1970-10-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the House learned late Saturday night of the brutal, cowardly slaying of Pierre Laporte. That tragic event is evidence of the moral wasteland occupied by the FLQ. Their activities these past days have been designed to turn Canadian against Canadian. The FLQ scheme has been a deliberate provocation of hate. Their purpose is to inspire within all of us fear and hatred, and in this atmosphere to destroy our nation.
They will not succeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Canadians for too long have known freedom, practised tolerance, and enjoyed the benefits of our rich cultural diversity. They will not be tricked by such a transparent device; they will not be dominated by criminals. Canadians have seen, too, the bitter and divisive effects in other countries when hatred is met by hate, when crime is followed by vengeance, when reason is overcome totally by emotion.

Made up of men full of hatred, the FLQ resorts to violence to inspire hate, feed it and to spread it insidiously, hoping that disorder, confusion and panic will then prevail.
Such is its first purpose. Such is the trap it is setting for us: to turn Canadian against Canadian, to divide us through hatred and racism, to aggravate disagreements between generations even to the point where they can no longer be reconciled. But those fanatics are perhaps even more diabolic in their need to inspire hatred for themselves-blind hatred. Thus they could bring us down to their level and degrade our society.

Pierre Laporte devoted his life to the betterment of the people of Quebec. Hon. members will have an opportunity tomorrow to pay their respects to this man. In the interim, all Canada grieves for Madame Laporte and her children. They will know that the name of Pierre Laporte will be repeated by school children for generations as a symbol of our steadfast opposition to division, disunity and hatred in Canada.
This deed will not deter progress toward needed social change; rather, it will reinspire the many persons in all parts of Canada who share the broad vision of Pierre Laporte.
By this deed the FLQ has sown the seeds of its own destruction. It has revealed that it has no mandate but terror, no policies but violence, and no solutions but murder. It is alien to all that is Canadian. It will not survive.

Those men with hatred in their hearts thought they could divide us in tragedy, but they bring us together today in a same will.
For the only passion which must drive us now is the passion for justice. Through justice, we will get rid of the perversion of terrorism. Through justice, we will find peace and freedom.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my deep regrets and those of my colleagues to those expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). My colleagues and I were shocked, as was the rest of Canada, by the brutal murder Saturday of Pierre Laporte.
His death was particularly shocking because Mr. Laporte was a great humanitarian and he died in a very inhumane way. He was, of course, a distinguished parliamentarian, a journalist, and a man who has rightfully been called one of the fathers of the new Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, our French-Canadian fellow citizens are going through grievous hours of national mourning. But
this affliction is a blow to the whole country.
Posthumously, I would like to stress how convincing Mr. Pierre Laporte was in his determination. This supporter of human rights was the victim of pseudo reformers. The execution of an innocent man makes their action all the more horrible.
Those activists, which we can hardly call men, have already proven that nobody can hope to build a new society through bloodshed.

Mr. Laporte believed that firm words were the instrument of effective social change. Throughout his career his words and deeds were his weapons of progress in his beloved Quebec. Pierre Laporte has become a martyr in the eyes of all democratically-minded Canadians. His

October 19, 1970
Tribute to Late Hon. Pierre Laporte death must not be a useless tragedy. We must ensure that his death will be a milestone in the struggle for Canadian unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This, sir, should be a day of unity. The questions I raised on Friday last remain as important to me as then, but this is a day for unity and I hope that we can show it.
Mr. Laporte was a gifted parliamentarian. It is especially fitting, therefore, that we pay tribute to him here in Parliament. I express my sympathy to the government, to the National Assembly and to the people of Quebec. Above all, Pierre Laporte was a gentleman and a devoted husband and father, and it is for his family that our feelings run deepest at this time. He was a friendly man, and all Canadians have lost a friend in the death of Pierre Laporte.

Once more, Mr. Speaker, in this hero of democratic values, I pay homage to a man dedicated to his cause and his province, a responsible parliamentarian.
I express my deepest sympathy to the family and friends of the deceased.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, all members of the House, and I am certain the great majority of the Canadian people, are appalled and disgusted at the unnecessary and cruel murder of Mr. Pierre Laporte. This was a crime for which there can be no possible excuse.
Pierre Laporte was a man who believed in the unity of the Canadian people, who worked toward that end and maintained a bridge between the French-speaking and English-speaking people of this country. He is a martyr now in that cause. It remains for those who support his point of view in the province of Quebec and those who support his point of view in the rest of Canada to take up his task and to cement that unity and that friendship between the two founding races of this country. I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Laporte's memory, to the heroism of his death, and to the magnanimity of his life. On behalf of the New Democratic Party I should also like to extend our deepest sympathy and heartfelt condolences to Madame Laporte, members of the family and his colleagues in the government and legislature of the province of Quebec.
I wish to say that on this day all members of this House, irrespective of political party, stand united in our determination to stamp out terrorism in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is growing up in the world a double standard of morality. Some hold forth the concept that crimes committed in

the name of an alleged cause are excusable although they
would not be excusable if committed as a result of passion or for personal gain. I reject this double standard. Terror is terror, murder is murder, kidnapping is kidnapping, and to claim that these crimes are committed for political reasons is no excuse whatsoever. Therefore it is the responsibility of this Parliament to give the government every support in its attempt to apprehend and bring to justice those who have been responsible both for these kidnappings and for the murder of Mr. Laporte.
In this very serious and tragic situation I believe it is important that all of us keep cool heads and that we do not allow hysteria to precipitate us into taking action that we would later regret. The government has a responsibility. That responsibility is to use all the means in its power to hunt down those who are responsible and to bring them to justice. That is a laudable objective. In the carrying out of that responsibility the government will have the fullest support and co-operation of the New Democratic Party members in this House.
But we in the opposition also have a responsibility. Part of our job here is constantly to remind the government and the people of this country that in taking the measures that are necessary to punish those who are guilty we do not at the same time injure innocent people. It is a function of the opposition always to raise its voice in the interest of those who may innocently suffer in the process of seeking out the terrorists. I hope we can make clear to the people of Canada that there are democratic ways by which we can meet a crisis like this and that we never want in Canada to have to choose between the horrible alternatives of terrorism on the one hand or a police state on the other.
We believe, as I think all Canadians do, that if we stand together with clear objectives we can effectively meet this crisis and at the same time preserve the democratic institutions we hold dear and for which brave men have laid down their lives in days gone by.


Some hon. Members:: 
Mr. Real Caoueiie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and myself endorse fully the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the dreadful events which took place in Quebec over the week-end.
Any French Canadian worthy of the name feels great shame following the savage assassination of Pierre Laporte. We wish to extend to his wife, his mother, his children and his family, as well as to the Quebec government, our most sincere sympathy.
It is indeed unfortunate that this dirty job should have been carried out by people claiming to be dedicated to the liberation of Quebec when they did not hesitate to destroy in cold blood the life of Pierre Laporte. Let us face it, the avowed purpose of the FLQ is to do exactly what they have done in Quebec over the week-end. I say
October 19, 1970

that all its members are killers just like those who put an end to Pierre Laporte's life, unscrupulous killers.
I am convinced that the FLQ leaders know everything, including the place where their bandits are hiding, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that those leaders should immediately be brought before a firing squad and compelled to divulge everything about the activities, the structure and the existence of the FLQ movement, which is bent on destroying the free society in which we live. They should be compelled to denounce their killers, their bandits, on the threat of having 10 of their members executed for each person they kill.
The government knows who are the leaders of the FLQ. It should bring them before the firing squad, in order to put an end to this unspeakable terrorism in Quebec.
My words may sound harsh, Mr. Speaker, but I suggest that, if democracy does not defend itself, it will again be attacked within a few days or a few weeks.
The people of this country are sick and tired of FLQ activities which do not date back to only a month or two. You may blame as much as you like the distress of some people in certain areas of Canada for the existence of the FLQ, it is just not so. You may succeed in providing Canada with the best of societies, still the FLQ members will try and destroy it because their purpose is not to build but precisely to destroy, to foster hate and iniquity and to maintain an unbreathable atmosphere in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of days, I have received many telegrams referring to the stand we took immediately after the government and the Right. Hon. Prime Minister introduced this new legislation. Out of all those messages, only two take us to task for supporting the government.
The first telegram came from the Communist Party of Toronto, the Communist Party of Canada. The second, from the heads of the Federation of National Trade Unions and of the Quebec Labour Federation, from Mr. Rene Levesque and Mr. Claude Ryan, of Le Devoir, put the blame on Ottawa for the present situation.
Those are the people who are blaming us for taking the position everyone is aware of in regard to what is happening in our country. We must stand our ground. We must enact new legislation to ensure greater respect of individual freedom. We do not want a permanent police state, but neither do we want the people of Canada to feel that their rights are being encroached upon and that they are being deprived of their freedom.
In view of present developments, we believe the government will bring forward more appropriate legislation so that individuals-mothers, fathers, young people of both sexes, children may live free and secure in a country which deserves better than this weekend's tragic events.
Business of the House



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short statement having to do with the future business of the house. As background I wish to draw attention to a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on Friday last in the debate, with which we are all familiar. The Prime Minister said:
Following the passage of enough time to give the government the necessary experience to assess the type of statute which may be required in these circumstances, it is my firm intention to discuss with the leaders of the opposition parties the desirability of introducing legislation of a less comprehensive nature. In this respect I earnestly solicit from the leaders and from all hon. members constructive suggestions for the amendment of the regulations. Such suggestions will be given careful consideration for possible inclusion in any new statute.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that letters have already been directed to the leaders of the opposition parties on this general question, indicating the willingness of the government to consider their suggestions.
At the same time, at the request of the government the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has been working all week end with his officials with a view to determining when it might be possible to bring in the bill to which the Prime Minister referred in his statement. The Minister of Justice has now reported. In fact, he concluded his work at midnight last night and, as a result of his report, it will be possible to have such a bill prepared and we intend to introduce it for first reading in the House within a month.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, the present proclamation cannot be revoked until the new legislation is passed by Parliament. How long that will take in view of the importance of the legislation is very difficult to foresee and will depend on the time taken in proposing amendments, in discussion in this House and in the other place.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. I think it goes to show the country that this House, like a family, can, when a crisis escalates and catastrophe threatens, draw together and present a common and united front to show the enemies within and the watchers without that strength can be used with moderation and reason.
What has been said by the minister makes some difference in the approach this party takes to the issue now before the House in the amendment which has been proposed, and before I sit down I intend to seek on behalf of the member who moved the amendment-he may have to do this himself-unanimous consent to withdraw it. This, of course, will make a difference in the support

October 19, 1970
Business of the House
this party will be able to give to the motion which has been placed before the House by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
* (11:30 a.m.)
The virtue, Mr. Speaker, of a democratic system is that there can be a debate on the issue on such an occasion, permitting hon. members to place on record views they may hold very strongly on certain points, and at the same time meet the crisis with the sort of unity which is so very essential. If it is not in order to withdraw the amendment now, I give notice on behalf of the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) that at the appropriate time the amendment to the motion will be withdrawn.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party welcome the statement by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) that legislation will be introduced within a month to deal with unusual civil disturbances or anticipated sabotage. We in this party took the position last week that the government should have dealt with the situation in Canada in this way rather than by resorting to the invocation of the War Measures Act.
Some of the statements that have been made in the last few days indicate how serious such a sweeping measure can be. For example, the mayor of one large city said that this would be an excellent way to clear out the hippies and draft dodgers. The difficulty with such sweeping powers is that they may not always be used for the intended purpose, particularly in view of the fact that the Criminal Code and the Public Order Regulations, 1970, will not be administered by the federal government but by the Attorneys General of the provinces. Consequently I can understand the desire of the government to bring in specific legislation rather than having the great reservoir of power it now has under the War Measures Act.
There is little value at this time in arguing about whether the government should or should not have invoked the War Measures Act. We feel they should not have, but that question is academic. We are now operating under the War Measures Act. But the sooner we can get out from under this Act and have specific legislation dealing with specific crimes, the better, rather than an omnibus piece of legislation; a net so wide it can gather in all kinds of people who may not be persona grata with the authorities in some parts of Canada.
At ten o'clock this morning I received the letter, dated last Saturday, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in which he asked for our suggestions. We thank the Prime Minister for requesting our opinions. We will certainly give him our best thought on this matter and suggestions which we hope the government will consider.
When the legislation is introduced we will be prepared to give the government what we deem to be adequate powers to deal with the crisis provided that the rights and liberties of citizens are fully preserved and protected. The sooner the government can have this legislation ready for our consideration, the better. I am convinced that it is not a healthy situation to have the country under the very wide powers under the War Measures Act which are now granted to the various authorities.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we are thankful to the government and to the President of the Privy Council for introducing this motion which will enable us to consider an appropriate measure to take care of situations that may arise in this country.
But, we must not forget that Friday morning when the government suggested support for the War Measures Act, it did not impose it to the province of Quebec. It was upon request by the government of the province of Quebec and the municipal authorities of Montreal that emergency measures were proposed last Friday.
At that time, there was no other way to act faster, I think, than the government did. But if the government can introduce a bill within a month to ensure freedom to its citizens while being able to act more promptly to hunt down those who are responsible for the situation-as we know it-to arrest those who are responsible when there is a riot, an attack or activities which are not in the best interest of the people and endanger the security and the freedom of Canadian people, we shall then have a more appropriate legislation.
Given last Friday's circumstances, the government did what it had to do. Contrary to what some people claim, it did not impose its will in the province of Quebec. Indeed, certain discontented people insinuate that the government of Quebec is the slave of the federal government. It is quite far from the truth: the authorities of Quebec and of the city of Montreal asked for the assistance of the federal government. I know what I am saying because the mayor of Montreal called me on the subject.
Those who say that Ottawa wanted to take the lead are wrong. I think that Ottawa wanted to help the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal in order to restore order and maintain the right to freedom of individuals who want to be free.
Mr. Speaker, again we thank the government for bringing in this motion under which it will be possible to pass legislation ensuring personal freedom and at the same time, authorizing the arrest of those ready to deprive Canadians of such freedom.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-2, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.

October 19, 1970


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


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-3, respecting investment companies.


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


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-4, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
*
* *
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-5, entitled "An Act to authorize the making of a grant to the province of Nova Scotia for the purpose of providing assistance to Deuterium of Canada Limited.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: Under the heading "Introduction of Bills" there is, as hon. members know, a long list of private members' bills to be introduced. I propose to make a statement in connection with the introduction of those bills. The House may feel that this might not be the appropriate time to become involved with this kind of statement. I think it might be made tomorrow if hon. members will allow these bills to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Invoking of War Measures Act Mr. Speaker: First reading of Senate public bills. Government notices of motions. Oral questions. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Saturday, October 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau:
That the House approves the action of the government in invoking the powers of the War Measures Act to meet the state of apprehended insurrection in the Province of Quebec as communicated to the Prime Minister by the Government of Quebec and the civic authorities of Montreal and further approves the orders and regulations tabled today by the Prime Minister on the clear understanding that the proclamation invoking the powers as contained in the regulations will be revoked on or before April 30, 1971, unless a resolution authorizing their extension beyond the date specified has been approved by the House.
And the amendment thereto of Mr. Coates (page 269).
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand there is a desire on the part of the hon. member who moved the amendment to seek the unanimous consent of the House for the purpose of withdrawing it. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Coates) withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the Chair put the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jacques-L. Trudel, for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 congratulate the mover (Mr. Trudel) and seconder (Mr. Douglas, Assiniboia) of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. They have been signally honoured by being chosen for their role in this debate and they have acquitted themselves well and deserve the commendations of this House and of their constituents. May I also compliment the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) who spoke so well on Wednesday, not for the manner in which he felt he had to eulogize the Speech from the Throne but for his excellent remarks on the subjects of anti-Americanism and immigration.
This country is in a mess. It promises to become worse rather than better. Dreaminess, softness, inaction and then over-reaction have replaced practicality and common sense. As a result there is social unrest in this country. The financial and fiscal affairs have been mismanaged and the government's ivory tower misconcep-

October 19, 1970

tions of the needs of the country have been and are harmful to its urban areas and particularly harmful to metropolitan Toronto.
The affairs of this country are in an almost incredible mess, given the facts of our wealth of resources, plant, know-how and connections. This country was not fighting a war, at least until last Friday, save for the public relations war on poverty. This government was not policing the world; yet our interest rates and inflation have risen higher than in the United States and all the western nations except for a few banana republics, and our rate of unemployment is 6.9 per cent.
At the last election the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asked for a working majority. At the rate he is going he should have reversed that and asked for a majority working.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sylvester Perry Ryan: According to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which studies such things, Canada's economic growth as revealed by its annual productivity increase has fallen and is now just over 2 per cent, or one of the lowest in all the western countries. It is expected to be zero by the end of this year. This organization expresses surprise at our poor showing having regard to our potential. At this moment in time what this country needs as a leader is not a dreamy front man, but a practical, economic redeemer and social stabilizer.
Since I joined the young Liberals when I was 16 years of age until I became a Liberal Member of Parliament I was adamantly convinced of a few Liberal political dogmas: First, that the Tory party was the party of big business; second, that the Liberal party was the party for immigration and the Tory party was constantly and inconstantly the one to turn the tap off and on; third, that in this country Tory times were tough times.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: But you changed your mind.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I did. I first found out as a member that the Liberal party was the party of big business, then that the Liberal party was prepared purposely to cut immigration in half, and some wanted to eliminate it completely and, finally, that Trudeau times were tough times.
In respect of inflation I feel that the government is largely the author of its own misfortune. It has doubled the money supply since taking office in 1963. Not being on the gold standard, it exercised its prerogative to print money and printed too much. The money supply includes bills and coins in circulation and moneys on deposit, as most hon. members well know. [DOT]
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
In the midst of this situation and to my astonishment, at the time of the last ten-year review of the Bank Act
The Address-Mr. Ryan
the government decided to lift the ceiling on bank interest rates completely. I could see the allowance of government-controlled increases, provided the power to lower the ceiling was retained, but not removal of the ceiling. Against some opposition in the Liberal party, the then Minister of Finance, now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), insisted on pressing for complete removal. This made one wonder how large the campaign contributions had been to the party. All that was required at the time and all that is required now is a ceiling sufficiently high to permit the banks to compete with trust companies and near-banks for savings deposits. These competitors should be controlled too, if necessary. Thus, there should be a ceiling and it should float at the discretion of the cabinet, on the advice of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). The Speech from the Throne should have announced a new ceiling of 6z per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sylvester Perry Ryan: But no-and as a result of this naive and disastrous decision the five big Canadian banks have had not just a hey-day but three successive years of record profits at the expense of downward spirals in almost every other sector of the country's economy. There have been repercussions in other ways. With swollen deposits created in large part by the printing presses, as the government sought to dodge interest payments on bond issues, the banks have made a killing. In raising their rates to all the traffic could possibly bear these solid but favoured institutions drove interest rates on mortgages and consumer credit loans to new and almost incredible highs. With what results? Big business, cost-push inflation, buyer resistance, construction slow-down, housing lack, excessive wage demands, excessive prices, productivity slump bankruptcies-and there are many of these in Toronto now-demands to exclude immigrants, unemployment, emigration and, finally, loss of government revenues.
The need to float the dollar has caused the government to break this country's agreement with the International Monetary Fund to keep a fixed dollar. The Canadian dollar became suddenly strong, not just because our exports, mostly of primary resources, surged temporarily after long strike conditions, nor because our auto pact agreement with the United States is productive of foreign exchange, nor because our imports are down due to lessened productivity. The truth is that it became temporarily strong mainly because the combination of the premium of eight cents on the dollar plus our fantastic domestic interest rates was starting a flood of United States dollar investments in Canada, in both properties and equities, which condition, in addition to giving the government an exchange problem, would give Walter Gordon and the Toronto Star apoplexy if it were allowed to continue. Indeed, the failure to act in time and firmly on controlling interest rates, prices and wages, and the oversteering of this government by the Prime Minister and his awkward squad within his office and in the cabinet, have caused a domestic emergency within this country and further harmed its low stock abroad.

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. Ryan
Because I was closely associated with the NATO picture and Canada's position in the Alliance I was deeply disturbed when the Prime Minister, before the last election, began questioning this country's participation. I was alarmed at his and others' remarks afterwards. As chairman of our Parliamentary Association I had travelled for two and a half years liaisoning with the 14 other NATO countries. When he did not seek my opinion I wrote to him offering to prepare a memorandum of my thoughts on NATO for him to consider but received no reply whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Sylvester Perry Ryan: While I did not and do not want our troops to remain in Europe forever or even to carry on their nuclear roles past 1975 when our planes will be obsolete, I believed and still do that we must pay our fair share of the premium for this successful insurance policy. The irony of our unilateral reduction of our heavy armoured brigade at Soest and our air wing in southern Germany against the spirit of the Harmel report and the pleadings of our allies is that the air mobile force will have to be equipped with helicopters and other forms of transport that will likely cost more than the tanks and planes to purchase and to operate, and NATO really does not need that role filled as it did the former ones. To some degree our participation in the alliance has been maintained but the cost to our country's reliability in the 14 other NATO countries has been great.
So much for the west. In the east the government has been on its knees for almost two years trying to be recognized by Red China, to the dismay of a great many Canadians, the United States and almost every country on the Pacific rim. After the last election the government decided to recognize Red China even if it meant withdrawing recognition of the Republic of China at Taiwan and expulsion of its embassy at Ottawa. This is said to be a logical thing to do because Mao in Red China rules over millions of people and a large territory and has de facto control. Exactly the same logical case can be put for the recognition of Rhodesia and East Germany, but the Secretary of State for External Affairs has stated in the House that Canada will not recognize these regimes. Neither Red China nor any other country should dictate our foreign policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sylvester Perry Ryan: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Of course, a very bad feature of the policy of issuing a white paper and then debating tax reform in the various communications media and in House committees is that lawyers and accountants do not know how to advise their clients with any certainty. How can a lawyer possibly draw a good will these days for a client worth $100,000 or more? This has been the situation for almost a year and it is likely to continue indefinitely. Many new business ventures, particularly in Ontario, have been stalled or lost because of the uncertainty created by the white paper.
After the federal changes are made the provinces will ask: where will we get our money and what will we do to adjust to the new changes in the income and estate taxes? I submit that these problems will continue for a long while yet. The provinces will not be happy either because, for some reason, they were never consulted before the white paper was drawn up or tabled. So much for this government's respect for co-operative federalism.
I am greatly concerned about urban problems, particularly as those of metropolitan Toronto are worse than those in any other city or region in Canada, and they promise to worsen rapidly. Everywhere across the country there is increasing unemployment, and cities are hard-pressed as they see ever larger numbers of employable people applying for welfare. They attribute the increase to the government's peculiar way of fighting inflation and they seek assistance from that government to make up the difference in the cost. So far there has been no sign of relief from Ottawa.
Urban transit presents grievous problems in both Canada and the United States, but the United States is doing something about them. The federal government there has committed itself to the provision of $5 billion over a period of five years for the capital and operational requirements of urban areas throughout the United States, whereas the Canadian government up to this point has never really been involved in mass transit financing or planning.
Montreal, in addition to Dorval, is getting a great new international airport at Ste. Scholastique. Toronto and southern Ontario may or may not have another airport by 1976, and it may or may not be an international one. No one knows very much about it.
October 19. 1970

The present Malton airport is international but in a very limited sense as direct flights are only permitted to the United States, the Caribbean and a few other points. If the direct scheduled flights from other continents which should be permitted to land at Malton on the basis of points of origin and final destination were permitted to land there directly, then there would be no need for the Montreal district to have a second airport in priority to the Toronto district. In that part of the just society the inhabitants of the Toronto region are being grossly penalized in terms of inconvenience, loss of time and expense.
The following airlines may land at Toronto only: BOAC, Air Canada, and Canadian Pacific. The following airlines can land at Montreal only: Sabena, KLM, Swissair, Alitalia, Air France, Lufthansa, Iberia, Aeroflot, and Canadian Pacific. The following airlines will be able to land at Montreal next spring: El Al, and TAP.
Charter flights go directly from departure point to destination. During the first three months of this year, 15,726 passengers took off from Toronto for European cities. Only 2,735 took off from Montreal, and we cannot get the exact breakdown figures from DBS on scheduled commercial flights. However, these charter flight figures illustrate that the Toronto airport is almost six times more important as an international airport than Montreal. On scheduled flights to and from Europe, perhaps one million passengers a year are compelled to make an unnecessary stop at Montreal. I believe that this glaringly unjust condition will only be rectified by the defeat of the present government whose leader is convinced that Toronto is the city that has everything and that it should be treated as a milk cow and nothing more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sylvester Perry Ryan: This Robin Hood philosophy leads the Prime Minister to believe that the constitution prevents him from doing anything for this metropolitan area, but when the designated areas of Quebec, the Maritimes and the Prairies are needy the story is quite different. Under FRED and ARDA and other aid programs, millions of dollars collected in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta are used to pay for roads, bridges, parks resettlement, and manufacturing and processing plants in these areas. I do not complain about the economic assistance to these areas, although no doubt many of the ventures being assisted will prove to be uneconomic and a large part of the program will be a failure. But I do complain that none of this handing-out could be done without the cooperation of the provinces and municipalities involved. The Prime Minister's inconsistency is that the constitution does not bind him for these programs, but it does for similar types of aid to the cities. It is an incredible position for the Prime Minister to be taking in the circumstances.
I am glad to see that after the constant prodding and urging of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) the government in the Speech from the Throne proposes the reorganization of its urban activities. Now it admits it had some. Such reorganization is to be under the direc-
The Address-Mr. Ryan
tion of a minister of state for urban affairs and housing. He will not have a full-fledged department but a coordinating role, we are told. This could be a good, sincere move but, on the other hand, it may only be a tranquilizer and a stall. The Prime Minister has never been enthusiastic about urban problems and has had to be bulldozed into making this change, not just by the Leader of the Opposition but by some hon. members across the floor. The need of cities to improve and expand their services is great and urgent, and their taxing field has reached the point of exhaustion. Federal money is a must for the cities.


Mr. Alexander:: Hear, hear!


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I hear the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) thinks so too. We in Toronto can be thankful to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) for his great sacrifice of one and a half years ago. The greatest need of all in the Toronto area is for an adequate supply of good, serviced building land for planned subdivisions in the adjoining countryside, satellite or new cities, or all three types of development. Only federal money can provide the necessary land bank that will plan towns and reduce the cost of a serviced building lot. This assistance, together with the removal of the 11 per cent tax on building materials at least for residential construction, is desperately required in Toronto, and I am sure also in the Montreal and Hamilton areas. If nothing is done in the area of housing and planned subdivisions, in a few years the lack of housing and lodging in Toronto at sensible costs and rents will cause the city to decline into a city of eyesores, slums and contrasting baronial homes, all of this associated with mounting violence.
In recent days we have seen terrorists attempting to subject the government to blackmail. They have stooped to assassination. Citizens and government alike are forced to recognize that we have failed to deal adequately with the deeply set social problems which give rise to such terrorism.
a (12:40p.m.)
We must realize that a great many of our social ills have their roots in our cities, with their inadequate housing and outmoded urban transportation systems and, most of all, poverty. The federal government likes to give the impression that it is meeting the problems of our cities. Nothing could be further from the truth. For the whole country it allocated some $200 million for low-income housing projects. The city of Toronto alone, with a waiting list of 22,327 families for public housing, could very well have found use for most of the $200 million. Montreal and Vancouver, with their tremendous increases in population, are facing an equally tragic situation in trying to give their populations adequate housing at a price they can afford. The brightly coloured wood panels hiding the scars of our cities can no longer contain the restlessness of our people.
It was said in the Throne Speech that a just society is "a society in which individual freedom and equality of

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. Ryan
opportunity remain as our most cherished possessions." We sincerely hope that the government still bears in mind this high ideal in the thinking out of its public housing policy.
If public housing projects are in too many cases better looking ghettos, as has been indicated by the minister responsible for housing, then the authorities should not be afraid to consider other alternatives. The government should consider empowering the Canadian Development Corporation to run provincially incorporated building societies as subsidiaries or to invest in them. Large-scale, subsidized rental in certain cases might be a much more appropriate answer to the needs of the citizens. If it is not too late, let us give our cities a human face. Let us bear in mind that an urban policy should not aim at efficiency to the detriment of the well-being of the citizen. Cities should be built for man and not man for the city.
We of the opposition welcome the decision of the government to establish an urban council. We hope that this council will achieve what is most needed and what the government took so long to recognize-co-ordination of federal activities in the cities. This urban council should not be a centralist mechanism through which Ottawa tells the cities and provinces what it has decided to build, as was done in the case of some airport projects. The urban council should be a source of information and knowledge, a council where the three levels of government consult and exchange data which will contribute to improving the quality of urban life.
The membership of the urban council should consist of permanent members of federal and provincial governments along with flexible representation for municipal authorities. In other words, the membership should change for the cities and other municipalities according to the problem being discussed and the region affected. For example, a new Toronto airport location is the concern of most municipalities in southern Ontario, whereas waterfront development is the concern of the municipalities from Oshawa right around the western end of Lake Ontario to Port Dalhousie.
In its research division we sincerely hope that the urban council will dedicate its energy to finding a solution to the pressing problem of urban transportation. In Toronto even 16-lane highways are insufficient to meet the demands of the heavy traffic flow. Solutions must be found for in-city traffic, whether by pressurized tubes, mini rails or other such systems. These are badly needed in areas which the subways do not service.
Canada is a young and affluent country, yet its railway systems are 20 years behind. The nation's capital is serviced by a milk train to Toronto. Canada should take a look at Japan and France where immense progress is being achieved in the field of railway transportation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I just say that investments in urban affairs programs are not a modern frill. They are urgently required to repair the damage of years of neglect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, before I make any comments on the Address in reply to the Throne speech, I would like to mention that we have just witnessed a vote I consider the most important since my election to the House. I think that there is not one member who would like to see a situation similar to the one that exists in Quebec repeat itself.
I would also like to thank and congratulate all the hon. members who expressed their views in the debate that lasted until Sunday morning. We all felt that the problem did not concern Quebec only but the whole country and as a member from Quebec, I thank all my colleagues who gave us their sympathy, although the tragic events occurred in the province of Quebec, and particularly in Montreal.
Being the first government member to speak on the address today, in the name of my constituents I wish to extend sincere sympathy to Mrs. Laporte and her family in the tragic hours they are living at this time. Pierre Laporte was a great parliamentarian who had a clear vision of the problems and was a specialist in urban matters.
When he was Minister of Municipal Affairs, Pierre Laporte fully endorsed the Sylvestre report recommending the merger of 14 municipalities on lie Jesus, a centre that now ranks as the second largest municipality in Quebec with a population of 230,000.
Many have paid tribute to you and justly so, Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the proceedings. Such expressions of admiration and regard reflect your own impartiality and the firmness you have always shown in conducting our proceedings.
I wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) who made us so deeply aware of urban problems, and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas), who outlined the situation prevailing in the western provinces.
* (12:50 p.m.)
These two members distinguished themselves by their committee work, the former during the study of the proposals for tax reform by the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and the latter, during the study of Bill C-196 entitled "An Act respecting grain."
I am pleased to make my humble contribution during the debate on the Speech from the Throne. I shall take this opportunity to acquaint the hon. members with some peculiarities of the constituency I have the honour to represent here.
The Laval constituency, in the western part of Laval, on lie Jesus, is separated from the Canadian metropolis by the Back River and comprises 60 per cent of the population of City of Laval. As I said at the beginning, it
[Mr. Ryan.)
October 19, 1970

is the second largest in Quebec, both in size and in population. We anticipate an increase in population of approximately 100,000 over the next ten years.
The City of Laval as seen from the air, looks like an island of greenery _ between two bodies of water, the Riviere des Milles-Iles and the back river, Riviere des Prairies.
All ethnic groups are represented in Laval, which contributes to its cultural wealth. In a move to get closer to our western friends, on September 22, 1967, the City of Laval was paired with the City of Saskatoon, and this initiative has helped to seal the bonds of friendship between those two Canadian cities.
Large green areas have been set aside. The fertile soil of the farm-lands is ideal for growing vegetable produce for the Montreal market; in addition, four golf courses make of Laval a golfer's paradise. Because of the interest shown by the municipal authorities and of a well-organized sports and recreation department, Laval will be preparing serious contenders for the 1976 Olympic Games.
The lay-out of lie Jesus which has relatively few irregularities, has all the characteristics likely to facilitate urban development.
A 42 million square foot industrial park is available to industries wishing to take advantage of the facilities of Laval, in the way of geographical situation, skilled manpower and communications, which will be improved in connection with he building of the international airport at Sainte-Scholastique.
Needless to say, the location of the airport Sainte-Scholastique will contribute considerably to the economic development of Laval. This action on the part of the federal government will ensure better services to Laval residents. The building of a bridge at the Cavendish exit has been awaited for over 15 years.
Considering the present and future needs of the residents of Laval, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) announced last summer the purchase of land in the industrial park of Laval in order to erect there the first mail sorting plant in Canada. This pilot project will help speed up mail delivery.
Moreover, in order to improve postal service, two suboffices will be constructed, one of them at Sainte-Doro-thee and the other at Laval-Ouest. I hope that another one will soon be erected at Sainte-Rose. I have decided to speak in the Throne speech debate for several reasons.
In my opinion this Speech reflects accurately the principles which have been expressed since the last election campaign in 1968 with regard to the establishment of a "just society". Canada is entering a new decade. Together we have to build a society made for man. Misery, labour disputes, governmental institutions which are sometimes out-of-date, revision of the education system, housing, air and water pollution, pollution by noise, inflation, crime, dissent, non medical use of drugs, all these are complicated problems of modern life which is forever changing.
The Address-Mr. M. Roy
A hundred years in the age of the printed word is equal to ten years in the electronic age. We are not fatally condemned to be the slaves of technology nor do we have to be smothered by giant and impersonal organizations.
Is it not the role of each member to set up the standards of a society where the young will not feel alienated, where a class of society will not be excluded from the decision making centres, where the old will no longer be considered a burden, but rather as a pool of experience gained through daily work and where the rich will not take over all the powers regardless of the needs of Canadians who are less fortunate or less favoured geographically?
A country needs more than dollars or natural resources to live. It needs motivations, aspirations and imagination. It needs something to conquer, to strive for.
The Speech from the Throne says, and I quote:
We are entering an age of tension, an age of challenge, an age of excitement. At the threshold of the seventies a choice is open to Canadians as it is open to few persons in few countries. With foresight and stamina and enterprise, our's may be, if we wish it:
__a society in which human differences are regarded as assets,
not liabilities:
-a society in which human individual freedom and equality of opportunity remain as our most cherished possessions;
-a society in which the enjoyment of life is measured in qualitative, not quantitative terms;
-a society which encourages imagination and daring, ingenuity and initiative, not coldly and impersonally for the sake of efficiency, but with warmth and from the heart as between friends.
This is the kind of society that we want. Are we ready to work to attain these objectives? Is it not more logical that instead of attending to the most urgent issues first, we should undertake a transformation in depth of our society? It is urgent to amend the constitution so that it might better reflect the aspirations of all Canadians.
Canada must continue to be a land for man, a land where freedom and respect for the individual are nurtured, a society whose government is capable of standing firm against conformist tendencies, blackmail, or the pressures of those groups which have no respect for human values, and try to destroy the present structures instead of improving them. The systematic destruction of our political structures would only precipitate us into an economic recession.
In Quebec, as everywhere else in Canada, the young people-and they are the majority-believe that efforts and work are the best weapons to attain and deserve key positions in society.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.

October 19. 1970
The Address-Mr. M. Roy AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, at the time of adjournment, I was making remarks on the unfortunate situation now existing in Quebec. Our civil liberties are threatened and our people are worried.
Democracy is like one's health: we appreciate it when we lose it, either because we abuse of our liberties, or because abusive force or violence are used.
The governments acted conscientiously in taking steps to protect the collective interests of the nation. Had they not done so, the people would condemn them. We are living most tragic hours, for the survival of our basic principles and respect for the individual are threatened. Let us avoid irresponsible comments: let us place the problem in its true context and let the powers that be take the initiative of making statements.
We will fail in our attempt to transform society if we surrender to our fears, or nurse feelings of hate against certain ethnical groups. The only way to cure our society is to forge ahead determinedly, with the co-operation of all those who are prepared to take their responsibilities in order to find the causes of the present unrest. The sick society cannot be cured by the sole intervention of its governments. On the contrary, it is the business of everyone who has a craving for truth and justice. It is appropriate that everyone examines his conscience in the tragic hours we are experiencing at this time.
Let us be conscious of our role, of our capacity and of our will to contribute to air a little every day the lungs of that society which certain elements wish to suffocate. To that end, it is necessary to establish clear goals. During the first session of this 28th Parliament, the House of Commons considered more than 101 pieces of legislation. Last year, 90 other measures were submitted to our study. During this session, 68 bills will be examined.
It is necessary to stir up the imagination of men by presenting them with various pieces of legislation in the form of a White Paper in order that they contribute to draft laws which will really reflect their aspirations. Such a dialogue with the population is likely to crystalize their thoughts into laws.
Is that not what we have done here in order to bear out the extent to which the population is anxious to participate in federal legislation?
Following the press release that the chairman of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont), published on December 19 last, in which briefs from the public were invited, the said committee received 524 briefs, as well as 1,093 letters and other documents.
While studying the tax reform proposals, the committee met 146 times and looked into 211 briefs provided by 820 people. Such evidence, I believe, shows to what extent our people wished to participate in the legislation.

Is this not the job that we are pursuing under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)?
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a government member, to belong to the great Liberal family, which is getting larger every day, which is respectful of human rights and is equal to its task in any situation. I am proud to belong to the dynamic group now administering the country and whose aim, over the next decade is to make our society more humane.
On reading the Speech from the Throne and the speeches of the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply, one notes that the government wishes to take part in the development of our cities through the construction of low-rental housing, the renewal of urban centres, the construction of homes for the aged, and the enactment of legislation to protect consumers.
Hardship, discrimination and social disintegration work havoc to a greater extent in urban centres. There, because of its size and complex and heartless society sometimes engenders the most deplorable situations.
We are aware of this situation and we wish to do something about it. I do not know whether the member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) had read the Speech from the Throne. He would have noticed that, to foster coordination of the activities of all levels of government, and to contribute to sound urban growth and development, the Government proposes the re-organization of its urban activities under the direction of a Minister of State for Urban Affairs and Housing. The Government seeks, by making rational its efforts in these fields, and through consultation with those most directly concerned, to help Canadians reach and implement the decisions that will determine their urban future.
The right hon. Prime Minister stated in this House, on Friday October 9, as recorded on page 36 of Hansard:
Let me say as well that it is false to sugest 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.
In the name of my constituents, I wish to thank and congratulate the Minister responsible for housing (Mr. Andras). Last year, $200 million were invested in Canada for the construction of low-rent housing. In the city of Laval, 1,000 new units will be built thanks to a $12 million federal loan granted under the National Housing Act. This injection of economic blood by the federal government represented a new start for construction in Laval.
Moreover, the federal government has guaranteed a loan representing 95 per cent of the building cost of the Centre de sejour Laval where 350 people will live. The centre will be erected in Sainte-Dorothee.
Under the adult professional training program, the federal government has contributed $362,907,385 to the province of Quebec out of total investments in Quebec, of $654,386,037 as of April 1, 1969.
October 19, 1970


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. First, I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Trudel) and the seconder, (Mr. Douglas (Assiniboia)), of the address on the capable manner in which they carried out their duties.
The Speech from the Throne is an amazing document, a document long on philosophy but short on policy. On page one, the author of this grim fairy tale s.ates:
We live in a period of tenseness and unease. It is an age frequented by violence as desperate men seek-ill-defined goals:
The Address-Mr. Crouse
an age of frustration as gentle men question impatiently old assumptions. It is an age in which the life-support systems of the biosphere may collapse unless man reverses his present course and begins again to live in harmony, rather than in competition, with his environment. It is an age in which the forces of science and technology now in motion are so massive, so swift, and so comprehensive that man may be facing his last opportunity to control his own destiny rather than be subject to it.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
These words, Mr. Speaker, remind me of the words in a book which was first published in 1859. The first chapter, by Charles Dickens, of "A Tale of Two Cities" reads:
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the epoch of believe; it was the epoch of incredulity; it was the season of light; it was the season of darkness; it was the spring of hope; it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us; we had nothing before us; we were all going direct to heaven: we were all going direct the other way!
Things have not changed very much since 1859, for I note a marked similarity between the words of Dickens and the words of the Throne Speech, and unfortunately a marked similarity between the conditions described by Dickens and conditions as they exist today. The speech says that the decade of the seventies extends beyond our present vision, and that is the understatement of the day. In fact, that is one of the troubles with this government, it lacks vision. In proverbs we read that when there is no vision the people perish.
In another paragraph, the speech states that man must anticipate and plan; that he must accept that contentment and indifference are illusory; that the most dramatic reality is change; that there is more need that ever before to preserve as constant values truth, honesty, excellence and relevance. Was there ever a period when man was not required to anticipate and plan ahead? And was there ever a period when man's plans were more frustrated than they are today by the present federal government?
The Throne Speech speaks of truth and honesty, and then goes on to say that unemployment remains distressingly high in some parts of Canada, although the rate has not increased significantly in recent months. Well, I do not know what figures the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was looking at when he made that statement, but according to the press the federal government paid out $43.9 million in unemployment benefits during July, up from $41 million in June and up from $25 million in July, 1969. Canadians made 148,000 new claims against the unemployment insurance fund in July, up from 120,000 the year before. In all, there were 439,000 people claiming benefits at the end of July, 160,000 more than the year before. On top of this, the proportion of people who have been on unemployment insurance for more than six months rose to 23 per cent from 15 per cent a year ago.
What is the prediction for the future? According to the Financial Times for September 21, unemployment is still high and the worst is yet to come. We have 6.9 per cent of our labour force unemployed at present, but recent lay-off announcements in the electronics and chemical

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. Crouse
industries, plus the side effects of the automobile strike, are expected to drive up the number of unemployed by the end of this year to approximately 750,000 people. This would mean an actual rate of people unemployed in the vicinity of 91 per cent of our labour force, a cruel and intolerable situation in a nation like Canada, since this would be a rate of unemployment higher than at any other period in our history. This is not what we want as Canadians.
The Speech from the Throne states that with foresight, stamina and enterprise we may have a society in which individual freedom and equality of opportunity remain as our most cherished possessions, a society in which the enjoyment of life is measured in qualitative, not quantitative terms. I would remind the Prime Minister and his government that without jobs and incomes there can be no way of life, no enjoyment of life, for hundreds of thousands of Canadians.
What we as Canadians really want is not more people on the welfare rolls; we want more people on the payrolls. Even the Prime Minister and his colleagues seem to be dimly aware of this fact as they talk of pursuing the distant ideal of a just society. In fact, the government's pretentions of a just society today are only a mirage, and like all mirages it keeps fading in the distance, unobtainable and without substance.
The Throne Speech states that one of our needs in Canada is adequate housing. This will always be a problem in any nation where there is a marked shift from the rural to the urban areas. But surely the government is aware that the 37 per cent decline in housing construction across the nation today can be directly related to the building codes imposed on CMHC loans, to the high interest rates on those loans, and to the federal taxes on construction equipment and building materials. It is unfair and unjust to our young people, and some not so young, to make housing the lever by which the government manipulates the economy, upward or downward, like a puppet on a string.
Our housing development and our construction industry will only go forward when the government establishes a stable housing policy which is designed to encourage home ownership at reasonable cost, with the future wellbeing of our Canadian families as the central core of that policy. It is the Canadian family that provides stability to this nation, and if there is a breakdown in our family life there follows a breakdown in society. This brings with it an outbreak of lawlessness, a disrespect for law and order, something that is all too prevalent in Canada today. The withdrawal, for example, of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and construction equipment would go a long way towards reviving housing construction in this nation.
As I read the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but question the motives of this government.
I ask myself, conscientiously and seriously: In what direction are we being led? The speech calls for the reorganization of the government's urban activities, under the direction of a minister of state for urban affairs and housing. In other words, another minister,

more bureaucrats and more civil servants. I would remind the government that what we need are not more housing authorities; what we need in Canada are more houses.
The Prime Minister is reported as saying during the past summer that if we do not like the way he is governing this country we can lump it. I for one do not like it, and I submit that the onus is on us to speak out against the present government's form of empire building. In Canada today we already have 25 government departments, 13 departmental corporations, 15 agency corporations, 14 propriety corporations, and 46 designated departments for purposes of the Financial Administration Act, making a total of 113. In this bureaucracy, at the federal level, we have a total personnel in excess of 371,000 people, excluding military personnel. When you add to this the bureaucracy of the provincial governments which employs some 333,000 people, and the 275,000 employed by regional and municipal governments, hon. members will realize there are close to one million employees in government in Canada today, and this for a nation of less than 22 million people.
What does all this mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that the influence of the government on business and on the public will continue to grow. I mention this because of the words in the Speech from the Throne which refer to the white paper on taxation and the implied threat made to corporations. Under this government it has apparently become illegal to make a profit. In my early years, when I was working for a large corporation, I was always pleased to note that the parent company was making money. Profits are the best guarantee to an employee of future job security, a fact that this government would do well to remember.
What worries me is the growing socialistic thinking of the government. There is an attitude that government can continue to take more and more out of the private sector of society without any concern at all for the state of the economy. However, there is a limit beyond which governments cannot go, and I submit that we are now nearing this limit in view of the rate of taxation imposed on industry and Canadians generally.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
For example, let us consider some of the reports emanating from our large corporations. Take Massey-Fer-guson, for example, Canada's fifth largest company. Sales for the first nine months of this year were down $14,500,000 from the corresponding period in 1969. For the third quarter, their net loss was $11,100,000 compared with a profit of $9,500,000 for the third quarter in 1969. In Toronto, General Motors has announced the closing of its Frigidaire home appliance division which will affect the employment of some 400 people. They presently employ, I am told, 1,400 people in that particular corporation and they plan to move a thousand of these people to other sections of their operations, but this still leaves 400 people unemployed as of the first of this coming year.
In both cases the reasons for the heavy losses or close down are similar. Production costs no longer make it
October 19, 1970

feasible to continue in this field, and costly strikes, reduced demand, accelerating inflation and the high cost of money are curtailing profits. These are the end results of the policies of this government on our large corporations, and they are having equally disastrous results on our small businessmen throughout the nation. In my opinion, the answer does not lie in building up a greater bureaucracy in Ottawa. As we say in Atlantic Canada, we have too many people cutting bait and not enough fishing. We cannot share the wealth until it is first produced. We cannot have a higher standard of living in this country without increasing productivity first and increasing the quality of our product. Unfortunately, this is not the situation which exists at the present time. In my opinion, steps should be taken immediately to reduce the number of people in the establishment in Ottawa, not expand it.
At page 3 of the Throne Speech there are words with which I can agree. It states that we have an economy that is in need of adjustment, a society beset by a variety of tensions, an environment that has been abused and degraded, an international community that is under intense pressures and that these are the problems that demand our urgent attention. Of course they do, but do you Liberals ever ask yourselves what brought about this desperate situation in Canada so graphically described by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the Throne Speech? Did it ever occur to you that it is the policies of your government that have thrown our economy out of adjustment and almost completely out of control?
It is the policies of your government that have beset our society with tensions, and which promise more of the same now that Chinese communists can legally come to Canada, where they are already reported as increasing their efforts to turn Toronto's Chinatown into a Maoist stronghold. The tears in the eyes of the Nationalist Chinese as they watched their ambassador depart from Canada gave some indication of their concern for their future wellbeing in this country.
If this does not worry the Liberal party and its members then it should, because it worries me and it worries the people I represent in this House. It is the policies of this government that have placed our international community under intense pressures. With your defence and foreign policy, or lack of it, we have lost the respect of our former NATO allies. It was some 37 years ago, at the famous Quebec conference of Churchill, Roosevelt and Mackenzie King, that a decision was made to proceed with the invasion of Normandy to liberate northwest Europe. At that time Canada had reason to be proud, for our armed forces commanded respect. Today, in matters of defence and foreign policy, our reputation in the western world is almost extinct, and in some quarters it is held up to ridicule and abuse.
Obviously, we are now trying to isolate ourselves from the world by walking out on our NATO allies at a critical time. Britain is obliged to send another brigade to fill the gap we left in the NATO defence line. As a result of our actions, we no longer command the same confidence and respect of our two closest friends, England and
The Address-Mr. Crouse
the United States, our partners and allies on the Normandy beaches. The same can be said of our relations with the people of the Netherlands, the people of France as well as the people of Belgium. They labelled our recent white papers on foreign affairs as so much window dressing, for in essence they indicate we have no clear purpose and we have no defence policy.
However, they have done one thing. They have given encouragement to socialist and communist governments throughout the world. Many Canadians are now beginning to ask why we are isolating ourselves and why we are no longer interested in international co-operation. Those of you who support the present government have a responsibility to answer these questions in view of the calibre of the government with which we are now allied, such as communist controlled Cuba and communist controlled China.
Today, when the strength of NATO is vital to world peace, I believe that Canada would be well advised to take a greater interest and responsibility in collective security than is presently the case. The present government seems to have forgotten that world communist leaders may from time to time alter their timetables, but their objective remains the same, namely, world domination and a completely controlled society.
At the rate we are going under the hon. member for Trinity's (Mr. Hellyer) disastrous unification scheme, we shall soon be like an old dog, a dog that can bark but cannot bite. We are simply deluding ourselves if we believe we are under the United States nuclear umbrella and, therefore, we have no need to train combat troops; that our NATO allies can provide a detente with the Communist forces without us. In my opinion, we are drawing the wrong conclusions because we start with the wrong premise. I only hope that Canadians become aroused to what is happening to us in the international sphere under this government before it is too late.
Our Prime Minister had planned to visit Russia. In view of internal problems in this country we are told now that this visit has been postponed, but he will be going at a later date. In view of his attitude towards NATO I have some questions for him and I hope he will secure some answers when he does visit Moscow. For example, I should like to know why there has been such a massive increase in Russian military power in the Middle East, as well as the addition of four more communist divisions facing NATO forces. We would like to know the reason for the great Russian naval expansion or buildup in the Mediterranean. We would like to know why Russia now has some 10,000 military advisers in Egypt, and why there are also some 100 Soviet flown MIG-21 planes and some 22 Soviet-manned missile sites in that country. Why is the Soviet navy stretching out into all the world's oceans with new naval bases being established? Why should they increase their fishing fleets enormously on the east coast the number of ships which can easily be converted to naval ships if the occasion should require it? Surely, we should know.
We should ask ourselves why Russia is building up this great military strength so quickly. How realistic are the

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. Crouse
peace negotiations and the talk of detente in Europe? I hope our Prime Minister can obtain some answers to these questions, for surely we should not be foolish enough to imagine that we can negotiate from weakness with Russia. In my opinion if NATO, the core of western defence, should collapse or should lack strength or purpose, we may well sacrifice world peace and see another generation committed to the tragedy of another even greater war or enslavement.
The Throne Speech indicates legislation will be presented to the House dealing with pollution in the ocean and in the atmosphere, and suggests there is a need to co-ordinate and consolidate our efforts under a department of environmental affairs. The Prime Minister, when speaking to this House on October 9, said this department would have as its core the Department of Fisheries plus the water sector of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, plus the administration and the responsibility for the Canada Water Act. It would also have the administration of the Canadian wildlife service.
This is in keeping with suggestions that were made by Conservative members on this side of the House when speaking on Bill C-204, an act to amend the Fisheries Act, including members from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and other parts of Atlantic Canada. We stressed this very important point and at that time we said the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) should be given more power under the Fisheries Act so that our industries and our municipalities would know where they stood on the serious problem of pollution control.
However, when we were making these suggestions we specifically mentioned strengthening the authority of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, not the abolition of this historical department. We have had a Department of Fisheries ever since Confederation, and I deplore the indicated downgrading of this department by changing its name to the Department of Environmental Affairs. By this proposed action, the fishing industry loses its historic and traditional position as a leading department of government representing an important primary industry on both coasts.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
In his speech the Prime Minister referred to the inscription over the doors of the Parliament buildings, "The wholesome sea is at her gates, her gates both east and west". I implore him to remember the traditions built up over the years, especially in Atlantic Canada where wooden ships and iron men established our eastern provinces and built up an enviable position in the fishing industry. By all means give more authority to control pollution to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, but let us not destroy the traditions built up over more than 100 years by changing and downgrading the Fisheries Department. Perhaps the answer would be to combine fisheries with agriculture, as has been done in the United Kingdom. The abolition of the Department of Fisheries or the putting of it on a par, for example, with the Canadian wildlife service is nothing more than bureaucratic nonsense.
The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry in his Speech, as recorded at page 162 of Hansard, referred to what has been done toward the cleaning up of our rivers and streams that were being polluted by our paper mills when he and his department enforced the terms of the Fisheries Act. He followed by listing seven proposals which if implemented would all be helpful in cleaning up our environment. We on this side take no issue with those proposals. However, it would not be the new department or the minister or even the law that would clean up our air and waters but rather the enforcement of the law and the co-operation of the people that would really aid in improving the conditions under which we live. For example, the Fisheries Act had the teeth but its lack of enforcement contributed in no small way to the present pollution of our rivers and streams. Therefore, some of the blame must be accepted by the present government and some of the blame must be accepted by the present Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.
The need to control pollution and improve our environment runs like a thread through the Throne Speech. Since action on the problem is important, I believe it is timely for the government to reconsider its stand on tidal power in the Bay of Fundy. When the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board was formed in 1966 to make a definitive study of Fundy's possibilities it seemed that, at long last, the question was to be resolved. However, when the board made its report earlier this year the government turned down the proposal. In their view power certainly could be developed and in large quantities, but with interest rates at 7 per cent they implied it would cost too much. In my opinion the question in the next decade will not be whether tidal power can compete economically but whether any alternative to tidal power can be developed to compete with its freedom from any form of environmental pollution.
The truth of the matter is that the tidal height in Minas Basin is greater than anywhere else in the world. Therefore, it follows that if development is uneconomical the prospects of developing tidal power anywhere are very grim indeed. We know, however, that tidal power is being utilized on the river La Ranee in Brittany, France and the working model at Expo '67 gave an indication of its possibilities in our part of the world. It is difficult to understand why the government turned down the development of this project, since large sums of money have been found for cultural activities while bread and butter issues which would provide employment and be self-liquidating must take second place. We know billions of dollars will have to be invested in the next four years to. build new Canadian power stations. Demand for electricity is expected to grow at a compound rate of 7i per cent a year between now and 1975. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics forecasts that generating capacity will have to be boosted to nearly 54 million kilowatts, up some 16J million kilowatts over the generating capacity of last year.
The harnessing of the tides of Fundy is almost a must when one considers that the pollution of our air, land and sea is recognized as a real threat to the future-well-being of mankind. I say this because thermal plants.
[Mr. Crouse.l
October 19, 1970

liberate carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere, while both thermal and nuclear plants have to get rid of large quantities of waste heat. Tidal power would give us electricity while conserving some of our irreplaceable natural resources such as oil or uranium. Tidal power would bring a new prosperity to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island through the provision of vast quantities of electrical energy, some of which could be exported to the power-hungry eastern seaboard of the United States. This would help to defray the cost of construction.
I urge the Prime Minister and the government to carefully consider this project. In an age when we have high unemployment, with one-third of our population living under the poverty line, and while millions of Canadians are suffering from the ravages and misery of inflation, this is one self-liquidating Canadian development that could be helpful in bolstering the economy of the Atlantic provinces and indeed could be helpful to all of Canada.


Mr.   J.-R. Comlois@Terrebonne: Mr. Speaker, the third session of the twenty-eighth legislature begins in the early 70's, a decade which will, undoubtedly, be of special importance.
Canada is entering into a new era, where already certain forces, incomprehensible to us, are at work, the causes of this being both internal and external. The conflict between the new values and those of the past, the need felt by the young and the disappointed generations to adopt new attitudes and perspectives, unavoidably give rise to unrest and tension. It is an era marked by violence to which bewildered men resort in pursuit of uncertain objectives. Even for many men of good will, who impatiently question the old principles, it is a time of frustration. But it is also a period of hope and of challenges to be taken up in order to attain "the just society" to which we all aspire.
Mr. Speaker, in the night from Saturday to Sunday, we suffered a great loss through the death of Pierre Laporte. In my own name and in the name of all my fellow-citizens, I want to extend to Mrs. Laporte, to her children and her family, our deepest sympathies.
Pierre Laporte was well known back home, Mr. Speaker. He was educated at L'Assomption College, It is in l'Assomption also that he met his wife, Frangoise Brouil-lette.
It was in my area that he spent his summer vacations for 20 years. We have known Pierre Laporte the politician, but also Pierre Laporte the man. He was a great Liberal and a great democrat. I am sure he will not have sacrificed his life in vain.
Mr. Speaker, are those we are looking for the only real culprits? What about those we have seen on television and heard on radio who for a number of years have stirred up passions and daily preached hatred? What about Rene Levesque and company who preach there is no longer a government in Quebec? What about all these saviours of the race who are ready to govern Quebec, but
The Address-Mr. Comtois
without facing the electorate? I don't want to put too much emphasis on that, but I would ask the people of Quebec-youth in particular-to reflect on the events that afflict us at this time.
Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted, in the course of this debate, to pay a well-deserved tribute to the former member for Terrebonne and Labelle, His Excellency Leo Cadieux, the newly appointed Canadian Ambassador to France. I wish him the greatest success in his new functions and I am convinced he will be a credit to all his fellow citizens. I can even give him the assurance that the coming by-elections in Labelle on November 16 next will result in replacing him by a Liberal.
I also congratualte the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) for his outline of the problems of his constituency, of his region and of the country when moving the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Among other things, he pointed out the role of the federal government in the economic development of his constituency and of Greater Montreal.
The co-mover of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas), ably showed us the similarity between problems of his region and those of Eastern Canada. He spoke of the inevitable changes of agriculture and of the regrouping of farms to make them more profitable. What is a necessity in the West becomes urgency in the East when the size of farms in the East is compared with those in the West. Also, he has mentioned the possibility of opening a national park in his constituency and I hope from the bottom of my heart that he will soon see his wish materialized.
The constituency of Terrebonne which I represent is half-urban and half-rural. The local population knows its problems and is endeavouring to solve them. The future international airport of Montreal at Sainte-Scholastique happens to be within my constituency. This major project will create special problems for us, including construction of adequate access roads and highways, new modern utilities, regrouping of municipalities in the area, public transportation, improvement of telephone facilities, etc.
Mr. Speaker, I do hope the federal government will seriously look into the possibility of designating all this territory as a special area for the purpose of helping the province of Quebec in carrying out these major projects.
Mr. Speaker, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is very active in our region. Every year we can see hundreds of new buildings and I congratulate the government for having set up at last a Department for Urban Affairs and Housing.
Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy), told us about the pollution of the back river, Riviere des Prairies, and the Mille-lles River.
As you know, those rivers touch on my riding and I strongly support the representations of that member so that pollution be stopped. For 25 years local authorities and House members have been urging the government to canalize both rivers. I hope that the next budget will

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles allocate funds for completing these projects because there are more than one and a half million people in that region.
The Throne Speech announces the early presentation of White Papers on communications, citizenship, immigration, national defence and income security which we will have the pleasure of examining. The government has also tabled 68 bills to be submitted to members of Parliament during the session. Several of them are of particular interest to my constituency. For example there are bills to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act, a bill creating the Canada Development Corporation, one relating to income security, veterans pension legislation, a bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, a bill respecting government organization, a bill creating a Department of Urban Affairs and Housing, another creating a Department for the protection of the environment and, finally, a bill respecting farm products marketing agencies.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to remind my colleagues that there is still much work to be done in our beautiful country and that to do so in order, peace and social justice, there is nothing better than work, perseverance, dialogue and understanding. Canada will thus be more thriving and beautiful. Canadians will be more united if all together they do their duty simply.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles
At this time we are thinking in terms of national purpose. We are disturbed about what is happening in the fabric of our lives. We are particularly concerned over the assassination Saturday night. It must not be in vain. The ideals to which Mr. Laporte dedicated his life must be carried on. I submit that we should include in those ideals the new attitudes and new scale of values referred to in the Speech from the Throne. That new scale of values must not be just a few more dollars for the poor and a few thousand dollars more for those at the top, but a society in which the first principle is that everyone in Canada is guaranteed a decent livelihood as a natural right.
Having emphasized the fact that we may achieve our goal faster than some people think, I now wish to mention one subject in particular and two or three other subjects in passing. Because it takes time to achieve a broad ideal like that is no reason that while we are seeking to attain it that we should not look carefully at what we can do along the way.
I welcome the fact that in the course of this session a standing committee will study the white paper on unemployment insurance. I do not think for a moment, and neither does the government, that unemployment insurance is the answer to poverty or that it achieves the justice and dignity that are our destiny. However, it is a step in that direction. I welcome the changes that were made last session in connection with the pensions of retired civil servants, retired members of the armed forces, retired members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and others receiving federal pensions. I also welcome the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications that the same be done for the Canadian National pensioners. I welcome the veterans legislation that has been promised for the present session. I wish we had more details as to what will be in that legislation, and I hope it will contain more than the administrative changes that were called for by the Woods Report. I hope that there will be a scaling up of the pensions paid under the Pension Act and that there will be something for those who receive war veterans allowances. The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that these are ideals we want to see carried through in the final achievement. There are some who want to see a guaranteed income for all our people. I recognize that we have to take certain steps along the way, and I welcome those steps which have been taken recently or that are being contemplated at present.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
This brings me to another phase of the matter, namely, the whole question of old age security to which I made a passing reference moments ago. I confess that in this area I have a great deal of concern. We were told a couple of years ago about the studies being made by Dr. Willard, the deputy minister of welfare in the Department of National Health and Welfare. For a while we thought we were to see Dr. Willard's report; it is now obvious that we will not see it. Then there was a white paper on pensions, which apparently was based on the Willard report. For a while it seemed that we were to see it in

the last session. That commitment was not kept. Now, we are told that another white paper is to be produced in the present session which will be different in some respects from the white paper that we did not see during the last session. Until one sees the white paper, and until one sees the legislation to be brought in, one cannot know what is coming.
1 confess that I am terribly worried that euphemism has taken over and that we are to get selectivity as the basis of dealing with the pensions of our senior citizens. I say that euphemism has taken over, because I think that is all it is. When you talk about selectivity you are talking about a pension based on some kind of means test or income test. We have been over this argument a good many times, Mr. Speaker. The point I want to make is that it is not consistent with the principles I have been advocating, namely, that a guaranteed livelihood, or a guaranteed income for the people of this country should be a natural right, should be the right of every one of our people.
It is still my view that one of the greatest steps taken in the years I have been in the House, and certainly the greatest step in the field of social security, was that step taken in 1950, in 1951 and in 1952-in one year the matter was before the committee, the next year we had legislation and the year after that the legislation was put into effect-by which we abolished the means test from the former old age pension and by which we said to the group of people of this country who were 70 years of age and over, "Nothing else matters; you are now 70 years of age, and this kind of pension is yours as of right."
The pension was only $40 then, but the universal basis on which it was paid was a tremendous victory for the concept of natural right in this field. We raised the pension from $40 to $46; then to $55; then to $65, and then to $75. The $75 in relative terms now is not much better than the $40 was in 1952 or the $20 was back in 1927. However, during the years when we were raising the pension from $40 to $75 we did not do anything to alter the principle under which it was paid. It was given to our people of 70 years of age and over as a matter of right. Later on, thank heaven, we got the age down to 65, and that is where it stands now. I still think, Mr. Speaker, that paying a pension of $75 a month to every citizen in Canada over the age of 65 as a matter of right is one of the best things we have put on our statute books. It is the kind of beginning toward the sort of society the Speech from the Throne anticipates that we must not go back on.
The reason I am speaking, the reason I am making this plea at this time, is that I am afraid that the government will bring in an increase, not in the basic pension, which is $75 a month before you add the 2 per cent bonuses, but rather in what the government calls the guaranteed income supplement. I know all the language in favour of it. I know of all the talk about using our money to give it to those who need it. But if you do that, Mr. Speaker, you are doing the very thing that I said at the beginning of my speech will not work. You do not solve poverty by doing things for the poor and leaving them poor; you do not solve poverty by singling out a particular group,
October 19, 1970

those who are poor, and giving them something special because they are poor. You only solve poverty by abolishing it; you only solve it by providing your income level as a natural right. In due course I want to see this done across the board, for people of all ages. I am as convinced that this will come as I am sure I am standing here, if we hold the country together. But I am concerned in case we retreat from the extent to which we have protected that principle in old age security. So, my appeal to the government at this point, before it brings in either its white paper on income security or its legislation on pensions, is that it not take a further backward step by a further use of the means test or income test but that it increase the basic old age security pension to at least $150 a month across the board.
Let us do the same thing that we did in 1950, 1951 and 1952, when we said to our older people, "we will not treat you any longer as second class people, some of whom are well off and some of whom are poor. We will treat you as Canadians of a certain age. This income is yours as a matter of rights." Let us continue so to say to our old people, and by saying it to these people, let us give hope to the people in their working years, to the young, to the children, and to all Canadians, that the day will come when we will have the kind of society that respects human dignity-not just by rhetoric; not just with fine speeches; not just by talking about equality of opportunity-oh, how cold that phrase leaves me- because it will be the kind of society in which the dignity of all our people is established by there being no more poverty. In that society all will enjoy their share of the immense amount of wealth we are now capable of producing. When that day comes, human dignity will be real.
As I have already said, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the improvements which have been made in the last few years in increasing the pensions of retired citizens. I welcome the improvements that are coming in unemployment insurance. I welcome the veterans legislation that is coming. I am still proud of what this Parliament has done over the past decade or two in the field of old age security, hospitalization and medicare. But we have a long way to go before we have a society that is really just, before we have a society that truly recognizes human dignity. We shall take an important further step in that direction if, during the present session, we raise the old age pension for all people who are 65 years of age and over to a reasonable figure-I suggest $150 a month-and if we restore the principle that all our older people shall get it, as they should, as a matter of right. This will be a step of which this Parliament could really be proud.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: This is a difficult time at which to deliver a speech, bearing in mind the events of the past week. It is sad, indeed, it is tragic for all Canadians that these events should have ended in the brutal murder of the Quebec Minister of Labour and Immigration, the Hon. Pierre Laporte, a great Canadian and a good personal friend of mine. My sincere sympathy goes to his loved ones.
The Address-Mr. Rock
First, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the mover of the motion for the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the	hon.	member	for	Bourassa, (Mr. Trudel) and the	seconder, the	hon.	member from
Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas). It was indeed an excellent choice-an hon. member representing an eastern urban metropolitan area and another representing a western agricultural community.
I had the honour of being a member of the Lachine City Council for close to	13 years.	At one point duringthis time, the Hon.	Lionel	Chevrier,	then	in charge of the
Seaway construction, stated at a banquet organized by the Lachine Chamber of Commerce that all craft using the old canal system would be allowed to use the new canal. After the official opening, the St. Lawrence Seaway authority banned all craft under 20 feet from using the new canal, thus preventing thousands of people from travelling from Lake St. Louis to Lake St. Francis, to the Thousand Islands, the Great Lakes and eastward, to Lake St. Pierre and the Richelieu Rivers, Lake Champlain and the Hudson River.
Since the Seaway has been completed, the Seaway authority has attempted to close the old Lachine Canal completely, without regard to its probable future use. Many times I have stated that this canal should be used as a marina for pleasure craft. Last year the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) appointed a firm of planning consultants, Jean-Claude LaHaye et Associes, to study the future use of the Lachine Canal. In August last this firm submitted a report in two volumes, Tome I entitled "Navigation" and Tome II entitled "Other Functions". In the report it is mentioned that past studies made in 1964 by the federal Department of Public Works, in 1968 by Lalonde, Valois, Lamarre, Valois and Associates, in 1968 by the City Planning Department of the City of Montreal, Urban Development Division, in 1969 by Sores Incorporated and in 1969 by N. D. Lea and Associates, all admitted that the one problem basic to all the studies and still remaining unresolved was the difficulty of communication between the three waterway systems within the Montreal area. The three waterway systems to which I refer are the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes system, the Ottawa River and the Lower St. Lawrence-Richelieu. The majority of pleasure craft in the Montreal region are held captive because of the cutting of the communication by closing the Soulanges and Lachine canals.
Before the redistribution of the federal electoral districts I represented Ste Anne de Bellevue, one of the 17 municipalities in the old constituency of Jacques Cartier -LaSalle. During this time the Department of Transport repaired and beautified the St. Anne's locks and made a park area there. For several years, I have been requesting the department to do the same at the Lachine locks but my request has been repeatedly refused because the locks were under the jurisdiction of the Seaway authority. I also asked for the old Lachine Canal to be transferred back to the Department of Transport, but this request has also been refused. At least my request to have the whole question studied by engineers was granted, and for this I am very grateful.
23226-23a

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. Rock
When a Member of Parliament from the Montreal region spends a great deal of time in Ottawa and notices the millions of dollars which are spent in the capital area, and realizes that these are in addition to billions of Canadian tax dollars already spent in projects such as the beautification and reconstruction of the Rideau Canal system, it makes him sick to his stomach to return to his riding to see property such as the historic Lachine Canal go to waste and look like a garbage heap.
The planning consultants hired by the St. Lawrence Seaway authority, Jean-Claude LaHaye and Associates, made certain recommendations which gave me hope and made me happy. They are to be found on page 75 of Tome II of their report, and I quote:
It is recommended that the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority take the necessary measures to ensure that any construction work done on the Lachine Canal over the next few years will in no way hinder the possibility of developing the canal for recreational purposes at a later date. In particular, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority should ensure that:- bridges to be built or replaced have at least five feet clearance above water level, over a minimum width of 30 feet; work on dams and other control structures allow for future construction of locks, whenever warranted; any change in these structures allow for a two-foot drop in water level, if required. It is strongly recommended that the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority make representations to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to conduct an overall study of recreation in the Montreal region. The development of the canal and its immediate surroundings should form an integral part of this study.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate this firm of engineers for their excellent work. I agree fully with their recommendations and I hope that the Minister of Transport and the St. Lawrence Seaway authority will accept the recommendations they have made. The historic Lachine Canal could, in its entirety, become a large marina providing facilities for the population of southern Montreal, people who have for years been hemmed in and denied all water rights to the St. Lawrence River because of the Port Authority.
An overall study such as this would take in the total needs of pleasure craft for Des Mille-Iles River, Des Prairies River, Lake of Two Mountains and Lake St. Louis. If the Seaway Authority and the Department of Transport are not interested in providing services for pleasure craft users, a federal responsibility, the old canal system could be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) could then create a federal canal park system which would bring pleasure and beauty to the Montreal and Lake St. Louis district.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has often stated that people should participate in making decisions. Well, many of us in the constituency of Lachine, as well as in other constituencies along the Lachine Canal and in the Lake St. Louis district, will be organizing a seminar in the near future to study the needs of pleasure craft in the Montreal and Lachine canal area. It is my hope that the member for Laval (Mr. Roy) and Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois) will join us at this seminar.
I have heard a news report concerning a statement made in Toronto by the Secretary of State for External
Affairs (Mr. Sharp) that the situation which exists in Canada is international in scope; that organizations are out to break the democratic system in many countries. I will go further and say that the members of the FLQ and members of similar groups are out to break our free enterprise system which has resulted in affluence and a very high standard of living. In fact, our standard of living is usually regarded as second highest in the world.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
It is no accident that the very able premier of the province of Quebec, the Hon. Robert Bourassa, visited New York state lately to interest the Americans in a $2 billion power project which would produce 36 billion kilowatts of electricity in the James Bay area and would open up this area for development of its natural resources. This power project would create a surplus of electrical power which would be sold to the Americans, our friends south of the border. The plan could even include Thomas W. Kierans, grand canal system which would divert these waters, after their being fully used, to the Ottawa River and Great Lakes system. This water surplus would thus create more power potential for the power plants along the Ottawa and the St. Lawrence valleys, and there would be enough water to allow the Americans to use it south of the border, where it is much needed.
It was during the time Premier Bourassa was asking the Americans for a $2 billion loan for a development which would provide thousands of jobs in our province of Quebec that the FLQ went out on a wave of kidnapping, possibly to sabotage Premier Bourassa's plans for economic expansion. When we celebrated our 100th birthday of confederation, the FLQ did everything to sabotage the celebrations in our province. So this is nothing new; it as been going on and on.
There were in the past many important projects which were national in scope, some of which were realized while others, for some reason, fell by the wayside. For example, there were the great railway systems from east to west; the Alaska highway; the Trans-Canada highway; the communications microwave system; and then, lately, Telesat. However, many others fell by the wayside, such as the causeway to Prince Edward Island.
In 1855 there was much talk of building a telegraph system across Canada to Alaska, then across the Bering Strait to Asia and Europe. This suggestion was made following the break in the first trans-Atlantic line. However, the plan was abandoned when a second cable was laid successfully across the Atlantic ocean.
Then, about 1861 there was much talk of building a railways system from New York to Denver, via Alberta- then known as the Northwest Territories-and on to Alaska and across the Bering Strait by ferry to Siberia. This was a feasible plan in those days when people had vision.
In 1965, we had Thomas W. Kierans' grand canal proposal calling for the diversion of the Harricanaw River to develop power. In 1967 Acres Research and Planning limited published a report called "Canada North Development Corridor". This was a plan to co-

October 19, 1970

ordinate a system of communications, highway and railway networks from Newfoundland, by subway under the Strait of Belle Isle, and across the northern part of the provinces to Alaska. This is an excellent study, and I hope that included will be a causeway across the Bering Strait to Siberia, connecting North America with Asia. These projects I have mentioned were all excellent. Some have been developed, some not. Some of the later ones hopefully may be implemented.
I hope that Premier Bourassa's plan to open the James Bay and Hudson Bay areas for development purposes does not fall by the wayside. This proposal should be taken up by the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, as well as the federal government in order to realize the grand canal project and to consider development of Canada north corridor plan. It is to be hoped that the recent disturbances in Quebec will not cause American financiers to lose interest.
If development of the James Bay area took place, it is to be hoped that our aboriginal Indians and Eskimos would be given the opportunity to become totally involved in the economic benefits flowing therefrom, along with other Canadians. Hundreds of Indian and Eskimo children are presently completing high school. Many will take up professions and trades, but their talents may not be needed in the northern regions unless these areas are developed.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronlenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to congratulate both the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. members for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) and Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas). Both members have made their constituents proud as a result of their presentations.
Like my colleagues on both sides of the House, I should like also to express my most sincere and heartfelt compassion and sympathy to the family of the Minister of Labour of the province of Quebec, the Hon. Pierre Laporte, in their hour of bereavement and extreme sadness which is shared by the whole country. I also extend my sympathy to the family of the British diplomat, Mr. James Cross, and I am sure it is the prayer of the whole nation that he, at least, is still alive. I have little to add to the multitude of public pronouncements of indignation and horror that have been levelled against those social misfits who have been directing a campaign of physical violence and murder against our society.
May I thank, you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of commenting on the Speech from the Throne, I did think we would never come back to it. I must confess at the outset that I am going to find it difficult, to say the least, to respond favourably to the attempt in the Speech from the Throne by the government to allay the fears and concerns of the Canadian people.
It is unfortunate that the Throne Speech was not delayed until the government had wrested control of this country from the FLQ. I say this in view of the recent dastardly act, specially the murder of Pierre Laporte, by the FLQ which has taken the heat off the Throne
The Address-Mr. Alkenbrack
Speech. In a few days or weeks from now the government will be out of the woods as far as the Throne Speech is concerned, having not had to face the full weight of just criticism from the outraged members of the House.
For this reason, I was prepared to move a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott), that the House rules relating to the debate on the Speech from the Throne be suspended in order to allow additional time for members who wish to speak on the many economic and social problems that beset Canada. However, it has come to my attention during the last hour or so that some discussions along these lines are presently taking place among the House leaders. Therefore, on the assumption that the House leaders will arrive at a formula that will provide ample opportunity to those hon. members who would like to speak on the Throne Speech, I will withhold my motion for the time being.
The Throne Speech has been upstaged by the recent horrible events that have affected the lives of us all, and I cannot help feeling that the government would welcome an opportunity to fill some of the vacuum created by the speech. I cannot help feeling that the government would welcome the opportunity to explain to this House, and to the Canadian people, why there was so little in the Throne Speech in the way of specific programs designed to clear away the enormous backlog of serious problems that face this country. The problems of unemployment of housing, of unfair competition in our markets from foreign goods and from low cost labour are only a few.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I think I express the sentiment of my colleagues on this side of the House, and possibly a few in the backbenchers on the other side, when I say the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would surely welcome the opportunity to explain to us what he really meant when he said we were standing on the threshold of greatness. We are all intrigued by the prospect and I for one would like to know whether the Prime Minister was speaking objectively or subjectively. Does he mean that he and his cabinet ministers will soon soar up into lofty heights? If they soar high enough it will delight a multitude of people from one end of the country to the other. I might suggest that if the Prime Minister does not wait too long he might be able to accommodate his cabinet in one of these new jumbo jets. After the Prime Minister and his cabinet have soared out of sight in their futile search for greatness we can employ few more jumbo jets to send his proteges after him. I am speaking of the hordes of hippies, yippies, draft dodgers, deserters and assorted freaks that the present government welcomes to this country from across the border.
I will not dwell on this at length, because the indignation of most of us has been expressed in this House, except to say that people who have shown clearly they do not respect the laws and traditions of their own society and country could not be expected to have a very high regard for the laws and traditions of our country. It

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. Alkenbrack should be abundantly clear, even to our present government, that we do not have to import revolutionaries, freaks and malcontents; we have a substantial number of our own. I think it is time we stopped coddling these people in the name of the Prime Minister's new permissive society.
The majority of responsible citizens of this country have the right to expect protection from a lunatic minority that has been bombing, shooting, robbing, murdering and terrorizing innocent Canadian citizens and foreign dignitaries. I cannot believe that we are being led into greatness by a group of gangsters who have grown so powerful they can virtually paralyze every level of government.
As the Prime Minister emphasized last Tuesday, we are faced with a situation where a small group of arrogant gangsters is trying to establish a parallel power in this country in direct contravention of the traditional political system we have built up over the past 100 years, and in clear contravention of the wishes of a majority of Canadian people. The shock and horror expressed by people all across this country should serve to remind us anew that we are one country, with one society and one set of aims. We should realize now as never before that any attempt to impose the will of one culture group or one language on all Canadians will only serve to divide rather than to unify our one society.
It should be obvious to all of us now that the FLQ and other organizations of its type are not so much interested in the wellbeing of Canada as a nation as they are in furthering their own narrow, bigoted and self-serving aims. When I mention other organizations of this type, let me remind hon. members that we are confronted with other bodies besides the FLQ which are out to seek the dissolution of this country. For a very long time these groups, and especially the FLQ, have managed to enjoy relative immunity from public censure by pretending to be legitimate political organizations, seeking to change our social and political system by legitimate political means. We know now they have been sailing under false colours. We know now that the permissive policies of the last two governments have, whether they meant it or not, helped these bodies along in their policies of subversive activity.
Even the Prime Minister, who for years has dismissed the FLQ threat with a smile and a shrug of his shoulders, has finally awakened to the danger to our national security posed by the revolutionary and militant phonies whose only reason for being is the so-called liberation of one province from this great country. At long last, apparently aware that these gangsters represent a threat to his own power, the Prime Minister has publicly stripped from the FLQ the cloak of political propriety they have enjoyed for so long. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister waited so long to take a stand on the question of revolutionary activity in this country. He waited until a crisis arrived and it became necessary for the government to invoke the War Measures Act, the most extreme measure presently possible under our constitutional system of government. I contend that the government long ago was warned of what was going to happen. The

government was warned of developments that have culminated in the terrible events of the last few days.
As late as January, 1966 a tri-continental conference of all the so-called liberation movements was held in Havana, Cuba. Its objective was to co-ordinate all the Communist subversive and guerilla activities throughout the world. This conference was made up of delegates from Red China, which we have just recently recognized, the Soviet Union and Cuba. The conference was financed by Red China and Russia. Cuba was the host. The Soviet and Chinese delegates co-operated fully at that time and the Hon. Paul Martin, then Canadian external affairs minister, was apprised of this.
This year the tri-continental secretariat in Havana- that is the permanent secretariat of this tri-continental Communist conference-published a Brazilian minimanual for urban guerillas which, among other things, deals with political kidnappings and assassinations. This mini-manual was distributed in Canada and in the United States by the thousands, and in many languages. It is now the main FLQ textbook on urban guerilla warfare. Very likely this was the literary instigation of the evidence given by Lucien Saulnier here, in the West Block, at a committee meeting last November 27, 1969. Mr. Saulnier was an able and well-versed witness and he gave this House, through the committee, an account of the subversive activities going on in Montreal and throughout Quebec. He said, as reported at page 10 of Volume 14 of the Committee evidence:
We also find on the premises officially occupied by the Company of Young Canadians and paid for by the Canadian taxpayers, newspapers and pamphlets showing how to fabricate molotov cocktails, paint bombs, flasks and vials devised to disrupt police work in the maintenance of public order.
These documents recommend fighting men, dogs and horses with pepper, ball bearings and slings and even promote the use of potassium cyanide by way of injection, and these recipes are printed and distributed by the thousands.
This is an association that should have been investigated. The government knew about this as did the Hon. Paul Martin, who has gone to his permanent reward in the other place. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) knew about these moves in French Canada. He knew about the conditions in the CYC. He knew, and still knows, about the Communist infiltration of the CBC. He has done nothing and for these reasons I ask for his resignation.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
It is a little puzzling to me that the people of this country should have been surprised at this latest move of the FLQ, the dual kidnapping and murder. It is also a little puzzling that there should have been such general acceptance for so long of the claim of the FLQ to political status in our society. How could we as Canadians have tolerated any group of people who employed methods such as bombings, murder, bank robberies, public condemnations of our traditional political system and more recently kidnapping and murder of innocent public officials in the name of political expediency? I have long been convinced this has largely been due to a lack of leadership in our federal system and a lack of real interest in Canada as a nation.
October 19, 1970

Over the past years it has appeared to me that the governments of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau, in their policies of loose permissiveness, have been more interested in establishing a permanent power base for their Liberal party than in establishing a distinctive Canadian power base through sound policies.


Mr. Anderson:: Nonsense.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: They have had all the ingredients of a strong, productive country that could have provided adequately for all its citizens. They have played a foul game of politics with the issue of French Canadianism versus English Canadianism rather than of French Canadian and English Canadian side by side in one society. In this, to our sorrow, they were well aided by Charles de Gaulle, one of the leading actors on this stage not so long ago. As a result, organizations such as the FLQ are able to come into being to flourish like a cancer in the body of an otherwise healthy being. As a result, this great country has the largest percentage of drifters, dis-solutes and unemployed in the western world. As a result of the playing off of one culture against another, we are experiencing a state of turnoil in our civil service. People with long service in our government fear for their future because they have lived and worked all their lives in only one language.
We are faced with a situation wherein our two founding races are beginning to eye each other suspiciously as they jockey for position in a national power struggle. Up until now, the Liberal party has managed to use these manoeuvres to stay in power and to keep the Canadian people off balance as it strengthens its position. The recent Speech from the Throne is the latest case in point. Instead of proposing ways and means to solve our pressing social and economic problems, the government takes great pains to avoid present issues and states that more government departments will be set up and more ministers will be added to the largest federal cabinet in the history of our government. No one would quarrel with a federal cabinet, large or small, if the individual ministers were coping seriously with national issues. If it were possible to solve all or most of our problems, and if Canadians were given an opportunity to work for a living wage without fear of being displaced for purely political reasons, I would even be in favour of a cabinet of 50 ministers. But if 30 ministers in the federal cabinet cannot come up with answers to even the most basic issues facing our country, then I wonder how long we can stand the expense of what appears to be pure political patronage.
I think the people of this country must soon ask themselves what they are doing with the single most potent force in our country, their votes. In my view we must take a close look at where we are going. We must ask ourselves if this is where we really want to go. We must also ask ourselves what has happened to our national goals and aims. It is time that we demanded of our federal government that it begin to give us leadership of a kind that will take us out of the wilderness which the Liberal party appears to find more acceptable than
The Address-Mr. Alkenbrack national prosperity and the sovereignty of the Canadian individual.
In the Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister admitted that his much-touted just society is now out of reach. He then followed up with his enigmatic statement that we are on the threshold of greatness. This is contradiction without parallel. Worse, this is evidence of indecision and perhaps even a measure of panic. How much greatness can there be in massive unemployment? How much greatness can there be in a situation where Canadians are penalized for speaking only their native language? How much greatness can there be in a system where a small group of renegades can terrorize the whole country and bring political activity to a virtual standstill while their ransom demands are discussed and negotiated. I am inclined to agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) when he said that the Prime Minister's promises of greatness apparently referred to the impending Conservative victory at the polls in the next federal election.
Let us now turn to the thorny issue of bilingualism. There is a growing awareness in this country that the present government is attempting to reverse the tide of Canadian history, and that an attempt is being made to force the great river of Canadian nationalism to flow uphill. Over and over again, we have been told the only road to true Canadian nationalism is through forcing all federal employees to learn two languages and the creation of enclaves throughout the country based on one or other of the two founding languages. We are told these moves are necessary to ensure that the two founding cultures of Canada are preserved and allowed to flourish. No one is opposed to the philosophy that the two founding cultures of Canada should be preserved and encouraged to manifest themselves in private and public life. However, we are being led along a road on which we will see the emergence of a power play between the English Canadian and French Canadian factions in this country. I say factions, Mr. Speaker, because that is what is happening. The country is already being set apart into two factions, each vying for preferred position in the federal civil service.
Almost daily we see increasing evidence that the traditional and ethical merit system in the government service is being compromised in favour of bilingualism. We are told that the merit system is circumvented only occasionally in order to give preference to bilingual candidates for positions or promotions. The mere fact that personnel boards however, are allowed to use this device at all is clear evidence of the government's intent. This past summer Mr. Keith Spicer, who holds the position of official languages commissioner, made a number of comments to the press concerning his mandate. Those comments give us pause for concern. I must admit that Mr. Spicer was candid about his qualifications, but I do not feel inclined to accept his view that bilingualism can be imposed on the country in the span of three to four years. It is interesting to note that Mr. Spicer took pains to state that before he was appointed languages commissioner he had not administered anything larger than a two-hole outhouse. That might be appropriate if applied

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. Alkenbrack
only to Mr. Spicer, but we must consider such public statements in the light of the broad mandate Mr. Spicer has been given, as well as the enormous budget assigned his office and the sweeping powers given to him.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The power that has been given to Mr. Spicer in order that he might convert our federal service into a bilingual jungle in the shortest possible time is greater than that of any other official of deputy minister rank. There is a clear indication that from three to four years from now anyone in our federal service who speaks only English will be as out of place as a person who speaks only Ukrainian, Italian or Polish.
We have already reached the point where anyone in government service who dares to object to the encroachment of the official languages bill into his work, whether or not a second language is essential to his job, is subjected to harrassment, intimidation and sometimes even demotion. It is also evident that Mr. Spicer's office is more receptive to complaints from French speaking public servants than from English speaking employees, that is to say, people whose first language is French as opposed to those whose first language is English.
It has been brought to my attention by reliable sources that a device is being employed in the federal service that gives an unfair advantage to one segment of our work force. If it were not such a serious charge I would hesitate to mention it in the House, but it is the sort of thing that the government should be required to face up to and deal with before it gets out of hand. The device I refer to is the process of examining public servants in order to confer bilingual status, and thereby give the applicant an advantage in job placements and in promotion. Employees whose first language is French, and who have less than adequate knowledge of English, have been allowed to state that their first language is English. They are then examined in French; they receive appropriate grading, and to all intents and purposes they are considered bilingual. This is only one of many examples of abuses of the official languages law, and the English Canadians do not have a champion to plead their cause.
It would be specious to suggest that Mr. Spicer, in the light of his mandate, would lend a sympathetic ear to the plight of the English Canadians. I repeat that there has never been a time in our history when the morale of our public service has been as low as it is today, and this condition has been created coldly and deliberately.
Mr. Spicer also mentioned another aspect of his mandate that has not been given sufficient publicity or even any airing in this House. I refer to his statement that he wants to go further than just to make all of the public service bilingual. He stated that in order to promote a harmonious atmosphere for bilingualism in Canada he must also tackle industry. He did not say industry in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, he said industry in Canada. This raises an interesting point. Does Mr. Spicer seriously plan to force the Quebec government to reverse its stand with regard to making French the working language in Quebec industry? No one could be that naive.
I plan to say more about bilingualism in our federal service and in other areas in our country at a later date, I can only hope that I will get some support from some of my concerned colleagues in bringing this issue out of the dark and into the arena of public scrutiny. We had been on the threshold of success in bringing the two founding races of this country together in harmony. However, the Pearson government, and more recently the present government, have and do consider it more expedient to use the force of the federal sledgehammer to bring the people to heel. It will work for a while, but in the end we could be faced with a continuing situation of trouble and crisis. It is the hope of all Canadians that the government now will get down to work to deal with Canada's many social and economic problems so that she may advance instead of retreat, as has recently been her lot.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwesi Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I join all members of the House and the vast majority of Canadians in expressing shock, shame, dismay and frustration at the events in the last number of days. Many words have been said about the direction in which this country is going and the reasons this has happened. It is not my intention to dwell on this today except to extend to Madame Laporte, her family, the government and the people of Quebec, and particularly my colleagues in this House from Quebec, our deepest sympathy on this Canadian tragedy.
I should like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel), who spoke so eloquently when he moved the motion for the Address, and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) who is a very able representative of the province of Saskatchewan and has made a great contribution to the House of Commons in the short period he has been with us.
The year 1970 was the year of the north, the year when Canadians and people all over the world paid a great deal of interest and attention to the Canadian north. In addition, it was our centennial year in the Northwest Territories. One hundred years ago we became, as a result of an act of the British parliament, part of Canada, and the Hudson's Bay Company turned over Rupert's Land to the Canadian government for its administration.
There have been many highlights in this past year, and we have had many exciting moments. Her Majesty the Queen, together with members of the Royal Family, spent five days travelling the length and breadth of the Arctic to pay a visit to the Indian, the Eskimo, the Metis and the white people who live in the Northwest Territories. We were honoured by Her Majesty's visit. We saw how she and her family were able to communicate and meet with the people who had never had an opportunity to meet the Royal Family prior to this and probably never will have again, although we are looking forward hopefully to their return. We saw a gracious family who were relaxed during the whole course of their stay with us.

October 19, 1970

During the year we have had three visits, two of them short, on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to Frobisher Bay, to the magnificent Nahanni area and an extensive tour of the central Arctic last spring. In addition, we have been honoured by the visit of the Governor General and Mrs. Michener to those areas of the Arctic which did not receive either the Queen or the Prime Minister during the course of the year. Our people in the north have had an opportunity to show themselves in their native habitat to these distinguished visitors.
It seemed to me during the summer that every time we turned around in Yellowknife there was a conference just ending and another one just starting. We had visits from interested investors and people who were concerned about wildlife management. We have seen conferences sponsored by the government, such as the communications conference in September, which will be followed by a transportation conference under the ministry of transport in December. Last March we participated in the Arctic winter games when the Arctic people from Alaska, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories were able to come together to participate in sports activities.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
These games were a great success, not only in terms of the people competing but in the opportunities they had to exchange ideas and views on how we should continue to develop and live in the northern half of North America. Our centennial activities included many things in all communities across the north. There were the northern games in Inuvik, and the centennial canoe race down the mighty Mackenzie with about a dozen teams participating, lasting for approximately three weeks.
There was a revival of the old, original mail runs, by dog sled, both in the eastern Arctic and the Mackenzie District. I have before me one of the newsletters published by the centennial committee, which outlines in detail activities that took place all through the north during the past year. Our centennial is virtually over, Mr. Speaker. Now, having built the infrastructure of our Canadian north we face the task and the challenge of implementing this for the benefit of the people who live in the Canadian north, for the benefit of the economy and environment of the Canadian north, for the benefit of the ecology of the Canadian north and, most important, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the people of Canada.
This Parliament last session enacted legislation amending both the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Acts which did a number of things relating to the quality of life in the Canadian north. The amendments to the Northwest Territories Act provided for an increase in the number of representatives who come together on the Territorial Council. The amendments to the Yukon Act provided for the establishment of an executive council which, in effect, is the first step in the establishment of cabinet government in that territory. During debate the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) indicated that as a result of the experience gained in the Yukon the same kind of arrangement would be made in the Northwest Territories.
The Address-Mr. Orange
One of the complaints which many of the people in the north have with respect to the management of their own affairs is that they are still living under a system which does not give them full freedom of expression. We would like to see our elected representatives on the Territorial Council have active participation in the management of government. By this means they will learn the responsibilities and the powers involved in government. I hope that the arrangement to be worked out in the Yukon Territory establishing an executive council can be soon implemented in the Northwest Territories, thereby giving our council a real say in the things which affect our lives.
It is almost redundant to say that we are on the threshold of great developments in the Canadian north. We have talked too often about this in the past. On many occasions we have said that the north is Canada's storehouse of wealth. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the door to that storehouse is about to be opened. There have been great discoveries of oil and gas at a place called Prudhoe Bay on the north slope in Alaska. Canadian territory will have to be used to transport these resources to the United States. We know there are serious problems associated with the building of pipelines through the north, problems affecting the environment and the ecology. However, we believe it is possible to build these pipelines in such a way as to retain most of our environment in its present state.
At the moment, plans call for the building of oil pipe lines through Alaska to the port of Valdez on the southern coast of Alaska. However, it is quite probable that simultaneously with this development pipelines will have to be built through Canadian territory to bring natural gas from Prudhoe Bay to the United States. There are a number of factors which must be considered seriously in this development. The first and most important is that people along the Mackenzie River, particularly the Indian people and the Metis people, should understand the effect and purpose of a pipeline. I ask the government and the oil companies concerned to ensure that there is proper communication between them to enable a full understanding in this respect.
The second important point is to guarantee that when pipelines are built they do not destroy the tender ecology of the north. We believe that through experiment, planning, organization and the expenditure of money, pipelines can be built running from the north slope of Alaska along the coast into the Mackenzie delta, and down the Mackenzie River into Alberta, in such a way as not to affect the cariboo migration, the permafrost, and the way of life of people who are dependent on hunting and trapping for their livelihood.
In this connection the oil and gas companies have already undertaken extensive research work to determine the effect of pipelines on permafrost. The Mackenzie Valley Research Program at Inuvik, which has been in operation for a year and a half, has provided a great deal of information to the pipeliners and to governments, so that when the time comes we may, and I repeat may, be in a position to ensure that these pipelines do not constitute great danger to the north.
358

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. Orange
Extensive oil and gas exploration is also taking place in the Canadian north, arousing the same nagging worries there. We look to government to prevent a disaster which could occur without proper planning and research. One proposal is to take oil from the Canadian Arctic by tanker. On two occasions the American supertanker, the Manhattan, has tested the Arctic ice. In fairness we must recognize that this ship was not built for that purpose. It was only reinforced against ice.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, knowing the problems connected with Arctic ice, particularly in winter months, the problems of darkness and the problems of wind, I say that until such time as the government can be absolutely assured there is no possibility of oil spills from tankers, Canada must close the Northwest Passage to oil tankers. This is not to say that experimental trips such as those of the Manhattan were not useful. We discovered that in certain parts of the Arctic, particularly beyond the Northwest Passage, big tankers and other ships can be sailed without danger for most of the year. We have discovered that some of the minerals to be found in the eastern part of the Arctic islands may be transported south by large ships. Massive iron ore deposits, which were first discovered five or six years ago along the Mary River, have been left sitting there waiting the resolution of a number of problems, not the least of which was the transportation problem. As a result of the voyage of the Manhattan, it now appears there is a possibility that large ships can go through the new ice, ice formed during the course of one year. A ship can go through this ice without danger to the ship or to the environment, at the same time providing economic opportunity for Canada, in particular the Eskimo people of the eastern Arctic.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In the course of the growth of the north one of the most encouraging signs for Canadians, and indeed all people in North America, has been the interest in tourism. I am not referring to someone leaving a large city early in the morning and arriving at an isolated, comfortable fishing camp to spend a week at substantial cost. These camps are for a particular group of people. I am talking about the tourist who will travel, with a trailer hitched to the back of his car, up the Alaskan highway or the Mackenzie highway to visit the north that he has only read and heard about. We think more and more people will travel to the north by automobile, in addition to the primary means of transportation, air travel. The communities along our highways are reacting to these visitors. They help our economy. The northern people are proud to show their communities.
In many respects, Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure of northern development has been built. Most of our young people now attend school. As a result of the massive building program during the last five years, new homes are now available to most people of the north. Economic development is reaching the point where there is greater participation on the part of those who were born and continue to live in the northern communities. However, we must ask ourselves, where do we go from here?

Last year the government of Canada made a number of major decisions regarding northern development. The Department of National Defence has implemented a program to establish an Arctic headquarters. This is based primarily on sovereignty. For the time being, this headquarters will be located in Yellowknife. Armed Forces personnel will be scattered through the north for varying periods of time. The Armed Forces have a number of Arctic training projects covering construction, living in the Arctic, and other matters.
The Department of Justice has moved closer toward giving responsibility for justice to the territorial governments. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) has announced the establishment of an Arctic administration to be located in the north. I understand this will be a headquarters for the administration of all forms of Arctic transportation. The Department of Communications, through the Telestat operation, will improve communications for the people of the north.
Bearing all this in mind, I suggest to the government that it is time to develop a plan for the north. I am concerned when I see the various departments of government each working in its own direction. Although they are working with concern and interest, they are not necessarily working as closely as they might with sister departments of government and the territorial governments.
I like to think there is some means whereby planning might be done in advance, with a series of priorities established for the use of the resources, the lands, and to ensure that there is participation on the part of human resources, the people of the north. This could be accomplished by a planning council, strengthening the advisory committee on northern development, a white paper or task force. I am not sure what the answer is.
I strongly believe it is time for this government to compile a total plan, a design for the development of the northland of Canada. We must consider the criterion for investment in the Canadian north as well as the question of ownership of land and the use, either multiple or exclusive. When I say land, I am talking about conservation of areas and the development of proper planning for communities.
We must consider the human resources of the north to determine if the programs to this point have been satisfactory and meet the needs. Does the education program which has been developed really meet the needs of the people, the old and the young? We must look at the present social development programs to see if the people who are participating in these programs understand them. Do these people understand that they are on the threshold of great changes? Although these changes may have started 15 years ago, they are now being escalated. We must also determine the system of government that is best for the Canadian north. Do the territorial governments have enough power and strength to carry out those things which affect the quality of life of the northerner? What is happening with respect to the development of government?
October 19, 1970

I feel very strongly about the grand design for northern Canada. It is an opportunity for Canadians to transcend in many ways the regionalism that so often affects our country. The Canadian north offers Canadians a unique challenge to use their talents and abilities. Canadians from all parts of Canada must work to develop the human and natural resources in this vast expanse of Canada. Possibly this should be the melting pot of languages, races and skills, not only working for the benefit of the north, but the entire country.
In the process of talking about this country that I love so well, I cannot help but point a finger at some of the pressing and urgent matters that affect Canadians in the north and in the south. As our north changes, as our people come out of schools and as some of our people understand more and more of what is happening to them, they are saying to us, "We want to be involved; we want to be part of the action." The Canadian Eskimo, the Indian and Metis as well as the white man, is concerned and wants to participate in this growth and development. We have seen examples of this earlier this summer.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The people of Banks Island, hearing that oil companies were coming to their trapping grounds to undertake seismic work, objected; the news of their objection was picked up and carried by the media. We have seen how the government, with intelligent planning, was able to speak with the people of Banks Island and work out a program which was satisfactory. It is unfortunate, damned unfortunate, that before any decisions were taken the people involved were not consulted as to planning and programming. The solution that has been arrived at apparently is satisfactory to all concerned. I hope this is a lesson, Mr. Speaker. I hope that this is the silver lining and that from this time on the Indians, Eskimos, Metis and white people involved will be consulted before major economic decisions are taken in the north. They must understand the "why, how, when and where" of any decision.
Organizations such as COPE, the Committee on Original Peoples Equality, have taken the forefront in pointing out to industries, businesses and governments concerned the very point to which I have just alluded. They are saying, "You had better make certain that we know what is happening, because we will not be quiet any longer." In the process of change and development, the native peoples of the north must face a number of questions. Until they are resolved, I do not think they will really feel they are part of the Canadian dream.
I am talking primarily about aboriginal rights of Indian and Eskimo peoples of the north. By way of background, may I say that in 1921 most of the Indian people in the Mackenzie valley signed treaties with the government of Canada. These treaty documents are a disgrace. If people had been as greatly concerned about human rights in those days as they are now this matter would have been brought into the open. In no way could a government today get away with the kind of treatment that was meted out in 1921. Be that as it may, those treaties have not been upheld. The Indian people have not received the
The Address-Mr. Orange
full benefit that they were entitled to under the treaties. Those benefits include land settlement benefits. At the same time there are many other people, primarily Eskimos in the north, who have never entered into any agreement or arrangement with the government of Canada. And this is what aboriginal rights are all about.
Up to this point the government has taken a fairly strong line with regard to aboriginal rights. First, I believe the term itself must be clearly defined. Second, if the government is to permit oil companies and others to exploit these lands, I think we shall have to sit down with these native people and say we are prepared to recognize that they have some claims and some rights with respect to participating in these developments. I hope this government will change its stand on aboriginal rights and not say, "We do not intend to discuss them." There seems to be a ray of light here, because the Prime Minister not too long ago said, "Maybe we can do that." If there is to be confidence between the native peoples of the north and the government of Canada, the present issue involving treaties and aboriginal rights must be discussed.
Too often in this House, Mr. Speaker, we hear a certain kind of question posed by hon. members. Often we hear about rumours-


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House consent to permitting the hon. member to continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, may I express my sincere gratitude to my colleagues here for their courtesy in allowing me to continue. I will try not to be too long. I wish to say many things, and I believe hon. members of the House are interested in hearing them.
All too often in the House we have heard statements made by people, who may not fully understand the situation, to the effect that they have learned by way of moccasin telegraph of rumours of dreadful things happening in the north. By the same token, we seldom hear about some of the progress being made. On more than one occasion the question of the Indian mortality rate has been raised in the House. Statistics show that the Indian infant mortality rate has dropped from 64 births per thousand in 1965 to 24.2 in 1969, which is only two points above the all Canadian rate of 22 per thousand. The Eskimo infant death rate is still high; it is still triple that figure. Those engaged in medical services are doing their best to bring it lower.
The percentage of children born in hospitals has risen from just under 80 per cent in 1965 to 93 per cent in 1969. The natural increase in population-and we are very proud of this figure-in 1969 was at 31.3 per thou-
360

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. Lundrigan
sand of population, compared with the national average of 10.8 per thousand. There has been a reduction of 23 per cent in new cases of tuberculosis discovered in 1969, as compared with 1968. In the Northwest Territories alone 11 new nursing stations were built in 1969-70 in various communities. The government's objective of having nursing stations staffed by qualified nurses in all communities of more than 100 persons will be attained within a year or so. So, Mr. Speaker, all is not bad. As I said earlier, we have seen a massive housing program undertaken. Approximately 2,000 additional homes have been built. We have seen our children lodged in school. We are on the threshold of truly participating with the rest of society. We have problems. Our prices are high. We are finding difficulty in financing our ski team and in raising the quality of human life.
In conclusion, may I urge one more thing on the government. In the South Nahanni area one can find one of the most magnificent wild rivers in Canada. It is one of the most spectacular sights I have seen in my lifetime. Although I have lived in the north for many years, I saw it for the first time this past summer while in the company of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). We agreed that this area was worthy of protection for the people of Canada and for the generations to come. I know that there is some concern with regard to mining interests. I also know that the area is not used now, and has not been so used for some time, by the native peoples for hunting and trapping because it has a violent nature. There is only one person living in the area and because of the possibility of it becoming a national park, and being too crowded, Mr. Kraus is planning to move to another area. I urge the government to give serious consideration to a national park in this wild river region.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Would the hon. member suggest assisting this prospector to get past the rapids on the South Nahanni river each spring? Maybe the old boy might find that long lost mine some day.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: First, he stayed there all year. We are talking about the guy on the site there now, Albert Faille. He has been going up for years. The only way he'll ever make it up there again is by airplane and the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories has promised to arrange this for him. Albert will get his final trip up the Nahanni by airplane, and he might find that mine.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: It is very difficult to stand in the House of Commons today and speak in the debate on the Address in the light of the situation facing us. It is difficult for all members, and especially for those who have taken part in the discussion today, to ignore at least temporarily, for the sake of responding appropriately to the Speech from the Throne, a critical and serious problem in our nation. Nevertheless, perhaps the events of the last week provide a fitting background to some of the remarks I am about to make and I ask hon. members forgive me if I do not attempt to take a wide national perspective but, rather, direct atten-

tion at an appropriate period in Canadian history to the problems which face one part of Canada. I feel it is somewhat futile to say anything at all, and this reflects my disappointement in the effectiveness of debates such as these. The people I really want to talk to are not in the House today, some for very good reasons and others for lack of interest. I should like my words to reach at least some of those who are responsible for decisions affecting spending and programming.
The people I represent on the east coast of Canada are in many ways the least likely to receive consideration because of their seeming inability to draw attention to their problems by displays of unrest such as seem to have become familiar in other parts of Canada. I represent the quietest people living on the continent of North America. The amazing thing is that the people of Newfoundland probably have the richest culture in North America, the only distinctive culture remaining in Canada. The rest all seems to have become the same. Our history goes back a long way. We have had a civilization of great magnificence going back at least to the year 1500 according to the records, and there is archeological evidence to indicate that there were settlements in Newfoundland as far back as the year 900 at a time when the great cities of Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal were not even heard of. It is perhaps a contradiction that some of the representatives of Newfoundland, including the Premier of our province and the Members of Parliament who represent our province, excluding myself, of course, should be so vocal and so aggressive in presenting their case. It is an odd contrast that those they represent should be such quiet people, people who believe justice will be done simply because of the need which exists.
I wish to express appreciation to those hon. members who visited our province in the earlier part of this year. I am referring to members of the regional development committee who had an opportunity to see at first hand some of the difficulties which the province faces. I know they are convinced that Canadians ought to pay attention to the needs of the east coast of Canada, if for no other reason than to honour the pledge which was made in 1949 under the terms of union, that is, the standard of living in Newfoundland would be made to correspond, roughly, to that which prevails in the other provinces.
What does it really mean to be a Canadian, and what does it mean to be making a livelihood in this nation? It might mean you are employed at a salary of $25,000, $30,000 or $40,000 a year, living in a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand dollar home with three or four cars and two colour television sets. You might be as fortunate as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) who, I understand, has a considerable number. You could be a farmer on the prairies with hundreds of acres of grain, or a fisherman based on Prince Rupert with an average income of $10,000 a year. You could be a tradesman or a technician working in Hamilton or Metropolitan Toronto or one of the other large population centres and earning $7 or $8 an hour. You could be among the 93 per cent who are employed at the present time, or you could be among the 20 per cent of the working population of Newfoundland who are unemployed. This percentage is
October 19, 1970

about the same as the unemployment level in North America during the years of the great depression. It will make no difference that I put forward these observations in the House of Commons today, because it seems that the process of bringing about social change, to which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) so often refers, has broken down somewhere along the line; that great receiving set, the elected representatives of the nation seems not to be tuned in to the democratic process.
Perhaps this is a reflection of the times in which we live. It might not have anything to do with the particular government which is in power. But it seems to me that the means we formerly used to bring to the attention of the government the fact that there are problems to be resolved, are no longer effective. This is one of my greatest concerns. I do not want to see the kind of unrest that is evident in parts of Canada perpetuated to the extent that it becomes part of the modus operandi of people in the rest of Canada. A moment ago the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) made an urgent plea in this regard and said, in effect, "We are not going to stay quiet any longer".
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I hope that what I say to the House of Commons today will be listened to, for surely to God during the last two years the Newfoundland members of this House have on every possible occasion tried to drive home to the Canadian people and to the members of the House, as well as to the government and the Prime Minister, the fact that Newfoundland faces problems, problems that will be solved.
We have not even started on the road toward a just society, yet most Canadians are talking of reaching that ideal. For example, Newfoundlanders know they are paid the lowest wage rates in Canada, with a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour which many companies complain they cannot afford to pay. Very few people make more than $2 an hour. Most people in Newfoundland today earn around $2,000 a year, which is considered a very good income. Although we tell the Canadian people our plight, no one seems to listen. As a matter of fact, we are accused of being parochial when through the House of Commons we tell the country about the severe problems which we face.
The Department of Transport administers one of the most discriminatory pieces of legislation that I have ever seen. The people in my riding who live in the town of Gander and are employed by the Department of Transport are paid wages that are lower than those paid to fellow employees in other parts of Canada. This is because the people in Gander are placed in a certain zone. Certainly Adam Smith knew, as any other economist has known for the past five centuries, that the one way to create a just society is to put money into the pockets of the earning man. Yet, as I say, the Department of Transport pays lower wages to its employees in Gander than it does to employees in other parts of the country, simply because Gander is classified as being in the Atlantic region.
The Address-Mr. Lundrigan
We do not expect to have the just society overnight, but we have hospitals in Newfoundland which do not even deserve that name. There are four cottage hospitals in my riding, and in most cases they consist of poorly designed dwellings with mediocre facilities which are totally inadequate.
There are five or six island communities in my riding where people still have a beautiful way of life, where hospitality and friendship, goodwill and decent living, are still qualities that they understand and retain. These are qualities that in many parts of Canada have long since disappeared. This year many moves have been made by the Department of Transport to eliminate their basic line of communication, the antiquated ferry system, but not in order to bring us some new ferries. I see the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) listening attentively because he represents one of those island communities, Bell Island. We do not want a paved road to Fogo Island, which is 12 miles off the coast, but we do expect that the 5,000 people living there will have adequate ferry transportation.
Twillingate, Greenspond, Bell Island, St. Brendan's, Change Island and other beautiful island communities have populations in some cases of over 5,000 people. This year the Department of Transport has moved to increase the already exorbitant ferry rates and in many cases to cut back on the number of trips that the ferries make. This means that the number of services provided through use of their Trans-Canada highway is actually diminished.
Some members wonder why there is an increase in unrest. I should like to inform them that I have written to the "czar of transportation" in Canada, Jack Pickers-gill-who won his war on poverty with a $40,000 salary- about this question. The chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission replied to me that he could not afford to subsidize ferries on a budget of $3,000. That was the amount allowed by Treasury Board, and he explained that the budget was already overdrawn.
Is it any wonder that the people in my riding are coming to the point where they are beginning to exhibit evidence of unrest of the sort that has man'tested itself in an ugly way in various other parts of Canada? How can I explain to them that the government is not willing to listen to their demands? Some people in my province do not enjoy the benefit of telephone service, even though some of them are living within 20 miles of one of the biggest international airports in the world-Gander. At the same time, we are able to watch television broadcasts of men walking on the moon.
Last year Canadian National Railways discontinued its passenger services across our province. We campaigned against this for two years but received very little sympathy from other members of this House. It was not only the support of the government that we lacked; we also lacked response and support from other members of the House. Members from other parts of Canada are now beginning to wonder whether there will be rail abandonment in their areas, and they should be a little reluctant to approach Newfoundland members for sympathy and understanding.

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. Lundrigan
Around our coasts we have a tew thousand communities whose wharfage and fishing facilities have enabled them to earn their livelihood. Fishing is one of the three major industry-producing endeavours in our economy. I wish I had in the House the letter I received from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) regarding these facilities, because they are now being allowed to deteri-oriate. People in Ottawa have decided that no longer should the rural economies be encouraged. That decision has been made in Ottawa, though it has also been encouraged by the province of Newfoundland which is now suffering under a rather insane political set-up.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), who made such an impassioned plea in the House last Saturday, talks of changing the system through the political democratic processes at our disposal. But he will not accept the fact that continually we try to drive home to him and to the government that the fishing economy of the province of Newfoundland needs to be fostered and developed instead of undermined and allowed to perish.
Since I do not have the letter that I received from the minister, let me try to summarize its contents. It was written by the Minister of Public Works and concerns a community called Salvage, one of a dozen communities in my riding that is urgently in need of fishing facilities. In this community there are 30 boats, fishing craft, and they provide employment for almost every person in the community. In addition there are four long-liners. I do not know the value of the boats in Salvage, but some of them are worth $20,000 and employ five family men. Each man makes a living from the operations of the long-liners; at the same time, these vessels provide much needed employment ashore.
The minister informed me that he could not justify acceding to their demand for a $12,000 slipway so they can pull the boats ashore periodically to repair the bottoms, overhaul engines, re-paint and so on, because there has not been an increase in fishing activity in that community. In other words, he is telling them that the government is not prepared to construct a $12,000 fishing facility to enable the men to continue earning their livelihood.
In Newfoundland there are very few urban communities: we have St. John's, Gander, Corner Brook and Grand Falls. About a dozen communities have populations of around 10,000, and only one has about 100,000. Perhaps 25 per cent or even less of our population is living in urban communities. The rest is made up basically of people living in a rural environment. About 1,000 communities are made up basically of people who are involved in the industry of farming to a very minor extent, in forestry to a very major extent, and in fishing to a very major extent. When we became a province 21 years ago, we did not have a well developed fishery but we were in the midst of great fishing resources. We asked Canada then, and we ask Canada today, to help us develop this resource and make ours a great fishing economy so that when it is developed we may contribute to the wealth of Canada.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Perhaps hon. members do not realize that the fishing industry was the original, staple industry of the Canadian nation, followed by farming and forestry or whichever came first. Perhaps the farming industry came after forestry, because it was the industry which helped develop and spread the nation to the west where the great, primary industry of farming became the basic development. For two centuries fishing was a well developed industry, long before the rest of Canada was even heard about or developed.
Last year there was talk of a great regional development program for the province of Newfoundland. We rose in the House day after day, to the chagrin of most members of our caucus and many members of the House of Commons, and talked about the need for a fisheries policy encompassing the fishing industry. Several months later we heard that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion was going to announce a major development program for our province. He announced that millions of dollars were going to be spent on it. That money is only now beginning to be spent. The very strange thing about this program is that not a single penny of federal funds is going into the development of our fisheries resources. All this money is being channelled into infrastructure, whoever in God's name manufactured that word.
I should like to know who is making these decisions. They are quiet people in the province of Newfoundland, but I could tell the House a few stories about changes of attitude in the province which will manifest themselves loud and clear in the not too distant future. How can you expect these people to sit back for many generations and tolerate the fact that those planning future development in Newfoundland are not paying one bit of attention to their demands?
This is what is happening because the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, working in co-operation with the provincial government, has decided that in Newfoundland there should be about 50 communities instead of 1,000. Their biggest contribution to Newfoundland, as they see it, is to foster a healthy resettlement program under which people are brought from a rural to an urban economy, because they believe the kind of economy we have now should be modelled on Montreal. Montreal has a great many street lights, a beautiful sewer system, a great deal of smog and pollution, unrest, disturbance, heavy traffic, rented homes and rented houses. They have high-rise apartments where you can live on the fifth or the fiftieth floor.
Last year the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) replied to, I believe it was the hon. member for St. John's East, "who wants to live in a rustic Newfoundland outport where you may even have to tolerate things like outhouses", and called it the "pastoral syndrome" when we suggested he should listen to the people of our province. Perhaps many of them would like to live in rustic out-ports. Many Newfoundlanders want to live in these areas carrying on the work of their forefathers. They cherish this attitude which in Newfoundland has been passed down through the last five centuries. Perhaps they want

October 19, 1970

to live in an environment where people are still Christians, still believe in democracy and still go to church. These people are hospitable and still call their neighbours George, Tom, and so on. Perhaps they want to live in this kind of an environment with God-fearing people who like their neighbours. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion does not understand the environment of my Newfoundland friends. He wants an environment modelled on Montreal. I was going to tell him what he could do with that Montreal model, but I do not think this is the appropriate time.
We have a problem in respect of our fishing industry and I think I should spend a moment or two discussing it. Earlier today my Nova Scotian colleague who is chairman of the Fisheries Committee presented some of the reasons why Canada should come to the assistance of our fishing industry before it is too late. I contend that had we started a couple of decades ago, when Newfoundlanders first became Canadians, to develop the fishing industry in eastern Canada, we might have accomplished something. Perhaps this development should have been placed high on the list of priorities together with western fisheries. However, I will let the representatives of the industry there speak for themselves.
The fishing industry in eastern Canada has been treated with political bias by a number of governments, including the Conservative government, down through the years. They felt that the east coast was not a valuable political asset because it elected only a few members. Newfoundland has only seven members and we cannot change the government. We are not as powerful as Quebec and Ontario who have enough members to change the direction of government at least to some extent. Governments should have recognized that the people of Newfoundland are worthy Canadians living in a province which has valuable resources. They should not have treated us like Cinderella in respect of priorities. They should have put us high on the priority list to see whether we could make a contribution to the Canadian economy. This was not done.
I plead with the House of Commons to pay a little more attention this year to the question of international fisheries. While we have been sitting back treating with disdain the problems of the Atlantic fisheries, Russia- which is not a democratic state-has put many of its international fisheries eggs in one basket. Today the Russians have about 3,200 vessels, some as long as 300 feet, with crews of up to 5,000 manning the fleet. They prosecute an international fishery. Back in 1964, for example, they did not take a pound of haddock off the east coast. In 1965 they launched a naval war against the haddock fishery off the southeast corner of Newfoundland. That year 249 000 tons of haddock were taken, of which Russia took 129,000 tons. This year that fishery is so depleted that the fisheries products people tell me they do not even record the catches because they are so small.
The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) had the gumption a couple of days ago to inform the people of Canada that this year, from October 23 to December 31, Georges Bank is being closed to the haddock fishery. That is a tremendous move. It is being closed because there are no
The Address-Mr. hundrigan haddock. Last year the International Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries suggested that we close certain areas of our haddock fishery. Some members of the press gallery came to me and suggested we were getting action already because George's Bank was being closed. Isn't that tremendous! This is the kind of hogwash and gobbledygook being given to people of Canada. They are closing George's Bank because there is no haddock. This year we want assistance, because it is no longer a problem of the Canadian fishery; it is a problem of almost every major nation which has vessels fishing off our shores. Everybody is aware of this problem.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I understand that this weekend a documentary film is being shown on one of the television networks. I understand it is heavily biased in favour of British Columbia.
I do not mind if it is biased in any direction so long as we draw to the attention of the Canadian people the fact that we have a great fisheries resource which has only five or ten years left if the Canadian people will not put aside politics. They should forget that we are a long way from Ottawa and are only a few people and should help put the fishing industry on some kind of selfsustaining basis so that it might have a lifetime of more than ten years.
I have suggested to my colleagues that we should have an international conference on fisheries. The minister claims there will be an International Law of the Sea conference in two years. Last year he said it would be two years from now, and this year he says it will be two years from now. Either something is wrong with his mathematics or I am a long way behind in my new maths. In two years' time there will be very little fish left on the east coast of Canada: it will be too late.
The North Atlantic Fisheries Commission is not the proper body to take care of the fisheries. We contend it is not because this commission is not of a sufficiently high level. It can only recommend; it cannot make important decisions in respect of quotas and all the other things, or in respect of international agreements concerning our coasts even as far as the Grand Banks, 400 miles away. Let us not in this House think that Canada does not have some responsibility in the fisheries problem which is becoming more serious. I shall give some statistics to show that over the last two or three years the Labrador fishery has been a complete failure. Why were there occasions this year when fishing crews sailing to Labrador came home with only seven codfish after a summer's fishing? Everyone said it was because of pollution and cold water. In 1968, on Hamilton Inlet banks, 250 miles off the coast of Labrador, one billion pounds of fish were taken 25 per cent of it by the Soviet Union. The largest fishing plant in my area, the Twillingate plant, processed over 12 million pounds that year. The fish taken at Hamilton Banks would have been sufficient to keep this plant operating for 100 years.
This might give hon. members an idea of the extent of the rape of our resources by some nations. In 1964, at the Twillingate plant 94 per cent of all fish taken was the traditional cod. Everybody thought this species was in

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. Lundrigan
such abundance that there was no possibility of its becoming extinct. In 1970, it is estimated that 30 per cent of the processed fish will be cod. This gives a dramatic indication of the situation in the cod fishery especially when one remembers it was possible to catch a basketful by dropping a basket over the side of the boat.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree that the hon. member be permitted to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation to hon. members for being permitted to continue for a few moments. I was speaking of the international fishery. In 1958, the International Conference on the Law of the Sea reached agreement that a coastal state, which Canada is, had the right to unilaterally impose a measure of management and conservation in the seas adjacent to its territorial seas six months after failing to receive international agreement on conservation measures.
I hope I have made myself clear. In 1958, the International Conference on the Law of the Sea said to Canada that it could unilaterally impose measures in respect of the waters adjacent to its territorial seas, which by definition means the continental shelf, if it could not reach international agreement. We do not even go that far in our plea: we merely ask that Canada take the lead in attempting to obtain international agreement. We can worry about what moves we make after that, because I understand that nations, including the Soviet Union, are very concerned about the amount of capital investment in fisheries and their productivity, which is about one-quarter of what it was five years ago even though the average effort is twice what it was five years ago.
The cod catch in the Newfoundland fishery this year will be 25 per cent less than what it was two years ago. So, Mr. Speaker, I plead with the members of this House and the government of Canada to immediately convene an international conference of the fisheries of Canada which would not get bogged down in matters of pollution, military weapons' discharge, the rights of nations in the air above the seas, oil exploration and all the other ramifications of Law of the Sea conferences.
I am asking that Canada take the initiative in respect of a conference on the Law of the Sea to see whether a little encouragement can be given to British Columbia, eastern Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland-provinces directly affected by the imminent danger of depletion of our great fisheries resources. As a Canadian, I do not think this is too much to ask. Perhaps this plea will fall on deaf ears. If it should fall on deaf ears, the government of this nation will have to assume a great deal of responsibility for the further deterioration of law and order in this country.
I wish now to deviate from the subject of fisheries and proceed to another aspect of our economy. As an educator, I believe it is time Canada got off its constitutional high-horse and started paying attention to educational problems, in Canada. I believe the time has come when education must be considered more than a provincial problem. It can remain a provincial responsibility so far as curricula and the basic aims and objectives of our educational systems are concerned. But the government of Canada should take the initiative in becoming involved in the business of developing human resources in all parts of Canada.
In a day and age when there is great mobility of people in Canada, it is time we had more unification in our educational system throughout the nation. I am not speaking of curricula. One of my fundamental beliefs is that Canada must reform its manpower policy in particular, to see what we can do in respect of tens of thousands of Canadians who have reached middle-age and upper middle-age and are in the position where they have no prospects for the future.
I would be the first to admit that I have no answer, but I believe there should be a tremendous review of our manpower policy. In my province there are thousands of people who have never had the opportunity to gain an education. I am sure other hon. members have the same situation in their areas. Many people had to leave school at an early age. A favourite expression in my province is that they were dragged out of school and put in a fishing boat. In our Newfoundland culture the language sometimes is a lot richer than that which I have just used.
People who have had little schooling deserve consideration. I imagine there are many such people in the province of Quebec. I have only studied the situation in Quebec, having been there only 15 or 20 times. Therefore, I cannot pretend to have any knowledge of the situation there. But I imagine that Quebec, with its large rural community outside Montreal, has a tremendous number of men who have never had a chance to receive much education and who are out of tune with the technological society in which we are living.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
It seems to me that the trade schools which are available today to some people who leave high school are not adequate to teach them to deal with the kinds of problems to which we have been referring. There have been situations this year in Canada-I will not be parochial by mentioning Newfoundland only-where out of hundreds of people who have applied to enter trade schools, only some have been accepted. I am referring to a situation where 700 people applied and only 200 openings were available. As a consequence, those who got in were high school graduates. Therefore, the people I am referring to, many of whom have only grade 4 or 5 education, or even less, have had no chance. Unless we are prepared to retire Canadians at the age of 45, we should assume some responsibility for trying to make their lives constructive, which I am sure is their aspiration.

October 19, 1970

I have one last point to make on this topic. It could take me an hour, but since time does not permit me to speak that long I hope to hear someone develop it further. Basically, we are living more and more in a welfare state. I spent hours and hours as a small boy listening to my father and grandfather tell stories in the wintertime about some of their achievements, the odds they overcame and the hard work they did.
They spoke about an age when hard work was held in the highest esteem. They spoke about a period when the protestant ethic, which has nothing to do with religion, basically meant that achievement came through hard work. This seems to be what Newfoundlanders, at least, have cherished throughout the years. You did things by the sweat of the brow. The person who worked the hardest and the longest hours, and who had the most gumption and "get up and go", was held in high esteem.
Our generation of Canadians is responsible for deterioration in the Canadian society because of the emphasis in another direction. I firmly believe that the whole welfare system must be reviewed. I know I am treading on thin ice and I know I am saying something that is not the political thing to say. I know there are people in my own riding who will feel I am on touchy ground, and I know there are some damn lazy Canadians who will think I am out of order. The fact remains that as representatives of the people of Canada we can no longer reward lack of initiative, because we have a responsibility to provide a system wherein people can succeed through their own initiative.
I heard the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) tell the House a couple of days ago about a man 70 years old who was forced to pay back over $200 that he had earned through selling newspapers because government regulations would not permit him to receive his pension and still earn that kind of money. I know of many people in the same situation. Right now I am trying to draft three letters to people who are receiving war veterans allowance, because of their contribution to society in days gone by. and have to give up their employment because if their annual earnings exceed $1,200 they will have to pay back the difference to the government.
I could speak at length on the subject of welfare and Canadians who are not allowed to obtain employment to supplement their income. I have heard of a man who is 62 years old and cannot provide food for his family. He has little education. He owns a small boat 18 or 20 feet long, and not too far off the coast he can catch 15 or 20 quintals of fish, which are worth $400 or $500. The welfare department told him that this year he is allowed to earn only $20 over and above what he is receiving in welfare and anything beyond that will have to be paid back. That is the declared policy of the department of welfare in the province of Newfoundland-and 50 per cent of this welfare is paid through the Canada Assistance Act. I will not go into the details of the Canada Assistance Act, but a time will come very shortly when, if we do not overhaul drastically the welfare system in this nation so that we give people the opportunity to earn a living and the incentive to do so, we will be heading for a lot more trouble than we have had in the last week.
The Address-Mr. Francis PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION



SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED

["Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) cannot be here tonight, so I am stepping in at the last moment with no knowledge especially of the particulars of this case.\nI do, however, think that the hon. lady has accomplished one of her objectives. During her intervention in the question period, and again in the late night show, she has given a certain amount of publicity to the achievements of the Steinberg company. They have done the\nimpossible. They have given wage increases to their employees, increases which were sufficient to result in a satisfactory settlement with the unions in question, and at the same time they have held their prices; indeed, in some cases they have cut them. So Steinberg's I would think, have received much of the publicity they sought.\nAlso, I think the hon. lady gave to the House and to the nation one example, at least, of where the Prices and Incomes Commission has been successful in its objective of trying to hold the line on prices. This example is an important one, namely, a food chain which sells a great deal of food to very many people in one part of the country. She said it is not the job of the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission to comment on individual firms. I am not sure that he commented on Steinberg's. He is reported in the press as having done so; I do not know whether he did. In any case, I doubt whether the hon. lady thinks that he should comment on the affairs of Steinberg's individually and publicly in answering them and in publishing any retraction.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.", 'Tuesday, October 20, 1970']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Post Office-Termination of legal role of Minister of Communications as head of department; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Sko-berg)-Agriculture-Pesticides-DDD-Reason for one year extension on use-notification of changes; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-The Canadian economy-Steinberg wage increases-Clarification by chairman of Prices and Incomes Commission of effect on prices.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Jacques-L. Trudel for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Oitawa-West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to congratulate the movers of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne (Mr. Trudel and Mr. Douglas). They spoke well to the House. We were pleased to listen to them because they are certainly very capable.

This debate, which is unique in my experience in the House, has unfortunately been interrupted by events of a most tragic nature. The special debate on the application of the War Measures Act which took place on Friday and Saturday in the House was an example of a democratic Parliament at its best. Without any question, the full range of views was explored in the House, the implications of what we are doing were solemnly discussed and the measure of unanimity that was achieved as an expression of the wish of the people of Canada is a tribute to members of this House.
Without any question, these are historic days. We hope they have not left such a mark on the character of our institutions that this kind of thing will stay with us. We trust that it will be possible for the present emergency to be adequately dealt with at the earliest possible date, so that the necessary measures are carried out to dispose of the threat to our institutions.
I wish to raise two major subjects in the discussion today, one of which has given me concern for some time. I shall talk about the growth of our Crown corporations and the issue of public accountability that is involved. They have a special application in the constituency of Ottawa West which I have the honour to represent in the House. On referring to the Canada Year Book, 1969

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. Francis
edition, I note that the section beginning at page 108 describes the Crown corporations that have been instituted in Canada. The Financial Administration Act, part 8, which was enacted in 1951 attempts to define and classify these various agencies, corporations and miscellaneous bodies. First it describes departmental corporations, which are supposed to be as follows:
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
A departmental corporation ... that is a servant or agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada and is responsible for administrative, supervisory or regulatory services of a governmental nature.
The second major classification, which I have great difficulty in distinguishing, is the so-called agency corporation which is defined as follows:
-an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada and is responsible for the management of trading or service operations on a quasi-commercial basis or for the management of procurement, construction or disposal activities on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada.
This second group, which gives me the greatest concern, includes such agencies as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the National Capital Commission, the National Harbours Board, and so on. The third group of Crown corporations consists of proprietary corporations. Again I quote:
A proprietary corporation is defined as a Crown corporation that (1) is responsible for the management of lending or financial operations, or for the management of commercial or industrial operations involving the production of or dealing in goods and the supplying of services to the public, and (2) is ordinarily required to conduct its operations without parliamentary appropriations.
Among this latter group are Air Canada, Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Cape Breton Development Corporation, and so on. It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that there is a major problem in public administration which has developed as the result of the extensive growth of employment in this sector. There is a problem in accountability by the Crown corporations to the elected representatives of the people. There is a problem in adequate review of their policies, programs, and in many cases their budgets. There is finally, in my opinion, a development which gives me the greatest concern-the type of agency or corporation that considers it is responsible to no one and which in fact, in my opinion, has come dangerously close to committing contempt of Parliament.
Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker, are not exactly small fry. Again according to the Canada Year Book, page 117, total federal government employment on March 31, 1968, comprised 369,354 persons. Employment in Crown corporations, agencies and miscellaneous bodies at the same date comprised 210,505 persons. In other words, the sector which I feel is not subject to adequate, shall we say, supervision by elected representatives is now substantially approaching in magnitude-payrolls or any other way you want to measure it-the regular public service of Canada.
In addition to the Crown corporations we have two or three special cases. For example, Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General is responsible only to Parliament itself. I suppose that members of his staff would be similarly regarded. We all know that the Parliamentary Library, Parliamentary counsel, people who are employed on Parliament Hill under the direction of Mr. Speaker, again are responsible to Parliament in a very broad sense and not to any minister.
We recognize the need for the independence of the Auditor General. But Parliament in its wisdom has a Standing Committee dealing with the Auditor General. The Standing Committee perhaps does its work well, perhaps not so well. Sometimes it does it more conscientiously than others. Sometimes its meetings are more frequent than at other times. But it is a Standing Committee of this House.
The Chairman of that Standing Committee is not one who sits on the government side of the House. He sits on the opposition side, thereby to guarantee greater impartiality in the conduct of its proceedings and scrupulous concern for review of the report of the Auditor General, which must be one of the first concerns of every member of the House. But it may come as something of a surprise to hon. members to learn the Public Service Commission, which claims that it is in precisely the same status in relation to Parliament as is the Auditor General, reports through a minister, not to a minister, and in this case the minister is the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier).
I have been told by a member of the Public Service Commission that their view is that the minister is something of a post office. They drop their report with him and he gets it over to Parliament without doing anything to it, without entering into the policy, without in any way bringing about the type of ministerial supervision which is the normal part of governmental activity.


Mr. Nesbitt:: It's a nice theory, anyway.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, an hon. member on the other side said something which I am sorry I did not hear. If he cares to rise I would be prepared to answer a question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I said it was a nice theory, anyway.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. member that according to the Standing Orders, if he wishes to ask a question he must do it from his seat.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I am not really in disagreement with the interjection of the hon. member. We have a position here where a particular body, in this case the Public Service Commission-about which I want to say a great deal more-takes the view that its activity is an activity somewhat parallel to that of the Auditor General. I noted, for example, that this spring there was a very interesting session before one of the parliamentary committees. The head of the Public Service Commission appeared before it and pointed out that according to the statute the Public Service Commission did the recruiting

October 19, 1970

tor the Auditor General. This is one independent agency recruiting for another independent agency. The statute so requires, and the Auditor General had his own views as to whether he was being well served in regard to recruiting.
It seems to me that the result of this situation should be to call the attention of hon. members of this House to a very basic question: What is the structure of administration? Who reports to whom? Should we not, as a very minimum, have a Standing Committee of this House to review the work of the Public Service Commission, just as there is a Standing Committee of the House to review the work of the Auditor General?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: If the position of the Public Service Commission-and I suspect a good case in law can be made for this-is that it should report directly to Parliament to ensure the protection of the merit principle in the selection, promotion and appointment of public servants, is there not some obligation on the members of this House to provide a little more by way of review of the operations of this body than a 15-minute appearance once per year before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee? The problems in the growth of the Public Service are well recognized. The problems in the growth of Crown corporations and miscellaneous agencies have not been recognized to the same degree.
I think that anyone looking at the record will agree, for example, that what has been said before the committee of the other place reviewing science policy is most revealing. A tremendous commitment of public funds has been made in the atomic energy field without adequate review by parliamentary process. The amount of money that has been spent in the name of Canada for the CANDU reactor is a commitment that may yet turn out to be a wise one. But on the basis of the evidence presented to the Senate Committee on Science Policy, it might have, shall we say, benefited from legislative review of a more careful nature than at present is extended to this whole sector of Crown corporations. The commitment here is not in millions of dollars, or tens of millions of dollars; it is in hundreds of millions of dollars. The problem is not only lack of review; it is lack of uniformity of standard, lack of a logical, coherent structure.
At one time, Mr. Speaker, I had the honour to be the national president of an organization of public servants. We attempted to organize public employees in the Crown Corporation sector. It was quite revealing to see the lack of uniformity of personnel policies and selection policies. There was a great variation in policy with regard to collective bargaining. When a Crown corporation received its charter through an act of Parliament and gained the right to recruit, select, promote and operate its own budget, it was more than just a symbol of status.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that the hiring freedom which has been given the Company of Young Canadians should be studied. Without any qualifi-
The Address-Mr. Francis
cation, they have been given the right to hire whom they wish. Funds are provided by Parliament to do so. That privilege in such a blatant and unrestricted form has been given to very few Crown corporations, mercifully so.
All members of this House become concerned when the head of the Public Service Commission states over television that he is "not dancing to the tune of any political master". It is fine to use casual language in an exchange, especially with a little provocation from a journalist, but when the head of the Public Service Commission further states that a solemn undertaking given by a former Prime Minister and repeated by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is such that he does not think he can implement it, it is indeed a matter of concern. He used a television program to tell the nation that those are his views concerning the statements of two Prime Ministers of this country. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is dangerously close to contempt of Parliament. This kind of thing cannot be permitted to continue.
The head of the National Capital Commission was quoted in the press as saying that he thinks he might move the Prime Minister away from Harrington Lake. I do not know if that is an accurate quotation but it is what was printed. Such a statement is dangerously close to contempt of the executive branch, if not the legislative branch of Parliament.
Most of us have thought about this subject to some degree. It has been said that it is unfortunate there has to be the Crown corporation device for certain things. Polymer Corporation is conspicuously cited as a successful example. Few of us want to be negative in our criticism. We do not want to be accused of destroying what others have built. All hon. members have an obligation to look at what has happened to the over 200,000 people engaged in the sector of Crown corporations. I regret that the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) is not in his seat at this time, but no one can be expected to be here all the time. This member has placed 38 private member's bills before the House, all of which would have the effect of putting a member of the House on the board of directors of one or more Crown corporations.
I commend the hon. member for Cochrane for two reasons. First, he is now focusing attention on the fact that we need reform in respect of private members' bills. Each member of this House should be given a quota of possibly two which would be placed in the draw. When a member submits 42 private member's bills, the whole process becomes ludicrous. What would happen if 264 members each submitted 40 bills? We deal with only 50 in the course of a session. It would be similar to a reward in a lottery if a bill of a private member were dealt with in the session.
A simple reform of the rules is an obvious need. I hope we will have the co-operation of a particular group in this House which prides itself on private members' bills. This group has been responsible for far more bills than any other, despite their limited number of M.P's. I hope the members of this group will join with us in seeking a

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. Francis
reform of the rules with regard to the number of private members' bills to be submitted in one session. If the hon. member for Cochrane had this in mind, it is worthy. It draws attention to this situation. I know the proposal to have members of Parliament on the boards of directors of Crown corporations will be resisted, not the least of which resistance will come from the corporations concerned. That can be taken for granted. The force of inertia will be one of the things. It will also be resisted by those who do not think any new ideas have a possibility of working.
It has been said that the role of a private member is not clear if he is placed on a board of directors. He would be either snowed under by the establishment or a thorn in the flesh of somebody. The possibility that it would be useful or constructive has not come through to them. In the province of Ontario this device has been used effectively. I have spoken to a number of members from both sides of the House and to a number of members who serve on the boards of such corporations. It is my personal opinion that it is a useful device and creates a bridge between the elected representatives of Parliament and the Crown corporations. It manages to achieve a degree of autonomy that is not inconsistent with the electoral process.
Some members say the relationship of the private member to the government would be anomalous. They say the member would be in an impossible position, his duties would be too great, and so on. Those who say this ignore the experience in the province of Ontario which should be carefully examined. Hon. members will possibly have 38 opportunities to examine whether members should be on the boards of directors of 38 Crown corporations which have been enumerated. I hope hon. members will ask what devices are available to Parliament to bring in a greater degree of accountability of the Crown corporation sector to this place.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, before the House rose at six o'clock I was talking about the problem of public accountability of that sector of the public service generally called Crown corporations and agencies. I pointed out that over 200,000 persons are employed in that sector; that there are immense variations in the degree of accountability to Parliament for the activities of the sector with respect to personnel policies, hiring and promotion rights and collective bargaining policies.
I pointed out, too, Mr. Speaker, that some Crown corporations and agencies have now developed to the point
where, in effect, there is little if any supervision of what they are doing by the elected Members of Parliament. I pointed out, for example, the problem in the science sector. The Senate Committee on Science Policy has pointed out that in one case hundreds of millions of dollars were spent without any tight or adequate review of priorities or national objectives.
I also pointed out my concern that the head of a Crown corporation says he does not report to the minister, but that through the minister he reports directly to Parliament-thus claiming a status, and I think with good legal basis, similar to that enjoyed by the Auditor General. The difference in the case of the Auditor General is that there is a Standing Committee of this House to review his activities. In the case of the head of the Public Service Commission there is no comparable arrangement for review.
I was pointing out, too, that the same kind of problem seems to have developed in regard to the National Capital Commission. I note that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) who is designated as the Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs was recently made responsible for this sector. I am confident that one of the things he will do is to review the program of the National Capital Commission. Those of us who have followed its activities have been pleased with the fresh ideas, vigour and renewed emphasis which have come as a result of the appointments in the past year. We look forward to action on a new bridge to Hull, which I am sure will be welcomed by all people in the area. We know it is very much needed.
We are only asking that there be adequate consultation with the municipal authorities on both sides of the river which will have the responsibility for guaranteeing the access points and approaches. This involves a very substantial project when one considers the planning which has taken place over a number of years and the reports, the making of which the federal government has participated in and consented to, of previous years. We have now seen the recognition that changes are necessary. I think there is a great deal of merit in the proposals. We ask only that there be adequate and prior consultation in an orderly way.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the suggestion which has been endorsed at other times and places, namely, that there should be a joint committee of this House and the other place to review the work of the National Capital Commission in this area, will be considered by the government at an early date. I sincerely hope, as the member representing Ottawa West, that among the items which will be profitably considered by such a committee will be an examination of the recommendations of volume V of the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, in which some very serious charges were made concerning the administration of the national capital, the city of Ottawa.
I hope that in such a way the recommendations will be examined and that the city and other groups which feel they have been unjustifiably attacked in the report-one which is altogether different in tone from previous

October 19, 1970

reports-will have their say, so that these administrations will have a forum in which they can reply to the charges which have been levelled against them.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I can see nothing but good coming from the creation of a forum in which this matter could be weighed and the necessary recommendations made by an all-party committee, representing all parts of Canada, to this House to do what it considers right and proper in our capital. I would be the first to say, Mr. Speaker, that in this respect the record of the city of Ottawa has not been as good as it should have been. This does not mean I am prepared to accept a number of the statements made in the report, and I would welcome an opportunity to lay the record before members of this House for close examination.
I hope such a committee could look at the whole question of pollution in the national capital region. The pollution of the air is painfully evident in the area when the wind blows from the east and the mill down at Thurso is changing its process; the sulphuric fumes are breathed by all those in this city when the atmospheric conditions are unfavourable.
The pollution of our waters is scandalous. The policy of the federal authority in regard to assistance in the creation of sewage treatment plants in this area needs strengthening. The time for that is long overdue. One of the things I would welcome at an early date is assistance which would help la communaute Outaouaise to develop a sewage treatment plant. I hope the city of Ottawa will carry its service beyond that of primary treatment, which is grossly inadequate. Secondary and other treatment must be provided.
Mr. Speaker, the agenda for such a committee could be long and very fruitful. I would hope such a committee could tackle its responsibilities in keeping with the sense which we all feel, that the national capital belongs to all of Canada, not just to the people who live in it.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no intention of rushing the hon. member-he still has about 45 seconds left-but I would bring to his attention that the hon. member for Batt-leford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) wishes to ask a question, if the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) will accept it.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I will be glad to do so.


Mr. Thomson:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would tell us whether he feels the National Capital Commission should move the E. B. Eddy plant out of the Ottawa-Hull environment into another locality.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: That is a very complicated issue and I cannot give an off-the-cuff answer. Two thousand jobs are at stake. I think a program for the relocation of its facility has to be undertaken, but nothing can be done abruptly; one cannot abruptly terminate so many jobs. But I think we have an obligation to clean up this
The Address-Mr. McCleave
corruption and give the company notice of the kind of planning necessary to eliminate pollution.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: In my opening words, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply. As a member of the Finance Committee I got to know the member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel). He struck me as a very sensible fellow, one who did not pay too much attention to the strange notions on taxation which exist in the minds of his leader or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) but was inclined to follow the mainstream of Canadian thought on tax reform. I believe this will stand him in good stead when later in this Parliament we get down to the nitty-gritty of our discussions about changes in taxation.
I believe we shall get round to doing this. As some have pointed out, though, there are other areas in the Speech from the Throne we might not have an opportunity to deal with, because I suspect the schedule of this Parliament has been rewritten by events, more particularly by a shot into the head of an innocent man, Mr. Pierre Laporte. I should like to make a few comments on that matter and on the Cross kidnapping, since I knew Mr. Cross in Halifax and I suppose that when one knows victims of such senseless behaviour the message becomes all the more potent.
During the kidnapping, but before the death of Mr. Laporte I thought about presenting a notice of motion on the subject, to the effect that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be empowered to examine and report upon terrorist activity in Canada, and specifically to study: (1) the penalties which now exist in the Criminal Code as they relate to crimes committed by terrorists, (2) the efficacy of counter-terrorist activity, (3) the matter of compensation for victims of terrorism or their families, (4) the relationship of the Canadian terrorist movement with foreign influences, (5) the existing legislation dealing with emergency powers and to make recommendations thereon.
The events of the last couple of days have completely outstripped anything I had set forth in the resolution, though I believe that when the legislation to be brought forward is being examined, consideration will have to be given to the points I have advanced. I have spoken to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and understand the legislation will go to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I am a member of that committee, so there will be an opportunity for me to follow up some of my points of view.
We must not lose our perspective. This kind of terrorist activity is really like the slow emergence of an iceberg from the sea. We are witnessing a very small part of a kind of activity which is likely to grow worse as time goes by. We might as well know what we are up against, and we do not have to look far back in history to find out. The ideas we are up against here are taken from Algerian Popular Front activity, these in turn from Chairman Mao and his ideas in China, and these in turn from Mr. Lenin and his ideas in Russia.

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. McCleave
In fact, the first real philosopher of terrorism in our time was a Russian named Nechayef. We do not have to go to ancient history; we can stay within the history of this century in our study of these baleful activities to learn exactly what we are up against. This gives us an opportunity to study the philosophy of terrorism, decide whether we have taken appropriate measures to deal with it-I suspect we have not-and whether we have to declare a set of principles upon which we shall stand. I think we have to do this.
When I say "Declare a set of principles" I am thinking of the situation which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or his colleagues would face if one of their number were picked up and held. One must decide what bartering, if any-and I hope it would be minimal-would be engaged in, so that terrorists would know in advance the kind of society they were dealing with. I believe we should also make certain, when the legislation is before us, that it is tough legislation-none of this "Ten years' imprisonment and then you go free, Mr. Murderer." I hope there will be none of that. I hope that from one end of Canada to the other people who wish to engage in terrorism will know exactly the type of revenge a thoughtful society intends to wreak upon them.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
We have been soft and permissive for far too long. I suppose terrorists can be expected to think: Oh well, nothing very much is likely to happen to us or to our allies. I think we have now passed that watershed and have entered a new age, one that has to be tough. It is an age that has to assert the value of human life in a way we have not asserted it in the past when dealing with those who have taken human life. We will have to decide whether our Criminal Code measures are strong enough.
I should like to put on the record some of the proceedings before the Broadcasting Committee last year when Mr. Saulnier of Montreal made his famous appearance. I do so simply to show Canadians from coast to coast the pattern-if they have not seen it already-that has been set. My first reference is to the fourteenth report of the committee's proceedings for November 27, 1969, where Mr. Saulnier says:
We now know that in Canada, individuals and groups are working actively to implement a plan which will carry the destruction of freedom, of our form of democratic government and, in this plan, the people's will, as expressed in the ballot-box, is excluded.
Then as reported on the same page, Mr. Saulnier says:
The partial revelations to which I will limit myself today are but a small example of things I know and of which I have privately informed the Prime Minister of Canada a few times in the past year.
A little further on in the report is the evidence of Mr. Michel Cote, chief city attorney for Montreal, who was speaking about a document entitled "Revolutionary Strategy and Role of the Avant-garde", which was seized during police investigations in the city of Montreal. Talking about that document, Mr. Cote says that this revolutionary strategy comprises three stages. The document

states that the first stage is that of bringing a radical element into spontaneous social agitation.
The second stage is the organization of the exploited classes on a vast scale and, third, the organization of the exploited classes must be brought into effect, when the time comes, with a direct view to popular insurrection which will be characterized by the armed occupation of factories, universities, schools, public services and the national territory.
A little later on in his evidence, as reported at page 17 of the report, and again quoting the document, Mr. Saulnier says:
Since 1963, ever since the explosion of the first FLQ bombs, we have been in that first stage of the revolutionary struggle which will be pursued until agitation becomes widespread and culminates in a general political, social and economic crisis. We are now approaching this crisis very rapidly, and this has been particularly the case in the last six months.
The bottom of page 18 lists the main tasks of a revolutionary movement, which are three in number. The first
is:
-the organizing of a true popular power based on the rural, the student and the industrial class, by setting up conscious and active cells.
The second main task, again quoting the document, is:
The ideological training, the moral training and technical training of militants.
You can well imagine, Mr. Speaker, when speaking of moral training, that in this context we are not referring to the lessons one learns in a Christian society. The third task is defined as follows:
With regard to action, in the immediate future, we must pursue and extend action, propaganda, and permanent contestation at all levels of social life, so as to unveil, unmask, demystify and weaken further and further the gears of the system which imprisons workers and students in a strangling slavery. Excellent work has already been achieved in this field and we must continue this work.
A little further on the document contains this paragraph:
We must not be afraid of being outside the law. We must take maximum advantage of the bourgeois democracy which grants the right to demonstrate.
In other words, they would use the rights of free speech and all the things that we in Parliament cherish very highly as their means to a particular end. One can imagine how "free" speech would be if its custodian were that villain who shot Mr. Laporte in the head. My last quotation from this volume of the minutes is at page 77, where Mr. Saulnier is again giving evidence and requesting a royal commission of inquiry. As reported on that page, he says:
-I may add that a royal commission of inquiry would also show as an added advantage, that these activities are not necessarily limited to the province of Quebec, but that they extend perhaps over all of the Canadian territory.
We have had some indication during the last few days that it can reach as far as our most westerly province.
October 19, 1970

Then comes this exchange between Mr. Saulnier and Mr. Sheppard, our counsel, who asked:

Do you have, without disclosing secrets, some indications on which to base that statement? It is a problem ...


Mr.   Saulnier@: Yes.


Mr.   Sheppard@: . . .which is not peculiar to Quebec?


Mr.   Saulnier@: It is not peculiar to Quebec.

I now turn to the report for the next day's proceedings and make reference to a question I asked Mr. Saulnier about the costs being incurred by the citizens of Montreal, who up to that time had pretty well borne the brunt of the battle against terrorism, or a disproportionate load of the battle. The rest of us were thinking that perhaps it was a Montreal problem only, with no relevance to the rest of Canada. As reported at page 26, I asked Mr. Saulnier this question:
What is the estimated cost in the Montreal budget of the increased expenditures due to the escalation of your war on subversion?


Mr.   Saulnier@: It is in the order of millions of dollars. I could not quote a figure right now. We will know for sure when we come up with our annual financial statement.
Then I asked:
Have you had to add many more bodies to the Montreal police force as a result of this situation you are facing?


Mr.   Saulnier@: We increased the number of men on the force, but in many cases, if not in most cases, we had to divert a substantial number from other duties.
Finally, I refer to the conclusion of the Broadcasting Committee with regard to all this evidence, as set forth at page 9 of the sixteenth volume of the minutes. Part of the conclusion is as follows:
In view of the necessarily limited amount of evidence presented to your committee, and in view of the restrictions imposed on your committee's inquiry by its terms of reference, Your committee suggests, with respect, that Mr. Saulnier's evidence and representations be given further study and consideration by the appropriate ministers of the Crown.
I hope that was the case, and I hope we will find out exactly how effective that study was when we deal with the new legislation that is to come before us. I said that I suspected the program set out in the Throne Speech for this session of Parliament would undergo pretty severe alteration as the result of the murder of Mr. Laporte. Obviously, we will have to concern ourselves with emergency legislation, that is, legislation dealing with emergency situations such as are created by reason of subversion in our time.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Parts of the Throne Speech which we will consider include major items that will occupy our attention. The idea of a ministry of urban affairs appeals to me. I for one think the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) responsible for housing is an earnest fellow and makes this a full-time job. I cannot for the life of me see why he has to be penalized to the extent of thousands of
The Address-Mr. McCleave
dollars because he does not hold a portfolio. Other members of the cabinet do not have to work any harder but they have portfolios. This is a distinction I would be glad to see removed. Apart from that very human consideration, since he has to raise a family on the money he takes home from Parliament-just as I do; and we both know it is inadequate-the guts of the matter is whether we will create better housing legislation as a result of the measures we pass.
I suggest there are several areas that must be tackled if we are to have a better housing program. We cannot solve the problems of people earning $5,000 or less until we get into the subsidy field for rental, which we now have in the case of public housing, and the subsidy field in respect of ownership. That may strike one as a very revolutionary idea, but I do not see why we cannot do it through a greater use of technique. This system is used to an extent in Ontario and, I think, in British Columbia where there is forgiveness in respect of some mortgage principal payments if the owner who is being helped stays in his house for a specified period of time. I think that is a good, practical way of getting into this field, and it should be done more often.
I would extend that principle to those now living in public housing, giving them the opportunity to get out therefrom-even if it means massive subsidies-if they can show responsibility in dealing with what would be their own property. There should be more incentives along the line of the so-called Andras formula by which people in public housing can retain more of the extra money they earn in order to buy their own property. Serious consideration must be given to cutting down the cost of housing. This could be done in several directions. Technical ones commend themselves, but the removal of the sales tax on building materials is important.
The new premier of Nova Scotia says he will get rid of this tax at the provincial level, and he thinks his federal friends will listen to him. I hope he can put that feather in his cap, though we have tried here by pointing out over and over again that the sales tax adds thousands of dollars to the cost of a home. Those thousands of dollars break the back of many Canadians before they even get to the position of owning their own home. They know financially it will always be beyond their reach.
Then, sir, undoubtedly we will be dealing with taxation and the report of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) called the suggestions "proposals." I do not know in what sense the Prime Minister used the word "proposals" because I have not heard the right hon. gentleman make the proposals that one normally makes. In that regard the House of Commons committee provided a most useful base for an approach to taxation. The committee of the other place also had its innings in regard to taxation and found just about everything wrong with the White Paper or the proposals. That committee is a long way removed from accountability to the people, but a committee of this place is accountable.
Tax reform is never a very pleasant topic to deal with, and it might even seem strange that a member of the

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. McCleave
opposition should be waxing eloquent about it while inviting others to join and do as we do, put themselves under the headsman's axe. The point is that for nine years tax reform has been discussed in Canada, by a royal commission and by the government. The white paper has been presented and the people have had an opportunity to deal with it. Considerable concern is arising because four or five different schools of thought have emerged on major issues. The senior government makes its decision, brings it in and leaves it to the people to suggest improvements. I would be happy if the Minister of Finance would not wait until spring but would do it now. The sooner certain issues are dealt with so the people know where they are, the better will be our economic climate. Finally, Sir, on the general topics that will engage this Parliament I hope that veterans legislation will be introduced at an early stage and that we will have an indication of the proposals of the government in the fields of income and social security.
I should like now to turn to several topics of particular interest to Halifax-East Hants. I will have an opportunity later to speak in greater detail about the Shubenacadie River crossing, because in the luck of the draw I think my notice takes position No. 15. Because the discussion is now going on between the government of Nova Scotia and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, I should like to put in my oar for the Shubenacadie River crossing, which I think will do very much for northern and western Nova Scotia. The government of Nova Scotia, on Thursday, August 27, approved it in principle, that is, to include it in proposals now being studied by the federal government for a five-year plan. I am confident that the government of Nova Scotia will want to retain this crossing as part of its program.
In correspondence with the federal minister I noted that truck traffic into and out of the Annapolis Valley, to the east, is increasing, and because transport trucks are becoming heavier and heavier either bridges on existing routes will have to be improved or the crossing will have to be provided. There was evidence from the Annapolis Valley spokesmen, who are very knowledgeable about transport, that the crossing would indeed be a great boon to the agricultural interests in the Annapolis Valley.
Another point I made was that Valley agriculture would benefit because of a shorter haul to the Truro area. If a causeway were decided upon, a great inland freshwater lake would develop, thus providing a logical northern playland for metropolitan Halifax-Dartmouth as well as an extension of the metropolitan growth centre. Another argument I used was that Fundy tidal power will be developed. In light of hundreds of millions of dollars of construction work, no doubt important savings would be made by having a shorter link with Truro. Yet another argument was that there would be educational and health benefits for the people on the west side of the Shubenacadie River whose natural capital is Truro. I also suggested that the crossing is a logical link in a Fundy Trail.
I will have an opportunity to pursue this point in a couple of weeks time; my resolution will provide the
vehicle. I thought I would mention it now just to note that even with the change of government in Nova Scotia, that crossing has to be kept in mind by the federal government or I will be haunting both the federal government and the provincial government about it.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I should also mention that the time has come for a northwest arm bridge for the city of Halifax. I was stuck in a traffic jam the other day which could have been avoided had a bridge been in existence. It reminded me that sometimes conditions become so intolerable that strange voting patterns may develop. If I had not already voted on that day, I think I would have wreaked my vengeance on somebody for there being no northwest arm bridge, since I felt so keenly about it. People believe that transportation in the Halifax-Dartmouth area must be improved. That is one method.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How did you
vote?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I also suggest that when the Department of the Regional Economic Expansion commences its long-range plan for the metropolitan area of Halifax-Dartmouth, the most obvious way in which Halifax could become a super city, a real metropolis of, say, three-quarters of a million or one million people, would be the redevelopment and relocation of the city watershed. The watershed now is like a plug in the neck of a bottle; all the development goes out one side of the plug or out the other side of the plug, but does not go straight through the watershed. Unless a decision is made by all levels of government to relocate the waters bed so that land may be used as judiciously as possible for housing and industry, Halifax will simply not realize its potential.
Mr. Speaker, I am left with two topics and about one and a half minutes, although some of my time may have been cut into by an exchange involving the previous speaker. I will make one point and leave the other for a later date. It concerns containerization development as it affects Halifax. This is a noble idea and 1 have no quarrel with it. The difficulty, however, is that the stevedores and longshoremen are being hurt because the amount of labour associated with containerization is very small indeed.
I promised the waterfront workers I would find out what the federal government could do for them. I find that the following shipments of food will be made from Halifax. There will be 500 metric tons of canned fish for South Viet Nam. We are a long way from South Viet Nam, but we are glad to be handling canned fish. That shipment is for October. In November, February and May there are to be three shipments of 500 metric tons each of canned fish for Nigeria. From December 1 to March 31 there are to be 60,000 metric tons of wheat for Turkey. This shipment may go to Saint John rather than Halifax. Four shipments of 300 metric tons of food for Saigon are being arranged for November, February and August. If I did not have to gallop breathlessly down the home

October 19, 1970

stretch I would have time to explain how people are hurt rather badly by the technological age but I shall, hopefully, do this on another occasion.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas).
Today, of course, is a sad day in the history of this country, just as the last few days have been. Before beginning my remarks in connection with the Speech from the Throne, I think it is only fitting that I should say a few words about Mr. Pierre Laporte. I believe all Canadians owe him a great deal because in a very special way he gave his life in order to protect the freedom and rights of all people in Canada. I think we owe him a great debt. I hope that tomorrow, on the day of his funeral, all Canadians will take the opportunity to express our debt of gratitude to him and to his family. I wish also to express my most sincere sorrow to Mrs. Laporte and her family.
The tragic events of the last few days I think remind all of us that law is the basis of democracy. Today this point is often forgotten. Without a society based upon law we must have the other alternative, a society based upon people. A society based upon people and upon their whims and feelings from time to time is really a society based upon tyranny, because if the person in charge should not be a man of goodwill, or even if he should be, we are subject to the caprice of his views and feelings.
We in this chamber and, I hope, all Canadians realize the very purpose of a democratic society is to formulate and pronounce laws for the benefit and common advantage of all people. Unless we abide by and have some respect for these laws, society itself is in great peril. It is true that all of us in a democratic society have the right at any time to advocate changes in our laws and adjustments to those laws so that they may constantly be up to date and improved and thereby we may have a better, freer society.
We must always remember, however, that untrammelled freedom is not freedom at all. Law, by its very nature, is restrictive in one way or another. There is law such as the criminal law which involves our following norms of conduct which are not acceptable to the whole society and which certainly, by its nature, is restrictive. Even permissive laws, or laws which would grant benefits of some kind to people, impose obligations. In such cases it is necessary that the people fill out forms to the letter of the law in order to comply. This breeds red tapes, bureaucracy and all kinds of unpleasant things. But there really is no alternative. We must have a society based upon laws.
To many people in our society, laws on the surface appear to be a burden of oppression. I believe that unless people in a democratic society have a strong, effective voice in the formation of those laws they can be interpreted as oppressive measures. Participation of the people in a democracy is not a political gimmick; it is a necessity.
The Address-Mr. Cafik
If we do not allow people to become more and more deeply involved in the issues of this House, then in the long run we will create conditions which cause anarchy. We must find a way to reach the people of our country and give them a genuine hand to assist us in the operations of Parliament, otherwise our system will not and cannot survive. That was not true in days gone by, but in our age of rising expectations Canadians are more sophisticated and demand more. We also owe them more. We must allow them an effective means of communicating with us, so there will be an effective two-way street between we whom they look upon as the governors, as it were, and those who elect us to office.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Alienation between the governed and government has been increasing at an alarming rate in the last few years. Consider for a moment the attitude of many people in this country. I am not saying that they are wrong; I am saying that the attitudes which I will outline should warn us that there is an urgent need for something to be done. First of all, "politics" is a bad word, not only in Canada but perhaps throughout the western world. Why is it a bad word? Why is politics not an honourable profession? Surely it really is, but why is it not viewed as such by the people in the street, those who vote us into office? Far too many believe that politicians are dishonest and are only out for personal gain. Far too many of them feel that politicians do not really care, that we are not interested in anything outside this chamber, that there is not much point in communicating with us because we will not do anything about it anyway.
I believe that in our homes and in our schools this attitude is indirectly and unconsciously fostered. I think it is not uncommon to find parents-I know this is true because I have done it myself and I am sure all of us, if we are honest, have done it at one time or another-talking about local provincial or federal politician and saying, "Ah, he does not care." We so often imply a great disrespect for people who are trying to serve the public.
Is it any wonder that parents who have done this year in and year out in a very subtle and unconscious way find their children take their words quite seriously and grow up to have no respect at all for the institutions that we all know are the basis of everything good in this country? In this time when we have such unrest in the country, I think people should sit back and reflect upon the example that we set for each other and our own children.
I have spoken in nearly all the schools in my riding and I have been shocked and amazed at the lack of understanding students have of what goes on in this country. But more than that, I am absolutely astounded that those whose very profession it is to teach political science often know very little more than the pupils they teach. It is amazing to me that so many people in our federal society have no realization of the distinction between the powers of the municipal, provincial and federal governments. How can anybody vote intelligently if they do not know who is responsible for what? It is not very useful to go across this country speaking about

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. Cafik
federalism when no one knows what it is. It is obvious that some people do, but there are far too many who do not. We have to do something positive to change this situation.
I think, also, that in our schools and on our radio and television broadcasts there is a tendency to oversimplify very difficult problems, such as pollution. I have been to schools where people cannot understand why we do not immediately outlaw cars because they pollute the air, or why we do not outlaw anyone who puts any kind of sewage into the Great Lakes.


An hon. Member:: Good idea.


Norman Augustine Cafik: It is a good idea. But if you did not think of all the consequences of such action you would find yourself standing up to your forehead in the very thing you want to prevent. So we have to do something, and these are urgent problems. But it does not really help anyone if we speak to a group of little kids and tell them these things can be solved tomorrow morning, and show them photographs of sewage running into the Great Lakes instead of discussing all the relevant problems surrounding pollution. They want us to do away with pollution and do away with cars, and yet unemployment is too high. If we did these things in the way they have in mind, probably the vast majority of people in North America would be out of work. I think that it does not really serve any useful purpose to frustrate our youth by giving them half-baked answers to very complicated issues, and I think it is doing them a disservice to try to do so.
I think, also, that one of the causes of the difficulty-I am not speaking of the difficulties that we are having with the FLQ, but these are all things as lead up to the condition that makes it possible-is that we as politicians are far too political. I think that sometimes, if not all the time, we should put this country and its unity ahead of political ambition or political expediency. Far too often I have seen, as I am sure we all have, people stand up on political platforms and say, "What has my opponent ever done for Canada?" or they have said, "The two old parties have never done anything".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: Or they have said, "The NDP are a bunch of communists". This is not what we should say. Let us be responsible and talk about the things that they really are. If we keep knocking down our neighbour and our fellow politician, surely we are only causing a condition of animosity within our society. Perhaps we think these things are humorous or are not important. I do not believe any one of us has not gone campaigning, knocked on doors and tried to explain who he was, and then run into the odd person who seems to be motivated more by hate and distrust than anything else because he belongs to a different party.
They say, "You are no good. Only the NDP are any good," or if they are Liberals they say the Conservatives
are no good, or whatever it may be. I do not think we are beyond blame for this condition, and I do not think it is a very useful attitude or a very useful feeling to foster and spread throughout Canada. Something has to be done to create proper conditions for the development of national unity rather than national disunity.
In an age of mass communications I submit that no democracy can survive unless these tools are used, not for political or partisan purposes but to inform and involve our people in the democratic process. In this field we have failed miserably.
I believe that Members of Parliament should be given the facilities and the means to truly involve the people within their areas. Unless we do, one cannot blame people for feeling alienated from us and from everything we represent. To achieve this end I believe that every Member of Parliament, certainly in the federal House and perhaps in provincial Houses, should have an office in his own riding, paid for by the government of Canada or by the government of that province, so they could communicate with the people they represent. I do not think the cost would be very great, because there are many public buildings in every riding and I believe they should be made available to those who represent the people, so they may represent them more effectively and learn their views and feelings regardless of their political persuasion.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I also believe that Members of Parliament should be given adequate staff to carry out their work in participatory democracy. I remember saying about a year and a half ago that if the people of my riding participated any more, I would have to shovel it out the window.


An hon. Member:: What?


Norman Augustine Cafik: I had a great many letters coming into my office because I encouraged people to write and let me know their views. But there was so much mail that I could not possibly do anything with it when I got it. When you say that you want participation, you are doing a disservice if you do not supply facilities to members of this House so they may do something with the participation when it arrives.
I believe we ought to have proper, adequate staff and quarters in these buildings so that we can deal with involvement by the people in our riding. In addition, we must have two-way communication with our ridings. We all know how hopeless are the facilities in that regard. From the House of Commons we can telephone to our ridings, but if a member happens to be in his riding- where he should be from time to time, if not each weekend-he cannot communicate with the people except out of his own pocket; he has to pay for these calls himself. I do not mind, but many people who become members of this House cannot afford it. I would like to give an example of this. Last Easter weekend I was in my riding and had a telephone call from a person who said that his daughter was in jail. I will not name the place because the people involved may read this speech. The daughter was in jail in the United States. Later

October 19, 1970

there was a call about a second person in jail. I received this information on Good Friday night. That night I phoned Washington, and Dallas and other areas. I phoned all over in order to try and have these people released. They were finally released, but due more to the help of the Salvation Army than to the help of the government. Where we failed, they succeeded.
Later on, when the telephone bill came in, I knew I would not be reimbursed but I decided to apply anyway because it was a fairly dramatic case which had received national publicity. By the way, it was quite a considerable bill. What happened? I was not paid because I had phoned from my riding instead of from the House of Commons. I gather I should have got into my car and driven back to the House of Commons in order to make the phone calls. If that is not the height of stupidity I do not know what is. It is absolutely absurd that a member cannot work on behalf of his own people and charge the cost to the government or, to you Mr. Speaker, with all respect, to the House of Commons. That type of thing just should not be tolerated in an age when we are trying to get people to participate yet deny members the means to do anything when they do participate.
In addition, I believe the work schedule of the House of Commons should be arranged in such a way as to allow us more opportunity to get into our ridings and find out what our people are really thinking. If we want participation, we have to be there at first-hand to make it a reality. I believe there are steps that could be taken. Whether we sit three weeks out of the month, have two days off, or whatever the arrangement might be, we should be able to visit our ridings more frequently in order to do a job for our people. In our complicated society there is more to being a Member of Parliament than sitting here in the House of Commons. There is more than just passing legislation. We have to communicate and deal with our people so that we know what they want. If they feel they can tell us, and that this has some effect upon us, we will rid ourselves of a great deal of unhappiness and dissatisfaction in this democratic society.
I also believe that the federal government, perhaps in conjunction with the provincial governments, should establish information offices across Canada to help cut through the terrible rolls of red tape and confusion surrounding the federal system, and the complications it has for our citizens. Many people, when they have a problem, do not know whether they should come to the federal government, to the provincial government or to the municipal authorities. I believe well-publicized offices should be established, with zenith numbers, so that members of the public could phone them free of charge to find out where they may lodge complaints or offer advice and get through the kind of red tape that exists in our society.
In addition, I believe that schools and other institutions should be supplied with educational materials, films etc., dealing with the nature of our government and the provincial and federal areas of jurisdiction. As I said before, there is not much use talking about federalism if we do
The Address-Mr. Caflk
not communicate to our people precisely what it is, its benefits, how it operates and how to deal with the system.
We also need constructive public affairs programs on television to sell federalism and the democratic process. We have seen too much on television that tends to divide and destroy this nation and its institutions. Surely it is not too much to ask the CBC to do something more positive for society, rather than to carry on as it has so often in the past. I think we have been too authoritarian in the past on small, unimportant issues and have not spent enough time looking at the direction in which our society is going and trying to do something to change that direction. Perhaps we need some kind of a research centre to study the problems of democracy and Canadian unity so that we may really know what to do about them.
There are other ills that cause general disrespect for those in authority in Canada. As an example I mention the Quebec medical strike. Many people in our society- this has nothing to do with politics-have a feeling that professional people, doctors, lawyers, you name it, really do not care for anything but themselves and their own pocket-books. I am afraid they are often right. The Quebec doctors' strike gave us an indication that they had in mind motives other than looking after the sick of that province.
When medicare was introduced in Ontario I was revolted that doctors were charging 10 per cent more than the rate paid by the provincial government. I said to one doctor when I was in his office, "You should put up a sign and we will take up a collection for you poor fellows. Perhaps in that way we can do away with this 10 per cent charge." All you have to do is look at the statistics to find out how much doctors earn. They are not very poor. The same applies to the banks. Everyone has the impression that if you need money you can get it from anywhere but a bank. If you have money, you can borrow more money from a bank; but if you do not have money a bank will not look at you. The man in the street has lost faith in banking institutions as being of any meaningful help to him.
When the white paper on tax reform was issued I attended quite a few meetings in my riding. People continually rose and said, "Look, Mr. Cafik, if we thought that our tax dollar was being used for a constructive purpose we would not mind paying higher taxes, but we feel it is being wasted." If people in our country feel we are squandering their money, surely to God it is of national concern to us because such a feeling is bad for a society such as ours. If we are wasting money-and I have been on the Public Accounts Committee when it has been discovered that we have wasted money, not in this but every other government-we should do something about it.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
We should adapt a stance where we as a government care about the public purse and really intend doing something about it. When we find mistakes in spending, surely we as a responsible government ought to say that we recognize it and will do something to change it,

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. Cafik
because we are as concerned about all these matters as you. If our society is ill, let's all do something positive to remedy the situation. I will now leave this topic and deal specifically with the Speech from the Throne.
I welcome the Speech from the Throne and I support it. I agree with what it states. I also realize there are many things that the Speech does not say. It cannot go into everything in great detail. It is not legislation. We must look at the bills that will be introduced. I particularly welcome the strong emphasis on pollution and the fact that a new department of environmental control will be set up. It is badly needed. I support that move very strongly. I hope something is done to make our environment safe, not only for Canadians but for all people. We must play our part in making our air and water safe. I agree with the statement in the Speech from the Throne that our society should be measured in terms of quality and not quantity.
I also welcome the emphasis on urban affairs. I am happy that a minister has been appointed to study the problem of urban affairs. Approximately 1| years ago I wrote to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) on the subject of urban transportation. I outlined the need for legislation affecting the CNR and CPR which would make railbeds available for the purpose of commuter transportation. I suggested that the railroads be forced to give preferential time schedules for such purposes, even though it may require adjustments to their freight schedules.
I also suggested the railroads should be forced to charge reasonable wheel-mileage rates for commuter transport purposes. Many people feel these are excessive at the moment. Permission should be granted for these railbeds to be used by provincial and other governments or institutions for the purpose of establishing commuter transport facilities where the CNR and CPR refuse to do so. I hope these suggestions will be considered seriously by the ministry of urban affairs. If we change the pattern of urban transportation we will do much to correct air pollution in our large centres. A great deal would be accomplished in getting people to and from their work with less wear, tear and strain.
Although my time has almost expired I would like to spend a moment talking about tax reform. I wish to go on record as thanking the dozens of people in my constituency, many of them experts in the field of taxation, who worked with me for many months on Saturdays to study the white paper proposals on tax reform. Many of them are non-Liberals. I set up this committee because I feel the proposals are probably the most important piece of legislation that I as a member of Parliament will ever have to judge. I certainly did not want to judge it in a partisan way. I wish to thank these individuals for all their work in assisting me to arrive at an objective judgment in respect to these proposals.
The tax committee in my constituency will complete its work on November 10 at a meeting with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). At that time we will present our findings to him. I wish to point out some of the main changes we will be recommending. First, the elimination of capital gains on unrealized income. Second, I believe

that capital gains should be divorced from regular income. I say this for a number of reasons.


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


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to continue for another moment or two.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to divorce capital gains from regular income because I think it imposes a maximum tax rate of 50 per cent for personal income. I do not subscribe to this. I believe that the maximum rate for personal income should be 65 per cent. I see no justification in charging the maximum rate as proposed in the white paper. This rate starts at $26,000 a year. It also applies to someone earning $100,000 or $1 million a year. It does not sound much like equity. I believe that rate has to be increased. I think the tax rate for middle-income groups arrives at the 50 per cent rate far too soon. It ought to be adjusted and the rate of incline decreased so that the 50 per cent rate is reached at perhaps $35,000 a year.
The Minister of Finance stated-this has been quoted numerous times in the press-that he really does not want to see capital gains on private homes. If he does not want them, I suggest he eliminate them from the proposals and any legislation which may be introduced. I also believe that capital gains tax liability on death should be considered in the estate before the application of estate tax. At present there is a dual taxation in this regard. Something should also be done for the small businessman, who is hit harder than he should be. I suggest a 20 per cent tax deferral for five years for small businessmen.
I wish to thank my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me an extension of time. I do not want to abuse that privilege. There are many other proposals I would like to make, but I will make them at a later date.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, the terrible events of the past few days have made a deep impact on all of us. Our thoughts go out to Madame Laporte and her family in their grief. We are in deep sympathy with the head of the Quebec government and the citizens of that province as they attempt to root out the cancer of violence and terrifying hatred which is threatening them and all Canadians. However, in the midst of this we cannot neglect our duty in the House and sidetrack any longer discussions on the Speech from the Throne and the matters it contains. After all, the Speech from the Throne presents the view of the government as to the situation existing in Canada and a forecast of the government's program to deal with it.
[DOT] (9:20p.m.)
The previous speaker made a number of very good and very interesting points. I agree with his idea that we
October 19, 1970

must have respect for law in this country, but I point out that respect for law through democratic participation can only be achieved if people feel that the laws are based on social justice and that there is a chance for everyone to share the good things in the country. I cannot agree with him that the big lack today is in mass communications. I think we could do far more if we in this House were to succeed in getting through a few concrete measures involving social justice-measures which would redress the balance between those who have more than they need and those who have pitifully little. To my mind this would do more to build a foundation on which law could be established and respected than anything else we could do in this House.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Speaking at the commonwealth conference in Australia on October 8, a distinguished woman delegate from India declared that the world today consists of two types of people-those who are content, and those who are discontent. She went on to indicate the reasons for this division in terms of civil rights and economic security. In some measure, the same thing is true of Canada. Whether we like it or not, we are divided far, far too much into the content and the discontent, pretty well along the lines of the "haves" and the "have nots." I am not talking of the terrorists at all. Those people we must root out and get rid of completely. I say again that terror does not flourish and cannot flourish in those countries where there is a fair and even sharing of the economic and social benefits available. You do not find such terrorist activities, not on a large scale at least, in places like Britain or the Scandinavian countries. That is no accident.
I am afraid that this Speech from the Throne foreshadows increasing affluence for the "haves" and little but very pious hopes for the "have nots"-bits of tokenism which fall very far short of action in redressing that balance. I know there are good things in the Speech from the Throne. There is the establishment of a department of the environment, and emphasis on urban affairs and other like matters. Those things have been pointed out by other members and I have no wish to denigrate them at all. But I would say that the speech as a whole is packaged in soothing generalities which all too skilfully conceal its content or lack of it and continue to foster the expectations of the Canadian people that this government, while it has left so many of them in want for so long, cannot fail to come through with the things they need and must have for modern living.
Once again, the expectations of those in poverty, of those without employment, of those on low, fixed incomes, of great numbers of young people and old people are minority groups like Indians, Metis and Eskimos, are doomed to disappointment. I say that because in this speech there is little or nothing for them. This government is still riding high, far above most of the storm clouds that hide the jagged peaks of the mountains. Nevertheless, I warn the government that many rulers in the past have miscalculated their ability to provide affluence for the elite while leaving the masses in misery. During those centuries few of the mass had any idea what they were missing. They lived and died with-
The Address-Mrs. Maclnnis
out knowing how the affluent lived. Such is no longer the case. Modern communications such as radio and television have depicted clearly for everyone the manner of life enjoyed by the elite. Advertisers have created the clear impression that this is possible for everyone. The revolution of rising expectations can no longer be denied with impunity.
Delaying those programs that would create the just society in Canada, and utilizing verbiage about its desirability, will merely compound the floodwaters when the dam breaks. Insurrections and revolutions happen when governments do not know enough soon enough, or will not do enough soon enough. In my opinion, what is most lacking in this Parliament is its ability to produce actual measures of improvement for those large sections of our population which need help to obtain an income and some of the amenities that go with modern life.
Now I want to talk about something very specific and concrete, about a problem which has been mentioned once or twice but not dealt with at length in this Throne Speech debate. Out in Vancouver we are not in a state of insurrection, notwithstanding the impression one might gain from our lively mayor. But we are faced with serious problems which, if neglected too long, are bound to lead to trouble. I point out that some of these problems which are very serious today, and which we are hearing about as relating to other parts of Canada, have been neglected for many years. The storm signals have been flying and have not been heeded. They have been ignored for far too long.
During the past months very great numbers of young people have been drifting to Vancouver from all over Canada. Vancouver now has far more than its share of young people who are idle, without prospects and without jobs so far as the coming winter is concerned. The people of Vancouver are becoming up-tight and upset about this situation. I know this well because even during the summer months there was great concern and worry in the city, and there are indications that the situation is now worsening.
I say that we are getting for more than our share of restless, unoccupied and unemployed young people. A survey taken in the Beatty Street armoury showed that of the young people in the armoury, only 11 per cent came from inside the province of British Columbia; the rest came from other parts of Canada, a fairly small percentage coming from the United States. They came there for many reasons, one being that British Columbia has the only climate in Canada where a person will not freeze solid if he ceases being active. It is the only place like it in Canada. You may be very, very miserable but it is the only place where you will not freeze to death.
I know the situation because I went to the armouries and talked to the young people. There are all sorts of young people in Vancouver. We have the hippie type. We have the type that is trying to foment trouble with doctrines of various kinds. We have young people who began looking for work in the Maritimes and went steadily across Canada unable to find it. We have students. We have young people who ran away from home, and so on. The group is not monolithic; they are not all

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mrs. Maclnnis of one type. This government, I believe, is committing an error if it believes that these are summer travellers, or that the majority of them are summer travellers, out to travel from hostel t o hostel as young people do in Europe. The vast majority of these young people could not find work or an occupation no matter whether they are students or not. I am convinced that that is the case.
Why is it that the people of Vancouver are worried and upset? For one thing, they are worried and upset- this applies particularly to many people in my riding, to those in the eastern part of the city and in the central part as well-because they feel they are terribly overburdened with taxes and simply cannot face the idea of keeping these young people housed and looked after in ever increasing numbers, especially since only 11 per cent of them come from British Columbia. As I say, only 11 per cent of them come from British Columbia. These people are angry and upset. They feel it is unfair. I think it is unfair, too. I believe the federal government has a responsibility to help provide shelter and work, because we are dealing with Canadians from right across the country. The people of Vancouver are worried financially, and they are worried because they do not know what so many young people, penned-up in idleness and subject to the propaganda coming from a small number of them, will do in the line of riots, disorders and trouble in the city.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Frankly, I think the attitude of our mayor has been anything but responsible and helpful. From the beginning he has assiduously sought to avoid taking action. He has taken the attitude that these young people should be driven out of town. This attitude has been fomented carefully and insistently among the population of Vancouver. Then, to add insult to injury, when the young people were moved from the armoury out to Jericho, the mayor remarked conversationally to the media, "Well, I see the brothel is being moved to Jericho." This is not the kind of comment the first statesman of a city should make. I consider that the inflammatory talk, the explosive elements around Vancouver, taken with the fact that there has been no action of any kind, are dangerous in the extreme.
I know that shelter is being provided to a certain extent. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) told me after the House met that about half the young people were being accommodated, for the time being at least, by the federal government and that the other half were being looked after by private citizen groups. This may be all right as a temporary measure but it is not a long-range solution. The students who were going to open the university administrative buildings to these young people felt strongly, after investigation, that this was not the solution, and they rejected it. The YMCA and other organizations are trying to pinch-hit, together with some of the church groups, but this is not the solution and in my view it is a very shortsighted policy for the federal government to decide not to intervene at the present time.
Then there is the challenge of finding socially useful work these young people can do. I know hon. gentlemen opposite are likely to say this is not a federal responsibility. I remember that at one time the federal government took the attitude that unemployment of any kind was not their responsibility and that it should be left strictly to the municipalities to deal with. This attitude had to be abandoned in the face of mass unemployment. Responsibility for providing work for these young people can no longer be evaded.
The taxpayers will not stand for these young people lying around in idleness without any chance to contribute productively to their own keep. In any case, this is bad from the standpoint of the young people themselves; it is demoralizing in the extreme to deny them the opportunity to do something useful to earn their daily bread. The government's summer program for youth provided an estimated 36,000 jobs of which about 10,000 were in the militia. If the federal government could provide 10,000 jobs in the militia, paying $700 to each person who took part in that program for two months, I suggest it can find money to pay wages to young people for socially useful tasks now and in the springtime.
These are not just my views, Mr. Speaker. Speaking on September 23, Mr. Reuben Baetz of the Canadian Welfare Council stated that 665,000 Canadian students were looking for work this summer and few had found it. He predicted there would be 750,000 looking for work next year. A release from the Department of Manpower showed that 179,000 students were registered across Canada for employment at the peak of last summer. Sixty-eight per cent of them found jobs, 32 per cent were still seeking work, and of these 27 per cent were postsecondary students and 73 per cent were high school students. It is the high school students who have had to bear the brunt of the unemployment catastrophe.
I have talked with the manpower people in Vancouver about student placement and learned that by the end of August there had been 29,212 registrations in British Columbia and only 9,595 placements. The figures for greater Vancouver are 13,900 registrations and 2,023 placements. No record was kept of the duration of the employment provided or the conditions under which young students were required to work. In sum, I was told by the manpower officials that there are not enough jobs to go round and that only the most aggressive or persistent of the students can hope to get jobs in the circumstances.
I should like to suggest several steps which I believe Ottawa must take. First, the government must recognize that the employment of young people is a federal problem. They have to recognize British Columbia in general and Vancouver in particular as a disaster area as far as the provision of work for young people is concerned, and should be prepared to provide jobs and programs to deal with the situation. It is not a summer thing; it persists all the year round. Private enterprise can help. I have talked with the Chamber of Commerce people and I know they have helped. But Ottawa has to take the initiative and provide a comprehensive program. The Vancouver city

October 19, 1970

council has been urging that work of a suitable character be found for these young people. A private organization has found 5,000 jobs to Canadian young people in Germany next Summer. I do not think we should have to depend on Germany to find work for our young people.
Programs we should consider ought to include such work as cleaning up pollution. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) has received a letter urging that the National Harbours Board help Vancouver clean up driftwood and other materials from the harbour. Why cannot the young people do this kind of work and get paid for it? Young people would do this kind of thing because they would realize it is useful to the community. Again, there are opportunities in forestry. Only one acre out of seven of our timberland is being reforested. Why cannot we employ our young people on work of this kind, replanting our forests? It will be 75 years before the new growth is ready for cutting.
Here in Ontario the cutting down of diseased elms is a task which might be done by our young people, or we might use them to trim the bushes along our highways instead of using dangerous chemicals. These are some of the things which could be done. It is too important a matter to be left to casual supervision by the young people themselves. We should put our topflight management in charge of such programs, people who are used to working with youth and who can manage these schemes with success. The alternative to such a program is to leave these young people cooped up in idleness, or roaming the streets. They will be sitting ducks for the type of propaganda which led to the disaster existing in one of our eastern provinces.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I have been told that young people will not work. I should like to suggest that a great many of these young people would work if they were offered the chance to take part in such a program. This is an opportunity they should be given. If there are some who will not or cannot work, then other solutions must be found for them, other types of program. But we owe such a program to those who will work.
Like other speakers before me, I know that my time has just about expired and there are many other things I should have liked to say. May I say to the new minister of the environment that we are pleased to see him trying to move in regard to the Skagit River. We hope he can do something to save that valley for the recreational use of the people even at this late date. But the hour is very late, with the timber now cut down and the victim prepared for sacrifice. I hope the minister will act, and quickly.
The other things I should have liked to mention will have to wait for another time. In the meantime, I urge that we save our ecology and eliminate pollution and destruction. At the same time we must save our young people. Federal programs must be initiated and financed at least in part by the federal government in order to put our young people to work and to save our environment.
The Address-Mr. Otto
Saving the environment will save a lot of our young people in the process.


Mr. Steven  Olio@York East: Mr. Speaker, I shall say no more about the situation in Quebec; more words on my part will not help. A lot has been said with great sincerity by members of the House. But if in the course of my remarks I allude to situations which might have a bearing on the grave situation in Quebec, this is intentional.
I should like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I was particularly impressed by the remarks of the seconder, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas). Since he has come to the House I have been pleased to hear him ask questions during the question period, placing barbs into the government from time to time when dealing with the economic situation in the west. I had a sort of kindred relationship with that gentleman, but suddenly, having read his speech seconding the Address it seems either that all the wheat in western Canada has been sold or he has changed his mind and now regards this as the most wonderful government ever to have existed, though of course there are one or two problems to be dealt with.
Perhaps the explanation is the honour bestowed upon him of seconding the Address. I have never had that honour and in fact I am sure I will never have it. However, though his was still a good speech I would prefer to see the hon. member in his old stripes. I now feel alone in the House, though I am sure the hon. member, now sitting in his seat, will revert to his sharp, controversial but interesting self once again.
My remarks tonight were supposed to be directed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) but I see that neither he nor his Parliamentary Secretary are here. However, I imagine that somehow the word will get to him, though on the last occasion I had a chance to berate a minister apparently his executive assistant, noticing that I had made a speech about his minister, said to him, "You had better see Otto and say, 'Good speech, Otto'
So when the minister came into the House he said to me "That was a good speech you made". I thought that strange because by rights, in view of what I had said about him, he should have taken an axe to me. In other words, no one had read what I had said. In fact, I did not praise the minister at all.
This will be the context of my speech tonight. A lot of sense has been said and a lot of remarks have been made having great bearing on the situation in Canada today. In summary I would say that our malaise is that we now have two factions in society-the established and the disestablished. All of us in this House represent the established-the small businessman, the big businessman, the union, the organized man, the wealthy, the middle-income group. But who speaks for the disestablished? The disestablished is the man who does not care about income tax on $30,000 at the rate of 50 per cent because in his whole lifetime he will never make that much money, not even half or a third of that sum. The dises-

October 19, 1970
The Address-Mr. Otto
tablished is the 65 per cent of our people who do not care about the white paper recommendations or the committee recommendation that no tax or succession duty be levied on estates of less than $150,000, because in their whole lifetime these people will never know anybody who leaves an estate of $150,000. Indeed, they do not know anyone who will leave any estate.
The disestablished is not the homeowner, the man who sits in his private property enjoying the view and fighting apartment developers to the last breath. After all, the apartment dweller is not the established; he must face the railway tracks or the glue factory. So we have this division in our society, and if you examine history carefully, Mr. Speaker, you will find that the preamble to all revolutions is this friction in society. Consider today's position. We have structured our society not only into age groups. We never talk about our young people as "us" or "we", we talk about our young people as "they". Indeed, even the hon. lady from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) referred to the young people as "they". We no longer speak of our older people as "we"; we refer to them as "they". It is "they" who must be put into homes; "they" must be given low-rental apartments; "they" must be given nursing care. They are also the ones we shove out into the suburbs. Because after all, "they" are not "we".
The only thing we have in common is that, as sure as we are living, we will progress from one to the other. We have a stratified society, not only in age groups but in the ease with which we may be entitled to go up the ladder of economic success or material gain. It was not a new thing when lawyers were stratified into a very tight little group-for the public good, mind you, and for the public good only. I see in the House a member who was a member of the benchers association of Osgoode Hall, the Law Society of Upper Canada. However, we must not have too many lawyers available because this would not be good for the public. Nor must we have too many doctors or too many engineers. Although these professional groups were self-governing, they also had a responsibility. That responsibility has somehow vanished. Instead, we now have many other calcified groups.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
It is not longer possible to build yourself a dwelling or a shelter; you must follow certain restrictions. You must buy expensive property, if property is available. You cannot be a garage mechanic without going through all the stages of apprenticeship, journeyman and so on. You cannot even work up to owning or leasing a service station, because a licence is not granted. You cannot be a welder, a bricklayer or anything unless you go to this little, established group. I am speaking not only of professional groups but of unions. It takes a long time before you can get that vested position in a union where you will be the last to be laid off and the first to be taken on. In the meantime, 60 per cent of the population wants to get ahead. They are ambitious, they want to work but every avenue is blocked. History will show that when a society reaches that stage, violent revolution is the next step. Unfortunately, we read and know history but we
are absolutely positive it will never repeat itself. It does repeat itself, however.
In the cities of Toronto and Vancouver-especially Toronto, because I know that area very well-in order to get decent accommodation one must pay 50 per cent of his take-home pay. A man who started out as an ambitious journeyman thought the time would come when he would make $9,000 or $10,000 a year-a fantastic amount. When he finally reached that stage he felt he would have a better life; he might take a little trip, his children would be better dressed and his family would eat better. After 13 years of hard work he finds he is rewarded by reaching the stage where he makes $9,000 or $10,000 per year, but he takes home less than $600 per month and out of that he has to pay over $300 for, not palatial accommodation but simple, decent accommodation. He hates our guts. He is at the revolution stage. It makes him enraged because he does not eat well, he does not dress well and his children do not have the things he thought they would have. All those years have disappeared. This is the situation. Can you blame people who are in that position for grasping at a manifesto or anything that will appeal to them?
The fact is that society is ill. The question, then, is: Will this government recognize the need for reform in giant strides? In other words, were we elected to be daring or were we elected to be cautious? The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) said we must protect our institutions. I say to him that all institutions become calcified, all institutions become stagnant over a period of time and this House is no different. What I am saying today is really irrelevant and the people know this is so.
Consider the people we have in our communities. The people do not have any respect for the M.P., the alderman, the planning director or the works commissioner. In each society you have a shadow administration. In society you have people who have come from the ranks of the responsible and who dispute the findings of planning commissioners and boards because there is no communication. Within the unions you have shadow executives who have no faith in the union leaders.
An hon. Member. Give us the answers.


Mr. Ofto:: I will give you the answers in just a little while. I am sure the hon. member is listening very, very patiently for those answers.


An hon. Member:: I am.


Steven Otto: I say that before we protect these institutions we must realize whether they are worth protecting or they should be changed. Let me refer to the speech of the Minister of Finance. I could really revise the whole speech, or summarize it. But in brief he says that he is happy to see the businessmen of this country now getting lower profits. Isn't this a brave new world? I thought this was a new world, a new place of adventure, a place of opportunity where people could get greater profits. The minister says he is happy that profits are lower; indeed, he hopes that they will go still lower. He is happy, or

October 19, 1970

seems to be, that national productivity will just ease in a nice, gentle movement downward so there will not be any disruption. I thought this was a country where we wanted more production.
Dr. Young, the great adviser, says that if inflation is put under control, prices will stabilize. Of course prices will stabilize. Most businessmen are selling their inventories at cost. When it comes to replacing that stock, 1 anticipate an inflationary cycle of approximately 10 per cent because the cost of replacing those goods will increase. There is no way the cost will decrease, under the present system.
Let me review some of the facts of the economic situation in Canada. Our capital equipment, machinery and tools of production, is absolutely decrepit. We have the most inefficient accumulation of capital equipment of any country in the world, bar none. It has been said, and I think this from a very reliable source, that if our capital equipment were replaced we could increase productivity by 28 per cent. I have no doubt about that. I visited many plants belonging to friends and business associates. I am amazed that they can produce anything. So to blame labour for something which is entirely the fault of the government is really not right.
The cost of money is not going down; it is going up. So far we have not dealt with this problem at all. Our category of executives is not the best or the second best in the world; it is about tenth best. There is a great lack of executive ability both in junior and senior positions. This is no fault of ours. I think one of the great evils of having foreign-dominated industry is that there is no room for our own executive category to receive training. One of the great advantages of controlling our industry is that our junior executives have room in which to train and expand.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to launch the late-night show series for the third session of this Parliament. Perhaps to retain the shipyard analogy I should say "to sound the first toot." Doubtless my position at this time and place is some sort of bitter-sweet reward for being such a great contributor to this series in preceding sessions. I enjoy the packed galleries, the crowded House and the great anticipation of all my colleagues as we debate these matters at night.
I asked a question the other day about the Post Office Department because I was concerned about its administrative structure. As hon. members are aware, I have had
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion some concern about this department in the last few years. I found it interesting to read the Government Organization Act in connection with the announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) following the almost gentle and timid cabinet shuffle of a few weeks ago. On reading the two together, it would seem to me there is a great deal of room for uncertainty. The statute is clear. Section 3 (2) of the act as amended reads:
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The Minister of Communications is the Postmaster General and has the management and direction of the Post Office Department.
That is pretty clear. But we were advised that the Minister without Portfolio from Longueuil (Mr. Cote) has responsibility for the Post Office Department, according to the press release. Yet that minister of harmonious, efficient administration, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans), retains the title and portfolio. Who, then, is in charge? Who is the responsible minister?
One recalls very vividly an incident during the first session of this Parliament when the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) was being assisted in certain aspects of administration by the present minister in charge of housing. When conflict arose, questions were asked in the House more than once-and I have turned them up-concerning which minister prevailed. We received the answer quite clearly that in the case of any conflict between the minister without portfolio and the minister with portfolio, there was no question but that the minister with portfolio would prevail. So with regard to the Post Office today, who has and who has not the portfolio? If the minister from Longueuil, who said recently that he always tried to handle personnel in a reasonable way-and I believe him-should handle policies and people in a way not acceptable to the Postmaster General, what will happen? I imagine the employees of this important department would like to know.
The present situation is very far from clear. The Edmonton Journal the other day, in language less eloquent than 1 would put it, under the heading "Chicken with its head off" said:
Many Canadians will cheer the removal of Mr. Kierans from responsibility for the Post Office. But the re-appointment of Jean-Pierre Cote to the job-but not the title-of Postmaster General leaves the Post Office in a kind of limbo. It is not a regular government department since it is headed by a Minister without Portfolio. But neither has the government decided whether to turn it into an independent Crown agency.
The government should move quickly to end this uncertainty which is bound to affect staff morale and efficiency, already shaken by labour controversies and management clumsiness.
I presume the proposed amendments to the Government Organization Act will deal with this matter. But will we have the incredible situation of the movement of mail removed from the ambit of section 9(b), which refers to the Minister of Communications, being in charge of the development and utilization generally of communications undertakings, facilities, systems and services for Canada? The postal service has lagged, it has been slow; but surely it still deserves to be classed as
382

October 19, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion communications. Or is the Post Office Department to become a Crown corporation, to disappear as a government department, and is the minister from Longueuil merely conducting a holding operation? If this is the case and he is merely conducting a holding operation, I think it is too bad because neither he nor the department deserve such an ignoble end.
I think that if the minister from Longueuil would read the speeches of the Minister of Communications and his strictures upon his predecessors, including the minister from Longueuil, he might be extremely well equipped to take on the long-harrassed department. With the ability he professes to have, and which I believe he has, he may make great improvements. I hope the status of the minister and the department will be made clear as soon as possible so that the remedial operation may soon be undertaken by the minister from Longueuil. In his earnest efforts and heavy task I wish him well.


Mr. Barney Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is with particular respect that I make my maiden speech in this role-apart from a dramatic performance the other day in the question period- to reply on behalf of my minister to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) whom we all regard so highly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a good beginning.


An hon. Member:: Keep it up; you are doing fine.


Barnett Jerome Danson: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself, when the question arose, answered the hon. member adequately in the House. It is true that the portfolio of the Minister of Communications and the Postmaster General is still a united portfolio. But in the speech from the Throne and in the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. member on October 9, which is recorded on page 19 of Hansard of that day, the Prime Minister said:
. . we did announce yesterday through the mouth of the Governor General that we should 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 think it is agreed by all members of the House that he is an excellent one. The ministers without portfolio have been assigned rather imaginatively by this government because they have not been locked into inflexible positions. Perhaps this degree of flexibility is unknown or inconceivable to some hon. members opposite, but it reflects the flexibility and imagination of this government.
As I indicated legislation will be introduced, as I believe the Prime Minister indicated, at the first opportunity and, hopefully, before the end of this year.
Of course, this is subject to urgencies that might arise, and we hope we will not have any more of the type we are now experiencing. It is also, of course, subject to the co-operation of hon. members in all parties in the House. However, I do not think we need have any real concern

about that matter because following the Prime Minister's comment in the House on October 9 which he ended by saying: "I hope the opposition will co-operate with us in expediting this arrangement", the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) said: "Don't you worry about us". So I suggest we have nothing to worry about, and I thank the hon. member for Hillsborough for raising this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have
learned the lingo awfully fast.


AGRICULTURE-PESTICIDES-DDD-REASON FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION ON USE-NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES
Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, on October 13 a question was asked with regard to the extension of time given to the pesticide DDD. I think in Hansard it appears as "DDT." The relation between the two chemicals could be considered to be one of sister to brother or brother to sister, but the pesticide in question is DDD and I hope that whoever answers my question has that in mind.
The press release was printed on October 10 in the Ottawa Citizen. It contained the first information we had obtained that the government intended to extend the period for the use of DDD by one year, to January 1, 1972. At that time it was pointed out that in the United States there had been an investigation in 1969 and a decision that these pesticides should be eliminated within two years, for public health reasons.
The Canadian Department of Agriculture put out a news release on April 5, 1968, which set what they considered to be the national example for the use of DDD. It was pointed out that science did not yet know enough about the properties of this poison to allow its regular use, and the hope was expressed in the news release that a new and less dangerous chemical could be found. This indicated that the officials of the department were well aware in 1968 of the dangers of DDD which they themselves were using.
I suggest that civil servants cannot be blamed in so far as the use of DDD is concerned because, after all, they take orders from the government and sometimes the government does not know the hows and the whys of pollution problems and does not take the advice of the civil servants. It has been proven, also, that the use of DDD has resulted in the killing of water birds which had eaten fish contaminated by DDD.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
It has also been proven that in many cases governments know the harm that can result from the uncontrolled use of poisons like DDD, and not only do not condemn them but the public is left completely unaware of the danger. This is one of the reasons the question was asked at that time. Why was the public not made aware of the situation, and why was advice not given by the government? It is the government's duty to let the people know the dangers of all pesticides, including
October 19, 1970

DDD, because the whole nation could be poisoned through their uncontrolled use.
Why has the Department of Agriculture taken this regressive measure, extending the use of DDD to January 1, 1972? Has the department been taken in by the poison manufacturers so that they may get rid of their existing stocks? The news release suggests this is what has happened and that after that date new stocks will be denied registration. The government should not allow the continued use of existing stocks of this poison, in the interests of human life, wildlife and marine life.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to commend the hon. gentleman for raising this question because it gives us an opportunity to put the record straight. The article in the Ottawa Citizen of October 10 was based on a false assumption.
With regard to the questions raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) concerning the pesticide DDD, also called TDE, I may say that this product had a limited use and has now been largely superseded by newer and more effective products. Thus, in the continuing assessment process that goes on for all pesticides it was decided that DDD should be phased out. This decision was communicated to the trade under date of August 27. Unfortunately, the wording of the notice was such as to imply cancellation of registration status as of January 1, 1971. This notice was replaced by a further notice dated October 1, 1970, which clarified the phasing-out schedule and outlined provisions for normal disposal through sale of remaining stocks, and indicated that there would be no registration of DDD stocks manufactured in the year 1971. In other words, as of January 1, 1971, the department will not approve the manufacture of DDD.
With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg), I can assure the hon. member that there is no change in our intention to keep the public informed on the status of pesticides. Indeed, we are currently reviewing our information procedures with a view to improving communication and understanding. We are assessing the relative roles of letters to the trade and of broader information statements to the public.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-STEINBERG WAGE INCREASES- CLARIFICATION OF CHAIRMAN OF PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION OF EFFECT ON PRICES
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on October 7, Mel Dobrin, President of Steinberg's Limited, sent the following telegram to Dr. John H. Young of the Prices and Incomes Commission:
I am astonished at the contents of a news bulletin released by your commission today and carried on radio stations and reported to the press wherein you are reported as having denounced pay settlements in major grocery chains including Steinberg's Limited as being "excessive, unjustified and inflationary", and in which you are also reported as having said that "customers will have to pay the shot in higher food prices." As far as Steinberg's Limited is concerned the settlements referred to
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
were made with the collective bargaining agents for our Ontario division store employees after lengthy and conscientious negotiations. The extent of the settlements was made known to you in advance of the signing of the collective agreements and your commission was given both verbal and written assurances that Steinberg's would do everything possible to avoid increasing prices as a result of such wage increases. Your representatives have met regularly with members of our organization and have been kept informed concerning our prices and operating margins. You therefore must be aware that at no time repeat at no time has Steinberg's Limited increased its prices directly or indirectly as a result of these negotiated increases. We have in fact reduced prices further since such wage settlements and are now operating at lower gross margins than those in effect prior to the settlements.
Your comments in so far as our company is concerned are inaccurate, misleading and unfair. We would appreciate your issuing a statement which would make the facts clear to our customers and the public at large.
On October 14 I asked the minister if he would discuss with Dr. Young the necessity of issuing a statement to set the matter straight and to make amends for the inaccurate statement he had made. The minister brushed off my question with a quip and a reference to the consumer price index which had just been released. More important, no answer has been received by the Steinberg firm since that time. I checked this today; I have been keeping in contact with them. The facts are that Steinberg's went through the proper collective bargaining procedure with employees who received wage increases; Steinberg's did not raise prices as a result of those wage increases. Dr. Young's statement is not in accord with the facts, and a correction should be issued.
I again ask the minister whether he will take action. His responsibility is clear. The Prices and Incomes Commission reports to Parliament through the minister. What is his objection to using moral suasion on Dr. Young to persuade him to set matters right? Surely both of them should be glad to find a firm prepared to cut their profit margin in order to give better wages to their employers without raising prices to the consumer. This is a matter which should be given publicity instead of inaccurate statements being made.
In any event, it is highly debatable whether Dr. Young has exceeded the terms of his authority in denouncing the actions of Steinberg's. In outlining the proposed terms of reference of the commission two years ago, the minister stated:
It is particularly important to stress that the commission will not, except in cases involving the national interest in a vital way, be expected to report on the specific price decisions of individual firms or the wage decisions of particular collective bargaining situations.
In outlining the terms of reference of the Commission, the minister made it perfectly clear that it was not within the purview of the chairman to make statements regarding individual firms. If this was in the mind of the minister when the commission was set up, it is doubly important that the minister exercise his responsibility and ensure the public is not left with the impression that the statement was correct.
The minister said it was peculiar that I should be defending the Steinberg firm. I will defend any firm,
23226-25*

October 19, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion individual or consumer that feels there has been an injustice. An injustice has been done to the Steinberg firm, a firm which has lived up to the terms of the guidelines and in addition has enabled its employees to get a fair deal without harming the consumer. I suggest that the minister make no further attempts to hide behind Dr. Young in this matter. He should exercise his responsibility as the minister responsible and give Steinberg's the credit due them.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) cannot be here tonight, so I am stepping in at the last moment with no knowledge especially of the particulars of this case.
I do, however, think that the hon. lady has accomplished one of her objectives. During her intervention in the question period, and again in the late night show, she has given a certain amount of publicity to the achievements of the Steinberg company. They have done the
impossible. They have given wage increases to their employees, increases which were sufficient to result in a satisfactory settlement with the unions in question, and at the same time they have held their prices; indeed, in some cases they have cut them. So Steinberg's I would think, have received much of the publicity they sought.
Also, I think the hon. lady gave to the House and to the nation one example, at least, of where the Prices and Incomes Commission has been successful in its objective of trying to hold the line on prices. This example is an important one, namely, a food chain which sells a great deal of food to very many people in one part of the country. She said it is not the job of the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission to comment on individual firms. I am not sure that he commented on Steinberg's. He is reported in the press as having done so; I do not know whether he did. In any case, I doubt whether the hon. lady thinks that he should comment on the affairs of Steinberg's individually and publicly in answering them and in publishing any retraction.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, October 20, 1970