1970-10-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, we have had further discussions with regard to the re-establishment of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada. As a result of these discussions there may be unanimous consent for an order that would provide that the first item of business called today would be the motion under government orders to re-establish the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
After this motion has been discussed for perhaps one or two hours, notwithstanding Standing Order 38(2), the address debate will continue for the rest of the day. This day will be regarded as the fourth appointed day. There will be a division as scheduled at 9.30 p.m. this evening. Monday next will be the sixth appointed day. There will be a division at 9.30 p.m. on that day. In other words, despite the interruption of the debate for a short time today, we are providing that the votes will take place at the normal time. We also undertake that the time lost because of discussion of the motion to establish the Special Joint Committee of the Constitution will be compensated at the end of the debate on the Speech from the Throne or in some other way.
It has also been informally agreed that because the vote tonight will be on the Creditiste subamendment there will be special consideration to ensure that the members of that group will be able to express their point of view before the vote on their subamendment is called. If that is agreeable, Mr. Speaker, I can send Your Honour a copy of what I have stated which may be of some help.


Mr. Speaker:: It appears that the suggestion made by the President of the Privy Council is clear. Does the House agree? If so, there will be an order accordingly.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment just announced is nearly 7 per cent-6.9 per cent-does the government intend to propose any new measures, especially in view of the fact that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for those between the ages of 14 and 24 is now 11.7 per cent, some 67,000 higher than last year?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The
answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the sense of disillusionment and alienation likely to arise among this very large percentage and vast number of unemployed young Canadians and in light of the tensions existing in the country, will the Prime Minister give the House some assurance that the government will take vigorous measures to stimulate employment and reduce this very serious damage to this considerable percentage of Canadian youth and, indeed, to the social fabric of the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have taken vigorous action and we will take more.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am not sure who is the minister responsible, but can someone explain why in this Dominion Bureau of Statistics bulletin the usual figures relating to hard core unemployed have been omitted?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is responsible for DBS, might give the answer.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, but I will find out.



UNEMPLOYMENT-INCREASE IN SEASONALLY ADJUSTED RATE-YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AND WINTER WORKS PROGRAMS

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: In
view of the very serious figures that have just been released with respect to unemployment, and the effect on young people in particular, I ask the Prime Minister

October 15, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
whether the statements made by the Minister of Finance in the House the other day are the government's final answer with respect to coping with the unemployment situation or whether the government is giving any consideration to a program for young people throughout this winter similar to what was undertaken last summer, or some more useful undertakings? Is the government now prepared to consider seriously discussing with the provinces, and through them the municipalities, a winter works program inasmuch as it is not too late yet to implement such a program on the thesis that the public would prefer to pay people to work rather than pay people to be idle?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the sense that the Minister of Finance and the government are reviewing the economic situation constantly-they have from time to time, over the past weeks and past months, announced new measures and new changes in our budgetary and our fiscal and financial position-the position stated by the minister obviously is not final. The situation is constantly being studied and analysed and new measures have been announced over the past weeks and months. I cannot, of course, say that there will not be any more new measures. I cannot say today what they will be, if any, but I cannot say that the statement is final.
May I remind the leaders of both parties that I am pleased to see they are using the seasonally adjusted figures now when not so many months ago they were blaming me for using them and saying it was a fraud to use such figures. I hope they remember that in a few months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Prime Minister to show where I ever said it was a fraud to use the seasonally adjusted figures.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
Prime Minister seems to want to argue about which figures to use, though this is not of much concern to those who are unemployed. Since the programs put into operation by the government have not been very effective in reducing unemployment, will the right hon. gentlemen tell the House when the government, following its review, will be prepared to make some statement as to the additional measures they propose taking to grapple with this serious question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance made a statement the day before yesterday and I do not expect he will want to make another the day after tomorrow.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Ed ward-Hastings):: As the
figures on unemployment produced today make it clear that whatever steps the government is taking to stimulate the economy are not having the desired effect, will the right hon. gentleman and his friends now give serious

consideration to the positive measures which have been put forward by the opposition to revive the economy and stimulate employment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the impression that the question as asked is somewhat in the form of an argument and I doubt whether it is acceptable.


George Harris Hees: May I ask a supplementary question, then? I shall be glad to send the Prime Minister a list of the measures the opposition have advocated to stimulate the economy so he will be aware of these proposals. Since it appears impossible to get any positive statement of policy from the government in the House, will the Prime Minister consider debating this important matter in the near future on a public platform at a time and place of his own choosing so that we can get down to actual cases?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am very disappointed to see the hon. member downgrading Parliament in this way.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or perhaps to the Prime Minister. Has the government received representations or information indicating that certain of the Commonwealth governments might be unwilling to attend the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference-I believe it is to take place in Singapore-if the British government proceeds with the export of military arms to South Africa?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The only information I have received on this subject is probably the same as has been received by the hon. member for Greenwood. I would suggest, however, that the conference should go ahead if only to enable the members of the Commonwealth to express their views to the British government and to one another on this important subject.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Ahilibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Could the minister tell us if he has received protest letters from some parents against noisy television advertising directed at children and if he intends to take steps to prevent it?
October 15, 1970


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 
NATIONAL SECURITY
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon during the question period a question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition concerning whether or not consideration was being given by the government to asking for emergency powers. I now ask the Prime Minister whether the government has given consideration under the War Measures Act to bringing in emergency powers.
In particular, has the government secured from the law officers of the Crown, inasmuch as the Prime Minister described what is happening as a result of the kidnappings as "this emergency", any opinion on whether or not the present situation falls generally within the wording of the Act to which I have referred which empowers the Governor in Council to do and to authorize various things because of the existence of "real or apprehended insurrection"? Would the Prime Minister take Parliament into his confidence with reference to this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my answer would be in the same terms as the answer I gave yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition. In effect, it was that we have considered such matters, that we have considered every possible way in which the government of Canada, in conjunction with the government of Quebec, could meet this very difficult situation. Therefore I would not be truthful if I said that we had not considered such measures. However, the fact that we have not taken them indicates that we have not considered them in a way that would cause us to act upon them, at least at this time.
As to the more precise question whether I have sought advice on this matter, the answer is that we have discussed the matter because in considering the various possibilities we have to know what are the conditions. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that he would agree he has raised not only a legal question but, perhaps even more importantly, a question of fact which can best be understood and discussed by people who are aware of politics in this country as well as those who are aware of the law.
I might add that I would gladly seek out, perhaps in a private way later, the opinion of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert on this question. Quite frankly, I would be interested in knowing what he thinks about the situation, and he can either tell the House or tell me privately.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate the attitude taken by the Prime Minister, but I would ask him what he meant yesterday when he referred to "this emergency". Did he mean that there was a national emergency? If so, is it not a fact that the only provision that permits action to be taken in this regard is under the War Measures Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there are many words which could be used, but when two lives are hanging in the balance I do not think it is exaggerated to talk of an emergency. As to the steps which would be necessary to meet this particular emergency, whether national, provincial or regional, I can only repeat the answer I gave yesterday. But I quite seriously repeat that I am very interested in knowing the opinion of the House and particularly of the leaders of the opposition parties and the former Prime Minister who has a distinguished record in the matter of civil liberties. If he is now suggesting that this might be a national emergency which might call for the application of the War Measures Act, I will certainly take that into consideration.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would say, of course, that the Prime Minister has misinterpreted what I said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I asked him what he meant yesterday when he made a statement that could only be understood as meaning that the government was considering the abdication of civil liberties as it has abdicated its responsibility for the protection of diplomats by placing the whole matter in the power of the Premier and government of the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CANCELLATION BY PRIME MINISTER OF VISIT TO SOVIET UNION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. I am sure the House is anxious to know, in view of the words the Prime Minister used yesterday- "this emergency"-whether there are any new developments surrounding the Prime Minister's intended trip to the Soviet Union which was to begin this weekend?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would confirm to the House, with reluctance, that I have cancelled my visit to the Soviet Union which was to begin on Sunday. I gave notice of such possibility of cancellation to the Soviet authorities on Tuesday. I must say that now I have received a very understanding reply from Premier Kosygin. I expressed to him my hope that the visit could be reinstated at a future date which would be convenient to him.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the right hon. Prime Minister this question. If this

October 15, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
information was given to the government of the U.S.S.R. on Tuesday, why it was withheld from the House yesterday when I asked a question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe the hon. member misunderstood my answer, Mr. Speaker. I think I said quite clearly that I had advised the Soviet authorities I was considering a possible cancellation. I only authorized the telegram cancelling it definitely some time last evening. I did not want to make it public here before it had reached the Soviet authorities.
sH *	*


INDUSTRY
Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the many representations from workers in the shoe industry pointing out the increasing loss of jobs because of imports, can he tell the House whether he is developing a new policy for the industry and, if so, when will he be in a position to announce that policy?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was present at the meeting I had with the association representing the producers of footwear in Canada. He will recall that one of the conclusions was that we needed a lot better information as to how imports of footwear affect the Canadian industry, specifically in certain areas. This information has now been developed with the help of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and I am to meet the association again in the coming weeks. In the meantime, as he is aware, my department has made a tremendous effort to support sales, exports in particular of footwear in Canada. For example we have sponsored foreign buyers coming to Canada and we have made the IRDIA and PAIT programs applicable to this industry. We are also making the General Adjustment Assistance Program applicable to companies which can use it for exports. We are doing our best while developing the information that is needed to cope properly with the situation.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I have a supplementary question for the minister. In view of the fact the Throne Speech mentions that legislation will be introduced to protect the textile industry, would the minister make representations to his colleagues to have the footwear industry included in the same legislation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I just said, I do not think we have the proper information to make that move, but if it should be demonstrated in the coming days that this is necessary I am quite sure my colleagues will consider that possibility with sympathy.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, while we are aware that some measures have been taken by the department to

assist the footwear industry, the fact is that the industry is in a pretty critical position despite these measures. While the minister is working on a long-term policy for the industry, is he prepared to impose immediate quotas on footwear as he did in respect of the shirt industry in a similar emergency?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the situation is quite different. I do not have time to go into details, but in general the import of shoes into Canada is not exclusively a problem involving low-cost countries. It applies also to countries in Europe which are exporting to Canada and apparently are doing well because of factors other than cheaper labour. It is more complex than would appear and I regret that I am not able to go into details now.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that there has been a very large increase in imports of shoes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is not in order in those terms. He asks whether the minister is aware.


George Harris Hees: I will rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. As these imports, particularly of cheap shoes, have increased by a large percentage this year, does the minister not consider that this is a very similar situation to that in respect of the import of cheap textiles and will he not consider applying the same measures?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is argumentative. In essence he is asking the same question as that asked by the hon. member for Waterloo.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robert Borrie (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of National Defence. With the looting of an armoury in British Columbia yesterday and the experience of similar activity in the past, would the Minister of National Defence advise the House whether plans are under way to provide 24-hour security at armouries where weapons and ammunition are stored?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; additional security measures have been initiated at other Canadian forces bases and stations in the area.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I welcome him
October 15, 1970

back from Australia where I hope he observed the greater degree of latitude allowed to private members in the legislature there. Has the minister discussed with the Minister of Agriculture my request that the government of Canada involve itself in the proceedings now before the Supreme Court in Quebec or in the proposed proceedings which the province of Manitoba has indicated it intends to take before the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the prohibition of the interprovincial marketing of agricultural products?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind remarks. I think he and I know that we get along very well with the Australians who are plain-speaking and forthright. The practical solution the federal government has always sought to this problem is the farm products marketing agencies bill which was before the House and a committee during the last session, which we felt could resolve the problem and for which we had unanimous provincial co-operation at the end of the last federal-provincial conference. As to the legal problem involved, the federal government is concerned, of course, about any barrier to interprovincial trade. In so far as there may be a constitutional question involving federal jurisdiction we will, of course, ensure that the federal point of view is presented to the court. Whether the province of Manitoba can successfully bring the matter before the Supreme Court by way of reference is perhaps doubtful.
I am not sure, as I said before, that a reference to the Supreme Court is the proper way to handle the matter because in a reference, as the hon. gentleman knows, the facts have to be specific and ascertained. The difficulty here is that we are dealing with various types of legislation and several marketing boards and broilers and eggs. There is no consensus concerning what the facts are. If there is to be a court action, I think it would have to proceed in the ordinary way. As I say, the best solution is the legislation placed before this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary of the minister. Having in mind that the passage of Bill C-197 introduced last session may not now be as rapid owing to the notorious stubbornness of the Minister of Agriculture in adapting to what the farmers want, would the minister not consult with the provincial governments to see whether or not terms of reference could be framed? The ingenuity of members of the bar is well known, and surely terms of reference could be framed to deal with and have this matter disposed of in one swoop.


John Napier Turner: It is not just a matter of terms of reference; it is a matter of agreement on the facts. That is what is at issue. It is not just the legislation; it is how the legislation or regulations are being used, as I understand it, that provokes the problem.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is it now the position of the Minister of
Inquiries oj the Ministry
Justice that whenever the constitution is challenged in a number of ways the government will not seek an authoritative answer?


John Napier Turner: No. We will seek an authoritative answer but in the best way. I suggest to the hon. gentleman that that is not the correct way.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question I wanted to ask the Minister of Transport but possibly his Parliamentary Secretary can reply. I have in mind the fact that the United States Department of Transport has just ordered 404 interstate buses off the roads because of major safety standard violations. What is our department doing in this same potentially dangerous area?


Mr. Speaker:: It would seem to me that the question asked by the hon. member is very general in nature. Any statement which might be made should normally be made as a statement on motions, unless the minister has a very brief and concise answer to give.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the hon. member for Peace River in welcoming back the Minister of Justice. In his capacity as Minister of Justice I put this suggestion to him in the form of a question. In view of the federal government's direct responsibility for the safety of foreign diplomats in Canada and in view of the support of the Confederation of National Trade Unions for the FLQ's position, would the minister consider getting assistance from the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, past president of that union-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Grey-Simcoe.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that terrorists now operating in Canada are reported to have been trained outside this country, is the government thoroughly investigating the activities of those Canadian citizens who have returned to Canada in the past year from Algeria, Cuba and Jordan?

October 15, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the question is rather broader than the scope of the responsibilities of this department.


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary which I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister give the House any information regarding reports that there is a guerilla training camp operating in northern Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, directing the previous question to me, I can answer as the minister has that this is not a question of immigration, I understand, but a question of returning Canadians. Indeed, if they are suspect as the hon. member suggests, it would not be a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration but rather a question for the Solicitor General. I would appreciate it if he would also direct the latter question to the Solicitor General who would know more about it than I.


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a further question to the Prime Minister. Perhaps he will remember that when he was Minister of Justice I directed this question to him. Would the Prime Minister not make an investigation as promised when I put the same question to him in March, 1968, with regard to a guerilla training camp in northern Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Would the hon. member read my answer at that time? I do not remember it exactly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe that the hon. member for Sainte-Marie wants to ask a supplementary question.


PROHIBITION OF ENTRY INTO CANADA OF KNOWN ANARCHISTS AND REVOLUTIONARIES
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the serious problems in Quebec, does the federal government intend to amend the immigration laws so that we do not tolerate the entry into this country of known anarchists and revolutionaries from other countries?


Otto Emil Lang: The government has under consideration the whole question of our present immigration laws and procedures, and further comment on these subjects will be put before the House in this session, as hon. members know from reading the Speech from the Throne.


PUBLICITY GIVEN BY CBC TO PROFESSIONAL AGITATORS AND REVOLUTIONARIES
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I wish to direct to the Secretary of State.
Since he is official spokesman for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, would he tell us whether he intends to issue guidelines for bringing an end to the continuing broadcast from the transmitters of this Crown corporation, of statements made by well-known revolutionaries and professional agitators?


Hon. Gerard Pellelier (Secreiary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the Broadcasting Act, it is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State to issue such guidelines but that of the Governor in Council, the Cabinet in other words. I do not think any such action is being considered at this moment.
# * *


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is the hon. gentleman meeting with a delegation from western Manitoba today led by the Manitoba Minister of Industry and Commerce to discuss ways and means of dealing with the economic problems created by the closing of the Rivers air base?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that it is not in order simply to ask the minister whether he is meeting with a delegation. I fail to see how that can be accepted as a question during the question period.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion be making an announcement soon on specific plans and proposals to deal with the economic crisis created by the closing of the Rivers air base?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention, and I believe arrangements have been made, to go to Rivers and Gimly early next week in order to study this problem with provincial authorities and draw up a plan likely to assist those involved.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Will the minister go to that province and tell citizens, as he did last week in Val-d'Or that they are negative people?


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of

October 15, 1970

National Health and Welfare. In view of the statement in the Speech from the Throne that Parliament will be asked in this session to examine a white paper on income security policy, can the minister say whether this is the same white paper that was to have been tabled in the last session, and can he now say when it will be tabled?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: It includes many of the considerations that would have gone into an earlier paper, and I expect that it will be tabled shortly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask
which we will see first? Will it be the white paper, or the pension legislation which was also referred to in the Throne Speech?


John Carr Munro: I would advise the hon. member
that that has yet to be decided as a matter of policy by the government, and when we have decided the House will be advised.


BANKRUPTCY
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
As during each session for over three years now we have been promised a reform in depth of the Bankruptcy Act, could the minister renew that commitment for the current session?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 
NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of reports that the FLQ is about to set out on a program of attacking airlines and railways all across Canada, can the Prime Minister or one of the other ministers give an assurance that adequate protection is being provided for airlines and passengers thereon as well as for railway trains across the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question of the hon. member really spells out the dilemma
Inquiries of the Ministry
which faces the government and which apparently exists in his own party also. His former leader a moment ago was beseeching us not to move in any way which might infringe civil liberties, but in order to move in the way which the hon. member now suggests this danger might well be present.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: This is the all or nothing philosophy.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Have the Prime Minister or his colleagues given consideration to the rather simple expedient of searching passengers and their luggage before boarding as is being done in Europe at present with no inconvenience?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 
LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has a settlement been reached with Canadian National Railways regarding the application of the minimum wage laws of this Parliament to its hotels, and can the minister assure the House that no other federal agencies are ignoring the minimum wage laws in this country?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: No settlement has been reached as yet. An order was given yesterday to proceed against the CNR in the case of the Chateau Laurier.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the minister reply to the second part of my question? Would he assure the House that no other federally controlled agencies or Crown corporations are defying the minimum wage laws of this Parliament?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will have the matter investigated this afternoon to be certain of my answer, but I can assure hon. members that at least under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act Crown corporations have to observe the labour laws of this country like any other enterprise under federal jurisdiction.


STUDY BY WHEAT BOARD OF WORLD FEED GRAIN SITUATION-AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION TO AGRICULTURAL CONGRESS
Mr. Rod Thomson (Batlleford-Kindersley):: I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Is the Wheat Board making a study of the world feed

October 15, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
grain situation, particularly with regard to the corn supply in the United States this year and possibly the corn seed supply there next year?


Otto Emil Lang: The Wheat Board keeps very closely informed on world market conditions in every respect, and this includes the situation in regard to supplies and probable supplies from the United States.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Would any recommendations that the Wheat Board might make be available to the task force which will be meeting in November, the reason being that we might want to grow different crops next year?


Otto Emil Lang: I presume the hon. member is referring to the agricultural congress. It would, I am sure, be the hope of my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, that a good deal of information may be made available at that time, and when it is it will become available to hon. members.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Would he tell the House when the government has the intention of creating the Textiles Commission?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the three members of this Commission have now been selected, and all we need before announcing these appointments is to have the Governor General's consent. I want to point out that the Commission will operate for the time being, under the legislation governing my department. Therefore it will not have the powers to inquire into various matters until the law is introduced and passed later this session.
I am sure the Commission, once it is created, will immediately start to work because it will have extremely important problems to study.


TEXTILES-COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronlenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question supplementary to the last one asked of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will the new textile commission also be representative of the trade?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 
IMMIGRATION
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. A few moments ago he referred to matters dealing with immigration to be brought before the House. Can he tell the House whether the proposed white paper on immigration and the amendments to the Immigration Appeal Board Act will be brought in simultaneously and referred to the committee and whether this will be done at an early date so that positive action can be taken with regard to the Immigration Appeal Board?


Otto Emil Lang: Work is going forward in regard to both matters. No decision has been taken about the timing and whether they should be brought in simultaneously. Certainly I am as concerned as the hon. member about these matters.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who apparently has been called out of the chamber, so I will bring it to the attention of the Prime Minister. It arises from the fact that in the House yesterday the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry said that he hoped the fishery closing lines on our two coasts, east and west, would be proclaimed very soon, which was essentially the same answer that he gave to the committee last spring. Are general negotiations being pressed with France in such a manner as to clarify and expedite the proclamation on the Atlantic coast? Also, is the position of the United States with regard to a certain portion of the Alaska boundary complicating the situation on the Pacific coast and, if so, are we pressing negotiations with the United States in a way that would lead to an early proclamation of the lines in the interests of the survival of fish?


Mr. Andre Ouellei (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

October 15, 1970


AIRPORTS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Can he tell us whether discussions are being held with the Quebec government regarding the development of the airport at Ste Scholastique or if, at least, agreements in principle have been concluded between Quebec and Ottawa?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there has been a meeting at the departmental level where we agreed upon the general outline of co-operation. There will be other meetings in the near future.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to examine and report upon proposals, made public, or which are from time to time made public by the Government of Canada, on a number of subjects related to the Constitution of Canada during the course of the comprehensive review of the Constitution of Canada, which review was agreed upon at the Constitutional Conference of the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premiers and Prime Ministers of the Provinces in February, 1968, and alternative proposals on the same subjects;
That the Committee have power to appoint, from among its members, such sub-committees as it may deem advisable or necessary;
That the Committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the Committee have power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers, and records, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within Canada;
That the quorum of the Committee be 17 members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and that the Joint Chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when 7 members are present so long as both Houses are represented;
That the Committee be empowered to retain the services of three specialists to assist it in its work; and that it also be empowered to retain the clerical and stenographic help deemed advisable by the Joint Chairmen;
That the papers and evidence received and taken on the subject in the preceding session be referred to the Committee and made part of the records thereof;
That the following Members be appointed to act on behalf of the House of Commons on the Special Joint Committee, namely:
Constitution of Canada
Messrs. Alexander, Allmand, Asselin, Breau, Brewin, Dinsdale, Fairweather, Fortin, Gibson, Hogarth, Hopkins, Lachance, Mac-Guigan, Marceau, McQuaid, Osier, Ouellet, Roberts, Rowland and Woolliams; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.


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


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of the minister in allowing me to speak first, particularly for the reason that I will have certain propositions to put before him and he might well seek the chance, in closing the debate, to answer the suggestions I make. We already dealt with this matter very lightly last Friday when I indicated some preliminary objections which I then had to the motion in the form it is put. Because of that the government has now seen fit to introduce it in this way, it having been properly placed on the order paper.
By this motion the government has actively taken the initiative to re-establish a special joint committee to deal with constitutional problems. It is asking the House to vest in the committee the widest possible powers, including the right to travel in Canada. I interrupt my remarks on the subject to suggest that some hon. members might take this opportunity to travel outside the chamber and there continue the very important discussions they are having here.
A proposed itinerary which was discussed by the committee at the conclusion of its meetings last session indicates, as I see it, that the committee plans to be absent approximately 45 days, most of them sitting days, during the next eight months. This, of course, is a matter for the committee to consider and to propose in view of what it feels is its responsibility, and we have got to give the utmost consideration to its proposals, particularly having in mind that it is a joint committee. But that does not relieve this House of the ultimate responsibility, of the need to examine and accept or reject or even possibly modify committee reports. This, as a general rule, applies to any committee report.
I was one of those who first suggested six years ago the need to have a committee of this kind. I said it could exercise a useful and even an essential function in dealing with constitutional problems. If it had been set in motion at that time, or even three or four years ago, Mr. Speaker, I think there would have been a different climate and a different awareness of our constitutional problems today.
I was quite prepared for and, in fact, I advocated a reasonable amount of travel by such a committee-certainly at least its attendance in the provincial capitals possibly by the use of subcommittees, because in an area of this kind there was need not only for a pipeline from Members of Parliament to the people but for the people to be able to make known their thoughts to Members of Parliament through the committee. But I must honestly say I did not envisage a safari of quite the same dimensions as is now being proposed, with beaters, trackers

October 15, 1970
Constitution of Canada
and all the rest of it. However, that is a matter we may discuss later.
But I say too, Mr. Speaker, that three years ago when I again discussed this matter in the House I felt that the rigidity of the then Minister of Justice who has now become the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and his exceedingly narrow and overly legalistic approach to constitutional issues, would likely provoke similar sentiments amongst the provinces, and any meaningful consensus was not likely to be achieved. The facts have borne out this view. There have been a number of meetings of the first ministers. There have been committee meetings with all kinds of media coverage. There has been a pouring out of papers, position papers, provincial statements, federal statements, committee reports, but virtually nothing in terms of real achievement.
The government and the Prime Minister through a very dull and pedestrian approach have managed to throw a smokescreen of boredom around the subject and have really turned the people off. I suppose what the Prime Minister is saying to the simple folks around Camelot is, "Go home and leave this to me and all the other knights around the Round Table."
The thrust of the discussion has been directed above the heads of the people, perhaps deliberately in the expectation that they would not see what was really involved, that 11 sets of hands were tightly gripped about the levers of power and none had any intention of releasing any of them. Only if Canadians as a whole can be made to realize the issues, and to understand that there are some very simple but exceedingly important decisions to be made, can we get anywhere. At the present time it is too much like the discussion that Alice had with the Cheshire cat when they agreed between them that she was walking somewhere, that she did not know where she came from or where she was going but that if she kept on walking she would get somewhere. I feel that this is the case with these federal-provincial conferences.
Should the ultimate decision on issues such as pollution be left to the provincial governments or to the federal government? Should the federal government take some greater and more meaningful roles in the problems of the great cities, such as housing and transportation? This could be applied also to consumers' interests, and there are other areas. An active parliamentary committee set in motion some three years ago, reasonably free from political rancour, could have set out these issues in a simple way and developed an awareness which might well have led to public pressure to compel the men in the various establishments who play the power game to adjust the constitution to the realities of today. I am not talking about a new constitution; I am talking about those necessary and essential decisions made to conform with what we have found from our experience needs to be done today.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)
But at present there is a general nausea at the artificial mixture of mystique and mugwumpery which surrounds these constitutional discussions and which persuades too
many people now that reform or change is only a big yawn. I doubt very much now whether anyone can change this fact of life, but I am willing to go along and give the benefit of the doubt to the committee to be re-established for this session. We must make sure that we exhaust any doubt on this issue with respect to this committee which is to be re-established. We must seek the opportunity to make the people of Canada aware in the simplest possible way of the issues which face us.
Having said that, and my colleagues may have something more to say about details, I wish to say that the debate on this motion presents the first proper occasion on which to record publicly our concern about the operation of the committees of this House. We are debating a motion to re-establish a committee and I am entitled to say at this time that we have some very serious reservations, which we expressed to Your Honour during the last session. Your Honour was good enough to indicate that this is a matter which the procedure committee might well examine. It has now been clearly established that this government with its tractable backbenchers has shown a determination to relegate Parliament, certainly this House, to a position of futility and impotence. Our experience of the last two sessions has made it crystal clear that the new committee system, which was intended to help to prop up the House of Commons as a forum for free men in a free society so that legislation passed would in fact be laws devised and adopted by the people through their representatives, has failed to achieve this purpose. These committees have now become in certain respects a means whereby the Prime Minister, the cabinet and their colleagues and lesser luminaries are deemphasizing and undercutting the value of the House of Commons. The records of the committees themselves and the complaints made in the House during the last session bristle with illustrations of this fact.
Just two days ago the Prime Minister, in a confrontation with the press about the supremacy of the elected representatives of the people, had something to say on this score. Just whom did he think he was fooling? His scorn of the House and the parliamentary system is too obvious and well documented to need elaboration here, and the government's abuse of the parliamentary committee system is just another example.
Today there is fear, anger, despair and anxiety in this country. Violence stalks this land, as it does the United States of America-so much so that the United States Congress is now in the process of passing an extremely severe measure dealing with law and order. There are indications, if I may be permitted to say so, that the government is contemplating acting under the War Measures Act or bringing in some substitute for it. I am all for order and would support reasonable proposals, Mr. Speaker, but order under the law and not above it. And we must have law or laws passed by this House and Parliament and not produced at the whim of any one man or group of men, no matter how eminent they may be.
Surely one of the contributing factors to some of our troubles has been the fact that many, and this applies

October 15, 1970

particularly to minority groups in North America and elsewhere, have lost or are losing confidence in the democratic process. Many feel that they no longer can have their day in court. I do not altogether agree with this assessment, but there is absolutely no doubt about the steady and planned erosion of the rights of this House and the substitution of authoritarian rule by the executive which is involved all too often with the personality cult. Parliamentary systems must not only work; they must be very visible and be seen to be working.
Let the government be made aware right at the beginning of the present session that we will not facilitate the operation of committees involving the continuation of practices about which we complained during the last session. Reforms and improvements must be brought about. My colleague who spoke yesterday, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), dealt with this matter to some extent and spoke in detail about many of the things which I might have spoken about now. With respect to such things as travel, the holding of meetings and the co-ordination of meetings of committees,
I say it is obvious that, unless there is some better measure of control than was the case last year, the proceedings of this House might just as well be scrapped, because slowly and surely the emphasis is being placed on the committees and taken away from this House. Since we are dealing with this particular area of controversy, we think it must be made abundantly clear that committees exist to clarify, to investigate, to examine and to help to facilitate the proceedings of the House; and they must at all times be subordinate to the sittings of the House of Commons, the operations of the House of Commons and the decisions which are made in this place.
For example, there is a need for some bills and some estimates to be considered in Committee of the Whole and in Committee of Supply. There must be an assurance of greater objectivity and freedom from government supervision in respect of committee chairmen. There must be more opportunities to test the views of members by dividing the House on some committee reports or by permitting amendments so that minorities on those committees can put forward their positions in the House on specific issues. These are very reasonable suggestions, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister now if he will not, before this debate is concluded, give an undertaking that within a limited period of time terms of reference will be proposed which will direct the Committee on Procedure and Organization to deal specifically and immediately with this problem so that we on this side of the House, as well as members on the government side, may have some assurance that committees will function well and accept their proper role in the House, as must be the case at all times.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that many of the rule changes which were brought in have been effective but many of them have been shown to be not effective. They need to be examined. This examination ought to include an examination of the committee system and the new structure which was established.
My party will always go along with reasonable changes in the rules provided it is made crystal clear that the
Constitution of Canada
function of the House of Commons remains the principal object of our meetings in the House. I therefore hope that before this debate is concluded the minister will direct his attention to the issue and, hopefully, indicate that the very serious problems we have brought up, which have also concerned the members of his party for some time, will be met and dealt with. We hope this assurance will be given before further requests are made to establish other committees, standing or special, of this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the discussion which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has opened up during the course of our dealing with this motion is an important one. I hope it is not unkind for me to say that he has ranged a bit from the wording of the motion.
I do not see anything wrong with that. In fact I think it is a good idea. I support his position that we should take a new look and certainly that we should maintain a continuing look at our committee system. He has pointed out some of the improvements that are needed. He said that the changes that we made were not all negative, that some of the changes with respect to the committee system have worked out well. I wish to emphasize that fact.
[DOT] (12:10p.m.)
I am not happy about all the rule changes that we made in the last two or three years, but I believe it was a tremendous improvement to send practically all bills, after second reading, to standing committees. I think the work that standing committees have done on bills which have been referred to them is good.
I believe it was a forward step to abolish the duplication of debate that we used to have when on occasion we would send a bill to a standing committee where it would be dealt with at length and then we would have the same debate in the Committee of Whole House. By the report stage we have preserved the right of members of the House who are not members of a particular committee to make their contribution to the details of any bill.
I am almost prepared to say without qualification that I think that the changes in the rules which had to do with the legislative process are good. I referred to the fact that after second reading bills go to committee where they are thoroughly studied. We then have the report stage. Members who wish can then deal with details. We can have recorded votes on contentious issues followed by final or third reading.
In any criticisms that we make of our new rules, or of our committee system in particular, it is appropriate to record that in this area we have done well. It is also my impression that committees are doing a good job when studying white papers. There are times when the argument gets quite intense, as it ought to, and this is an innovation that has worked out well, namely, that white papers are referred to committees and the public is permitted to appear before those committees. I happen to be a member of a committee that is doing this right now with respect to the subject of unemployment insurance. I

October 15, 1970
Constitution of Canada
believe it is a very worth-while exercise in which we are engaged. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Peace River that the whole question should be studied.
The area where we have not solved the problem is with respect to estimates or the granting of money. 1 am not going to urge that we return to the old system under which every last estimate was dealt with in Committee of Supply. I think it became rather meaningless. That is the reason we agreed to send all estimates to the various separate standing committees. But I do not think anyone in this House can claim that in the standing committees the estimates are examined in any detail or that any parliamentary scrutiny is practised. I do not pretend to have the answer, but I would say that in our attempt to make improvements we have not gone very far with respect to the handling of estimates. Possibly the whole matter of estimates has become so huge in terms of the amounts of money that we have to deal with compared with what it was 100 years ago that we have to take a new look at this situation. Maybe we have to rely on the fact that we have a Treasury Board and a Treasury Board secretariat which does this type of scrutinizing before we ever see the estimates. Maybe we also have to rely on the fact that we have an Auditor General and his staff as well as a Public Accounts Committee to do the job afterwards and that in this whole picture there is not the need for what was thought to be necessary 100 years ago. Maybe Parliament has more important things to do. These thoughts are not put forward as anything final. Although we have succeeded in what we have done with respect to the legislative process in relation to committees, we have not solved the problem with respect to estimates and the granting of money.
There are other matters regarding committees that we should study. In my view the most serious problem that faces committees is that of time. Sometimes there is also the problem of space and other facilities. I would like to see more practice of the idea of committees sitting when the House is not in session. We did enough of this in September, some committees even earlier than that, to prove that it is worth while.
This very day the House is sitting morning, afternoon and night. I am a member of an important standing committee that is also meeting morning, afternoon and night. It just does not make sense, especially when one realizes that other meetings and obligations have to be crowded into the same day. When this is the case, committees suffer. Committees could do better work if we arranged for this kind of provision. It is not necessary to do this only by having committees meet during our summer recess. I think the idea of the House adjourning for a week every four, five or six weeks, whatever period might be worked out, so that committees can carry out their work is good.
In this general vein I agree with the position of the hon. member for Peace River that we should study the work of our committees. I think we should be encouraged by the useful steps we have taken and by the progress we have made to believe that we can go on to make it an even more effective part of the parliamentary process.

I hope the motion now before us will be agreed to. I am not sure whether the member for Peace River said it today, but he certainly said it last Friday, that when committees want to travel they should make a case for it. There should not be a series of blank cheques to permit committees to travel any time the chairman or members of that committee get the notion. I believe all parties are agreed that we should not go high, wide and handsome in the matter of committee travel. Surely in the case of this particular committee it is something that is desirable.
I also have my question about the state of the federal-provincial conferences and whether they have been useful in the last two or three years but surely the constitution is still a major problem in this country. It is still a valid proposition that the people of this country ought to get involved in that consideration as much as possible.
[DOT] (12;20p.m.)
Ideally, we should call a constituent assembly, but this is a complicated matter and when we would have the time for it I do not know. Is it not a step in that direction to have a committee of Parliament meet the people of this country? The committee has made a start in the travels it has undertaken already and I think it should be encouraged to continue rather than discouraged from making further trips. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that if the committee simply sat here in Ottawa and rehashed its various prejudices concerning the constitution it would be rendering no greater service than the federal-provincial conferences have done in the last two or three years. To my mind, its usefulness lies in the fact that it gets around the country and meets the people, and I believe it would be unfortunate if it were not permitted to carry through the program it has outlined. In my opinion refusal of this permission would be an act of unfairness, an act of discrimination against those parts of the country which have not yet been visited.
One of my hon. friends says the committee has made only one trip. Even so, it was an important one. It went all over Manitoba. I submit that the experience of the committee in Manitoba and the Yukon demonstrated the usefulness of journeys of this kind. Granted the importance of Manitoba, the rest of the country is important too, and in my view the committee should be encouraged to go on with its program as requested in the report it made at the end of last session. I speak today with less sense of disagreement with the hon. member for Peace River than I did last Friday, because I believe he has become more reasonable; he has softened his approach. He is that kind of a man.


Gerald William Baldwin: I read my own speech. It made me a lot more reasonable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is a man
with whom it is a pleasure to negotiate the activities and business of this House, and having stated the feelings he has about the rules and about our committee system he will not, I hope, stand in the way of the committee being given the authority which it seeks. Certainly we do not
October 15, 1970

object. We think it should possess this authority and that the motion as it appears on the order paper should be supported by the House.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the particularly significant motion now before us. We have agreed to hold this debate today because committees are becoming ever more important.
Mr. Speaker, we recognize the usefulness of committees for the study of bills referred to them by the House. We also admit that it is necessary for committees, particularly for the one that will be entrusted with the study of the constitution, to travel across Canada in order to better understand the problems and find more suitable solutions.
We agree that travelling across the country is necessary to meet the people who have briefs to submit or suggestions to make regarding the programs brought forward by the government.
However, I am wondering what the members of what we call 'the other place" have to do with the establishment of the committee with which we are concerned at the present time. I do not see very well how the honourable senators can make a worthwhile contribution to committees established by the House of Commons, since they are not the representatives of the people but were appointed by the governments in office.
Some may disagree with me, but I believe that the House members on the various standing or special House committees are well qualified to gather all the information required from the experts appearing before such committees.
Committees are important due to the fact that, in the course of their proceedings, either in Ottawa or elsewhere, the members are able to question experts on the matters of concern to them. The establishment of the Committee on the Constitution of Canada is justified since in the last few years federal-provincial conferences have been dealing with the problem of the Canadian Constitution.
The last one brought us back to the starting point by suggesting that there should not be a new constitution but that the present one be amended instead, and the Committee is asked to study the report containing those recommendations.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to endorse the proposals of my hon. friend, the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in connection with the simultaneous sittings of the committees and of the House.
In view of the fact that the Committee on the Constitution will have to leave the House about one week every month from now until the end of June, the fact that it wifi often be away is going to deprive the House of the contributions of a number of members.
It must also be kept in mind that several other committees will have to travel. For instance, another special
Constitution of Canada
committee, the Committee on Pollution and Environment, will require its members to travel across the country in order to see for themselves the problems caused by pollution.
Moreover, the members of parliamentary associations have to travel during the year. As a matter of fact, the NATO Parliamentary Association for instance is to meet in Europe in November. On that occasion, several members will be away from the House.
In view of the proliferation of all those committees and associations, I am wondering whether the role of the House is not being suppressed progressively and turned over to the committees. What is more important, the House or the committees? That is the question.
As for me, I maintain that the business of the House should come first and that the business of the committees should never interfere with or duplicate the business of the House.
Furthermore, we should consider more seriously the work performed in the committees. In fact, the task of a committee was to study the housing problem in Canada. A report was presented by its members and a minister had to resign because the recommendations of that committee did not receive sufficient implementation.
I am a member of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. I remember that, on two occasions at least, we were sent to Europe to visit the members of the armed forces, especially in Germany and, to our great surprise, upon our arrival there and before the committee study was completed and a report published, we learned that the government had decided to curtail its military establishments in Europe.
Later on, in September 1969, the committee visited Halifax and the Maritimes to study the problem of the naval forces stationed there. Once again, to our great surprise, while visiting the navy buildings, we learned that the government had decided to scrap the airplane carrier Bonaventure. Then we start asking oruselves questions and wondering about the usefulness of the committees if the government does not even take into account the reports which they submit.
I hope that the travelling which the committee on the constitution might wish to do throughout Canada, will be useful and that the government will have at least enough sense not to take a decision before the committee report has been presented to the House.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks, I should like to echo the very suggestion made earlier by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to the effect that it would be advisable for the House not to sit for one week every month, so as to enable every committee to sit and so that the members of Parliament may not have to run from one committee room to the other or from a committee sitting to the House of Commons.
At the present time, the government may perhaps turn this situation to its advantage because of its heavier

October 15, 1970
Constitution of Canada
representation. However, political parties such as the Ralliement Creditiste and the New Democratic Party cannot sometimes send more than one delegate to each committee, and their members find it quite difficult to follow the proceedings of the committees and of the House. You cannot be at two or three places at the same time. This situation is quite annoying. We are put to task sometimes for not attending committee sittings and this is precisely because we cannot be everywhere at the same time.
I suggest that the government House leader should look into the possibility of adjourning the House from time to time so that the committees may work at full blast and be more efficient.
e (12:30 p.m.)


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada in the last session, perhaps I may be permitted to add a few words of clarification on this subject. I understand the considerations that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has advanced in the House both last Friday and today and those put forward by the other speakers who preceded me. I sympathize with the concern which has been expressed in regard to regulating in some over-all way the travelling done by various parliamentary committees. If I may say so, it would seem to me that this consideration is especially applicable to the standing committees of the House, for which travel is a rather incidental part of their function and their interests. On the other hand, I would submit that the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution is a special kind of committee, not only in the sense that it is a special committee but also because it is one which, by the very nature and essence of its work, must travel across the country to hear the views of the people of this country.
Although I do not understand the hon. member for Peace River to disagree with this, in order to underline the point I should like to refer to the debate which took place in the House on January 26 and 27 of this year, which was followed by the vote setting up the committee. One of the speakers in the debate said:
-I hope this committee will give a voice to the views and the actions of the Canadian people. I hope the committee itself will provide opportunities to Canadians everywhere to make their views heard and have them considered and publicized rather than filed away and forgotten.
A little farther on he said:
This means the committee must hear groups and individuals from all across the country. The committee evidently has this power.. .these public hearings and consultations are necessary to the process of building a real understanding of the problems.
Those were the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), as reported at pages 2818 and 2819 of Hansard.
If I may I should also like briefly to quote the words of the hon. member for Peace River in the debate:
I should like to see the committee composed of members of this House and members of the other place who will travel from place to place in Canada.
Those words are to be found at page 2839 of Hansard.
I mention those statements not because I believe that this is a matter that is controversial but to indicate the general agreement that existed in the House at that time, which was manifested by speakers from all parties, that this committee should be one that travels extensively across the country.
In the report presented to the House on October 7 by the committee, a report, I might add, unanimously adopted by the committee, the request was made that the committee be re-established as early as possible in this session and with the same powers it enjoyed previously, including, therefore, the power to adjourn from place to place.
If I may say so, the committee has been proceeding rather amicably in deciding where it should travel across the country. The committee has already held hearings in Winnipeg, Brandon, St. Boniface, Thompson and Churchill in Manitoba, and in Whitehorse, Dawson City and Watson Lake in the Yukon. We propose in the near future to visit other parts of the country. As one of the previous speakers mentioned, the committee unanimously agreed at one of its early meetings that it would travel one week a month during this parliamentary session.
If the committee is re-established by the House and it should again fall to my lot to be chairman, I should like to say that I would be happy to make periodic reports to the House in advance of the committee's travel, informing the House where the committee intends to go. This would provide an opportunity for comment by any member of the House. I would not, however, like to see taken from the committee, either in form or in substance, the power to adjourn from place to place, a power that the House has already unanimously recognized.
I conclude by saying, in sentiments that I am sure are felt by members of all parties in the House and especially by members of the committee, that this is a matter of great importance to the people of Canada and to us as Members of Parliament. It is a matter that is too important to the country to be left to the unguided decision of Members of Parliament, politicians, and lawyers. It is a matter that ought to be brought to the people; and it is a matter that this House in the past authorized the committee to bring to all people across the country. I hope that once again the House will extend this power to the committee.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on the motion that is now before the House. I do not propose to take the time of the House to give my views as to how the new committee system is working. May I simply say that I do not think it will ever work until governments wait for

October 15, 1970

committees to make reports before making their own decisions. In addition, the committee system will never work satisfactorily until committee reports are studied and acted upon by the government.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I should like to address my remarks more particularly to two parts of the motion before the House. The Special Joint Committee on the Constitution is asking for the power to adjourn from place to place within Canada and that it be permitted to retain the services of three specialists. I think it is time that responsible elected representatives consider this business of committees travelling across this country. In my opinion, travel by committees from one end of the country to the other has become excessive and out of all reasonable proportions. The cost incurred on these trips is fantastic.
I only need to mention the fact that this special committee studying the constitution made one trip last session, as the former chairman has just pointed out, to Winnipeg, Brandon, St. Boniface, Yukon, Whitehorse and Churchill. On that trip there were 16 Members of Parliament and 14 staff officials. They took with them all the necessary equipment and paraphernalia required at the meetings. That trip cost the taxpayers of this country a minimum of $33,628 because to this must be added the cost of printing and the salaries of the staff that went along, the interpreters and clerks, as well as the advertising and other incidental expenses. These costs are not included in this $33,628 figure.
Somebody might say the staff is paid anyway and their salaries go on whether or not they make a trip. The salaried staff must be paid if they are going to travel all over the country, but we will then require greater staff here in Ottawa to take their places while they are on the road. Therefore we must add the costs I have mentioned to this figure.
If one takes that cost and divides it by 30, it works out to an approximate cost of $1,200 for each person who went on the trip. We in this House represent the people of this country who are now being taxed to death. People will tell us, as they have told me, that they cannot afford to pay any more taxes, they are now paying the limit.
It is time this House took a look at the cost of these committees flitting all over the country. It is quite right that this is a special committee but that is no reason why it should have special privileges to spend money in this way. The former chairman advised the House that the committee proposes to make other trips and I understand there are 42 places they expect to visit during 12 trips across the country. If the cost of each trip amounts to roughly the cost of the one that has been taken, and there is no reason to expect that they will cost less, this committee's expenses for travelling will be over $500,-000-a half a million dollars. I will wait to see just how close my estimate is. I do not think we as responsible representatives should issue a blank cheque to this or any other committee to travel round this country, with
Constitution of Canada
permission to adjourn from place to place. I for one do not propose to issue a blank cheque for this purpose.
Let me deal with the alternatives which would cut down this exorbitant cost. This committee will have to give the public an opportunity to voice their opinions on the Constitution of Canada. It would be well within the relevance of necessity that the committee needs to travel only to the capital of each province. If the committee feels it is not going to get enough briefs and reports as a result of travelling to the capitals of each province, then it could save the taxpayers a lot of money by saying to the people who wish to come to a capital that it will pay their expenses to make an appearance before the committee in that capital. There is no reason the committee should have to journey from Whitehorse to Dawson City or from Winnipeg to Brandon, a distance of approximately 60 miles.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is 120 miles.


Alfred Dryden Hales: The hon. member says it is 120 miles from Winnipeg to Brandon. If a group of people from Brandon wanted to appear before the committee they could travel to Winnipeg to present their briefs at the expense of the committee and we would be money in pocket.
Let us give a little thought to what these things are costing. There seems to be an opinion around here that all we have to do is ask the public for money and the public will give it to us. I tell you that we have done this for so long we are reaching the point where the taxpayer is going to say he has had it and is not going to pay any more.
The committee is also asking for permission to retain the services of three specialists. As a chairman of a committee I realize that committees need staff and special assistants. I do not know why this committee could not obtain help from the Department of Justice. There are people on the staff of that department now on the government payroll who could work with this special committee. If the committee needs extra clerks I am sure there are clerks in various departments of government, now on the payroll, who could also work for this committee.
We know from past experience that committees have hired specialists and we know what they charge. A lawyer will charge at a minimum $250 per day. If you require an accountant he will charge you a minimum of $200 a day for his services. If you add these costs you will have some idea of the expenses incurred to maintain these committees, and what it costs to have these committees travelling across the country.
Let me give you the four highest costs incurred by committees during the last session. The committee on the constitution spent $33,628. The finance committee made three trips which cost the taxpayers $23,837. The regional development committee spent $7,154. The transportation committee made three trips at a cost of $23,432. I have not broken down the costs that other committees incurred last session, but the total was $96,966 excluding

October 15, 1970
Constitution of Canada
the costs I referred to earlier which must be added on. Last year roughly $100,000 was spent by committees on travel. I bring these facts to the attention of the House because I sincerely believe that travelling by committees is getting out of hand. It is costing altogether too much.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
1 am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, are very interested in this because I believe the money comes out of your budget. I am sure you must have felt that it is getting out of hand, is costing altogether too much and that some curtailment will have to be made sooner or later.
I am glad this motion came before the House at the earliest possible time in this session so that we as responsible representatives of the people can give serious thought to the matter before we issue this kind of a blank cheque for this committee. I find I shall not be able to support the motion in its present form. If the committee could say that trips would only be made to the capital of each province and would also set out some sort of a reasonable budget, I would consider agreeing to it, but in its present form of a far-ranging open-ended blank cheque I would find difficulty in supporting the motion.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak in favour of the motion before the House. Before I finish I should also like to make some comments concerning the remarks we have just heard from the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales). Before dealing with his remarks I wish to remind the House that this particular special committee was appointed after urging over many years by various members of the opposition parties including the party represented by myself and the party represented by the hon. member for Wellington. In my view this committee may be able to make-indeed it is probable-a vitally important contribution to the remaking or renewing of our Constitution. In the event that anyone should think this is an impractical proposition, I suggest that the unity of this country may very well depend on it. If anyone suggests that the making or remaking of a constitution is something of an academic exercise without practical value, I should like to say that subjects such as pollution, urban development and so on which were not considered at the time of the making of our original Constitution are the type of practical subjects which require being dealt with in the constitution. Such subjects which intimately affect the government and the welfare of this country are the type of subjects which this committee is asked to consider. I
I believe that however disillusioned the people of Canada may be about the process of constitutional amendment to date it is possible-I do not say it will certainly happen because it may not-that if this committee, which represents all parties and all regions of Canada, can arrive at a consensus it may be able to make a vital contribution by renewing the fabric of unity of this country. I suggest it is important that this be done, and in the carrying out of this function and in doing what is essential to the carrying out of this function the people of Canada must be consulted. I suggest that the
committee cannot consult the people effectively by remaining in Ottawa or by merely visiting the capital cities of the various provinces. I suggest it is necessary to go to the people in order to hear what they have to say.
As a member of the committee I would find it very informative and interesting to hear the points of view of those in the different sections and regions of our country. Travel is, of course, an inconvenience. It is an inconvenience to the people who travel. It involves some degree of expense. It has the effect of depopulating an already depopulated House of Commons when members serve on committees that travel. This is all very true. It is also perfectly true that travel can be expensive. I believe we can rely upon the committee itself to use restraint in respect of the degree of travel. I do not believe the committee would travel for the sake of travel but rather for the sake of consultation with the people of Canada.
I must say I found the attitude of the hon. member for Wellington to be that of a penny-pincher. If this committee does not do a job any money spent on it will be wasted. The committee may try very hard and not achieve anything. This is a possibility. But as long as there is a real possibility that through the process of consultation this committee may arrive at conclusions that are valuable in respect of the future of this country and the remaking of our Constitution, then I suggest the expenses which are being discussed are picayune and trifling in relation to the benefits which could result from the functioning of the committee.
With regard to the suggestion that the committee should confine its travel to the capitals, may I say I happen to represent an area which is the capital of the largest province but I want to say that Toronto is not Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: I wish to say that if the committee should just visit Toronto and listen to the organizations represented there the members of the committee would not hear the full viewpoint of the people of Ontario. I believe Toronto is a very important place to visit and I presume the committee will go there and hear some very valuable briefs. I think, however, the committee should visit northern Ontario and spend some time in Ottawa. I believe there are various parts of the province I represent which ought to be heard from.
I find, Mr. Speaker, that it is close to one o'clock and I shall conclude by saying I hope this House will not place limitations on the motion before the House but will pass it and encourage the committee to do the important job that is being entrusted to it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I found the arguments of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) somewhat superfluous in that no one has contested the purpose of the committee. The fundamental point is the control of

October 15, 1970

committees by this House. I have been a member of the finance committee and other committees and I suggest that the carte blanche demands made by certain committees at the beginning of a session are made without any justification whatsoever. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) might have presented within his report the scheme in respect of these proposals.


An hon. Member:: That was done weeks ago.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was not done to the House. It was possibly done to committee members, but not to the House. I suggest that in a report in which a committee seeks authority to travel it should outline what it intends to do. It is not only a question of the cost involved. I remember an occasion last year when the former government House Leader complained bitterly to me about the travels of some of the committees and the fact that three committees were away simultaneously for some legitimate but uncontrolled purpose.
The point is that there is no co-ordination. Committees simply ask for authority at the beginning of a session, obtain it and spin off like independent satellites. But that is not the way the committees should operate nor is it the way this committee should operate. I suggest that the members of the committee consider dividing the committee into two or even three subcommittees in order to accomplish its purpose. Last summer the finance committee was split into subcommittees and this resulted in much less strain on the committee. Because the number of members was less numerous they were able to participate better in the discussions and considerations than would have been the case had the committee as a whole visited the places which were visited. If this were the suggestion in this case it might eliminate half the objection. May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, before the recess I had been talking about the necessity of the House maintaining control of the committees. My particular objections were to blanket authorization to travel at the beginning of the term. It seems to me that the committee certainly has reason to travel. Many of the committees have very legitimate reasons, and some more so than others. But it must be remembered that the House has control over committees, not the committees over the House. Therefore, if a committee wishes to travel to accomplish its purpose, it should come to the House and explain the purpose of travelling. A committee that has a legitimate purpose will find the House quite receptive to the idea.
Constitution of Canada
It must be remembered that information in the hands of committee members is not information in the possession of the House. The minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committees and their reports reach us three or four weeks later, hopefully in the future much sooner. Therefore 1 say that I believe in this case this embroglio would not have occurred if more information had been disclosed and had been properly laid out.
I have suggested-and I think this may be possible- that the committee divide itself into subcommittees. This will eliminate a great deal of the logistics and of the expense. I would say that it would also improve the performance of committee members who will then be able to participate in the meetings. It is obvious to me from my experience last year and this year, more particularly the meetings last summer of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs which heard briefs in various provincial capitals, that if you have 30 members in a committee and these members want to question the witnesses, they will have to be severely restricted with regard to their questioning. This is the case even when there are only 10 members in a sub-committee. If there were 30 members of the House it would be terribly frustrating in Parliament and as I said in Committee. Also, I suggest that some of the centres which the committee might wish to visit may have difficulty in accommodating 45 or 50 people, as would be proposed. In one case, for example, this logistics train that went out with the committee on its one excursion was almost equivalent to the number of members participating. For this reason, I feel we must rethink the whole matter of committee activities.
My colleagues and I are not opposed to the idea of this committee travelling. I want to disabuse the mind of any hon. member who may suggest that this is so. But we are objecting to the procedure that was followed. This has also given us an opportunity to make some other observations with regard to the conduct and structure of committees.
Last year I heard complaints from the Government House Leader that many times he was not able to schedule the work before the House because the people who were primarily concerned with a particular bill were members of a committee that was off somewhere. At one time we had the ludicrous situation of three committees being away on tours. Of course, this makes work here and in other committees absolutely impossible. There has to be much better scheduling of the activities of the committees. It is not so bad at the beginning of the session, but I must plead for better planning than we had last year when 15, and sometimes 17, committees were sitting on the same day. How can we then be expected to carry on our duties in the House? It is just not possible.
I would also lay down a further caveat, that it should not be permissible for a committee to hold sittings while the House is sitting if the committee is hearing evidence from government officials. If we are dealing with witnesses from the outside, from the public, this can be done for their convenience and as a courtesy which we extend to them. However, in so far as the other hearings are concerned, our duties are here.

October 15, 1970
Constitution of Canada
Some committee chairmen feel that all this is their responsibility and they have become so possessive with regard to committees that they refer to them as "my committee". What utter nonsense! They have merely been elected chairmen of committees and not the leader of-but this is not a senatorial or House subcommittee funded with a great deal of money, as happens in the American Congress. In Canada these committees belong to this House. Each committee has a chairman, and if a chairman feels he must become that possessive then he should certainly be replaced very quickly. In any event, these committees should sit for the benefit of the members and not for the benefit of the chairmen.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
As much as possible, committees must avoid sitting whilst the House is sitting. We have grave staff limitations, and three committee sittings a day pile up the work and the costs. One has merely to look at how the costs of the legislative processes have escalated within the last year or two, and at the demands made on space and on personnel. What is the use of considering legislation in committee if it takes three weeks for the blessed committee reports to come back into this House?
Members of the House do not get the committee reports on time, but all too often the government House Leader has called for legislation to be considered the day after the final committee report appears at a time when no one has yet had a chance to examine the report. Legislation is being railroaded through the House because of these administrative roadblocks.
I agree with some of my colleagues who say that the platooning of replacement members of committees is wrong. We have seen roving squads of members whose chief ability is to sit in on committees, read newspapers, sign letters and at the same time raise their right hands in approval of matters on which they have had no previous experience. These members have not participated in the committee discussions, and are merely present to fill a seat or fill out a quorum. This is quite wrong. Let all members of committees be placed thereon following a resolution of this House so to do and not in the casual slip-shod way now prevailing.
The last point I wish to make with regard to committee chairmen is to acknowledge that there are some very notable exceptions. Chairmen of committees are not supposed to act as chief government hatchet men. They are not the chief proponents of legislation. They are not the chief defenders of government legislation. When they act in that way, they are acting completely contrary to the ,rules. The rules state that the chairman shall preside over the meetings of a committee and apply the rules in the same way as the Speaker does in this House. The Speaker is not an active, partisan participant in the deliberations of this House, and committee chairmen should not be partisan either. The sooner some of the chairmen learn this lesson the more peaceful and the better meetings we will have.
I have reservations about this particular motion in the terms in which it has been drawn. I think this was done perhaps as the result of a misunderstanding. I am not going to vote against it but I have entered very serious caveats. If we had an undertaking from the chairman of the committee that future plans for travelling by the committee will be explained to the House we would eliminate any possibility of further misunderstanding. Certainly other committees should be wiser, and take heed of what has transpired on this occasion.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, if I rise on this motion, it is not to criticize the principles colleagues of mine have put forward on the structure and efficiency of the committees. I agree with the principles mentioned today to the effect that the House must always remain master of the committees. My colleague from Wellington (Mr. Hales) has pointed out, with great eloquence, how much the trips taken by committee members cost. We must congratulate him, as representatives of the people, for wanting to save the taxpayers' money by seeing to it that those trips cost as little as possible.
My colleague from Wellington gave eloquent figures on the expenditures of certain committees.
I do not believe that even one of my colleagues is against the establishment of the committee on the constitution. Insofar as I am concerned, I have been asking for this since 1965, and I am pleased to see that the government has decided to set up such a committee.
I would have liked it better if the discussion on the fundamental principles, the structure, the operation and the deficiencies of the committees had not taken place today on the occasion of the establishment of the committee on the constitution.
Some committee members travel, when they should not do so, and on that score, I agree with the statement made by my colleague from Wellington to the effect that we should, as much as possible, save the taxpayers' money by reducing these trips to the minimum.
Some hon. members suggested that today's discussions showed that our party is opposed to the establishment of the committee on the constitution. If they believe that, they are mistaken and I rise simply to put the record straight. No member of my party is against it, and the less so now that we are going through such a difficult period, now that the federal-provincial conferences have failed to find some machinery to amend the constitution or repatriate it.
During the last federal-provincial conference, the premiers of the provinces and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) discussed some means that could possibly lead to amending the constitution. Unfortunately, nothing has been achieved in this respect.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Personally, I expect a great deal from the work of the Special Committee on the Constitution. In fact, if we can

October 15, 1970

prove to the Canadian people that the committee is as serious as it is believed to be, the committee will perhaps save the Canadian Confederation. The purpose of the committee is to go to the people; I am all for it because I believe in democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to visit Manitoba with members of the committee. We went to various places in the province and I was surprised to find out how much social and public organizations were interested in the Committee on the Constitution.
I was told that among the people we met during the trip, close to 1,000 expressed the hope that the Committee on the Constitution would work seriously to achieve a new Constitution, so that Canadians could live in a more united Canada.
I repeat, the survival of Confederation will depend on the activities and findings of this committee, as there is much thought given at the present time to the structure of a new constitution for Canada not only in Quebec but also in the English-speaking provinces. In fact, when we were in Manitoba, social organizations and young people came before us and expressed an opinion as to what tomorrow's Canada should be. It is the reason why I say that this committee is of paramount importance.
I fully agree with my colleagues who attempted to show that certain House committees travel too much during the sittings of the House. I would perhaps approve the idea put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that it might be desirable to have the committees sit one week every month and the House during the other three weeks. That is a realistic proposal, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, the business of the House must first of all be carried out here, and it is only here that hon. members must make decisions. Out of this debate, the following principle will, I think, emerge: the committees must not have precedence over the House of Commons. Insofar and as long as the House of Commons remains the place where important decisions are made with regard to the country's business, our parliamentary institution will, I believe, be preserved.
I agree with my colleagues that meetings should be held in the provincial capitals. It is obviously impossible to visit all the important localities of each province.
We went to places in Manitoba with a population of approximately 800. Were the purposes of the committee served in this way? Perhaps not directly. Indirectly, however, we did establish contacts with these municipalities and towns.
I agree with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who favours visits to large centres. He suggests that a committee team should be allowed to go first in order to inquire and invite people from rural regions to meet the committee members and to submit briefs. I
I think it is impossible-and the chairman of the committee probably agrees-to visit the most remote areas of
Constitution of Canada
each province. In Quebec, for instance, we could sit in Montreal, go to Quebec City and perhaps Chicoutimi.
There are, however, important towns where we should send in advance a team that would meet people, organizations as well as members of various associations and boards of trade in order to urge them to call on us.
My colleague from Peace River said something very important when he asked the House to adopt this procedure. Moreover, according to the hon. member for Wellington, it would save money.
Mr. Speaker, the former chairman of the Committee, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGui-gan), gave the House the assurance that, from now on, he would submit to the House the schedule of travels planned by the Committee. This sets my mind at rest and if the activity of the committees is supervised by the House of Commons, I am not against the motion. I hope that it will not be necessary to vote on the subject.
I hope that the Committee on the Constitution will be reappointed this session and that newspapermen will understand this clearly. This debate does not mean that our party is against the work of the Committee on the Constitution. I would be very disappointed tonight to hear some newsmen say that the purpose of this debate was to demonstrate that the Progressive Conservatives do not support a Committee on the Constitution. The hon. member for Peace River in good faith has called the attention of the House on the mechanisms of the committees of the House, pointing out that we must think of revamping them to make them more efficient. He also asked those responsible for the committees to cut down their travelling expenses whenever possible.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: We are the ones who requested the appointment of a Committee on the Constitution.


Martial Asselin: Yes, I said that before. As my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) mentioned, it is our party that called for the setting up of a Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution. Therefore we are not here to kill our baby, Mr. Speaker.
Committee chairmen should take into consideration the comments made this morning by the hon. member for Peace River in order to do a good job, while husbanding the taxpayers' money, and report on their activities to the Commons.
If this is the assurance given to us by the former chairman of the Committee, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, I am prepared to support the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Is the House ready for the question?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be as brief as possible since several members, including the honourable member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), have already expressed quite valuable views.
158

October 15, 1970
Constitution of Canada
We are certainly in favour of a study aimed at amending our constitution. We were not the last, when we arrived here in 1962, to ask that the constitution be amended.
Today, we are asked to establish a committee to study our constitutional problems. I feel that before considering constitutional reform we should first find out how the constitution should have been applied.
The federal and provincial governments failed to respect our constitution in the past, and before thinking of amending it, it is important to bear this in mind.
If history proves that we have often neglected to apply our constitution, how can we hope that a new constitution will fare better?
In my opinion, we should first give the people of this country and our legislative bodies the moral assurance that the present constitution has been brought into operation. Unfortunately, past experience tends to prove otherwise. Furthermore, how is it that in the troubled days that we are now living, we can't interrupt our regular activities to discuss the constitution as a matter of urgency while all across Canada, people are making use of radical means of protest?
The committee members are travelling to the Mari-times next week and from what I know, their hotel accommodations and their transportation have already been arranged and witnesses have been requested to appear before committee. Oddly enough, the House has not yet approved their trip.
In my opinion we proceeded too quickly. We are acting according to a plan whose consequence is that instead of pouring water on the very hot constitutional issue we are throwing oil on it. In view of the political situation in Canada, at a time when the Committee on the Constitution is about to leave for the Maritimes and other provinces in order to hear evidence and given above all the critical climate in Quebec, it surely will be a good opportunity for the separatists, the members of the FLQ and other radicals to exploit the situation in order to stage representations and demonstrations, which will be in direct contradiction with the aims behind the setting up of the Committee on the Constitution: to make a logical, serious and objective study. Perhaps the Committee will have to meet in localities where demonstrations with a lamentable outcome will take place.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
I do not wish to be a prophet of doom but in the present circumstances I would suggest postponing the Committee's travels for a few weeks to allow the temporary situation in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada to improve, as I hope it will. I
I quite fail to see any urgency for the motion, although personally I approve of it but feel that because of present circumstances adopting it would be giving revolutionaries and radicals an opportunity to mislead the people as to its purpose.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like in the next few minutes to make a modest contribution to the present proceedings on the establishment of a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate for the purpose of considering the constitution.
Last year it was my privilege to attend the meetings of this committee which were conducted with remarkable ability by the hon. member for Windsor-Wakerville (Mr. MacGuigan and the hon. Senator Lamontagne.
We must bear in mind that the activities of the Committee on the Constitution will not necessarily lead to a complete revamping. The purpose of this committee is mainly to facilitate fruitful dialogue not only with hon. members but with the entire population.
I do not agree with those who claim that any study of the constitution must bring about a new or amended constitution. Above all, what is most essential, is not to impose a constitution on the people, but to become aware of what the people want. Canadians, whatever their origin, must be made to agree to live together in the same country. As for those who expect this committee to give them a new or an amended constitution, they are not helping the people.
The hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) said earlier that he did not approve of the members of the Committee on the Constitution going to the Maritimes. All I will say to him is that, not being a member of this committee, he cannot grasp its importance or its value.
When we had the opportunity, not so long ago, to go to the Yukon and Manitoba, I was the first to realize that I did not really know my huge country nor its problems that are often the same as those of Quebec which is very often held to be different but is not in some respects.
I think that such trips allow us to get in touch with the people themselves and not only with the agencies which represent an important part of the population. What is most important, Mr. Speaker, it is to meet people, to talk with them and to determine what they want and how they want to live in our great country.
I think that this committee is essential, that proceedings should go on just as in the last session. Again, I do not expect in the near future a new constitution or important amendments to it, but I hope that all hon. members are aware that regardless of political parties, we have received a mandate to represent not a party but the people and to try to meet their real needs.
As the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin) said, I also feel quite optimistic and I am convinced that despite the momentary difficulties we are having there will arise a spirit of understanding among all Canadians.
Events now taking place in Quebec are most important and will perhaps make more Canadians realize that we are now living a critical period of our history. Instead of being disheartened, of losing hope, of refusing to face facts, it is important that we, English-speaking or Frenchspeaking Canadians, should join forces to give Canada a suitable structure.

October 15, 1970

In closing I wish to say that I am sure this committee will know how to serve the best interests of the whole population. We must maintain this committee while trying to improve it, because in some respects it does not seem to be equal to the task. I find that too much restraint-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that the matter before us is to decide whether the members of the Committee on the Constitution should be granted the public funds they need to travel across Canada.
I do not think it is appropriate at the present time to reconsider whether the committee should exist, whether we should have a new constitution and how it should be adopted. It seems to me those matters extend far beyond the limited motion now before the House. If the Chair allows hon. members to engage in a substantial debate on amendments to the constitution, we will not get through the debate today.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I therefore suggest to the hon. member for Lapointe, who now has the floor, and to other hon. members who will perhaps want to participate in this debate that, for the efficiency of our proceedings, we should keep to the motion now under study.


Gilles Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I think this warning is quite appropriate and I will merely close my remarks by saying that I wholly favour granting the funds required for the members of this committee to travel throughout the province but such funds should obviously be limited and controlled. Of course, when I said throughout the province I meant-


An hon. Member:: Throughout Canada.


Gilles Marceau: -of course, throughout our wide country since, in my opinion, we should be aware of the problems facing the province of Quebec as well as those in other parts of Canada.
Therefore I approve the whole resolution while I admit that we cannot allow that unduly large sums be affected for that purpose. Although I believe the appropriation is jus lifted, control should be kept over those funds in order to ensure that they be really used for the purpose we are proposing: a better constitution for Canadians.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, being very interested in the make-up of this committee and conscious of its importance, I cannot help but add a few observations on the funds that must be allotted to this committee for a lot of reasons.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of discussing, as you said a while ago. It is not a question of any hon. member doubting the importance of this committee. It is rather a question of establishing its responsibilities. It seems clear to us that Parliament must be able to initiate any decision. I think that this is why some of my colleagues have expressed certain opinions.
Constitution of Canada
I acknowledge, as has been done by many other members, that Parliament must necessarily dictate to committees, rather than be satisfied with the committee's report following its visits.
It seems quite clear to me that some kind of itinerary should be submitted here. Furthermore, this House should allow the committee to hold sittings in the major communities of Canada where representations might be made by local citizens to the benefit of the committee. This committee assuredly needs the support of public funds if it is to collect the best information available all over Canada. Its reports will then be based on information obtained from direct sources.
I am somewhat concerned by the opinion of the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) that the time is not ripe for the House to invite the committee to tour Canada. I believe that the deep dissatisfaction that exists in certain regions justifies the urgent government allocation of the funds the committee needs to start work as soon as possible.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
According to that hon. member, that would amount to giving a chance to revolutionaries. The time has come for us to do something. We have shown enough tolerance with respect to certain freedoms. The government, in the present context, has not only the power, but the duty to take categorical decisions.
It is not by keeping silent, by holding this silence kept for too long, that the dangers facing us will be checked. To the contrary, all hon. members must support the establishment of that committee, in order that it may be given the necessary funds and that it may quickly report to Parliament. Then the latter will have to act as rapidly and introduce either amendments to the constitution or a new constitution altogether. It needs badly to be brought up to date.
With the appropriations available to the committee, it will be possible to come up with a constitution which will take into consideration the particularities found everywhere in Canada and not only in Quebec. Due to the serious efforts which will be made, this constitution will allow Quebec to anticipate the future within a federal system, with the necessary guarantees.
There is no need to mention that the committee has only to look up the documents submitted during the federal-provincial conferences for the past ten years to know exactly what Quebec's needs are. Such visits everywhere in Canada will make it possible for this committee to become fully aware of existing differences. The committee must get the funds it needs to study problems in the field and, having secured all the necessary information, I hope that in a year from now they will propose a constitution through which the freedoms of each individual are respected, and the needs of every province are recognized. We can then build something lasting, that will enable us, to face the future with much more hope and satisfaction than we can today.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.
23226-Hi

October 15, 1970
Constitution of Canada


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on this motion will be very brief indeed. I want to thank hon. members for their participation in this short debate and for raising quite a number of important questions in connection with the operation of the standing and special committees. It is true that in the general opinion of members of the House the changes that have taken place in the rules have meant that the operation of standing committees has become more extensive, both legislatively and in examination of the estimates. It is also obvious that the new role of the standing and special committees has to some extent altered the atmosphere in the House of Commons itself. The general wish, of course, was to give this additional responsibility to standing committees; but it is now clear to all of us who are observing the House of Commons itself that the additional responsibility that has been given to the standing committees and to special committees has had an effect on the House itself.
Whether that effect has on the whole been totally beneficial is certainly something on which opinions will develop as time goes on. It is obvious that as standing committees multiply in importance and in the burdens they carry, the prospects for members attending debates in the House will decrease. It is a matter of regret to me that many important speeches are made in the Commons to a very small attendance.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We are all at committees.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Members are elsewhere, hopefully doing their jobs in the committees. I for one, speaking personally, attach the highest importance to maintaining the House of Commons as the central forum in this country and as the central forum in our parliamentary system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is about time somebody said that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When we enthusiastically gave this new and important role to the standing and special committees, it was with the clear expectation that the role would be developed within the context of our parliamentary system. Certainly, no decision has been taken by this House or by any other authority of which I am aware that would lead to the conclusion that, because of the added importance of standing committees, we have adopted a congressional form of committee system.
It may be

indeed, I am sure this is the case-that the committee system is evolving, that things are happening within the committee system which affect the House and which have not been clearly foreseen or clearly intended, or indeed, may not have been fully thought out at the beginning. There is nothing wrong at all with that. We do want to maintain the importance of the committee system. But at the same time we want to know where we are going, just where this new system will lead us and what effect it is going to have on the House.
A lot of practical questions have been raised about the operation of the committee system, the cost, the logistics, about sub-committees, staffing, sittings of committees while the House is sitting and travel-new questions that have not been fully dealt with. Having myself expressed the opinion that the committee system is expected to operate within the parliamentary system, all I can say is that the House of Commons must maintain its mastery over the committees.
Having said that, I do not for a moment suggest that we turn the clock back. But I do suggest that we move forward in the direction of giving new importance to the committees. We must look at their role in the total context of the parliamentary system. Looking at it in that way, if changes ought to be made in our present system, then they ought to be made clearly and with full insight as to their effect.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and to all other hon. members who have spoken in the debate, and I will certainly undertake to consider with my colleagues the question whether further study should be given by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to the operation of the committee system and where it is going. I want to say, speaking personally as government House Leader, that I intend to attempt to conduct my own examination of the effects of the committee system on our total operations and on the role of the member of parliament in order to obtain some clear idea, at least for my own guidance, as to the direction we should take in the future.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I recommend that this resolution be adopted, with the assurance that the suggestions that have been made will be carefully considered.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, October 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jacques-L. Trudel for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 29), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Fortin (p. 136).
Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words this afternoon about the establishment of a new department of environmental affairs, and I should like to say at the outset that shaping our

October 15, 1970

Canadian environment is the biggest challenge we face in the 1970's. It is a bigger challenge than unemployment. It is a bigger challenge than inflation. It is a bigger issue than pensions or skyjacking or the FLQ. To many Canadians it is a bigger challenge than all of our financial and social problems put together.
There is real urgency here. We have to act on the environmental front quickly and with determination. We have to move ahead of events, rather than from crisis to crisis. Our critical path, in other words, must be laid out ahead of time. We must have a plan to preserve the quality of our environment. We must preserve our wildlife and our fish and our trees. We must renew our renewable resources as quickly and as effectively as we know how.
Economic growth is essential. Social progress must also continue in the 1970's. But their spin-offs must not result in a deterioration of our surroundings. Economic growth and social progress, in other words, must be paced in relation to our environment. They must be managed in such a way as to improve the quality of life in this country.
From now on our emphasis must be on the wise management of our living resources and the elements that support them. Renewability of our living resources-fish, forests, birds, wildlife-and the renewed quality of our water, our soil and our air are the keys to a better future.
Industry, therefore, must keep its poisons to itself. Canada's cities and towns must do likewise. By recycling their wastes and renewing their inventories they can help us to progress on all fronts-social, economic and ecological in the 70's.
Industry's hard-nosed scientific approach has served us well in the past. But it has never been able to solve all our problems. It has had to bend to economic imperatives. Now it will have to bend, increasingly, to environmental considerations. Life in all its forms is too precious and our Canadian ecology is too fragile for us to ignore these environmental considerations any longer.
I do not want to give the wrong impression, Mr. Speaker. I am not talking about a change in direction; merely a change in emphasis. I am not turning my back on economic growth. But I am saying that industry must be more respectful of its surroundings. I am saying that our city planners must be concerned about renewability when they uproot trees and divert streams to make way for streets and modern buildings.
We must be careful for, if we break the chain of living things, entire structures come tumbling down. Wipe out a single species and you undermine an entire life pyramid. You undermine a system which would have gone on reproducing and renewing itself forever.
This is why our modern technologists have to tread carefully in the future. This is why our engineers must insulate many of our new processes from Canada's living environment. This is why we in government must make many of our human activities as neutral as possible- neutral in the biological sense of the word-and antisep-
The Address-Mr. Davis
tic in so far as our fish, our wildlife and our trees are concerned.
Some people, of course, would set the clock back. They would have us go back to the Middle Ages. They would even have us go back to "monkey hill" because they are afraid of modern science, they are afraid of modern technology, they are afraid of the side effects of industrial growth. Progress, in the materialistic sense of the word, is suspect. Apprehension, and occasionally fear, has taken its place in the hearts of many Canadians.
I disagree with those people who fearfully take what I regard as a static approach to these things. I disagree with those who look on our earthly biosphere as a timeless realm in which animals and plants jostle each other in humble harmony. They say that man must fit in, accept nature's limits, reduce his consumption, limit his reproduction, join the Society for Zero Population Growth.
On the contrary, I believe that man can better his lot, improve his standard of living, and still make the most of his environment. I believe that man can improve on nature. I believe that he can renew and replenish our living resources.
I believe that Canadians can build up their fisheries and increase the cut which they take from our forest lands. We can expand our resource base and operate on a sustained yield basis. In other words, we can use our human intelligence to plan and, with intelligent planning, we can have economic growth and a healthy environment as well.
Still, a word of caution as we enter the 1970's. Let us not lose sight of our ecological time scale. Let us not think that ecological changes can be made overnight. Often they take generations. Centuries may pass before a new life species will develop to its full potential.
This is why sudden changes in our environment are to be deplored. This is why industry must recycle its effluents and whole communities find other uses for their wastes. This is why the effects of modern physics and modern chemistry must be cushioned in various ways. This is why we must turn thumbs down on those who would tax the "assimilative capacity" of our local waters and our air. No lake, however large, and no atmosphere however vast is capable of absorbing man's harmful effluents forever.
Take the liquid metal mercury, for example. In its elemental form it is unknown in nature. But man has stripped it of its sulphur. He has released the metallic mercury and shipped it out to industry to use as it wishes.
Industry in turn, has used elemental mercury in an indiscriminate manner. It has been using mercury as if it were going out of style. It has been using it up as if it were a modern raw material. It has been letting metallic mercury loose on our environment without thinking about its effects on our forest on our wildlife, fish and worse still-at the top end of nature's food chain-man himself.

October 15, 1970
The Address-Mr. Davis
Mercury as everyone knows, is a heavy metal. It was supposed to sink to the bottom of our rivers and stay there. But minute bacteria went to work on it. They generated a soluble compound known as methyl mercury, a compound which dissolves in water, a compound which is flushed out into lakes and out into the sea.
Mercury in this poisonous form has also been moving up the food chain. It has moved from plants to fish in the Great Lakes and whales in Hudson Bay. It has shown up in even higher concentrations in the flesh of bird life as well. It threatens the life of human beings who eat fish.
Drifting backward and forward across our man made boundary lines, it has created problems which are not only inter-provincial but also international in character. The danger of poisoning to people has called for various interventions on our part here in Ottawa. We have had to close lakes to commercial fishing and make loans to commercial fishermen. We have had to destroy large quantities of fish and we have had to call upon industry to make amends.
As Minister of Fisheries, last spring I called for a meeting with the top executives in the chlor-alkali industry. I asked them to change their ways. I asked them to recycle all of their mercury bearing effluents within the factory fence. This the industry did, and promptly. Ninety per cent of its mercury losses have now been eliminated. Soon the figure will be 99 per cent! That is not bad going when you realize that we first ran into this mercury thing in the fall of 1969, less than a year ago.
Some of you will remember the famous Trail smelter case in the 1920's which involved air. Fumes from the big lead-zinc refinery in southeastern British Columbia drifted over into the State of Idaho. American citizens there sued the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company Limited in Canada. They forced Cominco to strip the sulphur out of these fumes. And stripping out the sulphur led to the creation of a fertilizer industry. It created an industry which has flourished in western Canada ever since.
This is only one example of an industry which has benefited, in the long run, from a pollution abatement program. Ammonium sulfate is now a major by-product of many of our mining operations in Canada. Not only does it make money for those companies but it also encourages things to grow. It gives impetus to a thousand life cycles and it helps to renew our environment in a dozen different ways.
Look at our big pulp and paper industry. This industry alone is responsible for half of the bulk of the pollution which enters our rivers and streams at the present time. Look what it has done under pressure from our Fisheries Act. New kraft mills have installed settling basins and built biological treatment ponds. Half a dozen of them are said to be among the cleanest mills in the world. They are clean enough for salmon and they are clean enough for the tourist industry. This is a big change from half a dozen years ago when pulp and paper, inevitably, meant pollution and pollution meant a loss of business to the motel owners and the fishing lodges in the areas where these mills were located.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Again, there have been welcome by-products. Canadian engineering firms have shown us how to design these treatment facilities. They have been so successful that other countries have been asking for their services. Sand-well and Company and H.A. Simmons in Vancouver now have contracts in Sweden and the U.S.S.R. They are helping those countries to clean up their rivers and streams. Think of it! They would never have got this work if we in the Fisheries Department had not insisted that our pulp mills must not kill salmon on the Fraser River and that the waters downstream must be fit for any one of us to use for swimming.
Here again, we have shown that our environmental problems are solvable. We have shown that they can be solved so long as government continues to insist that industry tighten up on its housekeeping, that each plant recycle its effluents within the factory fence, and that anything that leaves its property does not unduly burden the assimilative capacity of the water or the air in its local surroundings.
One thing which hon. members should bear in mind is that we have a special competence at the federal level. We have a special competence here in Ottawa. We have a special competence in federal offices and federal research establishments across the country. This competence-this unique competence-is on the biological front. We have Canada's cadre of biologists, engineers with a background in biology, planners with a sensitivity for living things, fish, wildlife, trees, tundra, parklands and so on.
Proof of what I am saying is to be found, not only in the high regard with which our top fish and wildlife biologists are held the world over, but also in the actions of the provinces themselves. Out in my home province of British Columbia, the minister in charge of pollution, the Hon. Ray Williston, deals directly with our regional fisheries offices asking for advice, our forestry pathologists asking for advice and our wildlife people asking for advice. Our regional experts on the biological front are his experts, and let's keep it this way.
The mercury problem in Ontario demonstrates what I am saying in another way. The Hon. George Kerr and Ontario's Water Resources Commission naturally look to us to be the experts on fish and other aquatic plant life like algae. They have all sorts of engineers, economists and administrators. They have a lot of very competent people and they have already done a lot to protect our environment. But the fact remains; they look to us for advice on the biological side, on the living side, on the renewable resource side. It makes sense and I hope they continue to do this in future.
Clearly smaller provinces do not have this competence. Quebec does not have anything resembling a biological research board; Alberta does not; Manitoba does not. Nor are they likely to. Environmental research on the biological side is an all-embracing matter. It cannot be provincialized. It should not be provincialized because our environment is essentially global. Like life itself it is bigger than all of us.

October 15, 1970

Our fisheries and forestry staff is now being supplemented by other competent people. They are being joined by scientists, engineers, resource economists and technicians from the Wildlife Service and from the water resources section of the Mines Department. Add in survey crews which our forestry service sends out every summer and other teams from the Meteorological Service and from National Health and Welfare, and you can see that we in this department are already plugged in to our natural environment. We are already keeping a keen eye on things, locally and regionally from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the high Arctic to the International Boundary Line.
This manpower, backed up by regional laboratories is extremely helpful. But we still need a system of continuous monitoring-monitoring of our water, our air and our soil. We need to know what is happening, hour by hour, to our fish and our trees, to our wildlife and our birds, and to the health of man himself. We should be in a position to publish local environmental indices such as the air pollution index which is being reported, regularly, in Toronto these days.
Like our consumer price index these environmental indices will help Canadians to know how fast things are improving and what effects new industries are having on the communities in which they locate. At the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I stressed the need for action. I talked about a critical path. I talked about a timetable and I talked about getting things done. Here are a few of the highlights which I see us hitting over the next few months. Here are a few of the things which we can do before our new Department of Environmental Affairs is formally set up by Parliament.
First, we can transfer the relevant branches, divisions and sections of other departments to Fisheries and Forestry and begin to operate as a federal unit next week.
Second, I can, privately, name a dozen key advisers across the country. These authorities in the twin fields of renewable resource development and environmental control will meet with me periodically. We will begin to hammer out our guidelines. We will begin the task of mapping our future and roughing out our critical path for the early 70's. Here, then, is our National Environmental Council in embryo. These men and women will form the nucleus around which the government might later build a formally constituted council for the future.
Third, I personally intend to meet all of the provincial ministers who are concerned with pollution and the quality of life. I will go to them; they will not have to come to me. I will visit the provincial capitals asking for advice and talking about co-operation. I will ask our provincial people how they think we should word a new national clean air act. I will be pushing all of them to name water quality management areas-areas for joint federal-provincial management in which our new Canada Water Act can apply and soon.
Fourth, we will shortly be releasing our first nationwide standards under the Fisheries Act. These regulations will be brought in industry by industry. Starting
The Address-Mr. Davis
with elemental mercury and phosphorous we will move quickly into pulp and paper. Already our regulations dealing with effluents from the pulp and paper industry have been drafted. Next week we will begin discussions of them in all their detail with the provinces and with the industry itself. Some further editing may be required because we want these regulations to work. But they will be proclaimed before the end of the year and they will then provide national norms which new mills must surpass and to which old ones must move during the 70's.
Fifth, we can do more, much more, under the Canada Shipping Act. We can get a lot tougher with tanker owners and the oil companies. We must set up revolving funds to look after those who, through no cause of their own, are hurt by oil spills and the like. And we must have task forces standing by in case of future crises like the Arrow and the Irving Whale.
Sixth, we can launch more high priority, government-industry sponsored research projects similar to the one I recently announced for the pulp and paper industry aimed at the development of new processes for treating their effluents in a satisfactory way.
Seventh, we can encourage and provide as much information as possible to local societies whose aim it is to clean up their surroundings and make proposals for action to the government.
Finally, a word about perspectives. Our tiny earth is rocketing through space like a capsule. Clearly it is self-contained and self-sustaining. Biologically speaking it can also be self-regulating. A million life cycles are pulsating within well defined limits-limits set by the earth's own eco-system. These life cycles are linked and interact with each other in a million different ways.
In the past things seemed to work reasonably well. Now, however, some sand appears to be getting into our gears. Like moondust, this sand is barren. It is inorganic. It is inanimate. It is non-living. It is non-renewable. Worse still, this sand is sometimes anti-biological in nature. It can destroy life. It can wipe out entire species. It can strip our gears. It can mess up our food chains and it can even poison man himself.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
This sand is the product of man's own inventiveness. It is being created by our chemists and our physicists. It includes radioactive waste, chlorinated hydrocarbons and metallic substances like mercury. It is being turned loose in our sensitive biosphere.
This sort of thing has to stop. It has to stop immediately. This is why industries will have to clear their new products in the future, and this is why industry must recycle its effluent. This is why old factories and our existing cities and towns must become as antiseptic as possible. This is why we need to co-operate at all levels of government in Canada. This is why we also need a new department of environmental affairs to work at home and to work with other countries in our crusade to save man from himself.

October 15, 1970
The Address-Mr. Davis
I hope I have convinced you, Mr. Speaker, that shaping our Canadian environment is the biggest challenge we face in the 70's. We need economic growth but we need a clean environment as well. We need social progress and quality of life. We need to renew and revitalize. We need to put the accent on the living rather than the dead.
This is why I urge all hon. members to support us in our initiatives to pass a new clean air act and put more teeth into the Canada Shipping Act during the current session, also to support us in setting up a new department of environmental affairs in Canada, the first national department of its kind anywhere in the world.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Would the minister permit a question?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Howard Lundrigan: Perhaps I may not be permitted to say that what we have heard is the biggest contribution to pollution in Canada of which I am aware in the last couple of years.
May I ask the minister a question? In view of the fact that both the west and the east coasts of Canada, with six provinces directly affected and all of Canada indirectly affected by the possibility of fisheries having only about a five year life span left in the event that we do not get very active and aggressive conservational measures from the federal government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Would the hon. member put his question.


John Howard Lundrigan: My question is coming and it is very simple. Can the minister having given us that gob-bledygook, get around to indicating to the Canadian people, to the House of Commons and to his parliamentary secretary who was just recently appointed, what initiatives the new department of environmental control which will be part of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, is planning to take to protect the Canadian people from the depletion of our major fishery resource which constitutes 10 per cent of the industry producing aspect of our economy?


John (Jack) Davis: The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) is very knowledgeable in fishery matters and he knows-and he knew before he began to ask his question-what our initiatives are. They are several. First, we have, through the North Atlantic Fisheries Commission which involves 12 countries, argued for a sustained yield operation in the North Atlantic. We are trying also by taking the lead at the next Law of the Sea Conference, to make this policy effective, to put fishing on a sustained yield basis and to put the countries which own the shelf areas, and this includes Canadian control over the Grand Banks, in a special position where we will not only have a sustained yield operation out there but where our own fishermen will be on the inside track. It will be the first time in the world's history that we will have had a major fishery with a predictable resource to exploit, and certainly the first time in the history of Canada when our own fishermen will have some sort of guarantee for the future.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact that the North Atlantic Fisheries Commission to which the minister referred has been recommending for five years that initiatives need to be taken and of the fact this commission has proven to be ineffective because it is not at a sufficiently high level to take initiatives, can the minister indicate whether there are any new initiatives to be taken. It has already been proven that the recommendations of this Commission have not been accepted and are not effective. Can he indicate as well-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair has to bring the hon. member to order. His question is quite argumentative and he will have the opportunity to make a speech in due course. So if he has a question to put to the minister he should put it as plainly and as briefly as possible.


John Howard Lundrigan: I do not have further questions to put to the minister but I would like to say that it looks as though the FLQ-


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


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the minister permit one short question? Can he assure the House and the country, and especially the fishing industry of the country, that fishery problems will not be neglected when he assumes his new responsibilities as the minister responsible for pollution. I ask that question quite sincerely.


John (Jack) Davis: I think the hon. member has asked me a very good question. The fisheries service has to remain an integral service in our new department. It has to be regarded by the fishermen, as their service. It will remain intact in so far as I am concerned. It will also have the first call on my time.


John Howard Lundrigan: Why did the minister not refer to it then?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I thought the applause was for me but I guess it was for my colleague, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan).
I was fortunate indeed to find myself following the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) in his remarks to the House concerning his new duties as minister in charge of environmental affairs. I propose to direct my remarks to the same subject.
First, I want to wish the minister well in carrying out the additional responsibilities which the government proposes to give him. Our party agrees with many of the proposals that the minister has made since it was indicated that he would be appointed to this position, and also with many of the actions that he has taken over the last six or eight months in connection with pollution control. We believe that he is concerned, as we all are, with the environment, and he has made an effort to show it.

October 15, 1970

But this afternoon I want to make a critical examination of the situation in which the minister finds himself and of some of the problems which he is facing in asstuning these new responsibilities. I will be pointing out that the minister has been hobbled and hamstrung by the votes and actions of his own colleagues and of the government itself. He is going to have great difficulties in carrying out his objectives. It is with this in mind that I will point out to the minister some of the problems that I see before him and that I hope he can overcome.
First, I should express my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Trudel) and seconder (Mr. Douglas (Assiniboia)) of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and to say it is always a privilege to be nominated to make these addresses.
The government has made three proposals in the Speech from the Throne and in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) comments which followed: first, to re-organize the government structure to create a ministry concerned with the environment and to bring into the Department of Fisheries and Forestry several sections from other departments; second, to bring in a clean air act or some similar legislation described in the list of legislation as "air pollution legislation"; third, to propose amendments to the Canada Shipping Act with relation to pollution.
I must say at first that I agree with the necessity for such legislation. With regard to the creation of a department through which to consolidate pollution control efforts, we on this side have been pressing for this for some time now without too much response from the government or the Prime Minister until pressure from all sources began to build up. For example, on April 29 of this year, as recorded at page 6411 of Hansard I asked the Prime Minister the following question:
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
May I ask the Prime Minister if he intends to designate a minister to co-ordinate pollution control activities?
The reply was:
-we do assure co-ordination of pollution activities in a variety of ways, cabinet committees being one of them.
Immediately following that, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate asked the Prime Minister if consideration would be given to having the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry "co-ordinate all activities relating to pollution control, which is now under four or five different ministers." I quote Hansard:


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member very much for the suggestion which I must say is not very helpful.
There was a very definite answer, that he did not really intend doing anything about the consolidation of pollution control efforts.
Early this year, it became obvious that there were two views within the government on how to approach the question of water pollution. One was proposed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) who was tied to the Canada Water Act, and who rejected absolutely the principles of adopting national water quality standards, of requiring internal pollution control
The Address-Mr. Aiken
inside the factory fence, and of placing parliamentary restraint upon the export of water. I will deal with these aspects of the problem later in detail.
At the same time, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry was making speeches around the country, in which he seemed to be of the opposite view. He seemed to be accepting those views which the Opposition was then presenting, and I must say that the public was indeed confused. I would hope that some of the confusion has been reduced, but I doubt it and I intend to show why.
On April 13 of this year, I asked the Prime Minister if he could clear up some of the problems within his government, and which appeared to be coming out to the public, by asking him, as recorded in Hansard of that date:
In view of the provisions of Bill C-204 which was given first reading on Friday and which effectively passes control over to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, has a policy decision been made that administration of water pollution control in Canada should be given to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry?
The Prime Minister replied:
No, Mr. Speaker. Control is divided between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is responsible for the application of the provisions of the water act and the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.
I then asked:
Might I ask the Prime Minister which of these ministers is responsible in the case of a conflict between inspectors under the two acts?
The Prime Minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will give us an example of a conflict I will answer his question.
Of course at that time I could not engage in an argument, but I am doing it now. At that time the Prime Minister did not seem to know that there was a conflict, and apparently he did not intend to do anything about settling the conflict. Now, apparently, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has won the struggle, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will have the administration of the Canada Water Act taken away from him. I do not say this is basically bad because I do not really think the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry will be inheriting anything very helpful when he gets it. However, that is the situation now.
Following the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's statement, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry wasted no time in repudiating the policies adopted by the government and, I may say, Parliament as well by virtue of a majority of votes in the last session. As I have already said, I have a great deal of respect for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and I incline more to his views than to those of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on some of these basic issues.
But, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask, where does the government stand as a government responsible for making policy decisions on these issues? It is not good enough that the Prime Minister supports one view today and another tomorrow, or that he supports one minister today
166

October 15, 1970
The Address-Mr. Aiken
and another tomorrow. How can the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry hope to proceed expeditiously in water pollution control with some of these major decisions already made, voted upon and recorded, opposite to the views he now expresses?
The first thing is money. The Canada Water Act and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources both foundered because the government would allot no money for pollution control efforts. That minister had to back and fill in an effort to make it appear that the government was doing something. He was sacrificed on the altar of expediency. Is the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry any better off today? There certainly was no indication that he is, either in the Speech from the Throne or in the Prime Minister's remarks.
There is a second difficulty related to the export of water. This issue was placed squarely before Parliament on June 3, 1970. Two members of the opposition, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), each had motions before the House asking that no water be exported from Canada without the approval of Parliament. Surely, that was not an untenable view, but their motions were voted down by the government majority, as recorded at pages 7689 and 7690 of Hansard. It is interesting to note that voting against those motions were the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Prime Minister, all of which seemed to indicate the government was taking an attitude that it would not concern itself with Parliament in respect of this matter, and that the issue of the export of water was one on which it could exercise some flexibility. We now find that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is taking a definite view on this issue, and I may say that I agree with him in principle.
As recorded in the Globe and Mail of October 10, 1970 the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry laid down four basic rules regarding water resources. The first was:
Don't export water to the United States because it will never be possible to cut off the flow.
We agree with this. This was the suggestion we made last May and June when we tried to sell it to the government, but by its vote in this House the government rejected that idea. Where does this leave the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry? There has been a parliamentary decision on the issue, which is going to be very difficult to overcome.
There is another problem here, and again a decision was made by a vote of the House. Time and again during the debate on the Canada Water Act in the committee, in the House and outside it, the opposition pressed for the adoption of a set of water quality standards which would be applicable across Canada. The government just as stubbornly resisted.
In this connection, I wish to quote two comments made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources during the committee proceedings on February 2. The first is to be found at page 1:14, as follows:
A national standard would be a licence, and a free licence, to pollute.
Again at page 1:15 he was recorded as saying, speaking as a Minister of the Crown:
In our opinion uniform standards would not be in the best interest of achieving the highest quality of water all across Canada.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
That is what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said just a few months ago on behalf of the government. On June 3, 1970, as recorded at page 7691 of Hansard, there was a recorded vote in the House on a motion moved by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) which read in part as follows:
Forthwith upon the coming into force of this Act, the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the Minister, shall establish water quality standards for all clases of water in Canada.
That is a clear statement of policy and of intent to establish water quality standards. The government, including the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Prime Minister voted against this motion to set up water quality standards.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was two-faced.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: That position was established and adopted by the government and, even worse, by Parliament by a majority of votes. This is the position. We can reverse it. Nevertheless, we shall certainly wonder if the government today is against establishing water quality standards all across Canada and is in favour of such a course. I want to go farther and quote what the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry said on September 23 in Toronto. I shall read from his own press release:
So there is a great deal to be said for national standards. There is a great deal to be said for standards which apply to Canadian industries from coast to coast. Each new plant will have to meet the same set of criteria. They will not be able to seek out 'pollution havens' in some of our weaker provinces. There will be no local cesspools and the game will be the same regardless of where a firm is operating, in Newfoundland or B.C.
I agree with this position. This is exactly what we spent the whole of the last session trying to promote, in connection with legislation then before the House. It is almost exactly, word for word, our position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: But they got rid of Whelan.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: We voted on this in the House, and national standards were turned down.
The minister also said this in another speech, in Courtenay, B.C. His speech, I think, was similar to the one he made in Toronto.
Why should we buck national standards which will force other parts of the country to clean up as well? Pollution havens in the East won't help our economic growth in the West. Nor will any lessening of standards, locally, in one part of B.C. help the rest of the province to develop as it should.

October 15, 1970

Again, we agree. Yes, we agree. Pollution havens were what we feared during the debate on the Canada Water Act. Pollution havens were what we feared when we moved our amendment to establish national water quality standards. Those amendments were turned down in committee, voted down during the report stage and again voted down on third reading. Now, the minister has come along and said, "But I agree."
I am not trying to make the government look ridiculous-which it is. I am trying to point out that it is faced with a technical and difficult problem. It adopted a policy, as did Parliament, in connection with this matter. How are we to get out from under and reverse ourselves? We could reverse ourselves; the House, of course, could do that. It is the gentlemen who are in the majority who must reverse themselves, because they have already cast their votes and voted down our amendments. I say that not only is this ridiculous, but it makes the job of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry extremely difficult.
Before sitting down, I should like to twist his arm a little more, and rub his nose a little in what has happened. I sympathize with the minister. He has said what we, sitting here, have tried to encourage the government to say. We are glad that the minister has now said the proper thing. But where does that leave him in the light of the views he has expressed and the way he has voted?
I want to talk now about what is called the factory fence rule. I am glad the minister mentioned it today, because I do not think I need go any farther than I am about to go in my explanations. This is one of the things we pressed for throughout the hearings connected with the Canada Water Act. Although the act is foggy in general, one of its provisions permits an industry to dump pollutants into water, upon the payment of an effluent fee. The degree of effluent discharged may be open to argument; nevertheless, the principle is there. We, on this side, were trying to establish the principle that polluters should clean up pollution within their own boundaries, within their own factory fences, and that they should not be allowed to pollute by paying a fee for polluting.
Here, again, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has been promoting exactly what we have been promoting, the factory fence rule. However, it did not tie in with the principles of the Canada Water Act. I pressed, as did my party, for the recognition of this principle: that factories, and particularly new factories, should be required to contain within their boundaries their own pollution. We recognize that there are problems with some existing plants but see no reason why new plants should not be required to contain within their own boundaries their own pollution. I moved an amendment to the relevant section which would have prohibited new plants coming into operation, after the Canada Water Act became effective in any area from dumping pollutants. It would have required them to maintain the pollutants within the factory fence. Again, the government rejected our amendment, using its majority both in the committee and in the House. Here I must say this for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry; although he was present for the first three
The Address-Mr. Aiken
votes, he was not present for the last one on this matter. It is fortunate that he was called out of the House, because this point is the one that he himself has been pressing so strongly.
On September 26, 1970, which is not very long ago, after having had his colleagues vote against this particular rule, the minister said:
Perhaps I should make my own position clear at the outset. It is in favour of recycling within the factory fence. It is on the side of treatment before discharge.
...I believe that modern industry wants to clean up. I know that our pulp and paper industry, for example, is prepared to build new plants which incorporate the best anti-pollution devices known to mankind. These should be a requirement in any new plant. They should be a requirement regardless of location.
The minister again today repeated this position, which we support. He mentioned it in several other speeches of which he has been kind enough to send me copies. So, this is the position: most of the amendments that the opposition moved in the first part of the last session were justified and correct. We wanted to consolidate the department and make sure somebody was in charge of pollution control. The Prime Minister, while resisting this for a time, has now accepted it, and for that I give him credit. Secondly, the minister has adopted most of the major program that our party put forward in its proposals on the Canada Water Act last year. I suppose we should not object to that. We are certainly glad that the proposals we have made are now being accepted.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I raise the question, where does this leave the minister? This is my main point. Where is he going to get the necessary money? It is all right to say the polluter must pay. We agree in principle with this, but it is not realistic to say that the federal government does not have to spend any money. This is the position the government has taken for the past year. The government says it will spend no money, the polluter must pay.
I hope the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is able to pry a little money from his colleagues the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the Prime Minister because he is going to need it. If the minister wants support from our side of the House, we undertake to give it because we think he needs some funds. There must be a new approach by the government to pollution control. I hope the minister has been successful in persuading his colleague to accept the point of view he has been expressing for the past two weeks. If he has, it is a good start because it is a complete adoption of the policies that we have been proposing.
In conclusion I wish to point out that pollution control will not be achieved, and I am sure the minister realizes this, by shuffling offices around in Ottawa for the next six months, as necessary as that may be. I know that he will be hamstrung for some period of time until he can get his new organization completed.
The minister, after reorganization, unless the government moves to pull him out of the situation in which he
23226-12J

October 15, 1970
The Address-Mr. Osier
is now, will be strangled by inconsistent policies, restricted by adverse parliamentary votes, and deserted from lack of funds. He can look to this side of the House, as in the past, for support of good efforts toward pollution control. I hope his colleagues will at least do the same in a meaningful way.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say how very fitting it was that the member representing Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) and the member representing Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) were asked to move and second the Speech from the Throne that started this debate. I cannot think of anything more fitting, both from the point of view of the character and abilities of the men involved and from the historical note that one senses when one says "Bourassa" and "Assiniboia".
These two names cannot help but make every member conscious of the great heritage that has come from French Canada and spread across the rest of Canada. The area of Assiniboia, the country of the Assiniboian, was opened up by people who could not have been born very far from the constituency of Bourassa. Assiniboia is the name that commemorates that country of the Assiniboian which was opened up by these men. I just wanted to remind hon. members of the very fitting nature of the selection that was made.
In these days of crises that we seem to be going through, that may or may not be very serious and which may last for a long time or a short time, it is fitting to remind hon. members that we in Canada are very lucky. We have every reason to be proud. Regardless of the ups and downs of the financial situation and the ups and downs of the popularity of the people involved, our Canadian armed forces can be relied upon always to do their job at a moment's notice. We have seen that just this week. There is not the slightest doubt in anyone's mind that they are capable of carrying out the rather touchy assignment that requires cool heads and tough minds.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) spoke very well and contributed greatly to the debate. However, the underlying thrust of his thought seemed to be the allegation that changes had taken place, but the taking place of change and the ability to change policy in itself seemed to be bad. I am not debating whether these changes have taken place or whether there has been a change in policy. I certainly do not think that if policies are changed they should be labelled as expediencies because, thank God, policies have changed ever since the first man developed the first policy.
There have even been changes in the Conservative party. One hundred years ago they had giants like Macdonald, Cartier, Galt and McGee.


Mr. Whelan:: Now they have midgets.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Changes do take place, Mr. Speaker. They take place all over Canada. Canada is a federal state, as we all know, with ten provinces. It is a state with six regions, a fact we sometimes forget. We seem to be getting mesmerized by this federal-provincial business that seems to go on all the time. I do not want to decry
the provinces in any way, but I do not think they are pre-ordained instruments for representing a particular region's point of view. Indeed, in some cases they have been, up to now, often negative toward Canada as a whole to such a degree that they could be labelled by a disinterested observer as parochial.
The people of a large metropolitan area, burdened down by very heavy property taxes, yet unable to find adequate financing for the urban improvements that must be made, derive little comfort from watching men on television advancing esoteric arguments as to whether the federal or provincial authorities are responsible for their problems. A Maritimer, bogged down by an unacceptably low level of employment opportunity, fails to see the merit of a tight money policy designed to cure inflation in Toronto or Vancouver.
In my own Prairie region we have many problems that I would like to speak about, but I will confine myself to one example. It is not particularly inspiring for us to know that according to DBS figures the city of Toronto alone can offer job opportunities in the civil service equal to 85 per cent of the opportunities available for the entire Prairie region. Our population in the three Prairie provinces is approximately 18 per cent of the total population of Canada, yet we have about 12 per cent of the civil service jobs. Without descending to the level of parochialism, I suggest we would not be realistic if we were to suggest that those on the Prairies who wish to serve in the civil service have equality of opportunity with those in some other parts of the country who wish to do the same.
Another situation I want to decry, and this cannot be laid directly at the feet of provincial governments, is the phenomenon called economic separatism. It is practiced by various provinces which allow between 5 per cent and 10 per cent "protection" to local industries in connection with tenders over which they have control. This practice could almost be said to constitute economic suicide on a national scale for it encourages artificially the spread of a product's production geographically regardless of efficiency. This, in turn, means that production as a whole, especially in similar units of secondary industry tends to be uneconomic, that prices tend to be unnecessarily high. This, again, penalizes both the consumer at home and the manufacturer who is trying to compete on the export markets of the world.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
In addition, it militates against the less populated provinces because it becomes almost mandatory for a small, expanding company to locate in a rich, highly populated provinces so that it may get a chance to bid on that province's "controlled" business. Thus, the central provinces, and possibly British Columbia in some cases, get new secondary industries which should perhaps, from a national point of view, be established elsewhere. Moreover, a great deal of the good which the federal government is seeking to do through its Department of Regional Economic Expansion is negated.
Economic separatism is parochialism of the worst sort. Some way must be found to stamp it out. I bring forward

October 15, 1970

this point of view, Mr. Speaker, only to show that we shall not get equality of opportunity by dickering on television with ten provincial premiers, no matter how long the process continues. It may accomplish other things, but I do not think it will accomplish that.
There are other situations which give rise to despondency if one happens to live outside the magic central circle. Our banking system, for example, originates in this House, as I understand it, but we in the west feel that the branch bank system which has been set up in Canada militates against us, though it is efficient and good in many ways. I would say that it militates against the Maritimes and the Northwest Territories in the same way. All the savings of the people of this country are siphoned into the two central provinces where the head offices of the various banks are located. To be sure, some of the funds are re-invested in the outer provinces but nowhere near the percentage one would hope.
Then there is the whole question of transportation. It is amazing to me that the Transport Commission, a federal agency, should seriously be considering an application by the Canadian Pacific Railway to eliminate or cut down the serv.ee provided by its one remaining transcontinental train. From the point of view of executives of the company, secure in their headquarters in Montreal, I suppose this seems a good idea because, they say, passenger train service no longer pays. But if we look at the statistical summary of the affa.rs of this company provided by the Financial Post we find it had total assets, back in 1885, of $158 million. Two years ago they had increased to almost $3.35 billion, an apparent increase of more than 2,100 per cent. The real increase is far greater, of course, because there are all sorts of spin-off investments which do not show up to their full value in the balance sheet. And in the same period, shareholders have received dividends amounting to more than $1,455 million.
Now, I am not one of those who think profits are a sin. I do not believe Canadian Pacific has done a bad job for Canada. By the same token, Canada has not done a bad job for the CPR. As a minor shareholder in the company I can rejoice in a personal way at its success but I cannot help wondering what is going on when they have the nerve to appear before the Transport board in an effort to get rid of their one remaining transcontinental train. Indeed, the Canadian Pacific seems to be trying to get rid of all its trains. Freight trains can be eliminated by educating customers into a realization that almost any other method of shipping goods is speedier and more reliable. Passengers can be eliminated by insisting that they are irrelevant. One way of doing this is to computerize the reservation system and then rig the computers to show that no space is available for sale. If you do it right, it is easy to prove that there are no passengers and thus no requirement for trains. I am not suggesting that this is, in fact, what is being done. I am simply suggesting that there are a number of ways in which the demand for trains can be eliminated.
Once a railway company embarks on such a program, if it keeps up its courage and insists on following it
The Address-Mr. Osier
through, it ends up in an ideal situation. The company retains its real estate without the inconvenience of actually having to run trains. In the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway-and I am not suggesting I am familiar with the long term aims of this company-we now have a very effective corporate entity which insists it can no longer afford to run its one remaining cross-country passenger train. As an alternative to outright abandonment it suggests the federal government should help it run the train three days a week. I do not think this is a very good idea. It sounds very efficient, but both the travelling public and the wellbeing of the work force involved are supposed to be the scale against which we value things in this country. I venture to suggest that neither Canada nor the CPR will go broke if by some mutually acceptable formula The Canadian is kept running on the same basis as it is today.
I mention this matter, Mr. Speaker, because it is a peculiarly western problem. You see, after all, it was 25 million acres of western land which was given to this company in the first place, a generous gesture by the federal government of the day when there were only three or four western members who might have queried the arrangement in Parliament. At that time the federal power still had jurisdiction over the natural resources of the west. In the 'thirties control over those resources was turned back to the western regions. But we got back our natural resources less 25 million acres, whereas the $25 million cash subsidies which the east advanced were ultimately repaid. It also happens to be provable statistically that more western Canadians use the CPR facilities on a passenger mile basis than do people in other parts of the country. So, the deal which was made with our land is being reneged on and I am appalled to find that a federal agency should be considering such a proposal as is now before it.
There is another feature of this matter which interests me. If we are going to wheel and deal in real estate, why should the CPR, a soulless corporation though perhaps a fine one, be allowed to reconsider the terms of a land deal made some 85 years ago? We ought not to forget that the Indians and the Metis, the original Canadians of this country, also made land deals at about the same time, yet no one has thought of allowing them to renegotiate, even though their deals turned out to be at least as unprofitable to them as have passenger trains to the CPR.
To change the subject, we are all happy to note the dramatic improvement in the wheat situation, thanks especially to Lift and the exigencies of nature in faraway places.


An hon. Member:: What has Lift to do with it?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Edmund Boyd Osler: You have been talking to different farmers from the ones to whom I talked. Anyhow, my point is that for the first time in years there has been a federal initiative taken to do something more than just tell people to cut their own throats by growing everything

October 15, 1970
The Address-Mr. Osier
that they can. Whether this is an absolutely ideal program or a program that is somewhat less than perfect, it is at least a program that has been partially successful.
I hope the members of the opposition will agree with me completely when I say that since we have Ottawa and the bureaucracy thinking constructively for once about the problems of the wheat farmers in the west, then let us keep it that way. These are problems that Canadians as a whole should be concerned with, just as much as Canadians as a whole were concerned with the problems of the textile industry, an industry that Parliament has been asked to bail out on a temporary basis until it finds its feet again. I contend that the Prairie farmers have to rationalize their operations, and trying to be funny about it is not going to help.
Once long ago one of the Fathers of Confederation called D'Arcy McGee prophesied that the hodge-podge of small colonies and vast territories comprising British North America would one day become a great northern nation. "For such it must become", he said, "if all of us do our duty to the last".
At the time he made that statement some people felt that we were outgrowing the Constitution, and they were trying to put together a new one. Whether or not we should be trying to do the same thing now is difficult to say, but it is a question that we should examine and that we are examining. As I said before, perhaps we should carry it on at the federal-provincial level, though so far the progress made has to my mind been very minimal. I suggest that the most promising level is that touched on earlier today by, I believe it was, the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin). I refer to the level that examines the relationship of individuals with their federal institutions. From the little I have seen as a member of the constitutional committee, this is a very promising avenue for our attention.
It is abundantly clear that a major source of the so-called alienation we are always hearing about is to be found in this relationship between the federal government, the central government, and the people of the country. Here I am not talking politically, speaking as a member of one party to another. This relationship has nothing to do with the other dialogue that is going on between the provinces and the central government, nor has it ever been adequately articulated by the provincial premiers during the three years they have been involved in constitutional review.
As I read the message of the people which I have heard so far, it seems self-evident that there is a viable Canadian community and Canadian personality manifest in our diverse cultural heritages and in our concern for the well-being of other Canadians. But our common institutions have, at least until recently, in their opinion appeared to be letting us down.
The federal position stated in "Federalism for the Future" is that the constitutional debate should review the rights of individuals before embarking upon a review of the rights of governments. From this, it is argued that we need a constitutional charter of human rights, and so on and so forth.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with this argument; it is a good concept. But with or without such a bill, many people today feel profoundly that as inhabitants of a particular region they are not being adequately heard in the centre, Ottawa. If this feeling has justification, then it shows that we must not only be concerned with human rights; we must also be concerned with federal institutions, which should be reformed regardless of what may happen as a result of the other dialogue between the premiers and the Prime Minister.
I am not talking about the merits or demerits of any particular federal party at this point. I am saying that in Canada we have a unique situation: we have a federal state that was set up about 103 years ago which positively guaranteed that there would be a preponderence of political power in the hands of the most populated regions.
The provinces of Ontario and Quebec dominate the federal-provincial scene. The sitting members from Ontario and Quebec, most of whom are very worthy members-I am not talking of personalities now-dominate the federal House of Commons. Indeed, these two provinces elect some 60 per cent of the sitting members. Therefore, I think it is little wonder that people are asking whether their message is getting through. They are not talking necessarily in the personal sense; rather they are talking of the fact that they have not greater muscle in this federal House that is theirs.
I think this was anticipated. In the days leading up to confederation both D'Arcy McGee and Alexander Galt recognized that "rep by pop" would not by itself be enough to cement Canada into a strong federal state. They suggested that there should be a Senate which represented Canada regionally on an equal basis. The Senate has perhaps not fulfilled the expectations that were originally invested in it, and I would say that this is because it is neither elected nor anything but a servant of its master, which is the House of Commons. Thus, how can it represent regions effectively? Personally, I think we should look very carefully into Senate reform. I do not feel that those who simply say we should abolish the Senate are advancing a very worthy or telling argument. I think we have to take a very hard look at Senate reform, because we have to have better and stronger representation on a regional basis.
If members of the House of Commons do not like the idea of Senate reform-and I can see all sorts of reasons why they would not like an elected Senate, which I think is the only way the Senate would be given muscle or credibility in the country-then it is incumbent upon them to put forward a better idea. This is an area that must be looked at and examined very closely.
One point that was made over and over again as the constitutional committee travelled across the country was that the Canadian people need some form of regional representation; and with the exception possibly of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, which have natural boundaries of their own, the other provinces are not getting it. In this I include the province of Newfoundland. Until we find some way of letting the people in the

October 15, 1970

under-represented areas lose their feeling of alienation, I suggest we will not have the kind of Canadianism that we want and for which we all hope. The future of Canada will be found by developing our north and our west, not by multiplying the pollution of lower Ontario and upper Quebec. Since I see here a member from the region, I add that the same argument applies to Newfoundland and Labrador, all along the undeveloped northeast as well as the northwest.
At the same time it is highly unlikely that these areas would ever have populations exceeding the populations of Ontario and Quebec. Thus, the north and the west, if they are to be developed and the people who live there are to feel that they are part of the ball game, must be given effective muscle at the federal level regardless of the pressures created by "rep by pop". The alternative is to keep them permanently in the state of colonialism that they suspect they are in now. There is no need for Canada to play this colonial game for, as Canadians, all of us have the right to equality of opportunity regardless of where we live.
As the Prime Minister declared only last week in the Speech from the Throne, we can change Canada if only we have the qualities and the will. Let us start here at the centre and get on with the job. No one but ourselves can stop us.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, it is already the 3rd session of the 28th Parliament. Some people are still under the spell of the great show of 1968 when there appeared to lead the Liberal party and, later, the government, the youngest old Prime Minister Canada has ever had. A nervous, swinging bachelor who a few years before had been denouncing the Liberal herd being led to the slaughterhouse, became Number One, the saviour, the long-expected messiah. "Get ready, everybody, the just society is on its way!"
The extollers are still ecstatic but the people are still waiting. They are waiting for something to be done. They certainly want the "just society", but most of all, they would like it to become a reality.
The great fight against inflation of which the government is so proud leaves the population cold. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) may rejoyce and claim that he has won the day, but the man on the street wonders if he will still have a job tomorrow, if social welfare will look after his family better, if his dairy products will sell or if there is really any future in our immense country chock-full of resources.
He also wonders where the great battle of bilingualism and biculturalism will lead. In spite of what he is told about the advantages of democracy, he realizes to what extent it is mocked. Vanity, the excessive remoteness the government enjoys so much make it absolutely indifferent to the opinions, suggestions and action of the opposition. Yet, each hon. member has the same right, if not the same power. More than half the population is against the party which now runs the country. Our parliamentary
The Address-Mr. Matte
traditions are anti-democratic. It is disguised dictatorship! Particularly when the chief will not stand any criticism and will accept and follow only what suits him.
Mr. Speaker, needless to point out that an active and objective opposition is necessary. But long and serious consideration must be given to its co-operation. By systematically rejecting all solutions suggested by other parties for the false motive that they do not originate from the Liberal party, the government is making fun of the people themselves.
An actual return to democratic processes will be required to prevent other dictatorships from taking over. Obviously, adopting the establishment of a just society as a slogan implies recognition of the existence of poverty, disparities, injustices, things that must be made to disappear from our society. It is not enough to make use of an election campaign slogan. All previous governments wanted the same thing. The importance given to the slogan will not help solve the problem of poverty, social disparities and individual injustices of which our population is victim.
The attitude of the present government, which is first and foremost that of the Prime Minister, moves further and further away from the objective. An out-and-out socialist, having taken pleasure in following on labour platforms his former friend Michel Chartrand in order to stir up the workers against the Duplessis regime, editor of a so-called advanced magazine, Cite libre, where he worked with Pierre Vallieres, the author of Negres b lanes d'Amerique, finally, an inveterate globe-trotter who liked especially Russia and China, the right hon. Prime Minister does his own thing at all costs, and the recent recognition of Communist China is but a pale reflection of all the leftist and communistic projects he had in mind.
This spoiled child, unable to stand any remark, blaming Tom, Dick and Harry, the press and members of the Opposition, of whom he says they are worth nothing at 50 feet from the Parliament buildings, may not be the cause of all our frustrations, but he is one of the main factors. His adamant and off-hand manner will soon exasperate all the right-minded people in this country. It may seem cruel to utter such words but they reflect pretty well the feelings of a lot of people who are fed up with the fine words, the social antics and the childish and rambling outbursts of our Prime Minister.
People look down on us. They say: "These little Creditists with their financial obsession". But truth is not the monopoly of the great! We are conscious of reflecting the opinion of the small people. More and more, all classes of society look upon our proposals more objectively. The false and dishonest propaganda that has been conducted against us has prevented certain groups of people to consider seriously our theories. We are making great strides in overcoming this handicap. We are confident that soon the majority will agree, at least, to give a serious test to our economic system.
We want concrete suggestions. We do not have reserved rights on our doctrine. We would be more than happy to see the government steal our best ideas. All we want

October 15, 1970
The Address-Mr. Matte
is to bring to the population the lull freedom of the human person. "Make financially possible what is physically workable" is not an election slogan and much less a meaningless propaganda, but a concrete solution to the basic problems of our society.
With unemployment at a record high, who can claim there is a shortage of manpower? With all our natural resources, raw materials and everything we need as a base for production, who can question the unparalleled wealth of the country? Finally, with all the talent required for planning, programming and implementing, who could dare claim that our colleges and universities are empty?
With all these assets it is simply ridiculous to sit and wait for capital. What better security to issue our own credit than all these priceless assets around us? By what right do bankers and other high finance figures hold us at their mercy? Only the right we are willing to grant them. Unfortunately, to date all governments have been swapping their birthright against a mess of pottage.
It is pitiful to see all our public institutions creep and crawl before capital and capitalists. That is the problem, Mr. Speaker. Bloated interest rates, spiralling prices, in short inflation, result from the stupid lack of judgment jealously nurtured by the Establishment which, in order not to stray from the established order continues to rush in the blind alley of the present financial system.
Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the House the specific points of greater concern to the people of the Champlain constituency which I have the great honour of representing. Needless to say that all I have said until now is a reflection of the feelings expressed by the people of my constituency. Dissatisfaction is almost general. Farmers realize that everything is going to pot. The leadership given by this government with regard to dairy production is an open war against small producers who are being wiped out. The average producers are hard-set to keep going. If they exceed their quotas, they will be denied subsidies; if they increase their output, they are punished. What is left for them to do? As for the big producers, they are overworked. Because they have to hire employees, their income is reduced accordingly. What is left for them to do also? This befuddling situation is far from improving, especially when the Prime Minister, on one of his many trips, promises that New Zealand cows will soon be supplying butter to Canada.
The condition of the workers is hardly better. Industries are getting scarce in the Champlain constituency, and all the municipal authorities are quite astonished to find that, with the exception of Sainte-Marthe-du-Cap, no other municipality is recognized as a designated area. Resolutions on that subject submitted by the cities of La Tuque, Saint-Tite, Sainte-Thecle and several others had no result. Fortunately the tourist industry is developing. The swimming race called "les 24 heures de la Tuque" was once again a big hit this year. But to organize it, it is still necessary to overcome big financial difficulties. The tremendous initiative of the population should be encouraged by a substantial grant. The same
situation exists in Saint-Tite where the greatest "western" festival of eastern Canada is held at the end of the summer.
Mr. Speaker, this brings me to mention the national park of the St. Maurice Valley. I was very pleased to hear that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) had signed last summer an agreement with the Quebec government for the development of that park.
The whole thing was done very quickly and took us nearly unawares, at least as far as I am concerned, as I received the kind invitation to attend the signature of the agreement only the day before the event, when I was in Edmonton at the Social Credit convention to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the Social Credit government of Alberta.
I suspect that the minister acted very quickly in order to quell the mounting pressure brought to bear by the committee that wanted the park located on the east bank of the Saint-Maurice River at Great Mekinac Lake.
The choice of site No. 1 is quite questionable considering the following factors: First, this site is not so much to the advantage of the St. Maurice Valley residents; it is a sort of dead end as it is not on a specific scenic drive; second, development costs may prove exorbitant because of land expropriation, access roads and a bridge needed to link the area with the upper St. Maurice Valley; third, it is doubtful whether or not that park will become profitable because tourists stay in such parks only when located along a scenic drive. For instance, while touring the Gaspe peninsula, they will stop over in the Forillon park. While touring the Lac Saint-Jean area, they will stay for a while in the Laurentian provincial park. They will get to the Abitibi area by going through the La Verendrye park. That is why it would have been logical to include that park in the scenic triangle formed by Trois-Rivieres, Shawinigan, Grand'Mere, La Tuque, Roberval and Quebec.
I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I am not insisting on a site in my own riding, for the limits of that park lie for the greater part within the Champlain riding. It is a question of chosing a site that is really advantageous for the whole population of the St. Maurice Valley area. I feel that no really serious study has been made about the possibility of another site. The explanations given to date by the minister are not satisfactory and I should like him to enlighten us in this regard.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues in this House, I should like to voice my bewilderment over the recent distressing events in our country and, in particular, in the province of Quebec. However, this does not surprise me much. For many years too many leaders have been hiding their heads in the sand and have turned themselves into a challenge before the eyes of an impatient youth. Loose living in our society whose ideals and morals are declining, is too often encourager by the government itself. Very bad examples are set for our young people. The life of two hostages is at stake. Everyone at this time realizes what a precious asset life

October 15, 1970

is. However, quite cheerfully, two years ago we voted for the massacre of thousands of human beings by agreeing in principle to the abortion legislation. And to think that we are not satisfied yet and that now we want abortion on request! What an example, Mr. Chairman.
Recognition of homosexuality between consenting adults is not edifying either. The dream of the right hon. Prime Minister to legalize marijuana is another very sad prospect. The Quebec movie industry jumped, just like that, without warning, directly from "La Petite Aurore" to Danielle Ouimet's buttocks, with the support of the Canada Council.
Pop Festivals are authorized and degenerate into bad taste affairs. And I skip a few, Mr. Speaker.
Such decadence is revolting. Therefore, many young people no longer believe in our society. This is extremely unfortunate, but we are all somewhat responsible, particularly those now in office. Let us berth the boat which is on the verge of running adrift.
Authority will no longer be flouted once it has regained its integrity, its unselfishness, its fairness in brief, when real strides have been taken towards implementation of the just society.
[DOT]	(4:30 p.m.)


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) for their excellent speeches.
As a former member of the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Penitentiaries I, of course, have a very intense interest in penal reform. Perhaps this may not be a very appropriate subject to bring up at this time, but I shall speak on it in any event. I feel that a disproportionate amount of the time of the House is consumed on more glamorous and popular issues of the day with the consequence that the public is not made fully aware of the government's policies and the progress that has been made in this most important humanitarian field. The whole question of penal reform has been plagued not by a positive opposition but by a tradition of apathy and indifference. In any democracy where powerful segments of society compete for the public eye and purse, it is most difficult for a very small chorus clamouring for prison reform to be heard and answered. Therefore, at every chance it is of the utmost importance to articulate forcibly the need for reform and thereby gain public support for the implementation of same.
[DOT]	(4:40 p.m.)
For those in our society still clinging to the philosophy that a prisoner is incarcerated as punishment or for the protection of society and is beyond redemption, the cold economic argument that penal reform whereby more prisoners can be released more quickly with a consequential saving to the taxpayer, has much appeal. Let us explore this argument.
The Address-Mr. Tolmie
We are spending over $70 million to improve the quality of our federal penitentiaries. In addition, there is the enormous operating cost of our present facilities. It costs this country approximately $3,500 a year to maintain one prisoner, and when you add the cost of keeping his dependants as well as the loss of his productivity while in prison, it is estimated that it costs this nation about $6,000 a year per prisoner. We have about 7,200 inmates in federal prisons alone. Thus it is clearly evident that if correctional reform reduces this prison population, a tremendous saving will accrue to the Canadian taxpayer.
In my opinion, transcending this monetary consideration as a reason for penal reform is the humanitarian concept that society as a whole has a moral responsibility for a minority of its members who, in many cases, for reasons of heritage, fate and environment beyond their control, have become outcasts and a menace to their fellows. As a nation with a social conscience we must endeavour to restore their self respect and lift them from their degradation. As the concern for this small helpless group matures and flowers a most beneficial result can be achieved. In penal reform, this stirring in man's conscience of the realization that the more fortunate must help the less can grow in wider human relations until man acknowledges that the strong and successful elements in our society have a duty and responsibility to the weak and unfortunate. Thus, on humanitarian grounds alone correctional reform is a most worthwhile objective.
The relatively recently recognized concept in Canada of a rehabilitative approach as opposed to an exclusively custodial system is now the cornerstone of the federal correctional policy. Thus, the entire philosophy of the federal government is directed to achieving the optimum degree of treatment, and the basic objective of the correctional system is the attempt to reform the offender and return him to society as a reclaimed, productive, integrated and law abiding citizen. My further remarks will show how this and former governments have had a systematic comprehensive program to effect these results by wielding the weapons, among others, of new physical facilities, increased training programs, research commissions and aftercare services such as probation and parole.
The new Penitentiary Act brought into force on April 1, 1962, represented a complete revision that was intended to be consistent with the enlightened rehabilitative approach to the problem of penitentiary operations. It completely re-organized the administration and set up the three main regions of Quebec, Ontario, and the western region. The Atlantic provinces were organized as sub-regions.
It was soon recognized that present facilities were not adequate to carry out a comprehensive program, and the government is now involved in an extensive program of institutional construction. A ten year program was started in 1963 and it is proposed to furnish each regional penitentiary district with the following basic facilites: one, a reception centre; two, a special detention unit; three, a maximum security unit; four, medium and minimum facilities; five, a psychiatric unit; six, prerelease hostels to help those inmates who are nearing the end of

October 15, 1970
The Address-Mr. Tolmie
their sentences and who require assistance in re-establishing themselves in the community; seven, a staff training college; eight, institutional facilities for narcotic drug addicts both male and female.
In every institution there will be a program of activities which will comprise the following elements of the corrective process: one, employment at a purposeful occupation during working hours; two, leisure time-a program for physical education and recreation; three, religious facilities; four, contact with families and social agencies; five, education-library services, vocational training, elementary and higher education. Programs are being developed with the aid of medical and other agencies, such as the Narcotic Drug Foundation.
The question may be properly asked: the government has this new concept and grandiose plans, but what has been accomplished since 1963, the starting date of this ten year program? First, two special correctional units have been completed. Two maximum security institutions have been completed. No further maximum security institutions will be constructed until the operation of the present ones has been thoroughly studied. Four medium security institutions have been completed and are now in operation. The reception and the psychiatric centres are in the detailed planning stage. The Drug Addicts Institution in British Columbia is operating with almost 100 inmates under treatment. Four prerelease centres are now in operation in our larger cities. The Mountain Prison addition is complete. A new staff college has been built for the Quebec region, and temporary accommodation for one in western Canada has been arranged.
In addition to the facilities planned, a vast program of officer training has been operating for some two years and is rapidly expanding. No correctional officer goes on duty in a penitentiary with less than three months training, and courses for officers already in the service are available at the staff colleges.
Thus, this brief resume of physical and training facilities indicates that the government has made marked progress in attaining its avowed goal of humanitarian correctional reform. Of course, the construction of physical facilities is only one aspect of reform in the correctional process, and in order to make reform meaningful the whole broad subject of criminology must be constantly researched and reviewed.
The subject of probation and parole is an integral part of correctional reform. The basic question is, following the conviction of an offender does his and society's best interest require that he be incarcerated or can the process of reform be better achieved on probation within the community?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Statistical evidence shows that the proportion of offenders sentenced to prison in Canada is much higher than that of any other civilized country. For example, in 1953-I do not have later statistics-England and Wales sent 34,000 people to prison and in the same year Canada sent 98,000, or nearly three times as many as a country
with twice our population. This is something we should really consider more seriously.
Slowly but surely the importance of probation is becoming recognized as a well tested method of accomplishing the objectives of criminal law without sending the accused to prison. Plain economic considerations should dictate support for expanded probation when it is known that the annual per capita cost of keeping a prisoner in a penitentiary or in a provincial reformatory is about $3,000, compared with approximately $250 for an offender placed on probation.
Much greater latitude must be shown by the federal and provincial governments in regard to probation. A step forward could be taken by the federal government by amending Section 638 of the Criminal Code to broaden the grounds for probation. This would have the effect of changing the present law governing probation which restricts it in the main to the first offender and excludes recidivists from its operation. This is an amendment which should be forthcoming very shortly.
On the question of parole, it should be noted that the National Parole Board has granted parole to more than 16,000 inmates in its first eight years of life. Of this number only about 1,800 had to be returned to prison for violation of parole. The board's average of about 90 per cent is very impressive indeed. Although the Parole Board, within its legislative limits, is doing an excellent job I contend that as yet we are not realizing the full economic and social benefits to be derived from a more liberal program of parole. I believe that the government is considering amending the Parole Act to extend parole or a form of conditional liberation to all inmates leaving prison. I urge the government to take immediate action to implement this most desirable innovation.
Thus it can be seen that the government, to implement its rehabilitative concept of correctional reform, has constructed new modern facilities, appointed investigation committees into criminology, and has tackled the problems of probation and parole. This, of course, is a most commendable record, but as in every area of governmental endeavour errors have been made. Inertia overcomes action, and change is always difficult and painstakingly slow.
Much has been done but much more needs to be done. What about the future? As a member and as a citizen I would like to see a proportion of the money being spent, close to $70 million on the penitentiary service, diverted to preventive measures such as a more vigorous attack, in conjunction with the provinces, on the causes and remedies for juvenile delinquency.
As a member, and as a citizen, I would like to see more money spent on criminal research. Millions of dollars are spent by companies and governments on a whole array of research projects such as drug research, food research, automobile research, and much scientific research. But very little is spent on criminal research. Less than one-tenth of the vast sums of public funds spent by both federal and provincial governments on crime and prisons is used for research.

October 15, 1970

As a member and again as a citizen I would like to see-recognizing the principle that the goal of rehabilitation cannot by its very nature be fulfilled within prison walls by psychiatric treatment, education or vocational training-a concerted effort to prepare the prisoner for return to society. The penitentiary service, as indicated, is establishing community release centres, but I visualize in Canada's future penal system a wide range of hostels outside of prison. From these bases in the community the parolee, probationer, or the prisoner serving an ordinary sentence would go out to work during the day, or to obtain training or education and would return to the controlled conditions of the hostel at night and on the weekends.
Coupled with this approach is the chance for a prisoner to contribute from his earnings to the support of his family, and to demonstrate his ability and trustworthiness as a prerequisite to his being accepted by potential employers and by his future neighbours in ordinary communal life. This radical and exciting approach to our penal system is not new, and as Canada proceeds with its enlightened ten year penal program it should vigorously embrace this half way house or hostel concept.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the recent visit by the Justice Committee to the penal system in the western provinces was most beneficial indeed. It was not a sightseeing tour. We could see conditions personally. We examined the whole administration according to the time allocated, and we found out how the inmates felt. We found out how they felt with regard to their treatment, to their training programs, and to the parole system. I only hope that we will be able to continue these visitations.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Baffle River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say how pleased I am to participate in this debate on the Speech from the Throne, and I join with hon. members who preceded me in congratulating the mover (Mr. Trudel) and the seconder (Mr. Douglas, Assiniboia) of the Address in Reply. I think they were well chosen.
When I came to Ottawa as a Member of Parliament some two and a half years ago, while I was not a representative on the government side, I had the fond hope that the government, with its Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who was certainly a very popular choice of the people at that time would do much to bring prosperity and unity to Canada. That was two and a half years ago. When he campaigned across the nation, the Prime Minister spoke of one Canada. He spoke of the just society. He spoke of bilingualism and biculturalism, and of how they would draw the country together. But at the end of these two and a half years, Mr. Speaker, we have come to the point where the capital city of Canada, Ottawa, is little more than an armed camp.
Montreal, which has the greatest mayor it has ever had, is in a situation where the cost of protective services has risen to something in the neighbourhood of $85,000 per day. Something is wrong. We have riots and bombings and treason. These are everyday occurrences, everyday words in Canada. Articles in the newspapers today and yesterday mentioned that attacks were threatened
The Address-Mr. Downey
against our national railways and airlines. We have reached the situation in which a person with a somewhat unsavoury or doubtful background, in any event, is in charge of Information Canada. That is one of the most important positions in the country. It has been alleged that FLQ connections may go right into the ranks of government. This is the Canada we have today, two and a half years after all these glorious promises.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


James Aloysius McGrath: What a mess.


Cliff Downey: This degeneration has been aided to some extent by our legal system and its permissiveness throughout the years. There is a permissive interpretation of the law. Yesterday I sought to move a motion regarding the reinstatement of capital punishment. Acts of terrorism were encompassed in the wording of the motion. The progressively permissive interpretation of the law during the past six or eight years has made necessary a reaffirmation of our stand on matters of this kind.
I believe that capital punishment was last carried out in 1962. Since then 35 or 36 policemen and prison guards have paid the ultimate price for their service. There have been over 2,100 murders since 1962 and almost as many attempted murders. God knows how many policemen have actually been shot at; and when you are shot at, that comes very close to what could be called murder. At times our Prime Minister talks in a very tough way. He says what he is going to do, but from the other side of his mouth he often says, "Every man should do his thing." That is just what many who cause trouble are doing-they are doing their thing. We have had strikes. Some of those strikes have caused our economy grave harm and have harmed our image around the world. When one looks at the combination of all those things I have mentioned and considers some things I have not mentioned, one can safely say that Canada is like an apple rotting from the inside.
A few minutes ago the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) talked about the Lift program. I imagine that the Lift program is one of the greatest sources of embarrassment with which this government has to live. One year ago the pessimistic minister who is in charge of the Wheat Board introduced the Lift program in this House and portrayed a dismal future facing the grain trade and agriculture in general. Now, less than one year later, we have made so many grain sales that it is doubtful whether our carriers will be able to carry the grain to delivery points. One wonders about the type of information to which certain people have access. What information leads them to make a choice like this, for example? I have some figures before me. The Canadian Wheat Board made a survey in connection with 4,000 elevator agents in the west and found that 161 million bushels less of cereal grains were stored on farms than had been estimated for that period by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The DBS report showed that there were 115 million bushels of barley on farms. The Wheat Board's estimate was 72 million bushels. For oats, the

October 15, 1970
The Address-Mr. Downey
DBS figure was 106 million bushels and the Wheat Board figure was 64.3 million bushels. How could decisions be made on these kinds of figures?
We have now reached a situation in which there could well be a shortage of feed grain. If anticipated deliveries are made and if certain figures are in any way correct, we shall reach the situation in which there will not be enough grain to feed the cattle and livestock of western Canada. This is happening less than one year after the government said it would pay the farmers to cut back on wheat production. Actually, in nearly all cases the payments have not been completed. This, Mr. Speaker, is something that cannot be forgiven easily. Although some money was pumped into the western economy as a result of the summerfallow program, the net result of our not growing grain is that there is a disaster, because what has happened is like a crop failure for the farmers of the west. We desperately need an optimistic and far-sighted minister to look after our agricultural affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cliff Downey: We do not have such a minister.


An hon. Member:: But we certainly need one.


Cliff Downey: I can imagine what would have happened if legislation such as the Canada Grain Act amendments and Bill C-197 had been passed by the previous Parliament. That legislation would have been held up by the government as the saviour of Canadian agriculture. Government members would have stood up and told the people that these bills were responsible for the sales we have made. The truth is that it took only a little change in nature to turn the situation around completely.
I believe the Speech from the Throne mentions that the marketing board legislation will be reintroduced during the present session. I think there is a place for this measure. I desperately hope that the minister has listened to the representations made to him and that he will come forward with a bill that will permit producer representation on marketing boards. We do not want them to be controlled by what is strictly a government agency. If that were to become the case, I say that with all the pessimism and inaccuracy which has been evident in connection with the administration of the Lift program we shall be in dire straits indeed.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In my area there has been talk of removing some railway services. At present there is a question as to whether several passenger train runs in Alberta will be removed. The bulk of Alberta is not included in the designated area program for regional development. This is difficult to understand because there is no industry there. The people of these areas cannot understand why they have not been designated, when so many other areas in Canada with much more industry and many more attributes have been. The riding of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), which has a great deal of industry, is designated. It is hard to understand why through

equalization payments these people must help pay for the liquor strike that occurred in the province of Quebec three years ago. Very few people in that area realize that equalization payments to the tune of $80 million are being made to the province of Quebec to make up the deficit in that government's revenue caused by the liquor strike of three years ago. Until there is better equalization and greater understanding on the part of the government, unity in Canada will be an impossibility.


Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorkion- Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join other hon. members in congratulating 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. Although the hon. member for Assiniboia and I are from the same province, I cannot find quite as much optimism on the Prairies as he does. In this Speech from the Throne there are many similarities with the first two Speeches from the Throne by this government. It is very long on rhetoric but very short on substance and any specific action the government intends to take. I for one, am very tired of the old cliches, platitudes and rhetoric.
In my remarks today I wish to cover a number of issues that I think are important. I shall deal with matters of vital importance to people in my constituency, the agricultural industry and the whole western economy. I want to deal with over-all conditions in Canada and try to determine why we are faced with so many problems. I shall talk a bit about foreign ownership, unemployment, the rights of women-a subject we are hearing very much about-poverty and violence, something that is now a reality in Canada. During the past summer I had an opportunity to spend several weeks in my constituency. I travelled around from farm to farm. I visited farmers on small and mixed farms, people who are not well-off economically. I discovered something that I had not experienced before, a feeling of depression, not only financially but spiritually.
I welcome the fact that the government is anticipating larger grain sales. I think all the people of western Canada welcome this. I hope the government is right in saying that we have some of the largest potential markets this year. The people of western Canada would like to know what portion of the 700 million bushels of grain sold is wheat and what portion is other grains. The farmers have a right to know. They also have a right to know how much of these sales constitute firm commitments, so they can plan for next year. I think the hon. member for Assiniboia will agree with me when I say that the farmer does not know what is going to happen next year or the year after. There does not seem to be any type of long-range planning. This is apparent from the past record. When speaking to the farmers in Winnipeg in June of 1968, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, "Grow all the wheat you want and we will sell it." The farmers listened. They are efficient; they have grown a lot of wheat. In November, 1968, the Prime Minister said, "Why should I sell your grain?" In 1970 the government introduced the Lift program which pretty well forced the farmers to take wheatland out of production.
October 15, 1970

There has been a big change in a year and a halt. Now the government is saying Canada has some of the largest markets it has ever had for grain. I ask the government once again to be considerate and to tell the farmers what is really happening. Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) stated that Lift is the instrument which obtained all the extra grain sales for us, if in fact we have made many extra sales. I suggest that Lift did not have anything to do with it. There will be larger grain sales because of international circumstances, crop failures, drought and things of that sort.
I think the government overestimated the inventory of wheat in this country. They should realize that now. The government is in a very fortunate position because the farmers did not co-operate to the full extent and 50 per cent of the wheat acreage was planted this year. Also, the crops were good. Therefore we have enough grain to meet the increased sales and for domestic use. In a patronizing and ironic way through the use of operation Lift, the government has been very fortunate. I do not think, however that the farmers of western Canada can really forgive the government for the attitude it has taken on this question.
Many members from both sides of this House have underestimated the real economic value of the western farmer. Not only is the western farmer suffering, but in a province such as Saskatchewan the whole economy is suffering. When driving around the province it can be seen that a whole way of life is being threatened. The small villages, towns and cities are affected. It is a natural phenomenon because farm income has dropped by over 50 per cent in the last couple of years. People are not buying as much as they used to, construction is pretty well at a standstill and people are moving out of the province.
Places like Yorkton, with a population of some 14,000 in the 10 or 12-year period prior to 1968 almost doubled their population. In the last year people have been leaving and the population has probably dropped by 400 or 500. This is the story of many communities of that size in Saskatchewan. It is basically the young people who are leaving in search of better opportunities. They are found in almost every walk of life, young workers, professional people, teachers and people hoping to get into business. Left behind are the people who are trying to struggle on the farm.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Someone said the other day that the average age of a Saskatchewan farmer is 57. This is perhaps the oldest average age of a worker in any industry. Those older farmers who do remain on the land are often left behind on farms which are small and uneconomic. What we need in Saskatchewan is planning. Farmers on the Prairies need a guarantee that when they plant a crop they will get a market for it and a decent price. There are many efficient farmers with the reserves needed to carry out an effective operation. There are many others who have the desire and the courage to make a success
The Address-Mr. Nystrom
of agriculture. But they need planning from the government and some extra help.
The other day I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) one or two questions about the fate of the report of the Barber commission on farm machinery prices. Action along the lines recommended by that commission as a means of lowering the price of farm machinery is urgently needed. In the past few years, while the price of grain has gone down the price of farm machinery and the cost of living generally as it affects farmers have steadily increased. This is the reason for the unrest in western Canada, for the expressions of western alienation. The difficulties which the west continues to encounter cannot be ignored by the government simply because it has been able to announce extra grain sales for the balance of the year. A lot more than that is needed.
Mr. Speaker, a debate on the Speech from the Throne gives hon. members an opportunity to discuss Canadian affairs generally and to consider what direction we are taking. A couple of years ago during the election campaign, the Prime Minister was talking about building a just society, reducing regional economic disparities, wiping out poverty and, above all, building a society in which there would be participatory democracy. It seems to me that 2\ years later there is greater dissent and more uneasiness than ever before.. We see this among young people who are dropping out of society, joining various youth cultures and ceasing to care any more. One senses this spirit of dissent among ordinary people when visiting door to door or farm to farm. People are unhappy about the way things are going; they seem to have lost faith in the future envisaged by the Prime Minister and his friends a couple of years ago.
Among farmers, among workers and among students, dissent is being expressed in an organized manner. We find the women of Canada demanding rights which should be theirs and, of course, we are faced with an outright expression of violent dissent from members of the FLQ in the province of Quebec. The question all of us must ask is this: Why are so many people unhappy? Why are they questioning the society in which they live? Ours is a wealthy country with an advanced technology and all the resources we seem to need. We have a government which is supposed to be liberal, which is supposed to be changing things. Why should so much dissatisfaction exist in these circumstances?
Mr. Speaker, when we take a close look at our economy we find it is one which we ourselves do not really control, that essentially it is controlled by outside interests whose primary concern is not ours. We find that one out of every five Canadians lives in poverty and that one out of every five others lives near the poverty line. We see unemployment reaching a seasonally adjusted rate of 6.7 per cent, the highest for years. We find the air and water around us being pollutted at such a rate that within the lifetime of many of us in this chamber, it is said by some authorities, there may not be sufficient oxygen left for us to breathe. These are some of the reasons so many Canadians today are unhappy and demanding change.

October 15, 1970
The Address-Mr. Nystrom
We, as Members of Parliament, must listen to the views expressed by those who elected us. After all, it is we who have permitted these conditions to occur and to continue. Governments are supposed to look after the affairs of the nation, and responsibility must therefore rest upon us. Moreover, those of us who are Members of Parliament have accepted, over the years, the conditions I have described, many of us in a smug and complacent way. Many of us have sat here using beautiful rhetoric but doing nothing to change fundamentally the society in which we live. We talk of justice, we talk of freedom, we talk of liberty.
In the Speech from the Throne there is a passage which reads: "A society which is not inspired by love and compassion is not worthy of that name." Mr. Speaker, have you ever tried to tell the unemployed or the poor people of this country that the present government is inspired by love and compassion? A number of changes have, indeed, been made. Minor reforms have been carried out. The Criminal Code has been amended; Parliament has passed the official languages legislation which will bring equal opportunity to many more Canadians. The Speech from the Throne announces the intention to set up a department of urban affairs and housing, something which my party has been urging for a long time. I hope this new department can be given real muscle. Recognition has finally been accorded to the government in Peking as the government of China. These are all positive steps and I welcome them, but they represent only minor reforms and the people cannot be fooled into believing the government is doing all it can to meet the serious challenges of our time. It seems to me the government believes in perpetuating the status quo, that it believes in perpetuating a system under which important decisions are made in the boardrooms of corporations motivated by a desire for more and more profit.
What Canada really needs is drastic, fundamental change. We should seek to build a country in which the people not only own but control their own society. This implies a redistribution of power, a redistribution of wealth and services in order that everyone, regardless of economic background or social circumstances may have equal access to the benefits of the society in which he lives. I do not think a change of this nature will be welcomed by many of those in positions of power today in Canada.
Nevertheless, we must democratize our society and this means more than holding elections every three or four years. The people must be brought more intimately in touch with decision-making affecting their own lives. It would be easier to do this if so much of our country were not controlled by foreign interests-mainly, of course, by United States interests. Almost two-thirds of the Canadian economy is foreign-owned. Some industries such as the oil refining industries are owned and controlled up to 99 per cent by foreign interests. What does this mean to the ordinary people of Canada? It means, first of all, that Canada is basically a political satellite, that we cannot make all the decisions we want to make. Second, it means we cannot control inflation nor provide adequate

employment for our people. As long as we remain a branch plant economy we cannot build up secondary industry to the extent needed to constitute a viable economy of our own. Today, Canada is an exporter of raw materials and an importer of manufactured goods. In a situation such as this, full employment is difficult to achieve. Everyone knows there are many more jobs available in manufacturing industries than in resource industries.
Our branch plant economy puts us at the mercy of multinational corporations whose decisions are made in another country. An example of this is the potash industry. This industry, which owns a mine in Saskatchewan and another in New Mexico, had to cut down on production. They cut down to 40 per cent capacity in Saskatchewan while the mine in the United States went on producing at about 90 per cent capacity. As a result of this, Canadians on the Prairies were put out of work.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I suggest, too, that the type of economy we have is not efficient. Each and every year more money goes out of the country in the form of profits and dividends than comes into the country in the form of investment. This is one reason why we must make control of our own economy one of the priority issues facing this Parliament in the next few years. We must regain control of Canada for Canadians. I do not think we can blame the Americans or United States corporations for this state of affairs; it is only natural that they should act in this manner. We have no one to blame but ourselves. We are the only country in the western world with an open-door policy toward our neighbours. We say to them, "Come in and develop our resources, take all you want, take your profits and go home."
This is a situation that we cannot tolerate, one that we will have to change immediately. We can regain control of our economy. Our party, editorials in different magazines, periodicals and newspapers have articulated several ways in which we can regain control of our economy. I am not going to go into those ways here. Members of this party commend the government for the action it has taken in the broadcasting field whereby, as the result of recent regulations, within about one year 80 per cent of Canadian broadcasting will be Canadian-owned. This can also be done with other industries. But we must do more than just talk about it; what we need is real action. I suggest that we have to repatriate the Canadian economy before we can really talk about solving regional disparity, inflation and having full employment in Canada.
There are a number of other matters I should like to touch upon before I sit down. One of them is the reference in the Throne Speech to possible legislation in the area of income and income security. I should like to press the government during this particular session to introduce a bill to implement a guaranteed annual income for Canadians. This is one of the most effective ways, perhaps the only way, to start a real fight against poverty in Canada. The type of social system we now have perpetuates poverty and does not encourage people
October 15, 1970

to better themselves. Perhaps as many as one out of three Canadians live in poverty.
The Throne Speech also made mention of the report on the status of women and announced that during this session we will have in the House a discussion of the whole question of abortion. I should like to see us as a Parliament discuss both these subjects in a very serious way, a way we have never done before. I do not think all men here would deny that there is a double standard in Canadian society when it comes to women. It is a double standard when we do not ask women to come into the decision-making process of this country, to become really involved. Proof of that is found here in the House of Commons, where we have 263 men and only one woman. I must say that the woman we do have in the House of Commons, the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) is a real honour to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The contribution that she is making here proves to me that women can and should be making a much larger contribution in Parliament and in the political process at all levels. I should like to see 100 or more women like the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway in the House of Commons. This would give the House of Commons a much more representative base and it would reflect Canadian society much better than it does today. In order to bring women into the mainstream of the decision-making process, it is up to us to bring down some good, concrete, positive legislation.
In the White Paper on unemployment insurance the government makes mention of things such as maternal leave without financial discrimination. I suggest this is something we shall have to legislate for in Canada. Another requirement for women is day care centres. During the last war, day care centres were provided for those women in the labour force and I see no reason for not providing them today. These are just two examples of measures that we should take. I
I also think that women should be given equal pay for equal work. When we turn our attention to the subject of abortion, I should like to see some concrete legislation result, not just another discussion. This legislation should provide that all reference to abortion be removed from the Criminal Code. Today there are many contradictions. For example, if a wealthy woman wants an abortion, all she has to do is fly to New York or Europe and it can be arranged. However, a poor woman or someone with a mediocre income cannot do that. In other words, you have a double standard. People are being discriminated against. This is a double standard which must be removed.
There are a number of other issues I could touch upon at this time. For example, I think we must take a look at the role that young people play in Canada. We must get our young people more involved; we must bring them into the mainstream of Canadian society. In addition, we must do more to help the senior citizens of Canada.
The Address-Mr. Nystrom
What we really need, then, is a whole series of social and economic changes. People in every walk of life across Canada are growing more and more cynical of the institution of Parliament, of politicians in all political parties. More and more people are asking why we do not pass some really important measures, measures that are important to them, things that are bread and butter issues. Again, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We in Canada possess all the resources that we need. We have sophisticated technology. All we need is Members of Parliament with the fortitude and desire to make real changes.
I do not want to see more and more people dropping out and giving up. I do not want to see more and more people resorting to violence and destruction as the way of telling us that they are not happy, as the way of communicating to us that something is wrong. This does not have to happen and it should not happen. I do not think that any member of this House could condone the activities that have taken place in Quebec during the last week. All of us condemn the actions of the Front de Liberation du Quebec. We have to. Once we accept violence as the way of changing society, we are also accepting the fact that the person with the biggest gun or stick shall rule. We would be saying that the person with the biggest club rules everybody else. We would also be accepting the fact that if another guy has a bigger club, he will rule. We would merely be substituting one form of tyranny for another.
In the present situation I do not think the government should give in to blackmail. However, I feel I should point out that I suspect some backlash is taking place. I sense this feeling among some members of the House and many people in the media. I see this also in newspaper headlines. For example, one headline I saw this morning declared: "FLQ activities drive politicians to the right". Another headline in the Globe and Mail declared: "Spiro Trudeau". What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that there must not be extreme reaction or backlash to the activities of any group such as the FLQ. We must remain cool and rational and keep our senses. The only way that we will confront any type of unrest in our society is by changing our society and showing all types of people that there are democratic methods of changing society in a persuasive manner. This is what we will have to do. I think the words of a past president of the United States, John Kennedy, are very relevant at this time. He said:
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
This is something we must remember. As we react to unrest in our society, whether it is violent or non-violent, let us remember that there are reasons for people questioning the system and institutions we live in or under, and we must make certain basic and fundamental changes. We must do this because 20 per cent of our people live in poverty and thousands of people are unemployed. Millions of people in this country do not have opportunities that are available to a small minority.

October 15, 1970
The Address-Mr. Brown
Canada will have to make some real decisions, because I think we are coming to the crossroad. We must decide in which direction we are going.
We have heard a lot of rhetoric. We have heard a lot of old cliches, platitudes and prose. I suggest that this is no longer good enough. We must get down to the real issues and build a society in Canada that people can control, participate in and reap the benefits. In Canada we must build a democratic socialist society in which everyone, regardless of economic or social background, can participate and play a part. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this be our challenge in the years to come. If all of us in this House of Commons sit down and seriously try to change things and not just talk about them, perhaps we will get a lot further.


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I intervene in this debate in order to deal with two vital matters which in my opinion are linked together and are of great importance to the constituency of Brant. I trust that hon. members will be patient with me while I deal with the first subject which I have on many occasions emphasized in this House. This subject involves a matter which will shortly, I am sure, be dealt with in discussions between our government and the government of my province of Ontario. I refer specifically to the project of the restoration of the Grand River which flows through the constituency of Brant, and especially the restoration of navigation for pleasure craft passing through one of the most scenic and historic parts of the province of Ontario.
This subject should not be laughed at or belittled by any hon. member. Of course, it is not being laughed at or belittled by anyone, but I ask all hon. members to bear with me while I plead the cause of every man, woman and young person in Brant, in the province of Ontario, which I represent in Parliament. The need for an available source of recreation is great. It is great for the large population of my area. We have the Grand River flowing majestically behind the great city of Hamilton where boating is available, the best that can be found in the province of Ontario. It extends far beyond the limits of the county which I represent, flowing as it does behind Hamilton and then past the Six Nations Indian reserve and on to Lake Erie.
The project has been mentioned by many, but I am the one who has brought the matter to the attention of the House during many sessions. The project which I recommend would involve the reconstruction of about five dams between Port Maitland at the mouth of the Grand River and Newport, Ontario, just outside the city of Brantford. Most of this area lies in the constituency which is so ably represented in this House by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), who I am sure agrees with everything I am saying to the House this afternoon.
The recommendation calls also for a scenic highway between Brantford and the mouth of the river. This is a provincial matter, of course, but it is also federal because the Grand River from its mouth as far as Brantford has since early days been regarded as a navigable waterway
[Mr. Nystrom.)
in western Ontario. Therefore, that waterway without doubt comes within the jurisdiction of Parliament. The recommendation I am making calls also for a strip park along the banks of the Grand River, and perhaps the formation of a Sir Frederick Haldimand national park a little farther down the river in the neighbouring constituency. I have said this before and I say it again: my 1949 Encyclopedia Britannica lists Brantford, Ontario, as one of the chief Canadian ports of entry.


An hon. Member:: You must be kidding.


James Elisha Brown: What I have said is a well known fact, publicized by none other than the Encyclopedia Britannica.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Elisha Brown: Construction of these dams, the scenic highway and adjoining parkland would not cost too much money, nowhere near as much as has been spent on the upper Grand River. The lower Grand River needs development no matter what the Kitchener-biased Grand River Conservation Authority may say about this matter, or may have done up to the present time. The hon. member is not in his seat at the moment. Also, we are witnessing tremendous industrial development taking place at Nanticoke, which makes it imperative that the federal and provincial authorities arrange to purchase all the available recreational land so that it can be saved for future and present generations.
The project I am talking about is a conservational and recreational matter. It is a project of great importance to all persons living in the Brant-Haldimand, Norfolk-Hamilton-Wentworth area. It is a project that will be utilized in the days to come.


Mr. Gibson:: Hear, hear!
<* (5:50 p.m.)


James Elisha Brown: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Hami ton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) has cheered, because it is a project that will be utilized in the future by the inhabitants of the Golden Horseshoe of Ontario lying only a stone's throw away, where people have to tow their boats hundreds of miles up north when they could simply be putting them on the Grand, that magnificent, scenic waterway which flows past and through my constituency and near Norfolk and other neighbouring areas of great importance. Millions of dollars have been spent by the federal government on the development of the Trent and Rideau waterways, yet since Confederation hardly a cent has been spent on the Grand. This is where the majority of the people live. I admit, Mr. Speaker, that I have not been a very good Member of Parliament, otherwise this and past governments would have done something about the matter.
I now come to my second point. Unfortunately, in my constituency for the past year and a half there has been heavy unemployment. I do not like this at all. 1 do not
October 15, 1970

think anyone would like the situation that exists in an area where there is heavy unemployment. I am not crying; I am simply stating a tact that is well known. The unemployment which exists in my area cannot be tolerated very much longer. As a matter ot tact, it is one of the worst pockets of unemployment in Canada. How can the economy of Brant and the surrounding area be stimulated? It can be stimulated by granting to the area the facilities it deserves, needs and can exploit-the most extensive and beautiful recreational facilities that can be found in North America and the reconstruction and redevelopment of navigability for pleasure craft on the Grand River.
When this is done, Mr. Speaker, you can count on it that we will have all the industrial growth we can handle in my important area. This will help bring about full employment. Also, the revenue from tourism resulting from these improvements will in itself greatly stimulate the economy of my district. This whole area in the past has been loyal to Canada. Long ago it was loyal to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom. Today it is loyal to the Liberal tradition in Parliament through its representatives. I say, let the Liberal tradition in Parliament show its loyalty to the area which I represent, as well as to its neighbouring and adjoining counties which I love.
I have nearly finished, Mr. Speaker. Some members will be delighted to hear this. However, there was some laughter a moment ago when I said what I did about the government not having done anything to assist and stimulate employment in my area. Not too long ago a great statesman in this country said that to govern is to choose. Mr. Speaker, I cannot govern; I can only choose. This is limiting to a degree, but it is not too limiting because I can choose and have chosen. I have chosen the man who wrote the Speech from the Throne.


Mr. Rodrigue:: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it is six o'clock?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Romuald Rodrigue: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I be allowed to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Honey) on his appointment as Deputy Speaker.
I would also like to join with all my colleagues in order to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the motion for the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, (Mr. Trudel and Mr. Douglas) who have carried out their task in admirable fashion.
The Address-Mr. Rodrigue
I have read and reread the Speech from the Throne as well as the list of legislative proposals mentioned in that Speech, and I would truly like to share the optimism which the mover and seconder have tried to communicate to us.
Indeed, those who have prepared this statement must have done some truly extraordinary intellectual exercises to submit to us once again some antiquated ideas in a new light. This feat has called for increased effort and, had it not been for their artistic talents, they would have failed. This is the feeling we have after reading the Speech from the Throne, the third in the reign of the just society.
Those who have presided over the drafting of this document have given interesting consideration to our society's problems and are promising us many projects whose content must be known before we can determine their real value.
They succeeded in bringing together in that speech a collection of pretentious sentences to launch again the slogan of the just society. I am astonished that they avail themselves of that opportunity to revive an old slogan which they even tried for a while to make us forget.
Two years of power under the just society urge us to show discretion before the smoke screen which the federal cabinet is trying to throw before our eyes.
The Canadian population is ready to believe that the proposed reforms will be the ultimate solution to today's problems and that they will meet every citizen's needs. But we will know if the government is fulfilling its promises only when we read the bills.
In September 1968, in the Throne Speech of the first session, the new government stated its commitment to the objectives of a just society and a prosperous economy in a peaceful world.
Then, as today, the just society could not be achieved if the government did not eliminate the injustices bearing upon the various groups forming the Canadian nation.
In its second Throne Speech, the government announced the publication, in the following months, of several White Papers on subjects such as external affairs, national defence, tax reform, citizenship, social security, information and postal services. Those White Papers were meant to be the foundation of Canada's just society.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
This second Speech from the Throne indicated also that the time had come where "Canada must be prepared to face the coming challenges of the post-industrial era". In the opinion of the government therefore a systematic reassessment of Canadian society and its guidelines was necessary.
During the following months the government tabled white papers on tax reform, unemployment insurance, the metric system as well as other documents on foreign affairs.
I am ready to believe in the government's good faith in tabling these white papers outlining its policies and

October 15, 1970
The Address-Mr. Rodrigue
making it possible for the people to discuss and evaluate programs. But I realize one thing: very often, when the bills are passed, it is already too late. Other change generated factors have nullified the benefits that legislation could have brought to the population.
Again, this year, in the Speech from the Throne, the third under the government of the just society, the introduction of several white papers is announced.
In my opinion, there is no need to recall that the Canadian people are aware of the problems of the day and that they have always offered their co-operation in the difficult moments of our history. I think that they are ready to take part in the economic expansion of the country. In fact, they have always made a valuable and complete effort in order to fulfill our aims and to grant each Canadian the means to live decently.
However, Mr. Speaker, these people are expecting results that the government wanted but did not obtain. Here is the problem at this time.
While trying to fight inflation, unemployment has been created. Indeed, the country was plunged in an extraordinary unemployment crisis when it should have been possible to fight inflation and maintain the employment level at the same time.
Unemployment statistics released at the end of June 1970 indicated that there were 539,000 unemployed in Canada, 188,000 of them in Quebec. Therefore it seems obvious, in the light of these statistics, that economic restrictions aimed at curbing the rise of the cost of living have had the direct result of increasing the unemployment rate.
It can in fact be seen that since February, when the increase in the cost of living reached its highest rate of 5 per cent, every subsequent regression of the consumer price index has been accompanied by an increase in the number of unemployed.
From May to June, the increase in prices, while still spiraling, showed a relative drop of 1.8 per cent, accompanied by a corresponding increase of 1.5 per cent of the unemployment rate.
Statistics released in July but covering the month of June reveal that, contrary to the normal seasonal trend, the number of unemployed increased by 16,000 from May to June, going from 513,000 to 529,000, and this while the number of jobs was increasing normally, i.e. by 196,000, going from 7,952,000 to 8,148,000. As compared to June 1969, the number of unemployed in Canada in June 1970 increased by 146,000, from 383,000 to 529,000.
The number of jobs, from June 1969 to June 1970, increased by 128,000, from 8,020,000 to 8,148,000.
In the light of these statistics, it is quite clear that we are far from our objectives. We are far from our goal, that is the establishment of a just society. Admitedly there is no quick solution nor a sole remedy to fight unemployment, but this is what makes me ask a question: Has the problem been considered under its true light and is the government seeking or proposing solutions to existing problems?
I should like to read a passage from the Throne Speech that, I think, does not reflect the government's action, and I quote:
The Canada of the seventies must continue to be a land for people; a country in which freedom and individualism are cherished and nurtured; a society in which the Government lends its strength to withstand, rather than support the pressures for conformity.
Now, when the government proposes a tax reform as a solution to our economic problems, I say that it is holding on to conformity.
Since the elections prior to the 28th legislature, what true measures have enabled us to create the required number of jobs? Is it Bill C-232? The number of jobs created under this bill did not compensate for the number of jobs suppressed over this period, in spite of the goodwill shown in helping the new industries.
Creating new industries is not as easy as one would believe. Granting new subsidies on paper and announcing the payment of a certain amount is not enough; there are several stages before setting up an industry or ensuring its viability.
I do not question the goodwill of the minister and of all his staff, far from it. But there is a marked difference between wishing to reach a goal and reaching it.
How many jobs have we lost during this same period in footwear, textiles and electronics? In Beauce riding, which I have the honour of representing, the labour force in the footwear industry has dropped from 700 to approximately 400 workers. Similar conditions prevail in the textile industry. Furthermore, the electronics industry which has recently been dealt a heavy blow by the government contracting out satellite ANIK to a foreign manufacturer, happens to be in the same predicament.
If the purpose is to help find new jobs, I am all for setting up new industries. However, once we have them in operation, we should not leave them on their own as we did with the shoe industry, thus forsaking the fruits of 10, 20, 30 or 40 years of efforts on the part of qualified industrialists. These shoe workers have made every sacrifice during the 10 or 20 years that they toiled in order to learn a trade which was to allow them to earn a living for themselves and their families. Unfortunately, they woke up one morning to find out that they were out of a job.
In the statement he made during the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) said that the policy of the government had succeeded after a few delays in slowing down the increase in demand, after mid-year. The minister thus acknowledges the fact that with its policy the government has deliberately helped boost unemployment.
In return, is there any action the minister has suggested to offset this loss of wages resulting from the dismissal of hundreds of worker employed in the shoe factories, textile mills, electronic plants, etc., and which represented nothing less than the purchasing power of those same workers?

October 15, 1970

Mr. Speaker, the minister contends that government restraints have helped curb demand. Certainly the loss of salary or purchasing power curtails demand or slows down its growth. However, it is unfortunate that inflation has been fought at the expense of the workers.
The late President Kennedy felt very strongly about the problem of unemployment. He was a master at coining phrases. Here is one which is a genuine plea:
The loss of a single year of personal income on account of unemployment costs us more than 12 years of education.
These words become more and more significant as our civilization becomes one of leisure.
Productivity increases and the standard of living rises with it. Retirement comes earlier, working hours decrease to be replaced by leisure. This fact has become so obvious that some corporations expect to grant their employees education leave as they do sick leave.
In view of price increases and the rise of the unemployment rate, which are the direct causes of the lack of purchasing power, we, of the Ralliement creditiste, suggest the revaluation of family allowances and old age security pensions.
An increase in family allowances and old age security pensions would be an efficient means of putting in the hands of a certain group of consumers additional purchasing power which would renew the confidence of our people while starting an economic upsurge.
Therefore, I fully support the subamendment of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) which calls for an increase in family allowances.
Acceptance of this subamendment by the government would be a first step toward the implementation of a system insuring a guaranteed annual income and paving the way to a true just society.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit expressed in the Speech from the Throne, I wish first to congratulate the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel), the mover of the Address in Reply, and the seconder, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) for the excellent speeches which they made in the House. I am particularly pleased since both hon. members exhibited in their speeches sincerity of character, devotion to duty and absolute integrity, as well as obvious ability.
The Speech from the Throne was an inspiring one, Mr. Speaker. The words which appeal to me most in the Speech are as follows:
With foresight and stamina and enterprise, ours may be, if we wish it... 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.

And in French, my second language:
. .. une societe qui encourage la creativite, l'audace, l'ingenio-site et l'initiative, non pas froidement et de fagon impersonate Address-Mr. Gibson
nelle a des fins de stride utilite, mais avec chaleur et cordialite, comme entre amis.
Mr. Speaker, several of us are determined to learn French. Of course, we shall succeed!

Speaking on the current situation in Canada, I express the desire that we reform our criminal law in order to provide much more severe penalties for offences currently being committed in this nation. I refer, of course, among other things, to section 233 of the Criminal Code or the section relating to kidnapping, and to the aiding and abetting section. I am thinking now of the crime of aiding and abetting kidnapping. I suggest that the aiding and abetting section should be used by the police whenever there is sufficient evidence to warrant a charge being laid under it. I also refer to another crime with respect to which I have found, after research, that there are no reported cases in Canada, fortunately because our society has been relatively peaceful up to this time. I refer to section 51 of the Criminal Code, which relates to acts of violence in order to intimidate Parliament or the legislature of a province. The maximum sentence for that offence is 14 years imprisonment. I urge that that offence carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and nothing less.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Colin David Gibson: I believe that our attention ought to be directed urgently to a debate on security. There should be a searching examination of statements made on radio and television by inflammatory revolutionaries who, by sympathizing with criminals, therefore encourage support for violence by criminal acts. I submit that in so far as matters relating to the safety of the realm are not regulated by statute, the powers in that regard are in common law at the prerogative of the Crown, acting upon the advice of its servants, which has unfettered control both in time of peace or war of all matters relating to the disposition and armament of the military, naval and air forces, and the manner of the exercise of such prerogative powers cannot be inquired into by the courts, whether in a civil or criminal case. The authority for this proposition is found in the case of Regina v Chandler (1962) 2 All England Reports, page 314. I submit the same principle applies to Crown prerogative powers in Canada today. Further, Mr. Speaker, I quote from the judgment at page 320:
Those who are responsible for the national security must be the sole judges of what the national security requires.
I represent the riding of Hamilton-Wentworth, a riding that is partly urban, in the city of Hamilton, and also partly rural. It is a riding with a population consisting of Canadians of varied national origins and many Canadians of British origin. The constituency also contains the township of Ancaster, which includes fine farming country and a suburban community. Also, it contains the historic town of Stoney Creek. That town, I hope, will be the source of Canada Day.

October 15, 1970
The Address-Mr. Gibson
The Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, dealt with labour. I believe that despite criticism expressed by some people, collective bargaining in Canada can in fact function humanely under existing labour laws. The difficulties do not lie in the system of collective bargaining but, rather, in the inability of some to make the best use of that system. The purpose of collective bargaining laws is not the settlement of disputes but, rather, to provide the mechanism whereby collective agreements can be contracted as a result of peaceful negotiations conducted in an atmosphere of genuine concern, in a spirit of good faith.
No one can deny that those who advocate the abolition of the right to strike as a general rule, rather than abolition in exceptional circumstances, overlook the fact that, with sufficient provocation the worker can lay down tools anyway and strike illegally. For example, in the recent police strike in Montreal, policemen, underpaid and ignored by society, felt compelled to strike illegally. Policemen do not have the right to strike, but when society ignored them and when humanity and justice provided them with no other choice, they went on strike. The result was an illegal strike, a bitter and violent confrontation. Why, then, is there so much turmoil today in the ranks of labour? It is partly owing to the social unrest prevalent throughout the world, as has been demonstrated by student riots at universities and similar breakdowns in social order which result in violence. Also, it is partly owing to a gang of lawless gangsters who seek power through violence and who prostitute law and order by gang terrorist tactics.
Our challenge, Mr. Speaker, is to forge a new social consciousness. It is to improve the isolation of the urban worker in a technological world. We want to remove that isolation from his life.


An hon. Member:: Did the hon. member read that?


Colin David Gibson: We must provide kindness and sympathy for workers in those places where today there is autocracy and indifference toward their lives. Those engaged in labour and management must appreciate that the decisions reached in collective bargaining agreements have a profound impact upon the community at large, and sometimes the impact causes disastrous results. Abnormally large wage increases, particularly, result in lower profits and higher prices. Thus, goods become more expensive to produce and sell, and costs become greater. Prices escalate, and as a result sales become greatly reduced and finally unemployment results.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Too frequently industry greedily grabs record-breaking profit and then flatly refuses to pay labour increased wages and fringe benefits. For example, the Canadian banks have made great profits; they have been great profit-makers but they have kept some of their employees at shockingly low income levels. The government recently substantially increased the minimum wage for federal employees, including bank employees. The record of the banks with regard to labour relations is

poor. Management has ignored the human factor and failed to adjust its labour policy to the fast age of impersonal technology.
Also, Mr. Speaker, we must prevent the embryo, so-called right to incite riot and revolution. We must restore law and order from coast to coast in Canada. We need vastly improved social communications between management and labour. In my view, the burden is on management to inject a new attitude of friendship and co-operation with workers. At present a team spirit is lacking. Labour needs to be treated with appreciation and respect, not treated with scorn as useless, worn-out equipment with little or nothing to contribute. A warm and kind attitude by the employer would greatly improve this sad state of affairs, which amounts to a miserable by-product of the modern industrial state. Further, at all levels of society we must enhance respect for law and order and we must be severe in punishing crimes of violence.
We must strengthen the symbols of national unity by naming July 1, Canada Day. Frequent polls throughout this nation indicate that the vast majority of Canadians want this change. Young Canadians, in particular, who have grown up with the Canadian flag demand and insist upon Parliament changing the name of the national day to Canada Day. I have faith in young Canadians. Their idealism and interest in sports and anti-pollution measures has strengthened and developed our national character. I am proud that this government lowered the voting age to 18 years. I am also proud that despite undue emphasis on the mass media, the vast majority of young Canadians are constructive in outlook and hardworking in action. They are sports minded and athletic. They have a dream of Canada which we must foster, nurture and develop. We will do this. We must continue to provide programs such as the Voyageur plan which enabled many young Canadians to travel across our land and learn to know this great country.
I hope our future plans for the armed forces reserves will give opportunity for anti-pollution training. National defence has enemies in many forms of polluters, and our young people can be used in the struggle for our defence in the war against pollution, the war to exist. However, we must not allow our armouries to become flop-houses for drop-outs and beatniks, many of whom are not Canadian and have no place in Canadian society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Colin David Gibson: Participatory democracy is not an empty phrase but is, rather, the logical and real result of planned adaptation to the needs of Canadian society today.
With respect to the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, I have served on the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution. This committee is in the process of meeting the public at assemblies in each province and territory of Canada. A very helpful dialogue has been and will continue to be carried on in each area of Canada. Members of all parties serve on this committee. We are working together in harmony in the interests of
October 15, 1970

our nation, despite our party following and backgrounds. There is no partisanship on this committee. It has been a joy for me, as a new member, not only to get to know my country but to get to know members opposite. This is one of the greatest assets of committee work.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It has been a great thing for you fellows.


Colin David Gibson: It is good for us, I agree. I smile back in genuine agreement, because we do have a proper point of view after discussing problems with Conservatives and New Democrats. If they have constructive ideas, we try to adopt the best of them for our party so the front of Liberalism will be wider and stronger. A very valuable and helpful dialogue has been and will continue to be carried on in each area of Canada. In this way the government has developed a real policy of actual participatory democracy. The members of the committee not only hear from experts in law but also the ordinary citizens, young and old, from all walks of life who contribute their suggestions and criticisms of Canada's Constitution. Women, children, Indians, Metis, unemployed, wealthy, poor, young, middle-aged and all others with their diverse problems speak to us: they are not shy about it.
The chairmen of the committee wisely organized the committee hearings by giving public notice of the meetings so the local inhabitants, members of service clubs and people with special occupations could express the particular thoughts they had in mind. Everyone was given the opportunity to speak. This has played a very real part in participatory democracy in Canada. We visited the Yukon Territory and the province of Manitoba in September. We were all impressed with the vastness of the area we visited. I was moved by the difficulties those fine Canadians experience. We were all grateful to our northern and western hosts for the wonderful help they gave us. I hope that those who reside in the more heavily populated regions of Canada will forcefully and effectively improve the interests and protect the rights and other needs of those Canadians, the Indians, Eskimos and Metis. The Metis are party Indian and partly French. Their unfortunate lot is that they do not have the advantages of being Indians who are protected by the Indian Act. They are in the terrible predicament of not being accepted by society.
In Thompson, Manitoba, I was conscious of the wonderful effort of the social workers in desperately trying to find a means of aiding and assisting the Indians and Metis not only to integrate into employment opportunities but to find a social position in the modern society of today. The people of Thompson, Manitoba, have been pioneers in attempting to help with this very important problem. As an Ontario member, I pledge to never forget the plight of the Indians, Metis and Eskimos. As long as I am a Member of Parliament their interests will be close to my heart. I hope some way can be found to make their lot more pleasant and happy.
I hope those who serve on this committee will speak on this subject in their ridings, so that all Canadians will appreciate the difficulties of these people and the difficul-
The Address-Mr. Gibson
ties of the people who live in the territories. The territories have small populations. They do not have provincial status. They desperately need human contact with Ottawa. I hope senior civil servants will realize that cold-blooded letters refusing demands are not sufficient. These people must visit the territories. They must keep in constant communication with these people so that they appreciate the issues which affect them.
The work of the committee has created a new consciousness of the magnitude and beauty of Canada, a genuine feeling of pride in the principles that unite us, and a fixed and deliberate determination to achieve national unity by constructive constitutional reform. We are strengthening the cause of national unity by gaining a warm understanding of all Canadians and by continuing to learn about our mutual problems in developing our own Canadian identity. Mr. Speaker, I agree with those who have advanced proposals to adopt a Canadian charter of human rights. I quote from the booklet "A Canadian Charter of Human Rights," page 15, as follows:
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Existing human rights measures in Canada are limited in scope. The Canadian Bill of Rights passed in 1960, emphasizes political freedoms (speech, assembly, religion, etc.) and legal rights (freedom from arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty or property, and equality before the law).
Other federal legislation and most provincial legislation is confined to prohibitions against discrimination in employment, admission to trade unions or the provisions of accommodation.
It is now suggested that there be included in a constitutional bill those rights which have been legislatively protected in Canada, in addition to those linguistic rights which are recommended by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. In the charter of human rights it is proposed to include five categories of rights, all to be protected by the Canadian courts. The first category includes political rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of assembly and association.
The second category includes legal rights, subjects covered by the Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 such as general security of life, liberty and property, equal protection under the law against discrimination, the right to protection from cruel punishment, the right to protection on arrest-covering such matters as bail, a speedy trial, habeas corpus, and so on-the right to counsel, the right to a fair hearing, the right to presumption of innocence and the right to an interpreter. The third category provides guarantees against government action which would tend to distinguish certain persons or groups of persons for unequal treatment on the basis of their race or national origin, for example in admission to professions, educational facilities, public accommodation or the acquiring of property, communication with government institutions and education generally.
The fourth and fifth categories deal with economic rights. It is not proposed to implement these at present because society has not developed in such a way as to enable it to be done. They are in the way of providing a right to work, and so on. But we are signatories to the United Nations Charter of Human Rights and we hope it



COMMONS DEBATSE

[Stage Direction]
October 15, 1970
The Address[DOT]-Mr. Gibson
will be possible to develop this eventually as part of our Constitution.
I wish to say a word now about what might be done to make a charter of human rights work. I do this with humility, realizing I am dealing with a difficult subject. I do not want to be taken as having the gall to think I know all the answers. I would make two suggestions. First, a constitutional court at the level of the Supreme Court of Canada should pass on any statute which touches on subject matters bordering on or affecting civil liberties, before those statutes take effect. By this means the constitutionality of our statutes would be reviewed and sanctioned prior to their enactment, thus avoiding situations such as occurred in connection with the breathalyzer section of the Criminal Code, which was cleared by the courts for one technical reason but has since been brought before provincial appellate courts on the ground that it is a breach of the Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960.
Second, we must seek a speedier and more efficient system whereby both trial courts and appeal courts can be used by all Canadians without undue expense or delay. These are some of the reforms I suggest. Today I believe all members of the committee on the constitution would agree with the quotation, "I am a part of all that I have met". Although we Canadians differ in language, race and origin and come from different parts of our country, despite current events caused by cruel gangsters who seek to divide us, and despite dangers which lie ahead, Canada has survived two world wars and is now a strong, virile nation. Canada will not give in to the vile criminals who have attempted to divide us and who have poisoned the mass media with revolutionary talks. I urge the government to remove wild revolutionaries from the media, particularly those who incite revolution by violent means. We shall strive to live in a technological age with a fairer social conscience, and I believe the day is not too distant when our constitution will include a charter of human rights which will place certain basic human freedoms in a position of entrenched protection. In this way the dignity of man will be respected, the rule of law will be enforced and the Canadian nation will continue to develop in a just society.
With respect to the United Nations, again I speak with humility as one who has not spent his career in United Nations work. Nevertheless, I am one who is fascinated by the possibility of a peaceful world and in this light I would advocate the following:
(a)	Immediate rules changes limiting debate to 10 minutes per speaker in the General Assembly.
(b)	Strict rulings from Speakers of United Nations committees to avoid repetition.
(c)	An observers' forum where representatives at the United Nations who are not full-scale delegates can express their views.
(d)	A United Nations school for diplomacy where young students of ability can meet students from other nations. When these students graduate they will already be familiar with some of the views and attitudes of foreign states.
(e)	A United Nations grand jury. This could be developed by the use of television. It should travel and its members should include representatives from each continent. It should discuss world peace and describe its experiences as it travels from nation to nation. It should be composed of people who are articulate and senior in years.
We have listened to the floundering and contradictory criticism tossed recklessly across this chamber by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). We have also heard from the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) as he expressed his usual party propaganda line-an ill-conceived concept of waffling-and his policy of hoarding our national resources to Canada's economic misery. Fortunately, his party will never form the government. I much prefer the orderly planning of legislation as advocated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who has progressively improved the destiny of Canada by sound and bold leadership and kept a firm hand on the tiller while enemy waves have attempted to rock the boat. The ship of state is safe, and we shall keep it that way. Canadians will never surrender to gangsters, in a crisis or at any other time.
I hope the Leader of the Opposition will heed the advice which the Prime Minister gave in his speech on Friday last, to which I respectfully add a quotation from Piet Hein as follows:
The road to wisdom? Well, it's plain And simple to express,
Err and err and err again,
But less and less and less.
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I join the many speakers who have preceded me in extending congratulations to the mover and to the seconder, of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I think they did an excellent job in what I consider to be difficult circumstances.
Traditionally, the Speech from the Throne is supposed to give an outline of government policy for the session. The speech we have before us is a very long one and in my view contains far less substance than usual. The Speech from the Throne is very vague and certainly has less substance than usual. As a matter of fact, very seldom have I seen a government document that in my opinion says so little in so many words. I see very little real policy announced in the Speech, and paragraph after paragraph speaks only of very vague plans and pious hopes that the government apparently has in mind. I was very much surprised to find not a word about the proposed amendments to our constitution and its repatriation. If the Speech from the Throne had been written by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson), I think it probably would have contained some very serious recommendations in regard to this very important matter.
[DOT] (8:50p.m.)
Constitutional amendment is a matter of some concern to Canada. We are an independent country, yet we do not have the right to amend our own constitution. It seems

October 15, 1970

little short of ridiculous that Canada should be required to present an address to the British Parliament at Westminster before we can amend our own constitution. Certainly, the British Parliament is not anxious to retain its power in this regard. I suggest that a sincere and conscientious effort must be made to find a method by which, with general agreement, our constitution can be repatriated, brought home to Canada and amended by Canada.
While I support this idea, at the same time I express some reservations with respect to the amount of travelling that the committee on the constitution has lined up for itself in the coming year. I agree that some of it is essential. However, when one looks at the schedule that has been presented to the committee, one finds that in some cases a great deal of travelling could be cut out, at considerable saving to the taxpayers of this country. For example, next week the committee-and I am a member of it-is going to Nova Scotia where it will hold hearings in Halifax, Wolfville, Sydney and Antigonish. To show how unnecessary these hearings are I place on the record the fact that the travelling distance from Halifax to Wolfville is only 60 miles. Why should a committee consisting of about 30 to 35 members, along with a staff of perhaps 15 or 16, be required to travel those 60 miles thus putting the taxpayers to expense, when it would be so much easier for those in Wolfville who are interested in presenting briefs to travel to Halifax? The distance from Halifax to Antigonish is only 140 miles, and there again it would be much easier and less expensive for those who wish to present briefs to travel to Halifax from Antigonish.
When the committee visits the province of New Brunswick it proposes to travel to Fredericton, Saint John, Moncton and Bathurst. Fredericton, of course, is the capital. The distance from Fredericton to Bathurst is only 160 miles, the distance from Fredericton to Saint John is only 70 miles, and the distance from Fredericton to Moncton is only 120 miles. So why does the committee not stay in Fredericton? In all seriousness I suggest that some of these trips could very well be cut out. At the same time, those people who wished to present briefs would not be prejudiced in any way at all because they would not be inconvenienced very much by travelling to Fredericton.
Speaking in this debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, my chief concern is to try to place before this House as clearly and as forcefully as I can the economic situation in which we in the Atlantic provinces find ourselves. Canada entered the 1970s with a very definite worsening of the grim economic problems which plagued her particularly during the latter part of the 1960s. In March 1970 for example, the Canadian unemployment rate was 6.7 per cent and that rate was the highest since 1964. Turning to the Atlantic provinces, in Newfoundland the unemployment rate was 15.3 per cent-more than twice the national average-in New Brunswick it was 11.8 per cent, in my own province of Prince Edward Island it was 9.7 per cent and in Nova Scotia it was 7.7 per cent. The average unemployment rate in the Atlantic provinces was 11.1 per cent, or 4.4 per cent above the national average.
The Address-Mr. McQuaid
These figures, high as they are do not begin to tell the whole story. As a matter of fact, they understate the real magnitude of the unemployment problem because they do not take into consideration those who are willing and able to work but have not yet entered the labour force. Currently according to the latest figures we have, there are today in Canada over 500,000 people unemployed. This, I charge, is because of the government's anti-inflation program and is also a result of its tight fiscal and monetary policies. Further the existence of large-scale poverty in this country is an unmistakable fact. Millions of Canadians are forced to exist on incomes which deny them a proper standard of living. Many of them have the misfortune to be poorly housed and do not eat sufficient nutritious food. They suffer from every disadvantage that comes from deprivation.
In my own province, for example, the average per capita income is only $1,860 per year. That is the lowest of any province in Canada, with the possible exception of the province of Newfoundland. By comparison, in Ontario the average per capita income is $3,300. In 1967, the last year for which figures are available, 5,378 income tax returns filed in my province declared an income of less than $1,000. Remember that in considering these figures we have a total population of about 110,000 people. Some 6,367 returns were filed by people earning between $1,000 and $2,000, and 6,122 were filed by people earning between $2,000 and $3,000. Only 145 returns were filed in that province declaring an income in excess of $20,000 per year.
Those figures give the House an idea of how badly off are the people in my province so far as earning an adequate standard of living is concerned. The Charlottetown income tax district last year ranked ninety-eighth among 100 selected Canadian cities, in terms of highest average income. Basically, each Canadian should be assured of an income that would provide him with an adequate standard of living; that is the very least he should expect. As a matter of fact, this point was recognized in the Speech from the Throne, in that the Speech declares, as reported at page 2 of Hansard:
With foresight and stamina and enterprise, ours may be, if we wish it... a society in which individual freedom and equality of opportunity remain as our most cherished possessions;
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The Atlantic provinces as a whole have a very low rate of population growth. Between 1961 and 1966 the population growth was only 0.8 per cent per year, whereas the national average increase was 2 per cent per year for the same period. This low rate of population growth is due mainly to a high net out-movement of people from this region. There is a natural tendency for large numbers of people to move from the Atlantic provinces in search of better opportunities elsewhere.
The out-movement over the period 1961 to 1966 was about 104,000, or 20,000 people per year. Unfortunately, this trend is worsening. If this out-migration continues at the same level during the decade 1961 to 1971, about 207,000 people will have left the region during this period. That is more than 10 per cent of the present

October 15, 1970
The Address-Mr. McQuaid
population of the area. Unfortunately, our most important export is brains. Why do these brains leave? They leave in search of work for higher pay. The main factor which contributes to this out-migration is the small employment base. No one is going to stay if there are not sufficient jobs to enable them to maintain a decent standard of living. If this out-migration of the population continues at the very high level of the past few years, we may very well ask ourselves whether the region will be left with a sufficient labour force to produce the goods and services required to prevent the gap from becoming even wider.
It is impossible to reduce out-migration by force. Nor is it reasonable to expect that people will remain in the region because of a hope that the per capita income will increase. There must be a generation of employment within the region. This must be at a sufficiently high level so that rates of pay are commensurate with those received in other parts of Canada. Only in this way will we be able to make remaining in this region an attractive proposition. This calls for a programmed approach by the federal government in the development of job opportunities in the area. That is what we require, job opportunities.
There must be a narrowing of the gap in personal income as between this region and Canada as a whole. This should be accomplished through generation of income in the region and not by a transfer of income to the region. Pouring subsidies into the Atlantic provinces will not solve our problems satisfactorily. Patronage will never produce prosperity. Those are not my words, but it is a very correct quotation. We in our province unfortunately entered Confederation on a patronage basis. What is more unfortunate is that we have existed on this patronage ever since. Pouring subsidies into the area has not worked, except that it has enabled our people to subsist in the land they love but in a land which, unfortunately, is incapable of supporting them.
New assistance to this area of Canada must not bear the tag of charity; it must help us to be productive. There must be policies aimed at substantially increasing productivity, thereby leading to maximum efficiency and the utilization of our natural resources, while processing these resources to the fullest possible extent within the region. We are somewhat encouraged by the Speech from the Throne which says:
It remains the goal of the government to be concerned with the production of wealth. It also remains the goal of the government that Canadians be given the opportunity to enjoy that wealth.
If these are more than empty words, and let us hope they are, the government must get going right away in order to help this area. There are many ways in which help could be extended. We have natural resources in the area. In my own province, for example, we have a rapidly expanding Irish moss business. Irish moss, for the information of hon. members who may not be acquainted with it, is a small marine plant which is attached to rocks very close to low-water. The most important and valuable extract from Irish moss is a product called carrageen. It is worth from $1.50 to $2 per pound. It is
used as a stabilizing base in very many products. It is used, for example, in ice cream, chocolate milk, pie fillings, beer and icings. It is also used in insecticide sprays, water-base paints, inks, shampoos, ointments, tablets and cosmetics. There are hundred of uses for this product.
Last year in the province of Prince Edward Island we produced 54 million pounds of Irish moss. This represents 37 per cent of the world supply. Think of it

37 per cent of the world supply of Irish moss was produced in the small province of Prince Edward Island. About 85 million pounds of Irish moss was harvested in the Maritimes last year. That represents about 84 per cent of the world production. This is a very promising industry, but the unfortunate part is that all this moss is exported, either to Denmark or to the state of Maine, in order to extract the carrageen, which is the important part. I suggest there is no reason at all why extraction plants could not be established in the Atlantic area. This would provide employment for a great many of our people and would enable this important extract to be taken out right at home. The product would not have to be exported to foreign countries. This is an industry which I suggest could very well be helped and supported by the federal government in order to provide more employment for our people.
Fishing is another important industry in the Atlantic provinces. In 1969 the fishing industry accounted for an income in excess of $9 million. I suggest that more work will have to be done to make fish attractive and easy to prepare, and also to encourage its greater consumption. The latest figures issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics indicate that Canadians eat 13 pounds of meat and poultry for every pound of fish. A great deal of blame for this can be laid directly at the feet of the Department of Fisheries. There has, unfortunately been very little effort on the part of the department to find out just what the consumer wants in the line of fish, and very little effort has been made to encourage our producers to make fish more attractive and of improved quality. Quality control must be tightened, because the entire industry suffers when sloppy inspection practices permit inferior quality fish to reach the consumer's table. Again, more encouragement must be given to our people to eat fish.
In many cases, fish recipes which are published for consumers-some by the Department of Fisheries itself- are so complicated, contain so many uncommon ingredients and take so long to prepare that the average housewife, in despair, reaches into the fridge and brings out a sausage dinner. Housewives cannot be expected to find out from processing companies what to do with fish when they buy it, and if they wait to find out from the government I am afraid the fish will be spoiled. Fish cookbooks prepared by the government-there are some good ones-should not be kept here in Ottawa waiting for the consumer to write for them. The consumer just will not write. I suggest these cookbooks should be sent out. Unless the federal government takes steps along these lines to increase Canadian per capita consumption of fish, the industry is bound to suffer. More work will

October 15, 1970

definitely have to be done so that the fish may become more attractive and more marketable.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Now, of course, in our area farming is one of the main industries. Unfortunately, however, the farm population in my province has dropped by almost 50 per cent in the last 30 years. In 1930, for example, our farm population was 55,000. That represented 63 per cent of our total population. In 1966 the farm population dropped to 31,000 people, or 28 per cent of our population. A drop in farm population naturally results in a drop in the number of farms. In 1931 there were 12,865 occupied farms, but by 1966 this number had decreased to 6,357, a drop of 50 per cent in five years. In order to stop this downward trend- and I suggest it must be stopped in a province such as ours which depends so much on farming-the government must give the province some assistance in respect of marketing.
The province of Prince Edward Island grows the best potatoes in the world, but markets must be found for them. In 1969 our potato harvest was one of the best on record both in respect of quantity and quality, but unfortunately the price the farmers received for this product barely covered the cost of production. One just cannot remain in business unless he can make a profit, and one cannot make a profit in so far as farm products are concerned unless some assistance is given in the finding of adequate markets for what is produced.
The tobacco industry is a growing industry in our province. Last year 2J million pounds of leaf tobacco were produced. This brought a return of approximately $1.5 million to our farmers. I suggest that here is an avenue whereby the government can come to the assistance of the farmers and help them maintain a better standard of living, so that the young people would be encouraged to remain in agriculture because, as I said before, it is the most important industry in our province. If we lose it, I am afraid we will suffer very seriously economically.
These are some of the things to which this government should give attention. I know my time is rapidly expiring. I trust some of the things I have mentioned this evening will in one way or another be brought to the attention of the government, and that some effective measures will be introduced at once to improve the economy of the Atlantic area.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join in this Throne Speech debate. I wish to add my congratulations to the mover and 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).
This debate has been taking place this week while we have all been preoccupied with the events in Montreal regarding the kidnapping of Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte. Indeed, the arrival on Parliament Hill on Tuesday morning of combat troops placed an ominous note over the whole capital. One cannot help but wonder if the free 23226-13
The Address-Mr. Foster
and open society which we have enjoyed in Canada is coming to an end. Perhaps in the future our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will not be able to move freely within our country without the heavy security which United States presidents and leaders in many Latin-American countries have. Let us hope this is not the case, because this is one of the conditions which many of us cherish in this land. It is one of the conditions which we have enjoyed in the past and which is different from the United States. We have always had the happy circumstance that political differences could be settled by debate and not by a gun.
I commend the government on its handling of this situation, in not giving in to the terrorists. To give in is to invite anarchy-the rule of law would be finished in Canada. The strategy of playing for time while keeping up the police investigation is the right one. By doing this the terrorists will ultimately make a mistake and be brought to justice. The coverage by the news media is less commendable. The media speak of "political prisoners" in Quebec jails. These are not political prisoners; these prisoners are criminals convicted of a crime set down in the Criminal Code of Canada as enacted by Parliament. The media also speak of "the execution of Mr. Cross and Mr. Laporte" in the notes sent by the terrorists. Let us be sensible. Only a judge and jury acting under the law of a sovereign state can sentence a man to be executed. If Mr. Cross or Mr. Laporte should be killed by the FLQ terrorists, there would be only one word for this act, and that is "murder."
Mr. Speaker, as I moved around through my constituency of Algoma this past summer, a constituency which I am very proud to represent in the House of Commons, I detected a feeling of concern about the quality of life which we seem to be heading into in the 1970s. There is concern, first, with the use of drugs by so many in our society; second, with the pollution of our lakes and rivers to the extent that fishing is banned and, third, with the violence portrayed on television and exemplified in the recent events in Montreal. Our area is not immune to the problem of young people appearing in court because of the illegal use of marijuana and other drugs. The newspapers carry regular accounts of it. And, Mr. Speaker, there is no easy solution to the problem. Many people feel that we should not saddle young people with permanent criminal records because of convictions for using marijuana, but at the same time legalization is no solution to the problem. Undoubtedly this is a matter which we, as the elected representatives of the people of this great land, must study with all diligence in this session and in respect of which we must formulate solutions.
It seems to me, as I read the reports of the increased use of drugs in Canada and the United States, that this could well be the Achilles heel of our western civilization. Surely, a civilization that has been able to make the scientific and technical advances that ours has, that has developed an educational system which should challenge the most intelligent of our youth, must be able, through education and example, to control this drug problem in our society. A famous man once said, "The problem is not in our stars; it's in ourselves". Thus, part of the

October 15, 1970
The Address-Mr. Foster
solution perhaps is not in the stars; it is in ourselves. Young people see the adult generation using other drugs and setting a premium on false values, and are inclined to say, "Hypocrites, who are you to talk?".
Mr. Speaker, at a time when there is so much concern with our environment I was pleased to see forecast in the Speech from the Throne a department to be concerned with the preservation of the environment and our renewable resources. This new department will combine most of the activities of the federal government in the fight against pollution. Last year many of us spent several months in committee discussing the Canada Water Act. This will be a major federal statute to co-ordinate the activities of the various levels of government agencies in Canada. There were also four other bills passed last session to deal with pollution control, including action to control pollution in the Canadian Arctic, in the oil and gas-drilling rigs offshore on the continental shelf, and amendments to the Canada Fisheries Act.
I am pleased to learn that a bill respecting air pollution will be introduced this session. This is long overdue. Although some provinces have air pollution laws, not all have. I hope that the Canada clean air bill will follow the same tack as the Canada Water Act, that is, that we recognize that much of the responsibility for pollution control in our society is a provincial responsibility. The two levels of government, by acting jointly to resolve the problem, can share resources, expertise and responsibility.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
However, if the province fails to act, or if it cannot afford the cost of taking action, the federal law will give the federal government power to act and the finances to carry it through. This way we have a continuity across this great land on the levels of despoliation that are permitted to our land, our water and our air. It is unacceptable to Canadians to see the interprovincial bidding for new industries that has taken place in the past because our province's pollution standards were lower than those of others. Ontario has not had a new pulp and paper mill established in it for the last 20 years. One of the reasons for this is that pollution standards here are higher than in some of the other provinces. Many people think they are none too high even in the province of Ontario.
The federal government has a responsibility to provide maximum, optimum standards throughout the land for water and air which will ensure a good-quality environment to pass on to future generations of Canadians. The combining of many federal government activities into a department charged with responsibility for our environment, as outlined in the Speech from the Throne, is a step in the right direction.
The Algoma federal riding combines many endeavours, including farming, forestry, mining and tourism. On reading this list of activities of the Algoma riding one quickly realizes that these are primary industries. No public debate concerns us more than the current one on the foreign domination of our industry and of our land.
The present uncertainty in the uranium mining industry is an example of the immense complexity of drawing up rules for Canadian ownership. Last year at this time there were some 20 diamond drills operating in the Elliot Lake area. Today there are practically none. Exploration activity is at a minimum across Canada. This represents millions of dollars of lost development. Now that the uncertainty regarding foreign ownership of uranium mines has been raised, it should be resolved as quickly as possible so that future exploration in Canada will continue.
Fortunately, the government did establish an assistance policy last July to aid uranium mines through the next three to four lean years of markets for uranium oxide. Everyone in Elliot Lake is depending on both the government and Denison Mines' representatives, who are currently negotiating assistance to keep the mine operating, to come to an agreement very soon. The value of this assistance policy will only be proven, so far as this community is concerned, if a successful conclusion is reached.
The ramifications of the current public debate on foreign ownership in Canada are far reaching. For example, we have been searching for several years now for a company to establish a pulp and paper mill in the Algoma riding to utilize our wood fibre. One U.S. company which had started a study of the area, and of the feasibility of building a mill, decided not to proceed partly due to the uncertainty as to the foreign ownership of Canadian resource industries.
I think we must approach economic nationalism in Canada with great care. Any decisions made to limit foreign investment must be well thought-out with regard to repercussions on the communities which will be affected. If rules are developed rashly and without careful study, the results could be disastrous for the resource industry areas of Canada. It happens that many of the resource industry areas are also areas of Canada which are designated for secondary industry grants by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. It would be stupid to establish foreign ownership rules which would stop development in these areas of Canada when the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to promote expansion and the development of secondary industry.
Nothing that this government has done since it took over in 1988 has been more fruitful in the underdeveloped areas of our country than the establishment of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The incentive grants for new manufacturing industry have meant a great deal to the Algoma riding. So far this year we have commitments for three regional development grants to industry amounting to over half a million dollars, which will provide much needed new jobs to our area and broaden our economic base. This kind of development reassures people that the government is concerned with establishing industry in our area. I am sure that this is only the beginning. More grants and more applications are pending, and further development will take place. There is a need in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for a larger staff to handle the

October 15, 1970

applications tor grants. Many businessmen who have applied tell me that they have had to wait several months to have their applications processed. Additional competent development officers should be hired so that these applications can be handled more quickly.
The problems of foreign ownership are not limited to our mines and forest industry, but extend also to our farm and lakeshore property. United States ownership is so common on the shores of Lake Huron, Lake Superior and Manitoulin Island that local people think little of it. Many U.S. families have owned summer cottages there for two generations; they have been good summer citizens and are our friends. However, in recent years, with the opening of a four-lane interstate highway from Detroit and Chicago to Sault Ste. Marie, with the summer cottage frontier pushing farther and farther north, and with the summer riots and dissent in the U.S.A., the acquisition of Canadian land and lakeshore recreational property has gone from a trickle to a raging torrent.
Two examples will give an idea of the size of this problem. A recent transfer of property took place north of Sault Ste. Marie on Lake Superior, involving 13 miles of lakeshore property. This was a sale from a Canadian to a U.S. company. Similarly, a foreign-owned company established a subdivision on the south side of Manitoulin Island with some 2,000 lots in it. The concern is that we are selling our birthright; that future generations of Canadians will look back at the time when Canadians owned the land and then the Americans came and bought it all.
There is a need for planning to assure future generations of Canadians that land will be available to them for recreation purposes. There is a need for land to be set aside for public use as well. The federal government must stop waiting on the Ontario government for park development. There is a need for more public recreational land to be set aside now for future generations in Ontario. It is forecast, for example, that Toronto will have 6.5 million people in less than 30 years. Where will these people go for public recreational land? I can think of no better place for a national park than the Manitoulin Island area, midway between northern and southern Ontario. But now is the time to act-not after all suitable land has been purchased by our U.S. neighbours.
The chairman of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), visited the island this past summer. He was very impressed with its beauty and its potential for a national park. One can capture something of the beauty of the area between the town of Espanola and Manitoulin Island by watching the current Sunday night TV series "Adventures in Rainbow Country," which was filmed there during the summer of 1969. So my invitation to hon. members is to see the TV program "Adventures in Rainbow Country," which shows some of the beauties of our area, and then I am sure they will agree with me that now is the time to decide to establish a national park in this area for recreation in the future.
Division


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being 9.30 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 of Standing Order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on any amendment or amendments now before the House.
[DOT]	(9:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. It being ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning, pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 2.
At ten o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost. The question is now on the amendment.
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Stanfield) which was negatived on the following division:
++YEAS
Messrs:

Friday, October 16, 1970