1970-10-22

Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-173, to amend the Judges Act (reserve judges).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
[DOT] (11:10a.m.)


Hyliard G. Chappell: Mr. Speaker, this bill will allow judges to retire at age 70 rather than 75, provided they remain reserve judges until the age of 75. It is anticipated that these few extra judges would clean up backlogs of cases and make access to the courts faster.


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Was one of the reasons for the government invoking the War Measures Act that the government had "good reason to believe that the FLQ, which, as a front, has the organization called FRAP running candidates in Montreal, wanted to disturb the election by explosions of all kinds and by further kidnappings or even shootings"?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I want to read from the same article that the hon. gentleman is reading from.


Mr. MacEwan:: It is very interesting.


John Napier Turner: In the statements from which he is quoting, my colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, also said:	"At this
moment in Montreal.. .there is an election. There is no relation between our action and the election itself." That was made quite clear by my colleague.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the Minister of Justice prepared to answer the question I asked? I will repeat it if I may, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that is necessary. I am sure the minister heard the question and should indicate whether he wants to reply or not.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister answer my question, whether this is one of the reasons that the government invoked the War Measures Act?


John Napier Turner: No, sir. The reasons have already been given in speeches made in this House.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Oh, no.


An hon. Member:: What reasons?


John Napier Turner: It was quite clear that the situation with which we were dealing is a situation that existed throughout the province of Quebec, as evidenced by the letters of Premier Bourassa and the Mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau, and I think that has been made perfectly clear in this House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since there is a municipal election in Montreal, I believe within four days, will the Minister of Justice make a full statement today in the House as to the reasons for the government believing that FRAP is a front for the FLQ, as alleged by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion outside the House? Surely the people of Canada and the candidates and people of Montreal are entitled to know the reasons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question-


Mr. Lewis (York South):: As a supplementary
question-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will return to the Leader of the Opposition. I believe the hon. member for York South wishes to ask a supplementary. I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition. I did not realize he wanted to ask a further supplementary. We will return to him in a moment.



FRAP-STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-ACTION AGAINST MEMBERS OF ORGANIZATION

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary of the right hon. Prime Minister

October 22, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
and ask him whether the statement made by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to the effect that FRAP was a front for the FLQ was a statement which the government approves of and, second, does that mean, as it seems to me to mean, that under the regulations the members of FRAP are members of an illegal organization and are subject to arrest?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Well, Mr. Speaker, on the second point the hon. member is entitled to his own legal interpretation, but on the first point the answer is no.


David Lewis: May I then ask the Minister of Justice whether he or his department has considered, or whether he knows whether the Attorney General of Quebec has considered, applying the regulations against members and supporters of FRAP and, if not, would he say whether it is right to call it a front for an illegal organization?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I just answered that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously the second part of the question is not in order. Perhaps the first part of the question would be acceptable from a procedural standpoint, but certainly not the second part.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may repeat the first part of the question, perhaps the Minister of Justice would give an answer. My question was whether, in view of the allegation made by a colleague of his, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, FRAP is now considered an illegal organization by him or the Attorney General of Quebec, and is action contemplated against those associated with it?


John Napier Turner: It is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that the responsibility for the application of these regulations in Quebec is the responsibility of the Attorney General of Quebec. I have not communicated with him on that particular subject.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he proposes to make any statement in the House or to the public at large in view of the extraordinary and alarming statement made outside the House by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, particularly in view of the electoral circumstances that prevail in the city of Montreal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My statement was very clear and sharp, Mr. Speaker. I answered the question of the hon. member for York South by a clear no.



SUGGESTED POSTPONEMENT OF MONTREAL MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a supplementary question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
Considering the tragic situation in Quebec, could he tell us if a member of his cabinet has been in contact with a minister of the Quebec government with a view to postponing indefinitely the municipal election in Montreal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker.



REASONS FOR INVOKING WAR MEASURES ACT-ACTIVITIES OF FRAP    STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, why ask other ministers when the minister in question has arrived?


An hon. Member:: He just came in.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether the information he gave so blandly in Vancouver yesterday was well founded or is it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman knows, of course, that the question cannot be asked in this form. It was asked in the correct form by other members who preceded him.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to find out from the minister whether it is true that one of the reasons for the War Measures Act being invoked by the government is the fact that this FRAP organization, or whatever it is called, in Montreal was regarded as an instrument of wrongdoing?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have indicated to the right hon. gentleman that the question cannot be asked of the minister in those terms. In relation to a statement made outside the House by a minister, a question may be asked of the Prime Minister, and this has been done.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, surely there is not being built around this government a wall of protection when the minister is in the House and he is asked to answer directly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The rules are very clear and they are applicable to all members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. No one is more deferential to Your Honour that I am, but I have heard questions like this asked over the years. Either the minister spoke out of his hat or was endeavouring without any information to influence the election. In either case Parliament never had this information. This is another reason that a full statement

October 22, 1970

should be made regarding the situation which resulted in the bringing in of the War Measures Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot quarrel with the statement made by the right hon. gentleman but if a statement of this kind were to be made it would not be as the result of an inquiry of the minister in question, but a request of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice. My impression is that this is what was requested previously during the question period. The hon. member for Egmont.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the minister is rising. In view of the minister's direct intervention in the municipal election in Montreal, I wonder whether he is now prepared to make a statement to the House, particularly in view of the serious charges that were in fact made by the minister outside the House?


Mr. Marchand (Langelier):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.
We have no intention of interfering, either directly or indirectly, in the municipal election in Montreal. There is nothing to withdraw from the statement I made yesterday. However, there has obviously been some confusion due to the fact that, because of my imperfect command of the English language, I used the English word "front" instead of the French expression "caution morale". I shall clarify this outside the House.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the danger of innuendo and smear, will the Prime Minister not agree that the time has arrived for full and concise information as to the exact nature of the apprehended insurrection as asked for earlier in the House?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I address a very simple question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the statement he is reported to have made, would he not agree to make a statement on motions-I am sure hon. members would gladly revert to motions now to give him the opportunity-explaining the statement he made about FRAP and giving the House the evidence on which he made that statement which has smeared a good many innocent people?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Dictatorship.


An hon. Member:: Including his own friends.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Would the Minister of Justice, as the chief law officer of the Crown, discuss this matter with his colleague to ascertain if his colleague has facts in connection with which there should be further investigation, and then report his findings to the House?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have already discussed this matter with the Solicitor General. He is not in the House today.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That's too bad.


John Napier Turner: I have nothing further to add to what the minister has already said.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Justice whether, in the discussions he has had with the Solicitor General, consideration was given to the fact that the remarks made by the minister in question come within the provisions of the Hate bill legislation?


Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni):: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister of Justice would indicate whether any other action has been taken to prevent FRAP from distributing political literature or, in effect, to make inoperable an aspect of the political campaign now being waged in the Montreal municipal elections?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as has already been said, the bringing into force of the War Measures Act has no relationship to the municipal elections.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In order to clarify certain matters, can the minister say in the House whether or not FRAP is a front for the FLQ?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.



MONTREAL-REMOVAL OF FRAP ELECTION POSTERS IN UNIVERSITY SETTLEMENT

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will he undertake to investigate whether or not the police entered the University Settlement in Montreal and required that FRAP election posters be taken down, on threat of imprisonment? Does he not consider this action if it is correct, to be an infringement of the rights of the people in that area with respect to municipal elections? Also, what action does he propose to take with respect to this matter?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleague, the Solicitor General, to look into the hon. member's question.



WAR MEASURES ACT-HOLDING INCOMMUNICADO OF THOSE DETAINED, RIGHT TO COUNSEL-AMENDMENT OF REGULATIONS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another question. Yesterday the
454
October 22, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry
Minister of Justice made the following statement in the House, as reported at page 422 of Hansard:
It is my understanding that those detained have been given the right to contact parents and friends so that their whereabouts may be known. The Attorney General of Quebec made a statement this morning dealing with the right to counsel.
In view of the statement made by the Attorney General of Quebec yesterday that more than 300 of the persons detained are going to be held incommunicado and denied the right to counsel, may I ask the minister if he can clarify the situation inasmuch as he appears to be making one statement and the Attorney General of Quebec appears to be making a totally different statement?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise upon which the hon. member concluded his question. I should like to table later in the day-I do not have it with me now-the press release or statement issued by the Attorney General of Quebec, if I have the permission of the House. The Prime Minister has a copy here which we can table so that it will be clear to the House what the Attorney General of Quebec actually did say. I would be glad to table that copy now, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have a supplementary question?


John Napier Turner: I would like to go on if
I may, Mr. Speaker, to answer the substance of the question of the hon. member.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could this statement be made an appendix to Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of statement referred to above, see appendix.]


John Napier Turner: With reference to the statement contained in the hon. member's question that those arrested were to be held incommunicado, I refer to the headline in this morning's Globe and Mail, "Cho-quette will detain prisoners at least 21 days incommunicado". I think I can say that that headline misrepresents the situation that exists.
The information I have, after conferring with the office of the Attorney General of Quebec this morning, is that 369 persons have been arrested under the regulations under the War Measures Act and that up until yesterday afternoon 55 of those arrested had been released. I also understand from the office of the Attorney General of Quebec that at least 48 more either have been or will be released today.

It is true it was my understanding after discussions with Mr. Choquette that the Quebec government recognized that the arrested persons had the right to instruct counsel on their behalf, and I believe that arrangements either have been or are being made to permit this to be done. Mr. Choquette refers to that in the statement I just tabled. It is also my understanding from the press communique issued by Mr. Choquette that the police have already notified the families of those detained in any cases in which they were requested to do so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that the minister and the federal government drafted these regulations, not the Attorney General of Quebec, and the minister must therefore accept responsibility, is the minister now prepared to amend the regulations in order to assure the people of Canada that the persons now being detained or any persons who may be detained under these regulations will have the clear and undisputed right to legal counsel and to communication with their families?


John Napier Turner: What the government intends to do, Mr. Speaker, is to introduce legislation at an early date to replace the regulations. The Prime Minister wrote the leaders of the other parties, including the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, asking for suggestions as to what should be included in the legislation. We would appreciate receiving a reply as early as possible so that we can proceed with this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has a further supplementary following which I will recognize the hon. member for Egmont.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
minister is quite right in stating that we received an invitation from the Prime Minister to submit our suggestions. We are in the process of doing so and he will have them either today or tomorrow. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Justice yesterday, as reported in this morning's paper and on television, that the present regulations will be transferred into a statute, I ask the minister, if that is the case, whether this means that the invitation for opposition parties to make suggestions is pure hypocrisy and a farce?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question, of course, cannot be allowed.


John Napier Turner: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Justice on a question of privilege.
October 22, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I hoped this question was important enough that it would not descend into the political arena, something the hon. member is seeking to bring about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You started it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this is not very helpful. I would think that the minister who has just spoken did not indicate that he had a question of privilege. This is, again, a point of debate. The minister has invited debate in the same way as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has done, and I think it would be as well at this point if I were to recognize the hon. member for Egmont.



WAR MEASURES ACT ARRESTS-SUGGESTED USE OF INDEPENDENT OBSERVERS

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Bearing in mind the resolution recently presented to the federal government and the government of Quebec by the Canadian Council of Churches, may I ask whether the Minister of Justice has yet had an opportunity to consult with the provincial Attorney General as to the possibility of following up the suggestion that independent observers be allowed access to people held in custody so that there may be a minimum of future embarrassment or difficulty created because of prolonged or unnecessary detention?


John Napier Turner: I relayed that suggestion to the office of the Attorney General this morning along with the suggestion made yesterday by the right hon. member for Prince Albert.



WAR MEASURES ACT-OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN LETTERS TO PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Considering I am receiving hundreds of letters from all parts of Canada congratulating the government on its position in the present situation, could the Prime Minister tell us whether he himself is getting a considerable number of letters-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Réal Caouette: There is no oh's or ah's about it. I want to know whether he is getting a great number of letters from all parts of Canada expressing the opinion of the general public, not that of the crackpots who are in Parliament.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The situation is not improving. I will now take a chance with the hon. member for South Shore.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Temiscamingue will have to wait a moment. I have already recognized the hon. member for South Shore.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I shall direct my question to the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. At the present time New Brunswick troops are out of Camp Gagetown on duty in Quebec. Has the minister made any provision for absentee voting by servicemen on duty outside their own province? If not, what action will be taken to ensure that New Brunswick soldiers are not disenfranchised in the forthcoming election?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This question relates to the right to vote and the provisions which allow for absentee voting or the service vote. It is a matter entirely for the law of New Brunswick and it is therefore not within the power of the federal government or this Parliament to change the provisions of that law so that these people may vote. I did indicate when I was in Gagetown yesterday that the primary consideration was that soldiers should be in a position to discharge the duties they are now discharging in the interest of national security. But if, as I sincerely hope, it is possible in the very near future to bring some of the men back to the Canadian Forces Bases we shall make a particular effort to get the RCR back to Gagetown so that they will be able to vote next Monday.



NATIONAL SECURITY


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am back again, not with a statement, but with a question for the Prime Minister.
According to this morning's news, the union leaders Pepin, Laberge and Carbonneau are requesting immediate suspension of application of the War Measures Act in order, they claim, to save democracy.
In view of these people's claim that they are speaking on behalf of their membership, which, incidentally, is unfounded, does the Prime Minister intend to suggest that those three feather-brained characters hold a free
23226-30i

October 22, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
vote among their members in order to realize that 90 per cent of them are in favour of legislation aimed at protecting-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbel: I
wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since there has been evidence of continuing delay in the tabling of the white paper on social security, will the minister tell the House what measures are to be introduced in the interim to increase benefits for veterans receiving allowances and disability pensions?
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: That would be a more appropriate question to direct to my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: I was under the impression that a similar question was addressed to the minister a few days ago, but since I am not sure, perhaps the hon. member might like to continue.


Mr. Marshall:: May I simply redirect my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: am sorry. Would the hon. member kindly repeat his question?


Jack Marshall: Because of the delay in bringing in the white paper on social security, would the minister advise the House what interim measures are being taken to increase benefits to war veterans receiving war veterans allowances and disability pensions?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: This matter is still under very active and sympathetic consideration and when a decision is made it will be announced in the proper way.



ELIMINATION OF RESIDENCE RULE IN RESPECT OF WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES

Hon. Marcel Lamberl (Edmonion West):: In the course of the consideration of veterans benefits, is the position of war veterans who live outside Canada and who would otherwise qualify for war veterans allowance being reviewed so as to eliminate the arbitrary residence rule now in effect?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: All these questions are being looked into at the present time.



CLOSING OF LONDON, ENGLAND. OFFICE-CONTINUATION OF SERVICE

John George Diefenbaker: 
Mr. Speaker:: Again I have the impression that this question has already been asked but in view of the importance of the matter the minister might wish to reply.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: This question was answered last week, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: No. This question was not answered. More evasion!



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is he prepared to tell the House what the guidelines are that have been set down to determine what constitutes false and misleading advertising so that the Canadian people can be made aware of them?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Over a year ago I made a statement setting out certain instances of misleading advertising which we would endeavour to reach under section 33(d) of the Combines Investigation Act. That statement received wide publicity among better business bureaux and retail merchants associations, who have been very helpful and co-operative in our misleading advertising campaign, so I am not sure what the hon. member is referring to.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask, then, whether the minister has resolved his jurisdictional conflict concerning this matter with his counterpart in the province of Ontario?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Without offering a legal opinion I might say there is no view of which I am aware which expresses any doubt as to our jurisdiction to administer section 33(d) of the Combines Investigation Act.



ADVERTISEMENTS FOR NON-LEAD GASOLINE

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: My supplementary question has to do with misleading advertising, Mr. Speaker. It arises from the fact that the National Research Council has established that non-lead gasoline, when used in cars built prior to the recent models, causes greater air pollution, not less. Has the minister consulted with his officials to determine whether or not these advertisements for non-lead gasoline are contravening the misleading advertising regulations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member appears to be inviting the minister to express a legal opinion. I doubt whether his question is in order.
October 22, 1970


Stanley Ronald Basford: I did not take the question as asking for a legal opinion, Mr. Speaker. All I can say is that we are examining all of the oil companies' advertising-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether RCMP officers were acting on the instructions of the government when they warned university student newspaper editors that action would be taken against them if they distributed newspapers the contents of which had been questioned by the police?


John Napier Turner: That question is phrased in terms too vague for me to answer. In any event, I will refer it by way of notice to the attention of the Solicitor General.


David Orlikow: Will the Minister of Justice undertake an investigation and report back to the House regarding the censoring of student newspapers across Canada, especially of editorials arguing against the implementation of the War Measures Act?


John Napier Turner: I will look into the matter, Mr. Speaker, but there is nothing in the regulations to which reference was made earlier today that in any way implies censorship of news coverage or public comment.


David Orlikow: That being the case, would the minister look into the question of whether in fact the police have been misusing the regulations in the way suggested?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the serious concern of many cattle producers over pending changes in the beef grading system in Canada, which appear to indicate a much greater proportion of rail grading as a basis of settlement to the producer, what thought or consideration is being given to western beef producers who rely heavily on the facilities of the open auction markets where their cattle are exposed to the bidding of several buyers, which seems to be a very satisfactory competitive bidding arrangement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the minister reply to this question briefly. It seems to me to be one of a very general nature which would normally call for a
Inquiries of the Ministry
statement on motions. If the minister can reply quickly and briefly, it will be acceptable in those terms.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will comply with your suggestion. I do not believe there will be any interference with or any basic change in the auction method of selling most cattle, but there is a plan that is being worked out by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and others, with some co-operation from my department, to change some of the bases on which beef is graded. As far as I can tell there is no agreement on the question at the present time, and I think that more work will have to be done before a new grading standard becomes operational.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Roberi Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister say whether an agreement between the federal government and the government of Manitoba has been finalized with respect to a redevelopment plan for the town of Churchill?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I might tell the hon. member that we advanced this proposal to the government of the province of Manitoba several months ago. Although no agreement has yet been concluded, we are hopeful.


Robert Simpson: Can the minister say whether the matter of a $10 million redevelopment plan for Churchill has as yet been placed before cabinet?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would not think that that question is in order.



COMBINES


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The minister may recall that I contacted him some time ago in regard to this matter. In view of the continued increase in the price of farm machinery and repairs, much of which machinery is imported and should have been reduced in price following the freeing of the Canadian dollar, is this inequitable situation being investigated by his department and, if so, will the minister make a statement soon in this regard?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we have accepted the recommendation of the Barber report that, apart from what my colleague the Minister of Agriculture would do relative to farm machinery prices, the Combines Investigation

October 22, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
Branch should examine the situation, and they are. However, it is established policy that the work of this branch is not revealed until either charges are laid in court or notice of discontinuance has been filed.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In addition to the War Measures Act implemented to control terrorism, is the government considering the enactment of other measures of a social and economic character likely to eliminate the main causes of current dissatisfaction in some parts of the country?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is obviously very important but he will agree, I think, that such a wide-ranging inquiry normally requires a general answer which should be given on notices of motions.



WHEAT-AVAILABILITY OF SPACE FOR DELIVERY OF HIGHER GRADES

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Inasmuch as up until now emphasis has been placed on movement of low-grade wheat, I should like to ask the minister when he anticipates that deliveries may be made of the higher grades?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this question was put the day before yesterday, and I indicated that the Wheat Board has this matter under advisement. There is, of course, a good supply of No. 1, 2 and 3 grades of wheat in the elevators and handling system. Therefore there is no immediate need for their delivery and the space is required for these other grades. However, I anticipate that before very long it will be possible to open the first quota of a general nature for wheat.
WHEAT-CLOSING OF 1968-69 POOI^-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO MAKE UP DEFICIT


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that an Order in Council has now been passed closing out the 1968-1969 wheat pool, cam the minister indicate how much of the funds allocated for the purpose of making up the deficit for the 1968-60 pool account have actually been put to that purpose?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, certainly I can before long give
the hon. member the exact figure, but if I understand the purport of the question correctly, the amount allocated in the previous estimates was all required for the fund and in fact an additional amount will be necessary.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. May I ask the minister whether or not he or the government is in a position to indicate if the DDH-280 program will be cut back by either one or two ships? If not, can the minister indicate when the construction cost review will be completed?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I cannot indicate that at this time. I hope that in a matter of several weeks I shall be able to announce at least those details about the ships.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wonder whether the minister could indicate whether or not, during the period of the construction cost review, work is going ahead on all four vessels?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that it is, but I would have to check that point. It is at least so far as the ones in an advanced stage of construction are concerned.



PENSIONS


Mr. Keilh Hymmen (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister advise the House about his recent trip to Germany and his discussions with West German authorities on the entitlement of Canadians of German origin to their earned pension benefits?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think that this is a question that should be answered by a statement on motions. There may be some urgency that is not apparent to me, and if there is the hon. member is welcome to give notice for discussion at the time of adjournment.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Is it

October 22, 1970

true that the decision of the government not to make public the names of those arrested under the War Measures Act was made because it would be embarrassing to certain people, and are these people private citizens or are they politicians?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Joliette.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture.
Whereas several recommendations have been submitted to this effect, may I ask the Minister to tell us whether his department is working on the preparation of legislation providing for free distribution of milk in schools and hostels this year?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Scott:: I shall make it brief, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister have any plans to include optometric services in the shared-cost benefits under the Act?


John Carr Munro: There are no definite plans at the present time. However, the matter will be discussed at the forthcoming federal-provincial conference of health ministers.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct this question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada and welcome him back to the House and the country. Can he assure us that Information Canada is not inhibiting the dissemination of the findings of the latest Gallup poll which shows a substantial Progressive Conservative gain and a major Liberal decline?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



HARBOURS


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister say whether approval has been given by his department to a request from the government of Newfoundland for assistance to construct docking facilities at Come-By-Chance, Newfoundland.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, in this particular matter we are waiting for more particulars.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



HEALTH AND WELFARE


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the minister is aware, optometric services do not qualify at the present time for federal shared-cost benefits under the Medical Care Act. In view of the fact that there are only 660 eye physicians in the country to serve 20 million Canadians and in view of the fact that 65 per cent of eye care is provided by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This sounds to the Chair like a speech, or at least a mini-speech. The hon. member should get to his question.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce?
On May 14 last, the Minister stated that he would soon submit a bill on textiles which would state government policy in this field. Is he in a position to advise when this legislation will be introduced?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this will depend on the order of presentation of the various bills in this House. The bill involved here is just about ready and I hope it will be passed before Christmas.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-While Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Labour who was here earlier but seems to have evaporated. I shall address it to his Parliamentary Secretary. With regard to the abrupt closing down of operations due to financial difficulties of Lincoln Construction Company in central Newfoundland, which has thrown

October 22, 1970
Business of the House
some 250 men out of work, will the minister assure the House that the unemployment insurance records of these men will be immediately obtained from the company and that special provision will be made to expedite the filing and payment of unemployment insurance claims of those who wish to apply?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that his question will be brought to the attention of the minister and that a reply will be sought to this important inquiry.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council would tell us the nature of the business of the House for the balance of this week and the beginning of next week.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to advise the House concerning how we propose to conclude the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Today is the last full day, the eighth appointed day, but there is a period of two hours owing to the debate arising from the interruption to deal with the establishment of the Constitution Committee. It is proposed that these two hours will be provided tomorrow afternoon from three o'clock to five o'clock and that the question on the main motion will be put then and if a division is requested it will occur on the following Monday after the oral question period. I suggest that this arrangement might be made an order of the House.
Apart from the arrangement I propose in respect of the termination of the debate on the address, the business for tomorrow will be called in the order listed on the order paper. The first order of business is government order No. 7, Bill C-2, in respect of the Canada Shipping Act- pollution. The second is government order No. 8 in respect of Bill C-3 concerning investment companies. The third is government order No. 9, Bill C-4 respecting the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. The fourth is government order No. 10, Bill C-5 respecting Deuterium of Canada Limited.
Monday's business will be a continuation of Friday's business in the same order. Tuesday will be an allotted day under the auspices of the Official Opposition. On Wednesday we will deal with the report stage of the federal court bill which was restored to the order paper last evening. On Thursday we will conclude the federal court bill and follow with any outstanding business left over from Monday. I hope that on Monday next we will deal with the five references to committees standing in my name on today's notice paper. This, however, will be subject to further discussions with the parties opposite.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, October 21, 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. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halton.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rud L. Whiting (Halton):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also wish to thank hon. members who greeted my rising to speak in the way they did. This is greatly appreciated, I assure them.
When I visit, as I regularly do, the communities of Acton, Erin, Georgetown, Milton and Oakville in my riding which I have the great honour to represent I try as often as I can to visit the local news media in these communities because I find that the people who represent these media can provide me with further information concerning what is happening in these communities. I also like to think I can provide them with additional information concerning various government policies. However, Mr. Speaker, I do from time to time receive calls from the news media. Sometimes I am asked to come down and visit the newspaper offices in my riding if there should be something in particular the people in these offices wish to discuss with me. This happened last April.
I received a call from the daily Journal-Record of Oakville. I was asked if I would come down to their office as they had something of importance to show me. When I arrived there I was taken to a room which I thought was a storage room. I was right; it was a storage room. There were boxes piled high containing envelopes, books, folders, brochures and everything imaginable made out of paper. This is what they had received from the federal government and various federal agencies over the last 12 months. It amounted to 185 pounds of paper which had not been opened, which had not been looked at, which was not wanted and which could not be used by this particular newspaper. To say that I was shocked or surprised is a gross understatement. Upon leaving the newspaper office I did a quick survey of other newspapers in my riding. I found out that they received the same material the Oakville daily Journal-Record had received. What did they do with this material? They put it in file No. 13, the wastepaper basket.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)
This prompted me to place on the order paper last March four questions which I would like to read to the House at this time if I may. Question No. 1: How many newspapers across Canada, both weeklies and dailies, received unsolicited materials such as newsletters, press releases, books and other documents from the various government departments during the year 1968-69? Question No. 2: What were the actual mailing costs involved?
October 22, 1970

Question No. 3: How much did it cost the respective departments to provide this material in those years? Question No. 4: How much of a saving could be realized by these departments, apart from mailing costs, if these unsolicited services to newspapers were cancelled?
When I received the answers to these questions-and 1 will not go into detail on the answers at this time-I was perplexed. The 18 departments which replied admitted spending $74,331.15 on these materials. Some departments noted that their figures did not include labour costs because they considered such work to be a routine part of their staff's duties. But this was an essential part of the information I requested. So the actual cost would, I think, be substantially more than the $74,331.15 of which I was informed.
Mr. Patrick Nicholson, feature columnist for the Thompson group of newspapers, did a survey of some 40-odd newspapers on this subject which revealed that this unsolicited material was used only rarely, that any important news that it contains is disseminated immediately by the Canadian Press wire service, and that in any event many of the releases were received too late to be of any value.
When you receive material that you do not ask for, do not want and do not need, you throw it out. It is what is called junk, and I would classify this as junk mail. In my opinion it is an insult to good business practices. Supporting this viewpoint are the findings of the task force on information which reported to the government last November. It issued a damning indictment of the information apparatus dispensing publicity for the myriad of departments and agencies that make up the federal government. The report said that the apparatus was characterized by duplication, incompetence and outright bungling, and it implied that its $148 million annual cost is almost a total waste.
Armed with these facts I went to Information Canada and laid this information before them. I had the impression that Information Canada agreed that this was a profitless way of communicating. I sincerely hope that the government will consider and support this viewpoint. I am not saying that this information should not be produced or should not be sent out, but I maintain that a mechanism must and should be found to make it more selective.
This government has urged the farmers, the industrialists and the businessmen of Canada to diversify. The government does not have to urge our national railroads to do this because that is exactly what they are doing. They are diversifying to the point where they have forgotten what their prime purpose is-to provide transportation of all types to the Canadian people. What disturbs me about this situation is that we, Members of Parliament, have very little to say about it. When people in my riding ask me: "What about the CNR, they are doing this and they are doing that", I have to admit to them that I have virtually no control over the activities of this government corporation. Yet every year the CNR comes hat in hand looking for money from the Canadian taxpayer,
The Address-Mr. Whiting
and we, the Members of Parliament, are asked to approve these appropriations.
I would like now to outline some of the problems being faced in my riding that are caused by the CNR. In Oakville we have numerous railway crossings. Three of them in particular, on Kerr Street, Chartwell Road, and the Ninth Line, are causing motorists especially much concern as trains are blocking these crossings a large percentage of the time and it is very difficult to lay a charge against the railroads for blocking a crossing for over five minutes. This is something that we could rectify by strengthening the governing legislation. Not only is this annoying but there is a safety hazard involved because located near the railway crossing on Chartwell Road in Oakville is a fire station. If a train were stopped on that crossing for a considerable length of time, not only could it have but it would have an effect on the fire engines and other fire-fighting apparatus getting to the place where they were required.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
I move along, Mr. Speaker, to another community in Halton, the town of Milton, where some years ago the CNR built a bypass around the town. They required much fill in order to lay the tracks. What did the CNR do in this case? They opened up a pit and laid to waste approximately 60 acres of land. They broke every rule of conservation. When they were finished it was nothing but a wasteland. It used to be reasonably good farm land.
What happened when it rained? The top soil had been removed, and so the rain worked its way down to a pond which had been built as Milton's centennial project in Centennial Park. There are fish in that pond, Mr. Speaker. This pollution, and that is what it is, cannot help but have a detrimental effect on the life of the fish in the pond. In addition to making the pond a very unsightly place, what was once clear water now becomes very murky after a rain storm and takes days to clear up.
When this was brought to the attention of the CNR what did they do? They said, "We are not responsible for this; in no way can we be blamed for this," when in fact, Mr. Speaker, the blame lay firmly with them. I personally took up this matter with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) whose department prosecutes-maybe that is too strong a word-looks after or investigates pollution caused by Crown corporations. The people of Milton and I are most grateful to him for his fast action. He sent out some of his officials and they looked at the situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry I have to rise to inform the hon. member that under the rules his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 22, 1970
The Address-Mr. Whiting


Rutherford (Rud) Lester Whiting: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members.
Officials of the Department of the Minister of National Health and Welfare went there and proved conclusively that the CNR was the cause of pollution and, Mr. Speaker, the matter is being rectified. The question I want to ask is: Why is it that the CNR in so many cases has to be pushed, has to be goaded, has to be pressured into rectifying such matters? Why do they not say, "Yes, we are the cause of this problem. We readily admit it. We are sorry and we will do something about it." But no, they adopt this belligerent attitude time after time.
But, Mr. Speaker, I think the most classic example of CNR bureaucracy took place in the town of Acton. This town is now virtually without railroad service emanating from it. The service has been transferred to the city of Guelph. The methods employed by the CNR to deprive this community of railroad service should be enunciated. Trains that used to stop at Acton now whistle right by. This means that anybody wanting to get on a train or off a train at Acton can no longer do so. This means that freight and express have to be picked up elsewhere, in Guelph. Then the CNR moved in and took out the telegraph service-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Rutherford (Rud) Lester Whiting: -leaving the town virtually without railroad service. But they had an agent in Acton, Mr. Speaker, and he had very little to do. Quite obviously, if there were no trains stopping there and no services to perform, what could he do? Well, Mr. Speaker, he had a telephone, and then they came and took his telephone out. Then, Mr. Speaker, they made application to the Canadian Transport Commission to remove the agent from Acton.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Rutherford (Rud) Lester Whiting: He had nothing to do, and this was the first time that the people of Acton had any meaningful way to present their case against the injustices done by the CNR. We had a hearing in Acton last January and the pseudo-experts of the CNR, armed with their slide rules and brief cases bulging with data, much of it irrelevant, arrived there, and we put up a battle. I thought we put up a good battle, but when the ruling came down from the Transport Commission, Acton was without railroad service.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Rutherford (Rud) Lester Whiting: They upheld the CNR.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Rutherford (Rud) Lester Whiting: After this ruling came down I could see just what would happen. The CNR flexed their muscles and said, "We won, we won. Now let us go and take away passenger service from Guelph to Toronto". This would deprive Georgetown, a town of some 16,000 
people, of passenger service. Hearings were held in the city of Guelph which were attended by many members from both sides of this House. We worked together in trying to convince the Canadian Transport Commission that this should not be done. Strange as it may seem, the commissioners in this case said to the CNR: Whoa, hold it; you can just go so far in this matter. And they ordered the CNR not only to continue passenger service from Guelph to Toronto but to update the service and bring it into this part of the twentieth century. This is what I want to urge the CNR to do. The CNR should bring its passenger service from Toronto to Guelph up to date.
The coaches they are using are of early twentieth century vintage. They are drafty, dirty and uncomfortable. In no way would anybody ride in these coaches if they did not have to.
If the CNR would look on passenger service as a means of conveying people and as a money-maker and would tailor the service to that need by running trains at proper hours, I think we would see a great change in the financial picture regarding passenger services. I believe and I have advocated on more than one occasion in the House that the time has come when we must develop a national transportation policy in this country. We cannot have our railroads closing down lines indiscriminately. We must look at the broad picture because the railroads did a great job in building this country. They still have an important role to play in the further development of Canada.
I thank hon. members for allowing me to go over my time. I know this is a subject which concerns many and I urge the government to act on my suggestions and the suggestions made by others. We should adopt a national rail policy and bring the CNR, this Crown corporation, closer to Parliament. We could then have more to say about its operation. This could be done if at least one Member of Parliament were appointed to the board of directors of this Crown corporation.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, in the concluding days of the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne I appreciate having the opportunity to say a few words. At the risk of being repetitious, but I hope not redundant, I should like to congratulate the mover of the address, the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel), and the seconder, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas). They can now join that great fraternity of movers and seconders who have taken their place in this great chamber down through the history of Canada.
I propose to make a comparison between the first Speech from the Throne and the last Speech from the Throne I have heard in this place. I have heard about 15 Speeches from the Throne since I have been a member of this House, and I think it would be wise for us to take a minute or two to look at the first Speech from the Throne I heard in 1957. I might say that it is only two columns in length compared with the five columns of the speech we are debating today. With the new format of
October 22, 1970

Hansard, these columns are almost twice as wide as they were with the old format.
We look to the Speech from the Throne to show some imagination, some vision, some great forethought and some programs to promote production, as well as ways to put people and money to work; indeed, we would even expect to find that more so in this Speech from the Throne as we have just completed the decade of the sixties and have now launched into the decade of the seventies. We should be looking forward to great horizons, visions and ideas. We do not seem to find this in the Speech from the Throne. If we were to describe it in the language of the late Mr. Churchill we might say: Never has so much been written about so little.
Let me quote a few passages from the first Speech from the Throne I heard:
You will accordingly be asked to maintain modern defence forces-
It then states:
In domestic affairs my ministers look forward to meeting next month with the leaders of the provincial governments-
Then it goes on:
In the legislative program to be laid before you, it is fitting that mention should first be made of measures to improve the lot of the senior members of our society. Accordingly you will be asked to increase old age security pensions and to shorten the period of residence required to qualify for them. Changes will be proposed in the terms of assistance offered to provincial governments to enable them to increase the payments to be made under the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act-
Then it states:
You will also be asked to increase the scale of war veterans allowances and to enlarge the groups to whom they are paid. Changes will also be proposed in several sections of the Pension Act.
In order to assure to the farmers of Canada a fair share of the national income, you will be asked to enact a measure to provide greater stability in the prices of their products. Every possible effort is now being made, and will continue to be made to seek new markets for agricultural products-
Then it goes on to state:
Due to inability to market their grain, prairie farmers have for some time been faced with a serious shortage of funds to meet their immediate needs.
It also says we will be asked to discuss an advance payments program and we are told that the government will strive to secure additional markets for the products of our fisheries. [DOT]
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
That speech also says that a national development policy will be carried out in co-operation with the provinces in "developing the resources of this great nation." The Roads to Resources Program constituted part of this development program. It says also that there is to be an immediate start on a program for the production and transmission of cheaper hydroelectric power in the Atlantic provinces. It goes on to say, "You will also be
The Address-Mr. Hales
asked to provide assistance in financing the Beechwood project which has been under construction in New Brunswick." It goes on to say:
My ministers will advance this national development policy further by initiating new discussions with the government of Saskatchewan in order to make possible the early commencement of construction of the dam on the South Saskatchewan river-
My ministers will place before you a measure to ensure that those working in industries under federal jurisdiction will receive annual vacations with pay.
And so it goes, Mr. Speaker. That is what is contained in the first throne speech I had the privilege of hearing. It was short, crisp and to the point. It outlined all the government's projects and all the business and administrative measures it proposed to bring before the House.
What do we find in the Speech from the Throne we are now debating? We find many platitudes. I shall mention two or three of them, because the speech contains a few gems. On reading it one could suppose it is a report on the state of the nation's business. It does not put forward what we hope the government will do. As a matter of fact, I think one can prove this point by referring to the speeches which have been made by government members of this House. In those speeches the ministers dealt with subject matters that should have been dealt with in the Speech from the Throne, and they dealt with them as they considered they ought to have been dealt with. I think that proves my point, that the speech is really a report on the state of the nation's business.
I said I would pick out a few sentences from the speech we are considering. The following phrase is most enlightening. It ought to be included in any speech:
The passing of the sixties and the beginning of the seventies-
Another sentence tells us that man must anticipate and plan. Still another tells us that:
As Canada moves into the seventies, we are all invited to join in this bold enterprise-to share the excitement, to face the challenge, to pursue the distant ideal of a just society.
The speech does not spell out how this is to be achieved. Now I am about to quote a real "dandy".
Every Canadian is a consumer of goods and services, millions of Canadians are employees.
Is that not a truly bold statement?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Dryden Hales: The speech tells us that we may expect many white papers. Perhaps they will bring forward some explanations. It also states:
It would be irresponsible to suggest that the economy is now in a satisfactory condition. When costs rise more rapidly than productivity, when men and women are unable to gain employment, when a reasonable distribution of the wealth of Canada is denied to certain sectors or regions, then these are matters for deep concern.
That is another profound statement. Has that not been the case ever since Canada became a nation? The speech also says:

October 22, 1970
The Address-Mr. Hales
So long, however, as Canadians who desire work are unable to find it; so long as persons on fixed incomes are unable to provide adequately for themselves and their dependants; then so long must the government strive to assist them.
There are some other "dandy" statements in the speech. It goes on to say:
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-these are the problems that demand our urgent attention.
They certainly demand our urgent attention. The statement I am about to read is hardly appropriate under present circumstances, considering that the War Measures Act has been invoked:
A society is said to be judged best by the compassion and the fairness with which it treats those of its members who breach or are accused of breaching the norms of conduct which it establishes for itself. The Canadian record in this respect is of a high standard-
I am afraid that we shall all have to back-peddle with regard to that statement. I wanted to compare the Speech from the Throne that I had the privilege of hearing when first elected with the speech now being debated. It is always easy to criticize and it is much harder to be constructive. From now on I propose to be somewhat constructive.
I am at a loss to know why the Speech from the Throne did not deal with the results of some of the many trips which members of the House have taken. Let me begin with the Prime Minister, who went to the Far East. He visited Japan and Tokyo and had a ride on that great Tokaido express, sometimes known as the Bullet train, which it was my privilege to ride on with a group of parliamentarians when we visited Japan in June. I was amazed at the rapidity of that train and at its cleanliness and smoothness. We went from Tokyo to Osaka, a distance of about 300 miles, in a little over three hours, travelling at 135 miles an hour. I wonder why the Speech from the Throne has not mentioned the subject of transportation in this great country of ours. Why did the Speech from the Throne not lay down a long-term program for transportation in Canada?
Let us get away from the ad hoc development we have seen in this area and the curtailment of transportation services which has been discussed in the House so ably by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Howe) and the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle). They spoke of the curtailment of transportation services, and particularly of the fact that the CNR has been discontinuing passenger train service. The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) told us yesterday that in the great area north of Guelph, a city that I represent in this House, an area encompassing Owen Sound, Mild-may, Walkerton and other centres, the railway has discontinued its passenger train service. The people in that area are without passenger train service.
It seems to me that this government intends to increase our urban sprawl by developing the larger centres instead of trying to spread out the population and develop some of the rural areas of the country. Actually, we in Guelph have not too much to complain about, because the railways left alone the train service between Guelph and Toronto-at least, they left us the commuter train. It is to remain in service for a year at least, and then the matter will be reviewed. If the railways do not improve the quality of the coaches and do not give the people the type of service they expect, they will find that people will not want to use their trains. There is no reason why that commuter train should not be staffed with a stewardess in the morning who could deliver the morning newspaper to commuters so that they could read the morning news. There is no reason why they should not serve coffee on the train, why it should not be clean and why the windows should not be clean enough for one to look out of them. If the railways continue to display the attitude: "Well, we do not want any passenger business; we want to get rid of it," then, in future they will wish to discontinue operating this one commuter train between Guelph and Toronto.
May I refer again to the broad question of our transportation problems. I should have thought that the government, in the Speech from the Throne, would have been wise to say: Look, to begin with we are embarking on a 15-year program under which we will build a railway line from Montreal to Windsor, and the service to be provided is to be similar to that provided by the rapid Bullet train of Japan. During the first years of the program the crossings could be removed, and then subsequently station platforms could be elevated so that people would be able to step off the train onto a platform. No steps would be needed for one to get on or off trains. The equipment would then be planned and developed. We would then have a train that could travel between Montreal and Windsor in three hours.
9 (12:40p.m.)
It would have been better to buy some of the sub-marginal land around Kingston, a solid rock area, and establish a large international airport there to handle the jumbo jets. Passengers leaving the jumbo jets could then take the Torpedo train, arriving in either Montreal or Toronto in an hour's time. Vision and foresight of this kind are required with regard to the over-all transportation system of Canada, but this is not in the Speech from the Throne.
We must bear in mind that the density of population between Montreal and Windsor is in the southern part of the country. Surely there are enough people in this area to support a train similar to the one I had the privilege of travelling on in Japan. If this nation is going to develop, grow and progress we need more forward planning than what we have at the present time.
The first Speech from the Throne to which I referred dealt with the Roads to Resources program, how we would develop the Arctic, the northern part of Canada.


An hon. Member:: And we did.


Alfred Dryden Hales: We did. At the time we were criticized for speaking about roads from igloo to igloo. We no longer

October 22, 1970

hear that expression. The program is being enlarged rather than curtailed.
The Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Constitution Committee, the Science Council of Canada and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have travelled throughout the Arctic. The Speech from the Throne does not state how the northern area of our country will be further developed.
A group of cabinet ministers visited some Latin American countries. On their return they made a short report. I thought they would have some ideas about improving trade, but the Speech from the Throne does not outline any proposals for trade with these countries. We must give very serious thought to the matter of trade.
Not long ago we used to hear the words, "If the United Kingdom enters the European Common Market", but now the words are, "When the United Kingdom enters the Common Market". What will happen when it does enter the Common Market? There are no outward views or visions with regard to this in the Speech from the Throne. Where are we going to pick up the trade we are bound to lose? The United Kingdom will be obligated to buy many products from members of the European Common Market when they become a member.
I wish to refer to some of the larger volume items of export to the United Kingdom. The figures I am using are for 1967. I am sorry they are not more recent. I am quoting from the Canada Year Book, 1969. When the United Kingdom enters the European Common Market what will happen to the dairy products, eggs and honey that we have been exporting to them? I will use round figures when quoting. Some of our exports to the United Kingdom in 1967 where dairy products, eggs and honey, $10.5 million; wheat, $123 million; wheat flour, $6.5 million; vegetables and vegetable preparations, $22 million; flaxseed, $10.5 million; office machines and equipment, $7 million. All these products are either grown or manufactured by members of the European Common Market. West Germany will be able to sell office machines and equipment to the United Kingdom at a cheaper rate than it costs for Canada to ship this equipment to the United Kingdom. This is a very serious matter. We should be projecting ideas of how we can overcome these calamities that are going to befall this country if we are not prepared to meet them. There is nothing in the Speech from the Throne about that.
While speaking about transportation I neglected to mention proposed areas for a new airport as an auxiliary to Malton airport. Apparently four or five areas are being considered for an auxiliary airport, one of which is Beverly township in my constituency. This area is close to the cities of Dundas, Hamilton, Galt and Guelph. The area has been surveyed and tests have been taken. I point out that the people of that area do not want an auxiliary airport. It would be very foolish to build an airport there because of the congestion and heavy population that already exists in that area. It would be better to build it somewhere to the north and west of Hamilton. Other areas have made representations to the minister stating that they would like the airport built in their
The Address-Mr. Hales
area. From all outward appearances it would be much wiser to establish this airport in Amaranth township or the general area north and west of Toronto.
There are many other matters that should have been included in the Speech from the Throne. I now wish to deal briefly with the subject of agriculture.
When we pause to think of the mess that agriculture in this country is in today, we must lower our heads in shame. Over $100 million was spent so that the farmers of western Canada would not grow grain. Including the cost of all those who are paid to enforce this measure, the final figure will probably be near $200 million. The western farmers were told, "Do not grow grain. Do not produce what you are capable of producing. We are going to pay you not to grow grain." This was said at a time when in many parts of the world people are starving. They do not have the proper nutrition and food.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
We would have done much better had we taken that $200 million we are spending on the Lift Program and bought an equivalent amount of stored wheat and given it to people in countries where they are in great need of it. Instead, we paid farmers $6 an acre not to grow it, and if they put their land into summerfallow we gave them $10 an acre. While we build up all this wheat in Canada, there are children going to bed here in our own country unfortified by good red-blooded meat or high protein food. Why? Because we do not have the cattle in Canada to make use of this surplus wheat. This is the result of lack of foresight and proper planning. Given proper planning there would be more pasture land in western Canada and a large cow-calf operation enabling us to use the grain to produce beef for as many as need it. Yet we have outstanding departments of agriculture in our universities and experimental farms across the country upon which millions of dollars have been spent. We have a federal Department of Agriculture staffed by highly-paid officials, knowledgeable people paid by this and other governments to project, plan and lay out programs.
When one thinks of it, it is really terrible that we should have let ourselves get into this position. And while we pay our farmers not to grow wheat we are importing about nine pounds of meat per capita from other countries-beef, lamb and so on. So we run a poor shop, really; we have made a mess of things in the field of agriculture, and all this time we are paying people a great deal of money to give advice. I do not blame the government. They pay people to give them advice and program these things. Of course, ministers can accept or reject that advice. But there have not been enough ideas coming forward, and that is where the trouble lies.
I have been saying for many years that we must find some alternative use for wheat apart from feeding it to human beings or to livestock. With the great sources of knowledge and research available today I am not sure but that we cannot make wallpaper out of wheat or ladies' silk stockings, for that matter. I suppose we can do almost anything of that sort today; yet we sit idly by letting the grain pile up. I will give one example. During

October 22, 1970
The Address-Mr. Andras
the first world war, Germany was in real difficulty. So what did they do? They took the humble potato and from that potato they refined gasoline which they used to run war machinery. If you can do that with a potato, what can you do with wheat? I criticize those who lack the mental air conditioning to put forward ideas in this field. This is what will put Canada on the road to being a great country.
If we continue to be presented with Speeches from the Throne such as the one before us, with its lack of imagination, lack of program planning and lack of foresight, this country will not move ahead. It will stand still.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I should like very much to join with previous speakers in this debate in congratulating the mover (Mr. Trudel) and seconder (Mr. Douglas, Assiniboia) of the address on their comments as well as all previous speakers who have made reference to housing and urban affairs.
One of the important things we are talking about in this debate is choice-the ability and the responsibility to support and to continuously re-create in this country, in myriad ways and at every level, choices as to the kind of Canada Canadians want it to be.
Canada began under that imperative, Canada is evolving under that imperative, but a new ethic insists upon consideration of two chief things. First, that the traditional decision-makers of power must move over a little so that choice devolves upon the greatest numbers of people, people who are well enough informed to choose on considered merits; and, second, that the bases of choice have changed for many of us along with the growing material wealth, complexity, and concentration of our society. There is a growing recognition, for instance, that economic growth for growth's sake, to put it crudely, must be increasingly tempered by considerations, by choices, which put growth at the service of the social comfort and stimulation of Canadians.
These are not quite yet truisms for everyone but they form the goals of this government and, I believe, of other governments in Canada. Certainly they are at the very heart of the proposed formation of the ministry of state for urban affairs and housing. They are both its reason for being and the guidelines within which it intends to operate. Choices, evolved with a degree of understanding never before reached in Canada, must urgently be made as we move at rather an unnerving pace into a Canada which, it is predicted, will be 94 per cent urban within the next 30 years. We see a Canada developing, 73 per cent of whose population is likely to be established in only 12 major centres, a Canada whose population will soon have doubled, about 45 per cent of that doubled population living in only three great foci of national power, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. In these three places will be found vast numbers of people, if that is what we want, like New York, Chicago and Tokyo.


The Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the minister but it now being one o'clock I do leave the chair to resume it at two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
[Mr. Hales.)


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, before lunch I was making reference to the need for all of us in elected office to provide the mechanism whereby Canadians can exercise their choice under all reasonable conditions. I was also referring to the demographic projections for this country over the next 30 years, to a Canada with double its present population, 45 per cent of which would be located in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. I was comparing that series of events within the profile of what has happened in large cities south of the border and in other countries.
We start the question leading to choice by asking whether we want our cities to look like those cities, and whether they should act as cities have been acting in places like Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, New York and Tokyo. The whole process of rapid urbanization is pretty well inexorable. The sharpest pace of that growth is upon us now, in the decade 1970 to 1980. In the next three decades we will have to build a capacity to cope with what will be, in terms of numbers, a second Canada. We must now ask ourselves whether this urban Canada is tn continue just to grow relatively uncontrolled, in a misshapen and unclean way, in a way that is too often inequitable.
Instead, I would prefer to think of a Canada of choice, of many co-operative choices; a Canada informed by consultative and co-ordinated efforts to create our own distinctive excellence. It can be a Canada that avoids the widespread social despair and the awful social unrest that growth run rampant has brought to other areas and which we have seen in very recent days so very close to us. This is not, let me emphasize, "airy-fairy" idealism; it is a pragmatic and practical approach, one that is within our competences.
In this country we still have the time and the resources to write our own urban history in terms of our own vision, rather than just have it happen. We can begin to give our environments a shape and a humanity of our own. We can choose environments that have clean spaces for people and that have deliberately blurred lines of social cleavage; environments that provide for the weakest a crucial sense of worth; environments that provide personal and family privacy while giving a sense of belonging, a sense of community without which few of us can cope with life.
Let me repeat the words I have just used-consult, co-operate, co-ordinate. These are meant to be neither soothing motherhood words nor words to gloss over any supposed lack of real intentions by this government. They are, in fact, precise indicators of how we will approach the problems posed by rapid urbanization in Canada at the federal level, as well as in our dealings with the provincial governments, who bear the primary responsibility, and with the municipalities that exist in the provinces.
October 22, 1970

[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
So that this is understood absolutely and unequivocally, let me quote my own words which were read for me in a speech in Montreal on October 8, the day the government's proposed formation of this ministry was announced:
And the federal government today recognizes in a concrete way that it is deeply involved, in myriad but often unco-ordinated ways, in the problems of Canadian cities already; it recognizes that it must transform that involvement in much more integrated ways. These will be ways, I want to emphasize to you, in which the watchword will be scrupulous and careful co-operation with the provincial governments and, through them, with muncipal governments. A co-ordination of federal roles affecting the cities-yes. Federal intrusion into areas not its own-no. Federal co-operation, consultation-maybe even some degree of joint planning if the provinces wish-yes. Federal movement into new jurisdictions, wielding new powers-no-* not anywhere in Canada.
So, it is within the present constitutional boundaries that we will work. The constitution does not need to be bent, or broadened to implement an urban policy of choice. If we can get the kind of reasearch, planning and program co-ordination and co-operation that we hope for, if we can get the three levels of government working together in much greater concert, we can begin to stop duplication and waste, programs that conflict, programs that are instituted to solve one problem without real regard for other problems they may cause. We can begin to get decisions on whether we in fact want our cities to develop unconstrained; and if we do not want that, we can find alternatives to proffer.
This ministry of state for urban affairs and housing will first of all be concerned with bringing order in the federal House as it affects the cities. I need hardly note for hon. members how massively the federal government is in the cities already. We have powerful direct impact through housing, land assembly and sewage programs, with a great influence on the location, growth and structure of urban areas.
We have a similar influence through our use of a very great deal of urban space federally owned or leased, and an influence in taxes paid, urban demands created and incomes earned. I am thinking of where we locate public buildings, airports, railways, harbours, military centres, communications facilities and a score of other things.
There are now 112 federal programs involving financing elements of the urban process, and 131 research programs applying to elements of the urban process. There are 27 departments and agencies which have influence of one degree or another in the cities. I am afraid that in large part the federal departments and agencies have not worked well enough and interdependently enough with each other, and with provincial and city governments. We need not feel entirely ashamed or alone. No country has done this in a way that consciously seeks out and sets priorities, and that rationalizes scarce national resources, as we hope to do. We hope to make the federal involvement in the cities no longer a series of unconnected initiatives but parts of a better understood urban whole. Inevitably, there are federal, provincial and municipal considerations to almost everything done in
The Address-Mr. Andras
that light so that anything less than effective tri-level co-operation simply cannot work.
We will co-ordinate and integrate the federal urban role in various ways. For example, the minister of state in cabinet and cabinet committees, and in bilateral and inter-departmental arrangements, will be involved with his colleagues in urban overviews of the various plans of other federal departments and agencies. There will be a secretariat, headed by a person with the rank of deputy minister, that will fully review the federal efforts in urban affairs and through consultation and agreement will carry further through the government systems the work of rationalizing, co-ordinating and planning. This secretariat is being put together now, Mr. Speaker, as an important research, policy planning, consultative and co-ordinative instrument.
An initial research process has already produced important understandings for us, and a report of this will shortly be made available to hon. members and to others. Now, our efforts will be expanded to draw together the very scarce human resources in this field to plan and work out possible priorities and strategies. We will hope to attract the best minds now diffused through governments, industries and universities and to return them again to governments, universities and industry in a continuous and cross-fertilizing stream. I sincerely feel that this more rational approach between governments and within the federal government will serve to protect provincial jurisdiction, helping to forestall past experiences when unco-ordinated federal departmental programming inadvertently distorted provincial and municipal priorities. That often happened simply, though irritatingly, because the effect of one federal program on another or on a provincial initiative was not considered in an urban context.
In addition to an urban secretariat, of course, the ministry shall have reporting to it, and increasingly coordinated into a more total urban effort, the Crown agencies of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the National Capital Commission. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's capital and expenditure budget is a potent force, and hon. members will know that I have switched its direction to the provision primarily of low income housing. Early this year, Mr. Speaker, as part of that low income housing program I earmarked $200 million of CMHC's budget toward encouraging specifically innovative, experimental ways of providing good quality housing for people earning between about $4,000 and $6,000 a year. The $200 million, and a little more, has been approved for 97 projects consisting of more than 17,000 dwelling units. They are projects involving novel techniques of construction, land use, financing, and they result from co-operation by CMHC, builders, non-profit groups, municipalities and several provincial governments. The results have been positive, Mr. Speaker, and give firm promise of developing even more and better cost-cutting, but not qualitycutting, methods to come. I intend to maintain next year specific federal incentives to further this search. I further intend to maintain the general emphasis of CHMC policy on homes for the low income group. This emphasis will

October 22, 1970
The Address-Mr. Andras
have produced roughly 50,000 dwelling unit commitments this year or 77,000 unit commitments this year and last.
In these two years, Mr. Speaker, our low income housing activity will have doubled all the government-financed low income housing ever built before in this country-and I am proud of that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: It means that this year housing production directed to the low income group where the great need is, has risen dramatically although total housing starts this year will be about 180,000 compared with a record 210,000 units in 1969. However, when we talk of the total national need and when we think of the great middle ground of Canadians who must be served, let me emphasize again this government's commitment to one million new housing starts of all kinds in the five years from 1970 through to 1974.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Moreover, I am happy to inform the House that the housebuilding activity began increasing in the latter part of this year, because for the month of September housebuilding was running at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 194,800 starts as compared to 188,800 for September, 1969. In 1970, the first quarter, seasonally adjusted starts numbered 166,200. This dropped to 136,600 in the second quarter, but has risen to 185,800 in the third quarter. The main impact on starts of the CMHC special $200 million innovative program to which I referred and the additional 240 million of commitments authorized in August is still to be felt. All told, this year CMHC will have committed approximately one billion one hundred million dollars in its capital budget, of which about $960 million have gone directly to housing through programs under sections 16, 35, 36B and 40 of the National Housing Act, with the remainder having been invested in land assembly, urban renewal and sewage treatment loans.
As hon. members know, the private sector mortgage flow has been a serious problem this year. I have held a series of meetings with the approved lenders, banks, trust companies and insurance companies, setting forth capital requirements to meet our five year target of one million new homes, including the pick up of any shortfall this year from the average annual performance required. A second series of meetings with these institutions will be held before the end of the year to get their factual and realistic assessments of their participation. From this information, more specific steps will be considered to ensure mortgage flow. In addition, I plan to invite the senior representatives of the major pension funds of this country to meet with me shortly to discuss the need for increasing investments in residential mortgages by those extremely sizeable sources of capital.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, from the announcement of last week, I have become responsible to parliament for the National Capital Commission, which in a way is the sine qua non of all we hope to do. It is attempting to
bring social comfort and beauty and an expression of national distinction to the capital region of our country to make it the exemplar of justly diffused dignity and opportunity, and we need that exemplar today as we never have before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Knight Andras: Let our national capital contribute to a national sense of direction in an atmosphere of co-operation and unity, and let that direction be prideful, affirmative and positive as we seek to draw together, particularly in these dark days. Let our capital be, in fact and in symbol, the reflection of a national agreement that is based upon linguistic, cultural and material equity. The National Capital Commission and this government will continue to press forward so as to ensure that the two official languages and the cultural values common to all Canadians are recognized by all governments concerned in these two cities, and in the capital region in general, so that all Canadians may have a feeling of pride and participation in their capital.
In more strictly urban terms, nowhere are there more layers of governments, degrees and opportunities of disparity, problems to be solved and beautiful examples of what can be done than in the capital region covered by the NCC. Here is where multi-level government co-operation in urban policy and programming can work and can be seen to work at its best. This is a leadership opportunity of an important kind. In a real sense, the minister of state responsible for urban affairs and housing shall be a sympathetic advocate in cabinet on urban problems for the provinces, municipalities and urban dwellers. Also, he will report back to them federal concerns and desires. In that process of catalyzing, consulting and co-ordinating, I am hoping there can be held soon a beginning meeting or series of meetings with provincial ministers to determine how best we may establish ongoing consultative processes.
I should like to say in passing that I am very appreciative of the public reactions of initial warmth that I have seen from provincial representatives. I am also happy about the very warm messages of approval and support from the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities and from many individual mayors. I assure them that ways by which municipalities can be helped to deal with the many problems thrust upon them will be foremost in all our thinking.
All our efforts will be directed toward giving Canadians choices about their future. Tentatively we can pose a few indications of what will happen if we continue as we are, which may be a sound option to take, but certainly we should understand it. The unconstrained future will see three vast and nation dominating urban enclaves 30 years hence. They will be Toronto, with a population of six and a half million, Montreal with a population of six and a quarter million, and Vancouver with a population of about two and a half million. Other Canadians cities will double in size, although their positions in relation to the three major centres may grow weaker. I want to repeat that this is a studied forecast of Canadian growth,

October 22, 1970

projected from current trends and in the absence of major policy changes at any level of government.
Even today, the so-called Montreal-Toronto corridor is a nation dominating entity. Already it has 40 per cent of the Canadian population. Two thirds of all cheques cashed are cleared through those two cities, 75 per cent of all head office corporate assets are in them, and nearly 90 per cent of head office assets of financial institutions is to be found there. Manufacturing costs in them ripple through the nation. There is a tremendous interchange between them. For instance, each week at least 50,000 people move by railway, road or air between Montreal and Toronto. I think that hon. members will not need to be reminded of more to suggest the national economic and political possibilities if this area extends its position of power in the next 30 years. It may be a wise option, but I think we would all wish to dwell upon it.
To get back to some specific problems, let me point out that the housing demand over the next 30 years of unconstrained future would be more than four million units for the three cities of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. There would be three million automobiles in Montreal alone, or in Toronto, by the year 2000.
I notice that my time has elapsed, Mr. Speaker. May I have the consent of the House to carry on?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The minister still has three minutes remaining to him. Is there agreement of the House to extending his time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Knight Andras: I would like to thank hon. members for their courtesy.
* (2:30p.m.)
The next ten years will be the crunch period. The evidence of this is there. The postwar baby boom children are having families, with resulting pressures growing on family type dwellings in a trend that is emerging counter to the high rise building of recent years. Other factors are immigrants, 75 per cent of whom now come to Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, and internal migration from rural to urban centres, and from small urban to big urban centres.
The ever sharpening demand for scarce urban space that is created by this population growth sets up an inter-connected series of causes and effects which we have to learn to understand if we are going to cope. How-many hon. members will not already recognize to some extent this scenario, where land becomes so expensive as to preclude all but extremely dense residential downtown living; families with children seeking single family dwellings will have to commute several hours each day; downtown areas becoming congested, polluted and noisy; higher taxes and yet higher land costs as suburbs sprawl further; industries fleeing to suburbs leaving the poor without access that they can afford to jobs, and the inner city without a necessary tax base; steady erosion of stable neighbourhoods; economic uncertainty facing core
The Address-Mr. Schumacher
dwellers; deterioration in the quality of their environment; creation of an increasingly explosive situation when people feel cheated and when they despair; increased segregation of economic classes with its resulting divisiveness in the community and between communities at a time when unity is this country's great need?
What really happens as a result of all this, Mr. Speaker, is that everyone's choice is diminished. The aged and the handicapped and the otherwise unemployable, who are the great bulk of the nation's poor, are trapped either in shameful housing in core slums or located unreasonably far out from the active life of the city that gives them interest. Land costs will spur the flight to the suburbs for those who can afford it, but then they will have to spend more leisure time commuting, and the more the suburbs expand the more the congestion on the commuter highways, and certainly the more congestion downtown. Higher incomes are diminished by higher taxes and by higher costs of urban goods and services. Pollution and sprawl, noise and congestion diminish one s aesthetic and health choices, and penalize the weak whose status we wish to improve.
Frankly, I do not know where the trade-off in all of this is. I do not know, and nobody I have talked to can tell me when the exact point is reached that a city is simply too big. I certainly do not propose what can or should be done to control city sizes. I have not computed all the national, social, economic or political implications.
I do not have any hard alternatives or any preconceptions at this moment. At this point, this government and I see only some of the more evident problems, and they are enough to make us wish to co-operate with other levels of government to try to understand this process we are caught in, and to use it to help fashion the kind of Canadian environment that Canadians want. For there is another side to all these negative things that can happen, and that is the opportunity to direct and create living environments in the manner that we want, fashioning progress to our social ends rather than being overwhelmed by it.
Because we are young and relatively rich and our urban problems are not yet out of hand, we have opportunities that almost no other country has. I would like to think, and I do think, that this country will grasp those opportunities.


Mr. Sian Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, as a member first elected in 1968, this opportunity to participate in a Throne Speech debate is another "first" in what has proven to be a long line of firsts for me over the past two years or more.
May I first congratulate the mover (Mr. Trudel) and the seconder (Mr. Douglas, Assiniboia) of the Address in Reply for the honour bestowed upon them, and say how much I admire their bravery for formally expressing thanks for this pretentious, and what now appears to be in many respects an irrelevant, document.
The first question that comes to me when considering the government's future program is: what is the justifica-

October 22, 1970
The Address-Mr. Schumacher
tion for keeping the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) on the payroll now that his job has been transferred to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Cote) in charge of the Post Office? Surely, it does not take a minister of full cabinet rank to report to this House for Telesat Canada, an organization that will not even be functioning for another year or so? And speaking about the irrelevancy of the Speech from the Throne, I ask what priority position the proposals of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to amend the Criminal Code regarding bail and wire tapping will have in light of the proclamation under the War Measures Act?
Many hon. members have dwelt on the government's action of last Friday morning, both in this debate and in the special debate of last Friday and Saturday. Probably everything has been said that can be said, but because of the importance of the question of order in this country I feel compelled to make a contribution in the hope that it will add something of value to the subject.
What bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is that so far the government's actions are aimed entirely at the separatists of Quebec be they FLQ or PQ, that is the Parti Quebe-cois of Mr. Levesque, and are repressive in nature. The justification for this action is that order had to be preserved, and because of this the government has received widespread applause and support for its action.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the basic reason most of those supporting the government in this emergency action do so is that they feel the government is also going to do something about the long-haired, unkempt, unproductive and over-privileged hippie type protest movement that has polluted the countryside for the past three or four years, and that this is merely a first step. I would like to say that these people are right. I would also like to say that it indicates the scales have fallen from the government's eyes to reveal the extent to which organized crime and labour racketeering have infected the commercial life of the country, and in this respect that the trouble is not confined to one province. However my feeling, Mr. Speaker, is that the people of Canada are going to be disappointed once again because, while the government has taken a very dramatic step of a potentially repressive nature, there is no indication that it is prepared to act in ways to get at the real problems of the country.
Even in the light of the present situation in Quebec, the government is taking the position that it is the responsibility of the province to administer the regulations it has proclaimed under the War Measures Act. I suggest that the people of Canada are looking to the government for a much more positive approach, and would remind hon. members that section 91(27) of the British North America Act assigns to Parliament:
The Criminal Law, except the constitution of courts of criminal jurisdiction, but including the procedure in criminal matters.
It is clear that the government has the power to supervise the situation in Quebec because if the regulations are examined we find the following delegations: First, regulation 7(1) reads:
A person arrested for an offence under section 4 shall be detained in custody without bail pending trial unless the Attorney
[Mr. Schumacher.l
General of the province in which the person is being detained consents to the release of that person on bail.
The reference is to the Attorney General of the province of Quebec. Regulation 8(2) reads:
A person arrested pursuant to subsection (1) shall be taken before a justice having jurisdiction and charged with an offence described in section 4 not later than seven days after his arrest, unless the Attorney General of the province in which the person is being detained has, before the expiry of those seven days, isued an order that the accused be further detained until the expiry of a period not exceeding twenty-one days after his arrest, at the end of which period the person arrested shall be taken before a justice having jurisdiction and charged with an offence described in section 4 or released from custody.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
We have seen what has happened. Yesterday, the Minister of Justice for the Province of Quebec said he was going to order that everybody who had been detained be held for this period of 21 days, without any exceptions. It, therefore, becomes evident that there has been a delegation of federal power to the attorneys general of the provinces. In other situations, the Minister of Justice has not hesitated to tell magistrates and judges what to do with reference to first-time drug offenders, and in the case of magistrates they are neither appointed nor paid by the federal government. I, for one, cannot see why the government has felt compelled to delegate this responsibility to the attorney general or Minister of Justice of Quebec.
Surely, in a matter as serious as this, there should be uniform enforcement of the laws across Canada. I suggest we are not going to have uniformity of enforcement when we have to depend on ten attorneys general for the enforcement of the powers granted under this act. What we have here is the government putting on a show of taking charge of a serious situation when in reality the job has been delegated to the provincial authorities, presumably so this government can avoid being tagged with any unpleasant results.
One might well ask why the government has not used the facilities and staff of the Department of Justice in Montreal and in Quebec City to decide who was going to be detained and who was not, and what further action was going to be taken against them. As I understand the situation, this government has established branch offices of the Department of Justice in Halifax, Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. These are not small offices. I understand the staff of the Toronto office exceeds 18 lawyers, and I assume that the staff of the office in Montreal would be at least of a similar size. For the life of me, I really cannot understand why the federal government has not followed through with this job instead of delegating it to the provinces.
One might well ask also why the government did not place the Quebec provincial police and the Montreal city police under federal direction and control, because this certainly is the first time in our history that the federal government has not had the responsibility for the enforcement of regulations under this act. We should also remember that the fundamental rights of all Canadians are being affected by these regulations. I am well aware
October 22, 1970

of the argument that if you behave yourself you should have nothing to worry about. The question is, who is going to be the judge of this behaviour, a provincial attorney general or the federal government? I, for one, would feel a little disadvantaged in Quebec at the present time because of my inability to converse in French.
I noticed that the leader of the Creditiste party said his wife felt disadvantaged because English speaking soldiers were assigned to protect his home in Hull. I do not know whether he is expecting a bilingual bullet or what, but I think if there is any force to his argument, in view of the fact we are dealing with the fundamental rights of all Canadians, the federal government should take the responsibility for enforcing the regulations which it put into effect.
The BiU of Rights is a very important document, and it is a federal statute. We are left in the position where the provincial attorney general can or could act, under the guise of these regulations, in direct contradiction to those rights. I would say that if this situation is as serious as the government implies, and we do not really have that many facts before us on which to base a decision but we have accepted the situation at face value, it should be dealt with by the national government. So far, all we have seen is an example of the government trying to suck and whistle at the same time, which is just not good enough.
As to the long term, the present trouble should indicate to the government that the experiment relating to capital punishment is a failure. If it does not, then surely the great increase in the murder rate all across the country, which I understand has risen by 55 per cent in the past three years, should make it conclusive. Another step that should be taken is a complete change in policy concerning the admission to Canada of United States draft dodgers and military deserters. These people just should not be admitted to Canada.
The people of Canada have shown that they are prepared to have their accustomed rights and freedoms suspended on a temporary basis in order that the government can deal with the present emergency. However, they also demand an end to the extreme permissiveness which they fell has contributed in a material way to the development of that emergency.
The municipal authorities of Montreal came to Ottawa last November and detailed explicitly the explosive situation that was developing in that municipality, largely through the efforts of the people who are now being rounded up under this emergency measure. Mr. Saulnier particularly said he approached the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) some time between February and November of 1969, warning him of these difficulties that were arising and asking that he take some action. No action was taken. Last January at a Liberal fund raising dinner in Montreal the Prime Minister pooh-poohed the FLQ and said they were a bunch of unimportant nobodies. There was warning, but no action was taken.
Because no action was taken, the sweeping powers in these regulations have not proven to be entirely effective to date. It seems like a lot of dynamite still has not
The Address-Mr. Forrestall
shown up. I understand there is supposed to be over a ton of it floating around Montreal. We had a situation that was pooh-poohed and now we have very strong regulations in force that affect every Canadian. A national emergency has been declared by the government. I ask the government to act according to its words and take the responsibility for enforcing these regulations it has proclaimed.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues have done, I must at the very outset express congratulations to the mover (Mr. Trudel) and seconder (Mr. Douglas, Assiniboia) and commend them for the very creditable job they did, especially in the light of the material with which they had to work.
I do not intend to deal at any great length with the content of the Speech from the Throne itself but rather with some other matters. I do want to make one or two observations which reflect my own view of the speech, and I have no hesitation at all in referring to the editorial page of the Chronicle-Herald of Monday, October 12. I should like to quote very briefly from this editorial because again I think this sums up my own feeling about the speech itself. In part, it reads:
If Governor General Roland Michener sounded bored as he read the federal government's Speech from the Throne, at the opening of the new session of the Parliament of Canada in Ottawa on Thursday, who could blame him?
It was a dull, uninspired document, whose rhetoric failed to cloak the government's disturbing complacency and continued disinclination to get its priorities right.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On the verge of greatness.


J. Michael Forrestall: On the verge of greatness, that is right.
I continue:
Only in its references to the appointment of a new minister, and department, concerned with urban affairs, and in one or two other matters, did the speech bear any evidence of Prime Minister Trudeau's concern with matters of immediate consequence
I suggest that these remarks are pertinent in 1970, inasmuch as we are all very familiar with the magnitude of the urban problems facing us. Sometimes one cannot help wondering if the Speech from the Throne,-and this applies to the present speech as well as to many which preceded it-which is a traditional part of our parliamentary procedures, is not being deliberately downgraded and deliberately written in condescending terms in order to further erode, as I have suggested, that part of our tradition which is enshrined in this institution, the House of Commons. I can only conclude that the government does not seriously hold it necessary to put forward clear and hard priorities, or that it simply does not understand them. The government does not understand the seriousness of the situation.
As I indicated, it is not my intention to dwell at great length on the Speech from the Throne. Suffice it to say that it is a personal disappointment to me in a number of areas. At the outset of my remarks, I should like to make a few observations, if I may. First, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see in his seat the Minister of Energy, Mines

October 22, 197ff
The Address-Mr. Forrestall
and Resources (Mr.,Greene). May I pay a tribute not only to our scientists but as well, and particularly, to the captain and the crew of the ship Hudson which has just completed a circumnavigation of the Americas. I had the privilege, and I personally thank the minister for this, of standing with one or two other Canadians at a dockside m South America and watching that ship come out of the fog. I could not help feeling very, very proud of being a Canadian and, as that day and ensuing days wore on a very great pride in the work that the scientists on that ship had been carrying on so successfully. I was struck by the tremendous, very sincere and deep respect that the scientists of the department on board the Hudson, as well as of those who came from scientific communities in South America had for the skill and dedication of the captain and the crew. May I express to the minister my congratulations upon such a voyage being undertaken. I look forward as the months and years go by to a continuing evaluation of the information collected on this particular trip.
The grievous problems that confront Canada are very clear in the minds of those in the various segments of our country that are particularly affected. I am speaking m a broad sense. I doubt whether any of those engaged in the various sectors of our economic and national life are unaware of the depth of the problems facing them. They must be very disappointed, as I am and as I am sure thousands of other Canadians are, that the government apparently has not recognized the depth of those problems and given them any sort of priority.
May I now direct a few remarks to the area of national defence? If there is one area within the government that has been neglected, certainly for a number of years, it is the area of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. I should like to touch briefly on what I consider to be an urgent necessity, partly because of the events of the last two weeks, but more importantly, because of the events of the last three years. I am speaking of the urgency of increasing the budget for defence spending. I am sure that my purpose in making this appeal is obvious. I need only refer to the current review under way with respect to our four new destroyer escorts, the DDH 280's. It is important, in order that we may maintain our capabilities, for the defence budget to be increased in respect of a general re-equipment program and in respect of maintaining the strength of the Canadian Armed Forces at levels which are adequate to meet the commitments and obligations that we, as a nation, have incurred. From time to time we pay lip service to those commitments.
I cannot help wondering, Mr. Speaker, how the Canadian Armed Forces are to carry out those new responsibilities we have assigned to them, such as maintaining our sovereignty in the north and policing legislation introduced in recent days by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) with respect to pollution, as well as enforcing other Arctic pollution measures, with the present equipment we have. What is more damnable, there seems to be no apparent effort to design and construct equipment that is adequate if the armed forces are to police the laws and regulations now in effect in Canada. I hasten to

say that those are enlightened laws; yet, if they are to be effective, we must be able to police and enforce them. We must, if we can-and I think this should happen during the present fiscal year-increase the national defence budget; we must increase it substantially if we want to maintain our credibility in the eyes of our partners, in the eyes of our neighbours to the south and in the eyes of our NATO allies. We must replace the Argus. I think the Argus will need to be maintained in service for considerably longer than the government is apparently willing to admit at this juncture. I think the elimination of the Argus, which is used in part in its present well known role and in part for the extended surveillance of the north, should not in any way delay or halt our moving ahead with a program to replace that aircraft with others such as the Nimrod or Orion.
There are experts who claim these are the best aircraft available for the job. It seems to me that if we equip our forces with this new generation of weapons, there is every reason to suppose, on the basis of that equipment, that Canada for the next ten or 12 years will have the finest maritime patrol aircraft in the world. We must, as I said a moment ago, ease restraints with respect to the national defence budget so that we can maintain a credible and balanced equipment program and a force structured to meet the external and domestic commitments that we have already undertaken and from which, hopefully, we shall not retreat. The failure to do this now is capable of interpretation by our friends and allies outside this country, only that we are further retreating into a position of isolation with respect to Europe and with respect to continental defence.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I have another pet subject to which I think we should be giving serious consideration, unless there was some understanding in connection with the report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, which report is based on the study by the subcommittee on Maritime defence. I wish to emphasize that it is now time for Canada to study a true submersible capability. The committee recommended that we do not acquire nuclear powered submarines at this time solely on the basis of cost. There is every indication that it is possible for us to acquire such a capability without becoming involved in the tremendous cost of new construction. I wish to be very emphatic in stating that the true submersible, the nuclear powered submarine, remains the only piece of equipment available that can operate 12 months of the year in our northern latitudes.
There are many reasons why Canada should have this equipment, such as the commercial application, the scientific application and the presence within our Department of National Defence and other government circles of knowledge of what is happening in our north. The most important reason is that it is the only piece of equipment that is capable of year round operation.
It must be a damnable burden for the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) to carry the responsibility of the CF-5 program. I have sympathy for the minister. There are very obvious roles for the CF-5 and
October 22, 1970

it would be impertinent if I pointed them out. The minister knows what they are. I do not understand why he is not getting on with the job and why this very expensive equipment is still rolling off the assembly lines to be put into storage.
With respect to surface forces, on the east coast we have now lost the two remaining operational ships with a mine-sweeping capability. If someone should decide to place mines in our waters, we would not be capable of removing them. What would happen if mines were placed in such places as the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the entrance to Halifax harbour or some other strategic east coast location?
In keeping with the extraterritorial responsibilities, consideration must be given to construction of a fleet, light in armament but adequate to carry out the policing and investigation roles required by Acts of Parliament in recent months as well as an effective role with regard to our responsibilities under ASW. The DDH-280 must not be changed or cut back. The necessary money must be found for this program in order that Canada may retain credibility in the eyes of our partners, particularly those within NATO.
In retaining this program it would be irresponsible for the government to decide to downgrade the equipment on these ships in order to meet the total overhaul cost. Within three months of awarding the contract for these new DDH-280 ships, it was known that we would not by any stretch of the imagination be on time or within the cost estimates. In spite of that, the replies to the four questions I placed on the order paper were that no changes were indicated in the over-all cost. I hope what we are now faced with is not a fait accompli in terms of government thinking, but it must be close to that with respect to the total cost of the program, half a billion dollars. Canadians would not have objected or reacted strongly if the government had had the courage to indicate that when it embarked on the program two or three years ago.
I wish to deal briefly with Canada's defence role in our north. Much has been said about this in the past 12 to 14 months. There has been a lot of talk about northern capabilities. This has amounted to nothing more than a program of testing the capability of equipment and training people in northern operations. I have contended for some time that the north could best be developed by people over whom we have total and absolute control. My wish is for a program embracing particular skills of the Canadian armed forces working in the north to develop communications systems, airports and communities. This would require thousands of people, including members of the armed forces, their wives and children. There should be orderly development of the north by people over whom we have some control with respect to the ecology and so forth. It is not sufficient to talk in terms of a couple of hundred of people if we want to do anything meaningful. This should be under the control of competent men within our armed forces.
I would now like to spend a moment or two speaking about future development of the metropolitan area, part
The Address-Mr. Forrestall
of which I have the privilege to represent. During the 1970's, particularly the early part, the elected people must determine our potential growth and the form it must take. Legislators must not continue to proceed on the basis that industry is good, no matter what its nature or form.
I used to think it would be good to develop the Minus Basin tidal power so that reduction and refractory industries might be attracted to Nova Scotia, all of the pollutant industries. All that seemed to matter at that time was that industry was industry. I have since changed my mind 100 per cent and I make no apologies for it. Perhaps I have been enlightened by all the talk about pollution in recent years. In any event, I have changed my mind. I now believe we have the capability in the metropolitan area of Dartmouth and Halifax. I trust my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) will pardon me for consistently placing Dartmouth first; while Dartmouth is now an important part of Halifax, as the years go by I believe it will become less important. My feeling is that if economic generators can be found, this centre will produce a city of half a million people in the course of the next 12 or 15 years, based on clean industry. This is important.
[DOT] (3:10p.m.)
We must find in the Atlantic provinces, we are told, an economic centre with a population of at least half a million before we can become self-supporting and say to the rest of the taxpayers of Canada: we no longer need subsidies or special help; we now have a self-sustaining existence. It is not feasible to attempt to develop more than one such centre in the Atlantic area at least in the foreseeable future. Many factors make this true, most of them apparent, but perhaps the most realistic is the rapidity with which technology and people's requirements are changing. We can, as has been suggested, develope an assembly-based industry involving a containerisation program and a full system of distribution. Parts would be brought into the area in containers, fed through an assembly process and then transferred to a distribution centre. This would be one industrial generator, and it would be a clean generator, not one which would pour pollutants into our air and into our waters.
A second generator which has been suggested by a number of well-informed, knowledgeable people would be the development of the downtown sections of both Dartmouth and Halifax. The federal government is in a position to play a large part here. Halifax has long been a financial and administrative centre of the Maritimes, at least, and over the next ten or twelve years, with careful thought and planning, this facet of our development could be expanded in an orderly way which would tend to enhance the quality of our environment rather than pollute it.
A third area of economic generation which I, and others, believe to be economically possible and feasible is one in which, again, the federal government must take the lead. It is the area of research and development programs. We have a sophisticated and closely interrelated research program in eastern Canada today con-

October 22, 1970
The Address-Mr. Hopkins
centrated in Halifax and Dartmouth and including such centres as the Bedford Institute, the National Research Council, the Nova Scotia research facilities, The Defence Research Board, research efforts in our universities, and so on. This activity should be geared to areas of growth, and in his context I refer particularly to the Bedford Institute. Today we have a responsibility to develop on the east coast of Canada and, hopefully, in the Halifax-Dartmouth area, an expanding research effort in connection with the sea and its resources, including those which are beneath the ocean floor.
To accomplish the development of the three main generators to which I have referred, a tremendous expansion is needed in terms of infrastructure, for example, water services-the whole bit. Specifically, in this connection, we need a hospital. It is to be hoped the government will act early on the suggestion of Mayor Thornhill of the city of Dartmouth to provide a much-needed hospital in that city. The mayor has been advocating this step for a long time and it is one which deserves the early attention of the government. As I say, we need help from the federal government in building up this infrastructure and it is necessary for us to proceed in this regard immediately.
In addition, I hope the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) will at this time reassess his position on the question of Fundy tidal power. There is certain evidence now available which calls into question the depth of the thinking upon the basis of which the government made its decision not to proceed with this project unless there was some marked change in circumstances. I hate to suggest to the hon. minister that he looked only superficially at the report of the standing committee which was presented to him, but I have a feeling he did not make a sufficient study in depth of the engineering work-up. He chose to rely almost entirely on the report of the committee itself, and with all deference to that committee, considerable objection has been found to the terms of their report. I have in mind, now, the deliberations of the international conference on tidal power which was held in Halifax earlier this year.
In closing, I urge the government to reconsider its freeze on national defence expenditure at an early date, so that we shall not entirely lose the credibility which remains to us among our allies. It is necessary to move now so that the cost of catching up will not be intolerable when the time comes to catch up. The need for a highly-skilled, well-trained and respected force has been clearly demonstrated to us in the last few days. I urge the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) to move swiftly. He has intimated that it is inevitable the budget strings will be loosened. I urge him to solicit the support of his colleagues so that this loosening may occur not in 1973-74 but in 1971-72.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew Norih):: Mr. Speaker, first, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), who I see present in the chamber this afternoon, on the successful trip of the Hudson. This has been a very fine achievement. The recognition of this House should also go to those who are
running the operation at the Dartmouth Institute of Oceanography and, as chairman of the National Resources and Public Works Committee, I should like to extend my personal congratulations to them.
We, as a committee, visited the Dartmouth Institute last May. There is one suggestion I would make to the minister at this time. I believe we are doing a lot of good work in Water research in this country not only at the Dartmouth Institute but also at the Canada Inland Water Centre at Burlington, Ontario. I think we should be distributing some of their informational pamphlets to our high schools and secondary schools across Canada. From time to time, I receive letters from students asking why certain things are not being done when, in actual fact, the matters are already in hand. I should like to see the minister and his staff adopt a policy of sending information packages on the Inland Water Centre at Burlington and also on the Dartmouth Institute of Oceanography to the libraries of all secondary schools in Canada. If we do not relay to the people information about what is being done, then we cannot justify to them the amount of money being spent on programs.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Secondly, may I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the cabinet in general on the strong measures, which at times have been unpopular, they have had to take to save the Canadian dollar and enable it to keep its value. It was heartening to hear it said at the recent International Conference of Finance Ministers in Europe that the Canadian dollar is in about the best position of the ten most developed countries in the world. I think this is a tribute to good management on the part of the cabinet and the Prime Minister.


Mr. Thomson:: About the only tribute.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The hon. member can comment when he gets his turn. There is such a negative attitude on the part of some people at times that it is refreshing to get some positive and realistic statements on the record.
One thing we must do in the future if we want to institute policies that are effective is to spend more money on research. A good demonstration of the benefits to be derived from research is given by the Japanese in the way they have handled their coal and lumber industries. They have made in depth studies not only at their own domestic level but at the international level. They have compiled all kinds of data relating to those industries. This is one reason they are progressing so quickly and are in a position where they can buy raw goods from many nations of the world, manufacture them at home and then sell them back in finished form to the same nations.
It is proper at this time to congratulate the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on his energy policy. He has had a very difficult summer with some trying moments, but I think the vision he has demonstrated will be realized.

October 22, 1970

I want to say a few words about transportation. It is my view that equitable freight rates and good roads are important in developing the Canadian economy, as are our very worth-while policies of regional economic expansion. We in the Ottawa valley have always been plagued with unsatisfactory road conditions. If there is one thing we badly need, it is a good highway artery.
Let me give the House a good example of what I mean. The bridge in the centre of the town of Petawawa that spans the Petawawa River was built before the first troops moved into Base Petawawa in 1907. Today, it is called upon to handle all the traffic moving into Base Petawawa from various parts of the country, as well as traffic destined for Chalk River. Invariably there is a big traffic jam right in the middle of the town of Petawawa during the rush hour, and it is nothing for cars to be lined up for three miles. One morning about two weeks ago the nuclear laboratories at Chalk River lost $2,000 in wages which the Crown Corporation had to absorb because employees were late through no fault of their own. Renfrew County Council has brought this problem to the attention of the Minister of Highways of Ontario. It sent a resolution to the Minister of Highways requesting the early completion of the proposed highway 417. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) and myself were asked to support this brief, and we did so.
In reply to my letter to the Minister of Highways, the Hon. George E. Gomme, I was informed that roads were not the only problems in eastern Ontario, and that if we had really wanted to admit it, another problem was lack of economic development policies. He suggested that if the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton and myself had succeeded in getting the area designated, this would have gone a long way toward solving our problems. In other words, the minister was trying to pass the buck to us. Let me tell the Hon. George Gomme that the hon. members for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton and Renfrew North have now done their homework and we are looking for him to do his. We want that highway and we want a new bridge at Petawawa. I see no reason for the federal government providing my constituents with a large number of jobs when their counterparts in the Ontario legislature cannot even provide decent transpora-tion arteries for people to get to work.
If anyone wonders why I am spending so much time talking about a local matter, let them come to my house at week ends and receive some of the calls that flood in. I want to put the bread in the basket in which it properly belongs-at Queen's Park.


Mr. Aiken:: We always blame Ottawa.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: If we blamed Toronto as much as they blame Ottawa, we would be blaming them all the time. One thing I will say for this government is that it faces up squarely to its own problems and settles them.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Like unemployment.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The government is facing up to unemployment, too. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax
The Address-Mr. Hopkins
East (Mr. Forrestall) made some comments about the Department of National Defence. I do not think he mentioned the pay scales in the lower ranks, which is one matter that I suggest the new Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) review. I want to congratulate the new minister on his appointment and in the interest he is taking in his new job.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
There are some things I should like to bring to his attention. The first concerns rental problems at Department of National Defence bases. I believe rents should be kept at a low level as an incentive, and as one of the privileges of members of the armed forces, because they do not have the same privileges when they are in block housing that they would have on civvy street. I think the whole matter of housing on DND bases should be reviewed. You know, there are times during long periods of peace when many people feel that the armed forces of a nation are out of style. It is my belief that it is healthy to be prepared and that it is healthy to keep a good force at all times. At no time should these people be given kicks in the teeth, especially at a time when we are asking them to perform a duty.
The average soldier today wishes to do a good job. It must be rather frustrating to him, however, while he is in the middle of performing a duty he has been asked to perform, to find there are those who criticize him, will not back him up, or in fact appear to be making statements on behalf of the people whom he has been asked to protect. We should always keep a proper perspective and remember that being unprepared is just as great a promoter of disturbance as anything else. If individuals interested in crime or in international controversies know that certain nations are not prepared, then such nations are open to attack from other nations or from criminals and so on wherever they may be.
Freight rates is another subject I have discussed in this House on other occasions. I deeply feel the day is coming when we must look at our two major railways in Canada in a realistic way to ensure that they provide the service we wish them to provide in order to tie this country together. They must not be allowed to go on charging high freight rates merely to balance their books. I think the burden of sharing the deficits of these transportation systems will have to rest with Parliament. Otherwise, large areas of this country will be prejudiced because companies will not settle in those areas unless proper freight rates are available to them.
This is a subject which is, and in the next 20 years will be, closely related to pollution. If we do not have an equitable freight rate policy to provide an incentive to industry to move into the slow growth areas of Canada in the next few years, then industry will continue to move into the large urban centres of Canada with the result that we will be required to spend more money on antipollution measures. Some of this money would be better spent on subsidization of freight rates and the provision of a better economy for the slow growth areas of this country.

October 22, 1970
The Address-Mr. Hopkins
I might give one specific example in this regard. I believe it is an example of the arrogance of the CNR. A company in my area which is in the wood business asked for rates for the hauling of logs a distance of approximately 200 miles. That company was given a rate something in the order of 54 cents or 57 cents, which would have added some $50 a thousand to the price of the lumber or plywood produced at the manufacturing level. This rate was questioned during a meeting which was held. The railroads came back with a rate of 27 cents. This points out very blatantly how well they did their homework in the first place. It would seem obvious that there are people in the sales division who announce a rate but who simply are not interested in obtaining that freight. It would seem there are only certain lines of freight in which they are interested.
So, what happens? In some slow growth areas, such as areas in which forestry is the basic industry, the products, in this case wood products, are kept off the trains and hence the traffic is cut back on those lines. Then, some day we will find that the railway has appeared before the Canadian Transport Commission with a sob story to the effect the line is not paying and will have to be abandoned. Such action can only produce more problems for areas of Canada which are already slow growth areas. I think Members of Parliament today, regardless of party affiliation, who come from slow growth areas should be on top of this situation every day so that we might have a policy which would be fair to these areas, and so that we might be able to operate as economically as possible in this nation. Instead of just complaining about unemployment, let us do something in this regard.
Let us put these far-reaching policies into operation in places in Ontario where the basic tax dollar will help industries and muncipalities which do not have a strong economic base at the present time. At the same time, let us keep the railroads in a position where they are in fact knitting together the economy of Canada instead of simply making runs between the cities of Canada without consideration for the smaller communities in between.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that pretty well rounds out my remarks, with the exception of a few comments I have to make concerning the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The extra $100 million that has been thrown into CMHC is a good shot in the arm and I congratulate the Minister without Portfolio for that. But again, I should like to deal with the local situation because it seems to me that when certain policies are laid down, Renfrew county appears to be a buffer zone between the northern and southern parts of the province. When policies are laid down for northern Ontario, usually they do not apply to areas just below North Bay. The towns of Deep River, Chalk River, and part of the town of Peta-wawa qualify for CMHC loans, but the town of Pembroke does not qualify at this time. However, the city of North Bay with a population of 4,800 does qualify for CMHC loans. It is somewhat ridiculous to place the town of Pembroke with a population of about 16,000 on the same policy level so far as CMHC is concerned as the city of Toronto.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: People in the town of Pembroke do not receive CMHC loans. As I said, we suffer because we are not included in northern Ontario, but at the same time we are too far north to be included in Southern Ontario. I think it is interesting to note that the smaller communities of Mattawa, Bonfield and the lower part of Nipissing have received little or nothing from CMHC simply because an instruction has been issued by the North Bay office that the Corporation does not want to be involved with housing in smaller communities.
Approximately 175 loans have been approved for the city of North Bay, but if my information is correct, very few have been approved for the town of Mattawa. I put this on the record because I want it brought to the attention of these officials, and I will be backing it up with letters. I want this reconsidered when the new budget for CMHC comes out.


Mr. Paproski:: Let your constituents write to their federal member.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: If they write to the federal member in my area, they will get service.
As a final note, I should like to congratulate in a very serious way the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) for the serious, dignified and discreet manner in which they have carried out their duties in the last few days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, before I start my speech I should like to commend the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins). I am quite sure that he is a positive person, but I noticed that even among his positive suggestions there appeared a few criticisms which, if they had come from the opposition, would likely have been referred to as negative. Anyway, I will try to be positive in my contribution to this debate, even though I am speaking from the negative side of the House.
Initially, I did not expect to take part in the debate, but a problem has come to the force in the last few days. I am referring to the chicken and egg war and the problems that have developed as a result of it. In Canada we have a Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) who, like old Macdonald, has a chick chick here and a chick chick there. At the moment he has too many chick chicks, not to mention a few too many eggs and a few too many turkeys. Not only that, but they are isolated in economic pockets in the country because they cannot cross interprovincial boundaries. This situation results from the marketing board legislation passed by the various provinces. It is regrettable that things have come to this pass, and for this reason I wish to take part in this debate.

October 22, 1970

Christmas turkeys should be going to the market now. In some areas they have not even been killed in the hope that some market development will take place or that the government will do something. So far, the federal government at least has been wringing its hands, and the Minister of Agriculture has been crying in his root beer, or whatever ministers of agriculture do. But I have not seen any action yet on this matter. The various provinces in Canada have initiated action through their marketing boards which has effectively stopped the transfer or shipment of eggs, poultry or turkeys from one province to the other. I would like to give one example in particular.
The lakehead or Thunder Bay is a natural marketplace for poultry products from Manitoba. It is a long way from the high producing areas of eastern Ontario, and as a rule it has been a natural outlet for surplus poultry products from Manitoba. Manitoba is now effectively cut off from this market. This is one example. In my own province of Saskatchewan eggs cost, if I recall correctly, some eight cents a dozen more than in Manitoba, again because of a marketing board regulation. Quebec, Ontario, and in fact all the provinces will, if they have not until now, be introducing regulations of this kind. In effect, it is an economic balkanization of certain industries. Let me suggest that if something is not done, this balkanization will escalate. This is something we should consider very carefully.
Recently Manitoba made an application to the Supreme Court of Canada to test the validity of these regulations. However, the application was turned down. I, as well as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of Agriculture what the federal government intended to do about it. The federal government said, in effect, that so far as the legal position is concerned, they will do nothing. What else they might do, I am not sure. The Supreme Court has said "no" to Manitoba, and the federal government has said "no" to opposition members. What then is to be done? I suggest that the government should hasten to bring in some farm marketing legislation to take care of the situation.
Bill C-197 was not passed by the House last year, and the Minister of Agriculture blames the opposition for that. We in this party supported the bill with some reservations-what I think were good reservations-and we would have hastened this legislation through with some amendments designed to deal with this particularly awkward problem. I should like to express criticism of the Conservative party in this respect. They have balked at Bill C-197. I agree it is their right to do so, but I have not heard them say what they would put in its place to solve the problem we have at present. If they have ideas in this regard, I suggest that they hasten to tell the House about them.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Read the amendments.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: I would like to hear the specific amendments, and then we can talk about them.


Some hon. Members:: Read them.
The Address-Mr. Thomson


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: I believe that the federal government, in putting forth Bill C-197 without clearing up this constitutional problem, is using the constitutional problem as an excuse. I think this interprovincial trade situation should be dealt with on the legal level as well as the legislative. Let us hope that the federal government will re-introduce the farm marketing legislation with some amendments, as has been suggested, to ensure that this will be a national marketing act. We do not want the chicken or egg industries balkanized permanently in Canada. We want a free interprovincial market for all products in Canada. I have heard that some people who raise hogs and beef in some provinces are being affected adversely. Some individuals who cannot ship their eggs or poultry to Ontario or Quebec say they will assist farm machinery manufacturers to produce farm machinery in Manitoba. I do not think this is a healthy situation to be developing in Canada. We should hasten to solve the problem now rather than allow it to escalate.
Nationalism, Mr. Speaker, has been described as the strongest religion in the world. Under the guise of nationalism we do things we would not even consider in other circumstances, up to and including murder. In Canada, we are cursed with an additional problem. It is provincialism, or if you like, regionalism. One of the reasons I have heard given for the fall of the Greek city states is that they never overcame their small, parochial local interests. In this day and age, with our modern technology, we should get beyond merely looking after small, regional areas and parochial interests.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
One of the things which have developed since the end of World War II which has appealed strongly to me is the European Common Market. Instead of a lot of small countries fighting among themselves, looking after their own problems, these countries have joined hands in order to solve shared problems. Despite the problems that have attended the development of the European Common Market, I cannot help but admire what it has been able to accomplish. It has proceeded more slowly in some areas than was hoped, but it has proceeded very effectively in other areas. However, I have been disturbed at the tendency of Common Market countries to gather together to protect themselves against someone, or something from outside. If the Common Market is a good thing for them, I say it should be expanded to include all the countries in the world.
We in Canada are moving in the wrong direction. We are moving toward the development of local, provincial sections. This is not a good thing. We should be putting our house in order in an economic sense, and here I refer to agricultural marketing boards. Let us first solve our problem in connection with the regionalization of marketing boards, and then let us look for markets abroad.
At the moment we have a surplus of eggs, chicken broilers and turkeys, at a time when these normally go out in large quantities to market. The reason for such surpluses in some provinces is that producers have been cut off from their traditional markets. Because the feder-

October 22, 1970
The Address-Mr. Rochon
al government has allowed this to happen, because it has done nothing to stop it from happening, I suggest it has some responsibility. I suggest that it should consider a purchasing plan of some sort to cover the immediate surplus problems experienced by the poultry industry, particularly for producers who have lost their traditional markets.
It may be argued that those who have over-produced for a market they did not have, do not deserve any protection. That is a separate matter. But I believe those who have lost their traditional markets have a claim on the federal treasury and the federal government should move quickly to assist them. I know this is an unpleasant matter. I know we have had programs for the purchase of surplus commodities previously. Such a program is not a happy undertaking for a government. It costs money, and there are other complications involved. But, Mr. Speaker, we have a problem. We have it now. Let us do something positive about it now.
We should re-introduce the farm marketing bill, make some amendments to it, and have it passed as quickly as possible so that we may avoid future situations such as this. I think some teeth should be put in the bill so that if provinces do not agree to allow farm produce to move freely within Canada, the federal government could consider sanctions against them, such as the withdrawal of subsidies as was done under the dairy plan. The federal government should also initiate some proceedings before the Supreme Court to clarify the position of the farm marketing legislation and the power of provincial marketing boards.
I wish to make one final point, Mr. Speaker. In the past we sold quite a few eggs abroad. I do not know if we sold turkeys and chickens in any significant amount. I am not even sure that there is a market abroad for these products at the moment, but we hear that there might be a market in Japan for pork, and possibly beef. I wonder if there is not also a market there for chickens and eggs.
I believe the federal government should undertake a more active research marketing program. Since becoming a Member of Parliament I have noted that a great deal of money has been spent on production research, in some cases with remarkable results. But, Mr. Speaker, extensive market research has not been undertaken, and I do not see any immediate plans to undertake it. We have not explored all the avenues available to us. It is high time we did in the interest of Canadian agriculture.


Mr. McKinley:: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. He mentioned the Conservative party stand on Bill C-197. Could he explain the turnabout in his party's position after they found that the Farmers' Union opposed the bill without major amendment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr.   Jean-L. Rochon@Ahuntsic: Mr. Speaker, I am now experiencing a deep feeling of sadness and with all the Canadian people, I mourn the death of a great patriot,

Pierre Laporte. This feeling of sadness is almost haunting me when I remember the man who had been honouring me with his friendship for several years. Indeed, I cannot forget that he fought at my side in the 1962 election campaign, when I was elected to the House of Commons by the constituents of Laval, and I now realize that there are times in life when words cannot convey all our deepest emotions and we have to remain silent. I will summarize those feelings as follows: Dear Mr. Laporte, may you rest in peace. To your wife, your children, your mother and all your dear ones who mourn you, my most sincere sympathy. They weep, it is true, but they weep for a hero whose name will mark our history in letters of gold.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Those who preceded me, Mr. Speaker, depending on their political affiliation, in turn approved or disapproved the measures advocated in the Speech from the Throne but, upon reflection, one can read between the lines and see the same concern in all members of this House: the greater welfare of the Canadian people.
Opinions may differ on the implementation of certain measures, that is human. But in these tragic times, why not overlook those differences of opinion, why not support one another? Then, each one of us can, in his own heart, be conscious of having accomplished his duty.
I am, Mr. Speaker, one of the eldest in this House. I lived through the days of the depression in the 30s. I lived through the years that followed 1935. I sat in the legislative assembly of Quebec during that time. Then, as today, there was unease and troubles, but perhaps somewhat less than now. Later on, from 1939-1945, that is the second world war, we lived very dark hours indeed.
I read the Speech from the Throne very carefully. In it, I perceived the determination of the government to continue pursuing a policy towards a better and more just society.
I could speak at length on each and everyone of the measures advocated. Others have done so before me. They have analyzed them. The members of the opposition have criticized them and some of the criticism was constructive. The members of the government party have explained the good they can produce, and that is why I shall not go into them again. I merely echo the constructive ideas we have heard.
Last year, when I spoke on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, I pointed out something which seemed to me very important, that is, air and water pollution. I was then repeating what I had heard in Brussels during the sittings of the NATO science committee. I had been greatly impressed by the following words from a British delegate: "Tomorrow, the bottom of the seas will become the granary of the world." He went on to explain all that can be extracted from the rivers and the ocean, from fish to algae and underground oils. He concluded by saying: "That huge potential is to be protected, and one of the major means is by checking both air and water pollution, and international and national organizations will have to be set up, for in more than one
October 22, 1970

The Address-Mr. Rochon
I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to ask again in this House for the dredging of the Mille-iles and the Back rivers.
Also, in Pont-Viau, the "drinking" water brought in infectious hepatitis, virus disease...
Mr. Speaker, I have just described the condition of waters in the town of Pont-Viau and in several river-side districts of the City of Laval. Drinking water caused some cases of infectious hepatitis, a virus disease. I consulted several specialists about it and they told me that the drinking water in the river-side districts of Laval, particularly in some areas of Ahuntsic, Bourassa or Dollard, contains colibacillus, the cause of hepatitis. Like my colleagues from Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois), Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Major) and all those who tabled this project, I submit to the authorities what I have been suggesting since I became a member of this House- dredging the Mille-iles and Back rivers.
I am aware that this is a local issue but this is one of the rare opportunities when a member of Parliament is allowed to speak about things of real interest to his riding.
City of Laval, which was part of my large riding of Laval before it was divided up and before I was elected in Ahuntsic, has a population of more than 230,000 today. It is the second largest city in Quebec.
The total municipal property assessment amounts to well over $800 million and taking into account the density of the population on the southern shores of the Back River, on Montreal Island, and adding the population in the constituencies of Bourassa, Ahuntsic, Dollard and Lachine, we get a total of over a million people for an aggregate property assessment exceeding $1 billion. This only goes to show, Mr. Speaker, the importance of that area and the reasons for my keen interest in that part of my constituency. The low-water levels which elsewhere are considered only as a threat, border on disaster where my constituents are concerned and a great many of them already have left or are considering leaving the river-shore districts. This situation is largely due to the conditions resulting from the pollution of the waters of both rivers and in this wonderful area known for its natural beauties and glorious mementoes of the early days of Ville-Marie, there is a feeling of uneasiness which apparently tends to paralyse any tourist promotion as well as the normal development of this natural water passage from the St. Lawrence to Lake St-Louis, then to Lake of Two-Mountains and into the Thousand-Isles and the Back rivers.
Briefs were submitted to the authorities. In the past, members representing that region felt duty bound to warn the authorities. However, in 1963, in view of the serious situation, a committee on the canalization of the Thousand-Isles and Back rivers was set up and registered on July 10, 1963 with the Superior Court of Montreal.
On the following August 15, a steering committee comprising a president, a vice-president, a secretary, four directors and a legal adviser was created. The federal members of Parliament whose constituencies bordered
the rivers supported the request of 30 mayors of the riverside municipalities. Finally, in October 1963, the federal ministers of Transport and Public Works instructed engineers of their respective departments to undertake the required preliminary studies and report thereon.
In 1964, the Minister of Public Works agreed to meet the authorities of Laval. With these authorities and riverside residents he visited the whole area. He came to the conclusion that for the benefit of the population and in order to prevent an epidemic, it was necessary to dredge these two rivers during the spring of 1965. Following the flood in the western part of Laval, particularly in the city of Laval-Ouest the minister reported to the cabinet that it was urgent to take action in order to prevent a disaster.
During the fall of the same year the new Minister of Transport, Mr. Pickersgill, went further and said: these two rivers will be dredged, because the welfare of an entire population is at stake.
On July 7, 1967, I received the following letter from the Minister of Transport:
Dear Mr. Rochon,
I am pleased to inform you that on June 20, 1967, the cabinet approved the principle of the Grand Moulin Rapids canalization project on the Mille-iles River.
The project will be undertaken in order to make the river navigable from the Deux-Montagnes Lake to Pont David. A sum of $1,250,000 is involved.
The Department of Public Works intends to start construction as soon as possible in 1968.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, to stop the progress of inflation, a calamity we believe should be eliminated in the interest of the whole country, the government decided to delay the project and all those concerned understood that, in the general interest, it could wait. There the matter rested until the beginning of the fight against pollution.
Last March, after consultations with Ottawa, the Quebec provincial government-as well as the other provincial governments-decided to make the population aware of the serious pollution problem and on that subject, I quote an article by Mr. Andre Beauvais which was published in a Montreal newspaper:
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Water pollution: Quebec efforts to develop greater public awareness
This year, the Department of Health intends to tackle with greater vigour the water pollution problem.
As early as May, the first phase of a long term program will be launched on a provincial scale with a view to awaken the public to the problem of water pollution.
Continuing in that vein, the riverside residents of the City of Laval as well as those in the riding of Bourassa in Montreal North in Ahuntsic and Dollard, were asked to send water samples to the laboratories of Laval or McGill Universities.
Over 55,000 samples were sent to those laboratories were colon colibacilli were found in almost everyone of

October 22, 1970

them, in larger numbers perhaps in samples from the Back and the Thousand Island rivers.
A doctor I met and to whom I asked about the results of those tests told me that the thyphoid epidemic of five years ago had probably been caused by pollution in the Back river near St. Frangois de Salles, Saint-Vincent, Montreal North, La Visitation and Ahuntsic. Samples were sent from all over.
Mr. Speaker, I insisted on speaking of dredging the Back and the Thousand Island rivers because the general policy of the government against pollution-and I would like this to be well understood once again-is in the interest of all citizens. I am convinced that my appeal will not go unheard.
For some time now, along with my colleagues the hon. members for Laval (Mr. Roy), for Duvernay (Mr. Kier-ans), for Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois), and others, I have been meeting with the responsible ministers. We are now doing a more thorough study of this problem. Engineers have told us what the situation is and we are now looking forward to the enactment of more comprehensive legislation on pollution, in the best interests of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat, I would not forgive myself if I failed to do what all the previous speakers have done, namely congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne (Mr. Trudel and Mr. Douglas (Assiniboia)). They proved worthy of the confidence of their constituents, and I am sure that after hearing them they had faith in their future in Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset to congratulate very sincerely the Deputy Speaker, who will, I am sure, discharge his duties with dignity, as he enjoys the full confidence of all members.
I should like to congratulate also the movers of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne (Mr. Trudel and Mr. Douglas (Assiniboia)). They fulfilled their obligation admirably. In fact, it was normal in their case to put emphasis on the government's accomplishments.
I should like to congratulate also in a special way the previous speaker, who just made a magnificent speech, where he pointed out, among other things, that the human being had once again been sacrificed to save the dollar. Alleging inflation the government has allowed the pollution problem to get worse. Like the hon. member I think it is unfortunate that such conditions should continue and I heartily support his claims so that we may take as soon as possible the necessary steps to check that national plague.
The Speech from the Throne is the usual statement of the policy which the government intends to follow and of the pieces of legislation it expects Parliament to pass. This year's speech is no exception to the rule: it abounds in high-sounding sentences which are pleasant to ear and bring hope, but it makes no mention at all of the means the government will take to establish a truly just society.
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert
However, the Speech from the Throne refers to the generation gap in the following terms:
Because of the clash between these new values and the old, because of the quest by the young and the disillusioned for some resolution of attitudes, we live in a period of tenseness and unease. It is an age frequented by violence as desperate men seek ill defined goals; an age of frustrations as gentle men question impatiently old assumptions.
This last sentence is quite significant. Indeed this age of ours affords us perhaps a last chance to choose our destiny instead of submitting to it. But that is only possible on one condition, that man be not the slave of progress, but rather its master. And to that end, Mr. Speaker, it is essential that the government have the courage to make the financial reforms required to put our monetary system at the service of the people, when at this moment, we are its slaves.
Yet, the government seems aware of that situation. It also seems to understand that change is the most pressing reality, since it states:
The decade of the seventies extends beyond our present vision, yet the momentum of change is already so overwhelming that man can no longer afford the luxury of reacting to events. He must anticipate and plan. He must accept that contentment and Indifference are illusory; that the most dramatic reality is change; that there is more need than ever before to preserve as constant values truth, honesty, excellence and relevance; that a society which is not inspired by love and compassion is not worthy of the name.
Mr. Speaker, the economic dictatorship often denounced over 30 years ago by politicians such as Rene Chalout and Dr. Philippe Hamel, continued to reign supreme in Canada and mainly in Quebec, regardless of the government in power. The fundamental rights of the individual are not respected in spite of the extraordinary progress accomplished in the field of science and productivity. In 1970, sick people unable to make a living are still facing daily difficulties because of a lack of income that would allow them to meet their basic needs. There still are many destitute people who get a small allowance of $30 to $50 a month and this, in a country as rich as Canada. In some cases, and there are unfortunately too many, repeated inquiries are made, procedures are delayed while those in need are urged to be patient, and soon. But, at the bottom of their heart they feel abandoned and refuse to believe in the advantages that society can bring them. The administration is too slow. No account is taken of the needs and of the income of those people. We quite often receive complaints in this connection and when I happen to follow them up, I find, unfortunately, that the person who complains is justified in doing so. In that regard, I think it can be recognized that the reports of the Senate committee now making and inquiry across the country are not exaggerated and that the members are making recommendations likely to correct the situation.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Economic dictatorship was denounced by the great Pope Pius XI in his 1931 encyclical on economic and social problems, in the strong following words:
In the first place, it is obvious that not only is wealth concentrated in our times but an immense power and despotic eco-

October 22, 1970
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert
nomic dictatorship is consolidated in the hands of a few, who often are not owners but only the trustees and managing directors of invested funds which they administer according to their own arbitrary will and pleasure.
This dictatorship is being most forcibly exercised by those who, since they hold the money and completely control it, control credit also and rule the lending of money.
... This could even exist at the government level.
Hence, they regulate the flow so to speak, of the lifeblood whereby the entire economic system lives, and have so firmly in their grasp the soul, as it were, of economic life, that no one can breathe against their will.
This is so true that important and urgent projects are delayed from year to year, precisely owing to the shortage of money, that economic blood which must serve the nation rather than exploit it.
I am quite surprised to note that many individuals in a position to communicate with the public ruthlessly criticize the activities of politicians who are an easy target. They are unkind to politicians, but those same persons are extremely timorous when the established economic order, the financial and monetary systems are concerned. It looks as if they spend all their energy blaming the political order, but they do not dare deal with the stock market, lobbying, speculation, trusts, unrestricted competition, monopolizing, collusion, false advertising, kickbacks, disrupted trade due to the greed of unscrupulous agents. Yet, it should be done in order to improve and transform the system.
Mr. Speaker, the reform of our capitalistic system will be achieved by people who are respectful of law and order, and I believe that it is easily understood here that every one of us is working towards this goal. However there are outside elements of lawlessness at work trying to change our economic system. It is only a small group resorting to unethical means and it is the responsibility of the House to try and effect the change in peace and order.
If nothing is done our system will be destroyed by anarchic elements. It is up to us to make the choice while there is still time. One thing is certain: our system cannot remain what it is today, particularly in the area of distribution, where an abundant production is ensured by man's labour, by science, equipment and discoveries of all kinds. This accumulation of goods in the presence of needs that remain unsatisfied is an injustice which prompts the Canadian people to lend a sympathetic ear to those who advocate violence and disorder.
I think it is high time we reacted if we do not want to witness here what has happened in other countries.
In January of 1969 in London, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) replying to a newspaperman who had asked him what would be the solution to the economic problems of Canada, the Prime Minister coolly stated that he would favour true communism as the ideal solution.
I hope that the newspaper reports of his words were incorrect because we, as Canadians, have better things to do than try to establish in our country a communist regime which has never proved satisfactory elsewhere.
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse) .1
However, history tells us that in every country where there is a communist regime, that has been brought about through the action of a very small number of revolutionaries.
In an encyclical letter, Pope Pius XI said:
Social and economic organization will be properly structured and will realize its objective only if it provides all its members with all the goods that natural and industrial resources and a truly social organization of the economy are able to provide, these being sufficient to provide each and everyone with an honest living.
Mr. Speaker, no one is asking for more. We want the smallest and the weakest member of society to have the minimum required or a decent living.
We should all eagerly aim at such an objective. The Speech from the Throne deals with it when it defines what should be our society. In fact, we can read the following:
-a society in which human differences are regarded as assets, not liabilities;
-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;
-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 definition given in the Speech from the Throne and I endorse it. If the government with the help of the Canadian Parliament could achieve this objective of a well organized "just society", I think it would solve a great number of our present problems.
Jacques Maritain said that all men had an equal right to the use of material wealth.
The family is the vital cell of society and the true aim of economic activities is to insure the true common good, that is to say the necessary minimum income.
The fruits of the present future production result, for the greater part, from social capital accumulated over generations and those proceeds should be distributed in a "social" way to each and every member of society, as his right.
With the coming of automation, labour, which was formerly the main source of income, is becoming ever less necessary. That is why we have hundreds of unemployed who, because of our present economic system, are not entitled to share the fruits of production because they did not contribute to it by their manual labour.
In an open letter to the former president of the United States some American economists and sociologists have stated that in consideration of the fact that production is liberating human work without being able to take advantage of it in a useful way, the first condition to be implemented in order to avoid unprecedented economic and social disorder is to ensure to everyone a guaranteed minimum income.
October 22, 1970

[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I hope that the reference in the Throne Speech to the guaranteed minimum income will not be an empty one and that this objective will be achieved.
It is precisely what the Ralliement Creditiste has been suggesting for years. But governments have turned a deaf ear to these proposals. Again, last week, we moved a subamendment inviting the government to increase family allowances; that would have a direct effect in helping families, since Canada is able to do it, keeping in mind the tremendous production in store and the great number of unemployed who are ready to produce more.
This proposal has been voted on in this House, and the two traditional parties have joined to vote against an increase in family allowances. I wonder then whether they lack logic and sincerity.
Agriculture in Quebec is experiencing serious difficulties. Industrial milk producers are operating in trying conditions. Indeed, I have been told once that truly good producers do not need to be subsidized by the government to operate at a reasonable profit.
Nevertheless, following the visit paid by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on September 20th to Mr. Reebs, a St-Gregoire farmer, in the constituency of Nicolet, the magazine La terre de chez nous reported this incident:
Mr. Reebs admitted to the Prime Minister that out of a yearly net income of $4,800, subsidies accounted for some $4,500.
I believe that he was exaggerating or else the journalist erroneously reported the figures. Anyhow, he was not exaggerating when he said that his net income was $4,800. This is a necessary minimum. However, I believe it is untrue to say that the subsidies amount to $4,500. I now resume the quotation:
Needless to say that a cut in the subsidies would mean bankruptcy for me. I have been here for ten years only. You could tell me to turn to other types of farming; of course, there is the sugar-beet, about which I know a little, but this product is even more subsidized than milk, and you will not see me get into that-And what about cattle, said the Prime Minister?
It is a proven fact that cattle requires three times as much capital, and it takes seven years to get something out of it-
It will take me all my life. At the present time, I put back every penny I save. I have 20 years of experience in the dairy industry.
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed true that we could progressively get the industrial milk producers who have to leave that field for well-known reasons into other kinds of production. Perhaps it would be wise to interest some of them in sheep-breeding. Judging from an advertisement published in La Presse on October 14, 1970, and sponsored by Steinberg's, there would be room on the Canadian meat market for a larger quantity of lamb.
The advertisement read as follows:
Spring lamb from New Zealand. Why is lamb such a good buy?
You can find out in La Presse under date of October 14, 1970. Those people can afford to advertise like that. They are going to sell lots of New Zealand lamb. But the
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert producers of industrial milk, with their small income of $3.60 per hundredweight, cannot afford such advertising, so the consumers forget about the milk producers.
In my constituency of Bellechasse, such breeding could be done very successfully.
I suggest that the government should seriously consider the possibility of promoting that industry which could use the farms which have been or will soon be aban-donned, if the policy is not amended.
Is the government really serious when proposing its farm policy? We saw last year that a petition bearing the signature of 25,000 producers of manufactured milk was handed to the government in the House. I signed it myself. In that request, the petitioners asked that an emergency debate be held on the government dairy policy. When the session came to a close, the government had not dealt with that petition even if on several occasions I had reminded the House Leader of it.
It might be said that an emergency debate was held on the situation of milk producers. I admit it, but this was done through a motion from the member for Bellechasse. However, the 25,000 petitioners keep asking, when they meet us, whether their petition will be considered in a serious debate likely to improve the situation.
And I always tell them the truth, I hope, when I say that their petition has been introduced in the House and that one of these days, they may be able to see the results.
In any event, I know full well that industrial milk producers have make more than reasonable attempts to reduce their production, and at this stage, I would like to bring the fact to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) who is responsible for the dairy policy. A great many of them have met the requirement of the government, but I beg for mercy for those who remain in the dairy industry. Better prices should be guaranteed to them so as to increase their income and allow them to meet their obligations. I shall take up the subject again when we consider the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
There are also possibilities for industrial development in my area and I am asking the government to see that the requests for subsidies made by those who do not hesitate to extend their facilities or by those who have enough initiative to create new industries are processed as quickly as possible, as this would create employment.
Yet, this is a very simple thing. In fact, the legislation exists, the estimates have been passed. On behalf of the industry I put the question: Why does it take so long to consider a request, to give an answer or to pay subsidies?
I also ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) to assure me that the town of Montma-gny, presently in difficulties because of its large number of unemployed, be designated as a special area so as to enable the municipal authorities to carry out urgent public works projects and provide employment for the excessive number of unemployed in that locality.

October 22, 1970
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert
Finally, I ask again that the government undertake immediately the dredging of Montmagny Basin so that greater use may be made of the harbour in that municipality, which would greatly help industrial development in that area. I will perhaps be told that the government has no money for this. To that, I would answer that, if this was for war purposes, the financial problem would not arise.
Funds for warfare are always available, bout no funds are available for achievements in time of peace. The situation is becoming increasingly repulsive.
Most unfortunate events are now taking place in Canada, and more specifically in Quebec. Injustices of all kinds lead to unrest which is disturbing to all those concerned with the common welfare.
It is certainly not by resorting to violence that the situation will be corrected as it necessarily must be. All nations that have resorted to violence have subsequently found themselves in worse straits. Speaking of violence, allow me to read two short extracts from a letter published in l'Action of October 16, 1970, in connection with the events we experienced, and which became even more tragic at the end of the week. This is what was said:
To oppose violence without taking the means to eliminate those factors which generate serious social pressures, is to give evidence of ignorance or of hypocrisy.
To expose open violence is easy, but this is not enough. One must seek out its sources, kill the roots which give life to violence and change the soil in which it so easily sprouts and grows. That responsibility should be assumed by this scandalized elite which is in great need of enlightenment before it is too late.
Mr. Speaker, in some countries, violence was reported to in order to change situations which did not please the man in the street. There were fights, brother against brother; there were mass killings and after the battle was over, the same people had to rebuild over their own ruins and accommodate their lives to the same economic dictatorship and to the same financial sharks.
I recall the unfortunate events which took place in France in May 1968, witnessed by myself and several Canadian members of this House.
Let us recall also that the Canadian Parliament of which we are members was unable to go on with its business for over two hours at the last session because of a group of young women who had been mobilized to protest.
Mr. Speaker, I never did understand, why authorities tolerate revolutionary training schools in our country. This has already been denounced by people outside of politics who nevertheless were exercising some authority and who had the courage to warn the population.
The present economic situation is disastrous for our young people because too many are without work. We know by experience that when we are young we are full of energy. If it is not spent on good achievements it is spent on bad endeavours.
It is sad for parents who have given up so many things to bring up their children, to give them a sound education, to see that because of unemployment-which we

must make every effort to check-some people try to have them take drugs and to use them, not to develop our country but to foment disorder and spread destruction.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, like other hon. members I wish to extend my sincere congratulations to the two hon. members who moved and seconded the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Both hon. gentlemen delivered very fine speeches. It is always a great honour for an hon. member to be selected to perform this function. While I must confess I do not agree with all these hon. members had to say, I shall defend their right to say it. I should like also to extend my very best wishes to hon. members opposite who have been elevated to higher positions in the government since our last session. At the same time, I extend my deepest regrets to those on the government side who were called but obviously were not chosen. To these former Parliamentary Secretaries, I can only say "it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all."
I am sure my constituents would want me to make reference to the recent turn of events in the province of Quebec, and at the same time express their sympathy to the bereaved family of the late Hon. Pierre Laporte. I must confess that while my initial reaction to the news of the murder of my fellow Canadian was that of shock and grief it was soon replaced by a feeling of extreme anger. I might say that as a relatively new Canadian, one who has developed a feeling of love and loyalty for this country and its institutions, I find it very difficult to accept what is taking place in our country at this particular time. In the light of the senselessness of the recent slaying, the sinister motives of a small minority of people in the province of Quebec who would overthrow our way of life and smear the good reputation of our nation at home and abroad, is it any wonder that as Canadians we all stand a little shorter in the eyes of the world when we realize that a mere handful of people is able to threaten that which we have treasured for so long and for which so many of our people have died. It is an extremely serious situation which demands that the full weight of the law be brought to bear on those responsible.
We on this side of the House fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation. We supported the measure taken by this government to, we hope, restore law and order in the province of Quebec. God knows, these measures were extreme and repugnant to most Canadians but, be that as it may, we agreed with the government that these measures were necessary and subsequently we supported them. We can only hope they achieve the objective at which they are aimed in a very short time. The invocation of the War Measures Act and the consequent deprivation of the civil liberties of our people is
October 22, 1970

not the sort of thing to which I take pleasure in being a party. However, like most Canadians, I am prepared to forgo certain liberties and agree to the suspension of the Bill of Rights if it means the restoration of my freedoms and those of all Canadians. If it is necessary for us to put up with the loss of some of our freedoms in order to regain one of our most fundamental freedoms, the freedom from fear, then so be it.
There is one thing I shall not accept. As I said, I did accept the fact that the War Measures Act was necessary to, we hope, restore law and order in the province of Quebec, but there is one thing which I as a Canadian and a member of this House of Commons refuse to accept. I refer to one of the underlying causes of the unrest which we are experiencing in almost every part of this country today. It is the government's total indifference toward the social and economic problems which have nurtured this unrest. This government, by its anti-inflation policy and its policy of deliberately forcing our people on the rolls of the unemployed, is in my opinion fanning the flames of unrest across this country, particularly in the economically depressed areas. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his government are determined to persist in their present illogical policy of fighting inflation and stabilizing the economy, then the real victims of that policy, the unemployed, the untrained, the old age pensioners and those on fixed incomes, should be given special assistance.
When a wage-earner, as a result of becoming unemployed, has used up all his savings, is head over heels in debt and reaches a time when his unemployment insurance benefits have expired and is therefore forced on welfare, how long does it take him to get back on an even keel? In too many cases it takes years; indeed, some never recover from this experience.
Having said that, I should like now to make a few brief comments on the Speech from the Throne. I say "brief comments", sir, because a document that is so empty, so devoid of any worth-while matter, does of necessity allow only brief comments. The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on his choice of script writers. After reading the Speech from the Throne it becomes quite apparent that its authors can look forward to a great future. As a matter of fact, if they continue to turn out such drivel, I contend that they have a much better future as writers than does their boss as Prime Minister.
[DOT] (5:00p.m.)
I am sure that many thousands of unemployed people in Canada will be extremely pleased to know that their government intends during the present session to give consideration to the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. They will also take great comfort, I am sure, from the fact that there is no mention of any immediate plans on the part of this government to deal with the critical, government-induced employment crisis which we now have in Canada. I am sure that the many thousands of Canadians who are forced to live and to raise their families in homes and under conditions that are substandards, and in a great many cases unfit for
The Address-Mr. Carter
human habitation, will be pleased to know that we are living in a society, as the Throne Speech says, wherein the enjoyment of life is measured in terms of quality and not quantity, in a society in which individual freedom and equality of opportunity remain as our most cherished possession.
I am sure, also, that our unemployed will be pleased to know that the Prime Minister's dream of a just society is not yet dead and that he is still pursuing it. Our young men and women who are forced, through no fault of their own, to live in the ghettos of our cities and whose address will automatically deny them a job for which they are adequately qualified, will also get great satisfaction from the Prime Minister's promise of a just society.
While I am on the subject of the so-called just society I would ask hon. members to talk to the fishermen in my riding in order to get their views on the so-called justice in our society. Let them ask the fishermen how it feels to be denied a chance to earn a living from the fisheries, by a government that is quite prepared to spend huge sums of money on compiling reports on the status of women, on bilingualism and biculturalism, on ministerial junkets and on multi-million dollar jet Stars; and having had the gall to do that, to plead poverty when we request them to provide a breakwater or other essential facility to enable our fishermen to provide a living for themselves and their families. I ask you, sir, in all sincerity: Where is the justice in a society that will condone that kind of situation?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Walter C. Carter: Another thing which was conspicuous by its absence from the Throne Speech was any mention of the very serious danger facing our marine resources-the danger of depletion. Like most hon. members, especially those from eastern Canada, I have a great interest in our country's marine resources. I was keenly disappointed that no mention was made in the Throne Speech of the need for immediate action by this government to put an end to the plundering of our fish resources by foreign fishing ships.
The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) is well aware of the crisis facing our east coast fisheries as a result of the depletion of that resource. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) has publicly admitted that a crisis does indeed exist. People in the industry are aware of the crisis and have been pleading for government action, but I regret to say that none has been forthcoming. I am sure that the average Canadian living in eastern Canada, where fishery is a very important factor in the economy, must be asking himself why the government is so reluctant to take the necessary initiatives to stave off the impending depletion of this great marine resource.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), who was in the chamber until a moment ago, can afford to spend weeks, months and perhaps years negotiating diplomatic recognition for Red China. He can afford to make trips to Norway and other Scandinavian
486

October 22, 1970
The Address-Mr. Carter
countries to speak to Chinese delegations about Canada's desire to recognize Communist China. Yet the same minister is unwilling to lift a finger to negotiate with the other communists, the Soviet Union, with a view to implementing a policy that would have the effect of conserving our marine resources to stave off their complete depletion. The answer is quite obvious. Most of us are not at all fooled by the minister's reluctance and by the unwillingness of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to try to negotiate on our behalf. I think the average Canadian is no fool and we are all getting the message loud and clear.
The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is, of course, aware of this problem but he is obviously unable to get the necessary support from his cabinet colleagues and from the Prime Minister.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: That is a decision for the hon. member who has the floor. Does the hnn member agree?


Walter C. Carter: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Is the hon. member aware of the Russian-Canadian treaty that was signed yesterday dealing with fishing rights off the Grand Banks?


Walter C. Carter: I am aware of one thing, that the hon. member's knowledge of the situation and of what happened between the Soviet Union and Canada is as good as any knowledge of nuclear physics. The hon. member should know-I inform the House of this, in the event hon. members are misled by what he said-that the agreement entered into this week by our government and the Russian delegation had nothing whatever to do with the Grand Banks, much to the shame of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and of the government of which he is a member. We contend that had some effort been put into it, and had the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry accepted our advice and suggestions, while the Russians were here and were prepared to sit down at the bargaining table we possibly could have negotiated an agreement which would have taken in the continental shelf, including the Grand Banks.


Mr. Bigg:: He was misled by his own minister.


Walter C. Carter: I hope the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) is listening, because I believe he is one of those who share this view. The hard fact of the matter is that this government appears to have adopted an attitude whereby it is embarrassed to talk about fish. The word "fish" has been a dirty, four-letter word. We believe it is incumbent upon this government to immediately take an international initiative, not at the next Law of the Sea Conference but immediately, to convene an international conference on fish conservation and management. We feel, also, that if agreement among all nations is impossible, then Canada must take unilateral action to protect and conserve this vital resource. We believe-in fact we know-that Canada has every right to take such action under articles 6 and 7 adopted by the International Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958.
We believe, also, that the Russians, who are the biggest offenders when it comes to plundering the marine resources of our east coast, have a tremendous investment in fisheries. They have outfitted large fleets of vessels to cross the Atlantic and fish in this part of the world. In view of that fact and in order to protect their investment, we believe they would be prepared to listen to reason and to agree upon some form of management control. Certainly, the least we can expect from our government is that they recognize the problem, endeavour to do something about it and do not use the ostrich psychology of sticking their heads in the sand and pretending the problem does not exist.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In case hon. members opposite continue to entertain any doubt about the gravity of the situation, I shall read the following statistics into the record: The catch, in quantity, of our inshore fishermen in Newfoundland has dropped roughly by half over the last ten to 15 years, quantity, of our inshore fishermen in Newfoundland has dropped roughly by half over the last ten to 15 years. The average catch of the average small inshore fisherman in Newfoundland is down to about 50 per cent of what it was in the mid-1950's. Meanwhile, the total catch in the northwest Atlantic by member nations of the International Commission of the North Atlantic Fishery increased from two million tons in 1958 to four million tons in 1968. The Soviet catch in this same area and during the same period increased from 117,000 tons to 741,000 tons. The cod catch of the member nations increased from 880,000 tons to 1,860,000 tons while on the other hand, in the period from 1963 to 1969, Newfoundland's total cod catch dropped from 450 million pounds to 300 million pounds, despite the fact that Newfoundland fishermen have been operating at their efficiency peak and are better equipped than they have ever been to prosecute the cod fishery. According to these statistics, and to people eminently qualified to speak on the subject, cod stocks on Canada's east coast could very well be in serious trouble within five years.
As for haddock, the statistics are frightening. In 1965 the total catch in the northwest Atlantic was 249,000 tons, of which the Russians took 129,000 tons. In 1968 the total catch was 97,000 tons, even though some nations had quadrupled their efforts. I would refer at this point to a statement made by the Minister of Fisheries on October 14, in which with a great deal of enthusiasm he announced that fishing for haddock on George's Bank will be closed to Canadian fishermen from October 23 until the end of the year in keeping with a conservation recommendation made by the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries.
In effect, the minister said that Canada is now prepared to lock the proverbial door after the horse has been stolen-because he knows, as do we, that haddock

October 22, 1970

stocks on George's Bank have been depleted to such an extent that scientists argue it is almost impossible for haddock to replenish themselves by natural means. After allowing the Russians and others to overfish, to plunder our stocks of haddock on George's Bank until there is nothing left for anybody to fish, these countries now agree to exercise some control. Why would not the Russians and the fishermen of other countries agree to this earlier? The fact is that today the stocks have been depleted to such an extent that it is not economically feasible to fish for haddock on George's Bank. Why was not the Minister of Fisheries able to enter into negotiations with the Russians and other ICNAF countries to bring about some form of management control over haddock resources on George's Bank? Before I leave the subject of fisheries, Mr. Speaker, I would like to impress upon the House and the government the need for immediate action to bring about international agreement whereby our fish stocks will be conserved and the danger of depletion brought to an end. I believe this can be achieved, but it will require great interest and pretty strong negotiation on the part of the Canadian government.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I hope the government will give the fishing industry the attention and priority it deserves. That industry may not mean much to the economy of people living in Don Valley and other parts of Upper Canada, but to certain parts of Canada, including the province I have the honour to represent, it means a great deal. We have a population of a little over half a million people, and 125,000 of our people derive a living either directly or indirectly from the fisheries. Is it any wonder that we are so anxious to have the government take the necessary action to prevent the total collapse of that industry? If the cod fishing industry fails, if we stand by and allow a continuation of what is happening, it is quite conceivable that within five years codfish will be a rare delicacy. The effect upon the economy of Newfoundland would be terrible.
I was pleased to read in the Speech from the Throne the government's intention to reorganize its urban activities under the direction of a full-time minister of urban affairs and housing. Housing, Mr. Speaker, plays an important role in economic development. To ignore the importance of housing and urban renewal, when considering development, is to ignore an important ingredient behind economic growth. In the Atlantic provinces, and especially in Newfoundland, housing stocks leave a great deal to be desired both as to quality and as to volume. While it is nice for CMHC and the DBS to bring out a forecast of housing needs for the next ten or 15 years, our prospects in the Atlantic area of attaining the desired target are very gloomy. Our prospects of ever attaining the number of homes suggested by CMHC as being required are very remote indeed, taking into account the Newfoundland economy, the financial condition of the Newfoundland government which is forecast and the limited financial capability of the vast majority of wage earners in that province to buy homes.
To those of us who have taken an interest in the housing situation in Canada, particularly in Atlantic
The Address-Mr. Carter
Canada, it would appear that there is room for flexibility and experimentation by CMHC. The problems of the Atlantic region are somewhat different from those confronting most of Canada and, we feel, merit special attention. If I may be allowed to overgeneralize, the government's program to date appears to have been conceived to overcome the pockets of poor housing that exist amidst general urban affluence, while the problem in Atlantic Canada, especially in Newfoundland, is one of pockets of affluence in the midst of general poverty. In this regard we must stress the importance of taking regional differences into consideration.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
A housing program policy should fit within the framework of a general social and economic policy, in which case the Atlantic area should be given top priority on the government's list for future expenditures on housing. A government that is seriously concerned with present housing problems and is interested in providing a better quality of life for all Canadians, should start showing its concern by making home ownership available to our wage earners who are on the bottom half of the income level. As the first step toward reaching that goal I would respectfully recommend to the government that it abolish the sales tax on building materials. The sales tax on building materials adds an estimated $950 to the price of a modest, three-bedroom bungalow. A government which continues to impose such tax is not serious in its professed desire to conquer Canada's housing problem.
If it is not financially feasible to remove the tax in its entirety, consideration should be given to a gradual approach starting, possibly, with a system of rebates on the amount of tax on materials used in houses costing $20,000 or less. This, of course, would have the desired effect of helping people in middle and low-income brackets who are buying homes in the $20,000 or less bracket. Let us face it; the average person who is at the middle or bottom half of the income level in Canada is the fellow who is buying a house for $20,000 or less. Such a rebate system should be administered so that the reduced cost resulting from the elimination of the sales tax is deducted from the purchase price of the house at the time of sale.
The government should consider the possibility of subsidizing interest rates to support home ownership for low-income families, including those involved in co-op housing. A subsidy program should be devised to help families who really need it. I am not too concerned about subsidizing interest rates or abolishing the sales tax on homes that cost $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 because I feel that the people buying that type of house can well afford to pay the sales tax and the interest charged by the various lending institutions. I agree with the principle of building societies, as well as providing some form of tax relief on mortgage interest payments. I see no reason why a government sincerely interested in trying to solve the housing problem in this country would not agree to some kind of tax relief on mortgage interest payments on homes, again within the $20,000 or less bracket.
23226-32J

October 22, 1970
The Address-Mr. Carter
I agree with the concept put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in 1968 in a speech he made, I believe, in Windsor. At that time he pointed out the need for regional land banks and the establishment of a revolving fund out of which we would buy land in advance of development and later sell it to developers with the understanding that a reasonable price would be charged the purchasers of homes. It is quite obvious to all of us that-


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree that the hon. member may complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter C. Carter: funds could be more properly used for the development and improvement of the quality of life, while at the same time allowing those burdened with the stigma and humiliation of welfare to be redeployed creatively. As I have said, the average person who has been forced by circumstance to accept welfare is begging for a place in the sun. He wants a chance to work so that he can stand tall, walk straight and again earn the admiration of his family, wife and friends. I am sure the average fellow on welfare does not want to feel that he is a parasite, or that he is living off the fat of the land. All he wants is a chance. It is up to us to amend the Canada Assistance Plan so that these people can be given a chance to work for a decent wage. They do not want to work for welfare-I make this distinction-they want to work for decent wages and regain that which they have almost lost, their self respect.
I shall conclude, sir, by making some brief remarks about the problems of some other very important people in our society who seem to have been given the other end of the stick. I am referring to our senior citizens. Most of us who have had occasion to talk to these people recognize that financial problems are their biggest worry. The biggest worry of our senior citizens is not old age; it is poverty. These people have given the best part of their lives to their country, and I contend that they deserve something better than they now have. Surely we as a society are under an obligation to see that our senior citizens do not suffer and are not humiliated in later years as a result of money problems.
In Newfoundland there is also great concern among those who have reached middle-age and upper middle-age. There is a need across this country-this applies particularly to Newfoundland where a very high proportion of these people are unskilled-for more initiative in manpower retraining programs. A frequent complaint of many Newfoundlanders who are middle-aged is that they are completely left out of the labour market because of their age and lack of training. Yet these people still have the responsibility, in many cases, of raising a young family. No level of government has ever seriously studied this problem or taken concrete action to solve it. [Translation]


Mr. Aurelien Noel (Oulremonl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity during the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne to make a few remarks that I find appropriate.
First of all, I should like to join with my colleagues 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) as well as the new Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Laniel).
Almost four months ago, on June 29, 1970, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) delivered to the Canadian nation the following message on the 103rd anniversary of the Canadian Confederation:
The day we are celebrating, July 1, offers the opportunity to reflect together on the Canadian reality and recall its singularly favourable character.
Thanks to the immensity of its territory, the abundance of its resources, the stability of its democratic institutions, its at-
The Address-Mr. Noel
mosphere of liberty, the good will and tolerance of its citizens, Canada is one of the most privileged countries of the world.
We certainly have problems to solve. Various pressures interfere here and there with our good luck. There is still too much distrust and resistance between the two main linguistic communities of the country; there is too wide a gap between those who own more and those who own less; divergent interests between the various parts of Canada tend to create isolated areas; and a frequent lack of understanding between the older and the younger generation is prejudicial to a good and fruitful friendship.
Very fortunately our problems are not as big and as serious as the conflicts which are afflicting and tearing apart many countries. They are nevertheless real problems and we cannot ignore them. On the contrary, we must do everything to smooth them and to settle them, because they give us an opportunity to transcend ourselves.
In tackling and overcoming them, we have an opportunity to build a society where fraternity will have replaced distrust, where justice will have conquered poverty, where altruism will have won over the egocentrism of areas and where mutual understanding will have brought generations together.
In a world always under the threat of injustice and revenge, hostilities and wars, Canada certainly has an exciting task. If indeed it succeeds in reconciling the oppositions that are pulling it apart, it will have shown that men, however different they may be, can, when it is their wish, live as equals and brothers.
We live in a country of unlimited hopes, where the variety of languages, cultures and minds offer us the possibility of rare enhancement. Let us be proud of it. And all together, with determination and enthusiasm, let us work without respite for the unity and the advancement of Canada.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
These words express a fervent and sincere wish oft repeated by the Prime Minister. His government has indeed resolutely set itself to work since 1968 in order to assure a better administration, to strengthen the bonds of Canadian unity, to stabilize the Canadian economy, to improve the individual's status before the law and in his relations with his fellow citizens, in matters of unemployment and job security, in matters of housing and others dealing with environment, etc. Many studies have been carried out and others are under way in order to find ways to improve human conditions.
Unfortunately, problems over the past two years have developed too quickly and have been too complicated considering the time we have had to examine and solve them. Furthermore, we are the neighbours of a great country which, unwillingly, adds its own problems to ours.
The Speech from the Throne and the long list of bills tabled by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) point out the means by which a more just society can soon be achieved.
The tragic events of the last few days have thrown Canada into an unfortunate and unforeseen situation, used as we were to live in a country where attacks on democratic principles were not taken seriously. For a rather long time there had been dark clouds above the horizon, but it is mostly since 1963 that the storm had been gathering in the distance. The ones who shouted beware were considered as prophets of doom. Incendiary slogans replaced the ambitious guidelines of the quiet revolution. Veiled incitement to a change in our political system soon gave way to unruly demonstrations. "Mein Kampfs" of all sorts are published and the true aims of their authors are printed in black and white. At the same

October 22, 1970
The Address-Mr. Noel
time, bombs explode in mail boxes and in a plant where a strike is on. There are thefts of arms, dynamite and bank hold-ups. In the meantime, Quebec politicians say that their province is different from the others. Some talk about equality or independence; others about sovereignty and association. Everyone has a theory of his own.
Publicity surrounding those events is well organized and well controlled by people in most of the media. Some people become worried and warn the authorities. The answer is always the same: Do not worry, freedom of speech must be respected. There must be no limitation of a freedom for which such a high price was paid. Newsmen, press attaches, old and new, become the most eager champions of freedom of expression. Most of them do so in all sincerity. Here is what Jacques Tremblay wrote in La Presse for Tuesday, October 20, 1970:
-lot many years, right-minded people sided with the theoreticians of crime, as a means of collective liberation. In order not to appear to defend the Establishment (which is bad for the reputation of a "thinking man"), one had to somewhat support "revolutionaries", didn't one? Some recognized their many literary qualities; others found a sentence they were in agreement with; and still others accepted the objectives but rejected the means. Finally, by splitting hairs, you can sanctify the devil himself.
As events develop rapidly, there are increasingly more acts of violence and of greater scope: Bombs go off at the Montreal Stock Exchange. The data centre at Sir George Williams University is destroyed. There are demonstrations in front of McGill University. Several editors blame the Montreal police force. On October 7, 1969, there was the Murray Hill incident and the police strike in Montreal. And that is not all. Six persons were killed in seven years. There were trials, a few convictions, several parolees. The educated frustrated are becoming dangerous. Recent events have traumatized us. There must be an end to that. The only thing one could do has been done, intelligently and courageously.
We must now learn from these events. We are all responsible to various degrees. We must study the true causes of all the ills of our sick society. The causes of the unrest which bred violence are numerous and varied.
One of the main causes of violence lies in the injustices which our social order breeds and tolerates, too often because it does not have time to cure them. To this one must add the lack of confidence and the impatience of the young in the face of the problems they foresee in the future. Finally, individuals and groups react differently to other causes.
Although the task is difficult, we must not hesitate. All levels of government must cease to indulge in petty politics. If we want to save our democracy, let us place democracy ahead of partisanship. Let us set up priorities, which is something Parliaments do not always do.
The first duty of a member of the opposition is to criticize, conscientiously and reasonably, what legislation the government introduces, with a view to finding its weaknesses and making suggestions to improve it. In that respect, some improvement can be seen in the work done in committees. The second duty of a member of the opposition is to criticize in a responsible manner. The opposition does not have the right to keep harassing the government with all kinds of pestering, with an eye to its
own political interest. The population is more responsible than that.
Let us get down to work with determination. Let us not waste any more time, because there is none to waste. Let us redouble our efforts to discover new means of social, economic and political action, in order to bring those who have more closer to those who have less, without disturbing the balance which must be maintained at all costs. It is essential to provide means of communication between the various groups which make up society, and to fill at last the ever widening gap between generations. Let us train an army of qualified and honest missionaries in order to make the people aware of the problems facing governments. People will be willing to discharge their responsibilities, if everything is made quite clear to them. Let us find a means to create a new positive motivation.


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin my remarks by extending congratulations to the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas), the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I should also like to express my appreciation for this opportunity to add my comments to the excellent speeches that have been made by my colleagues from both sides of the House.
Like all my colleagues, and indeed all Canadians, I had been looking forward to the presentation of the Speech from the Throne. I was hoping that at long last the government would offer proposals to this House for measures, as the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack) expressed it the other day, that would clear the way for the enormous backlog of serious problems facing the country.
I recall that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) urged the Canadian people to give him a majority government so that he could enact the kind of legislation that would reverse the trend in this country toward regression and depression. The Prime Minister promised employment for all who would work. He promised a society wherein all Canadians would have an equal opportunity to prosper, equal rights under our laws and a voice in their government. We were told that if he were given a majority government and a mandate, he would create a just society based on the prosperity of the individual through participatory democracy.
The words and phrases have changed, Mr. Speaker, and the leadership has changed-but the situation remains the same; in fact, it has worsened rather than improved. Unemployment has increased to the point where we can say to the world that we are the champions. We are the undisputed title-holder in the game of unemployment. That is our position. The government is playing a dangerous game with our national economy, and the Prime Minister has told the Canadian people that if they don't like it, they can lump it.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It has been repeated in the House over and over again that we in Canada have everything we need to provide
[Mr. No61.j
October 22, 1970

adequately for our people. We can provide jobs for those who are willing and able to work; we can provide adequate health services for the aged and the sick; we have the wherewithal to provide for those who are unable to work. I find it strange that while less fortunate countries are working desperately to provide jobs for their people and to stimulate growth in their national economies, the government of this wealthy and vigorous nation deliberately retards our economy in an avowed attempt to create prosperity. We shall enjoy prosperity in Canada, we are told, just as soon as the government has brought inflation within bounds.
The price we have to pay for this prosperity, we are told, is massive unemployment, loss of foreign markets for our products and higher taxation. What a formula! What a dream! The fact is, it is not a formula; it is a new set of rules for the old game of politics. And it is not a dream; it is a plain, old-fashioned nightmare. I must admit, in all seriousness, that when it comes to sloganeering, this government has no peer. I am reminded of the just society, but only for a brief moment. Just as the just society begins to fade into the lexicon of governmental catch-phrases, I am told to take heart again; that I am now standing on the threshold of greatness. I plead with the government to deliver us from such greatness. After seven years of such greatness I doubt that our sensibilities and our economy can absorb much more. I am also absolutely certain, that the unemployed in our country would trade their greatness for a job. I am equally certain that the elderly people in our country would trade their greatness for an adequate pension.
This would be a good opportunity, to enlarge on the question of old age security and to ask a simple question. How could it be that in a country which rivals most countries of the world in natural and human resources, we cannot solve this problem? We have legislation on the statute books designed to provide for people who have no other means of support or who have inadequate incomes at a time in their lives when they are no longer productive. One would quite naturally suppose that their needs are being served. But that is far from the case. We have legislation, true enough; but it has been bent, twisted and reshaped to the point at which no one can really say just what the legislation is supposed to achieve, or for whom.
To add to the ineffectiveness of the law, the old age security offices are so poorly managed that it is a miracle that anyone at all is served by this vital program. That should not really surprise anyone, Mr. Speaker, because inefficiency is not restricted to the social security program; it is the order of the day for this government. We have the resources, we have the trained, talented minds in this country and we have the will to solve this vexing problem. What, then, is the hold-up?
For some reason which no one has ever explained, the elderly, the handicapped and the pensioners are placed in a neat little square which has been labelled "Fixed Income". Because they have a nice title they are expected to keep quiet, to enjoy the good things in life and to not bother the government: the government, after all, is busy holding back the economy, creating unemployment and new cabinet positions. We are led to believe that the
The Address-Mr. Scott
government cannot be expected to tackle our difficult problems when it is easier to provide for people who do not want to work. It is far easier to provide hostels for hippies, millions of dollars for the Company of Young Canadians and say to the country, "Today belongs to the young. The youth of this country must be served whether or not they want to work, contribute to society and pay taxes." I refer, Mr. Speaker, to those of our young people who find it easier to label themselves revolutionaries and intellectuals and talk through their beards about the brave new world they are going to create.
Our government appears to be preoccupied with these people-and not just with those who have developed in our own society. We say to the hippies, the yippies and the draft-dodgers and deserters from the United States, "Come to the promised land. Come to Canada and work against our government and our institutions."
It is time we extended the great promise of our land to those who have contributed to it with their labours, their loyalty and their respect for its laws and institutions. It is a truism that a man who cannot provide for his own children has nothing to offer those of his neighbours. I am not against foreign aid, Mr. Speaker. I would go so far as to suggest that we should continue to show compassion and understanding for the plight of the underdeveloped countries of the world. However, I consider it irresponsible for a government to commit itself to giving hundreds of millions of dollars to other nations when there are people in Canada who are needy, sick and elderly and who look to a government in Ottawa for understanding and assistance. They might just as well be looking to the moon.
We talk every day about the problems of the sick, the elderly and the destitute, and I wonder if the government feels that talking about the problem is all that is necessary. I wonder if the government really believes that by talking about these problems they will just fade away. I say to the government that it is time to look after the needs and the aims of our own people. After they are satisfied, if anything is left we can ask ourselves whether we really want to open our borders to people who cannot make a go of it in their own society. It becomes increasingly difficult to understand why our government, alone among governments of the western world, does not see fit to establish even minimum standards of conduct for immigrants and prospective citizens of our country. Are we so badly off that we are willing to make citizens from the dregs, the cast-offs and the misfits of other societies?
Judging from the government's performance in providing jobs for native-born Canadians, I cannot believe that we really need the tens of thousands of malcontents and cop-outs who have been accepted into our country in recent years. I am just as conscious as anyone else of the need for a haven in the world for those who have been oppressed and who have been denied an opportunity to express themselves. There are times, however, when it is more prudent to speak from the head than from the heart.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It being six o'clock, I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member.

October 22, 1970
The Address-Mr. Scott



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: 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)-National Parks-Prince Edward Island- Establishment of second facility; the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau)-Health and Welfare-Action to reduce the cost of hospital, medical and dental costs.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[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. Scoit:: We know the end result of this attitude on our part. We are witnessing the result this very day as armed troops patrol our streets and guard Canadian officials from other Canadians. Some of these instructors are new Canadians from Europe and the United States. Some have allegedly fled other countries to escape repression, only to preach the same doctrines of lawlessness and hate on our campuses. We must decide whether we can logically accept the risks involved in the name of free expression or whether we should take steps to curb outright sedition before it manifests itself in bombings and kidnapping, murder and insurrection.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to congratulate the movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne (Messrs. Trudel and Douglas (Assiniboia), as well as the new Deputy Chairman of the House committees, the member for Beauhar-nois (Mr. Laniel).
Tonight, I should like to deal with the revolution in Quebec, which is a current topic in Canada. How did it start? Who organized it? Who wants it? What are its basic reasons? What were the warnings received by the government and what are the remedies?
In 1960, Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Liberal party came into power and, later on, it was said over and over again that this political party was making a quiet revolution.
Now, the quiet revolution was only a step towards a not so quiet revolution that we now experience. In the name of this quiet revolution, the axe was applied to our confessional educational school system so that it could be left open to anarchists and atheistic teachers as well as to books that have sowed the seed of revolution in the minds of Quebec youth.
And today, one wonders why these revolutionary matches have caught fire and engendered the developments that we know.
The teachings and teachers of the past are no longer worth anything. Then, we are charged with having provided backward education until today. That was the beginning of the quiet revolution, prelude and first act of the true revolution.
Quebec's educational system has been directed so much toward revolution that in September 1969 one of the optional subjects taught in several junior colleges of Quebec, notably that of Trois-Rivieres, was communism.
The first issue of Education-Quebec-the official publication of the Quebec Department of Education, under the signature of Education Minister Guy Saint-Pierre- dated September 16. last, features on its cover the picture of a priest dressed in black, whose rotten head bears the inscription "Karl Marx, founder of world communism". The idea is to show that the moral and religious education that we were given was rotten and will be replaced by atheist marxist training. Such is the explanation appearing on the cover of the official publication of the Quebec Department of Education.
The Address-Mr. Rondeau
The infiltration of the CBC by communist revolutionary socialists took place under the innocent eye of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) who is aware of marxist penetration into the Crown corporation for which he is responsible before Parliament.
Infiltration was easy for revolutionaries from all over the world who came to Canada to assist the cause of world revolution by injecting their venom into the CBC and all other means of mass communication.
Here is an example, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Cohn-Bendit, who organized the student revolution in Paris in 1968 and remained more than an hour in the hands of the RCMP in Montreal, because they would not let this man come to Canada, was let into this country. Who gave orders in Ottawa to authorize that revolutionary to come here in June 1969 to promote his cause, world revolution?
Seeing that he was gaining ground in Canada, he thought he should come back in February 1970. Each time he came to this country, that revolutionary was received by Professor Stanley Gray of McGill University. The CBC-with public funds-and the CTV network gave him a nice welcome and very good publicity. He stated that his goal was to promote democratic revolution; in other words, revolution, period.
In fall 1968, the twelve organizers of the world revolution appeared on the BBC in London and a few weeks later the CBC reproduced that interview. And among the twelve who took part in the broadcast were McGill University Professor Stanley Gray who represented the Canadian revolution.
9 (8:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I shall give a few other examples.
In May 1970, another Quebec personality tolled the knell and sounded the alarm. A publication La Revue Colombienne gave a summary of the speeches of Mr. Justice Alexandre Bastien, honorary deputy of the Order of the Knights of Columbus, following a dinner in Crabtree, Quebec. Here are some parts of his speech as reported in the publication:
Some atheistic revolutionary socialists are using the CEGEPs as a platform for the diffusion of their ideas.
Mr. Justice Bastien strongly condemned all those who, according to him, are trying to enlist the young in the revolutionary movement in Quebec ... (revolutionaries) are doing all they can to attract young people in their association in order to destroy what is left of traditional values.
Later on, Mr. Justice Bastien violently denounced the present tendency to secularize everything here.
. . . "Vallieres and Gagnon are gods who are given undue importance and are proposed to our youth as models". Speaking about Charles Gagnon, Mr. Justice Bastien stated: "Over the weekend, he was in the Rimouski area where he spoke in a CEGEP. They are paid atheistic revolutionaries.
Mr. Justice Bastien went as far as to say that at present in CEGEPs, on university campuses, those people (atheistic and socialist revolutionaries) were paid to start a revolution. He even added that certain atheistic teachers were teaching catechism in our schools . . .
... in Quebec and this, after the quiet revolution of the Liberal party in 1960.
Going a little further, Justice Bastien reproved the way the information media are invaded by atheists who are socialist revolutionaries. "It's as plain as the nose on my face!", said he.

October 22, 1970
The Address-Mr. Rondeau
"Blow up everything!" This is the first stage in the revolutionaries' program; then they come up with a socialist dictatorship and communist slavery.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a copy of the newspaper Le Quartier latin, issue No. 3, volume 53, covering the period September 10-23, 1970. This publication which, besides being sold in thousands of newsstands in Quebec and especially in the CEGEPs, is delivered for cultural consumption to the student population, proves to be a revolutionary, socialist, separatist and communist publication from the first to the last page. On the outside front cover, there is a revolutionary monster ready to pounce on the flaming outline of the city of Montreal.
For the information of the House, I would like to read an article published on the first page of that paper and entitled:
Open letter to secondary school principals:
Mr. Principal,
You have a very good job which you no doubt cling to very much. You have power and you no doubt cling to it very much also. For instance, you have the power to force a boy, or a girl, to wear short hair as you do, to study what they do not feel like studying, to refrain from saying what they really think, to refrain from doing what they feel like doing ... about eight hours a day. Other principals as powerful as you are also exploit older people in places different from yours and which are generally called, plants, companies, businesses. As for yourself, you exploit your guinea pigs in schools.
True, you are sincere, honest, morally blameless. You are not an ogre and are not being accused of plotting.
You are merely a poor devil trying to save his skin, his history, his future, his interests. But, in so doing you are threatening the present days of the students, of the young who have the right to be different from you, even to be against you. We also are defending our lives, we also have our rights. That is why we cannot accept that you be our pal and even less that you pity us. That would be an abdication for us.
Consequently, we want you to know that the struggle in progress between you and us is a struggle to death, that if you do not voluntarily give up your post as director, we will throw you out ourselves and then we will completely destroy your position, your title, your privileges and your laws. In short, we will put an end to your reign, that being the only way to bring about some changes in a society which rests upon exploitation, your society. It must die. We will see to it that it disintegrates and dies.
A little further on, one can see what kind of intellectual food is served to the young.
The next page explains the technique to be used to provoke revolution in Quebec. For instance, mention is made of films and I quote:
The largest possible number of people must be allowed to see controversial films! ... there are Quebec political films and we can get some from outside quite easily.
What have our police done up to now to make it harder to obtain such films? I go on with the quotation:
-we would like groups or individuals in cities (or CEGEP) who want to show films to communicate with REZO.
And a little further a plan of action is given by the school co-operatives, and I quote:
-the direction which could take student co-operatives in Quebec.

-to gain control over production of teaching manuals.
Farther, you can read the following:
It is quite certain that co-operatives will become a sort of practical laboratory for courses in technical administration and even animation ... thence the importance for the co-ops to take part in the development of a free information network in Quebec .. . Information as what allows to intensify struggles at school.
... The S.D.S. calls upon all students who are aware that school... does not meet our needs in any manner to form school committees ... so as to get one foot in in order to inform and conduct struggles at school.
Then an inventory of activities in various schools of the province: Christophe Colomb School, Meilleur School, De Lorimier School. I quote again:
. . . What is important now is to get organized into school committees so that the struggles should be guided and planned ...
We are presently a group ...
I shall now quote the letter of the vocational adviser or reporter responsible for revolutionary activities in the CEGEPs of Victoriaville:
We are now a fairly influential group, due to the creation of various movements such as the V.M.U.P.T. (meaning: vote now, live sparely later) the A.M.P.J. (Dirty association of youth problems), and others.
Everything is about to blow up in Victoriaville.
Meeting places: on weekdays, at the CEGEP, on weekends, at the Fin Gourmet, at the Central tavern and at the Marocain.
Mr. Speaker, if I keep on reading this letter, you will recognize the FLQ manifesto broadcast recently on the CBC. This manifesto is the same one that is used for the world revolution, except that it changes names from country to country. The tactics and the objectives remain the same.
Throughout the periodical, they show how to ferret out discriminations, minor or major, and urge people to make use of everything likely to set citizens against each other. They use vulgar language to destroy everything. On page 12, you find the following:
When traitors celebrate
. .. Trudeau's faithful doggie ...
. .. Cadieux, that old idiot...
... Thibault, as a good dog ...
Counter violence by violence,
At night, down town, we had a ball: the demonstration... was like an evening of justice for the people.
Molotov cocktails crashed into shop-windows
... the dogs, numbering 75, charged the demonstrators and clubbed them to their heart's content.
In the meantime, Thibault and the federal gang were taking it easy in a fashionable hotel north of St-Jerome.
The federalists kept on celebrating cyncism, celebrating the daily application of the sweating system ...
...In St-Jerome, they are beginning to counter violence through violence, that's for sure ...
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
A little further, it says:
Fight violence with violence!
October 22, 1970

And still a little further, it says:
-the dance of the incompetents-The roads system, it's only crap-citizen's committees to educate people, so they will no longer get screwed.
A little further, there is caricature of the Mayor of Montreal with the following caption:
A scare-crow to knock down!
FRAP sympathizers are requested to knock down the scare-crow of the city of Montreal. Further, there is a description of the political prorgamme of FRAP, an organization which is fighting for municipal election in Montreal.
On another page, there are four heads with these words:

always aim at the head and aim at the right one.
In effect, the heads are those of the President of the United States, Mr. Nixon, of the Prime Minister of Canada, of the Premier of Quebec and of the Mayor of the city of Montreal.
"Always aim at the head and aim at the right one." A parallel is drawn between the situation in Quebec and the one that existed in May 1968 in Paris. Further, students who have acted like men are congratulated. It also says:
The Boston police is looking for four militant students suspected of a $26,000 holdup at the State Street Bank and Trust Co.
But here is the most surprising thing of all: an advertisement covering 45 per cent of a page of the magazine was paid by the Public Service Commission of Canada, with the Canadian taxpayers' money, to support such a revolutionary magazine.
On page 33, individuals who would like to earn $60 to $80 per week are invited to show a film to Quebecers twice a night.
On the last page but one, we find ourselves in the year 2010. It says:
The PQ was right.
And there is the picture of Rene Levesque who in 2010 will be 88 years of age.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to establish a relation between the methods and the aims, as published in Le Quartier Latin.
The report submitted to the federal government by the authorities of the city of Montreal with regard to the Company of Young Canadians has been simply ignored.
The revolutionary methods that are being advocated in all university papers across Quebec are exactly the same as those drawn to our attention by the city of Montreal authorities in a report submitted to the federal government last year.
The government of the time, which is the same one as today's, had been fully warned of all that was going to happen in Quebec, but unfortunately the worst is still to come. It had been forewarned by the Chairman of the
The Address-Mr. Rondeau
Executive Committee of the city of Montreal at the time the brief was submitted.
Who therefore has played a double game in Ottawa and has ordered to ignore the report which outlined coming dangers and events?
Who therefore in Ottawa pretends to be on the side of democracy by denouncing terrorists while at the same time not taking the necessary steps to avoid revolution and prevent events such as those we have just witnessed?
Some things in Ottawa make me wonder.
For a year and a half, the Canadian authorities had been having talks aimed at the official recognition of Communist China. And, in the House, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) kept telling us that the discussions were proceeding and that no agreement had been reached.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe much more in planning than in coincidence. How is it that right after Mr. James Cross' kidnapping, namely the day after, and when the whole Canadian population had this event in mind and everybody was greatly disturbed, the government took advantage of the collective psychological tension of the Canadian people to announce the official recognition of Communist China?
The people of Shefford and the Canadian people do not mind the lack of cultural relations with Communist China. The FLQ made everybody feel edgy but the events it has created have helped the Canadian government to get the recognition of Communist China down the Canadian people's throat.
We shall soon see hundreds of embassy attaches from Communist China walking through the streets of the main Canadian cities and to do what? First, visit all the Canadian Chinese and convince them of the greatness of the Peking government. Second, they will indoctrinate these people then start the implementation of the strategies dictated by Communist China's government. We will then have to face the experts of a government that achieved power through more sophisticated and better financed methods than those of the FLQ members.
Reading from the little red book entitled War Weapon, a valuable document in China, I would like to quote practical advice given by world revolutionaries. At page 147 it is said about Robert Williams, an American terrorist:
-He made a trip to Cuba and returned a fanatic supporter of Fidel Castro. In 1961, during a racial demonstration in Monroe, Williams killed a policeman, then kidnapped a white couple to use them as hostages. To evade the law, he fled to Cuba where he was welcomed as a hero. He worked for Havana radio from where he broadcast to the United States delirious calls to terrorism and riots-
From there he went to Communist China where he now lives and publishes The Crusader-
Through that publication, he directs Chinese communist infiltration in other countries throughout the world. I resume the quotation:
In the June 1964 issue of The Crusader, Williams wrote, "The weapons used by the fighters for Afro-American freedom must

October 22, 1970
The Address-Mr. Rondeau
make up the poor man's arsenal: Molotov cocktails or gas bombs, bombs made by injecting caustic soda or acid in the metal of electric lights." But the bomb Williams calls "Black power" which is gigantic, will be more effective against tanks and armored cars.
It can be made with empty bottles three quarters filled with gas and the last quarter with heavy oil.
I could continue describing the methods and tactics advocated by those who have dedicated themselves to worldwide terrorism, and who, today, are in Communist China, where they are protected, and from where they can later spread their revolutionary ideas throughout the world.
I doubt very much that someday we can identify those who until now, because they have played fast and loose, have protected and helped FLQ members, by keeping silent for a while and who later on deplored the damages caused and foreseen, by a barrage of words, by recognizing the tragedy, and making pious statements.
In the face of these facts, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the following suggestions to the government:
First of all, it should reintroduce capital punishment and secondly, exert a much stricter control on immigration.
Thirdly, it should clean up all media, radio stations, newspapers and television, and even, if necessary, close down the C.B.C., and not wait ten years to act.
It is essential to clean up the education system in the province of Quebec, its teaching body, amend the Criminal Code so as to provide penalties for all revolutionaries, fomenters of disorder and organizers of training schools in revolution, to declare illegal any revolutionary publication, to clean up the National Film Board, where Quebec culture has become the revolution and crudeness, to establish a much stricter censorship, based on morals, applying to all films to be shown in theatres or on television, to exercise a much stricter control on book and newspaper stands, which provide, at the present time, all necessary information on revolution, even instructions concerning the purchase and the manufacture of firearms or deadly weapons, also to control the purchase and the manufacture of firearms, dynamite or any other deadly weapons, to strictly supervise the so-called movements of social animation, to improve and relieve the congestion in our judicial system, in order not to give rise to criticism, which, in some quarters, has become ridiculous, owing to it slowness.
And the last proposal that I have to make and which is not the least, is to correct the deficiencies of the present bad capitalistic system, which indulges in abuses, in scandals and in mass social injustices, and which bears in itself the seed of its own destruction, by allowing revolutionaries to use its deficiencies and its abuses as an excuse to destroy everything, and bring about their so-called revolutionary, earthly paradise and their socialist communist system.
The father of the phony capitalistic system at the present time is socialism, and its grandfather is communism.
A sound capitalistic system, as promoted by the Credi-tistes, allows all and everyone to be capitalist in the true sense of the word, that is owners not only of the wealth produced by every citizen, but also fo that which science, technology, and modern standards produce today in man's place.
Reverend Father Georges-Henri Levesque said in 1936: "If you want neither communism nor socialism, suggest social credit, because it will put in your hands a terrible weapon against its enemies".
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be words of congratulation to the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) and to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) for their excellent speeches on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I cannot be as complimentary about the Speech from the Throne itself, particularly in view of what has developed since the Speech was delivered.
The Speech outlines a Canada in which the answers to all the problems that beset us have been found. I am sorry it has taken the dramatic effects of the last ten days to show that such is far from the case. We have talked about this matter in depth for several days; very few corners have not been delved into in this regard. I will try to make a positive contribution in the few minutes allotted to me to speak during the Throne Speech debate.
In 1957 and 1958 the people of Canada responded to a vision, and although it was laughed at in many quarters it was certainly taken up by the people of Canada. One of the largest mandates given to any government was given to that great leader from the Prairies who in fact started us on the road to a broader, wider and deeper Canada. The story which was written during the five years that government was in office has become fairly well known. We reversed the backward trend, we sold the excess grain, we turned back the unemployment figures to reasonable levels and we pegged the Canadian dollar at a level which enabled us once again to get into the markets of the world. We trained the young people of this country, who up to that time had not been trained, for a new and vigorous approach to the last 25 years of the twentieth century.
It is now time for us to forget about those things which divide us and take another look at the idea of vision which we fostered. Perhaps we need panavision in order to get a broader outlook. We must return to the approach we had in 1957 and 1958, and spend very little time looking into the reasons why we cannot get together. We must outline to the people of Canada, particularly to the young, the reasons this was, is and will remain the finest country in the world. If we succeed in this endeavour, the Speech from the Throne might have meaning and we might be able to put some flesh on the dry bones of wishful thinking. To achieve this will take work on the part of us all.

October 22, 1970

My friends to my left are still fighting the old, class war. One would think there were still money barons around who had all the money while the working people had nothing. The class war is as out of date as the dodo bird. What we need is more effort by all of us, including that great middle-income section of Canadian people who no longer live in poverty, without hope and in despair because of something cooked up by crackpots. This despair is invented for cheap, ambitious, political reasons.
Perhaps it is not popular to ask people, old or young, to go back to work. I suggest we have been spoiled. Many people in Canada take advantage of all levels of government which have been over-paternalistic and have told the people that somehow, by some easy means or socialistic panacea government can make it possible for them to live the good life without effort and without taxation. This is not the case. We must start with another new and dynamic plan. We must not think that any one government has all the answers. We must ask all Canadians to pull up their socks, roll up their shirt sleeves and get back to work.
I have been a labouring man most of my life and I have worked for far below the average national level of income. I know that most of the people of Canada are willing to go to work provided they are given the required leadership. We must stop talking about shorter work weeks and less work, and think of more effective work. We must think more of what we can do and ask ourselves, to paraphrase Mr. John Kennedy: What can we give to Canada?-rather than: What can we expect Canada to give to us?
The government can take the lead in this regard. It should take greater steps toward full use of our natural resources. It is not good enough to wave the anti-United States flag and say that all our troubles are caused by U.S. ownership in this country. Most of us who know anything, know that without United States capital Canada would be about as undeveloped as Bafiinland. Many blame the United States for putting money into Canada and say that in this way they have violated our rights. They have done no such thing. They have made one of the best investments in the world-in the present and future development of Canada's natural resources.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I hope that governments at all levels will take a good look at how we can encourage Canadians to participate in the development of their country. They must work harder, use their imagination and self-control. The government should be prepared to encourage the development of Canada and the participation of Canadians in that development by granting sensible tax concessions. There must be a sensible survey of our resources.
We ought to allow our young people to work in the development of our country. Instead of giving them free education, we ought to encourage them to go out during the period they are not attending university and help survey our natural resources. We should pay them well and make sure they are completely free of income tax so long as they are using the money to pay for their own
The Address-Mr. Bigg
education. They should try to reverse the present trend instead of looking for help from a socialistic and paternalistic government, if they want to be part of the great Canadian adventure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: That adventure, I suggest, ought to be embarked upon not only with the vision of the generation that I represent but with an ever greater vision, greater dedication and harder work. The rewards, I suggest, will be very much greater and our young people will be better Canadian citizens for knowing that they worked and paid for the education they received. They ought to know, particularly those of the lunatic fringe who are so anxious to tear down the institutions we have built for them, that our life savings have gone into those institutions; that many of these institutions have not yet been paid for and if they are torn down, neglected or not used the generation now maturing will have to rebuild them and pay for them twice. Not only will they have to pay for the buildings which we have not yet paid for, but they will have the added burden of rebuilding the institutions which they require.
There is no easy or short road to the good life. It is hard to put into words the irresponsibility of those who go among our young people and tell them that, in these times when opportunities were never greater, they are ignored, they are hated, they are misunderstood and that the world owes them a living. We can well imagine how much of the trouble we are presently facing in Canada is the result of this kind of talk. Nothing that my mother, father or grandparents ever said encouraged me to take the law into my own hands or destroy the institutions and the opportunities they worked so hard to provide for me. If that sounds "square", if it sounds unduly right wing, perhaps that is because I am not capable of putting over my story.
I ask those who are more eloquent than I to use their eloquence and to put this very short and simple story over to our young people and to all those who live in Canada and, do not appreciate the good life because they have never known anything else. Yet they are willing to risk throwing away not only the good life but the very freedom that makes the good life possible.
The vision of 1957 and 1958 took into account the fact that Canada is a land of different and varied regions. Those of us who took this vision to heart saw that our merchant navy in the Maritimes lagged far behind the merchant navies of other nations in its ability to carry Canadian products to the world. Because that vision was not pursued with the energy with which it should have been pursued by that and subsequent administrations, Canada has almost no merchant navy. It is not too late to build one. In the Maritimes there still live men who understand how to build ships, how to man ships and how to carry our goods to the nations of the world. Many people there have spent their lives fishing on the sea. Because of shortsighted policies, their fishing grounds are no longer capable of supporting them.

October 22, 1970
The Address-Mr. Bigg


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Those fishermen are not looking lor handouts. They want to see the Canadian merchant navy rebuilt. Although I am no seaman, I think I can say that if we adopted a rational policy for putting Canada's merchant navy back into operation many of those fishermen would be only too pleased to carry the Red Ensign across the oceans of the world in the proud manner in which Canada's merchant navy carried it in the past. That would not only solve the problem of the unemployed and discouraged fishermen in the Maritimes but it would help to build up a whole new, modern industry in eastern Canada.
I move farther westward in my remarks. In Ungava, and probably in Baffinland, there are still virtually unlimited resources of medium grade iron ore. We should develop these and make sure that we have dynamic new plans, particularly in central Canada, to use Canadian iron ore resources. With proper utilization of power grids and atomic energy there should be no unemployment in central Canada. We would then have dynamic policies that would put Canadians back to work, not necessarily with a 60-hour week but with a 40-hour week. Labour should get together with management, instead of always struggling with it, and say eloquently, "We the labouring people of Canada, who are the most willing workers in the world, wish to get together with our industry, which is the most willing industry in the world, and together for the good not only of the people of Canada but of all the world we shall produce cheap, good and efficient steelware." If that can be done in Japan, it can be done here.
I now move on to speak of the Prairies. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we can come up with better solutions than programs under which farmers are paid for not growing grain. The government called this the Lift program. The lift to what? Did it lift the Canadian economy? Fortunately, mother nature took a hand and showed us how stupied we were, even in one year, when we told farmers not to grow food that is needed by the hungry peoples of the world.
The answer we gave in 1957 and 1958 is still valid. We must not concentrate most of our energies on establishing marketing boards, which I think are necessary if we are to have orderly, shared marketing. Marketing boards for the small domestic market will not be good enough if we are to keep prosperous the Prairies and the agricultural industry of Canada, which is only now coming into its own. Most of today's Canadian farmers are technicians. The farmer has more than doubled his output.
I take joint responsibility with the administration when I say we must do more than merely establish a program of production controls to ensure the sharing of a very small domestic market. I say that because in heeding the dynamic vision which this party put forward, Canada must look outside her shores and see what the world needs in the way of food. Canada's vision must become part of the world's vision, if we are to feed the hungry peoples of the world. What has happened to the vision of a world food bank?
The present administration has decided to recognize Red China. I hope that the question of trade was mainly in its mind. If trade was the reason for recognizing Red China, I go along with it. The evolution of trade between Canada and Red China is a good reason for Red China's seeking a seat in the United Nations. Can we be assured that seating Red China in the United Nations would be to move toward peace and world prosperity? I venture to say it would not, because of the threat to world peace posed by Red China and Russia. If Canada, the United States, Red China and Russia each donated one-quarter of their defence budget to the food bank, that would certainly solve well into the twenty-first century western Canada's problems with regard to trade in world markets.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
There is not enough arable land in the world for all people to enjoy the standard of living to which we are accustomed. It is not good enough to follow what is referred to in the Speech from the Throne. We pat ourselves on the back and say, "Things have never been better in Canada." This is the first time I have been aware that one of the peculiarities of the beaver is to put his head into the sand like an ostrich. The Canadian beaver is intelligent, hardworking, industrious, has good humour, the ability to build dams and to conserve. By hard work he stores enough food during the summer to keep him alive during the winter. This is what Canadians are used to. These are our virtues, and it is time we returned to them. In order to bring about these ideals we need a white paper on taxation which would improve the atmosphere so that people would return to work willingly and devote their efforts to making Canada a better, freer and safer country in which to live.
Our financial wizards should take a close look at bank rates. A few years ago the majority of the members of this House were talked into raising the ceiling on bank rates. We were assured that this step would not cost the man on the street any more money; indeed, we were told it would cost him a good deal less. It was to be easier for a man to obtain the money with which to buy a house. All the virtues were brought forward. It was suggested that young men would be able to afford a home for their families. What has happened? We have never before experienced the degree of inflation we have had since the so-called improvement to the Bank Act. We need cooperation from the Canadian financiers.
I think there is something to be said in favour of the criticism of the banks by my friends to my left. It might be a good idea for some of us to study the untoward profits of banks. Many stocks in Canada are decreasing in value. In the last five or six years it has been better to invest in the chartered banks of Canada. Why? It is the safest money in the world. Therefore, the banks should be satisfied with a smaller margin of profit on their investment. Many of us have had to gamble our personal resources to compete with those who manufacture boots in Czechoslovakia or textiles and pottery in Japan. Canadians are being asked to gamble while those in charge of the finances of this country sit behind their

October 22, 1970

mahogany desk, protected by our democratic laws. I say without equivocation that they are making unnatural and unnecessary profits. Is this the co-operative society of which we hear so often? A co-operative society should be more than a two-way street between the taxpayer and the labourer. We should ensure that when it costs $2,000 to manufacture an automobile, the customer is not charged $7,000.
My home province of Alberta has almost unlimited resources. I venture to say that if the whole population of Canada moved to Alberta it could be fed, clothed and housed. There would be enough resources to support all the population. The resources of Alberta have not been developed to the fullest extent because we have not taken advantage of all the opportunities. We have been too busy quarrelling amongst ourselves. We have been concentrating on bilingualism, biculturalism, communism, non-communism, socialism, non-socialism and many other matters. If you want a red herring, just add an "ism" at the end of a philosophy and you can talk about it forever without accomplishing anything.
The people of Canada are thoroughly fed-up. Sometimes I think the people are willing to accept a type of dictatorship or unholy triumvirate which would take over and do their thinking. If this happens, it will be the fault of hon. members of this chamber for not having developed a dynamic plan and insisting that our leaders put the plan into action.
I would be remiss in my duty if I allowed the fourth estate to get off scot-free. I have often heard members of the press say that no one in this House takes his job seriously. They often state that we are not present in the chamber. Looking around this evening, there may be some excuse for saying that. However, there are not very many in the press gallery to disagree with me tonight. As a rule there is one lone observer in the gallery. He runs back and tells the rest of the boys how we neglect our duties. I suggest it is time the fourth estate took a good look at our country and considered more carefully the leadership that we have. The person with the loudest voice does not always have the most intelligence-otherwise I might be the prime minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Some members speak with quiet voices in this chamber. They do not receive press coverage. Although they do not have dynamic personalities, they talk in the language of simple truth. They are honest and reliable. They believe in virtues such as hard work, honesty and responsibility. Some of them do not have their garments plucked in public, nor do they appear with roses in their hair. We know truth when we hear it. I sometimes wonder if this fact is recognized by the press gallery. I venture to say that on many occasions I could get more press coverage if I wanted to be small enough to buy a case of beer. If that is the price of truth and publicity, without which any politician will die politically, I am not willing to pay the price. I have heard some members of the press gallery confess that they supported
The Address-Mr. Bigg
one stand or another because they received a bottle of whisky at Christmas.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I do not expect to make the press tonight. It would not be the first time one crying alone in the wilderness was neglected. I claim I am not alone, though I also claim that in many cases it is useless to speak the simple, flat truth. It is more dramatic to desert one's leader in times of trouble. That gets press coverage. It is more dramatic to abandon one's principles so you can plan "way out" things like the artist and the poor musician. Very often today they cannot make a living without being "way out". Painters are no longer allowed to paint pictures of the beauties of the forest, of the mountains or the sunset; they have to delve into their twisted minds and paint their erotic dreams or sadistic experiences under LSD. Then they are poets; then they are painters. I hope the day will never come when to be a suitable member of the House of Commons one has to be "way out" in everything.
More and more I feel the permissive society has gone too far. I voted in this House for the abolition of the death penalty. Little did I realize that I was doing away with the death penalty for treason. Very seldom do we get an opportunity to vote black or white. I for one think the penalty for selling one's country should still be punishable by death.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am informed that the hon. member's time appears to have expired. He may continue with the consent of the House. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I have reached a good place at which to end. I started out to make a plea for a new look at our economy, to make a case for a dynamic plan for the development of Canada. But at the back of my mind is still this cloud which is hanging over us all. Before I sit down I want to make this plea. This may be a good time to take a look at some of the old values; it may be a good time to take a look at some of the old penalties for some of the old crimes. Little did I know that the penalty for treason, for selling one's country, for openly supporting anarchy and shedding innocent blood, as we have just witnessed, would ever be condoned individually or collectively by the Canadian people. I must admit I was wrong, and at the first opportunity I hope to stand up and vote the way I should have done a few months ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne delivered a week or so ago began by offering belated birthday greetings to the Northwest Territories and Manitoba, and birthday greetings in advance to British Columbia. The Speech ended by asking divine providence to guide us in our deliberations. Between the birthday

October 22, 1970
The Address-Mr. Peddle
greetings and that prayerful supplication is sandwiched a deluge of, to my mind, the most preposterous, cliche-ridden, philosophical pap which ever purported to represent a preview of a government's legislative program. In a country like Canada, in days such as these, to try to relate this speech to the government which recently invoked the War Measures Act cannot fail-to quote both Sir Winston Churchill and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker)-to boggle the mind.
I do not want you to misunderstand me, Mr. Speaker. I was not in the House on the invocation of the War Measures Act but I support the government in its action and I take this opportunity to go on record as saying so. But I do not and I cannot have much respect for a government which presents this document to the Canadian people and expects them to lap it up. If His Excellency the Governor General was somewhat embarrassed by having to read it, I can understand. And when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) sat over there and smirked and giggled while our leader was subjecting the Speech to the scorn and the ridicule which it deserved, I think I understand this, too, because I feel sure that the Speech was deliberately intended to be ridiculous.
I cannot accept for one moment that the Prime Minister, who is widely noted for having quite an intellectual capacity, could possibly present this document to the Canadian people other than with tongue in cheek. In order to continue his show of disdain and contempt for Parliament and its traditions, it is very possible that he deliberately allowed this Speech to be made knowing full well that it was completely out of touch with reality, that it conveyed nothing to the great majority of the people. The Speech was a fitting opening to a Parliament in which he obviously does not believe.
There is only one other alternative I can think of, which is that the Prime Minister commissioned one of those hairy gentlemen with big, purple goggles-like Tiny Tim-to write the speech and that he himself did not have time to read it before it was sent to the Governor General. Hon. members can take their choice of these alternatives; either one of them to me is most discomfiting.
Take the first paragraph in the Speech following the birthday greetings, in which is this gem:
The passing of the 'sixties and the beginning of the 'seventies reminds us that Canada faces a new age.
Has it not ever been thus? In every decade have we not faced a new age? If this is not emphasizing the obvious, I do not know what I am talking about. The Speech continues:
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
-an age which will be subject to forces not all of which are yet comprehended or understood, forces which shall proceed from external as well as internal origins.
I think that means from inside and outside. It continues:
It is a new age not so much because of changed circumstances, but new because of changed values and attitudes.
Seriously, what does this jargon mean to the British Columbia lumberjack, the Ontario construction worker, the Nova Scotia farmer or, of all people in Newfoundland, the fisherman? I will tell you what it means-a great big, fat nothing. It is meaningless. It is words and more words. It talks of changed circumstances, changed values, changed attitudes.
The Newfoundland fisherman, lumberjack or miner cannot afford the luxury of these philosophical ram-blings. He is too preoccupied with trying to live. I thought that this was a speech for all Canadians. There are people in Newfoundland who are too preoccupied with trying to pay the taxes that are extracted from them, not only by this government but by three or four different forms of government, and somehow decently support and educate their families on what they have left. The circumstances of these people have changed very little. Their values, except the value of the deflated dollar, remain of the highest. As for their attitudes, I think they are admirable and they have changed little- and I for one hope to God they do not change.
The second paragraph of the Speech is similar to the first, only worse. I feel once more compelled to quote it:
Because of the clash between these new values and the old, because of the quest by the young and the disillusioned for some resolution of attitudes, we live in a period of tenseness and unease. It is an age frequented by violence as desperate men seek ill-defined goals; an age of frustration as gentle men question impatiently old assumptions.
There is more of that sort of things, Mr. Speaker. I agree there is a quest in Canada; there is no question of that. It is a quest not only by the young and the disillusioned but by the old and the disillusioned and by the middle-aged and the disillusioned. Indeed, by the whole human population of Canada which is disillusioned. Certainly they are seeking some ill-defined goals. They are looking for some resolution, some crystallization of this will-o-the-wisp attitude on the part of the government. Tenseness and unease, I agree, do exist not only in Quebec but all across the country. They exist in the minds of those people whose very temperaments do not lend themselves to violence. There are thousands of desperate people across Canada today, and they are indeed seeking ill-defined goals.
One ill-defined goal that they are seeking is how the heck they are going to get through the winter with no income, with no job and in many cases with no unemployment insurance. How do they feed, clothe, shelter and educate their families under these conditions? There is your ill-defined goal, the ill-defined goal that cries out for definition by the government. But does the government define it? No. The government goes off at a philosophical tangent and talks in terms that can only be understood, if they are capable of understanding at all, by some people who occupy very comfortable niches in our universities or some such place. Certainly it is not a Speech for Canadians.
Then there are the "gentle men" who "question, impatiently, old assumptions". I agree that there are, but not in the way the government presents the picture. There is the old assumption that the government should be truly

October 22, 1970

concerned and preoccupied with, above all others, the problem of unemployment instead of spending its time and energy dreaming up this type of meaningless, impractical, foolish, philosophical "guk". I cannot And words to express just how I feel about the sort of statements I find in the Speech from the Throne which was delivered a few days ago. Let the government, for heaven's sake, not try to tell the unemployed, the struggling pensioner, the hardworking farmer, the woodsman and the fisherman that "the life-support systems of the biosphere may collapse unless man reverses his present course and begins to live in harmony, rather than in competition, with his environment".
These people I am talking about have their problem with life-support all right, but in much more practical and everyday terms than are suggested in the Speech from the Throne. By all means let us be concerned about pollution; I will subscribe to that. Let the scientists pursue and test their theories. Let the government show its concern by taking action. Let all concerned Canadians co-operate in the fight against pollution. But let us not get so up-tight on the subject that we forget the mental pollution that exists in the minds of honest, hardworking people who so much want the opportunity to earn a decent living, people who get no such opportunity but instead are forced to swallow their self-respect and head for an interview with the nearest welfare officer. This should be a matter of prime concern in this country today.
It would be very difficult to convince the fishermen and farmers of this country that they must today discontinue competition with their environment. The fishermen of Newfoundland have been competing with their environment in a life and death struggle for centuries. I know of no other way in which they can earn their living. It seems to me it would almost make more sense to tell the Atlantic Ocean that it must begin to live in harmony with the fisherman than to tell the fisherman in Newfoundland that he must live in harmony with the Atlantic Ocean.
I suggest a little commonsense in the Speech from the Throne, for a change, would not hurt. I suggest we have an environment that we could not possibly live with if we did not fight it. Perhaps the speech did not take into consideration at all the fact that there are other parts of Canada besides the great urban centres. However, it may be the Prime Minister who should get a more thoughtful and knowledgeable speechwriter.
I move on to the next paragraph of the Throne Speech, which almost paralyses me with its profundity. It begins;
The decade of the 'seventies extends beyond our present vision-
If that is saying that we are not clairvoyant and cannot look ten years into the future, that is quite an admission.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
-yet the momentum of change is already so overwhelming that man can no longer afford the luxury of reacting to events.
I am sure this government must look pretty silly to the world today, in light of events that have occurred in the
The Address-Mr. Peddle
past few weeks and-I am very serious now-bearing in mind the warnings that have been given to it over the past few years, warnings which it refused to heed or pay any attention to. Now we get the statement that man can no longer afford the luxury of reacting to events. Then we find these words:
He must anticipate and plan. He must accept that contentment and indifference are illusory: that the most dramatic reality is change; that there is more need than ever before to preserve as constant values truth, honesty, excellence and relevance-
Here comes the clincher:
-that a society which is not inspired by love and compassion is not worthy of the name.
So, Mr. Speaker, you will understand why I am suspicious of the author of this document-make love, not war nor work. But to become serious for a moment, I have a feeling I have read those or very similar words before. Those words, in my opinion-I shall not offer an opinion as to whether they were intentional or otherwise-are of the type which serve only to encourage those who would tear down our traditions, upset our laws and set our social order in jeopardy. I ask hon. members to couple those words with a previous line in the Throne Speech: -man may be facing his last opportunity to control his own destiny rather than be subject to it.
Mr. Speaker, what do we have when we just sort of go through the Throne Speech and extract this type of statement? I shall repeat it again because it is worth repeating-man must control his own destiny rather than be subject to it. In times like this I very seriously doubt whether that statement should be emphasized responsibly. Although I would rather believe this is not intentional, it strikes me that that sort of suggestion could only lend encouragement to those elements which are today trying to tear us apart in this country. Let me again read these words:
_man can no longer afford the luxury of reacting to events.
He must anticipate and plan.
Here again I very seriously question the wisdom of such a statement in a Throne Speech at a time like this. Then we have these words, "contentment and indifference are illusory". Again, I very very seriously question the motivation of a government that tells its people in time like these that contentment is an illusion. I cannot help feeling this way, because obviously something is wrong. I hope the Canadian people have received copies of this Speech and will read it as I did. It is frightening just to think about the interpretations which might be put on these words by the very people who are causing our difficulties.
Then we see these words, "the most dramatic reality is change". This is spelled out very clearly in the Throne Speech. Again, I very seriously question the wisdom of this government lining itself up with that sentiment at this time. Then it says, "not inspired by love and compassion is not worthy of the name." I cannot help but wonder whether those words will not be interpreted in certain circles a meaning, not inspired by love and compassion is not worthy of continued existence, because

The Address-Mr. Peddle
any idiot knows our society is not inspired by love and compassion. Who is trying to kid whom? If we are trying to suggest to the people who are on the "love kick" that this society is not inspired by love and compassion-and we know it is not-then the message could very easily be interpreted to mean that not only is society not worthy of the name but it is not worthy of continued existence. It does not take too much of a cynic to read that into the Speech, Mr. Speaker.
This is the type of thing I am talking about which takes up the majority of the Throne Speech. It most certainly takes up a number of the opening pages. What is the government suggesting? Is it suggesting it will legislate love and compassion, as it presumed to legislate hatred last year in the bill passed in this House to control racial hatred and so on? That is not likely.
I am very concerned about the very great emphasis placed on such words as "freedom" and "liberty" in this Speech. It is not, God forgive me, that I have anything against freedom and liberty, but when I read a speech in this day and age when the country is bothered with grave crises and I see freedom and liberty still emphasized and not much emphasis placed on the need for continuation and strengthening of law and order, I become very worried indeed. It strikes me as being very significant that the speech emphasizes so strongly freedom and everything while showing no concern for what the Canadian people would expect to be there at this particular time.
Again I say I am not suggesting this has been done wittingly or knowingly, but I cannot escape the thought that this Speech does in effect give a great deal of encouragement, and sort of the green light, to the small minority which is hell-bent upon destroying our social order in this country.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The whole backbone of the Speech is to be found in the following phrases-the new age, the changing of attitudes, entering an age of tension. We are told in the Speech that this is what we can accomplish if we use foresight, stamina and enterprise. Ours may be, if we wish it, a society in which human differences are regarded as assets and not liabilities. I did not know there was ever a time in Canada's history when human differences of the right kind were not regarded as assets rather than liabilities.
It almost suggests to me that I am being asked whether I have been involved in a good demonstration lately, or a riot; and it suggests to me that if I was not, I should be ashamed of myself. We are told that ours may be, if we wish it, a society in which individual freedom and equality of opportunity remain the most cherished possessions.
I have no doubt about that. That is what we all aspire to. We are told of a society in which the enjoyment of life is measured in qualitative, not quantitative terms. That sounds like a statement that is made to the very rich, to those who are happy and content and to those who have their bellies filled. Then, I think, we can start thinking in qualitative rather than quantitative terms. But try using this philosophy for the consolation of the large number of

October 22, 1970
Canadian people who cannot afford the luxury of giving these words a meaning.
We are told about 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 takes the harm out of the other things that I do not like so well, but it does not work. We are told the following:
As Canada moves into the seventies we are all invited to join in this bold enterprise-to share the excitement, to face the challenge, to pursue the distant ideal of a just society.
It is not the Just Society of a couple of years ago- written in capital letters-but just any old just society, not even capitalized. On June 18, 1968, Canadians were led to believe we would have a just society. Now it becomes a distant ideal that we have to pursue. The Prime Minister says he does not want to sloganize any more.
There are a couple of very vague references to our economic situation. There is a reference to the sale of wheat. The government is pleased at the widespread public response to its invitation to comment on the White paper on taxation. We used to hear that type of pious platitude in Newfoundland when I was in that legislature. I think the House would like to hear of this. Some years ago the minister of finance of Newfoundland put a large tax increase on the price of cigarettes. In announcing that increase he said in his speech, "It is my sincere wish that this tax will discourage people from using this vile weed," or words to that effect. Notwithstanding that, it put another $4 million or $5 million dollars into the treasury. I do not think this government is pleased, as it alleges to be. I think it is just trying to get out as gracefully as it can.
I would give any amount of money to know who is the actual author of the Throne Speech. I think all Canadians should have a copy of it, because I think a day will come when it will be a collector's item. I would like to conclude my remarks with the words used by the Governor General to close the Speech from the Throne: "May Divine Providence guide us in our deliberations"-because with the government we have, we need all the help we can get from above.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not easy for one to follow the hon. member who preceded me, and it is not easy for one to look at the Throne Speech and see the things that he saw in it: one really has to be as bright as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). However, the Speech from the Throne amuses me also.
I could talk about many things that are contained in the Throne Speech, such as the distant ideal that was mentioned by the hon. member, and the philosophical words that are used therein to describe the way we are going in Canada and the way in which we are facing the new decade. I could talk, also, about the White paper on taxation, but I must confess that like the hon. member
October 22, 1970

who preceded me, I see nothing in the Speech that would affect my constituents. Therefore, I should like to talk a little about my constituency. First, I would like to quote the following paragraph from the Throne Speech:
As Canada moves into the seventies, we are all invited to join in this bold enterprise-to share the excitement, to face the challenge, to pursue the distant ideal of a just society.
What does a just society imply? What does it mean to you, Mr. Speaker?


An hon. Member:: He cannot answer you.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I wish Mr. Speaker could answer my question, because obviously the just society has different meanings to different people. I would think that a just society means at least one that is somewhat equitable, a society that takes care of the poor, a society that helps a man to buy his own home-and I see the minister in charge of housing here-a society that provides employment. I do not refer to a welfare society but a society that permits a man to earn a decent living, a society that leaves the individual free and not dependent upon the state.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it seems to me there are conversations of an informal style going on in the chamber, and this is not in keeping with the dignity of the House. Perhaps the hon. member might now continue.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps hon. members are getting tired and would like me to call it ten o'clock.


An hon. Member:: Don't do that.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Very well. The Speech from the Throne continues:
So long, however, as Canadians who desire work are unable to find it; so long as persons on fixed incomes are unable to provide adequately for themselves and their dependents; then so long must the government strive to assist them.
Well, I'll be darned! As the hon. member who preceded me asked, who can contradict that? We all agree that we must strive to do these things. We all agree that we must provide jobs. Every government wants to achieve certain objectives to provide employment. But what is this government really doing about it? Everybody knows that this summer we had the highest unemployment rate of the past ten years. Yet every Throne Speech that I have read since becoming a Member of Parliament has said we must strive to assist these Canadians and help them provide for themselves.
We all know that pensioners are having a hard time. I have been sitting in this House for over two years, and just about every second day the hon. member for Humb-er-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and other hon. members have made inquiries about increases in pensions, increases in veterans pensions, mcreases in
The Address-Mr. Comeau
old age pensions and more assistance for superannuates. In the 21 years that I have been here, the same answer has been given. It was given again today. That answer has always been, "This matter is under active consideration. We are thinking about it. We are bringing in a white paper." We were supposed to have the white paper in June, Mr. Speaker. Again today we were told that it is being actively considered by the government. The government knows very well that pensioners, not to mention people on low income, simply cannot live on what they get. We do not have to remind the government of this every second day. But nothing is done.
It is very strange that each of the 264 members of this House knows that pensioners are having a hard time. Yet nothing is done. We know that they cannot live on what they get. Everybody admits it. A House committee admits it. Opposition members have tried to push the government into action. We have dealt with this question on allotted opposition days. We ask questions every second day about it. The government admits the reality of the situation, but nothing is done. It is very strange that we all agree that something has to be done but we do not do anything about it.
Why is it that governments do not practise what they preach? If the government really wants to do something about pensioners, let it do something about them. Why does the government keep on fooling the people? Why do we say we are going to do something? During every election campaign we say we will do this and that, but between elections government promises seem to fade away. They bring in Throne Speeches such as the one we received a week ago. I shall read another fantastic statement in the Speech from the Throne as follows:
We stand on the threshold of greatness.
Yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) stood in this House and told us how enormous were the resources that we have in Canada. Every now and then the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) stands up in this House and tells us how great our economy is; that it is in great shape and we are going ahead. I wish I understood their vocabulary, Mr. Speaker, because theirs and mine just do not click. I cannot understand the words they are uttering. I cannot understand why, if we have such a good economy and our resources are so plentiful, we now have the highest unemployment of the past ten years. That is not clear to me.
In my area unemployment sometimes rises to as high as 20 per cent of the work force, probably because most of the work is seasonal, most of my constituents are fishermen. My area is heavily dependent upon fisheries and marine resources of all kinds. We have many times brought this fact to the attention of the minister within the past couple of years. We have pointed out that there are many problems connected with the fisheries. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) made a great speech on this subject the other day. The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) have also spoken about it. We have emphasized the fact that foreign nationals are exploiting our fisheries. For many

October 22, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion years the hon. member for South Shore has been hollering about this problem, but nothing seems to be done. It is just like the situation regarding the pensioners.
What will happen if things continue the way they are now? My goodness, we will be on pension, and if the pension is only at today's rate it will be a very skimpy life for us. The situation of our marine resources is very serious. On that note, Mr. Speaker, I will continue tomorrow. I hope hon. members will come back and hear me finish my remarks.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the strong strictures of my colleague from South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) and the sparkling, scintillating and sardonic speech of my hon. friend from Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle), I have the feeling that this is rather a poor night for a philosopher. Nevertheless, I will refer to the question I asked the other day of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) concerning the establishment of a second national park in Prince Edward Island. This question was prompted by my anxiety concerning recent press releases in the Charlottetown and other newspapers which suggested a departure from the program which the minister outlined in the House last session.
On March 13 I asked him about the establishment of a second national park in our province and his reply, I thought, was most favourable. It was:
-this project has not been definitely announced. My Parliamentary Secretary met with the Premier of Prince Edward Island this week, and they made considerable progress with this plan to establish a second national park in Prince Edward Island. No agreement has been drawn up yet and federal government payments will come under the policy established in British Columbia where we paid 50 per cent of the purchase price of land situated along the coast.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The minister also said that his Parliamentary Secretary and the Premier of Prince Edward Island had agreed to start drafting an agreement, all of this on March 13, 1970. In a recent newspaper I read of meetings between the minister and the Premier of Prince Edward Island held last Labour Day. Later a federal parks spokesman, I suppose alias a well-informed source, to use the jargon of bureaucracy, was quoted as saying:
The province must provide the land for a second park free and clear for development. Because land must be expropriated this involves some heavy provincial expenditures for the P.E.I. budget.
I would say he is darned right. It would involve a great expenditure for the Prince Edward Island government. This is a serious de-escalation of Dominion government commitment. No longer do we hear of Ottawa paying 50 per cent, the arrangement which was made with the affluent province of British Columbia some time ago. Now, if we read it right, it is all to be paid by the province of Prince Edward Island. Surely little P.E.I. should get a deal at least as generous as that given to that wealthy empire on our west coast. If not, what has happened since the ides of March, 1970? Why does our province not now rate the same formula which the minister revealed in this House during his welcoming years?
It was, I believe, common knowledge that the site chosen for the second park was in the far eastern part of Prince Edward Island, in Kings County in the constituency of my hon. friend from Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid). I know this area well, having spent the first ten years of my life-just a few years ago!-in the area. It contains one of the most beautiful beaches on this continent. I refer to the south lake area. This is near the north lake area which is now becoming the tuna capital of the Atlantic area.
If there are problems in reference to this location, perhaps because of the propinquity of much of the adjoining property to the finest agricultural land, thus creating an economic problem, I think we should know quickly and precisely what the current attitude is. There is now considerable currency given to the suggestion that the federal government may have withdrawn from its commitment to offer a second park, and that instead it will substitute a substantial extension of the one now existing which happens to be, according to figures and observations, one of the most popular national parks in this country, as well it might be because it is one of the most beautiful.
This park, with its hundreds of thousands of visitors, is far too narrow for the kind of development that is important for modern recreational needs. Even if the second park promise is not repudiated, the P.E.I. park as it now exists must be enlarged to meet the demands of its ever-enlarging flow of visitors to our province, so welcome in our midst. If this is to be done, it would be only fair that Ottawa make at least as good a contribution as was promised in reference to a new park. The P.E.I. government, with its limited resources acquired some 30 years ago the original land for the present site and turned it over free to the Dominion government. If there is a new policy for new parks whereby the 50-50 deal is abandoned, surely with the extension of the existing park, where the province provided all the land, at least that 50-50 generosity should be forthcoming. I use the expression "at least" in reference to a province which built its hopes upon the promise of having a second park.
This, sir, is my reasonable suggestion. I expect the eminently reasonable Parliamentary Secretary, a colleague for whom I have high regard, will be able to come forth with a reasonable response to my suggestion, and if he has been advised to temper reason with generosity, I shall not demur.

October 22, 1970


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I take great delight in reassuring the hon. member and in making perfectly clear that there has been no abandonment of interest on the part of the government with respect to a second national park in Prince Edward Island, in the area of East Point.
On September 7 last my minister met with Premier Campbell and members of his cabinet to discuss with the province possible plans for the development of a park in this area. The province is anxious to ensure that they have thoroughly explored all options and alternatives with regard to the best use of recreational lands and with regard to the very heavy increase in tourist traffic which has occurred in the province in the last few years. This increase, I understand, was particularly heavy in the season just completed.
The minister's discussions with the province were cordial and constructive. It was made clear that the federal
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
government is prepared to proceed, depending of course upon the conclusions of the province as to the course of action which would be most appropriate for them.
Again I should like to reassure the hon. member that the financial basis would be as stated by the minister on March 13 last, that is to say, the federal government would assume 50 per cent of the costs of acquisition and assembly of the necessary lands on the same formula as was established in British Columbia with respect to Long Beach Park.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Hear, hear!


J. Judd Buchanan: We expect to hear further from the province in due course. I am sure that when a decision is reached, my minister will be making an announcement jointly with the province.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.

October 22, 1970



APPENDIX

[Stage Direction]
Montreal, October 21, 1970

[Stage Direction]
In order to dispel concern which seems to have arisen in certain circles and to anticipate the spreading ol false reports or interpretations, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Quebec, Mr. Jerome Choquette, wants to clarify here and now in what manner the powers granted by the order-in-council adopted under the War Measures Act are being applied.
The Minister of Justice has announced that there will be no abuse, on the part of police services involved, of those powers, requested in these unprecedented circumstances.
Therefore, although simultaneous detention of some 300 individuals throughout Quebec, 250 of them in Montreal, creates substantial concrete problems, the police have already contacted the families or individuals the detained persons have requested to have informed.
A group of investigators and attorneys has been set up to study the record of each of those detained as promptly as possible, in order to determine whether they are to be indicted and brought before the courts or released because of lack of evidence. It will, however, be readily understood that the task of dealing with such an impressive number of files under present circumstances will inevitably take some time. However, instructions have been given to proceed with all reasonable haste.
The minister has also announced that he recognizes the right of the individuals detained to retain services of counsel, but here again there are administrative problems, which are being overcome.
The minister has emphasized, however, that it cannot be expected that the task of attorneys and investigators dealing with the examination of the detained individuals' files will be completed within the initial period of seven days provided by the order-in-council and that he therefore intends, where such action is justified in the light of information submitted to him, to extend the detention period to twenty-one days. We will however accept to release, as and when information becomes available, those persons against whom no crime or infraction under the order-in-council can be imputed. Indeed, during the past few days some fifty individuals have already been released.
As regards the provisions of the order-in-council declaring the FLQ to be an illegal association and prohibiting all support of the said group, the minister has announced that he would deal firmly with any persons violating the order, or in any way supporting the FLQ, and particularly the kidnappers of Messrs. Cross and Laporte.
Finally the minister strongly denies all insinuations to the effect that persons detained have been ill-ill-treated in any way.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 23, 1970