1972-02-23

PRIVILEGE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, notice of which I have sent to Your Honour. It relates to the publication in today's Toronto Star of a story concerning another cabinet leak in connection with a so-called release of government policy on foreign ownership. Today's story in the Star is not the first instance of leaks of secret government documents in relation to the government's consideration of foreign investment policy. Your Honour may recall the publication in the Canadian Forum of what purported to be the Gray report, and the question of privilege which I introduced on November 15, 1971, in that connection. Immediately on the heels of that report, Southam News Services published excerpts from confidential cabinet minutes relating to a decision in principle, arrived at in July of last year, to establish a screening agency in connection with foreign takeovers. Questions of privilege were again raised as a result of that leak.
I review this history briefly before making two points as I rise on this further question of privilege today. The first is that the government to this date has given no satisfactory explanation-in fact, it has given no account at all-of any investigation which may have been undertaken into these previous leaks. There are a great many unanswered questions about whether these leaks may, in fact, have been encouraged by the government, or by one or other of the members of the government, as an exercise in kite-flying. I feel I am entitled to say this; inasmuch as in the course of the earlier events it was suggested that members of the opposition might have been encouraging such leaks through members of the public service, I feel I am entitled to make this retort. In any event, the onus of uncovering the source of the leaks through a thorough investigation rests on the government, and the government has not given the House any satisfaction in this regard. As a result of this failure a cloud of suspicion has been left hanging over both parliament itself and the public service, a situation which, I suggest, will be further aggravated by this latest leak.
Turning now to my second point, I should like to contrast the arguments which I have previously put to Your Honour with the argument I am presenting today. I submit that this latest leak falls within a new context and contains an added dimension which I feel should
make my argument acceptable to the Chair. Again, a brief bit of history is required to illuminate my point- the history of statements made by the Prime Minister with reference to the possible date of the unveiling of government policy on foreign ownership. I do not think I need say more than this: in the Globe and Mail of today and yesterday statements are cited in the column of Mr. George Bain constituting what I would call a chronology of confusion and deception as to this question of the date. It does show, however, that as far back as September 15 the Prime Minister said in the House, referring to the question of government policy on this issue: "This is at an advanced stage and we expect to have a report fairly soon." The statement made in the House yesterday said the same thing in different words.
The document which was published in the Toronto Star today quotes the Minister of National Revenue as making the following recommendations to cabinet. He was requested, according to the story, to make four recommendations.
The minister outlined four options: to make the announcement now without any supporting study; to make the announcement with a 50-page summary of the main study; to delay until late March or early April when the main study would be ready, or to wait until both the legislation and the study are ready.
According to the story, the minister recommended that it be announced during the Throne Speech debate which ends next Tuesday, with a promise to release the supporting study as soon as possible. Then appear in quotation marks the following words:
This option-
The option of presenting the policy immediately.
-would involve some embarrassment to the government in that the presentation of the policy statement has been held off on the grounds that he did not want to issue it without the supporting material.
I pause here to say I find it very difficult to embarrass this government any further than it has already been embarrassed with regard to this issue. According to the newspaper report the minister added in his memorandum:
The policy statement might also look a little thin without this additional material.
On the other hand, it would in my view be even more difficult to postpone the policy statement to a date much later than the end of the Throne Speech debate. Undertakings have been given publicly on a number of occasions and from the viewpoint of the government's credibility-
I pause again to say that there is some doubt whether the government has any credibility left, Mr. Speaker.
-vis-4-vis the public there is probably less to be lost by issuing a full statement, with supporting material to follow a few weeks later, than by postponing the policy statement for a further period.
25020-12;

February 23, 1972
Government Foreign Ownership Policy Leak
Obviously the minister lost that battle.
The Prime Minister has been telling us in the House and outside the House, and so have other members of the government, that this supporting material must be available. That is the basis upon which up to this time the government has declined to publish the policy. We now find that the supporting material is, in fact, no more than the Gray report which has been in the hands of the government for at least four months. The fact is that when it was leaked in the Canadian Forum it has obviously been in the hands of the government for some time. The report in today's Star goes on to say:
-delays in editing the Gray report, called the "Memorandum on Domestic Control of the National Economic Environment", have held up the announcement.
I think Your Honour should take judicial notice that what is happening is this. Rather than it being a case of having new supporting material in order to back up the decision it has made, the government is attempting to revise and edit the Gray report so as to make it more acceptable and to work it into the basis of the policy that it is going to announce.
In conclusion, considering the total effect of both arguments, I submit to Your Honour that there has in fact been a breach of privilege affecting all members of this House. The leaks continue and a cloud of suspicion hangs over all members. The government has taken no action effectively to stop this process. The Prime Minister and the Acting Prime Minister have made evasive, misleading and conflicting statements in relation to the release date of government policy which is still undergoing the leak process, and the government will only clear the air by making a full and complete disclosure of that general policy.
I submit that Your Honour has a duty to safeguard the rights of the members of this House, and that the government is under compulsion either to disclose the policy immediately or to stand guilty of its conduct of confusion and deception with which I have charged the government.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River has given the Chair the notice required under the terms of the Standing Order. This has given me the opportunity in the meantime to consider some of the points which have been advanced by the hon. member at this time and to consider as well the arguments which were proposed for the consideration of the House and the Chair when a similar question of privilege was raised previously.
I have to tell the hon. member and the House that I cannot reach the same conclusion as that reached by the hon. member for Peace River, namely, that there is a prima facie case of privilege. There may be a grievance. The circumstances that the hon. member has described may well form the foundation for a non-confidence motion. But I cannot see how this type of situation can or should be considered by the House by way of a breach of parliamentary privilege.

I add that in my view the arguments advanced by the hon. member are essentially debate, and I would think that there should be in the foreseeable future, even in the course of the present debate, an opportunity for the hon. member and other hon. members to consider the matter to which he has alluded.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1973, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in tabling the main estimates for 1972-73 I should like to advise the House that they amount in total to $15,749 million in budgetary expenditures. About one half of this amount, $7,640 million, is statutory in nature in that it follows from legislation previously passed by parliament and still in force. The remaining $8,109 million will require authorization under new appropriation acts.
The blue book which has just been tabled carries a forecast of the budgetary expenditures for the fiscal year which is now coming to an end. These amount in total to $15,058 million, almost exactly $700 million less than the estimates for the new year. Almost one half the difference arises from statutory items and in particular from the statutory items covering transfers to the provinces, or arrangements under which the federal government shares with the provinces costs of health, welfare and educational programs.
Increases in non-statutory items, other than those required to maintain levels of service with rising costs and greater demands, emphasize the government's concerns. Prominent examples are: Regional Economic Expansion, Department of the Environment, Indian and Eskimo Affairs, Northern Development and Canadian International Development.
A specific provision of $62 million is made for student summer employment over and above about $23 million set aside for this purpose in departmental budgets.
The estimates also cover $790 million in non-budgetary expenditures, that is, in loans, investments and advances, for which it is necessary to seek appropriation authority from parliament. This does not cover all nonbudgetary expenditures. There are other expenditures of this nature, not shown anywhere in estimates, which may be made pursuant to legislation now in force such as the National Housing Act.
There is a small but important addition this year to the amount of information contained in the estimates. There are several instances in which programs generate revenues. In the past the only information supplied in estimates
February 23, 1972

has consisted of an entry stating the total estimated revenue to be credited directly to the program itself and the total to be credited to general revenues. In these estimates we show for the first time detail by type as to the actual source of the revenue, such as revenues from sales of permits, the proceeds of sales, and fees for services.
Hon. members will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the government made available last year a publication entitled "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent" designed to inform the pifblic on the allocation of resources being recommended in 1971-72 estimates in terms of national priorities and needs and also to describe the process by which the government reaches its decisions on these allocations.
The 1972 edition of this publication is being distributed to all members today. It will describe in summary terms the recommended allocation of resources for 1972-73, again in terms of national priorities and needs. The description of the process itself is carried a step further with a brief account of the various steps which go to make up the parliamentary business of supply. Again this year the publication will be made available to the public free of charge through the distribution outlets of Information Canada.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: 
An hon. Member:: No election.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No election this year? You said it; I didn't. Considering the type of service we are getting today from that august body, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-now it is on and now it is off-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take the liberty to remind the hon. member that, according to the Standing Order, as much as circumstances will permit comments made should be brief. I appreciate the importance of the matter but I would hope the hon. member would not attempt to consider all the different items and departments covered by the blue book. I have to remind him that we should try to keep the comments made by spokesmen on behalf of the parties as brief as possible consistent with the requirements of the Standing Order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, but I think that if you measure me line for line you will find that up to the present time I am still well below the minister's statement in length.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he should not argue. I remind him that the Standing Order is drafted in such a way, perhaps unfortunately, that it does not place a limit on statements of ministers but only on the comments made by spokesmen of the parties who respond. Having said that, I would hope the hon. member would find it possible to co-operate as I have suggested.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have only one comment to make. I am very much aware of what you have said and I hope we do not get any performances like yesterday at this point.
With regard to the CBC, that august body is asking us to vote an additional $26 million additional in estimates plus a further $32 million for loans. Of course, that is a euphemistic word for something that will have to be absorbed by the taxpayers of Canada. I hope that those people who are responsible for the administration of that body and those who participate in it are aware that this year they are asking for an additional $57 million to $58 million.
With that I will draw my remarks to a close, but I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the rule regarding the length of statements will apply equally to minister's statements as it does to comments by members of the opposition.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, it is not expected that extensive comments could be made after a brief look at the estimates tabled today, but there are

February 23, 1972
Estimates 1972-73
a couple of items that impressed me immediately upon opening the book as requiring some study. I would like to point out the fact that the forecast estimates for 1972-73 do not seem to have been increased much beyond 4 per cent, yet if we look at the internal overhead expenses there seems to be a substantial increase of almost 15 per cent over last year. From a first glance it would look as though government departments are becoming increasingly more expensive to operate or that the bureaucracy on the other side is proliferating like mad in comparison with the expenditures that are being made naturally. The amount of money that is being raised from the Canadian taxpayers seems to be channelled into overhead expenses rather than into services for the people.
Another item will bear close examination. I refer to the fiscal transfer payments where it appears that the transfer payments to provinces will be less in the coming year than they have been in the past. In view of the vast regional disparities that exist in this country it is hard to find any justification for such a diminution in support of the poorer provinces of Canada.
I appreciate the opportunity of making these brief comments and I assure you, Sir, that these matters will receive close examination.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, two items particularly attracted my attention in the 1972-73 Estimates which have just been tabled.
First of all, under Secretary of State, the cost of operating the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will reach $207 million, exclusive of operating costs of the National Film Board, etc. I therefore hope the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) will in due course be able to explain the reason for the increase from $181 million last year to $207 this year for services inferior in number and quality to those we enjoyed previously.
The other section I have perused is, under the expenses of the Department of Finance, public debt service which was $2,034,685,000 last year and has increased this year by $125,700,000 bringing the total amount for debt service up to $2,100,385,000. That represents exactly $105 per capita in Canada, or $1,050 for a family of ten, $525 for a family of five. And this fabulous amount allotted to debt service does not seem to worry the government. When we recommend distributing $100 to each citizen it is funny but distributing the same amount to the controller of finance is not so funny.
Those are two points about which we are certainly going to take up cudgels. We shall certainly bring forward facts and clarifications in the House when debating the credits of various departments.
I say and repeat in closing that paying out $2,100,385,000 just for interest on debt service for those who control Canada's economy is simply a national disgrace which should no longer be tolerated.



FISHERIES


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity. I refer to the possible serious depletion of herring resources in the Placentia Bay area caused by the operation of large fleets of herring seiners. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That this House instruct the Minister of Fisheries to inquire immediately into the possible danger of depletion of herring resources in the Placentia Bay region and take steps to impose the necessary conservation measures and to protect the resources and the rights of the inshore fishermen engaged in that industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the pessimistic forecast of capital spending plans for 1973 by the Economic Council of Canada and their conclusion that capital spending projections are wholly inadequate if we are to reduce unemployment to 3.8 per cent by 1975, is the government considering measures now to substantially stimulate capital spending in the private sector, and will action be undertaken before the normal budget presentation of late spring?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had time myself to look at this report which has just come out. I am informed, however, that it states quite clearly that one should be cautious in interpreting these figures for the reason that they were based on a survey which took place at a time when there was a great deal of uncertainty in the economy, before the former Minister of Finance's announcement on October 14 of our expenditure programs and especially before the agreement on the international monetary situation, and therefore the excellent work of

February 23, 1972

the government since the survey took place has no doubt returned confidence to the economy, which invalidates these figures.


James Aloysius McGrath: In light of the uncertainties in this matter and the report by the Economic Council of Canada, can the Prime Minister make a statement to the House or can he assure the House that a statement will be made regarding government policies with respect to the DISC program and foreign investment? I ask this question now especially in light of the latest Gray leak.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not see the relationship between this and the leak to which the hon. member refers. I just repeat that when the hon. member reads the document, as he must have done to ask this question unless it was prepared by his research staff, he should read the whole document. The document cautions that the figures must not be extrapolated to today because of the uncertainty which existed then, and he should be able to draw the conclusion which I indicated rather than asking spurious questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask a more specific question, Mr. Speaker. What is the government doing about the substantial decline in investment in the Atlantic provinces which is already hurting a crippled economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that what we have done to dispel the uncertainty which existed at the time of this survey was (a) to make the announcement we did on expenditures on October 14 and (b) successfully conclude the agreement on international monetary matters.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why don't you try quitting? That would help.



FOREIGN INVESTMENT-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR SCREENING AGENCY-ALLEGED EDITING OF BACKGROUND DOCUMENT

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to address a question or questions, to the Prime Minister arising out of a report in the Toronto Star. I want to ask him whether there has been consultation with the provinces with regard to the criteria and procedures which are to govern the screening agency? I appreciate that the Prime Minister suggested there has been consultation on the general subject, although he has not told us exactly what kind of consultation. Has there been consultation in particular on the particulars of the criteria and procedures of the proposed screening agency and, if not, is such consultation being arranged?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe I did tell the House yesterday what type of consultation we had. It was at the federal-provincial conference of first ministers which took place last fall. We told the provinces that we were in the process of formulating policy on this subject and we wanted to
Inquiries of the Ministry
know what remarks they had to make. As to the second part of the question, whether we submitted to them any precise criteria either at that time or since then, the answer is no.


David Lewis: May I ask the Prime Minister whether these criteria and procedures have already been arrived at by the government, particularly in light of the fact that he made a number of undertakings to make a statement on the policy in this area? When he made those undertakings had not the criteria and the procedures already been decided, or are they still under discussion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, those criteria were under discussion at the time I made my first announcements. We had at that time planned to bring the discussion and decision on those criteria to a head much earlier than we have in fact done. I might add that in some degree we perhaps put more time into the preparation of the background document than we would have had to, had there not been this leak in the Canadian Forum. In that sense, those who think they are going to urge the government to more speedy action by this or that type of leak are really achieving the contrary result.


An hon. Member:: Little spoiled boy!


David Lewis: May I ask the Prime Minister another question and suggest that threats of the kind he has made do not increase his standing in the country nor his value as Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


David Lewis: I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the editing of the document which is now supposed to be taking place is merely a matter of editing in the sense of correcting grammar, syntax and the rest, and can he assure the House that the document is not being expurgated or changed in any substance before the people of Canada see it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not see why the hon. member talks about threats unless he feels threatened from some point. I assure him that there was no threat contained in my previous statement.


David Lewis: May I rephrase the question to the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may
rephrase the question and then I will recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue after the supplementary.


David Lewis: May I rephrase my question since the Prime Minister chose to ignore it. Will he assure the House that the supporting document is not being changed or expurgated in any substance before it is tabled for Members of Parliament and the people of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring, as the supporting document, to the document published in the Canadian Forum, I can only answer that that is of no concern to the government. The docu-

February 23, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
ments we are working on we are improving as long as they are in front of us, and we will continue to do so until we feel they are ready to be made public.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question.
In view of the report by the Shoe Manufacturing Association that 50 per cent of the shoes sold in Canada in 1971, or 39 million pairs, were imports, and in view of the fact that countries exporting these shoes pay salaries 10 per cent lower than in Canada, would the Prime Minister tell whether the government intends to take measures in order to save the shoe manufacturing industry in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think that this subject was referred to on a few occasions by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I shall ask him to take note of the question and see if he can provide an answer.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister bring the House up to date on the results of the investigation started more than three months ago into cabinet leaks following some six or seven cabinet leaks that happened in rapid succession at that time, particularly in view of the fact another leak has occurred in the past couple of days making it very obvious that this is an unsatisfactory way of making public policy known to the people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is a very unsatisfactory way of making policy known, especially before it has become policy. On the substance of the question, yes, I can bring the House up to date. We are not yet in a position to lay any charges for these criminal acts.


George Harris Hees: Does the Prime Minister expect to be able to lay charges in the near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That, Mr. Speaker, depends on whether or not we find the culprits.



GOVERNMENT PROPERTY


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I am glad to see
him smiling after his experience in the past few minutes. My question has to do with a resolution passed unanimously by the legislature of the province of British Columbia on a motion by the Hon. Grace McCarthy, Vancouver-Little Mountain constituency, Minister without Portfolio in the Bennett cabinet, and seconded by Pat McGeer, the leader of the opposition.


An hon. Member:: The leader of the Liberal party.


John George Diefenbaker: The resolution asks the British Columbia government to arrange the purchase from the federal government of 38 acres of Jericho DND land north of Fourth Avenue earmarked for development, to buy it at the 1947 purchase price of around $2,500 per acre and to make said land available to the public at a nominal rate for park purposes. As this motion had the support of all three parties in the British Columbia legislature and is of tremendous interest to the city of Vancouver, will the Prime Minister say what he has in mind with reference thereto?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would want to defer on the details of this matter to the Minister of National Defence under whose jurisdiction it falls. If the right hon. member is referring to the piece of property which is in my mind, my recollection is that there was an agreement with the proper authorities in British Columbia to turn over, which we did, part of the DND land to the city and the province so they could develop it into a park and the remainder would be used for other purposes. I do not know if the right hon. member is now suggesting they have changed their minds and are trying to get something for nothing, but I will ask the minister to look into it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the government of British Columbia, or the leader of the opposition who belongs to the Liberal party and is a strong adherent, would not be asking for any change. I know some of the British Columbia members are anxious that something be done in this connection. Will the Prime Minister look into this matter with a view to deciding whether or not the request of the British Columbia legislature will receive attention?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, Mr. Speaker, it will be considered. I believe there is even correspondence on this subject. I might tell the right hon. member that the attitude of the government in this regard is no different from that taken in other instances. I know of governments in other provinces, indeed, Liberal governments, which at times have sought to get pieces of federal government property free. We always said it was in the interests of the federal taxpayers, about whom the hon. member for Edmonton West is so concerned-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that we should get money for them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether we are not getting into debate.

February 23, 1972


John George Diefenbaker: I am not engaged in debate. I am asking a question. The Prime Minister has given a rather garrulous answer. I simply ask him, is there any bigotry in a motion of the legislature of British Columbia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You are the expert on that.


George Harris Hees: No fuddle-duddles, now. Oh, oh! We heard you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
* * [DOT]



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I preface it by saying I wish he had been given control over the Unemployment Insurance Commission. He undoubtedly could have straightened out that mess. Can the minister indicate to the House if and when the Canada Labour Code amendments relating to collective bargaining procedures, which died on the order paper at the end of the last session, will be introduced in the House? If they are to be introduced, will they be in the same form or are there to be amendments to the bill of last session?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that the Canada Labour Code bill will be back in the House, I hope, before too many weeks have passed. The hon. member will have to wait to see to what extent it is changed.



FISHERIES


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of the Environment a question?
Has the minister ordered appropriate studies to be carried out with a view to increasing over 0.5 the allowed mercury concentration for some species of fish?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Studies have been conducted along these lines and, working closely with the health and welfare people, we hope some revisions will be possible in the future.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Inquiries of the Ministry
Development arising out of the announcement he made yesterday. Why was the Lachine canal not included in the takeover of historic canals and given national park status?


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



PLANS TO ALLEVIATE TRANSPORTATION AND HANDLING PROBLEMS ON WEST COAST

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: I wish to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. What plans does the federal government have to alleviate the crisis that has been building up in the grain handling and transportation systems on the west coast other than taking what appears to be the backward-looking approach of reducing present sales efforts in export markets?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to assure the hon. member that our objective in sales continues to be the objective of setting new records each year and to build our system to the maximum. We have been calling for the co-operation of all parties,-the railways, the elevator companies and the men who operate them-to achieve new ways to make the existing system work better. In fact, some of my recent meetings have been directed toward securing that co-operation and it has been forthcoming. I see reason to be optimistic about being able to go after higher and higher sales levels.


Jack Burnett Murta: I come back to my original question because of the seriousness of the problem that has developed in Vancouver. What is the government going to do about alleviating the problem in the immediate future with regard to the backlog of boats that has developed in the port of Vancouver?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the discussions and the co-operation to which I referred there is a new and higher target for unloading of cars at Vancouver. There now appears to be some willingness on the part of the terminals to operate on a seven-day week basis, all of which will help the situation with regard to the ships which are waiting and which are coming. The Wheat Board has sold to the absolute limit of the capacity of that port. At the same time, we are looking into the question of additional facilities or different techniques that may be required to increase the throughput out of Vancouver in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of members are seeking the opportunity to ask supplementaries on this subject. With the co-operation of hon. members, we should try to limit the number of supplementaries. For the moment the hon. member for Fraser Valley West will be recognized.

February 23, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



TRANSPORTATION-REPORT ON RAILWAY SAFETY

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the transportation of grain and I should like to direct it to the Minister of Transport. In view of the generally hazardous conditions in the Fraser Canyon and the many hearings conducted on the subject of railway safety by the Railway Transport Committee, can the minister give us any indication when the report of that committee will be made public?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: cannot do so at the moment, but I will make inquiries and let the hon. member know.



SUGGESTED DRYING AT INLAND TERMINALS TO EXPEDITE LOADING OF SHIPS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I should like to ask the minister how long it will be before we will catch up on the transportation of grain to meet the commitments we have already made and, further, whether consideration is being given to permitting farmers to make deliveries to existing inland terminals so the grain can be dried and made ready to be loaded on ships immediately?


Otto Emil Lang: The exact date on which there will be no ships waiting in Vancouver is a matter of complete conjecture. It should be noted that the waiting of ships in harbours in other ports of the world is an ordinary and accepted thing. It seems to me it is only in the particular case of Vancouver, and of grain loading, that special attention is directed to it although, naturally, we regret that there should be any delays. The Wheat Board is examining the question of making more use of inland terminals and the related question of whether grain should be sent to those terminals by truck rather than by rail. At the present time the board is looking at all aspects of this question to see whether the throughput out of Vancouver can be increased.


Frank Howard: I should like to ask the
Minister of Justice why he concentrates all his concern on private elevator companies and on the port of Vancouver when he has available a perfectly good federally-owned grain elevator in Prince Rupert which is not being used to capacity?



FISHERIES


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. It concerns the problem in Placentia Bay caused by herring seining fleets operating there. Does the minister have any plans to enforce necessary con-

servation measures to protect the herring resources of the bay and the rights of the people in the industry?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker, plans similar to those announced last year in respect of Fortune Bay. We have recently set up a herring management committee with representatives from the fishing industry in the Atlantic provinces. We think we can refer this question to that committee for immediate action.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-   FEDERAL INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER PROJECT SHOULD PROCEED IN LIGHT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Mr. W. B. Nesbilt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In light of the federal-provincial study on the environmental impact of the James Bay project and the fact that this study made no attempt to answer the question whether or not the project should proceed but concerned itself only with the methods which might be used to make it proceed, would the minister tell us whether the government intends to make a study of its own to decide whether or not this project should proceed in the face of all the environmental hazards involved?


John (Jack) Davis: The
study to which the hon. member refers is one carried out jointly by the province of Quebec and by the federal government. We lent a number of experts in various fields-wildlife, fisheries, oceanography and so on. The joint task force produced some 50 reports, all of which are published and available to the public. A summary has also been prepared. However, further investigations will continue as the planning for the whole James Bay project proceeds.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Perhaps the minister did not hear my question. Does the government intend to make any investigation designed to determine whether or not this project should proceed?


John (Jack) Davis: To put it simply, the project, as we have assessed it environmentally is in provincial jurisdiction. We are making federal expertise available in order to help the province assess the environmental aspects of the plan as they evolve. Were there some facets of the development which involved other governments, the question posed by the hon. member might perhaps be answered in another manner, but as far as my department is concerned, the effects of this project are provincial, not federal.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A final supplementary, addressed to the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might ask a short supplementary and the minister might reply briefly because we shall soon be running short of time.
February 23, 1972



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-APPLICATION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT

Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Is the Minister of Transport making a careful study of the James Bay project in light of the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, since this aspect of the matter clearly comes under federal jurisdiction?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In
a general way I think I can answer yes. But, basically, the act comes into play only when there is an application. I would have to inquire whether there has been such an application, but to my knowledge there has not.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF INDIANS

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: A supplementary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Bearing in mind the statement the Minister of the Environment made to the effect that various government departments were looking into the ramifications of the James Bay project and in view of the fact that the minister did not mention the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, can the hon. gentleman tell us whether his department is bearing in mind the need to preserve the rights of the Indians living in this area and assure their welfare?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are following closely the negotiations that have been taking place between the Indians of Quebec and the provincial government. We are in constant consultation with the Quebec Indians Association and we shall intervene in due course.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Considering the great interest shown by the Canadian people for the activities of the Joint Committee on the Constitution and considering that, for several reasons, this committee was unable to submit its final report to the House during the last session, would the Prime Minister be willing to reconstitute this committee so that it may present its recommendations during the current session?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the leader of the House has indicated his intention to try to get the opposition parties to agree to the reconstitution of this committee so that it may present its report.
Inquiries oj the Ministry



TAXATION


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the President of the Treasury Board arising out of an Order in Council passed under the terms of section 17 of the Financial Administration Act in accordance with which $6 million was remitted to Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited as a remission of part of the sales tax paid by that company between 1963 and 1967 when the law required that it should be paid.
I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board, who was one of the two ministers who requested this Order in Council, whether he can tell us the reason today for this generosity toward this corporation or whether he will undertake to make a statement explaining these reasons on an early occasion?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: cannot recall the details but I will undertake to ascertain what they are and respond in the House.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Would the President of the Treasury Board be willing to table the report upon the basis of which this decision to remit sales tax to Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited was made? Would he be willing to table that report in the House?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not think there was a report in a form which would enable it to be tabled. I will find out.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question which was referred to him yesterday by the Solicitor General. It refers to the subject of passports. Can the minister tell us, first, whether Geof-froy possessed a passport and, second, whether it was issued prior to his release from the penitentiary or later?


Hon. Milchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I did take notice of the question asked by the hon. gentleman yesterday. Our records show that no passport has been issued to Geoffroy in his own name. A search of the files in the passport office conducted by the RCMP subsequent to Geoffroy's escape from custody-


An hon. Member:: Release.


Mitchell William Sharp: -indicated that a passport was acquired for him earlier under an assumed name by the submission of forged documents. The hon. gentleman asked about the guarantor. The signature of the guarantor appears to have been part of the forgery. The matter is now in the hands of the police.

February 23, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do I understand from the minister's answer that this forged application, which means that the passport was therefore illegal when it was issued, was made during the short period the accused was in the penitentiary serving a life sentence?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The passport that I referred to, which was not issued, of course, in Geoffroy's name and was not applied for by him, was issued on September 28, 1971.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the investigation of these strange doings would the Secretary of State for External Affairs also cause to be inquired into whether any passport application was made by the lady who eventually because Mrs. Geoffroy, either before or after that event?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a passport was issued to the lady some time earlier. There was, of course, no reason why she should not have one; we had no reason to suspect any of the events that occurred subsequently.


Robert Jardine McCleave: A further supplementary question. Was the passport issued in her maiden name or, as sometimes happens, issued in the married name, to be delivered after the ceremony itself?


Mitchell William Sharp: Since the application was made some time earlier, Mr. Speaker, it was made in her maiden name.
t Translation]


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: I would like to ask the
Minister of External Affairs a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Considering the past record and the legal aspects in the Geoffroy case as the trial took place, I would like to know whether the Department of External Affairs got in touch with the Solicitor General's Department before issuing the passport or whether it did it on its own without consideration for the consultations and the work performed by the Solicitor General's office?


Mitchell William Sharp: I thought I had made it clear, Mr. Speaker, that no passport has been issued in Geoffroy's name. A passport which we believe Geoffroy is now using was issued in an assumed name, under forged documents.


Mr. Lincoln Alexander (Hamilton West):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to advise the House if in fact the same guarantors were used with respect to the application for a passport, and whether when the lady's passport was issued a passport for Geoffroy was issued at or around the same time? Also, in view of the fact that we are all awaiting some information as to Geoffroy's whereabouts, is the government intending to post a reward in order to obtain information as to his whereabouts?


Mitchell William Sharp: The passport for Carmen Andrde Parent was issued to her on June 29, 1971, many months in advance of the application made for the passport that we have reason to believe Geoffroy is now using.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Humber-St.
George's-St. Barbe.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West is rising on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I put too many questions for the minister to digest, but I did want to know whether in fact the minister has any indication as to who the guarantor was for her passport application. Further, is the government intending to post a reward in order to bring about Mr. Geoffroy's apprehension?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I hesitate to give more particulars about names, and so on, is one that I am sure the hon. member will understand, namely, that a worldwide search is now going on and to reveal these kinds of details we feel would hamper the operations of the police and of Interpol.



MANPOWER


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the initiative shown by many communities across Canada under the Local Initiatives Program and their disappointment that many hundreds of projects will now have to be turned down because of lack of funds, would the acting minister indicate to the House whether consideration is being given to extending the program and increasing the funds available so as to maintain the morale of these people and permit them to submit projects?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, no consideration is being given to an extension of the dates.


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the minister announced a number of local initiative projects for Newfoundland several days ago, before other Newfoundland members were aware or were informed of them, would the minister now continue this procedure and use his ministerial position to obtain advance information on Newfoundland local initiative projects that are to be rejected and make public announcements accordingly?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton.
February 23, 1972


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker,-on a point of order, I did rise to ask a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is not the only one to rise on a supplementary, but there are about five minutes left till the end of the question period and there are many members from parties on both sides of the House waiting for a chance to ask questions. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton.
* * #



POLLUTION


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the White House veto of the sewage disposal program, which is going to be a severe setback to the clean-up of the Great Lakes, can we be assured that the federal government and the province of Ontario will continue with their program on the Canadian side?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is yes.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Is it the intention of the federal government to make further representations to the United States to see whether we can change their decision?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the decision referred to in the press today dealt with the funding of local projects. It did not deal with the much larger program that is in an advanced stage of discussion with the United States for the clean-up of the Great Lakes.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has he received a telegram from the board of directors of Canadian Co-operative Implements Limited requesting a review of their application for a DREE grant for the construction of a new farm implements factory in St. Boniface, and has a favourable reply been given that the application will be approved in view of the fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that we could spend quite a bit of time during this period on questions about individual applications under the program to which the hon. member refers. If he thinks that the matter is urgent perhaps it should be considered at the time of adjournment. In any event he has now brought the matter to the attention of the minister.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am sorry to try Your Honour's patience, but this matter is urgent. The annual meeting of this organization is being held today and the matter involves upward of $3 million. The entire organization is waiting for a reply from the minister.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we are waiting for a piece of information. The corporation knows about this, and as soon as we receive the information we will make a decision.



POSSIBLE INTRODUCTION OF DOMESTIC INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATIONS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PLANS TO OFFSET EFFECTS OF UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Does the government now propose to introduce domestic international sales corporations, or the rough equivalent of such corporations, in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no plan along those lines at the present time.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Will the government make a statement in respect of what it intends to do to offset the very harmful effects on Canadian industry of the DISC program in the United States? If so, when may we expect such a statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said on a previous occasion, namely, that we were considering the effect of the program and deciding whether there would have to be any counter-action by the Canadian government.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. The minister is aware that the proposed journey of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to southwestern Ontario to study certain problems there was postponed as a result of difficulties encountered by Air Canada. Since many bodies spent a great deal of time and effort preparing briefs for the benefit of the committee, will that committee be reconstituted at an early date so there will be an opportunity for the presentation of these briefs?

February 23, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I assume, this being a new session, that the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications will be reconstituted. Of course, it is the master of its own affairs in terms of bringing forward such a recommendation. If one were to be brought forward, I would consider it sympathetically.



IMMIGRATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENT Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West): Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will be away from the House for several days, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. With regard to the list of bills he tabled on the first day of the session, can the Prime Minister tell us whether or not the government has given up any intention of amending the Immigration Act and the Immigration Appeal Board Act, in view of the situation that now exists and the fact that the former minister promised that such amending bills would be passed early in the new session?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when changes were made, I asked the new minister to study the matter and report either to me or to the cabinet. Unfortunately, he has not yet had a chance to make that report.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the speculation that the new international airport for the Toronto region may be located in the Pickering area of Ontario riding, would the minister give his assurance that after any announcement individuals and groups affected will have a reasonable and ample opportunity to express their views and, hopefully, have them taken into account with regard to the advisability of any proposed location?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister gave that assurance one year ago.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I gave that assurance quite some time ago. I am quite prepared to reaffirm it and say that, wherever the location happens to be, ample opportunity will be provided for public participation.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National 
Revenue. Can he advise whether his department is freezing estates of those Canadians who have died since the start of this year in a number of provinces and, if so, on what statutory authority?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question following the one to which he replied on Monday. Can he indicate what Canadian aid is now going to Bangla Desh and, particularly, can he advise if the lost or diverted shiploads of wheat have been directed to a port in that country?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, $22 million has been allocated for the relief of those who were refugees in India. Seven million dollars in wheat has also been allocated to Bangla Desh and $500,000 has been made available in cash to the United Nations' relief operation there. Of that total, $11.5 million has been channelled through international organizations and Canadian voluntary agencies. Over one half of the $7 million in wheat has been delivered. The remainder has been shipped and will be delivered shortly. The entire $500,000 given to the United Nations organization has been disbursed. Also, part of that $7 million of wheat is the subject of legal action by the government of Canada for recovery.



INDIANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is an observer from his department to attend the inquest into the death of an Indian woman at Sandy Lake, northern Ontario? I understand the inquest is to take place tomorrow. I ask this question in view of the wide implications involved in this case as to the adequacy or inadequacy of health services throughout northern Ontario.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am taking note of the suggestion of the hon. member. I shall inquire and ask an official of my department to attend the coroner's inquest as an observer.



TRANSPORT


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What
February 23, 1972

progress is the government making toward promoting the development and production of the DHC-7 STOL aircraft?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister should attempt to reply briefly because we have almost run out of time.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I was about to say that it would be quite impossible to give a detailed answer. However, I can say that we are in constant touch with the de Havilland Company on this subject.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Can he indicate to the House and to the people of the Atlantic provinces whether the government has now moved away from the 50-50 sharing formula respecting offshore mineral rights? Also, has he any comment on Premier Regan's announcement that the federal government appears to be moving toward a much more relaxed position-


Gerald William Baldwin: "Realistic."


J. Michael Forrestall: -a much more realistic position which would assure a good share of that revenue for our Atlantic provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have all been quite relaxed about it ever since the Supreme Court decided in that case which was not dissimilar to the one to which the hon. member has referred that this was under federal authority and jurisdiction. As the federal government, we felt that we had to speak for the rights of the people of all Canada. In these negotiations with the provinces we have always indicated that we would be flexible and if any reasonable solution could be found we would be happy to agree to it. The provinces themselves, the hon. member might not know, had several attempts at agreeing among themselves as to what might be done, but they never came up with any proposal to the federal government. I understand that the new Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources plans to visit some of the premiers and discuss these matters with them in the near future.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might ask his supplementary briefly, after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Waterloo for one last question.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, would the right hon. gentleman indicate whether he has instructed, or given
Inquiries of the Ministry
authority to the new Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to indicate, in his discussions, flexibility with respect to the 50-50 sharing arrangement? Is he allowed to negotiate a better sharing arrangement for the provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A what?


J. Michael Forrestall: Has the Prime Minister given the minister authority to offer the provinces a better deal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I just answered generally that we had been flexible all along on some kind of arrangement. We put our proposal forward in the hope that we would get agreement on it. One of my intentions in appointing this particular minister is that he is well known for his flexibility-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and therefore he would be accommodating.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: God help us.



POSSIBLE MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINES- CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC OWNERSHIP IN STUDY

Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and refers to the study that his department is conducting which deals with the problem of constructing pipelines along the Mackenzie River valley and a second study involving a major policy review of resources and energy. I ask the minister whether this study will include methods of financing and forms of ownership and, if so, will the study give consideration to public ownership of pipelines in Canada?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the study in question will be a very extensive one regarding the development both of energy and mineral resources. I think it very likely that incident to that study, the two points the hon. member has mentioned will come up. Very obviously, with the very extensive jurisdiction that the federal government has established and our planned pattern of pipeline and resource development, and our current participation through companies like Panarctic Oils, the government's presence in that area is going to be a very pervasive one.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order dealing with the business of the

February 23, 1972
Speech from the Throne
House. There will be two votes tonight on the issue before the House and, provided the government survives them, other amendments may be moved tomorrow that would normally be voted on on Friday. The leader of the House may feel that hon. members might like the weekend in which to reflect and contemplate on their positions with regard to those votes. There has been some suggestion that any vote which normally would be taken under the Standing Orders on Friday might well be taken at a quarter to ten Monday evening.
Also, would the government House leader indicate what business the government intends to call after the Speech from the Throne debate has been concluded on Tuesday of next week?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. friend has realized there is no doubt about survival and is asking me to indicate government business following the vote. I would hope that on the first day we would call the bill in respect of fiscal payments, followed by the bill to amend the British North America Act with regard to readjustment of representation, followed by the CNR bill and the bill to amend the Explosives Act, which will be carried by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Gerald William Baldwin: He is explosive enough.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With regard to the holding of any votes on amendments which might be moved tomorrow or later, it would be agreeable to the government, if the House agrees, that all questions be put at 9.30 p.m. on Monday next, that the votes be held after the regular time for the ringing of the bells and that votes normally to be held on Friday would be deferred until that time. If that is agreeable, it could be made a House order.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: This is agreeable to us, and perhaps it could be made a House order right now so it will be clear.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, February 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ross Whicher 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. 34), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Caouette (p. 117).
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the House adjourned I was asking the government to implement the policies embodied in the Speech from the Throne or, if you like, to implement the policy statements contained in the speech.
It is not our statements that count, but our actions present and future. They can alter the economy or correct what is wrong. That is what we shall do. We will eliminate the abuses we are aware of in our capitalist system.
If our two ethnic groups were antagonists, the future of Canada would be dreary, but if we can find grounds for agreement, the chances for peace and progress will be improved since, whatever our ethnic origins, we are faced with the same needs and pursue the same objectives.
Every citizen wants his share of the benefits of progress and of the economy as a whole.
To this end, let us set out together on the march of the coming sixteen months. We may take different roads, but they all lead to the same goal. Canadians have been waiting a long time and they witness what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, what type of economy will we be passing on to our descendants? Will we have sufficient will-power to build up a well balanced economy? Will we have the courage to place all our institutions at the service of members of society? That is what the Speech from the Throne advocates. Will we have the necessary drive to organize the economy so as to eliminate disparities once and for all, to do away with a part of the federal and provincial debts which are strangling our citizens? Mr. Speaker, will we have the courage to call for adoption of regulations required to achieve the opposite of taxes and levies, which is a guaranteed income for all?
Will we have the courage to enforce the rules that are required if all that is physically possible is to become, once and for all, financially so?
Today, we are far from those realities.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the excitement and the promise of modem technological achievements become hollow and mocking to the citizens who find in society little understanding of their hopes and little provision for their needs.
We must remove the impression of isolation which so often surrounds men and women, depriving them of their sense of responsibility, of accomplishment, of fulfilment, and removing from them their identity as individuals. We must, Mr. Speaker, remove the barriers that create isolation, permit each Canadian to detect his own responsibilities.
We in this place have a special responsibility to help bring these goals and those hopes within reach, to husband our resources and share them justly among this generation and those to follow so that our society will believe in the dignity of every single individual.
Those are the objectives we will be asked to study during this new session. Economic security is one of the most effective forces with which to counter social isola-

February 23, 1972

tion. Job opportunities must be found and income uncertainties overcome if all Canadians are to share in the richness of this land.
Mr. Speaker, I have just repeated the most beautiful remarks contained in the speech made at the opening of the current session by the Governor General who asked the Divine Providence to guide us in our deliberations.
To recognize the dignity of every human being, to ensure that all his vital needs are met, conquer the social isolation of the individual, to overcome economic uncertainties, to multiply jobs, that is what the Speech from the Throne advocates and that is what I ask the government to achieve.
Mr. Speaker, for the members of the House, the program is already laid out. There remains only to devise a realistic formula allowing us to reach those objectives. Will that formula be applied in such a way that each Canadian citizen will have his rights and prerogatives spared?
It is already a step forward, if not a total achievement, to wish that our huge resources and our plentiful reserves be managed wisely and equitably shared and allocated. Now, we must put through the economic and financial technique necessary to achieve these quite definite objectives in the best interests of every Canadian citizen.
In order to achieve the goal of full participation by all members of society, all factors leading to isolation must be removed.
We cannot invite respect for our laws and support for our institutions from persons to whom they are irrelevant or ineffective. Government activities must reflect the needs of all Canadians, not only the favoured few.
It is the view of the government that the most important single factor in the attainment of individual dignity and active social involvement is the assurance of a secure income. The new bill to be introduced before the House in that respect means a considerable step towards progress. The "total income security program" is the most important issue mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. These words "total income security" for each Canadian are a summary of all the objectives of a civilized and developed country.
But it is not enough to have a high level of production thanks to our natural resources and our up-to-date techniques because this production must be used up. And how can we have consumption of this increasing production with decreasing or inadequate incomes? This is what is happening now. Income must be tailored to the country's ever increasing production and its people's needs.
As for the Speech from the Throne, many people and mainly journalists are trying to find the government's intentions about the date of the election which must take place this year or next year. While respecting this useless initiative from our public scribblers who do not know how to waste their time and their readers' time,
Speech from the Throne
I would like to state my opinion on the necessity of a general election in this difficult period.
First, this government with a strong majority has been elected for five years and can stay in power until July 1973 without being accused of power abuse. Second, with its overwhelming majority the government would have nothing to gain by risking a general election before the legal date.
In my opinion, it should take all the time required to implement its 1968 program and establish a united Canada and a just society. All Canadians are expecting it and this is alluded to a number of times in the Speech from the Throne.
Third, the government with its overwhelming majority should take advantage of the next 16 months to use the experience gained over the first years of its mandate for completing its program of a just society in a united Canada.
That is my point of view. If reporters feverishly hope for an early election,, we members can feverishly hope for a well-fulfilled mandate. Who could blame us? There is no serious reason for a majority government elected for a five-year term to resign before the end of their mandate. Let us do away with the excitement of an early election and make use of our energy, our talents, our goodwill to benefit as much as we can from the experience we have had since 1968, with a trained group as regards parliamentary techniques.
Mr. Speaker, the objectives set in the Speech from the Throne, although vague and imprecise, enable us to express all possible hopes as to better distribution of wealth or of the national production, better distribution of income, having regard to the needs and dignity of every citizen, every family, taking into account the tremendous national production of the current year. The idea is there. The wish is clearly expressed. The time has come now for legislative and administrative action that will enable us to provide for better distribution of personal family income, due to the social commitment of all Canadian producers, according to their talents and their capital.
Fourth, Mr. Speaker, not worrying anymore about an early general election, the government with its great majority will be able to make the most of the 16 coming months of their mandate so as to bring together economically, socially, financially and even politically, the two extremes of this disunited and unbalanced Canada- the very poor and the very rich.
All this is also superbly expressed in the Speech from the Throne, if we take the trouble of analyzing it with an open and practical mind. We find two excerpts which let us foresee a promising future. If we eagerly set ourselves to task, our social, family and national spirit will be improved. Here are those two excerpts:
It is the view of the Government that the most important single factor in the attainment of individual dignity and active social involvement is the assurance of a secure income. Consid-

February 23, 1972
Speech from, the Throne
erable progress towards the goal of a total income security programme for all Canadians is achieved in the new Family Income Security Plan bill.


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


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne- when one takes the pleasure of analyzing it, as the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) has just put it- contains several subjects which fall more or less directly, more or less exclusively, under my ministerial jurisdiction. I say "more or less" because, in a modern government, very seldom does a subject fall completely within the jurisdiction of one minister or one department. Usually, several departments are concerned with the same subject.
These subjects are many; here are a few: the required co-operation between the public and private sectors, between government and industry in particular; the application of science and technology to industrial development; the importance of progress for the touristic sector, the promotion and diversification of exports, on which I am pleased to speak today in answer to the speech of my hon. friend the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees); the need to entertain good relations with foreign countries, the United States and the European Community in particular; and the need for an industrial strategy "prepared for the peculiar character of the Canadian economy." Mr. Speaker, these are but a few of the subjects which are contained in the Speech from the Throne and which interest me particularly, professionally, if I may say so.
Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a program for a whole session, considering the scope of the subjects. Within the next nine or ten months, I shall therefore be pleased to announce certain measures under each of these headings and even under others which are not there, such as the training of business managers. We intend to contribute somehow to the training of "managers" to put it in the style of Burnham.
In most cases, and I am pointing it out right now, such measures will be taken within the framework of existing legislation; there will not be new laws. I do believe that this does not reduce the significance of the bills we are going to announce. I even think that, in general, all the governments in the world have a tendency to exaggerate the significance of legislation with regard to decisions taken in accordance with existing laws.	6
Today, I want to refer to measures dealing in particular with the promotion and diversification of exports, m my reply to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.
In a few months from now-I do not want to be too accurate about it because it is too risky-I shall have the nerve to bring in a comprehensive industrial policy, an industrial strategy which has been shaping up in my department during the last few months. I say the nerve,

because it will be needed, so enormous is the undertaking. Mouthfuls of platitudes are being uttered on the subject of industrial strategy, and have been for so long!
The speech made by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is a fairly obvious sample. First, he told us he would explain for our benefit what an industrial strategy, an economic strategy as presented by the Progressive Conservatives would be like. I must congratulate him on having dared to do this, but it is not enough to say that one will speak on a subject; what is actually being said on it is also important.
Then, if we consider-and I have done so with care- the account given by the leader of the opposition of this economical or industrial strategy, what is there to be found? He stated, and justly so, that it is important to establish priorities, to co-ordinate the action of the different departments-I agree with him on this-to strengthen the regions where expansion is slow, without making the rich ones poorer. Then he goes on to list what he calls the essential objectives: job creation, levelling of regional disparities, constant economic development, export promotion, fish conservation, fight against inflation, protection for pensioners, protection of family farms, etc.
Mr. Speaker, that is all very interesting, even very useful, but those are mere pious platitudes. And, I know whereof I speak, because I also have spoken such platitudes. You can see how honest I can be, but I never had the idea of calling that an industrial strategy.
But it is not enough to say: Here are the objectives. It is not enough to say: Here is what we should do. The problem becomes interesting when such objectives are compared, when some effort is made to relate them to one another. Then exchanges are required, compromises, and bargaining. It is not possible to have all of that at the same time.
If I say, for instance, that we should work harder for fish conservation, it is quite possible that operators will be more interested in the sale and export of fish. So, you have a conflict between conservationists and fishmongers. It is the same thing in many cases and one must make choices.
The hon. leader of the Progressive Conservative party told us that we should also have good relations with the private sector and the provinces. Again, all this is pious statements and commonplaces. Everybody agrees. But there are times when there is systematic opposition between the interests of provinces and those of the federal government, their interests being different because they serve very different groups of people. So, even if you want to be nice and friendly to everyone, it will not be possible because you will have to make choices.
And while I was listening to him, I wondered: Is the leader of the official opposition going to indicate some choice that he has made himself? To my great bewilderment, he said, suggesting incentives for productivity, and I quote:
...au moyen d'un programme de mesures visant a encourager les initiatives des Canadiens dans tous les secteurs du commerce, de l'industrie, de l'agriculture et des autres occupations.
February 23, 1972

I could not believe it. I checked the English version and found the same idea, unfortunately:
-in all branches of business, industry, farming and other occupations.
This is not a choice, saying: We are going to encourage industrial development, or development "in all branches of business, industry, farming and other occupations".
It is often said that to govern is to choose. Similarly, to establish an industrial policy is to choose. It is quite possible that through one's choice-and this is normal-one might promote the development of one particular sector of trade or industry over another, and one can very easily be led to say, that sector is not efficient, it has no future, not only will we not encourage it to develop but even encourage it not to develop.
This is the kind of thing a valid industrial policy should hold. Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising to see that in the circumstances there are but few people who are prepared to make those choices, and then it is normal for the opposition to say to the government, make those choices and we will be able to criticize them once you have made them.
In the months to come I intend to expose myself, to be audacious and I will start by making a few speeches on that subject, so as to set the debate on the right track.
The first will be on the complexity of the task, on the complexity of developing an industrial policy, an industrial strategy, that is the difficulties of setting up specific goals which can meet the consensus of a majority of the population. It is not an easy thing to do. One can come up with all kinds of philosophical thoughts in favour of maternity without of course making enemies but when it comes down to setting up more specific goals, of course, this becomes more complicated.
I will be discussing in that speech the need to recognize all the factors involved, whether they be historical, geographical, constitutional, cultural, etc., and the difficulty to co-ordinate tax, monetary, trade, tariff, scientific, educational policies, etc., as well as the lack of a central unit of political and economic power in Canada. People say, let the federal government develop an industrial strategy, just as if the federal government had supreme authority over the provinces and private industry, as if we were in Prussia, in the 19th century, and we asked a general of the Prussian army to indicate his strategy. He would do it because they had only one decision centre. But it is not the same in Canada, in 1972. In other words-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Demagogue or demagogues!


Jean-Luc Pepin: -if my hon. friend of the NDP thinks that we will have a "gosplan", Russian style, he is making a mistake.
It is not what the people expect from their government.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Fewer speeches and more action.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In my second speech, I would like to define the experiments that have already taken place in this area of industrial strategy.


An hon. Member:: May I ask a question?
Speech from the Throne


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am sorry, I will answer any number of questions when I am through.
I would like to talk about the experiments that have been tried already in some sectors of Canadian industry. It is common knowledge that my department and others as well have experimented with various industrial strategies in different fields such as electronics, textiles and ship-building. These experiments covered streamlining and specialization.
A study will have to be made of the experiments in order to recognize what problems are likely to occur and what solutions can be worked out.
Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that many of those who speak of industrial strategy are not aware that such strategy does exist. Imperfect or inadequate it may well be, and this I recognize, but it still cannot be said that there is no strategy now which, to my view, would be suggesting that the history of Canada begins with us, with the speaker's appearance on the stage.
I am conservative enough to hold the same view as Burke did when he said he was suspicious of any allegedly new policy. If a policy is new, he said, that means it has no roots, no foundation in reality. It can be seen I have read my conservative authors well.
A new policy emerged the day before from Jupiter's thigh would seem suspicious to me precisely because it has not been subjected to the test of time and experience.
Finally, in the third speech I hope to make within a few months, I should like to outline, so that others may criticise, what an industrial strategy could be, spelling out objectives, criteria, priorities, identification mechanisms, etc.
That is the first step I should like to carry out. The second, consultation, has already been initiated. It is my intention to consult all those concerned in the world of business, labour, and particularly all those who have expressed or will express in the coming months their views on this industrial strategy.
All those who have made speeches or who intend to do so will be summoned and asked to reconcile their arguments with those of others, all of them intelligent and yet who think in a completely different way from them. That is not a threat on my part. On the contrary, I think that people who made representations, who have carried out analyses on the industrial policy, are courageous and deserve to be applauded. We will put their contribution to test, as it were.
So much for industrial strategy.
A few words now on our relations, on current negotiations with the United States. The time is not ripe to deal extensively with this matter. I only hope that it will come soon, after agreement has been reached with the United States on the elimination of certain irritants.
I only have two comments, Mr. Speaker. The first relates to the manner in which current negotiations are carried out; the second concerns its content. As to the way the negotiations are carried out, I can only mention that there are in our midst doves and hawks,

February 23, 1972
Speech from the Throne
people who show a policy of no compromise, like the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis), who weis saying on television the other day:
Show them that we are self-reliant-
Mr. Speaker, I think this approach is childish. Few countries in the world can be described as "self-reliant" and the Americans themselves are just coming out of an ordeal where they had to call on the co-operation of many countries in order to solve a problem of their own, which was an international problem as well.
I fail to see how Canada can go out and preach on the international scene saying: "The hon. member for York South has asked us to tell you that we are self-reliant." This is mere bragging and I do not think it is the proper attitude to take.
In this respect, one can notice, for example, a difference in tone between the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) and his House leader (Mr. Baldwin). I appreciated the way in which he made his remarks the other night on television and I think it should be put on record. When asked to state his opinion on the ongoing negotiations with the United States the House leader said:

Now we're going to be awfully lonely in the trading world if we get too tough with the United States. That doesn't mean that on the good points we should fight, but if we get into a trade war with the United States, you know that it's not going to be their blood, or at least threre is going to be more of our blood on the floor than that of the United States. And I think that there are, many of the people in Congress... itching for a protectionist war, and I think we have to be very careful, possibly make some concessions which under other circumstances we might not. That doesn't mean that we have to give away things.
[Translation1
Mr. Speaker, I consider that good philosophy and I do not laugh at the House leader of the Conservative party. As would any intelligent person, he has evaluated the vigorous approach and the diplomatic approach, so to speak, and this is what we are endeavouring to achieve in adopting a reasonable way.
Recently, I was asked several times to make public Canada's offer, to make public the compromise, the conditional agreement that has been reached. I had a little joke about that yesterday when I said that my son Nicholas, and even Justin, the Prime Minister's son, were better negotiators than those who suggested that. When my son wants something from me or from his mother, he does not tell us right away what he will settle for. He manoeuvres, he tries to sell and to buy at the same time!
Well, it seems to me that the fact that, in spite of what has leaked on this matter in the United States, the Americans did not make that agreement public, but suggested that the door remains open, is a good omen. I think we should follow their lead. It shows that there is still room for give and take.
Therefore I believe that it would be rather unwise to make public now the terms of that conditional agreement. But it will be made public in due time and, as for me, I will be very pleased about that.

As far as the actual content of the negotiations is concerned, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings did really see, the other day, what the problem is all about namely that our talks with the United States deal with two sets of facts. Firstly, there are the irritants, that is all the minor difficulties and problems in the relations between Canada and the United States. But there is a second aspect which is much more important, much more fundamental, and that is the trade balance between our two countries. In the United States there are some people who would like to seize the opportunity to amend, to reduce, and even to eliminate Canada's surplus in that trade balance.
And this, indeed, is a matter other than the solution of irritants. And if we are not in agreement yet, one reason is in fact that negotiations went on at those two levels concurrently. We should decide what we are talking about. For our part, we are talking about the balanced package of irritants, and this is not the same thing as the trade balance between the two countries.
And if I may criticize the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, it would be for the conclusion he drew the other day while commenting on a remark from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I quote:
Yet the United States government has been able to con this government into believing that we have some responsibility to right this imbalance. . .Canadian industry will have to make sacrifices that will cost jobs in this country.
The least that can be said is that this is not yet true. The hon. member has no right to judge that we have.


George Harris Hees: Nobody has said you are going to give in.


Jean-Luc Pepin: On the contrary.


George Harris Hees: Sharp said it out in Winnipeg.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member misinterpreted what the minister said. The fact that agreement has not been reached would imply, to anyone willing to look objectively at the situation, that this "conning" job has not taken place.


George Harris Hees: Do you want to bet you will not make a lot of concessions


Jean-Luc Pepin: You are writing history before it takes place. Let us be friendly and say that one ought to suspend judgment on that particular item, because there is no proof yet to conclude.


George Harris Hees: It is obvious what is going to happen.


Jean-Luc Pepin: All right; let us agree to disagree. My last point has to do with export promotion. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees)-I am giving him special attention today-is always funny; he is always entertaining even when he is trying to be nasty. The description he gave of my behaviour while on trade missions, of going from luncheons to dinners, is really the height of caricature. I suggest it should be included in a book of humour on Canadian politics. I do not intend to defend myself today. I rest my defence on the

February 23, 1972
opinions of businessmen and newspapermen who went with me to China, the U.S.S.R., Algeria or Japan. I rest my case on what they said on the subject.
For tear, however, that some future readers of Hansard might think the former minister was only reminiscing on his own when he prepared that description of my behaviour, I should like to say here in public that what he said about me was a caricature which does not describe the conduct that he himself followed when he was Minister of Trade and Commerce. He was really working for Canadian exporters, and I would appreciate it very much if he could accord me the courtesy of presuming that I am doing the same.


George Harris Hees: I think your heart is in the right place. I am wondering about your methods.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Very well, let us consider methods then. The hon. member made three main suggestions. The first was that we should send out 25 missions a year composed of businessmen. The second was that we should bring to Canada from abroad between 600 and 700 businessmen a year. I think I am quoting him accurately. He added that we should wine and dine and entertain them.
I do not think he could have meant that, since he had already condemned me for going from one dinner to another. His third recommendation was that we should arrange meetings between businessmen and officials of my department. These are very good ideas. I agree with them.
The only difficulty is that we are already doing all those things; we have been doing them for two or three years. I am disappointed; I thought the hon. member was a devoted reader of the Financial Post, the Financial Times, Le Devoir, the Globe and Mail, the Vancouver Sun, all those respectable newspapers which have been reporting my activities extensively in the last months and years.
I shall demonstrate this. First, as to missions. This year we have received about 25 incoming missions. The situation with regard to outgoing missions is different. I simply say that because a technique was good three or five or ten years ago does not mean the same technique will remain good for centuries to come. We have found by analysis that this type of businessmen's mission may not be the best. As a matter of fact, we have decided to adopt one of the other suggestions the hon. member was making the other day; we have decided to make better use of our money by sending specialist missions abroad.
Suppose, let us say, that there is a question involving the entry of apples to Japan. We recruit a group of specialists and interested businessmen in Canada and send them out as a technical mission. I am citing an actual case. Or suppose there is a problem involving the entry of tobacco into Japan. Well, we send a technical mission made up of tobacco growers. We believe this to be a more precise and effective instrument. It is the difference between using an axe and working with a scalpel.
Speech from the Throne
The hon. member says we should bring businessmen here from abroad-he suggests between 600 and 700 a year. Well, we have been doing this for the last three years. Last year 700 came and this year we are expecting between 900 and 1,000. We are doing more than this. We are developing an entirely new set of programs for participation in capital projects abroad, for participation in market development, for participation by individual manufacturers in trade fairs. We say to an exporter, "You have been putting in three or four bids in the last few months and you are short of money. We shall pay 50 per cent of the cost of the next bid, or 50 per cent of the cost of bringing a prospective purchaser into Canada." If it works, the businessman pays the money back. If it doesn't, he forgets it and so do we.
We have also set up a market development group which is at work now putting things together-people producing equipment, people offering services, financial sources. The group spends its time putting these three components together. In other words, we are already much ahead of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.
The hon. member does not like the type of mission I led recently to many countries, Algeria, China, Japan, and so on. These missions are not made up of politicians only. They are tripartite in nature and I should like to underline this fact. There is usually a politician or two included: my parliamentary secretary was in the last one. Usually missions also include five, eight or a dozen officials from my department and a few more from the embassy of the country we are visiting. The Canadian ambassador is generally of great help to us. For example, Mr. Moran in Japan did a splendid job for the mission there. Then there is also a group of businessmen with the mission. What is wrong with that?


George Harris Hees: It's good, but you do not do enough.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Last year missions went to Japan, Germany, the U.S.S.R., China, Algeria, Morocco and Israel-and the hon. member protests when I am not in the House!


George Harris Hees: I have never done that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired. Unless he gets unanimous consent from the House, he cannot continue his speech. Is the House prepared to allow the minister to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: On those last five missions I have taken with me 102 businessmen and they have done extremely well for the missions.
If I had more time I would go into great detail as to the way in which we conduct these missions and determine their modus operandi. For example, when we went to the Soviet Union the problem was one involving two countries whose products and resources are not com-

February 23, 1972
Speech from the Throne
plementary, so we developed mixed groups. We established seven of these groups in order to assess Canada's good points in the fields of technology, equipment, and so on, and decide how exchanges of technology and goods could take place. In China, the problem was a lack of information about the goods which that country was prepared to import. We solved this problem by getting the Chinese government to accept that each year there would be consultation between the two governments at which time China would indicate its import intentions for the year ahead. This constitutes quite an advantage. This meeting took place last December.
The difficulty in Japan was of penetrating the import system with manufactured products. This problem may have been solved by a sort of moral commitment given to us by the Japanese government that they would welcome such a move on our part, and then an approach was made to the big trading companies of Japan to try to convince them they should become involved in the process of bringing Canadian manufactured goods into Japan not only in their own interests but in the interests of Japan and Canada.
This is now being done. During the last few days we have had responses from four big Japanese trading companies, Mitsubishi, Sumitomo, Mitsui and Marubeni, and two of these companies have announced that they are going to send a trade mission to Canada to identify and buy. That is all to the good and is exactly the sort of thing my hon. friend would do, I am sure, were he still minister of trade and commerce. So when the hon. member says that we have gone back to doing business as usual, the facts are quite different; that at least I can say.
The hon. member also said we should arrange some meetings between officers of ITC and the business community. This is an obsession with the department. We estimated today that during the last year officers of the department have taken part in from 200 to 300 seminars, panels and what not, and members of the House from all parties have seen my officers in their own ridings on many occasions doing promotion for our programs.
As a matter of fact, if I may say so smilingly, we have taken a leaf from the hon. member's book in that we have arranged a big trade commissioners' conference. I do not have time to give any details, but there was a communique issued a few days ago on this subject. We are bringing them back as the hon. member did in 1960 and 1963, but with some more refinement, of course. The refinement is that we are not bringing them all back at the same time. We have divided the world into three parts and we are bringing in each of these groups of senior commissioners at different times.
We have also arranged for co-operation with the CMA and CEA in a somewhat more systematic fashion than my hon. friend did in 1960 and 1963. I was speaking to my good friend a moment ago and he asked me why it is that Canadians do not seem to be well aware of these

events. I regret that, because I had taken it for granted that the hon. member read all of the communiques, the Financial Post, the Globe and Mail and Le Devoir. Good Canadian businessmen have shown interest. Perhaps I am being a bit blunt or severe, but I think most hon. members of the House are aware of these things. Another point of detail is that we have published a paper entitled "Commerce Exterieur", and "Canada Commerce", which used to be sent to about 5,000 Canadian businessmen but now goes out to about 20,000. There is hardly a businessman worthy of the name who does not get a copy.
There are many other matters I could touch on. For example, I should like to have time to explain how the EDC-the Export Development Corporation-is growing. For example, average loans granted by EDC between 1960 and 1969 amounted annually to about $50 million. Last year the figure was $340 million and this year it is expected to be from $400 million to $500 million. It is not only a question of quantity but quality too. EDC is now working much better with the private banking systems than was the case previously. All kinds of ways and means are being found to increase this joint approach. I can give more information on this subject later.
Abroad EDC has developed a technique, which I think is a good one, whereby it establishes re-lending facilities. For example, EDC makes a loan to a local industrial development corporation, as was the case in Algeria, and that agency becomes a re-lending outlet for EDC. Rather cleverly, we are using their personnel to do the job for us.
Those hon. members who read the newspapers will be aware that in recent months we made available about $100 million worth of loans through EDC financing in countries like Algeria, Iran and Israel. In Yugoslavia, for example, Canada sold through EDC and a private bank 110 locomotives manufactured in London, Ontario, which was the biggest sale of locomotives in the history of mankind. You cannot do much better than that.
The same thing is happening in Korea, in Venezuela and elsewhere. There are so many instances I could cite, but I see my time is up. I just wanted to cheer up the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings and to reassure him that I think the department is in good hands. Some of my officials served him well during his years. They are still as intelligent as they were then and we have some new ones, all doing a wonderful job for Canada.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) with a great deal of interest and rapt attention. I must say at the outset that he demonstrated an absolute genius for philosophical dissertation, perhaps second to none in the House. But let me hasten to add that, like every other professor I have known, he seems to have an absolute phobia for thoroughly confusing the issue.
February 23, 1972

In the time allocated to me I should like to deal with some aspects of the Speech from the Throne and then, if I may, with some of the remarks made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. If I may first deal with the Speech from the Throne in a most serious vein, never have we as Canadians experienced a time of greater unease and worry than today. We are worrying about the future of our homes, the future of our jobs and the future of our country.
I think that the Speech from the Throne was looked forward to by Canadians with perhaps more than the usual expectation. Most citizens were aware that we were approaching the time when we would be facing a federal election, so most of them expected a Speech from the Throne in which the government would try by every conceivable means to encourage voters to support it. I think they also expected that demonstrated in the Speech from the Throne would be an easily understandable program for Canada which would serve to assuage some of the uneasiness that Canadians are experiencing today.
Those of us who heard the Speech from the Throne and have listened to interpretations of it via the media, the press, radio and television, must certainly have realized almost immediately that the Speech from the Throne itself was nebulous, ethereal, that it did not come to grips with the basic problems facing us today. Like most speeches from the throne that we have heard lately, it dealt with considerations, contemplations, promises of action for the future. But in no way did it give concrete evidence that the government would come to grips with the problems that are bothering Canadians today.
As Canadians, we have two things to go on in considering our government. This government is approaching an election. We want to know what the government's program will be. As opposition members, we want to know what we will be up against when we go out to face the people. The people of Canada want to know what the government is proposing for them.
At a recent meeting in Ottawa, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is reported to have assured his party followers that one of the biggest problems facing their party today is that Canadians in general are not familiar with that party's accomplishments and record. Well, in the short time allocated to me this afternoon I will try to put on record some of those accomplishments. I begin by saying that some of the government's achievements are achievements that no government could have been expected to accomplish in a single term of office. I speak of the highest unemployment rate in the history of Canada, of the highest cost of living to which Canadians have ever been subjected, of the highest rents, the highest interest rates, the greatest number of business failures, the greatest budgetary deficit and the greatest amount of confusion that this country has ever witnessed.
Why any Prime Minister would urge his government to go out and face the country on the basis of that record is beyond me. That indicates to me that here is another record. Here we have a Prime Minister who
Speech from the Throne
acually has less conception than anybody else as to how the people of the country feel about his record.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, no one in this country in any way doubts the intellectual capacities of our Prime Minister. What bothers me is that in approaching our major problems the Prime Minister seems to be obsessed with the idea that in arriving at solutions he must apply some kind of scientific policy of balance and counterbalance. In other words, when he is faced with a force, he tries to summon a counterforce to meet it. It appears that he likes to sit back and, in an intellectual way, observe what actually happens and then react on the basis of his observations. That might be all right as an intellectual exercise in a university or college, but such an approach has been almost fatal for Canada and is one of the basic reasons for our present dilemma.
To illustrate my point may I give examples of this force and counterforce of which I have spoken and show how tragic is the result. One of the things we face today in Canada that is most divisive is the pitting of French versus English. The Prime Minister, by policies which were subject to interpretation and misinterpretation, has caused these two factions to become polarized in Canada to a degree we have never before experienced. I am terribly afraid that extremists on both sides will be using this polarization as a lever to divide our country further.
Then a program was initiated deliberately which turned consumers against retailers to such a degree that the government was encouraged to set up the Department of Consumer Affairs. There again, one Canadian faction was pitted against another Canadian faction. Also, labour was pitted against management. Not only did this government not attempt to anticipate labour problems; it seemed almost gleefully to anticipate them, to see what would happen in a confrontation. The way this government has dealt with unions involved in the public service gives further credence to the point I am trying to establish.
No one will deny that in Canada today there is antagonism between the provinces and the federal government and that we are not making progress in co-operation between the provinces and the federal governments to the degree experienced in the past. The situation has not been helped by some of the pronouncements of the right hon. gentleman regarding the character of some of the premiers of the provinces. That is another instance of force and counterforce. I could go on. Tremendous emphasis has been put on the matter of youth versus the establishment. We know about the tremendous emotional impact of legislation dealing with human problems. I am speaking of abortion and all the other aspects of that particular bill.
The latest action that is causing consternation across this country is the apparently deliberate attempt to cause a division of feeling in this country toward the United States. To illustrate further what I mean by balance and counterbalance, let me say this: it is reported that our Prime Minister, during his visit to

February 23, 1972
Speech from the Throne
Moscow, made a statement which indicated that we need the help of Russia to counterbalance the effect of the United States on our economy and way of life. There, again, you see an example of force and counterforce, balance and counterbalance, with the Prime Minister sitting back and observing the results. This is a dangerous game in which Canadians cannot possibly win. It may entertain the government, but it is Canadians who will have to pay the tragic bill.
May I now deal with some of the statements made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). I think the minister's opening remarks demonstrated clearly why his policies are not as successful as were the policies of the Minister of Trade and Commerce of the Diefenbaker government. The position is there in the minister's opening remarks for all to see, Mr. Speaker. He spoke-I am paraphrasing, and doing it correctly, I hope-of a total, global industrial policy. He said he was audacious; he said he was brave; he said he was bold. But never in his entire speech did he intimate in any way that he was businesslike-and that is what we need, a businesslike minister.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I thought the terms were synonymous. Businesslike means bold and audacious, surely.


George Harris Hees: Does the minister know what business is all about?


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, in Canada we are in trouble with our industrial program and programs of exports. It was all very well for the minister to quote figures showing that arrangements have been made from which we will in future gain exports involving countless millions of dollars in trade. But that is in the future, and this government has been dealing with the future ever since it took office in 1968.
I do not think the industry of this country will be able to wait much longer for this utopia of the future to which the government constantly points. It is a serious thing when major industries in this country reach the point where either they are not making a profit at all or are making so small a profit as to prevent expansion. It is all very well for the minister and the government to state to the House how well Canada is doing in respect of its export markets, and industrially; but they lose their credibility when we look at the tremendous number of unemployed in this country.
The only way to employ people is to have something for them to do. You cannot have something for them to do when you have an export policy and fiscal and monetary policies which seem to be deliberately designed to curtail industrial capacity rather than expand it. We are in a position in Canada today that is absolutely tragic. We are using industrial funds to pay factories for not producing. We are using taxpayers' money to pay workers not to work. We are paying farmers not to grow crops and we are fining farmers for producing. In no way can we develop an energetic industrial complex by such methods. Then the government uses tremendous
TMr. Danforth.]
sums of money in an attempt to get itself out of the dilemma.
The unfortunate thing is we seem to have such a complexity of departments of government today that it is almost impossible for one department to understand the programs of another department. Therefore, very often one department is working toward an end different from another department. I point out-and this is no secret-that under the regional development program we spend tremendous sums of money on the creation of industries when we have already industries which cannot possibly operate to capacity because the markets do not exist.
In this country, under regional expansion we grant large sums of money to create industries. What is happening, however, is that the industries are moving from one part of Canada to another to take advantage of these loans and grants in order to retool, rebuild and become more efficient at the expense of the taxpayers. We are not creating any jobs. What we are doing is moving the job potential. I do not think this is what the people of Canada expect from this government.
I should like to deal with some of the workings of the minister's department. The government speaks of economic sovereignty. There seems to be a tremendous bent or thrust by this government towards economic sovereignty. We hear about buying Canada back. We heard this in respect of the Canada Development Corporation. At the very time when they are going to buy back Canada and set up a Canadian Development Corporation to buy Canadian industries, the Department of Trade and Commerce is moving in the opposite direction, because since 1968, if my memory serves me correctly, about $314 million in grants for expansion and innovation have been made. Over half this amount was given to four large firms which are controlled by the United States. In this way they are able to expand their holdings in Canada. The money of the taxpayers of Canada is being used in a manner directly opposed to the present policy of the government. This would seem to be a rather strange program.
We have paid out millions of dollars for research. I am speaking in the order of $48 million or $50 million paid out for research. In the 1960's a tremendous amount of research was being carried on. About 25 per cent of the basic research in industry was being carried on in Canada. Under this government, however, the figure is down to 4 per cent in respect of research done in this country under the incentives program of the minister's department.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Where did you get these figures?


Harold Warren Danforth: They are your department's figures. About 19 per cent of this money goes to the United States' companies and subsidiaries, and only about 7 per cent to Canadian companies. I am not objecting to this; all I am saying is that this is not the policy being enunciated by the Prime Minister and carried out by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
February 23, 1972


Jean-Luc Pepin: What is your policy?


Harold Warren Danforth: The Minister asks what our policy is. The people of Canada will find out in future months when we occupy the seats opposite. Then we will show them what our policy is.
What this country is looking for is a government which knows not only where it is today but where it wants the country to go to tomorrow. It is common knowledge that when this government came into office, the members of the government felt they not only knew all the questions facing the government but also all the answers. In their arrogance they did not accept the advice of the industrialists of this country. They did not accept the advice of the economists of this country. They did not accept the advice of the academics of this country or the people engaged in agriculture. They knew the answers.
For four years now they have made mistake after mistake after mistake, at the cost of the Canadian people. We have never had as many small businesses go bankrupt in any four-year period as we have in the last four years. Canada has never had as many farmers move off the farms in desperation in any four-year period as we have in the last four years. We have never had so many Canadians line up for welfare payments as we have in the last four years.
This government is in trouble because it has not come up with an over-all policy to solve these basic economic problems. It will not do this government any good to point to the United States and say that it is all their fault. Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada know who is responsible for our problems today. It is the men sitting on the treasury benches. It is these men who said they had the answers. They said the answer to the problems today is reform of the tax legislation.
I was very interested to hear one of my colleagues place on the record figures obtained from the Department of National Revenue because these figures did not indicate, as the government has stated, that the tax bill would take hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of taxpayers off the tax rolls. My colleague put on record the department's own figures which show that it is perhaps in the neighbourhood of 60,000. It is this grandiose exaggeration by the government, trying to obtain plaudits from Canadians, that has got it into the trouble in which it is today. Because this government has been devious and has failed to understand what the ordinary Canadian is troubled with, it will follow its predecessor and go down to defeat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: To back up my claim that this government does not understand what is happening in Canada today, I refer to the speeches that have been put on record by representatives of the government party. I am ashamed to say that even those government members who spoke for the province of Ontario, men who should know better, said that Canadians have never had it so good. That is the tragedy in Canada today.
Speech from the Throne


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne reads like a document that has been prepared by an aggregate of technocratic bureaucrats living in an ivory tower and completely out of touch with the workaday world occupied by the vast majority of the Canadian people. I do not think I have ever seen a government so completely complacent and self-satisfied as this one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Nero, fiddling while Rome burned, was a piker compared to this aggregation who fiddle while the people of Canada burn with resentment. I think the statements in the Throne Speech and the statements of various ministers all underscore this complacency and self-satisfaction. I think the most outstanding was the one made by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), in the city of Vancouver, to a well-heeled and well-dressed audience. The minister was reported by the press as saying:
There is no doubt about it, Canada's economy is in good shape. .. it's about time that Canadians themselves woke up to this fact.
The implication is that the people of Canada are sound asleep. The fact is it is the government that needs to wake up to the fact that the Canadian people know the economy is not in good shape. I would like the Minister of the Environment to tell the unemployed in my constituency that the economy is in good shape, or to tell that to the unemployed across Canada where 665,000 were unemployed at the end of January, almost eight out of every 100 workers. If you add to that the number who are taking manpower training, who are also unemployed but not included in the figures, the Indians who are looking for work, the married women who have retired from the labour force because they cannot get jobs, we are talking about something in the neighbourhood of over three quarters of a million people in Canada who want jobs and cannot get them.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says that there are plenty of jobs. That is interesting, in view of the fact that the Department of Manpower and Immigration spent $4 million doing a job survey which showed that there were 44,300 jobs available, only 38,500 of which were full-time jobs. Either the department's survey is in error and they wasted $4 million of the taxpayers' money, or the Prime Minister does not know what he is talking rabout.


An hon. Member:: Or both.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Prime Minister says that he knows there are lots of jobs because all you have to do is to read the advertisements in the newspapers. I suggest he should read the Department of Manpower's report rather than the funny papers and the classified ads section. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mac-kasey) himself says that unemployment will probably continue to rise in coming months, but he seeks to excuse himself by saying that the Local Initiatives Program has not reached its full capacity, that on January 15 it
190

February 23, 1972
Speech from the Throne
had provided only 15,000 jobs but it is hoped that eventually it will provide some 70,000 jobs.
That is the worst indictment of the Local Initiatives Program that has been made by any member of the House. To tell the members of the House that on January 15 all those millions of dollars spent by the Canadian government had produced only 15,000 part-time jobs proves what members on this side of the House told the government last October, namely, that the Local Initiatives Program was both too little and too late, that this program, like the Opportunities for Youth program last year, was a good concept but there had been no preparatory work, there had been faulty administration, and millions of dollars had been wasted.
One is amazed when looking at some of the projects in the Local Initiatives Program. It is becoming a gigantic rip-off and is developing into the most stupendous pork-barrel this country has ever known. Some of the projects are excellent; some of them are simply seeking ways to spend money without any hope of giving the people of Canada any beneficial return. Surely the government should have learned by this time that if they want to initiate programs to provide employment, those programs must be planned months in advance, they must be worked out with the provincial and municipal governments and they must be worked out with industry and with local community organizations.
Merely to spend $150 million and to pour out the money wherever possible to mark ski-runs and to build birdhouses at a time when we cannot get decent housing for a lot of our people, including our native Indians, is an indication of the lack of imagination and lack of planning which has characterized this government, not just in the last few years but ever since it came into office in 1963.
I wish the Minister of the Environment would tell the unemployed in my constituency, most of whom waited from 7 to 11 weeks for unemployment insurance cheques, and some much longer, that our economy is in good shape. The handling of unemployment insurance payments has been the greatest administrative foul-up I have seen in all my years of association with governments.
There were three reasons for the foul-up. The first was that this was a new act and the staff out in the local offices were not properly briefed on the changes made to the act. Second, the Unemployment Insurance Commission chose this particular time to instal computers without adequate programming and adequate training, with the result that some 300 blank cheques were sent out, which is a good "do it yourself'' program if you are allowed to fill them in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: A foretaste of the future.


An hon. Member:: Liberal genius.
[Mr. Douglas.!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, those first two problems can be overcome. I will say, to the credit of the staff of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, that in recent weeks they have been making valiant efforts to break the logjam and get the cheques out. The third reason cannot be solved by administrative procedures. The third reason unemployment insurance cheques have been delayed this year is that the government has insisted on defining earnings to include holiday pay, statutory holiday pay, severance pay and overtime.
Unemployment insurance, as we have always understood it in this country, insures a man or woman against unemployment after a waiting period of one week. This government has said, "We are going to insure you against an interruption of earnings due to unemployment; but you must not only be unemployed, you must be unemployed and broke." The government has applied a means test and it has had two effects. First, it has delayed payments because an employee is required to secure information and corroboration from an employer as to whether or not he has any further money coming to him. Second, it has produced tremendous inequity.
In my constituency there is a man who had been stationed in the far north for a long time. He took no holidays, no statutory holidays and worked Sundays. When the big snows came, the plant closed and he came back to live in my constituency. When he applied for unemployment insurance he found that he had in the neighbourhood of $800 coming from his employer for holiday pay, statutory holiday pay, overtime, etc. That meant that at the rate of $100 a week for eight weeks he was deprived of any unemployment insurance benefit for eight weeks, plus a two-week waiting period.
If he had received his holiday pay each month as some workers do, or if he had taken his holidays last summer and the previous Christmas and New Year; had he gone to the outside and spent his money he would have been eligible for benefits after two weeks. Instead, he is deprived of benefits for eight weeks and by that time the snow would be gone and the plant would be in operation again, so he would be back at work without receiving any unemployment insurance benefits at all. This is cheating, when a man is asked to pay unemployment insurance-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -over the years and then is deprived of unemployment insurance benefits merely because the holiday pay and other income which he has coming to him has been held up and allowed to accumulate.
Mr. Speaker, when some unemployment insurance recipients got their cheques-and we have had quite a struggle getting them-I looked at them. I saw one unemployment insurance voucher for a week, $77; income tax deducted, $14; cheque, $63. That is a $14 deduction from a miserable $77 to keep a man, his wife and his children. Why? Because this government in its tax legislation decided to allow workers to deduct un-
February 23, 1972

employment insurance premiums from income while at the same time it taxed unemployment insurance benefits.
Allowing the worker to deduct unemployment insurance contributions from income tax cost the government $100 million, but the estimate of the government is that it will take in $130 million by taxing unemployment insurance benefits. That is $30 million to the good. If you have to chisel $30 million out of somebody, for God's sake, don't do it out of the unemployed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I say to the government on behalf of my colleagues and myself that we will not cease fighting in this House to get the government to remove this iniquitous provision of including holiday pay, statutory holiday pay and other items of this kind in the definition of earnings. We contend that the government has no right to apply a means test.


George Harris Hees: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When a man or woman has contributed to the unemployment insurance fund over a period of time, the fact that they are unemployed after the specified waiting period should entitle them to unemployment insurance, without anything else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Peters:: Crooked government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to see the government go to the people of this country who live on fixed incomes and tell them, in the words of the Minister of the Environment, that the economy of Canada is in good shape. People on fixed incomes are the most defenceless and vulnerable group in our society. Every increase in the cost of living reduces their standard of living and the purchasing power of their small income. All over this country one meets people-not just poor people but people who retired 10 or 15 years ago on what was then considered an adequate income-who now find it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.
In the speech which was given at the prorogation of the last session of Parliament on February 16, the government boasted of, and I quote, "the unmatched achievement in the area of price stability". The government has made a great deal of noise about the fact that last year the cost of living went up only between 3 per cent and 4 per cent. Mr. Speaker, if there was any price stability it had nothing to do with the government's prices and incomes policy; it was due to the fact that in 1970 the Canadian dollar was unpegged. That automatically had the effect of reducing the price of goods imported from the United States by 7 per cent or 8 per cent. Over a period of a year or a year and a half we have used up the benefit derived from unpegging the Canadian dollar.
What is happening now? Last December the cost of living index was up 5 per cent over the same month the previous year. In January of this year the cost of
Speech from the Throne
living index was up 4.9 per cent compared with January of last year. Already we are beginning to see the signs of an upsurge in the cost of living. Interest rates are going up. Our interest rates are now higher than those in the United States, whereas a short time ago they were lower.
We would like to know whether the government is going to move to begin monetary restraints, because if they are, then we are back to the old game that this government has been playing in recent years: they have been going up and down like a yo-yo. When we are faced with rising living costs, they immediately apply the brakes and get unemployment; then they give the economy a short shot in the arm, increasing the money supply by some 20 per cent, and when the cost of living goes up again, they put on the brakes.
I think we have good reason to wonder whether this government, which pumped a lot of money into the economy last year and is now watching the cost of living rising and interest rates increasing, is in a hurry to get the election over so it can start to put the restraints on again and further increase unemployment. This government has never learned the basic and essential fact that Canada has not faced inflation; Canada has faced an inequitable distribution of income. The people who have money do not need more goods. The people who need more goods do not have the money to buy them.
As John Kenneth Galbraith has been pointing out in the United States, as well as Professor Samuelson, the answer lies in a twofold program: first, public programs to improve the public sector, the building of houses, schools, hospitals and recreation centres, clearing up pollution and reforesting the devastated areas of this country; second, a program to put money into the pockets of the people in the middle and lower income groups, the old age pensioners, veterans, pensioners, native Indians and the unemployed in order to create the effective demand which is required.
The report of the Economic Council of Canada which has just been released points out that industry is reducing its forecast capital spending this year. This ought to prove to the government that merely making concessions to industry and giving tax rebates to encourage them to expand their plants is not the answer. What entrepreneur is going to expand his plant if it is operating at 80 per cent or 85 per cent capacity. The quickest way to get expansion of industry is to increase demand. If the orders were coming in at a rate the factory could not handle, the industry would soon expand its plant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This government continues to follow the "trickle down" theory. It believes that if it pumps enough money into the big corporations, giving them special concessions, grants and loans, it will somehow trickle down to the people at the bottom. The fact is that it is not trickling down at all.
25020-13!

February 23, 1972
Speech from the Throne
I would like to see the Minister oi the Environment tell the fishermen in my constituency that the economy is in good shape. The fishermen are being forced out of their industry by the minister's licensing program and boat retirement program. Fishermen are well aware that the government's whole program is designed to drive small fishermen out of the industry and to hasten the day when fishing will be entirely in the hands of large fishing companies. The young men who go into the fishing industry will do so as hired hands on ships owned and operated by the fishing companies in British Columbia.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would like the government to tell the native Indian people that the economy is in good shape. I have 13 bands in my constituency. When I visit them, I am ashamed of the way these people are being treated. There are crowded housing conditions. If they are lucky, they are building two or three houses on some reserves. Do you know how much we give them to build a house? Eight thousand five hundred dollars. Is there anyone in this House who can build a house fit for a human being to live in for $8,500?
There is a lack of water supply and sanitary facilities. In my constituency, almost every fall we have large numbers of children in the Duncan Hospital suffering from hepatitis and salmonella, because of contaminated water. We ought to be spending money creating jobs for the Indian people, helping to improve conditions on their reserves, helping to build houses, decent schools and providing a proper water supply. Don't tell them that the economy is in good shape. They know that the conditions on those reserves beggar description and are a disgrace to a so-called humanitarian and civilized society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would like to hear the government tell the business community that the economy is in good shape. I am not speaking of the 95 corporations that Mr. R. J. Rankin, president of the Liberal Party Red Carnation Fund, said supplied all their campaign funds; I am talking about the general business community, the entrepreneurs who keep the economy operating in this country.
I have never received so many letters from small businessmen as in the past six months. They complain about the fact that they cannot get working capital. The Small Businesses Loans Act is useless; the banks are not lending money under it. The Industrial Development Bank is hopeless as a source of funds for small businessmen, Large corporations, particularly those which have their parent company in the United States, have no trouble; they are able to get funds for expansion and development. But small businessmen today are finding it more difficult than ever before to get working capital and to start new enterprises. This is a large corporation-oriented government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It could not care less about small business. That is why we in this group will support the amendment moved by the Social Credit Rally, which reads in part:
due to its failure to proceed with monetary reform in accordance with the needs of the Canadian society.
We do not agree with social credit but we certainly think there is a tremendous need for reform of the monetary system in this country. It must meet the needs of Canadians, needs which are not being met at the present time. The business community today is bewildered and uncertain because the government has given no clear lead as to what its policy on foreign ownership will be. Last July the cabinet agreed on a screening mechanism to deal with foreign ownership. A few months ago it dealt with the report of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray). As the leader of our party pointed out yesterday and today, we have had repeated statements from the Prime Minister that the government's policy will be announced in due course and the report of the Minister of National Revenue on foreign ownership and control will be released. We do not have them. In his statement yesterday the Prime Minister indicated we will not get them soon, if at all. What is the effect? The effect is that the business community does not know where the government is going, for the very obvious reason that the government itself does not know where it is going.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The uncertainty of the business community is heightened by the fact that we have had conflicting statements with regard to the trade discussions that are going on with the United States. One minister told us that the government is standing on guard to protect the auto agreement. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), in the speech which he prepared for delivery in Winnipeg last Saturday, said:
It would indeed be ludicrous if there were to be a serious rift between Canada and the United States over the auto pact-
Does this mean that the auto pact is to be the sacrificial lamb? The minister went on to say:
Canada does understand and sympathize with the United States administration in its desire to correct certain fundamental imbalances in currency and trade relations. We have made our contribution to the correction of some of these imbalances and we are prepared to go further.
Surely this House and the country have a right to know how much further we are prepared to go. What concessions are we prepared to make? What deals are going on behind closed doors?
Secretary of the Treasury Connally and the United States government are not asking just for amendments to the auto pact. Are deals going on with respect to energy resources? Are we getting ready for another sellout of natural gas? Are we getting ready to make a deal about water, as the Minister of the Environment was advocating a few years ago? There was an example recently of what I have in mind. I asked the Minister of
February 23, 1972

Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) last Monday about an agreement entered into by Panarctic Oils Limited, in which the Canadian government is the largest single shareholder. Here is an agreement entered into between the company and a consortium of United States transmission and utility corporations which, in return for a loan of $75 million over 15 years, gives them first refusal of gas available for export to the United States. Mr. Speaker, does anyone believe Canada could not raise that $75 million over the next 15 years?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must do so to advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent? If there is, the hon. member may continue, but I would respectfully draw to the attention of the House the fact that we are working under a time limit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two minutes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I shall take only two minutes, Mr. Speaker. I believe an examination of the economy and of Canadian society would indicate that our economy is not in good shape. There may be some sections of it which are. A recent survey showed that the largest corporations in Canada increased their profits after taxation by 25 per cent in the last quarter of 1971 as compared with the same period of the previous year. For them, the economy may be in good shape. But for the vast majority of the Canadian people the economy is not in good shape and is not serving their needs. I say to the government that the sooner they go to the people and give them a chance to express their views on the government's management of the economy, the better it will be for all concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafonlaine: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. The hon. members for Bruce and Trois-Rivieres (Messrs. Whicher and Lajoie) performed their task very intelligently and imaginatively. The former drew a clear and detailed picture of the achievements of the present government, while the latter focussed his attention mostly on the future.
I take this opportunity to make a few brief remarks, knowing that inexorably, at half past five Mr. Speaker, will have to ask hon. members to make important decisions. Yet, I hope to have enough time to set forth a few ideas as briefly as possible.
Speech from the Throne
During the last session, I had the pleasure, as vicechairman of the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, to take part in numerous sittings of the committee, both public and in camera.
I noticed the great interest shown by the general public in the white paper on the foreign policy of Canada entitled Foreign Policy for Canadians. The same applied to that part of the white paper dealing with external aid, which was also studied. I had the pleasure and honour of being in the Chair at that time. We prepared two reports; they were tabled in the House in June 1971. On this subject, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say how much we appreciated the wise advice and opinions of the director of the Parliamentary Centre for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Mr. Dobell, and his staff. They never failed to give the two committees concerned invaluable assistance.
Since those two reports were not studied at the time they were tabled in the House, I feel that, for the benefit of hon. members as well as those who read Hansard, I might say a few words about them.
As to the first report on foreign policy, I quote first those words from U Thant, which appear on the first page of the report:
Nations cannot go alone on their isolated and often divergent paths, preoccupied only with national priorities and problems.
This testimony has served as the basis, the beacon for the preparation of our report.
The introduction contains the following words, and I quote:
The Committee considers that the policy review has been of benefit most particularly to the Ministers and officials involved in the formulation of foreign policy.
Among the main subjects contained in the report, we can find one concerning interdependence or the extension abroad of domestic policy, and the following can be found on page 3 of that report:
The Committee is convinced that there are, in fact, differences in the goals Canada wishes to attain in the internal context and those to be worked for in an international context.
The Committee sees no reason why Canada cannot promote its domestic policies and defend its national interests, while at the same time recognizing more emphatically the different environment, the different problems and therefore the different responses needed in the "global village".
On page 4 of the report, we read, and I quote:
The committee is disturbed by the lower priority accorded to "peace and security", and by the more cautious attitude toward peacekeeping-
A large number of witnesses have expressed the view that it would be impossible to realize the national objectives desired without international peace.
The committee had noted some perhaps important, omissions, since there was no mention of the names of many countries and of many subjects pointed out by the witnesses themselves and also by the members of the committee. It was also stated that the complex relations between the United States and Canada should obviously have constituted an important part of that white paper.

February 23, 1972
Speech from the Throne
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the committee accepts the restatement of the national objectives, for the time being. It considers that the white paper has given too much importance to the integration of the objectives and priorities of our foreign and domestic policies. When one considers foreign policy, one should not only wonder in what kind of Canada we are going to live, but also, as one witness put it, in what type of world we want to live.
As for the report on the assistance to international development, which was also tabled in the House in June 1971, the committee has held 25 meetings, beside the in camera sittings for the drafting of the report, and it has heard several witnesses. Furthermore, this report is based on a statement by Mr. Maurice Strong, former chairman of the Canadian International Development Agency, referring to the emergence of what he describes as "a much more human attitude toward development".
This report on the aid to international development especially deals with five main objects: the equity for social development and a fairer distribution of the advantages of economic growth; in underdeveloped countries; sharing to awake, maintain and channel the interest of Canadians; the creation of jobs entailing some assistance to obtain the best conditions of employment in less fortunate countries; a receptive and more coherent policy towards co-operation as a true association of equals; the adoption of a new policy in a field such as trade and commerce, so as to enable developing countries to help themselves, also retained the attention of committee members, and so did a new definition of technology as the adjustment of progress to the needs of various societies.
Also, we considered a quotation from Pope Paul VI, to the effect that "development is the new name for peace".
I wish to commend those who participated actively in the study of this report, and say that this experience was very enriching to me, because I had an opportunity of participating actively in the preparation of these reports. I think the government is doing well by introducing white papers and giving committee members an opportunity of discussing them in consultation with the public.
During the last session, I had the opportunity of membership on the Joint Senate and House Committee on the Constitution of Canada. I attended some 200 public and in camera meetings and I hope the committee will produce a report in the near future.
That experience was also a highly interesting one as for the first time a committee travelled all over Canada, inviting the general public's participation in the study of the problems of Canada's constitution.
During the summer of 1971 I also had the pleasure of going on a mission of inquiry in India and Pakistan together with the hon. members for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie.) Upon our return we submitted a report to the federal government wherein we stated that the major reason for the journey
was to have a direct view of the plight of the refugees from East Pakistan, as it was then called, and which is now called Bengla Desh and was recognized by Canada just a few days ago.
We believed then that the heavy burden of having to face such an influx was not to be assumed by India alone; we are more than ever convinced now that that humanitarian problem concerned all countries and that the world community owed it to itself to provide immediately an efficient and generous aid to help these millions of unfortunate people.
The Bangla Desh state is now born and those problems still exist. I hope the Canadian government will take the necessary steps to promote the rehabilitation of those 10 million refugees and that it will help Bangla Desh to gain a strong economic foothold so as to cope with the numerous problems of the present.
Last November, Mr. Speaker, I also had the opportunity of accompanying another parliamentary group in South Africa where I went along with the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) on a study mission which enabled us to gain first-hand knowledge of the problem that exists in South Africa.
That country is multiracial and multinational. About a month ago, I had a chance, in a speech I was making in Montreal, to say a few words about it. I shall take a few minutes from the House to make a few comments.
For instance, today's policy in South Africa is not the result of a mere abstraction. Five centuries are there to provide an explanation and, one might even say, command it. Even if this solution is imperfect, as compared to others, at least it has the merit of being realistic for today and imaginative for tomorrow.
Still, it remains a makeshift solution. In other words it may be acceptable, but only temporarily and for the time being. For the Republic of South Africa is racing against the clock. If it is to win the hardy game it has entered into, it should be aware of the need for quick transformation. However, such an evolution will require some sacrifices.
We will have to make financial sacrifices: the development of the future African states will necessitate huge expenses. We will also have to make moral sacrifices: in order to preserve the most essential things, the whites will have to forgo some of their privileges.
There should be no more question of petty apartheid or of what could be called pin-pricking. It is of course a considerable challenge, but it is well worth it. If historians are not allowed to prophesy, they can at least express wishes.
My wish is for the western world to finally understand the solidarity which unites it to South Africa, and without withholding criticism, to be able to temper it with objectivity. Above all, it will have to show understanding and to make allowances for a country which is faced with a problem such as exists nowhere else in the world.

February 23, 1972


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Honey):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 38(4), it is my duty to interrupt this debate, as it is now 5.30 p.m., and to put the question on any amendment now before the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the subamendment lost. The next question is on the amendment-
During the reading of the amendment:


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Maclnnis:: McBride, out.


Some hon. Members:: Out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I gather there is some concern about an hon. member entering the chamber after the Chair started to put the question. The Chair
Division Messrs:
MacGuigan
McBride
Mcllraith
McNulty
Mahoney
Marceau
Marchand
(Langelier)
Marchand
(Kamloops -Cariboo) Noel
O'Connell
Olson
Osier
Otto
Ouellet
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Perrault
Portelance
Pringle
Prud'homme
Richardson
Robinson
Rochon
Rock
Roy (Timmins)
Roy (Laval)
Serr6
Sharp
Smith
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Smith (Saint-Jean) Stafford Stanbury Stewart
(Okanagan -Kootenay) St. Pierre Sulatycky Thomas
(Maisonneuve-
Rosemont)
Tolrnie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner (London East)
Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Wahn
Watson
Whelan
Whicher
Whiting
Yanakis-122.

February 23, 1972
Division
did not see this, but	if it is the case I know the hon.	Messrs:	member will retire until the vote is taken.	Blair	Lessard (LaSalle)


Some hon. Members:: : Hear, hear!	Blouin Boulanger	Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean)


Mr. Deputy Speaker::