see the fields of waving grain. I was in the hon. member's
The Address-Mr. T. C. Douglas constituency this fall, and mostly I saw waving fields of summerfallow, some of which had been summerfallowed two years in succession because that is the only way those farmers could obtain the quotas which would enable them to sell the grain they had on hand. I must say that I could not find the same satisfaction with the government's policies or the same optimism for agriculture which the hon. member described in his speech yesterday.
I listened with interest to the Prime Minister's speech which, I thought, could have been entitled, "Canada as seen from the Caribbean, British Guiana and the Mediterranean." It was the usual elitest speech on Canada seen from the seats of affluence. That speech, Mr. Speaker, like the Speech from the Throne which I imagine came from the same author, was long on platitudes and short on policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
people in this country want programs and they are being given cliches and purple prose. In this Speech from the Throne, the government poses all the right questions but does not supply any of the answers.


An hon. Member:: Let us have them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
speech, for instance, says, ". . . a society which is not inspired by love and compassion is not worthy of the name." I suggest that love and compassion are meaningless sentiments unless they are expressed in social action based on social justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
Speech from the Throne states a great many problems but it offers very few solutions. For instance, it says, "It would be irresponsible to suggest that the economy is now in a satisfactory condition." Mr. Speaker, that can go down as the understatement of the year. The speech goes on to say, "When costs rise more rapidly than productivity, when men and women are unable to gain employment, when a reasonable distribution of the wealth of Canada is denied to certain sectors or regions, then these are matters for deep concern." Mr. Speaker, they are not only matters for deep concern; they are matters which call for immediate remedial action. There is nothing in the Speech from the Throne to indicate that some remedial action will be forthcoming.
The stagnant state of the economy and the consequences which flow from it is the No. 1 issue facing the Canadian people and there is nothing in this Speech from the Throne which even indicates that the government has any intention of taking steps to activate the economy and get it moving again. This document is full of perfumed rhetoric that speaks glowingly of desirable goals without delineating any plan for achieving them or any commitment for their realization. This is cheap soap opera psychology which dangles the vision of a just society before the eyes of the public and, at the same time, the govern-
38

October 9, 1970
The Address-Mr. T. C. Douglas ment is pursuing policies that will make our society less just, less equitable and less free.
The just society has now been reduced, in the Speech from the Throne, to "a distant ideal". The fact is, of course, that this government cannot build a just society because it is committed to operate within the framework of an economic system that is the antithesis of social justice and economic equity. This government is trapped in one of the glaring contradictions of our corporate controlled society. Never has this contradiction been so apparent as it is at the present time. There is a high level of economic activity throughout the western world. Canadian exports have reached an all-time high. Our balance of payments is favourable and our trade position with the United States shows the largest surplus in our history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: According to the economic theories propounded by the Liberal party for decades, these conditions should produce prosperity, economic growth and full employment.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And inflation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Instead, we find that unemployment in Canada is the highest in the western world. Unemployment in this country is at 6.7 per cent, seasonally adjusted. That only tells part of the story, because there are thousands of students who did not register and there are many people who got tired of going back to the manpower offices. Unemployment is even higher than statistics produced by the government would indicate. Moreover, our economic growth has now been reduced to almost zero and Canadian businessmen are experiencing a period of economic recession. Data for the last two months which is available, the months of June and July, shows that industrial production in this country has not only not increased, but that it has actually declined.
How does a Liberal government explain the anomaly of high exports and the favourable balance of trade with the unemployment and economic slowdown which is blighting the Canadian scene.
I suggest that there are two major reasons for this contradiction. First, the economic slump is due in part to the government's policies of fiscal and monetary restraint. The government has deliberately fostered an economic slowdown, under the euphemistic phrase "cooling off the economy" in its effort to check rising prices. Mr. Speaker, creating a recession in order to stop inflation is like cutting off your head to get rid of dandruff. Is the government telling the people of this country that Canadians must choose either unemployment or inflation? The Prime Minister this afternoon boasted that, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, we have done better with the problem of inflation than any other country has.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They do not say that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But, did he tell the House at the same time that the OECD has

pointed out that we have the highest rate of unemployment of any country in the western world? Is this the choice we have to face? Does this mean when the economy begins to move again we can once more anticipate a renewal of price increases and rising living costs? Does this mean that the government has forsaken the objectives set out in the Green Book Proposals at the end of World War II, when all Canadian governments committed themselves to a program of full employment and a high level of national income with attendant price stability?
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Five years ago the Economic Council of Canada outlined the targets which they thought were both realistic and essential. They were an economic growth rate of between 5J per cent and 6 per cent in constant dollar terms, unemployment at a rate not higher them 3 per cent per annum of the labour force, and price increases not greater than 2 per cent per annum. Has the government decided that these targets are unattainable? Are they reconciled to the proposition that when we have full employment we must have galloping inflation, and that when we have price stability we must go through the agonies of a recession?
The New Democratic Party has repeatedly requested the government to adopt measures to stimulate Canada's wealth production as the best means of raising living standards, creating jobs and providing adequate social security for all Canadians. We have discussed our proposals many times in the House and I will not go into them now. I will just enumerate them lest anyone should suggest we have not put them before the House. The five points are as follows:
1.	An expansionist program which would involve large scale investment in housing, urban renewal and other socially desirable projects such as construction of hospitals, recreational facilities and a major attack on pollution.
2.	Investment controls designed to direct our available capital into socially essential projects while postponing investment on the more prestigious and less essential undertakings.
3.	A redistribution of income by tax reforms which would transfer some of the tax burden from the lower and middle income groups to those corporations and individuals who, with the connivance of successive governments, have been able to evade their just responsibilities.
4.	If necessary, we are prepared to support price and income controls provided these measures apply to all forms of income such as prices, profits, interest rates and rents, and not merely to wages and salaries.
5.	Make our economy less susceptible to the inflationary pressures of the United States by using our very considerable natural resources to develop a viable industrial complex.
However, there is another major reason for the contradiction of employment and economic stagnation existing side by side with increased exports. The present economic slowdown is largely due to the imbalanced structure of our economy. More and more Canada is becoming an exporter of raw materials and an importer of finished
October 9, 1970

products. We ship out our raw materials such as lumber, iron ore, lead, copper, zinc, aluminum and pulp to be processed in other countries and then sold back to us in the form of manufactured goods. The effect of this is twofold. First of all, we are exporting jobs. The extraction industries have a high capital content but a low labour content. These industries are highly automated and are becoming more so. They will not provide enough jobs for the thousands of young Canadians with academic and technical training who are entering the labour market each year.
The second effect of our structural imbalance is the price differential between raw materials and finished products. Since the end of World War II the price of manufactured goods has risen much more sharply than the price of primary products. This explains the widening gap between the "have" and "have not" nations. Primary producing nations like Canada find themselves having to export more and more raw materials in order to pay for the manufactured goods they import. It follows that if Canada is to have full employment and a high level of national income, we must process more of our raw materials into finished or semi-finished goods rather than being content to be a nation composed of "hewers of wood and drawers of water".
The effect is that Canada is rapidly becoming an economic hinterland for the American industrial complex. According to the figures given in the House by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), United States corporations have secured almost complete control of our extraction industries. At the present time they own and control 82.6 per cent of the oil and gas-wells industry, 84.9 per cent of primary metal smelting and refining and 99.9 per cent of oil refining.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You were Premier of Saskatchewan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will discuss the province of Saskatchewan any time my hon. friend wishes. It is the only province in Canada that took its proven oil reserves and turned them over to the co-operatives so that the people could own the source of their own oil supply.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is something no Liberal government in Canada has ever done. If every other government in Canada had followed the same course, we would not now be completely at the mercy of the giant oil corporations of the United States. It should be remembered that these United States corporations did not invest in Canada as an act of Christian charity, but rather to assure a guaranteed supply of raw materials to feed the voracious appetite of American industry. I do not blame the Americans for seeking to guarantee their sources of supply, but I am concerned about what it is doing to Canada. These extraction industries provide less jobs per dollar invested and pay less taxes per dollar earned. The result is that we have to sell more and more raw materials to buy back the finished products. The government glories in the abundance of our exports, but the unbalanced structure of our economy
The Address-Mr. T. C. Douglas has left half a million Canadians without jobs and five million Canadians living on or below the poverty line.
Canadians will have to decide whether Canada is to be relegated to the same role as some of the Latin-American countries which exist almost solely as a source of raw material for the United States. If we accept this role we are locking Canada into the U.S. economy, and by doing so we condemn this country to permanent unemployment and continuing inflation. Having acquired control of our raw materials, the United States industrial complex now wants the energy resources with which to convert our raw materials into finished products which they can sell back to us at ever higher prices. Canada's energy policy is like 'the peace of the Lord which passeth all understanding."
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
We have vast quantities of coal, yet Canada is an importer of coal. We have huge reserves of oil, yet Canada is a net importer of oil. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has uttered brave words about keeping Canadian ownership of the uranium industry at 40 per cent, but the recent decision of Gulf Minerals to develop reserves in Saskatchewan is making a mockery of his words. In the past two years spokesmen for the United States government have been using the bait of increased access to the U.S. market for Canadian oil as a means of getting their hands on two commodities which they desperately need-natural gas and water. They have won the first battle and I predict that victory in the second will not be long in coming. Anyone who is led astray by the assurances of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) need only remember similar assurances which were given by the Liberal party and the Liberal government in 1963 before reversing itself to conclude the Columbia River agreement, which gave one of the largest rivers in Canada over to the complete control of vested interests in the United States.
As I said, the government has lost the first battle because it has approved the export of 6.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to the United States. I point out that this action was taken without any reference to Parliament and in the absence of any statement by the government regarding its long-term energy policy. The government has no coherent policy setting forth Canada's long-term energy needs, nor has it made clear how our vast energy resources are to be utilized for the benefit of the people of Canada. Instead, we are allowing our energy resources to be picked off one by one, with the Americans taking what they need while at the same time restricting their markets where it is to their advantage to do so. We of the NDP believe that the government's decision to allow the export of 6.3 trillion cubic feet of gas to the United States is contrary to the best interests of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In the
first place, it will increase the price to the Canadian consumer. Indeed, it has already had that effect in anticipation of the sale being approved. Prices in Canada will follow those on the American market. Moreover, if we
23226-4i

October 9, 1970
The Address-Mr. T. C. Douglas
sell the accessible gas to the United States, as we are doing, Canadians will have to depend increasingly upon gas produced in less accessible areas and the cost of the gas will consequently be much higher.
We are opposed to this decision because we believe that inadequate consideration has been given to Canada's long-term energy needs. Under the arrangements which the government have approved, Canada will be selling to the United States more than half our total gas production, and by 1990 we shall be selling two-thirds of our total gas production to the United States. The National Energy Board estimates that we are now supplying to the United States 3 per cent of its total consumption and that by 1990 we shall be supplying 15 per cent.
Of even more significance, the board estimates Canadian consumption per capita in 1990 to be at the same level as per capita consumption in the United States in 1975. In other words, the National Energy Board and the government seem perfectly prepared to see Canadian consumption per capita lag 15 years behind that of the United States, despite the fact that we were late in utilizing gas and that we have a cold climate. We believe that future Canadian long-term requirements have been grossly underestimated by the board. On the basis of a mere 10 per cent increase per annum

I believe the increase will amount to more than that-we shall have reached in 1981 the consumption which the board estimates for 1990.
The National Energy Board and the government have overlooked two important factors in estimating our longterm needs. First, they have overlooked the necessity for conversion to gas, particularly for the generating of electricity, bearing in mind that gas is the least polluting form of energy.


Jean-Luc Pepin: They have not overlooked it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
second is that a very large requirement for natural gas will exist in Canada if we are to embark upon a program of processing more of our own primary products in this country. The effect of the government's decision to approve this tremendous sale of natural gas to the United States is to tie Canada even more closely into the American economy; it is one more step in making Canada an economic dependency, a military satellite and a cultural colony of the United States. I tell the government that they may sit here in their ivory tower and toss about finespun theories, but the Canadian people are becoming alarmed at this situation, as is shown by the statements of one of the government's former ministers, Hon. Walter Gordon, and others, as well as by editorials appearing in newspapers and periodicals across the nation. I warn the government that the time will come very soon when the Canadian people will no longer allow a cynical and supine government to barter away our birthright in the name of continentalism.
We in the New Democratic Party believe that the first call on our energy resources should be the development of a viable Canadian industry which will convert our raw materials into processed and manufactured goods. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in a speech he was to have made in Portland, Oregon, on September 23, but which was read for him by his Parliamentary Secre-
C.fMr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Co.wichan-The Islands).]
tary, set forth two conditions for supplying the United States with natural gas: first, free access for Canada to the United States' market for Canadian oil and, second access to the United States' market for Canadian manufactured products. We did not get either of these concessions.
We do not object to selling to the United States any of our surplus energy resources, subject to two provisos. The first is that Canada's long-term needs as an expanding industrial nation have been fully taken into account, and the second is that we gain access to the United States market for Canadian semi-processed and finished products. Neither of those provisos has been met and the government has betrayed the best interests of the Canadian people by entering into an agreement which will perpetuate our economic dependence upon, and exploitation by, the United States.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We are good whipping boys.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In his
speech, the Prime Minister made reference repeatedly to the need for more planning. At times he suggested that we had not enough planning in Canada. That is not true; we do have planning. As a matter of fact, Canada has been the victim of corporate planning by United States-based multinational corporations. We have had planning, but it has been planning by and for corporations rather than planning for the well-being of all Canadians. Corporate power has been expanding steadily in our society. Corporations have been able to insulate themselves from the free forces of the market place. By setting administered prices they have virtually taxed the public on the consumer goods they buy in order to secure the necessary funds for their capital requirements, thus insulating themselves from the effects of any monetary policy the government may impose. These corporations control their sources of supply, set their own prices and by expensive advertising programs, influence consumer buying patterns.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The effect of this corporate domination is all too evident in our society. It sets the social priorities, with the result that we have a superabundance of private goods but a famine in public goods. We are able to spend $1.2 billion a year in advertising, but we lack the funds to combat pollution effectively. Commercial construction is up, but the building of houses for low and middle income groups is down. Money can be found for prestigious office buildings and high-rise apartments, for a third supermarket in each shopping centre and for a fourth gas station at each street corner, but money is lacking for public housing, nursing homes for the aged and schools for the mentally retarded.
The Speech from the Throne calls for "a society in which life is measured in qualitative, not quantitative, terms". This is unmitigated hypocrisy when the Canadian people have to endure the pollution of their atmosphere, water and soil, and the government sits supinely by when the financial institutions ignore their pleas for larger investment in residential housing.
October 9, 1970

The New Democratic Party believes that planning must be public rather than corporate, and must be subject to the control of the people through their elected representatives. We must establish priorities that will make more effective use of our nation's resources, so as to create a viable industrial economy, increase our wealth production and provide employment opportunities for our people. We must not only share the benefits of increased production with all sectors of our population; we must also insist that the tax burden of this country be imposed on a more equitable basis. Under the guise of promoting economic growth, the government-particularly its members on the Finance Committee-are seeking to ease the burden on the corporate sector at the expense of the salary and wage earners of Canada.
If this country is ever to enjoy economic independence, then the decision-making power in our economy must be restored to the Canadian people and exercised by their government. Up until now the government has been content to allow the major decisions affecting the lives of all Canadians to be made in the boardrooms of foreign corporations. The time has come when that decision-making power must be transferred back to Canada, for if it is not we face the loss of Canadian sovereignty. At the accelerated rate of American takeovers we have only a few years left. The challenge which faces this government is to act boldly and to act now.


An hon. Member:: Sounds like the Wafflers.


Mr. Gillespie:: Is this the Waffle group?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I interpolate to say that the subject I have been discussing should be of great interest to the two members who have just regrettably interrupted me. I shall be glad to listen to their views, and I hope they will be as courageous in the House as they have been outside the House.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words: "and we regret, in particular, the government's failure (1) to deal effectively with the threat to Canadian independence created by the growing foreign ownership of our economy; (2) to provide policies to reduce the high rate of unemployment, which is now expected to reach disastrous levels this winter; and (3) to introduce a guaranteed income below which no Canadian family will be allowed to fall, so as to eradicate the poverty which now afflicts at least five million Canadians."
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we have to deal with four different items: the Speech from the Throne, the Address in Reply, the amendment proposed by the Conservatives and the one moved by the New Democratic Party.
Before discussing the proposed amendments, I first wish to congratulate warmly the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne
The Address-Mr. Caouette
(Mr. Trudel and Mr. A. B. Douglas) as they have made superhuman efforts to camouflage the commonplaces and platitudes contained in the Speech from the Throne and to give a high lustre to the intentions expressed by the Liberal government in the speech which was read yesterday by His Excellency the Governor General.
As regards the authors of the Speech from the Throne, the government advisers, they deserve little recognition as they only arouse feelings of wretchedness and disappointment.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said a moment ago that our standard of living was among the highest in the world, then, in a subsequent sentence, he deplored the great difficulties facing several sectors of the Canadian economy.
True, the authors of the Throne Speech have succeeded in reaching pathetic heights by using the same old phrases, already heard hundreds of times, the better to put the people to sleep.
When, for example, we find in the Throne Speech, words such as the following, and I quote:
-Canada continues to enjoy social stability to an exceptional degree-
We truly wonder whether government advisers have eyes to see with and ears to hear with.
It is truly pitiful to hear the government say that Canada enjoys social stability to an exceptional degree when, at the present time, all the country's police forces are searching for those who kidnapped a British commercial attache and whose ambition is neither more nor less than to overthrow, through murder, assassination, force and blackmail, all forms of established power in short to have the revolutionary forces prevail and destroy values cherished by all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we had only to hear the famous FLQ manifesto, broadcasted last night by the CBC and which was reproduced in full in today's Montreal-Matin to become aware that in the Canadian metropolis, where complete social stability exists, there are heartless people and cowards who are ready to kill in order to serve their revolutionary purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that Canada is enjoying social stability to an exceptional degree when we are seeing at home what has happened in Algeria, South America and in some other countries over the past 25, 30 or 50 years if we refer to Russia as a basic example. When we witness these people proclaim in their manifesto the freedom to take freedom away from others-this is their entire and complete program-or blame industry and those who show initiative-we might ask those young, or not so young, people what prevents them from establishing industries in their country, Canada, if they really love it. I have no pity at all for those who resort to blackmail and harm people who never did them any wrong.
Mr. Speaker, the only argument that the government advisers can put forward to suggest that Canada enjoys an exceptional social stability, is that they probably had in mind the social stability which allows big finance to crush the Canadian economy and to deprive most Canadians citizens of a higher standard of living that

October 9, 1970
The Address-Mr. Caouette
would ensure them a better use and distribution of our national wealth.
It is all very well to suggest that Canada enjoys the highest standard of living in the world, the unemployed and the large families who live on welfare find this is not so. That is the kind of stability that we know.
There is another exceptional sentence, a flash of genius from the government's advisers in the Speech from the Throne, which reads as follows:
The conviction is growing throughout the world that if man is to survive he must strive without delay to regulate his future. This is a task which presupposes a fullness of freedom and an extensive field of human experience.
What does that mean exactly? A fullness of freedom, what is it? An extensive field of human experience, what does that mean?
According to the government, would a fullness of freedom mean making the laws on abortion even more liberal, as suggested in the Speech from the Throne? If it is such a parody of freedom the government has to offer, we of the Ralliement Creditiste will continue to fight the Liberals' proposals on abortion, just as we did during the first session.
One of the last sentences of the Speech from the Throne is typical of the present government's attitude of Liberal promises over the years:
"We stand on the threshold of greatness".
How exhilarating! We stand on the threshold of greatness! That calls to mind the rhetoric of the Hon. Jean Lesage in Quebec in 1960. We stand on the threshold of the just society! The Liberals have been promising us that greatness for years. The Liberals, along with the Rt. hon. Prime Minister, promised us the just society to which all Canadians aspire. But they now admit that they were unable to give us this greatness and this just society. We still are at the threshold of a just society and of greatness.
Mr. Speaker, what should we do to attain this just society and this greatness?
The Speech from the Throne is quite clear on this point:
We must accept.. .that the most drastic reality is change.
To us this is the most significant sentence in the Speech from the Throne.
In my opinion, what needs to be changed first is the present government, and it will not do simply to put in its place the party on the other side, a Progressive Conservative government, because we have had one before and we were not better off. There is no difference between a Conservative and a Liberal apart from the fact that-as a Conservative put it on a television program-one is blue and the other is red.
The Liberal administration of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent was replaced by the Conservative administration of the Right Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker). The Conservative administrations were replaced by the Liberal ones of the Right Hon. Mr. Pearson and of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
We have changed only the driver of the cart pulled by a tired old horse whereas it is not the driver but the cart
and the tired old horse which should be traded in for a modern car with a powerful engine.
This is what has to be changed. In other words, it is not the fact that we have a new driver or a new government that is essential to the economic and social development of the Canadian people, but rather the fact that we have a new engine, or, still better, a new financial system since the one now in use renders our resources barren, freezes them, taps them and turns them to its advantage.
Mr. Speaker, I am not the one who is responsible for this situation. It has been completely brought about by those who run the show. A federal-provincial conference was held here in Ottawa a few weeks ago. The ten premiers of Canada, along with the Prime Minister of Canada, got together to tackle certain problems. The constitution was discussed. Has it changed anything? No. The premiers did not know exactly what to put forward as amendments to the constitution.
The premier of Quebec said that roughly 50 or 60 per cent of the present constitution needs to be amended, but that they did not know exactly what to amend.
The Prime Minister of Canada tells us on television: We have made progress. The ten provincial premiers tell us: We have made progress. Progress where? Nobody knows. In what area have we achieved progress? God knows, but as for ourselves, we do not know.
However, all spoke to the Prime Minister of Canada of a common concern. In fact, British Columbia asked for an extra $500 billion a year; the province of Quebec is asking that the constitution be amended in order to get a bigger share of tax revenue. The NDP government of Manitoba wants the same thing. Without exception, all have financial problems, and they have all told the Prime Minister of Canada so. The Prime Minister, who has his own way of saying things, in his own style of reply, told them: Gentlemen, I am happy to see you. You are short of money and I appreciate your position. It is unfortunate, but I have no money either. The only means I have to find money, is to get it out of the Canadian citizens' pockets. We administer with the revenue we have.
The premiers left for their respective provinces saying: Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister, we understand that you are as "broke" as we are. You have no other means than we have.
And yet, the Prime Minister is conversant with constitutional law. He understands the Canadian constitution, and he knew it thoroughly even as a young CCF supporter in 1940, 1941, 1942. In fact, he remembers that time so well that he has just appointed an eminent member of the NDP to the Senate. Incidentally, he has not forgotten to appoint the former premier of Alberta, Mr. Manning, a Creditist.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is still room for you.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada is crafty; he is polluting Canadian politics by using the other parties in an attempt to surround himself with a somewhat sensible entourage.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is still room for you!

October 9, 1970


David Réal Caouette: I thank the Prime Minister for his kindness towards me but, as a Creditist, Mr. Speaker, I would refuse the post even if the Prime Minister were to offer it to me because we have far more important work to do here in the house of Commons. Besides, the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: I am happy to see my colleague for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) applaud. He calls for the abolition of the Senate yet he has not said a word against the appointment of his friends from the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Speaker, one can check by looking at subsections 14, 15 and 16 of section 91 of the British North America Act to see whether the Prime Minister is right when he says to the provincial premiers: Gentlemen, there is but one means available to us to secure the funds we need, it is taxation? We must get it in the pockets of the taxpayers.
-the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next herein-after enumerated; that is to say,-
I now quote subsections 14, 15 and 16:
14.	Currency and Coinage.
15.	Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money.
So this is something else than going through the pockets of the Canadian taxpayers,
I now quote subsection 16;
16.	Savings Banks.
But the central government has the power to legislate on monetary as well as fiscal matters. And the Prime Minister say, as he did earlier, that revised taxation will help us solve our problems.
Nonsense! Last year's Throne Speech referred to White Papers-it was a White Paper session. This year, White Papers are again mentioned in every possible way, along with those on taxation, unemployment insurance, social security and economic growth.
The Prime Minister is talking about fiscal reforms as a means to achieve justice. What kind of justice? As the Prime Minister said on television not so long ago: It is a matter of taking from the haves to give to the have-nots. Is that justice?
The Prime Minister may believe that, but if we discourage personal initiative, if we stifle personal ambition, we will end up like many other countries in the world: we will lose our economic vitality, our enthusiams to create or organize.
The Prime Minister knows that. His policy consists in taking away from some people to give to others. Nonsense, Mr. Speaker! That way, as was stated in English:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)

By taking away something from those who have and giving something to those who have not, we will end by having all kinds of people who have nothing and no more people who have something.
The Address-Mr. Caouette

We know that our national production could be increased-the Right Hon. Prime Minister said so himself-if all our 600,000 unemployed were put to work.
In Canada there is enough wealth for all people without depriving anyone. But how hard it is to make people understand this! We do not understand it, neither do the provmcal premiers. They come to Ottawa begging and Ottawa says no. This is the reply they received at the federal-provincial conferences in February and in June. When other similar conferences are held, the Prime Minister will once more say to the premiers: "Gentlemen, we have no money, that is the trouble."
Although it is stated in the Throne Speech that the third session of the 28th Parliament commences in the decade of the seventies, a decade which we dare not assume will be a continuation of the past, there will be no change and no progress as long as the present financial monopoly remains in the hands of a few hoarders who manage money and credit to their own advantage, without giving any thought to the real producers of wealth, that is the contractors, the manufacturers and the workers of Canada.
The great change that is needed, the grand change that the political men of this decade must bring about, the reform to be undertaken, the most urgent reform, because it is a prerequisite of all other reforms, is monetary reform.
The Prime Minister may introduce tax reforms, dozens and hundreds of White Papers, but, as long as the monetary system has not been improved, neither him, nor this government, nor the opposition nor the New Democratic Party will be able to change anything whatever in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: In the Speech from the Throne the government recognizes that we are entering a new era where prevailing forces tend to modify past values and positions, that this conflict between new values and those of former years lead to frustration for present generations who refuse to question the old financial assumptions and system and that the rising generations will not accept the yoke of the financial system which prevent all economic and social progress, in short social justice.
Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that the first reform to undertake has to do with the financial system and not with taxation. The first change, the most pressing one is the present monetary system.
The proof of what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, lies in the list of the bills mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, and I quote:
1.	A bill to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
Grants are needed so that the companies can operate gold mines, and let us note that it is necessary. It is a financial measure. I go on with the quotation:
2.	A bill to amend the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act.
3.	A bill to amend the Small Business Loans Act.
4.	A bill to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
5.	A bill to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
6.	A bill respecting Investment Companies.

October 9, 1970
The Address-Mr. Caouette
7.	A bill respecting the Canada Development Corporation.
9.	Veterans Pension Legislation.
10.	A bill respecting the C.N.R. Financing and Guarantee, 1970.
-or deficits paid up by the government.
11.	A bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
About monetary reform, the Prime Minister claims that we spend our time talking about money. What are the Speech from the Throne or the bills all about? Money and control by the government and the present Canadian banking institutions. Nothing else. I continue the quotation:
12.	A bill amending the Interest Act and the Small Loans Act.
13.	A bill to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
14 and 15. Bills to amend the Canada-Finland-and-Canada-Jamaica Income Tax Agrements.
16.	A bill amending the Crop Insurance Act.
17.	A bill respecting Co-operative Credit Associations.
Those 17 bills are financial measures for the purpose of remedying the patent evils and the most flagrant injustices of the present financial system.
But that is not all. There are other measures covering control of atomic energy, pollution, development of imports, textiles, resource management, the anti-dumping act, budget estimates, the Auditor-General, the marketing of farm products, a commercial agreement with Australia, altogether 12 measures dealing with the operation, administration, and protection of the present financial system and of its power over trade, commerce, industry, agriculture, in short over everything. Thus, almost two-thirds of the bills the government intends to introduce have a marked financial orientation. The Prime Minister is aware of this.
We of the Ralliement creditiste are therefore justified in demanding that priority be given to financial reform, in saying that we must first achieve this reform instead of trying to curb its ill effects, in other words we wholly reject this whole policy of a poultice on a wooden leg which is the basis of the reforms proposed by this government and by the preceding ones.
The poor situation created by the financial system has had disastrous effects on the Canadian economy in general and on the welfare of the individuals in particular.
The Prime Minister, after telling us we had the highest living standards in the world, admitted a while ago:
It would be irresponsible to suggest that the economy is now in satisfactory condition. When costs rise more rapidly than productivity, when men and women are unable to gain employment, when a reasonable distribution of the wealth of Canada is denied to certain sectors or regions, then these are matters for deep concern.
Fortunately, our population, the number of Canadians engaged in productive employmentincrease
-the total volume of goods and services which they produce, and Canadian exports all continue to grow.
That is the statement of the government. Mr. Speaker, that is the way the government advisers analyse the present economic situation, according to the Throne Speech read yesterday by His Excellency the Governor General.
Further on the Speech mentions again the problem of exports:
Our exports in past months have achieved record heights.
That is the old liberal slogan, Mr. Speaker. We must export or perish. If our exports are growing, we will be prosperous! If they are declining we will be miserable!
23 years ago, on the 23rd of August 1947, a then liberal member, Mr. Azellus Denis, who is now a senator, said on Montreal station CKAC in a broadcast paid for by the federal liberal party, and I quote:
Whatever demagogues who are more than shortsighted may say, the liberals do not give anything to foreigners, because Canada produces 40 times more than Canadian can consume; and without exports and loans-when necessary-we would have overproduction, factories would close down, we would end up with starvation, unemployment and misery.
That is what the Liberals said in 1947! That is what they are repeating today while they are asserting somehow triumphantly, and I quote:
Our exports in past months have achieved record heights.
And they add that this is to be taken as a good omen for economic prosperity.
Let us see, Mr. Speaker, the value of those assertions on the part of the Liberals.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there consent that the hon. member continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their courtesy towards me. I will try to be brief.
Mr. Speaker, as far as Canada's foreign trade is concerned, here is what we could read in the September 22 bulletin of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and I quote:
During the first half of this year, the strong foreign demand for Canadian products (and I purposefully underline the word "products") played an extremely important part in softening the impact of the limited demand in several important areas of this country, especially as regards consumers' individual expenses.
Which means, Mr. Speaker, that the demand for products-I mean the demand on the part of Canadian consumers-slowed down in Canada. We may ask ourselves why there should be such a slowdown of the demand on the part of Canadian consumers. Is it because all the needs have been met? Why then do so many families that live on the meagre benefits of unemployment insurance and on welfare have to tighten their belts? Simply because they do not have the required purchasing power.
But that means nothing to government advisers, all of whom advocate economic growth for the sake of growth, as well as full employment, accepting it as the end of economic activities and the main concern of governments.
According to government advisers, trade has shored up our economy. This is what the bulletin of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for September 22nd 1970, has to say: In the first six months of 1970, Canadian export trade of goods has been outstanding; exports have exceeded imports by

October 9, 1970

October 9, 1970
Committee on Constitution of Canada
established in Canada. American investments accounted for about 85 per cent while the United Kingdom and continental Europe were responsible for the balance.
The Throne speech states that it is time, in 1970, to bring about changes. We of the Ralliement creditiste say that 1970 is the best time ever to change the financial system which is strangling us, which imposes upon Canadians the scarcity of consumer goods, which yields to foreign financial interests the control of our natural resources, of our production and, I dare say it, of all our institutions, including our political institutions, that is the governments in power.
A change is needed. There must be a change, as the Quebec Liberals used to say in 1960, because tomorrow it will be too late.
To conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, this is how I consider the changes needed so that Canadians may truly enjoy their production, control it and fully profit by our natural resources.
Here is the first question which must be asked. Why a financial system? What part must it play?
The answer is simple enough: A financial system is supposed to finance firstly the production of goods, in order to meet needs and secondly, the distribution of those goods, according to needs.
A financial system which finances the production of goods and also succeeds in distributing them is efficient. If it does not play that part, it is inefficient and even harmful.
Well, Mr. Speaker, at the present time there are goods required by the population which we fail to produce because under our financial system the capital is diverted from its primary purpose. Certain products lie on the shelves, some are even destroyed, although a number of needs remain unsatisfied.
We must therefore conclude that the present financial system does not fulfill its purpose which should be to finance the production and distribution of goods. And what we are asking the government and the Prime Minister to do is to find a solution to financial problems.
Then we will no longer witness incidents such as the one which has just taken place in Montreal. Being deprived of the security and the freedom to which they are entitled, some people rebel against the established society. Those who cannot adapt themselves to a society, Mr. Speaker, try to destroy it.
So, let us establish in our country a social and economic context in which all Canadians will find a place for themselves and feel that their country belongs to them, and which could also serve as a model for all the world to follow.

On motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), the debate was adjourned.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received
from the Senate requesting this House to unite with the Senate in the appointment of a Special Joint Committee to exam.ne and report upon proposals, made publ c, on a number of subjects related to the Constitution of Canada and also to select members of this House to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.



CONSTITUTION OF CANADA


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution subm.tted its reports on its activities, indicating that it would like to continue those activities in the new session and, in particular, that certain arrangements had been made to visit eastern Canada for the purpose of carrying on discussions. I wonder if the House would be agreeable to reconstituting the Special Joint Committee now in so far as this House is concerned by conferring on it the same powers that it had previously, and by stipulating:
That the following members be appointed to act on behalf of the House of Commons on the Special Joint Committee, namely, Messrs. Alexander, Allmand, Asselin, Breau, Brewin, Dinsdale, Fairweather, Fortin, Gibson, Hogarth, Hopkins, Lachance, Mac-Guigan, Marceau, MeQuaid, Osier, Ouellet, Roberts, Rowland and Woolliams; and
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.
I wonder whether the House would be agreeable to an order in those terms, so that the committee may continue its work as requested.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand from the minister that the terms in which the consent is sought are as laid down in the formal order which he and I have discussed?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes. I am afraid the hon. member was not in the House, but I sent a copy of it to his colleague, the whip, earlier and I understood he was agreeable to it. If the hon. member wishes, I will read it in full.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The order would be as
follows:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to examine and report upon proposals, made public, or which are from time to time made public by the government of Canada, on a number of subjects related to the Constitution of Canada during the course of the comprehensive review of the Constitution of Canada, which review was agreed upon at the Constitutional Conference of the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premiers and Prime Ministers of the provinces in February, 1968, and alternative proposals on the same subjects;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and members, such sub-committees as it may deem advisable or necessary;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee have power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers, and records, and to print such papers

October 9, 1970

and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within Canada;
That the quorum of the committee be 17 members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and that the joint chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when 7 members are present so long as both Houses are represented;
That the committee be empowered to retain the services of three specialists to assist it in its work; and that it also be empowered to retain the clerical and stenographic help deemed advisable by the joint chairmen;
That the papers and evidence received and taken on the subject in the preceding session be referred to the committee and made part of the records thereof; and
That the following members be appointed to act on behalf of the House of Commons on the Special Joint Committee, namely-
The names of the hon. members already alluded to are listed. Finally, the order would read:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I find that I cannot accept one clause of the proposal, that providing that the committee shall have power to adjourn from place to place in Canada. That would be done without our having discussed it. I assume that the minister has now moved a motion to have that proposal from the other place accepted.
I should like to indicate my position on this issue. Mr. Speaker, we must have general support for the proposition that this committee be established.
We have made known our views in this regard. Actually, we were the first party to propose this step some time ago. Unfortunately, events of the last year have qualified the situation and circumstances have caught up with us. The Federal-Provincial Conferences which have been held have become, unfortunately, to an extent in the minds of some Canadians, the great "laugh-in" of public affairs of this country. There is probably more need now than ever before for a committee to ventilate these issues and discuss them with the people of Canada. Whether we are too late or not, only time will tell.
However, Mr. Speaker, it is my view and, I think, the view of some members of my party, that we must take a very searching, close look at the question of committees, the committees' structure and their work. The situation could arise-it almost arose during the previous session-in which we would find this House short of between 50 and 100 members. The onus of adjourning from place to place in Canada is one that should fall upon the committee, which should report to this House as to the need and advisability of its adjourning and travelling. Only in the House can that onus be sustained. In addition, there should be a responsibility on the government-I say this because I am fully aware of what it may involve-of co-ordinating the efforts and travel of committees. We must not forget, Mr. Speaker, that this House is the place where decisions are to be made and where deliberations are to be concluded.
The use of committees to clarify and explain matters and interrogate witnesses simplifies the work of the House. We think those activities are essential. We sup-
Committee on Constitution of Canada
port these purposes. Nevertheless, we are becoming increasingly alarmed at what appears to be a tendency of stressing the work of the committees as an alternative to the work of this House. We on this side of the House raised this matter on several occasions last year and Mr Speaker at one time was good enough to suggest that the question might well be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure.
Having said that, and having left myself free to pursue the matter another time, may I say that if the government agrees with me-and I have every reason to hope it does-this clause might well be removed and the committee might well make a report and bring it before the House. We would then have an opportunity to meet and discuss this matter. I realize the committee has made certain commitments. This is not an issue to be lightly dealt with in this way and at this time. We have a very heavy responsibility to operate this House efficiently and to ensure that it does the work the people of Canada expect of it. Our operations should not be dissipated and dispersed through committees operating in many instances outside the House, consequently gravely interfering with the proper function and decision-making of the House of Commons.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, although I agree with the general proposition stated by my hon. friend for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that we should be careful about giving permission to committees to travel throughout Canada or outside Canada, I regret that he objects to permission being granted in this case. This is an important committee. While I might agree with his not too favourable comments about some of the recent Federal-Provincial Conferences, I think the members of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution feel that their work has been most worth-while.
At this point I think it would be most unfair, not just to the members of the committee but to certain sections of Canada, for the committee, having travelled to various parts of Canada not to be permitted to go to other parts of the country. I hope, therefore, that the hon. member for Peace River will enter a caveat, which I will support, that the practice of committees travelling be looked at very carefully but nevertheless, having stated his objection, he will let that permission be granted as far as this committee is concerned.
The entire motion as read by the acting House leader is in the form in which he showed it to us a couple of hours ago. I checked with our members of that committee and other members of our group. We are quite prepared to endorse this motion as it is today. If there is to be a modification, we will go along with that as well. I hope we will not discriminate against those parts of Canada which the committee has not yet visited. Why deny this permission at this time? This is the view we take with respect to this motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must correct the impression the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has gathered from my remarks. We are not opposed per se to this or any other

October 9, 1970
Committee on Constitution of Canada
committee adjourning from place to place in Canada as circumstances may warrant. We feel that blanket authority should not be granted. I know these are the terms upon which authority must be granted, but we say there should first be a statement in this House by the chairman of the committee, on instructions from the committee, with some indication as to the intention of the committee, why and where it proposes to travel and what is involved.
If that is done, as I hope it will be in this and any other case, and the chairman of the committee meets the onus which we suggest is upon him, this party will then give its consent. We do not think that onus has been discharged and we would like to see that done. We are prepared to give our consent, with the proviso that the chairman will explain in the not-too-distant future what is involved in this clause of the recommendation.


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I serve on this committee. We just finished a sojourn of about ten days in the province of Manitoba and in the Yukon Territory. In my respectful submission there are a great many matters concerning the Constitution of Canada that can only be dealt with if the committee goes to the people in those areas of the country which have these problems. We anticipate travelling the week after next to the Maritimes, including Prince Edward Island. Apparently the people there are expecting us, and are no doubt preparing briefs.
It seems that the hon. member's objection, with the greatest respect, is a little late. In any event, I ask-and I think the whole committee will concur-that we should be allowed to fulfil this obligation. If there is to be an inquiry into the travelling of committees at a future date, possibly it could take place after the commitments of this committee have been met.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we do not have available the proceedings of the last session. My understanding is that the committee has in
fact submitted a detailed itinerary. Members of the committee who are now present will confirm that. I wonder, whatever the merits of the general proposition the hon. member makes, whether he has not already obtained the condition he seeks in the sense that the committee made a commitment to travel to Nova Scotia. The committee planned its work in some detail for the coming year. Under the circumstances, I feel these conditions are being met.


Gerald William Baldwin: I suggest that between now and next
Tuesday the usual and interesting discussions should take place as to the details of this matter. I am sure nothing will be lost over the Thanksgiving weekend. Hon members will be retiring to meditate upon the words of wisdom they heard today. By Tuesday we would then know the precise terms, places and times that the committee has in mind.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not accept the suggestion of the hon. member that I join him for Thanksgiving weekend. I will give notice of the motion so that my colleague, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), will not have to read it again next week.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn perhaps the acting House leader would confirm what I think everyone suspects, that the business for next week will be continuation of the Throne Speech debate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(2), this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock Tuesday morning next.
On motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), the House adjourned at 4.31 p.m., pursuant to Special Order.

Tuesday, Oclober 13, 1970