1972-02-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43. I present it in the lowest key possible. I want to provoke nobody, and I dare to hope that the government will see fit to accept my motion. Indeed, I have given notice of it to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).
In view of the fact that we are getting nowhere in batting a certain issue back and forth across the floor of this House, and in view of the fact that the public would like an independent judgment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House requests the government to establish forthwith a judicial inquiry into all matters relating to the escape from custody of Yves Geoffroy.
If the government would like time to think it over that would be fine, but it is a matter that should be settled independently.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has proposed a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. This motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



PRIVILEGE


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader oi the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that perhaps the time to do this has gone by but I would like your permission to raise a question about a deletion from Hansard as the result of an exchange between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and myself yesterday.
I say quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that I did not hear what the Prime Minister said to me, but I saw what was in the blues and it has been deleted from Hansard. I feel duty bound to raise the question as to why this has been
changed and under whose authority it has been changed, since it seems to me that it relates to the privileges of the House.
If somebody wants to swear at me in the House it does not matter to me personally, but I think Hansard should be an accurate record of what takes place in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I will look into the matter. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and all hon. members know, the Chair does not change the transcript of what is said in the House. The reporters have entire responsibility for this, but I have taken note of the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition and I will look into the matter.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, these words, these opprobrious and profane words were spoken by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: What words?


Mr. Benson:: You weren't here.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of bills.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the right hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister owes an apology to the House and to the people of Canada for using that kind of language in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



HAULAGE OF LOOSE MATERIALS SAFETY BILL


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-159, respecting the safe haulage of loose materials.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I think the bill is selfexplanatory. Its purpose is to prevent damage to motor vehicles as was pointed out when it was introduced in the last session of the House. I believe the explanatory notes spell out the reason for the introduction of the bill at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
25020-23'
[Stage Direction]
February 29, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry RAILWAY ACT

John Leroy Skoberg: for leave to introduce Bill C-160, to amend the Railway Act (notice of accidents).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, in view of the greatly increased number of wrecks and derailments the purpose of this bill is to make it mandatory that all accidents to equipment or roadbed, the damage to which is greater than set out in subsection 3, be reported to the Canadian Transport Commission. In the past, Mr. Speaker, accidents involving damage to roadbed, other than bridges, tunnels, viaducts or culverts, were not required to be reported. I believe it is most important that this bill be introduced.


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


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-161, respecting the control of excessive outdoor noises.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is for the government to give consideration to the dimensions of the problem of noise in our society. The time has come to introduce legislation to control excessive outdoor noise produced by surface transportation, it being an environmental hazard involving a variety of physical and emotional ailments including deafness, pain and nervous breakdown.
In short, this bill is designed to provide legislation to curb unnecessary noises which, if allowed to go unchecked, will affect the nerves and health of many Canadians.


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


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the government now prepared to authorize an

independent or judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the escape of Yves Geoffroy?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. The circumstances are well known to the public.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In light of the suspicions that exist, is it not the view of the government that it would serve the cause of penal reform and the program that is under way if such a judicial inquiry were authorized at this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is the question?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it not the view of the government that the cause of penal reform would be served by such an inquiry at this time in view of the suspicions that exist with regard to the circumstances surrounding the escape of Yves Geoffroy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no cause for suspicion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The facts are well known to the public. They have been restated by the minister several times. I think the cause of penal reform would only be harmed by the line that the Leader of the Opposition is following.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the Prime Minister give any reason why an independent judicial inquiry would not be beneficial? Can he give any reason at this time why a judicial inquiry would be harmful rather than helpful to the cause of judicial reform, in view of the suspicions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can. If the facts were not known, if the facts were not stated as clearly as possible by the government and if there were some question of an inquiry into facts which were not known, then there might be some reason for such an inquiry. But I do not think that an inquiry into the policy itself is a matter for a judge or commissioner to go into. It is for the Canadian public to say whether they are on the side of penal reform or not.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Since the Solicitor General answered a question of mine and as a result of the question made a statement in the House on this matter in which many facts were left out, since he admitted that someone made a mistake without saying who it was, since he said that if there were any irregularities there would be an inquiry, and as we now have the question of the obtaining of a false passport, would the Prime Minister not reconsider the government's position and give the Canadian people a judicial inquiry which would bring out all the facts as they really exist?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the facts as they really exist are being brought out by the government to the best of its ability.


Mr. Horner:: And by the newspapers.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister.
February 29, 1972

Since police forces are unable to track down Yves Geof-froy, could the government not try to obtain the services of a certain Toronto Globe and Mail newspaperman who, with great ease, had located Gerda Munsinger and Hal Banks?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Since a recent Swiss-based study revealed that Canada leads the world in the percentage of foreign controlled insurance companies, even being ahead of Pakistan and the Philippines, I might add, and given the fact that these companies derive over $2 billion in premium income annually from Canadians, most of which they invest outside of this country, does the minister intend to take steps to ensure that the insurance industry becomes exclusively or at least predominantly Canadian owned?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to read the report to which the hon. member refers to see whether his allegations are borne out.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister that the allegations, as he describes them, are accurate. May I also ask the minister whether his department is giving consideration to making it mandatory for the insurance industry in Canada, foreign owned or not, to invest a fixed minimum and large percentage of its acquired capital in the Canadian economy in order to create jobs in Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will take a look at the situation as the hon. member describes it to see whether his argument warrants serious consideration.


John Edward Broadbent: May I direct a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister appeal to the five directors of the Canada Development Corporation, who are at the same time directors of eight insurance companies, to use their influence to persuade their companies to invest their Canadian-derived earnings in the Canadian economy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's further supplementary is in the form of a submission or representation.



MANPOWER


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Inauiries of the Ministry
Could he indicate whether he or a member of his cabinet was invited to attend the demonstration staged by Quebec workers at the Forum last evening?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that kind of question is in order.

I believe that this question should be put on the order paper. The hon. member alluded to an occurrence which already happened. It seems to me that a question relating to the fact that an invitation was or was not extended could easily be put on the order paper.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: My question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the government's previous track record in negotiations with the postal unions and in light of the fact the present contract expires within the next month, can the President of the Treasury Board inform the House whether present contract talks are close to an agreement and whether Treasury Board has made a proposal on wages and job security guarantees?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in the preliminary negotiations we have not yet reached the point where wages and job security have been discussed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: In light of the fact that Treasury Board only sat down to negotiate some six or seven weeks before the expiry of the present contract and in light of its performance in other disputes recently, is Treasury Board going to take steps to obtain advice from the private sector on more efficient and modern labour-management practices?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, we are glad to seek and, indeed, take advice from any sector we can, including the opposition if they have any useful suggestions to make.


Steve Eugene Paproski: May I make one suggestion? Would you please give the matter back to the Postmaster General? He can handle it better than you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

February 29, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. On September 21 last the minister stated that his security planning and research group would be giving advice regarding the Canadian penitentiary service and the National Parole Board. Can the minister now inform the House whether he or his department had the benefit of such advice with regard to the release of Mr. Geoffroy?



SUPPORT OF FURTHER GAS AND OIL EXPLORATION TO REDUCE NEED TO INCREASE PRICES TO CONSUMERS

Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of recent predictions by western natural gas producers of increased prices and in light of the same indication to customers by Union Gas Company of Chatham, Ontario, has the government developed a policy to support further gas and oil exploration so that increasing reliance on increased prices to consumers can be mitigated?


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of that question for the minister.



SUGGESTED ANALYSIS OF PRICE CONSEQUENCES OF REFUSAL BY ENERGY BOARD TO GRANT GAS EXPORT APPLICATIONS

Steve Eugene Paproski: The parliamentary secretary may as well take notice of this supplementary and a couple of others that go along with it. In light of statements by natural gas producers at the Alberta gas hearings that the National Energy Board's decision to reject the recent gas export bid will likely lead to higher gas prices for private and industrial gas consumers, has the government or the National Energy Board prepared an analysis of the price consequences of that decision and, if so, will it be made public?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that all decisions made by energy boards throughout the country are watched by the National Energy Board and the department very carefully.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A further supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will have to give other members a chance. He will be allowed one last supplementary and the Chair will then recognize the hon. member for Brant.


Steve Eugene Paproski: In light of recent developments and uncertainties in the gas and oil industries, can the parlia-

mentary secretary inform the House, or ask his minister to do so, when the long-promised energy policy will be made public?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I believe the magic word is soon, Mr. Speaker.



POSSIBLE REVIEW BY NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD OF DECISION NOT TO GRANT GAS EXPORT APPLICATIONS

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My supplementary question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre. It is directed to the Prime Minister. Having regard to the fact that the National Energy Board did not take into consideration the reserves which are present in the Arctic, and that the National Energy Board witnesses before the standing committee said there was no way of calculating those reserves or any reserves offshore at the present time, and since the Prime Minister said he was prepared to ask the Energy Board to review its decision, may I inquire whether he has asked for this review and, if so, when it will take place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I correctly recall my answer at the time it was that I did not believe the government had any power to embark on a review of this situation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It may be-I do not make anything of this-that the Prime Minister was misquoted during the recess, but in the news it came out he had stated he would ask for a review.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister arrived at any decision or given serious consideration to an adjustment in the method of payment of the hog subsidy in those cases where farmers are operating in a partnership or where several farmers are operating in a joint production unit?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have given a great deal of consideration to this. What we are asking is that we be informed of all of the circumstances relating to the ownership and the number of people owning hogs that may have been sold to a packing house under the same name, if it is a corporation or whatever it may be. We certainly want to make rules that will be fair and equitable in this situation. As soon as we have this information we will try to accommodate that requirement.
February 29, 1972



PAYMENT OF SUBSIDY WHEN HOGS SOLD IN COMMUNITY SALES

Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Can the Minister of Agriculture indicate whether he has been able to solve the problem in a number of areas involving a major portion of Ontario where there are no hog collecting points for the marketing agency and therefore the hogs are sold through community sales and other methods and there is no record available as to the grade when the hogs are finally slaughtered?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If the hogs are sold to a local slaughterhouse we believe most farmers will be able to obtain some record of the sale having been made. Though they will not know the grade we believe we can find a basis upon which to pay them about the same percentage of the total as would be paid under index 100 or higher. If, however, the animals pass through another selling ring and eventually wind up in a slaughterhouse, then obviously we cannot pay in those circumstances.


William Arnold Peters: The act as presently worded does not really allow any leeway in deciding on the limitations. The act says that if the price is 90 per cent of the ten-year average, payment will be made. We have added an extra condition. Will the minister consider, in those areas where hogs are going through a ring, are being bought by drovers and then put on the market, that if records can be shown of the number of sales then at least a basic payment will be made to these producers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We are trying to work that out, but the producer must provide us with complete evidence of the sale and that is the only sale for which payment is made to that producer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The Chair will recognize a last supplementary on this question and then return to the previous question and recognize the hon. member for Calgary North.



HOGS-COMPENSATION TO PRODUCERS OF WEANLINGS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: May I ask the
minister a question in the light of the development in hog production in recent years? Many are engaged only in the production of weanlings; they do not finish hogs. They have also suffered considerable financial loss during the past year. Is consideration being given to some method of compensating these farmers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is automatic compensation in the marketplace because the price of this type of hog goes up very quickly if there is an improvement in the marketable or slaughter value. Also, the fact that many of these pigs were sold into the feeder market for weeks and, indeed, months at a price somewhat higher than even feeders received is automatic compensation from the marketplace for this type of sale.
Inquiries of the Ministry



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS   POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION IN QUEBEC-INJUSTICE OF FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS-REVIEW OF AGREEMENT

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that the Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce stated, last Thursday, that the renewal of the fiscal arrangements with regard to postsecondary education perpetuates an injustice that might cost Quebec $300 million in the next five years, and that it is, I believe, the second statement the minister has made on the subject in less than a year, is the minister willing to revise the agreement on fiscal arrangements?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker. I believe that I myself, or my colleague the Secretary of State, will have the opportunity of discussing the matter, seeing the debate on the bill starts tomorrow, if I am not mistaken.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and has to do with the question I asked on February 22 about the closures that have been approved by the Canadian Transport Commission of stations, largely in the province of Saskatchewan but as well in Alberta. At that time I asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that these closures would create a serious situation in many of our larger towns and villages, the government would give consideration to reviewing this order to the end that except for a few which naturally should be closed the overwhelming many would not be, in the interests of the economy of our province.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I said at the time that I would look into the matter and in fact did direct the question to the attention of the Minister of Transport, to whom this type of question should be addressed.


John George Diefenbaker: I like the way they pass the buck, Mr. Speaker. I now pass the question to the Minister of Transport, who has a reputation for not insulting the House but for answering questions.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this matter was raised on February 22,1 believe, on the adjournment motion, at which time my parliamentary secretary replied that any and every specific complaint that the CPR is not carrying out any of the undertakings given the commission and set out in the decision will be investigated promptly and remedial action will be taken whenever warranted. That was in answer to that

February 29, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
part of the question having to do with the CPR failing to live up to its commitments.
On the more general question, my information is that there is an appeal procedure that can be undertaken by any of the parties affected and, of course, if they should decide to file an appeal I will certainly see that it is dealt with.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not a fact that the government has already been notified of an appeal by various institutions, municipalities and the like in Saskatchewan?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to quarrel with the right hon. gentleman about whether these constitute formal appeals in the sense required by the act. My information is that no such formal appeal has yet been filed, but I will be glad to find out if such is the case and advise.



SUGGESTED DELAY IN CLOSING OF CERTAIN SASKATCHEWAN STATIONS

John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the order to close the Laurentian division stations was dated January 17 but is not to be effective until May 1, and in view of the fact that the Saskatoon division date of order was February 10, to be implemented on March 16, would the minister investigate to see what brings about this inconsistency, and would he make representations to the CPR to delay the implementation of their Saskatoon customer service plan until at least some time in May in view of the hardship that will be created by the closing on March 16?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to sift through that question in Hansard to get the various representations that are in it, and I will do my best to follow them up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members are seeking to ask supplementaries, but since we will be running short of time I will try to recognize some members who rose yesterday but were not recognized and distribute opportunities as equitably as possible.



SHIPPING


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Has a decision been made yet to initiate a formal inquiry into the tragedy of the Gulf Gulll


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made, the reason being that, as I believe I outlined to the House a few days ago, the first step toward such a decision is the report on the routine inquiry that takes place immediately after the accident. When that report is received, which should be

within a few days, a decision will be made whether any further inquiry is desirable.


Robert Muir: In view of the tragic loss of the Gulf Gull and the loss of six lives, would the minister take it upon himself to bring to the attention of the House as soon as possible the decision that is reached regarding a formal inquiry?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I shall be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday when the Prime Minister was questioned about the constitutional review, he suggested that his government was not interested in resuming the debate as long as Quebec does not submit other proposals.
Since Ottawa and Quebec are discussing possible arrangements in the fields of family allowances and manpower, is it not an indication that Quebec would like the debate on constitutional matters to progress?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. The province of Quebec, as far as I know, does not wish that those discussions be considered from the constitutional point of view but only at a statutory and administrative levels, which I regret.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary.
Did the federal government put as a condition that an agreement in the fields of family allowances and manpower would be subject to acceptance by Quebec of the proposed Victoria charter, or other similar proposals in the constitutional field?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not at all, Mr. Speaker.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who is supposed to be in the House today but is not. Perhaps he will be here soon, but in the meantime may I give his parliamentary secretary notice of my question.
In view of statements made recently by the Canadian toy manufacturers to the effect that certain kinds of regulatory action being taken by officials under the Hazardous Products Marketing Act is having a very restrictive effect on the present manufacture of toys, and in view
February 29, 1972

of the recent withdrawal of support by the toy manufacturers for the toy testing council, would the minister be prepared to make a statement on motions reporting what action is being taken by his department in order to improve the over-all situation?


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I have noted this question, Mr. Speaker, and will bring it to the attention of the minister.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the minister undertaken a full investigation into a clear act of discrimination against an Ottawa war veteran who lost a leg in the second world war and had his life membership in an Ottawa health club revoked when an official of that club, namely, Vic Tanny's, discovered that he had a wooden leg?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would doubt very much that interference on my part or on the part of the Department of Veterans Affairs would be very helpful in this particular case.



HOUSING


Mr. Rud L. Whiting (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Would the minister be prepared to advise the House as to the present position of government action against Rochdale College?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are, as the House has been advised, taking foreclosure proceedings with relation to this property. We were very recently refused by the court an order for interim possession and financial management. Therefore our lawyer has been instructed to seek an early trial date and to proceed with the main foreclosure action as expeditiously as the rules of the court allow.



FINANCE


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that the Bank of Canada for the last month has been pursuing a more restrictive policy and is driving up short-term interest rates, has the government's monetary policy switched from fighting unemployment to trying to
Inquiries of the Ministry
control inflation and, if so, when will the minister make a statement to the House on the matter?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I might say that there is no restrictive monetary policy. I am advised that the banks have an amply supply of credit to extend to any credit-worthy borrower.



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
During the weekend, his colleague the Secretary of State stated that, if the mayor of Moncton did not modify his position with regard to bilingualism, the federal government would intervene by reducing its financial aid to that municipality. Would the minister tell the House if he intends to reduce such aid and what measures he will take-


Mr. Speaker:: I have a feeling that the same question was asked yesterday. In any event, the minister may wish to answer the question.


An hon. Member:: The Secretary of State is not present.


Georges-J. Valade: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sainte-Marie on a point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, it appears that my point of order is related to a new development. The hon. minister, according to today's news, contradicted the Secretary of State on this point and I ask him to clarify his position.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have noticed that I merely indicated my impression that the question had already been put, while leaving it to the hon. minister to reply if I was mistaken. The hon. minister may still reply to the question if he so wishes.


Georges-J. Valade: May I put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sainte-Marie.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion inform the House whether he agrees with his colleague the Secretary of State that joint federal assistance grants to Moncton will be curtailed if the mayor of that city persists in his attitude?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was in the House, as was not the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, and the hon. Secretary of State did not make the statement the hon. member alleges today.
358

February 29, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the continuing complaints and protests from Atlantic Canada about the eight increases in maritime freight rates over the last 29 months, has the minister taken any action at all such as having discussions with the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission, or does he intend to lay before the House legislation to correct this fantastic increase which is undoing all the good work that is sometimes done by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: There is no short answer, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I am continually bound by the National Transportation Act. But I think the hon. member has left out a lot of other things which have been done in an attempt to equalize freight rates in the Atlantic provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Are we to understand from the minister's answer, even in an abbreviated form, that his department intends no new legislation or amendments to the National Transportation Act to correct this situation which is causing adverse conditions in the Atlantic area and undoes all the good work that has been attempted there in the last 25 years?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In so far as changing the legislation is concerned, I have no immediate plans to do so. But that is not the route through which any correction of the transportation problems of the Atlantic provinces could be achieved most quickly. I would assume that when my estimates are before the committee I will be asked about this matter and I will be glad to give a thorough report at that time about the many good things that have been done.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Perhaps he will recall that on February 24 I asked him about the investigation into the leaking of confidential cabinet documents and in particular whether to his knowledge any minister had sought the assistance of the Solicitor General to supplement his own efforts. The Prime Minister said he would have to look into the matter; he did not know offhand. I should like to ask him whether any of his ministers has sought the assistance of the Solicitor General regarding the leaking or disappearance of confidential cabinet documents?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did check with the RCMP-sometimes known as the police-and I found that no minister asked for assistance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Because of the interest evoked by the Prime Minister's answer I was not able to hear it and I would ask him to repeat it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is no.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that some of these leaks took place a number of months ago and the investigation is still left in the hands of the ministers, he expects any of us to believe that he is anxious to find out how these leaks occurred?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a question; it is an argument.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Since the RCMP have not been called upon to assist, have the so-called special security police set up a couple of years ago been asked for their assistance? I understand that this was the reason for setting up that force.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not heard of the special security police, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure the Prime Minister knows the force to which I refer, the force set up under the Solicitor General with the government's approval very recently. Is this not precisely the kind of thing that the security personnel should be looking into and is not that why they were established?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member in his question is now referring apparently to something which the Solicitor General did a few months ago, but in his previous question he said "a couple of years ago". I assure the hon. member I do not know to which force he is referring.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Prime Minister has left the impression in the House that he did not know what I was speaking about when I referred to the security force which should have been called in to investigate the leaking of cabinet documents. On page 8027 of Hansard for last session the Solicitor General explained at some length the function of the security planning and research group which was set up by his department precisely to do the things I have suggested. Just because I used a different name to refer to the force does not justify the Prime Minister pleading ignorance. I should like to ask him again whether this matter of the leaking of confidential documents-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: -has been referred to this group for investigation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is hardly a question of privilege, but I see no objection to his rephrasing the question or asking a

supplementary to try to clear up this matter, and then we will go on to another matter.


Erik Nielsen: The question has been asked, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Prime Minister's memory has been jogged, perhaps he might answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It really was not a matter of the designation of the group. The hon. member, when he asked the question, referred to something that happened two years ago, and I thought he was referring to the time when we established an assistant commissioner of the RCMP. At that time we were implementing the report of the Royal Commission on Security. That is why the hon. member's question was not clear to me.
On the subject that the hon. member has now clarified, if he refers to the statement he will see that the group in the Solicitor General's department is not an operational group and is not meant to make any kind of investigation of its own. It is meant to analyse and assess results of operations carried out by the RCMP, otherwise known as the police.


Erik Nielsen: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might ask a last supplementary, but I point out that there are only three minutes left before the end of the question period and we will have to give other hon. members a chance to ask questions.


Erik Nielsen: I will not enter into debate with the Prime Minister. It would not be proper for me to do so at this time, but what he has just said does not square with what the Solicitor General said. Since the Prime Minister has repeatedly promised the House a one-day debate on the report of the Royal Commission on Security will he not now consider setting aside a day in the near future so we can get these new security services sorted out and debate that report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is provision in the rules for opposition days at regular intervals.


Erik Nielsen: You promised a day.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And if they think the subject is very important they can bring it up on one of those days. Otherwise we will bring it up in due course.



DISPLAY OF CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AT PEKING FAIR

Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last fall I asked the minister whether any provision had been made for a display of agricultural products at the China fair which his department claims is allimportant in 1972. Since I had no answer last time I wonder whether such'provision has been made?
25020-24}
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Iean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I understand that up to now 250 different Canadian groups want to take part in the Peking fair, which is what my hon. friend is referring to. The selection is being done now on the basis, among other factors, of information we received last December from the Chinese themselves as to what their import intentions are for 1972. In due course I will advise the House as to which companies or which groups of companies have been selected for participation.


William George Knight: Can the minister state whether or not the Canadian Wheat Board or any selling agency for agricultural products has put in an application to display their products?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not know, but obviously, judging by recent sales, the Canadian Wheat Board has a direct line of communication with the purchasing agency in China-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the Lahaye report which recommends that the Lachine canal be used for pleasure craft been submitted for cabinet approval?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
Mr. Speaker.


Raymond Rock: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. Why was the Lachine canal not included in the takeover of historic canals and given national park status?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I indicated yesterday to the House that I thought that kind of question normally should be placed on the order paper. It is basically argument. If there is urgency about the matter, it can be discussed at the time of adjournment.


Raymond Rock: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Raymond Rock: Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that your own constituency also has a historic canal which I believe should be included?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

February 29, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry INCOME TAX ACT



INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENT RESPECTING EMPLOYEES' PROFIT PLANS

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State, the hon. member for Calgary South, likely to be in charge of the promised amendments to the Income Tax Act, or the son of Bill C-259. Can the hon. gentleman indicate whether we might get on with such things as the law relating to employees profit plans as promised by the former Minister of Finance? I believe this may be the maiden test in the question period for the new Minister of State.


Hon. P. M. Mahoney (Minister of State):: Changes in the law, if any, such as are contemplated in the hon. member's question, would ordinarily follow a budget speech by the Minister of Finance.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of mounting concern with respect to Canadian National pensions, including both the need for the pensions of those already retired to be escalated annually and the need to calculate Canadian National pensions on the basis of a factor of 2 per cent per year of service, will the minister make renewed representations to the Canadian National concerning these two matters?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to ask a supplementary question. When the minister answers will he also tell us how he is getting on with the Canadian Pacific Railway in regard to pensions? Ten o'clock.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PRIOR APPROVAL BY PROVINCES OF FEDERAL POLICIES-SMALL FARMS LEGISLATION

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. May I ask him whether, in the interests of federal-provincial relations, it is still government policy to get approval from the provinces of policies in which they have a direct interest, prior to proceeding with them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To get
approval from the provinces when?


Stanley James Korchinski: Prior to proceeding with these policies.
IMr. Speaker.]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What policies is the hon. member talking about?


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to proceed with the legislation on small farms in light of the opposition from all the provinces, including Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture tells me that there is no opposition, that the provinces agree with the program.



POSSIBLE SALE OR RENTAL OF MINI-TYPE SUBMARINE TO SOVIET UNION-SECURITY CLEARANCE

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. It arises out of continuing efforts by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to reopen negotiations between a west coast firm and the Soviet Union for the sale or rental of the Pisces. Since we were asked to refuse an export sales permit for this deep-water submersible, can the Minister of National Defence indicate whether it now has security clearance not only from Canada but from the United States as well?


Edgar John Benson: The
matter is still under discussion.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of recent representations he has received regarding Gatineau Park, can he tell us what activities will be permitted in the park, and does he intend to make a statement on the matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the question should be limited to whether the minister is going to make a statement on motions. I do not think the detailed information sought by the hon. member should be given during the course of the question period.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the plan is for the National Capital Commission, later in the year, to issue a set of general principles relating to park policy. The Chairman is anxious, and I for the government am insistent, that those principles should be commented upon by all people with knowledge or who are interested in that policy, out of which will come the long-term policy for Gatineau Park.
February 29, 1972



INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION ON OFFICE OF SPEAKER

Mr. Speaker:: For the brief moment we have left the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings on the last question.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker. The exercise has been good anyway. I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation at this session to provide for the election of the Speaker of the House of Commons?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this is a very important question and one that is bothering the country at the present time. Might we have an answer from the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this subject in correspondence, notably with the Leader of the Opposition, and the position of the government is the same as that in that Mother of Parliaments in the United Kingdom. We hope that the opposition parties will be enlightened enough to follow the course which is followed in other countries, but this does not seem to be the case.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Hogarth:: Don't swear at him, Bob.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is no need for me to swear at him. There are enough people in the country swearing at him already.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly true that the Prime Minister and I have had correspondence on this subject, and he has expressed regret that I have not been very enlightened. I must express the gravest and deepest regret that he has not been enlightened enough to do something about regulating in a satisfactory way the position of the chief officer of this House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is that a question or a point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not wish to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition, but perhaps this might be a good time to call orders of the day. Orders of the day.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, February 28, 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.
Speech from the Throne
lTranslation]
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I take pleasure in joining with previous speakers in congratulating the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply.
I feel that the two members whom I have just mentioned-the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie) and the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher)-somewhat represent or symbolize what the House of Commons is- made up of newcomers as well as old hands who know all the tricks, all the strings which need to be pulled. As a matter of fact, it was interesting to compare the two speeches, which were very different indeed but which at the same time reflected very well the changes which can occur in individuals as they acquire greater experience of this House.
I would like particularly to point out to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres that of course we cannot keep for many years the kind of naivete which characterizes all of us when we first join this House. Once we become more familiar with the unknown people in this noble institution, once we get to know men better, we become of course both enthusiastic about some things and extremely disappointed with some others.
In this majestic chamber, Mr. Speaker, there is first the institution-the House of Commons itself-which cannot but impress people as an institution, polished as it has been through centuries, and which allows the people, through their representatives, not only to make their grievances known but also to influence the government and the country's general administration. There may be a few things in this area which need to be corrected, but I think that on the whole all Canadians, and particularly members of this House, are proud of this institution which was given to us by the confederation agreement and which we inherited from Great Britain.
Within this institution there are parties and their value as well as that of the men who belong to them vary with time. As for the parties, many things have been said about them both by opposition and government members; they were global and radical statements and the government has been judged once and for all.
I would also like to judge briefly the opposition since it is an integral part of this noble institution known as the House of Commons which can influence the country's administration for better or for worse.
Speaking about the opposition, Mr. Speaker, it reveals a kind of odorless, colourless and congenital impotence. About another party, we might say that it shows shameless arrogance and demagogy and, about still another, that it is an old record always playing the same tune.
In my opinion, the quality of opposition should be enormously improved and we will certainly have this opportunity and no longer hear-


George Harris Hees: You will get a chance very soon.


An hon. Member:: They had a chance.


Jean Marchand: In my opinion, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees)-

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne


Mr. Dinsdale:: It will be good for you to be in the opposition.
.[Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is quite disappointing for a newly elected member of the House to hear such statements as those made by the member for Prince Edward-Hastings in connection with price controls. Listen to me one moment because this kind of gem is rare.
With regard to price controls, the hon. member stated and I quote:
The second way we can keep prices down is to take steps to keep prices from rising at the very rapid rate at which they are rising at the present time.

There is the whole philosophy of the opposition the co-operation we get from them.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to stay on that level where, unfortunately, the opposition stands most of the time. Notwithstanding the overall judgment I may have passed on the opposition the fact remains that a large number of the members across the way are worthy men, their hearts are in the right place, they represent their electors honestly and they came here to improve the situation in Canada. It is not because they belong to another party that I underestimate them. Some people are extremely critical of the government and I sometimes find that they are right. Among the most critical is the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) who, when he refers to DEVCO and the issue of industrial development-although, of course, I am not here to make admissions-is basically right and I think that there are some things that must be changed.
What is extremely annoying and frustrating from the opposition is never to have constructive proposals in front of you but to be continuously under the impression that you are on the eve of a general election. The opposition tries by all means to gain the electoral advantages that can be gained in the House of Commons.
At any rate, I shall deal with a more important issue, Mr. Speaker, namely regional development, which was the subject of much criticism here in the House and also outside. This subject is too important for me to season it with jokes or try to minimize its importance by my tone.
Barely three years ago, we tried to launch a concerted attack against regional disparities. We attacked on three levels at the same time. First, we initiated the industrial incentives program. Then, we developed the infrastructure assistance program and improved this instrument which is also used in the agricultural field, namely ARDA. Lastly, we enacted provisions for the social adjustment of workers.
We resorted to these three instruments and tried to trigger a beginning of correction of regional disparities, which has not been successfully undertaken since the inception of confederation in Canada.
Thus, in that first part of the program, that is the grants, my department has accepted since 1969-70, 1,200 applications for grants which brought or will bring about 50,000

new jobs, despite the allegations of some opposition members who should make better use of their research staff. If we take into account the multiplying effect, that will give us 125,000 or 150,000 additional jobs.
Of course it is always possible to retort: there are plants that will go bankrupt, other will not meet their objectives. That is possible, but on the other hand there are other plants which at present expect to employ say from 100 to 150 men, but which will in fact hire 300 or 400 men because their forecasts were to pessimistic.
By the way, those who are interested in research will be able to study what happened under the former industrial incentives legislation and they will find out that in spite of the odd failure the number of new jobs square exactly with the employment announcements that had been made when the inquiries began.
Besides, some cases have already arisen where the number of available jobs has been underestimated and where employment opportunities are actually far more numerous.
Now with regard to infrastructures, Mr. Speaker, we are aware that some regions will never benefit from industrial development if they cannot offer modern enterprise some basic infrastructures. We have therefore entered into agreements with the provinces and this program is now fully operative. It is so effective that we are receiving hundreds of applications from municipalities as well as from various regions and communities in Canada and it has become necessary to create "special" regions in order to perfect these infrastructures.
Here is then a means which, after a couple of years trial has really produced astonishing results.
Then comes the problem of rural planning, farm productivity and development of natural resources. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we are all aware that thousands of our fellow citizens will continue to make a living out of natural resources and it is our duty, as far as is practicable, to go all out and help them. That part of the program is also very active.
We now have a social adjustment program. Doubtless, Mr. Speaker, when we speed up the urban phenomenon, when we multiply or improve industrial techniques to enable some industries to survive, men are affected. Indeed, they must be transplanted, moved, and all this is part of an a slow and extremely tricky process.
Mr. Speaker, I' remember very well indeed having experienced it one day in Prince Edward Island. We were attempting to convince a farmer to leave his farm to allow regrouping of several of them so that those who would replace him could live decently and use modern equipment. He answered and I quote:

"I was born here, my father was born here and my grandfather was born here. Whatever the government does I am going to stay here".

That is the type of human problems-

Whoever does not care about that does not understand anything. That is why some of the things we do cannot be
February 29, 1972

done overnight. We have to take time, we have to convince people. That is why sometimes, when there are complaints from the other side of the House, I do not think they are serious, because the people over there have never had to deal with such problems. That is why they make such statements.
Mr. Speaker, there has been much censure of the department, in a general way, broad statements, but nothing concrete. I have sought everywhere for some useful information, some meaningful suggestion the opposition might have given us in order to speed up industrial development in Canada. I have tried to understand the New Democratic philosophy in the field of regional development. Well, even young members one might consider to be quite open, such as the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), have, if I remember well-

"You know, policies of regional development have been a complete failure."

That is the subtly distinctive judgment bearing on a whole program, on the efforts of thousands of men, not merely on the federal or even provincial government levels, but on the levels of municipalities and private agencies seeking concrete solutions.
"It has been a complete failure!"
That is all they are able to say after two and a half years of concrete, highly efficient achievements which I shall enumerate later on if you permit it.
Mr. Speaker, we have been told that there was lack of planning. Our denigrators did not say how they would have made their plans. They allege lack of planning, lack of leadership-


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I only have half an hour. Recently, I have spoken three times in this House and I do want to use this opportunity. After that, if the hon. member wants to ask a question I will accept it with pleasure.

Furthermore, another global statement was made which, in my opinion, is unfair. They say that there has been a lack of consultation. If there is, within this government, one department that goes in for consultation, it is ours. In fact, it is so systematic that one can even wonder whether, sometimes, there is not too much of it, because we do consult in all areas. All agreements under the ARDA program, for instance, are reached with the provinces. It is the provinces that take the initiative. We discuss all points with them, and finally agreements are reached.
The same applies to the FRED program; we discuss things with the provinces, municipalities and private organizations. We are constantly doing that in the special areas. The latter are established with the help of the
Speech from the Throne
provinces; priorities are set the same way; municipalities are involved and, finally, we try to consult as many people as possible, but in this House, it is said that the government, the department-

"You never consult with people. Bureaucrats from Ottawa say what should be done in the north or in Nova Scotia." That is not true, Mr. Speaker. We consult all the time and enjoy it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: Another accusation was brought against us and even published in the Globe and Mail, namely that our figures on employment forecasts are overestimated and that, in fact, we should reduce them by 25 per cent because we took into account applications for grants which were withdrawn or undertakings which had not attained their goal. This is false because figures tabled in the House did take into account applications withdrawn and undertakings failing to reach their goal.
We pay for a research office for the opposition, Mr. Speaker. Of course everybody cannot be a statistician. I am not even one myself. But, at least, why not elect members who can read two rows of figures and say: What do they mean, instead of writing to the Globe and Mail that we are deceiving the public with false figures. Why such scheming?
It is also said: Well, that is a department from which no information can be had. We table a monthly report. I can table all the agreements into which we enter with the provinces under the ARDA and FRED programs and under the special areas program as well. If anybody wants to see them, I am prepared to supply them with copies. They are public records.
As to the area of subsidies, the paper is tabled in the House and anybody can raise the questions he wishes, except if they are related to records which are the exclusive property of the companies which file applications, namely private documents.
Except for that, everything is published, but just the same allegations are made. Here is however something both funny and serious: those who ordinarily make those accusations, those who make that kind of criticism are those who would benefit most should the regional development program be expanded.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: What about APEC?


Jean Marchand: I was going to say, whatever the hon. member thinks about APEC, many other people think otherwise, even Mr. Jones from Moncton, even Mr. Price. Why does the hon. member not ask his colleague from Saint John-Lancaster what he thinks about it? Just ask him.

Criticism does not shock me, Mr. Speaker, if it is meaningful and substantial, in short if it was not merely a matter of playing politics, we would readily accept it. We realize that we are experimenting, that we can make mistakes, but considering how criticism is voiced in the

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne
House and elsewhere, the regional development programs will be killed at the expense of the people from the Maritime provinces, Manitoba and eastern Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I do not object to constructive criticism and would undoubtedly welcome it. If I do not agree, I will say so, but let us see if there is anything in such criticism other than generalizations which only show the ignorance of those who make it, except perhaps the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. I do accept it, but not because I know I please everyone by saying so.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: What has been the position of the maritime premiers in all this?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I realize, of course, that there will always be those who criticize without just cause. As I have said, I think those people are doing a great disservice to the idea of regional development. But I do not believe the people of this country are being deceived. In three short years we have succeeded in putting in place the most comprehensive set of regional development programs in Canadian history.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Nothing plus one is still one.


Jean Marchand: In the same period, our budget has risen from approximately $242 million in 196970 to an estimated $505 million in the fiscal year which is soon to begin. I think it can be fairly said that we have quickly generated a good deal of momentum.


John Edward Broadbent: And how many jobs?


Jean Marchand: There are many, I know, who would agree-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: -and I am happy to say that more than a few have said so publicly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: They certainly do not agree in the southern part of Timiskaming.


Jean Marchand: But in the final analysis the opinions of average Canadians are what really count. I think it can be said that the awareness of and enthusiasm for our program is growing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: -certainly among those who have seen tangible results in their own communities and areas.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize to the hon. minister for having to interrupt him.

I suggest to hon. members that they allow the minister to make his statement. It seems to me that we have
enjoyed a good debate until now. Hon. members have been listened to by other hon. members, and I think the minister should be allowed the same privilege.


William Arnold Peters: It is just that he gets so excited, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]


Jean Marchand: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Since I have been in the House, some seven years, I believe I have never yelled at any speaker whatsoever, notwithstanding the inanities and stupidities which might have been said.
I shall now go on with my remarks, Mr. Speaker, as I have only eight minutes left.
Ask the people in the Winnipeg Beach area, Mr. Speaker where, as part of the ten-year FRED program, we have made available an excellent recreational resource which in the summer of 1970 drew over 100,000 visitors. They will tell you that, apart from the direct employment impact on the Interlake area, business sales have increased by as much as 30 per cent and that a number of stores are now being modernized or renovated.

Ask the people of Matane, Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, Gaspe or Chandler what they think of our financial participation in the building of 400 low rental dwellings for the poorly housed of the Gaspe area. They will tell you that our program is certainly useful.

Ask the people in Prince Edward Island where we have undertaken a federal-provincial development plan that is unique in its comprehensive character. They will tell you that the resulting improvements in the agricultural and fishing industries, the better network of roads, the systematic development of the tourist industry and the increasing attention to the general quality of island life are benefiting the people.
Ask any of the 3,500 families affected since 1968 by the ARDA program in Ontario. Among other things, some
300,000	acres of land have been purchased. About two-thirds of that land has been leased or sold to some 1,500 farmers who, for the most part, have since been able to earn better incomes because they were able to enlarge their farms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Most of the remaining acreage, unsuitable for agriculture, has become Crown land and is being converted to more suitable use in such fields as forestry, recreation and wildlife conservation.
Ask the people in the Hermes Electronics plant in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, if our incentives program is wasteful and ineffective. They will tell you that our intervention prevented the closing of the plant and, in addition to salvaging 300 existing jobs, created an additional 70 in the revitalized operation. These jobs, many of which are scientific and professional, might well have been lost to the Dartmouth area. In addition to providing a valuable Canadian source of electronic components, the project

February 29, 1972

represents a major addition to exports which will be of great benefit to the whole community.
Ask the people in the town of Slave Lake, Alberta, Mr. Speaker, if our incentives program is of no consequence. They will tell you that it has resulted in the construction of a large modern sawmill in the Mitsue Lake Industrial Park which already employs 70 people, many of native ancestry. And they will tell you that a further 100 people are working in wood-cutting operations in support of the mill.
Ask the people of the Burin Peninsula in Newfoundland about the steps being taken to meet the needs of their young people for educational facilities. They will tell you about the four schools now well under way at an anticipated total cost of more than $4,500,000. They will point out that, in the case of one of these schools, the Burin Vocational School, my department authorized the expenditure of substantial funds to design, construct and equip a students' residence and an auditorium.
Ask the people in Saint John, New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker, where much important infrastructure has been put in place to serve the needs of industry and a growing urban population.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: This is how they behave. Here is a serious program and all they do is laugh and make generalities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


Jean Marchand: That is all they do when I am speaking.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: They will tell you that the 18 industries which have been induced to locate in the area and are expected to generate some 1,200 jobs are meaningful to them and their families.

Mr. Speaker, ask the people of Montmagny where 450 jobs were lost because of the closing of Chemcell Limited. They will perhaps tell you that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion means something to them. [English]
Ask the people in Bridgewater and Granton, Nova Scotia, about Michelin's two new manufacturing facilities both now in production.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Ask them. Why don't you talk to those people? Ask the people in the Okanagan Valley. They will tell you that we have helped to rehabilitate the existing irrigation systems.
Ask the people in Grand Falls and Florenceville, New Brunswick, where our incentives program helped make it possible for McCain Foods Limited to establish major food-processing facilities. Ask the people in the nearby Mactaquac area what has been accomplished under our FRED plan.
Speech from the Throne

Talk to the people of Quebec City. They will tell you what we have done at Place Royale and St. Charles River for the development of tourism in Quebec City. Go and ask them what the Department of Regional Economic Expansion means to them.


An hon. Member:: That's the best you can do.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I could go on but I know I am running out of time. Nevertheless there are some who are embarrassed because they know they could not repeat to their voters what they say in this House under the protection of the Speaker and the Sergeant-at-Arms. So, Mr. Speaker-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Come to Prince Edward Island and say that.


An hon. Member:: You are cheap, MacDonald, and you know it.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know that in a few minutes my time will be up. I conclude my remarks by mentioning a very important program-


An hon. Member:: What have you got for Cornwall?


Jean Marchand: This is small politics, Mr. Speaker.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that opposition members, and in particular those of the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative party showed today what they think of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the seriousness with which they fulfill their responsibility as members of Parliament. This is why they will be judged very harshly. They have tried to exploit everything for political purposes and to destroy all the values which are of so much concern for this country, especially for its future. I infinitely regret, Mr. Speaker, that the areas that are represented-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I allow the hon. minister to continue-

The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) is rising on a question of privilege.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I know it is the right of each and every member in this House to say whatever he thinks he must say in his own defence or in defence of any particular

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne
program. However, when a speech reaches the low degree which the minister's speech has reached-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The minister is imputing motives while hon. members sit and listen in the vain hope-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: -that he will give answers to many of the important questions with regard to regional disparity in this country instead of resorting to this cheap political-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously not a question of privilege.


Jean Marchand: I am only getting back the minute that was taken from me by the hon. member for Egmont.
I merely want to submit an idea for consideration by the House: even if we had a 50 per cent rate of unemployment, that would not necessarily mean that our programs are not effective. Instead of hiding behind general figures, the opposition should consider the real effects of the programs that we are putting into force, and not limit itself to vague references to unemployment. Should the opposition follow our advice, and not change its views in spite of that, then, we can be sure that it is too fanatical to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. minister as his time has expired.

The hon. minister's time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have heard enough yelling, now I would like to hear some debating.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I rise on a point or order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am sure hon. members on this side would be quite willing to extend the time available to the minister, particularly since so many important questions have not yet been answered.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has indicated that he has finished his remarks, and his time has expired.


John Edward Broadbent: I rise on the point of order on the question of extending the minister's time. The minister did indicate earlier in his speech,-when I rose to ask whether he would answer a question, that he would be prepared to do so at the end of his comments. In view of this undertaking, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would consider answering the question now.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has indicated that he has concluded his remarks. Of course, with unanimous consent the minister could be granted additional time if he wishes to reply to questions. But the hon. member will appreciate that he cannot ask a question now unless the minister is prepared to reply.


Jean Marchand: Just one, then.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Boniface rises on a question of privilege.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: My question of privilege relates to the hon. member for Egmont who wanted to hear more from the minister. May I suggest that if the members of the loyal opposition had kept quiet and listened to him they would have heard the answers to some of their questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate that we are going nowhere fast. We are losing what I suggest is precious time. The Chair has been informed that a number of hon. members are anxious to take part in this debate between now and the end of the day. If we go on dealing with what I suggest are not legitimate points of order or questions of privilege we could spend a great deal of time without accomplishing very much. Perhaps we might allow a question from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister said he was prepared to consider serious questions and regretted that none had been raised in the course of this debate. Earlier in the debate I made two specific criticisms of his department, and whether or not he agrees with what I said I should like to hear the answers to those criticisms. The first was that his program was founded on the assumption that there would be an economy committed to full growth, especially in the heartland of industrial Ontario; it was based on the assumption that the economy would be founded on full production. The second criticism was directed to specific inadequacies. I listed in my speech of last Tuesday some eight grants which had been made to companies to enable them to move from one part of Canada to another with a consequent shifting of unemployment from one area to another. I ask the minister whether he thinks this is a sensible kind of policy and whether his department intends to continue doing this kind of thing.


Jean Marchand: I do not know from what source the hon. member heard that the department was founded on the assumption that the economy should be running at full speed. I think my program would work much better if the economy were operating on that basis- there is no doubt of that-but it was not founded on the assumption the hon. member mentioned. I do not know where he got that from.


John Edward Broadbent: The Economic Council of Canada.


Jean Marchand: Well, the Economic Council of Canada is not the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
As to the second point, I agree entirely with the hon. member. If a plant is moved from one part of Canada to
February 29, 1972

another, meaning that some Canadians lose jobs while others get jobs, it is all wrong. But I think the hon. member should not make general affirmations of that kind. Let me know the companies, their names, and I will give the answer. It might be we have made a certain number of mistakes in this respect. It is possible. But do not make these statements in general terms. Just come to my office and I will give the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair is prepared to recognize the hon. member for Simcoe North. Perhaps he might be given an opportunity to make his speech. I see the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, the hon. member for Regina East and the hon. member for Annapolis Valley all wish to ask questions of the minister. If this is what hon. members wish, perhaps we might set aside the debate on the address. But I think that in fairness to the hon. member for Simcoe North he should be recognized now.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to add my congratulations to those which my colleagues have extended to the mover, the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) and the seconder, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie) of the address and also to congratulate the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). I have not seen such a show since the last medicine show I saw when Professor Mulvany was cutting a tapeworm.
Looking over the Speech from the Throne, one is struck by the number of items, some 29 of them, all dressed up with platitudes and folksy words. In the ordinary course of events, were this agenda to be carried out it would take nine or ten months. I note that one of the steps proposed is a program to do more in the way of humane treatment of offenders, with further reforms in the penal system. I want to congratulate the government on this; they did not take very long before putting their preaching into practice. Surely the government will be hard put to it to do any more than has been done for Yves Geoffroy if the stories we hear are correct.
This man was released from prison in order to marry a lady who was a Crown witness when he was tried for murdering his wife. He managed to obtain a false passport and make arrangements to dispose of his property and assets before leaving the country. Is this what is meant by more humane treatment of offenders-if you don't get along with your wife, murder her, it will soon be forgotten? The ad lib women should have a look at this. How do women in general feel about this type of crime? To most men it must surely be repulsive. I am wondering whether this is the thin end of the wedge to distinguish between a domestic crime and other criminal acts.


An hon. Member:: Goyer says Geoffroy is not violent.


Philip Bernard Rynard: That is what I am coming to. Is taking a life different in a domestic case than it is in any other case?
I do not intend to deal with the Speech from the Throne for too long except to say that if it produces no better results than the preceding three Speeches from the Throne, after which we witnessed mounting unemployment, rising inflation, more people living in poverty and the development of the worst-managed economy in the
Speech from the Throne
western world, the Canadian people will have had just about enough.
When one talks about unemployment one is talking about a tremendous economic factor. When you have 7.7 per cent of the people out of work it is not only that they are out of work but that someone else is keeping them and someone else is paying the shot. It is a tax on the economy and they lose their moral strength and their dignity. The psychological effect on the unemployed and their families may be devastating indeed. This is only a small part of the economic picture when you consider we are losing approximately $3.5 billion in production per year. I do not believe that Canada or any other country can really stand such a situation.
Businessmen have been afraid to invest. Many businesses have been sold. They are distrustful of the government, of the changes in the labour laws, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the proposed competition legislation and of the arrogant use of power in Ottawa. We have witnessed the flight of a great deal of capital from Canada over the last few years and the next year is likely to see a further cut in business.
Last night the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) spoke about social justice. The present government has frozen old age pensions at $80 a month. Let hon. members not forget that the $80 of last year purchases just over $75 worth of goods this year. This situation applies to every pensioner, even those who pass the means test and receive the guaranteed income supplement. The only increase they receive is 2 per cent. That is the social justice that this government talks about!
In one year alone inflation increased nearly 5 per cent, yet we are shortchanging all pensioners in Canada on fixed incomes. Year by year they become poorer. The government talks about economic security, but what about drug care? I think it is worth repeating that the old age pensioner has paid for his pension. It is not a case of their receiving charity; they have been taxed for their pensions and deductiops made from their pay cheques. A pensioner who happens to fall just short of qualifying under the means test is finding that his $80 is being rapidly eroded. If inflation continues at the present rate, which is almost 5 per cent a year, it will mean, Mr. Speaker, that by the year 2000 we will require a salary four times what we have today in order to retain the same purchasing power.
Whether or not inflation and unemployment can be solved by this government remains a mystery. The government has shown no capability for coping with the situation even though it has been in power for four years. In the first place the government has taken more and more tax dollars and has spent more and more. The operations of the office of the Prime Minister alone indicate this; his office has increased its expenditures almost ten times.
I was struck by what Mr. Bennett, the Premier of British Columbia, the so-called bigot of British Columbia, had to say in this regard. He pointed out that the federal government and other provinces had spent extravagantly on the furnishing of government offices and increased their hirings of staff much more so than in British Columbia.

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne
The estimates for 1972-73 are up by 10 per cent. This probably means that when the supplementary estimates have been added the increase will be 12 per cent or more before the year is out. It is recognized that government is growing larger and larger. This is true of governments in general, but is probably more the case with the federal government than with any other government. The federal government should at least set an example. Instead it has become larger, more bureaucratic and more inefficient, with little or no knowledge of the people in the hustings who have to work and pay all the bills. It is quite apparent that if the government does not change its direction we are in for very serious trouble.
Today there are more young educated people than we have ever had in this country. But we also have more young educated people without jobs than we have ever had, which represents a tremendous waste of manpower and brains.
Sometimes I wonder just what advice the government receives. The Minister of National Health and Welfare spoke in the House the other day about how deeply concerned he was over the non-medical use of drugs and then-effect on society. Then he went on to say that the government was taking action to restrict the use of two types of drugs, the abuse of which had been a public health problem in this country. I refer to methadone and amphetamines. If a little research had been done or a few questions asked of the medical profession, the minister would have discovered that during the last five years doctors have cut use of amphetamines in half, that during the last half of 1971 use had been cut by more than half. Use of this product has been diminishing very fast. In other words, the medical profession has been policing itself. But no, the government had to interfere.
The point I am making is that the minister is only touching the tip of the iceberg, not the part that lies below the surface. The minister should be tackling the problem of drug peddling and other forms of abuse. This is an area he has not touched at all; instead he had to enter the medical field. In spite of the very satisfactory decline in the use of the drug, the government must use the big stick.
In my opinion the minister has taken a very disturbing step. From now on the ordinary practising physician will be unable to prescribe this drug even though, as a result of his training and experience, he feels in all conscience it should be prescribed. He will now have to consult another physician, which in remote places itself creates a problem because doctors are in short supply. How will physicians in such areas be able to get in touch with other consultants? Not only this, but the minister's action, in my opinion, casts a shadow on the competency of the general practitioner who is the backbone of the medical profession.
When I listened to the minister last night expressing his concern I almost shed crocodile tears. Having heard him speaking about drug abuse the other day, I think the people of Canada would be amazed if they looked at the 1972-73 estimates, which were tabled in the House last Wednesday, and found that the government was going to spend $358,000 less on its drug abuse campaign than it spent last year. On the other hand, it has doubled its anti-smoking program to $386,000 but has done very little about it. So when the minister speaks in those terms it

makes me question his sincerity. Perhaps he was speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
In his announcement the other day I noticed he referred to the Le Dain commission but he did not mention use of alcohol which the Le Dain commission said was the worst drug of all. It was pointed out by the Le Dain commission that there are over 500,000 alcoholics in the dominion of Canada. I see the Minister of Justice in the House. No, I am sorry, he is not Minister of Justice any more; he has been moved up, and I congratulate the minister on his new appointment because he is a great guy.
As I was saying, there are 500,000 alcoholics in Canada. Since 1951 the drinking of alcoholic beverages has more than doubled. Liquor has become part and parcel of our social life. Many people are able to enjoy a drink and have never any medical problems. However, last year there were over 2,000 deaths in Canada from automobile accidents where alcohol was a related factor. This amounts to over two million man-days lost, costing the economy $40 million.
I am not going to refer to any of the diseases caused by alcohol consumption; they are many and are increasing rapidly, and they are mostly fatal. The point I am making is this: How much money is the government prepared to spend to educate our young people to the dangers presented by the use and abuse of alcohol which, according to the Le Dain commission, is far more dangerous than drug abuse? What is the government doing to assist the young people to adapt themselves realistically to a society which accuses them of using drugs while their parents use alcohol and give them the right to drink at 18, even though the minister cannot enforce a law- and nobody is asking him to-to abolish alcohol as he tried to do with some drugs such as the sugar substitutes?
I hear the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) making some remarks. If he wants to stand up and give us his thoughts, that is all right.
What has the minister done about research into this matter? I am sure the hon. member will support me on this. If he sits and listens he will learn. Surely the minister can do something about research into the dangers of the excessive use of alcohol. The danger not only includes harm to the persons themselves but to other people as well because an alcoholic affects the lives of many others. Fortunately we now regard alcoholism as an illness which should be treated, and more research into alcoholism should be carried out. We should spend more money on research so as to prevent the long list of tragedies that follow in its wake.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: This is not the only area in which the minister lags. He has done little or nothing, even though a Liberal government brought in medicare in 1966, to provide the necessary doctors to carry out the increased work required under medicare and to meet the loss of doctors. Last night the minister said in the House that Canada had one of the highest ratios of doctors to population in the western world. I do not like him to mislead the Canadian people and to put the doctors of this country in a bad
February 29, 1972

light, because that is exactly what he is doing. He is not telling the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Philip Bernard Rynard: I have here United Nations figures which I will table. They show that in Canada we have one doctor per 890 people. In the United States there is one doctor for every 650 people, in England and Wales one doctor for every 860 people, in Northern Ireland one doctor per 780 people, in Scotland one doctor for 780 people, in Sweden one doctor per 850 people, in West Germany one doctor per 650 people, and in the U.S.S.R. one doctor for every 430 people. The World Health Organization figures show that in Canada there are 120 doctors for every 100,000 people, in the United States there are 130 doctors, in the United Kingdom there are 147 doctors, in France, 154 doctors, in West Germany, 193 doctors, in Israel, 250 doctors, and in the U.S.S.R., 250 doctors per 100,000 population. Eastern Europe which fell so far behind has caught up today and they have a better record in many cases than Canada.
I will table this information because I think the minister should stop this nonsense of saying we have the best record in this respect when this is not so. He is casting a reflection on the doctors of this country. The figures which I have read will appear in Hansard.
The government was to provide medical complexes and to provide teachers and equipment to expand medical schools. What has the minister done in this respect? Year after year we have asked for medical schools to be operated in the summer months so as to step up the graduation of doctors by 30 per cent. What has the government done in this respect? Not one solitary thing. Year after year the minister has been promising to see his colleagues about it, and year after year doctors are left shorthanded and are criticized because there are not enough of them to do the work they are called upon to do.
I remember the time in the House when the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), who was the premier of Saskatchewan for many years, said that medicare would increase the workload by approximately 25 per cent. The Hall Commission report recommended that the government get busy at once and increase the number of medical students thus increasing the number of doctors to meet the increasing demands. What has happened? We have only to look at the sorry record. We are importing as many doctors as we are graduating students; about 1,000 doctors were brought into Canada and 1,000 students were graduated with little or no improvement in the situation. A start was to be made at once. We have rejected many of our own students while accepting doctors from other parts of the world who were less well educated that our own. Now the government is talking about medical assistants, about felchers, or whatever you want to call them, who are partially trained doctors or nurses. Would they make house calls? Some three years ago when I was in Washington I was advised by some Russian doctors that they have found the felcher system to be wasteful. The system did not work out so well and sometimes it created problems which took longer to clear up than if qualified doctors had seen the patient in the first place.
Speech from the Throne
The situation we have today has been created as a result of the fact that the emergency units of the hospitals are overcrowded. Many of the units have workloads requiring several doctors and nurses to operate them on an emergency basis. It is grossly unfair to blame the doctors for sloppy work. Their workload has been extended to the point where it is difficult for them to spend the necessary time on a patient or to do a thorough clinical examination, and consequently cases are missed and patients are often seen hurriedly, which leads to expensive medicare. Again and again we find that it is the poor who are suffering and it is they who are going to emergency units in far greater numbers than others. If we look at the record of admissions to hospitals we see that there are three or four times as many poor and underprivileged as there are well to do people.
I was interested to hear the minister say last night that the department would set up clinics to practise preventive medicine. May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: Before we call it one o'clock may I refer to a point of order which was raised earlier today at the opening of our proceedings in the House. The Leader of the Opposition raised a question about a deletion from yesterday's Hansard relating to an exchange between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I indicated at the time that I would look into the matter. Since then I have had the official record examined and no evidence could be found of any deletion from the record. I have the assurance of the Editor of Debates that what appears in Hansard of yesterday is an accurate report of yesterday's proceedings.
It being one o'clock I now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, before the noon adjournment I was mentioning the shortage of doctors. To recapitulate, I point out that national medicare was introduced by the parliament of Canada. Once that was done, it became the responsibility of parliament to see that sufficient doctors were provided to implement the findings of the Hall Commission report which formed the basis for medicare. But in the intervening years, no real attempt has been made to provide sufficient doctors.

Speech from the Throne
We need at least 2,000 more physicians per year to maintain the current level of health services, and the current level is inadequate. This does not take into account the number of physicians who go into administration, do research, or undertake the education of other doctors. We must also keep in mind the fact that approximately 50 per cent of our physicians are only in general practice. To illustrate how we are meeting the need, I point out that last year we graduated 1,152 new doctors, but we needed 2,000. I see the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) looking at me when I say this because he knows that we imported another 1,113 doctors, a lot of whom came from countries that could ill afford to lose them, and from countries whose requirements for entrance to medical school are lower than the requirements of Canadian medical schools.
Furthermore, I point out that only four out of every ten students who applied were accepted for Canadian medical schools. It is not a question of our having insufficient numbers to enter medical schools. I repeat that only four out of ten were accepted. The reason for this was that the government did not provide the necessary health resources fund to make available the spaces and the universities to train all the students we should have taken. That is the real problem. Neither did the government give the universities or students the money and facilities to continue their training during the summer semester.
The health resources fund must be expanded to cope with all the students who wish to go into medicine. Some of those in government and universities say that doctors cannot be adequately trained in such a way, but I point to our performance during the last war. The doctors who at that time finished their courses in four years have not taken second place to any who were trained under the six-year plan, either before or since then. Those who graduated after four years had put in the necessary hours of training. Last year 600 Canadian students possessing all the basic qualifications adequate to go into medicine were rejected, yet I repeat that we accepted 1,100 immigrants from outside the country. In actual fact, we turned down our own Canadian boys and girls. I repeat that 50 per cent of our doctors specialize, or engage in administrative insurance and other fields.
I now wish to deal for a few minutes with the bureaucracy that has crept in under the national medicare plan as a result of the number of forms used. Forms have become very important and when patients are transferred from one place to another these forms have to be filled out in duplicate. I am sure the hon. member for Hull will substantiate this. I have been told by doctors in practice, as he is, that 10 per cent to 20 per cent of their time is spent just filling out forms. This adds to their expenses and leaves them less time to practise medicine. People are getting a little bit fed up with this situation.
In the province of Ontario it costs the taxpayers around $50,000 to train a doctor. People are saying it is easier to get their car serviced than it is to get medical service. Surely, that situation has to be corrected. The high-sounding platitudes spoken by the minister last night are not going to solve the problem. What has been accomplished in his four years as minister? Let him state just one thing

that has been achieved in this field. He talks about community clinics but if there are not enough doctors now to look after the sick, who is going to staff the community clinics? How does he propose to set them up and to service them? I agree with the principle of preventative medicine, but where are we going to get the doctors to put it into practice. Is the minister going to have these doctors on duty every hour of the day and let all the people who are too ill to go to a clinic die without any attention? He says there is too much treating of the sick in hospitals already, so what is he going to do when there are not enough doctors to discover and treat incipient disease. He has not prepared for that day as was recommended in the Hall commission report.
This government stands condemned at the bar of justice for what they have done to the medical profession by not supplying more doctors and for what they have done for the people of Canada under medical care by not providing the doctors to give adequate medical care, either for sickness or prevention.


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

Mr. }oseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. members for Bruce and Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Whicher and Mr. Lajoie), who performed their task with great intelligence and integrity.

Mr. Speaker, the accomplishments of the government speak for themselves and many members on the government side have referred to them in the last few days, particularly since the Speech from the Throne, so I feel there is no need for me to reiterate at the moment. However, I shall do so in my own constituency because I believe that the people of Canada should be well informed at all times. Statements about events can certainly be slanted so badly by members of the opposition that I believe we have a responsibility to go back to our constituencies and put the record straight by telling our constituents how things are in a straight and orderly fashion.
After listening to the speech of the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), I should like to congratulate him. Not only did he give the true story of what has taken place in his department, but he also gave the true explanation of what is taking place in various parts of Canada with regard to development, particularly in the DREE areas.
On the other hand, the members of the loyal opposition since 1968 have done nothing but criticize government policies. In all fairness, I must agree that it is the role of the opposition to criticize but what has the loyal opposition offered as concrete, sensible suggestions? Most of the time they talk about doom and gloom-the same old story, the same old speeches. If you took their speeches from one day to the other, put them all in a bag and mixed them up and then took out the words one by one you would get a repetition of the same old thing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 29, 1972


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: There has been no change since 1968; in fact, there has been no change since 1962-63. They are still talking about the short time when they were the government. I think they are still dreaming about it and are not doing the constructive job that they should as the loyal opposition. They rearrange their speeches, possibly with a few more words, but they all have the same meaning, the same criticism, the same lack of feasible suggestion.
As an example, let me refer to their own convention held last December 5, 6 and 7 at the Chateau Laurier. I have here a few notes extracted from the various reports and papers. The subject of prime interest to the delegates was Canada's economic independence, the guaranteed annual income, tax bill C-259 and auto-determination for Quebec, but the delegates were so mixed up, Mr. Speaker, they did not know which way they were going. The delegates were not of one mind, the story went, about whether anything at all needed to be done about the extent of foreign ownership of the economy. It was also fairly clear that more of them supported a moderate form of economic nationalism. For example, the first resolution on Canadian economic independence stated that the federal and provincial governments should take urgent steps to reach a consensus on long-term economic and political independence in Canada.
I am now speaking of the Conservatives, the loyal opposition, Mr. Speaker. Disagreement amongst them on the subject of taxation was so widespread that their committee on economic affairs held a special debate on the subject. Many delegates wanted taxes to be cut but could not agree on how much or the way in which it should be done. Others argued that the government must cut back on spending, but again they did not know how to do it. Discussion on the tax bill was mostly negative. May I repeat that last word-negative. I do not hear too much hollering this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, because there are so few members in the House. I am surprised that they do not come and listen to some of the backbenchers once in a while.
The question of the guaranteed annual income scheme was first raised by Mr. Stanfield in 1969 and created a conflict between left and right wing Conservatives in their own committee discussions. As a result on the final ballot there was a resolution indicating the need for a guaranteed annual income.
I could go on and indicate that the members of the loyal opposition do not agree amongst themselves on their own policy. In fact, they have not got any policy. They do not agree on it, Mr. Speaker. They do not agree on leadership, either. I could go on about that particular convention. It was said that it was the dullest event that occurred in Ottawa that week. Unless you were a Conservative and attending that convention, by gosh, you did not know it was going on.


An hon. Member:: Stay in there, Joe.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The opposition, Mr. Speaker, has framed no understandable policy on the nation's basic problems. I see some hon. members want to enter the
Speech from the Throne
chamber. There are so few opposition members here that I welcome them.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Stick to your speech.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I can give as good as I get, so I ask the hon. member to be careful in what he says. The opposition, may I repeat, has not framed an understandable policy with respect to the nation's basic problems. It has contrived no specific issue and has relied, so far, only on the government's unpopularity, a negative and dubious assumption.
I wish to refer to the challenge thrown out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), as recorded in Hansard for February 18, page 36, in the bottom paragraph of the right hand column.
I challenge the Conservatives, Mr. Speaker, to describe honestly and candidly to the Canadian people what their posture towards the United States would be in this difficult negotiation. Would they have gone to Washington cap in hand, to employ their own phrase, and agreed to a forced upward valuation of the dollar in order to prove their friendship with the United States? We didn't, and we did not endanger Canada's good standing with the United States in any way by not doing so.
The Prime Minister went on to say-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Good for him.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I see the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has come in. It is nice to see him in the House on any afternoon. The Prime Minister went on and said:
Would the Conservatives have made unilateral trade concessions in order to free us of the requirement of tough bargaining? We didn't, and we don't intend to do so now. Just what is the stand of the Conservatives. A sell-out to the Americans to prove friendship? Or do they secretly admire the way in which the government has handled these negotiations but are too small to say so publicly?
The Prime Minister also said, as recorded at page 37 of Hansard:
If the opposition parties disagree, then I wish they would address themselves to that issue and those objectives and stop chasing their colourful theories.
My question then is, Mr. Speaker, why has this challenge not been taken up by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition? Why is it that when challenges have been thrown out by the Prime Minister and other ministers in this House, the loyal opposition has not at any time taken them up? I also wish to ask members of the loyal opposition and their leader if they would like to tell the House what their party policies are on such matters as foreign ownership in the economy?


J. Michael Forrestall: What are yours?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: What is their policy on taxation?


J. Michael Forrestall: What are yours?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We know what your policies are.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: What is their policy on a guaranteed income?


J. Michael Forrestall: What is yours?

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: What is their policy on abortion, or legalization of certain drugs?


J. Michael Forrestall: What is yours?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: What is their policy, Mr. Speaker, pertaining to the two famous words they have used for many years, "two nations;" and last, but not least, what is their policy on bilingualism?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I have listened to hon. members opposite all week, and some of them do not seem to know of the great unity which has been established in Canada by this government. Every single Conservative who has spoken in the House of Commons in the last few days, with the possible exception of the last speaker, has done harm to the cause of Canadian unity. They could not accept a bill which was passed in this House with their own approbation. I am talking about the bilingualism bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Many hon. members opposite have spoken against it in the last few days. That is typical of the Tory party, which always speaks with a forked tongue. Hon. members use a different language when they speak outside this House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Don't bother speaking about bilingualism, speak about bread and butter.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I am talking about bread and butter. You need it, too, mister. If I were like the hon. member, I would go without butter.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You look pretty healthy, too, Joe.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Perhaps the problems I have spoken about are too complicated, too difficult and too involved for the loyal opposition to understand or deal with. Perhaps that is why the opposition has not offered- I repeat, has not offered-concrete, sensible and feasible suggestions to this House and the Canadian people. That is why they have not accepted-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The so-called just society.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: That is why they have not accepted the Prime Minister's challenge. It would be too difficult for them to understand. They cannot formulate a policy and let the nation know about it. May I repeat this, to emphasize it. I am not the only one making such statements. Bruce Hutchison, in last night's Ottawa Journal, examined this situation carefully and said that the opposition had offered nothing concrete, sensible or feasible to this House.


J. Michael Forrestall: He is one of the leading Liberal spokesman.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But Mr. Hutchison is not unbiased.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: If the Conservative party cannot agree on its own policies, how can it ever offer constructive criticism on the government's policies? The

opposition has done just the opposite by slanting and ridiculing our just society. The good will and support of everyone, and particularly of the opposition, are needed if we are ever to realize the just society.


J. Michael Forrestall: That will be the day.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, to illustrate the attitude of the opposition may I say that when the House was requested by His Excellency, the Governor General of Canada, to proceed to the other place to hear the Speech from the Throne-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There was nothing in it.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: -on Thursday, February 17, most members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition opposite me did not attend. Why, Mr. Speaker? Why did they not attend en bloc, as they say in French. In other words, en bloc they protested and did not attend the Senate; this is true of all except one of their members who went there humbly, cap in hand, as did their leader. Why did they stay away from the Senate en bloc? This was a direct insult levelled at Her Majesty, the Queen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: This was showing disrespect to Her Majesty the Queen, to the Senate and to the Governor General of Canada.


J. Michael Forrestall: There speaks a great monarchist.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame on you, Joe. They will never believe that in St. Boniface.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, they did not attend the Senate en bloc, thereby showing disrespect to Her Majesty the Queen, His Excellency the Governor General and the Senate of Canada.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Joe, you pay attention and I will drive.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: In the same breath, the opposition tells the House and the public that it is concerned about the coat of arms on RCM Police cars and that we on the government sides are against the monarchy. This confirms once and for all that the loyal opposition is only playing politics. They are not sincere with the people they represent. They are not even sincere when they talk about the monarchy, or they would have attended the Senate as a loyal opposition normally does.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: There is no doubt some members of the loyal opposition are sincere and do a good job. There are a few. However, when only the leader attends the Senate, that is very bad. This is the first time I have seen so many members opposite present in the chamber.


J. Michael Forrestall: It is all because of you.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I would like to raise another matter. I wish to quote from a newspaper. I got this idea from members opposite who are always quoting from
February 29, 1972

newspapers. They could not make a decent speech without quoting something. If they did not have an editorial staff to write their speeches, editorials and articles in the press, we would gain at least three quarters of the time we are now losing by listening to members opposite quoting from newspapers during their speeches. I felt that possibly I should do the same once-so that they could see what it is like.


An hon. Member:: You do not have a very good audience.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: They are not very appreciative of this fact.


J. Michael Forrestall: No one over there is paying attention to you.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Recently, the Prime Minister was criticized. He was quoted as saying that British Columbia adopted a bigoted attitude towards bilingualism.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He called Bennett a bigot.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Is that it? Stand up and correct that statement for me. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) will do it for me.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We will get the facts straight for you.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The opposition does not practice what it preaches. They also speak while remaining seated, but that is all right; I am used to that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You are honest, Joe.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to an article published in Le Soleil, the only French-language newspaper in British Columbia. The few lines I have here reflect the feelings of the Francophones not only in British Columbia, but throughout Canada and more particularly in western Canada.
Here is what they say:
The attitude of the provincial government toward French Canadians must change, and the best time for it is now.
The general public in British Columbia seems to worry about the fact that their premier was described as he appears to be; that reaction is unfortunate and somewhat exaggerated when the incident is seen in context. The general public should worry instead about the discrimination against an official minority in the province, discrimination that starts in the very denial of the existence of that minority. We can start remedying this situation by promoting adequate teaching in and of French in our schools, and by supporting rather than hampering the efforts of existing French Canadian institutions and their culture in British Columbia.
Mr. Trudeau has drawn public attention on the well known fact that the government of British Columbia is working very hard to hamper anything French. Let us note the fact that so far, nobody has yet rejected the charge that the head of the provincial government is following a course which seems based on ignorance and narrow-mindedness. The people around him justify his attitudes and policy despite their lack of soundness.
Speech from the Throne
He maintains that French Canadians-the one million of them outside Quebec and more particularly the 90,000-odd in British Columbia-have no right outside Quebec and must accept that.
It can certainly be recognized that it is increasingly urgent and essential that French Canadians be entitled to their language and their culture throughout Canada-even in British Columbia-or else we are going toward fragmentation of our country.
So far, extremists, whether English- or French-speaking, have not been successful in dividing us and they will not sunder us if moderate men are sufficiently anxious to work against any policy of division or discrimination which might exist in our province.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to keep on quoting the article of the same paper:
In order to clarify any misunderstanding, let us mention that there are close to 90,000 French Canadians living in British Columbia, and more than one million outside Quebec, in the nine other provinces.
To put everything into perspective, six of the Canadian provinces have fewer than one million inhabitants, so the million of French Canadians outside Quebec is an important group indeed.
The federal policy on bilingualism is undoubtedly favourable to Quebec and a critical factor for the survival of French Canadians outside Quebec.
Bilingualism is of primary importance for the 1,000,000 Frenchspeaking Canadians residing outside Quebec, and no anti-Quebec sentiment should enter the discussion merely to justify an anti-French-Canadian policy in British Columbia.
That province's government does not provide adequate opportunities for the teaching of French, either to French Canadians or to English Canadians, and an anti-Quebec feeling can no longer justify such a deplorable situation.
If Premier Bennett is not a bigot, let him prove it through his policy, because it is only through this that we will be able to judge.

I think that really tells the story of how people feel. This editorial was written by a Francophone in British Columbia. The same applies to other Francophone groups in western Canada, including Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta where they are certainly numerous. I deplore the fact that after having voted for unity and bilingualism in Canada, some members of the loyal opposition make statements that are contrary to the principles they have supported. In fact, this is evident from what they have said in the past few days. The members of the opposition should either put up or shut up. They should tell the Prime Minister, if they accept his challenge, what they would do if they formed the government. Then, they might make a valuable contribution to proper legislation being passed in this House. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said that this was a forum in which to discuss policies and all kinds of problems. I think it is also a responsibility to come up with something that is sensible. They should make sensible suggestions and not just speak for the sake of speaking.
I would like to speak briefly about something which has been on my mind for a long time, the old age pension. I do not always agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but I somewhat agree with his philosophies in this regard. I will support an increase in the old age pension. I would certainly be pleased if this came about and I will make personal representations to the government in that regard. I will make every attempt

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne
to do so when the occasion arises. Rest assured that I will do this. I can speak just as loud in caucus as I do in the House.
There is one further thought I have. I would suggest to the government that a lot of consideration be given to the implementation of wage and price controls. I am one who believes that the sooner this is done the better it will be. There are many other things I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members. Perhaps I shall have a chance to do so later on. I shall finish up by saying to the Leader of the Opposition that the sooner he accepts the challenge of the Prime Minister, the sooner I shall take my hat off to him.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was not in the chamber to hear the closing remarks of the hon. member who has just spoken in order to learn something of the way in which political parties should act before and during an election campaign by setting out their policies in detail. In 1968, if I recall correctly, the Prime Minister said: I have no policy; I promise you nothing; I will give you the just society. Well, it is not just for us in western Canada. It is not just for those who are unemployed. It is not just for those in the Atlantic provinces. It has turned out to be just for Grits.
I want to deal, now, with one or two matters of very deep concern to my country. I have been in this House a long while and I intend to stay a long while longer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: In spite of the vicissitudes of public life, with one party or another being in power, I have never known my country to be in the doldrums as it is today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Many members opposite who groan will be groaning on election night because they will not be here. Everywhere in our country, men and women of all political faiths, are asking: Where are we going? They have a deep sense of fear. There is none of that pride in Canadianism which has been ours throughout the years, and which was shown to all the world at Expo '67 which my government had the honour to bring about.
I see parliament. What is it? A caricature of the institution it should be. The Prime Minister yesterday made a statement in this House indicating peevishness, pettiness, with profanity. That observation will, I am sure, have the same effect as the short statement by the Right Honourable Mackenzie King in 1930 had on the Liberal party of that day. As I go across the country, I meet older Canadians as well as the youth of our nation. I have always been very proud of them and I am more so with the passing of days. They want to do something for Canada. There are about 4 per cent who want to create trouble, but the rest are motivated by tremendous dedication to the building of Canada. They want to bring about changes and bring them about by democratic means. They come here and they sit in the galleries of the House of Commons. And they leave asking: What manner of institution is this?

The hon. member who preceded me said that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition did not have the regard for the Queen and for the monarchy that we should have. I find it difficult to understand that anyone could be suffering such a degree of innocence as was displayed by the hon. member in those words. The subject of Her Majesty the Queen has come to the fore with the approach of the election. She was left out of the Speech from the Throne in 1969. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), who has the custody of the Seal of Canada, voted for the abolition of the monarchy. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) did the same. The Prime Minister was asked whether he had voted and he said he had not. But he went on to explain that he had less regard for the monarchy than he had for skiing or even for snowshoeing.
Just follow the peregrinations of this government. One day the monarchy is condemned. The next, the Speech from the Throne refers to the fact that the Governor General is thanking parliament in the name of the Queen. A little later on in that speech, Her Majesty becomes "Our gracious Queen". So it is in almost every field, with the Prime Minister making statements one way today and then saying the very opposite tomorrow. That tortuous course was suggested 500 years ago by Machiavelli, who said, in effect, let the people understand what you are doing and you will encounter difficulties. Parliament is one day lauded to the skies by the Prime Minister and the next day members of the House of Commons are described as nobodies. This institution is the only place in which the freedom of the country can be maintained and continued; there is no other.
Now, there is a great national movement underway to build up the Prime Minister. I read that the president of the Liberal Association, Senator Stanbury, said: "We have to build him up". Then, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) uttered some immortal words. I am sorry to see he is not here today as a result of circumstances that I hope turn out favourably, but quoting him-because, after all, he is worthy of quotation-he said: "Greater faith must be built in the Prime Minister". That shows that some of the Liberals are beginning to need that inculcation. He said he was tired of hearing that the Prime Minister had feet of clay. Only deities do not, Mr. Speaker.
Today in the city of Ottawa there are a number of United States press and radio men who have been brought here for the purpose of seeing the Prime Minister at first hand. Many of the papers of these representatives have agents in the press gallery, but that is not good enough. Do you know the reason they are here, Mr. Speaker? It is because the Prime Minister is trying to make the United States forget the fact that when he was in the U.S.S.R. he said: "We fear the United States culturally"-and I can understand that-"and we fear the United States economically"-and I can understand that. Then he said: "yes, and even militarily". I say there never was a more dastardly statement made of the United States anywhere, any time, by any person. That is why their newspapermen are here today, for the purpose of learning at first hand that the exact opposite of what was said is the truth.
February 29, 1972

I have a great admiration for adroitness, providing it is accompanied by truthfulness. I have been watching the Prime Minister in action and have heard him say one thing and then the very opposite. I often think as I watch him in action that he epitomizes the game we used to play as boys called fox and hounds, in which the fox scattered the paper around indiscriminately in order to deceive those who were the hounds, to mislead them. That is what is happening here.
The cabinet has been shuffled around. The Prime Minister took the deck and shuffled it. He added one that added nothing and shuffled the rest. I have played cards from time to time but have never known anyone, however often he shuffled, who could turn four deuces into four aces. I allow my hon. friends opposite to place themselves or their colleagues in the particular categories.
We have today a cabinet that is noted for its absenteeism, not for good reason but just to avoid having to answer questions. However, there is one minister for whom I have a great deal of admiration, and I refer to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand). I knew him before he became a Liberal, at the time he was a labour leader. Today, he is a minister of the Crown. Can you conceive of a minister of the Crown, Mr. Speaker, with hundreds of millions of dollars to expend, being the leader of his party in the province of Quebec, sending out over his own signature requests for Liberal party funds? Here is what his letter said, in part:
Funds must be available so that the work of the party, in the next few months, may be adequately financed.
This is a course of action that is dangerous to parliament and is something that cannot be condoned. It must have been approved by the cabinet or it would not have been done, and indicates the degree to which this government by insidious methods will place many companies in the position where they will have to contribute, or at least will find that to contribute will be conducive to receiving contracts. Such a course is inexcusable, reprehensible, and cannot be justified in any way.
Since the hon. gentleman who preceded me dealt with the subject, may I too, refer to the Queen. We all know what the government has done with the coat of arms. Only a few ministers have the coat of arms on their letterheads today. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has part of a flag with a tractor going through it. I do not know whether it is an imported tractor, but it indicates an attitude of mind on the part of all. Although the Prime Minister has not yet removed the coat of arms, others have.
The abolition of the monarchy, may I mention, was in the minds of the Liberal party on December 13, 1968. After all, there was criticism from the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), who is always going around with a scholastic egotism which I like to watch. He now has control over the CBC. I do not know whether he has control over that other gentleman of the Cite Libre, Mr. Gagnon, but I intend to deal with him shortly since his past record qualifies him in every respect for consideration.
Let me quote from Time magazine for the date I mentioned in 1968:
Last week, thinking aloud in the Liberal caucus, the P.M. said that the government hopes to "Canadianize" the monarchy by
Speech from the Throne
quietly "depersonalizing" the Queen's role in favour of more emphasis on the constitutional position of the Governor General- by, for example, replacing the name of the Queen with that of the Governor General on all official documents.
It was said that this could not be in their minds. Then, the government came out later on with its organization of the government of Canada, a large volume that comes out each year. I venture the opinion that few of the members supporting the government have ever looked at it, and certainly we followed suit. It is simply a conglomeration of information. In January 1969, the statements in it followed the Provisions of the British North America Act. It stated:
The Executive Government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
That has been erased. It now says that the cabinet is actually in charge of the executive. If you follow it along, you see what has happened. The Governor General cannot do anything except that which his ministers permit him to do. He is the representative of the Queen. He is not the leader of this nation. He is not a head of state. Yet, in
1971	he was in Iran at their twenty five hundredth anniversary. There were three categories of guests invited: royalty, heads of state and representatives of heads of state. The Governor General of Australia was in the third category, but the Governor General of Canada was there as a head of state.
The direction of the movement is obvious, but suddenly the Prime Minister changes his mind. His actions can almost be compared to those of Saul on the way to Damascus. After having criticized the monarchy, both directly and by imputation, the Prime Minister now in
1972	says that he will not abolish the monarchy. He has made a sudden discovery that he cannot do it. The only way in which the Crown can be abolished is by a vote of the House of Commons, the Senate and all the provinces. So, he comes out in his white shining armour and says "I am all for the Queen", and she gets triple mention in the 1972 Speech from the Throne, but there was no mention of her two years ago.
Now, I come to a matter that has been up several times, that is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I have listened to what the Prime Minister said outside the House. I wish he would say some of those things in the House, and then I would operate without anaesthetic. Let him say them, even if he reads them, in the House of Commons. Does he like the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Some hon. Members:: Sure.


Mr. Gibson:: Oui, pourquoi non?


John George Diefenbaker: Why not. I will tell you why not. I am glad the hon. member asked. Has he forgotten that in the days of war the Prime Minister rode around the city of Montreal on a motorcycle wearing a Nazi cap?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member wanted information. I know he does not want it now. The Prime Minister rode around the city wearing a Nazi cap in order to tease the mounted police.

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The interruptions indicate that ignorance is still a qualification for membership on the other side of the House. They say today that the change so far as the RCMP is concerned was evolved three years ago. Of course, someone had to be blamed, so the mounted police are blamed. If it was evolved three years ago, why is it that the cars purchased in 1972 with the RCMP sign on the side have had the sign repainted at a cost of $100 each?


Colin David Gibson: So people would know it meant police, people who are not Canadians, people who travel around; that is why.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to know that the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson) knows one thing because up to the present time I have not heard any suggestion from him that would indicate acquaintance with or knowledge of anything else. When I heard of this sign in Saskatoon, I wrote to the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer). Mind you, the story now is that although the change has been in effect for three years, it has not been enforced. When I was in Calgary, I saw the sign at the airport which has the coat of arms with RCMP written under it. This has not been changed because there would be a second northwest rebellion if they did change it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They have no regard for the west.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked the Solicitor General to explain in a letter which I wrote to him on January 17. I pointed out to him that there was no reference to the RCMP on the sign. It had the crest with the word "police" under it. I wrote:
Why is there no reference to it being a detachment of the RCM police? Is this the result of policy?
I did not receive any reply on January 17. Yet, they had the answers. If the story they are telling today is true, why did they not give it? It took two telephone calls to prod them into giving an answer. This was before they worked out this latest alibi for what has been done. The answer stated:
I am informed that this detachment displays the new sign designed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to blend with contemporary buildings.
That was the explanation, and it indicates, of course, that the sign was designed by the RCMP. They have to blame somebody. There are no other buildings there, but within the same building is the Royal Bank of Canada. The word "Royal" is still permitted there. The explanation that was given to me tells the story of the falsity of what is endeavoured today to fool the Canadian people. I simply say through you, Sir, to the government of Canada: your conduct toward the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has lost you hundreds of thousands of votes, not only in western Canada but throughout Canada, and you cannot alibi yourselves out of that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: What is this new force that has been set up?


Erik Nielsen: The super-duper snooper force.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right. The description of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is well taken. But it is interesting that the government did not know there was such a thing. On January 29 I directed a question to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp). It was in connection with the civilian secret service being established to replace the RCMP security and intelligence agency. Finally, the former minister of manpower and immigration said there was nothing to that. Then, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) asked about it and received much the same answer. But the Prime Minister said:
Here again I think there is a misunderstanding. This is not a separate security force as the hon. member seemed to understand. It is a small co-ordinating body to make sure that the ministers in the cabinet have information collected from various sources including the RCMP so that the government will be better informed on the facts spread around in the various government departments.
Somebody asked the Prime Minister who was going to head it. He asked:
Who is going to head the non-force, Mr. Speaker, a non-head?
The person who answers to that description, of course, is the Solicitor General. Then, Douglas Fisher, an astute member of the press gallery and a one time member of parliament wrote:
I understand that the new departmental group is to have a permanent advisory function but that its first assignment is to recommend changes in the composition and operation of the RCMP.
They don't like the RCMP. As long as the RCMP is in charge, there is no danger in our country from communism. But it wasn't sufficient.
Then, the Solicitor General stepped in and explained away the unexplainable in these words, to be found at page 7699, and here he was quoting the Prime Minister:
The security service, under the Commissioner of the RCMP, will be increasingly separate in structure and civilian in nature.
In his own words, he said:
That principle remains. It is respected, and the fact that a research and planning group has been put in action does not change anything in the basic principle expressed by the Prime Minister.
I would add that there is no question of this group directing police operations as such. As a matter of fact, as is indicated by its name, it is a research group, a planning group that will be mainly concerned with analysis.
The black cat gets out of the bag in the next sentence.
In fact, what are the true responsibilities of this working group? First of all, to compile information and not to go and find it; also to set up some police services. The information will be provided mainly by the RCMP, of course, as well as by the Armed Forces, other departments that have information relating to the security of the country as well as by provincial government and other sources accessible to the public.
It should then assess this information and call for additional information should the data obtained be inadequate. Finally, it should analyse the information as a whole, not merely from a strict police point of view, but in a much wider spirit, that is taking into consideration social, economic and political factors.
February 29, 1972

That is where the truth gets out. This force that has been set up is investigating. It is a force away from the RCMP, and among other things it is supposed to look into political matters. When one thinks how that murderer was given such fine attention that he was able to escape from the penitentiary, one wonders whether that comes under the heading of a much wider spirit which is included in the phrase "social, economic and political factors."
The Prime Minister said it is not true. He said the big lie shocks him. If he were here today, I would deal with that question at length. The truth is that every person in this country who has looked at the new RCMP badge knows that the designation "Royal Canadian Mounted Police" is out, excepting for the coat of arms. And the reason given is that the people, when they are looking for the police, do not know what RCMP means. That is what the Prime Minister said the other day. He said, "It is false. We have not done anything."
I have here a picture from the Toronto Star, Mr. Speaker. I cannot put it on the Hansard record; I wish I could. It shows the Solicitor General looking at a sign. This is the sign with the Coat of Arms and "Police." There is nothing else. What is being done in this case is undermining the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and then the government explains it by saying the Royal Canadian Mounted Police thought they would like the change made. Can the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police say that? A few months ago he pointed out that if an embassy were opened in Ottawa by China, it would be a breeding place for agitators. He was immediately told, "Shut your mouth and never talk again." Yet now, these same people come along and, to exculpate themselves with respect to the dastardly deed that has been committed, they say, "After all, the Mounted Police wanted it done."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I must interrupt the right hon. member, the time allotted to him having expired, unless he gets the unanimous consent of the House to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House give unanimous consent to the right hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Now, Sir, I will move away from Canada to the international field, but only for a short time. I do not think I have ever known my country to be lower in prestige internationally than it is today. The statement by the Prime Minister that we feared the United States militarily was one that shocked the sensibilities not only of Americans but of free men everywhere in the world.
Then, there was the other statement made by the Prime Minister when he was asked by Ukrainian Canadians, and Ukrainians from other parts of the world, to bring to the attention of the Soviet authorities what was taking place today, not only in the Ukraine but throughout the captive nations of the world. Kosygin, when he was here, said he loved peace. How he must have laughed when he said that. Today Brezhnev and Kosygin are reviving the Stali-
Speech from the Throne
nist repression that seemed to end with the elevation of Khrushchev to authority.
In the case of the Ukrainian people, 11 of their leaders have been arrested, not because of their advocacy of revolution but because they have been critical of the Soviet government's failure to live up to its pledged principles in the United Nations. There is a new wave of Russian persecutions against Ukrainians. The intellectuals who speak out are accused of dealing in anti-Soviet propaganda. The Sovier courts are applying a new rule and imposing additional sentences for acts allegedly committed against Soviet society while an accused is in prison. I can give example after example. One is Valentyn Moroz, a young Hungarian historian, who was sentenced in 1970 to nine years of hard labour for writing a report about Beria Reserve while serving a previous sentence of four years in that prison camp. I have the list here of free men, many of them communists, who are being put in jail without trial.
The World Congress of Free Ukrainians wishes to have this matter fully investigated. I intend to do what I can in that connection, it having honoured me by naming me as the national chairman. I will do what I can to assure those who love freedom, as we love freedom, in the Ukraine and in the Baltic countries of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, and in other countries that are under communist domination, that what is wrong will be revealed.
People ask where does the Prime Minister come in on this? I do not want to quote at length, but I will quote what he said when he was asked by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) what he was going to do about it, and what he had done. As reported on May 31 he said he had little sympathy with nationalists in Canada or the Soviet Union. He said:
I quite frankly avoided talking about that. I tried to get some data which would permit me to talk about it on a basis on which I felt really involved and convinced, and-quite frankly-couldn't take up the causes, several of which were put to me, that I should protest in favour of so-and-so and so-and-so who had been jailed because of their nationalistic beliefs.
My position in the Soviet Union or in Canada is that anyone who breaks the law to assert his nationalism does not get too much sympathy from me.
In 1958, he said that everyone had the right to oppose any law if he did not agree with it.
Again, according to the report on May 31, he said:
I didn't particularly feel like bringing up any cases which would have caused Mr. Brezhnev or Mr. Kosygin to say: 'Well you know, why did you put in jail certain FLQ leaders? After all they think they are only fighting for the independence of Quebec. Our people say they are fighting for the independence of the Ukraine. Why should you put your revolutionaries in jail and we shouldn't put ours?
That statement was an insult to every Canadian of Ukrainian origin and to every other Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: It is equating the murderers and kidnappers with intellectuals who are simply advocating that the law be lived up to. Then, when the Prime Minister got into difficulty about that he said "I really didn't mean that". The same old equivocal course. Say the thing, have

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne
the accolade of Kosygin placed upon the brow for having said it, then say "I really didn't mean it". If I say that he must have meant it somebody might say that I have partisan reasons, but I will quote from the Winnipeg Free Press of June 2, 1971. This newspaper is an avowed and dedicated supporter of the Liberal party but an article in it reads:
Prime Minister Trudeau's unfortunate comparison between the Ukrainian nationalists and the FLQ in Quebec is beyond comprehension.
And later, in the same article:
The Ukrainian nationalists were arrested because they strove to keep alive Ukrainian culture, language and literature in an increasingly Russian environment.
Perhaps the Prime Minister has forgotten the millions of dollars spent on the B and B commission for an analogous performance if he is really seeking analogies. Then, in the same article:
To compare these Ukrainian martyrs with a misguided band of kidnappers and assassins is not only an insult to the Ukrainian intellectuals and their kin, but a slap in the face of every democrat who abhors totalitarian tyranny.
Having got himself in that difficulty, he followed his usual course. He brought the leaders of the Canadian Ukrainian Committee to Ottawa and told them that he loved them, that what he said was misunderstood. But no amount of charisma can explain away what took place when he dared say this to people with that little flame of freedom before them. Many of them were martyred. Today thousands are in danger and hundreds have been picked up recently. Why has the Canadian government not pointed this out at the United Nations? They have never said a word, not one word. When Khrushchev was there in September, 1960, I mentioned the awfulness of the course of these people, and I was told by the highest ecclesiastics that the change that took place thereafter was amazing because public opinion in every other part of the world does affect the Soviet Union. This country has half a million Ukrainians, some of whom are our finest citizens and have served our country tremendously in days of war as they served in peace. It is beyond me to contemplate why the Prime Minister should have engaged in the blackmail of untruth.
I told you, Your Honour, that I would only take a few minutes. I thank the House for its consideration in permitting me extra time.


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I rarely speak in this House and I rarely speak after one so well known as the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbak-er), but I think I would be remiss if I did not comment on some of the statements he made. One of the things he seemed to try to get across was that the image of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the United States was not good.


An hon. Member:: It is not.


Eugene Whelan: I can tell you that a recent article written by an American reporter in the Detroit Free Press indicated that as far as many people in that area were concerned, they would trade two states of the union, the President of the United States, several senators and two or three of the

United States largest corporations if Prime Minister Trudeau would go to their country and run it for them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I live in an area that is very close to United States. We do not always agree with the United States, but I do know the feelings of the people in that part of North America.


An hon. Member:: We will give him away.


Eugene Whelan: They do not think the way the right hon. gentleman tried to say they do when he talked about our international image. I have not travelled very far but I have travelled in different parts of this country. I know that a delegation of young people is getting ready to go to Europe. How do I know they are going to Europe? Mr. Speaker, they did not ask for the badge of the red ensign or anything else, but they asked if I could get them some Canadian flag pins or maple leaf pins so they would be recognized in Europe as Canadians. That is what they wanted.
I thought also when the right hon. gentleman mentioned how the Ukrainians and some of the other people suffered, and none of us are denying they have suffered, that he would tell us about some of the other historical events of which some of us are not aware, such as what is happening in Northern or occupied Ireland. I thought he would tell us the background of that country which has been suppressed for over 700 years.
When the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) was speaking, someone said that we should talk about bread and butter. That is what I am going to do in my speech now. I shall try to stick to the bread and butter issues in which I think some Canadians are interested. Some of us use a different terminology and say bread on the table and shoes on the baby.
I want to thank the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne for their fine contributions. I have known the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) for many years, even before he knew me. I used to watch him in the Ontario legislative assembly when I was attending junior farm meetings. He was not much older than I but he was always well respected and admired for his free-wheeling, knowledgeable way of speaking in the Ontario legislature. I know most of us who have listened to him and read his speeches here are aware of the ability he has shown in this House, too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I do not know the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie) as well, but I have followed his contributions to the House and in committee as long as he has been a member of the House of Commons. I can say that as far as I am concerned he, too, has already made some good contributions and will make more. He comes from an area in Quebec from which many of the French people in my area came when they settled in that great southern part of Canada. Their contributions have been tremendous and will be great for many years to come.
Some hon. members have seen fit to find fault with what the hon. member for Bruce said, particularly his statement that our senior citizens are looked after, better
February 29, 1972

than any others in the world. One member went so far as to say that all we gave them was 40 cents a month or a total of $80 a month. Mr. Speaker, hon. members know that is wrong.


An hon. Member:: They know you are wrong.


An hon. Member:: It is 42 cents a month.


Eugene Whelan: They know very well that with all the other benefits given to senior citizens, such as the supplement, the right to free hospitalization, free medicare, free dental care, free glasses, free drugs and low cost senior citizen apartments, if they can prove their need, that these senior citizens are better off than any others in the world. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Any politician that tells them any different is guilty of a misdemeanour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the county of Essex and the city of Windsor, which is the general area I represent, has more accommodation for senior citizens per capita than any other comparable area in Canada. The local municipalities, of course, deserve lots of credit for this, but we must also remember that at least 95 per cent of the money involved in these projects comes from the federal treasury. In many cases the province of Ontario, which administers the Ontario Housing Corporation, does not want to give anyone else credit for this, and acts as if the federal government did not exist.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Eugene Whelan: That provincial government thinks it is a nation unto itself.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Eugene Whelan: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the area I represent is probably the most diversified area that any member represents in Canada. It is the most productive, both industrially and agriculturally, in all Canada. In agriculture, I understand that only one spot in North America is more productive than the area I represent, that other area being the San Jose Valley in California. These qualities do not mean, however, that my area does not have its problems. I have mentioned the great diversification. Let me refer to some of the people in my area. As I said, the people of my area probably are the most diverse in Canada.


Mr. Haidasz:: And they are represented by one of the best Members of Parliament.


Eugene Whelan: The first group of people, who still are an important part of our population, is the French who came first as soldiers and later as settlers. Then, there are the Irish, Germans, Scots, English; later on came the Italians, Slovaks, Portuguese, Lebanese, Hungarians, Poles, Dutch, Roumanians, Russians, Greeks, Yugoslavs, Ukranians, Latvinians, Lithuanians, Serbs and Croatians. You name them, Mr. Speaker, and we have them. Also, Mr. Speaker, this area was the first area which offered freedom for African slaves coming from the nation to the south of us.


Stanley Haidasz: Are there any Conservatives there?
Speech from the Throne


Eugene Whelan: These people came as immigrants, because Canada offered them freedom, as it still does today. There are other groups that I should mention, Mr. Speaker; I know that. We have them all and we are proud of them. They are the main reason for our productivity. They like the freedom and opportunities Canada offers. They know you can get on if you want to take a chance and accept a challenge. They are doing this every day. In that way, they are taking advantage of opportunities found in Canada.
Also, Mr. Speaker, these same people are involved in agricultural production, and they are very productive. They have brought their abilities with them and their desire to create and produce. However, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding all these qualities, we must remember one thing. All people, no matter in what part of this nation they reside, whether in the city of Windsor, the county of Essex or elsewhere in Canada, want to be properly compensated for their productivity. You may ask what I mean, and I will tell you. I mean, for the worker, a decent living for himself, his wife and family and, for the farmer, a decent return for his productivity and investment, so that he may obtain the same return as his city cousin. In both instances productivity, whether that of a city worker or of a farmer, must receive a return. Even the Canadian Labour Congress recognizes that those in well organized labour unions have kept ahead of the cost of living but that the unorganized people in most instances have not. The same holds true in agriculture. Some groups have not fared too badly, yet others have not done well even though they have been very productive. Actually, in many instances they have become so productive they have put themselves out of business.
You may wonder how this is possible. Who are some of these people, hon. members may ask? I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, who some of them are. The poultry producers are a perfect example. Look around the country. How many empty poultry houses are there? I am told, and have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the statement, that without much effort we could produce within a year more than double the number of eggs Canadians could eat and more than twice the amount of poultry meat. However, we all know that it only takes overproduction of 1 or 2 per cent to create chaos in the market place as has happened in the past year not only in poultry products but, as well, in pork.
I congratulate the government, Mr. Speaker, for the aid it is giving to hog producers and for the aid it is giving wheat growers who produce grain for domestic consumption. It has been recognized that producers in these areas need assistance if they are to supply the cheapest, high quality food to any consuming public anywhere in the world.
Let us for the moment talk about some producers who are not being looked after so well, and who are just as productive. Let me speak first of those who produce the most nutritious food in the world, food containing more life giving substances than any other food grown by man anywhere. What is it, Mr. Speaker? It is grain corn. In Canada, today, we produce over 100 million bushels of such corn. Not long ago we produced only between 30 million and 40 million bushels. At that time we were not producing enough for our own consumption, and Canada imported every year about 20 million bushels of such corn

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne
from the United States. Even in those years, we always received between $1.50 and $2 a bushel for our corn. That is what it cost our industries to buy American corn, less the refundable 8 per cent duty on imported corn that was manufactured into a product and sent back to the United States, mostly as whisky. I am sorry the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is not here. I think some of that whisky was called Royal Crown Whisky.


An hon. Member:: Was it not Crown Royal?


Eugene Whelan: Those factors set the price Canadian producers received for their corn, and they still do. The duty means nothing whatsoever. It only rules the price that Canadian corn producers can get for their corn. Also, it sets the price in Canada of all other feed grains produced and sold in Canada.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I can remember several years ago being told that when we become self-sufficient in corn production in Canada, no more corn will come in from the United States. Well, Mr. Speaker, we are self-sufficient and we are still bringing in cheap American corn, although this year we are bringing in only 8 million bushels. Nevertheless, we are producing a surplus and do not need one bushel of imported corn from any country, let alone from the United States. Eight million bushels out of their tremendous production does not mean any more than a speck of pepper in a manure pile. We do not need their corn here. We should not let it enter this country.
Some will say to me, "You are not a free trader." Mr. Speaker, you cannot import one bushel of grain in Canada, that is other than corn, unless the Canadian Wheat Board issues a permit. I say this is good, and is as it should be; yet, by God, if it is good for the people in the west it is good for us in the east; and if this is free trade, I say, Mr. Speaker, give us more free trade.
Western members should be concerned about this, as well, because these factors have an effect on every bit of feed grain their constituents sell. Also, may I point out that the American protects his market to the tune of a 25 per cent duty, whereas ours is 8 per cent, and most of that is refunded, because the product that is manufactured from corn is shipped to the United States. The American is not a free trader in any product unless he cannot produce it and needs it for his own consumption. Really, the United States is the most protectionist country in the world. Mr. Speaker, if there is to be any real free trade with the United States, let us have it. Let there be real free trade, because we can compete with them in most areas.
I can remember when we used to produce sugar beets in our area for a sugar refinery in the United States. They stopped us from shipping beets to their country because they wanted to protect their own sugar beet growing industry. While mentioning the sugar beet growing industry, I may say I feel it is an industry the government should consider rejuvenating. I can remember that several years ago we lost the last sugar beet refinery in Chatham, Ontario, owned by Tate and Lyle. At that time sugar was eight cents a pound. Today, it is 15 cents a pound. Sugar today is costing the people of Ontario $100 million more than in 1966.
All the producers needed was 10 cents a pound to make it a profitable industry, but because the province would do nothing and we did nothing federally, the foreign-owned company closed down their refinery and we lost the sugar beet industry. Oh, the government bought some of the equipment and paid the farmers some money, but do you know why? The economists told them these farmers could switch to growing corn and still make a living. Corn, Mr. Speaker, was over $1.50 a bushel at that time. Today it is $1.06 a bushel, delivered to the elevator. The corn farmer cannot make any money, the sugar beet industry was lost and the consumer is paying nearly double what he was for sugar. In addition, the Caribbean sugar worker is not a great deal better off than he ever was, which is not what we were told would happen. This is what the economists told us. Some of these same people are still advising the government on what it should be doing about agriculture. I say these people should be fired.
The only ones who are better off are the sugar barons and the refining companies. The government should investigate aiding these people in southwestern Ontario. In rehabilitating this industry, the government should also take some immediate action to aid the corn growers in the same way as they have the milk producers, hog producers and wheat producers because these people are in need now.
I can think of some things that we recommended to this House of Commons and the government at the time I was Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. That was over six years ago. Yesterday I listened to an hon. member speaking about how we should improve our rail and elevator facilities on the west coast. It may sound strange to hon. members, but when I was chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, we investigated the operations of the Wheat Board. We recommended an improvement in the rail, grain handling and elevator facilities as well as improved port facilities on the west coast. The members of that committee were ordinary members of this House. There were not many members who had a Ph.D. or some other degree. For this reason, I feel that no attention is paid to the suggestions made by members. We know that was wrong. It is very discouraging to be the chairman of a committee which submits a report prepared by 46 members of all parties of this House and find no attention is paid to it.
I also have in my hand a brief from a group of producers concerning the future of the tomato growing industry for canning or processing. Their main concern is imports of cheap tomato paste from overseas countries that have a production cost of about one-third of ours. I am told the canning companies are telling producers they cannot be paid as much per ton as last year, otherwise they are going to import more paste from overseas. We know we cannot compete with tomato paste produced in countries such as Portugal, Roumania, Italy and Spain where labour and other costs are approximately one-third less than ours.
Also, many of our farmers who grow crops for the frozen food overseas markets, especially in Great Britain, stand to lose these markets. This will be a gradual process


most likely, but we can expect acreage cuts in the production of corn and pea for freezing, plus losses in other areas such as frozen french fries, broccoli and so on. Why will we lose these? Mainly because of Britain's entry into the common market. What can these farmers grow in place of these crops? Really, they have not much choice. They can grown grain, corn, or allow their land to remain idle. It is very difficult to explain some of these things to the farmers. I know because I have tried. We always hear a holler from other parts of the country that feed grains must be cheap in order to maintain cheap beef, poultry and hog products. However, never in the history of our country has grain been so cheap and the price of beef so high. Why? Is it the price of corn and other feed grains? No, Mr. Speaker, I have said that has nothing to do with it. It never does, regardless of what the economists tell us. The reasons are simple. First, for increased beef production, one must keep off the market cows and heifers for breeding purposes. Actually, thousands of animals are kept off the market in order to create a shortage. With the increase in population, the demand for beef is there.
Also, scientists have not yet learned how to make a cow give birth to five or six calves at one time. We have not learned how to make cattle as productive as poultry, hogs and so on. Therefore, there will always be a scarcity of beef, no matter what anyone tells us.
Even though either pork or poultry products are cheaper, a large portion of our population who earn high wages or income feel they have the right to eat steaks, roasts, and so on. Therefore, they buy them and, Mr. Speaker, even when one considers their buying power today compared to, say, even 10 years ago, the price of these cuts of meat is not out of balance with what they earn. They take the steaks and roasts home, but leave the chicken, turkey and pork products on the counter, even though in many cases they are as nutritious and much cheaper. Because they are not buying them, a surplus is being created.
If we adopt this attitude, and if the government goes along with it, we do not need an agriculture industry in Canada. We can live on slave-labour produced foodstuffs from all over the world, and maintain our high standard of living at the expense of the poor people. But should we not do that with all other products including manufactured products? Why don't we just let the barriers down and let people in here holus-bolus in the same way as we do tomatoes and many other products. Hon. members know we would have utter chaos if we tried this. We do this in the food business at the expense of a few, not just the producers, but also the consumers. Our whole import-export policy should be changed so that those people who are directly affected have some say. They are sick and tired of being used by the government and other economists as if they were chess players. I might say, too, that since I have been a member of Parliament, which is going on 10 years, I have never known an economist to be right yet. I could go on and on about free trade and who is a free-trader but, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say there is no such thing as a free-trader. It all depends on whose ox is getting gored.
I want to mention several other items. The first one is the new Unemployment Insurance Act and the present controversy that is taking place concerning its administration. I first of all want to say that I believe when one
Speech from the Throne
considers all the facts, the people administering this act have done, and are doing, as good a job as anyone could do. I have personally handled many calls from people suffering delays. I have visited the Unemployment Insurance office in Windsor on different occasions to see how it functions. I am confident that these people are doing a good job if one takes all the facts into consideration. Our calls, or, at least, my calls I should say, because my wife accepts most of them at home while I am here, have dropped off sharply in the last two weeks.
One of the things that annoys me about the critics of the plan, the news media, politicians in other parties and some in our own, is that they never tell the good parts in this plan such as increased weekly benefits, such as payments when you are sick, such as payments for women during and after pregnancy, such as payments for those who are unfortunate enough, shall we say, to get hurt on the way to work when they are not covered by their own workmen's compensation plan, and many other benefits which affect many of these people. I am sure that when all is said and done this will be recognized as one of the most efficient plans in the world. Also, I wish the critics would tell the people what a small percentage of the thousands and thousands who are collecting unemployment insurance are suffering inconvenience and unnecessary hardship. Our people in the local offices have worked hard and long to help these people who I believe in the long run are fortunate enough to be entitled to unemployment insurance under a plan superior to anything they have had before.
I want to mention some of the things which have been said about our present immigration legislation and these unseen people who have been quoted in the press as condemning our immigration laws. The writers seem to forget one thing, an important thing as far as I am concerned. It is that in a democratic country the Members of Parliament still have some say about making the laws. We have a fair idea what is going on. We should not be blackmailed into passing any legislation whatsoever, leastwise on the basis of that conservative Sedgwick report. Mr. Speaker, I have never read anything I can remember that contained so many fantasies about immigration and immigrants. I was raised in a neighbourhood full of immigrants of every description, plus the fact that in my family I have a Finnish sister-in-law, a Hungarian sister-in-law, a Roumanian brother-in-law, two German brothers-in-law, a Huguenot sister-in-law and a Scottish sister-in-law and am married to a Yugoslav of German descent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I believe I could write a much better report than Mr. Sedgwick has, or at least a more realistic one. While I am talking about immigrants I might refer to some of the things the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said when he went on about royalty, etc. Of the immigrants I know, all want to be recognized as Canadians, not something else, but just Canadians and in most cases they are better Canadians than we are. If we followed the philosophy contained in the Sedgwick report this land would only be for the self-
382

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne
ish chosen few. As long as I am a Member of Parliament, I will fight this kind of conservatism which we do not need in Canada.
I want to say a few words about pollution, especially international pollution. First, I want to say to the government that it has been foremost in the world in its action and legislation in trying to control pollution in our country. Along with several other members, I attended an environmental meeting in Germany last June attended by representatives from 22 other countries, including some of the most advanced countries in Europe. It is obvious we are a long way ahead of them. Some of them have not even scratched the surface compared with what we are doing in Canada. The area I represent is bounded on three sides by the international border between Canada and the United States. These boundaries or borders are Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River and Lake Erie. I need not say much more than to say I am more optimistic than most of the so-called smart people about this area and the prospects of bringing it back so that man, fish and wildlife can use it again as they did before. We know it is much better now than it was five years ago, but the most disappointing thing is the recent announcement that the United States government has decided to curtail its expenditures on cleaning up the American side of the lakes and river. It is reassuring to hear our own minister in charge of the environment say that the President of the United States will Sign an agreement with Canada to expedite this program when he comes here in April.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I regret I must interrupt the hon. member to inform him that the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue only if he obtains the unanimous consent of the House. Does the House consent to allow the hon. member to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eugene Whelan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the members of the House of Commons. Really, when you think of the area I represent, the amount of pollution that is in the water, and of the fact that the Americans, who have only 50 per cent of the right to the water have caused 90 per cent of the pollution in the water, the time for action by them is long overdue. We in our area are sick and tired of their pollution, and the people I know in the United States are sick and tired of the inaction of their government. I might mention sound or noise pollution now. Where I live, I get some of the worst sound pollution from the aircraft using Detroit Metropolitan Airport; Canada is used as a flyway for practically all flights going to the eastern United States. That is a lot of flights because Detroit Metropolitan Airport is one of the busiest in North America. This should be stopped.
Just one or two words about the auto pact. I have expressed my opinion on the auto pact. I was a member when the auto pact was made. I have had discussions with my colleagues in that area and also with the men involved. I feel sure that the auto pact or a similar type of agreement will be made so that the industry will be greater than it has ever been. One should pay attention to what the president of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, Mr. Bennett, said in St. Thomas yesterday. His main concern was not the auto pact but the number of imported cars

coming into Canada and the fact that they were trying to compete with these imports. If more Canadians would buy more North American built cars, we would be in a better position.
I believe Canada is a great country. It is a country which has its problems, but if we compare them to those faced by Viet Nam, Pakistan, the Middle East and Ireland, ours are infantile indeed. Our country has a great future. Our people will have an even greater one if the government accepts some of our humble suggestions. Socrates said, and I am talking here about agriculture, and he was, too, that when the land lies barren and those who cultivate it suffer, so do all other ways of life.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to take part in this debate. This is the fourth session of the twenty-eight parliament. We have watched the legislative performance of the government over the past three sessions, and in the current Speech from the Throne we find an outline of the proposed legislation for the present session. On the basis of its performance stretching over three and a half years, and of the proposals we are presently considering, the Canadian people should be in a position to judge whether the present administration has been good for Canada or not. In my opinion, the faith and hope which a large number of Canadians expressed after the 1968 election have been destroyed by the ineffective program and policy of the government. What started out hopefully as a fresh and invigorating approach to our national problems has turned into a nightmare of economic mismanagement for the majority of Canadians.
During the last campaign, the election slogan of the Liberal party was "The Just Society". I suppose a great deal depends upon the definition of what a just society actually is and how it could be attained. In my opinion, any just society should be able to provide employment at an adequate income for all Canadians able and willing to work. It should be able to provide decent and adequate housing accommodation for the people of this nation and ensure all Canadians, especially those who have retired or are unable to work, an adequate standard of living, including full comprehensive health care.
I would suggest there are many other components of a just society in Canada, including the right of every citizen to a good education, the right to live in a clean and unpolluted environment, and the right of ourselves and our children to be masters in our own house, both economically and politically. The just society must surely envisage an equitable tax system and the wise use of our abundant natural resources for the general good of the nation as a whole, and this includes the indigenous groups in our society. Along with these goes the part that Canada should play in international affairs, including our role in assisting the developing nations and the independent role which I feel Canada should play, especially at the United Nations, in the search for world peace.
When I view this Trudeau administration and its slogan of a just society in relation to the several points I have raised, I can come to only one conclusion, and that is that Canada is no closer to the just society in 1972 than it was
February 29, 1972

when the present administration took office in 1968. In fact, in many respects we are farther from the goal than ever before. I would like to deal more fully with several of the points I have raised to show that this administration's campaign slogan in 1968 of a just society certainly does not measure up to the expectations of most Canadians.
Let us look first at the tragic unemployment situation which we have in Canada. The latest available figures show that up to the middle of January there were 665,000 jobless Canadians. This is 7.7 per cent of the total labour force. The rate of unemployment in the Atlantic provinces stood at 12.9 per cent of the labour force. In the province of Quebec it was 9.8 per cent, and in British Columbia 8.7 per cent. The rate in Ontario and on the Prairies stood at 5.8 per cent. It all adds up to a national tragedy and is a clear indication of the totally inadequate economic programs and policies being followed by the present administration. It is a far cry from the goal of a job for all Canadians willing and able to work.
I would not be so critical of the present administration if our current unemployment problems had been of short duration, largely beyond the control of our federal administration. But this is not so. In 1970 this government deliberately implemented an economic policy aimed at creating mass unemployment. At the time the Prime Minister announced to the country that he was willing to tolerate a 6 per cent rate of unemployment in an effort to beat inflation. He was more than successful in forcing tens of thousands of Canadians out of work, and for several months in the latter part of 1970 inflation was held in check.
But what do we have today, Mr. Speaker? In 1971 the cost of living rose by 5 per cent, the largest annual increase in our cost of living in a decade. Also in the year 1971 we find that the unemployment index is the highest for at least the last 16 years. I do not have the statistics prior to that date. I must point out, however, that increasing unemployment has been one of the main features of this administration since it took office almost four years ago. We find that in 1968 and 1969 the annual average unemployment in Canada was 315,000. In 1970, it was up to 495,000 and in 1971 the annual average showed 552,000 jobless Canadians.
The government has tried to soft pedal the unemployment situation in Canada. The Prime Minister and others in this House have glibly talked about higher than normal increases in the labour force and in the participation rates as compared with the 1963-67 period. A review of the statistics clearly shows that the increase in the labour force for the 1968-71 period is substantially lower than in the 1963-67 period, and the participation rate increase is also much lower. The leader of this group thoroughly squelched this argument by the government when he spoke in the Throne Speech debate on February 18, so I do not intend to cover those points again.
Canada has the largest unemployment rate of any western industrialized nation. Most of the problem can be attributed directly to the programs and policies of this Liberal government. Some of the trouble can be traced back many years to the economic policies adopted by the old line parties at that time. I refer to the established policy of shipping increasing amounts of raw materials out of our country to be processed elsewhere. The failure
Speech from the Throne
of successive governments, including the one now in power, to rectify this situation is largely responsible for part of the unemployment which we have today.
There is no sign that this government has learned this hard economic lesson, which has cost Canadians hundreds of thousands of jobs and deprived many of our young talented people of job opportunities in their own country. I am hopeful, however, that at long last Canadians are waking up to the fact that a completely new approach must be taken toward the development of our natural resources. I am certain it will not come from the policies and programs of the present administration, which have given little indication of it over the past three and a half years, or in those measures it hopes to present to this session of the 28th parliament.
I would like to deal briefly with the current unemployment insurance situation and its effect on our unemployed workers. I would say at the outset that I have been able to assist hundreds and have had the full co-operation of the unemployment insurance personnel. I must say that those employed in the unemployment insurance personnel offices in my area, and in areas outside, have co-operated with me fully, and I can certainly commend the work they have done in helping me iron out many of the difficult problems that have been brought to my attention. The administration of the new Unemployment Insurance Act, however, has been anything but satisfactory. Ever since it became law at the end of June, 1971, it became increasingly apparent that the administrative aspects of the legislation had been badly bungled. I cannot agree with those in government who insist that only a relatively small percentage of workers is involved. Most claimants experienced delays far in excess of the promised processing time for claims. A smaller percentage of workers had the misfortune to get really bogged down in the processing of their claims and had great difficulty in getting them straightened out. I know of many claimants who went without benefits for months and in the process suffered immeasurably.
Many workers were forced for the first time in their lives to ask for welfare assistance. They had the humiliating experience of having their credit in the community stopped and the experience of not being able to pay their bills. This administrative fiasco has left many Canadians bitter and angry over the government's administrative handling of the new Unemployment Insurance Act. Every member in this House has experienced similar problems in his constituency. We have found many of the causes for the lengthy delays experienced by the claimants and have passed them along to the department or to the officials concerned. I am certain that the work of the members has assisted in making the new legislation more workable. I trust that the committee which will deal with this problem can come up with some meaningful recommendations to amend both the Unemployment Insurance Act and its regulations. There are several points, however, which I feel should be raised at this time.
One of the main causes of trouble with unemployment insurance claims is the far too complicated application forms. If some mistake is made by the applicant in filling out the form, then the stage is set for a series of lengthy

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne
delays. Claimants generally find the forms difficult, and I feel that the department should try to revise and simplify them. There is an old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and it certainly applies to the forms which unemployed claimants have to fill out.
In our area, the department has centralized the records office in Kelowna. There is no quick way for a claimant to get at his unemployment insurance records and set things straight if trouble arises. Why can there not be a central records office in the Kootenays to deal with the workers in our area? I feel that the department is over-centralizing the Unemployment Insurance Commission in the hope of cutting administration costs. There will always be a host of problems with unemployment insurance claims, and perhaps the aspect of decentralizing the keeping of claimants' records should be closely examined to see if changes are warranted.
One of the delaying factors in processing claims is the fact that holiday pay and severance pay must be known before the claims can be properly adjusted. I feel that the act should be opened this session for amendment, and both holiday and severance pay should be excluded as earnings under the provisions of the act. Our party called for this change last June, but it was turned down by the government. Today, however, surely there is enough evidence, now that the act has been in force for eight months, to indicate clearly to everyone that the inclusion of holiday pay as earnings is a backward, regressive and discriminatory measure. I have received numerous complaints and protests from individuals and unions from all over my riding regarding the inclusion of holiday and severance pay as earnings under the new act.
Let us look briefly at the problem. For years, organized labour fought for the principle of holiday pay. It was designed to assist all workers and their families to take an annual vacation. The provisions of the new Unemployment Insurance Act have denied this right to those unfortunate enough to be out of work. I feel that this is a retrograde step, and that this type of discrimination should be eliminated by amending the act. At present, if a workman becomes unemployed his vacation pay benefits must be used at a pre-prescribed rate per week until they are entirely absorbed before the worker can even commence his two week waiting period for unemployment insurance benefits. It is, in effect, a means test.
Vacation pay is really part of the normal wages of a workman and should not be treated any differently from any other portion of an hour's pay. The voluntary or legislated arrangement to save a small portion of the pay for each hour worked and accumulate it for vacation purposes is entirely the business of the person who has earned the money. It should not be subjected to interference by legislation. The law says that the holiday pay of a workman must be accumulated by the employer and paid to the workman either on termination of the job or when the workman takes his annual holiday. Why this accumulated savings for holiday purposes is classed as earnings after a workman's job is terminated is difficult to explain. Not one penny of it is earned in the unemployed period for which it is classed as earnings by the government. It should be 100 per cent applicable to the period in which it was earned, and for this reason should not be used for unemployment insurance purposes.

Severance pay also should not be classed as earnings under the act. This is clearly pointed out in a recent CLC brief from which I should like to quote as follows:
Severance pay, in particular, is paid under various negotiated formulae, dependent upon years of service, and therefore constitutes a deferred payment of wages for work performed prior to the date of separation. It should as we see it, be treated in the same manner as savings which, as you know, have no effect on whether a person receives benefits or not. To deny unemployment benefit payments to a worker who has lost his job and thereby force him for an extended period of time to depend for his income upon his severance pay is tantamount to rubbing salt into a grievous wound.
Severance pay is accumulated savings in the hands of the employer, and I see very little difference between a person putting money in the bank out of the cheque which he earns from his employer and this type of accumulated savings which he receives in the event of the termination of employment. Again I will suggest that the act be amended to remove this type of discrimination which hits hard at many of the jobless Canadians today.
Earlier I spoke about the just society in Canada, and I indicated I was not too pleased with the program laid down by the present administration. I pointed out the trouble which the government has had in the field of unemployment. Frankly, I do not think they have done a good job and I am quite convinced that there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who feel the same as I do. But there are also other fields which I think we, as legislators, and the Canadian people should look at to see whether this goal of the just society is being achieved and if some progress has been made toward that goal by the legislation and the moves made by this government over the past four years.
Earlier I mentioned housing as being one of the great needs of Canadians. I say without hesitation that this government has failed completely in the field of housing, particularly in providing housing units for those who need them most, namely the under-privileged who live in our cities, those whom we often class as being at or below the poverty line. They cannot afford to buy into those housing units about which the government boasts. We should get to the root of the housing problem in Canada by making certain those who need housing the most get it first. But that approach was not adopted by the government during the past four years. There has been some move toward the setting up of public housing units, but this has been far too little in relation to the need.
All we have to do is look at the recommendations of the task force on housing, a task force which travelled from one end of Canada to the other examining the housing needs of Canadians. Yet we find in 1972 that the vast majority of its recommendations have been completely ignored by the present administration. We all know about the excessive interest rates, excessive land costs, and also about the lack of opportunities which those in the extremely low income brackets have of owning their own homes. Precious little has been done by the government about this problem during the past four years.
Now, I come to the problem of Canadian ownership, the problem of being masters in our own house. What has happened under the Trudeau administration during the
February 29, 1972

past four years? There is more foreign ownership of Canadian firms than ever before in our history. In the past four years, an additional 200 large firms have been taken over by people who live elsewhere. There is no use kidding ourselves about this matter. Those who control the economy of this country control the destiny of the country. That must be crystal clear to everyone.
There is some reference to the problem of foreign ownership in the Speech from the Throne, but we have no indication what the legislation will be, how restrictive will be its terms, and whether it will be effective at all or not. It breaks my heart to realize that secondary industry has been neglected by scores of past governments. Both the Tories and the Liberals can share the blame for the lack of secondary industry in our nation, for the gradual sellout of our vast stores of resources to people in other countries, until the point has been reached that Canada is almost simply a source of raw materials for other nations. All this is inexcusable when we find that many of our young people whom we train in our universities cannot get jobs in their own country. This will be a big issue in the coming election. We will demand that steps be taken to repatriate the Canadian economy, to let us be masters in our own house, to let us have the opportunity to make decisions as to whether raw materials will be fabricated here in job intensive industries that would provide hundreds of thousands of jobs for those young Canadians who desperately need them.
What has been done about this matter? There has been very little talk, and absolutely no action to date. But with an election due in a few months time, you can bet that the administration will come up with some kind of program in the hope that it will fool the Canadian people again. I am convinced that far too many of the Canadian people understand the government's past programs, and I do not believe they will be fooled again.
In my view a just society means an equitable tax system. Do we have an equitable tax system in Canada? Last session we passed a tax reform bill. We made some welcome changes. But did we get the equitable tax system that we need to bring about the just society? We did not. I hold in my hand a table of statistics produced by an ex-cabinet minister, showing the type of taxation that has existed here for years and that has not been corrected. The facts would be most unpalatable to the Canadian public if they knew them.
With respect to mineral fuels, companies engaged in this section of the mining industry made book profits of $795 million during the period 1965 to 1968. The oil companies are practically all foreign controlled, and they paid taxes on only 5.7 per cent of their total book profits. Out of $795 million book profits they paid taxes on only $45 million. Is this an equitable tax system? Why does the government insist on catching those in the middle income tax brackets, taking hundreds of dollars out of their cheques every payday? These oil and gas companies will pull out of Canada once our resources are depleted. Has the government been on guard for Canadians in this respect? It is utter nonsense to say it has. Metal mining in the same period 1965 to 1968 showed book profits of $1,707 million, and paid taxes on only $222 million, at a rate of 13 per cent. Yet the government talks about the just society. I say
Speech from the Throne
you need an equitable tax system if you are to have a just society in Canada.
My time has almost expired, Mr. Speaker. Several other matters that I wish to deal with, including the environment, I will cover at a later date. I trust that when this debate is finished and legislation is introduced based on the suggestions in the Speech from the Throne, the government will be willing to accept good amendments to its bills because I am certain many of the bills will desperately need amendment.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) and the hon. member for Trois-Rivie-res (Mr. Lajoie), the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply for their interesting and invigorating speeches. I fear that the balance of this debate may not have lived up to the standard they set because it seems to me to have followed the traditional pattern of Throne Speech debates, that is, the government and all its works are praised by members on this side of the House and there is nothing but condemnation and negativism from the other side. I think the people of this country would be happily surprised if this rigid pattern were broken one day. I speak for only one constituency in this debate and it is my intention to break away from the pattern because the things I wish to speak of on behalf of my constituents are in the nature of criticisms and critical comments on government programs.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to speak to the House about the issue which above all others is most widely discussed and is the subject of the greatest controversy and concern in my riding, that is the application of the bilingual program of the government to the Public Service of Canada. This program is discussed almost as if it existed in two separate worlds in this city. On one side, there is a thin veneer of high officials, of pundits in the media and others to whom this program appears to be highly successful. An air of euphoria seems to float over their discussion of the program and, indeed, it is regarded by many people on this side almost as an act of ill-will and malice to utter any criticism of it.
On the other hand, and I regret to say that the group of which I now speak is in the majority, are the large numbers of members of the public service and the public in general who are increasingly expressing concern about the implications of the program and the manner in which it is being applied in practice. These people see evidence which cannot be denied that the program in their opinion is not satisfactory. This great gap exists in discussions in this city and is very rarely bridged, although it was bridged to some extent by the interesting comments on the subject by the Official Languages Commissioner in his first report.
It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that the problems created by the application of the bilingual program are serious and that they cannot be ignored by this Parliament. We are entitled to ask ourselves why these problems have developed and what constructive and positive steps we can take to alleviate them. We were all here three and a half years ago when the Official Languages Act was passed in an atmosphere of outstanding good will and

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne
with a heavy commitment to future good relations in our country. The program was supported by the leaders of all parties, and indeed by all parties and all sections of public opinion. What we sought to attain was a degree of bilingualism under which it should be possible for citizens, whether English or French in origin, to approach the federal government in their own language. I think that no one then or now would detract from the propriety of that objective or from its importance in terms of the survival of this nation and its equal importance in terms of the achievement of fairness in the lives of members of both linguistic groups living in this country.
I have to report that the attaining of the objective is now threatened because of the means adopted in going about it. As a member representing a public service constituency, and one close at hand, I see much evidence of growing discontent with the policy. For example, a year ago I circulated a large questionnaire in my constituency, large in the sense that over 25 per cent of all households responded. One of the questions I asked was "Are government policies regarding bilingualism generally satisfactory"? Only 1,827 people responded yes, and more than double that amount, 4,022, responded no, while 1,833 were undecided. The questionnaire was returned with many comments written by constituents. It was then made obvious to me, even more forcefully than before, that the bilingual policy of the government was not only misunderstood but was regarded as being wrong in many aspects of its application.
In my own area I have sought to be as good a representative as possible in terms of meeting the people. Since I am close at hand, I have been able to conduct a large number of public forums to keep in rather close and constant touch with my constituents. I have found, particularly in the last year and a half, that the first and indeed sometimes the only subject which is raised in my frequent contacts with my constituents is bilingualism. I am always in the position of explaining, defending, commenting, criticizing, informing and reporting on this subject. I have tried to walk what I think is a proper line and not fall into the trap of condemning every new movement out of hand nor, on the other hand, of lavishly over-praising things which this government has done. I find that the people I represent have this same concept of a sense of justice and fairness in the application of this policy. The reason it is being increasingly subjected to criticism is that in the opinion of many people it has ceased to be just and has ceased to be fair in some of the aspects of its application.
It is not an easy subject to discuss. Simultaneously I have been accused of almost being a bigot as a result of a public pronouncement and, on the other hand, I was accused the other day by the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox-Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack) of bowing before some sinister force. But I have tried, and I say this even though the hon. member is not here, to maintain a consistent line in what I have said. My speeches and pronouncements are on record and they have been made over a period of two years. I have sought, and will continue to seek, ways and means of making this policy more sensible, fair and proper in its application.
Mr. Speaker, I have found that this is not a subject which commends itself to discussion in this House of
Commons or in its committees. I say that with some regret because I think if we cannot discuss it properly here we are in difficult times. More than a year ago there was considerable uproar in this House about certain aspects of this policy. The question of bilingualism and of the policy was referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates along with the estimates of the Public Service Commission and other allied organisms of the government. We heard a great deal of evidence in that committee about the application of the policy, and it was highly enlightening and very important. At the end of the committee's hearing of the evidence I made a motion, recorded in proceedings of the committee No. 28 on May 18, at page 22:33 and 28:34. The proposal I made in my motion was that the government be urged to review the policy and to consider seriously making certain changes which I shall refer to a little later. To my great surprise, that motion was declared to be out of order. One could almost hear the collective sigh of relief of the representatives of all parties on that committee, because this meant that the committee was relieved of the responsibility of discussing the matter.
I think we must be prepared in parliament, in a non-partisan way to look at this policy; we should keep it under review and I think that we should remember that if we do not do so, various emotional arguments made against it will escalate. Those who oppose this policy, whether from one linguistic camp or the other, will be armed increasingly in their opposition to it.
I should like to review very briefly, Mr. Speaker, what are the real problems which lie at the back of the present malaise, fear and uncertainty regarding the application of the policy in the public service. First and foremost, is the fact that the pledge which was given by two prime ministers, Mr. Pearson in 1966 and the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1968, was not realized in fact. They said, in effect, that the career of any public servant who was not bilingual would not be prejudiced by reason of the application of this policy. Actually, this has not happened. The highest organ of the Public Service Commission has said that that is not what the law says. They have said, further, that it does not really matter whether parliament was induced to pass this law by reason of the undertakings given by those prime ministers because they, the appellate organ of the Civil Service Commission, are not bound by these undertakings. Indeed, it is now said that the protection to be accorded to public servants is only this: they will not be dismissed or-demoted if they are not bilingual. That is quite different, in my judgment, from the original undertaking which said that their career opportunities would not be prejudiced.
I suspect, as I have contended elsewhere, that our main problems with the policy arise in this area, since there is no right on the part of public servants to appeal against the basic determinations which say that certain posts are to be bilingual. These determinations fall outside the total appellate process. Those who say that there are no real complaints, that there are not a large number of examples of protest against the policy, should also add that there is no way for people affected by it to protest effectively.

February 29, 1972

This point has been made clear by the leader of the Public Service Alliance, Mr. Claude Edwards, and others.
The second thing which I believe has caused great discontent is this: when the program was introduced, emphasis was placed on the fact that people who were willing to learn the second language would be given an opportunity to do so. I have encountered a number of cases in which people have been actually on a language course or have been striving to get on a language course but, when promotion has opened up above them they found that because they were not then bilingual, they were denied the opportunity for promotion.
The third factor which I think has contributed to our present difficulties is the establishment of what are called target dates for implementation. These target dates appear to be increasingly rigid. There is also confusion on bilingual policy. The policy recommended in the fourth report of the B and B Commission suggested that there should be a greater racial balance in the public service. I am informed by many of my constituents that the problem of the English speaking public servant who is bilingual is compounded because efforts are being made to introduce a greater proportion of French speaking public servants into the public service. There is also dissatisfaction about the test of linguistic ability, and this dissatisfaction expresses itself in two ways. First, there is dissatisfaction with the actual tests themselves. Second, and this is more important, the proper authorities have been unable to fashion tests which are suitable for and applicable to special jobs and categories within the public service. I know that progress is being made in this area, but I think it should be expedited. We have a long way to go.
Finally, there is no body to which a public servant affected by this process can appeal. He cannot appeal against the designation of a job, because that has already been done, and those who say that he ought to appeal are running in the face of reality. He would be appealing against a decision of his boss, his superior authority. Most people in the public service I have spoken to about this feel, I think with justification, that they will suffer if they do so. As I have said, there is no proper appeal tribunal, because the Public Service Commission, to the extent that it might intervene, has excluded itself for the reasons I gave earlier.
What is the result of all this? Unhappily, in this city at the moment there is opposition, fermented by rumour and wild report, against this policy. Admittedly, some people who are unsuccessful in their public service careers use bilingualism as an excuse for their lack of success. Speaking as one who almost daily is in contact with public servants, and who listens to what I consider to be reasonably legitimate complaints regarding the program, I can discount the suggestion that we only hear from incompetents or malcontents. Indeed, what should give us concern is that there are many, many reasonable, fair minded people who are becoming increasingly concerned about the policy and concerned about its application, not only to themselves but to the public service as a whole.
One can ask, what is to be done, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that we do not need to sit here in a state of grave concern, holding our heads in our hands because, in my judgment, some things can be done. Indeed, they should be done now. These matters should not be the subject of a pro-
Speech from the Throne
longed inquiry on the part of a parliamentary committee, royal commission or anything like that. The report of Mr. Keith Spicer, Commissioner of Official Languages, at pages 92 to 93 provides a proper starting point for a discussion of positive reform. He restated his main points in a speech he made recently at Seneca College. He called attention to what he considers the anguish, fear and concern of public servants who are affected by the policy. He suggests it is rather ludicrous that a policy, which in its inception was designed to become an instrument of justice, now appears to some to be an engine of injustice. He suggests that the policy be applied with greater moderation. He also suggested that three other things be done. I commend these to the consideration of the House.
First, if it is decided a position is to become bilingual, that decision should be made in advance. He suggests this should be done six months in advance of the time that ordinarily the position might become open. This may produce difficulty in some areas, but there is unanimity of opinion among the representatives of public service unions to whom I have spoken that if this scheme of prior designation were really applied, a good deal of the discontent with the policy would disappear. Certainly, we would eliminate this in-fighting that seems to go on in some departments when promotional positions become open and a decision must be made as to whether the position will be unilingual or bilingual.
The second proposal made by Mr. Spicer is this. If a person in the natural line of the progression of his career, and if he otherwise qualifies, becomes eligible for a promotion to a position which has become bilingual, he should be given that position provisionally with a period of time within which to acquire a bilingual qualification. Mr. Spicer suggests a period of not less than 18 months.
Third, he dwells in some detail on the necessity of distinguishing the various occupations and categories in the public service so that the linguistic test will be different and suitable for each category. I am convinced this would open up a great many avenues to public servants and eliminate many causes of the present discontent.
I would make two further proposals. First, there must be some legal recognition given to the pledges of Mr. Pearson and the present Prime Minister. Second, we should carefully consider the establishment of some new type of adjudicative tribunal. Perhaps this could be made up of senior or even retired public servants of a high reputation and long experience. They could review in a broad fashion the careers of people who think they have been affected by this policy. They might also review some bilingual designations of positions, which they think have had an adverse effect.
Looking beyond the confines of this chamber, there are other problems which are becoming increasingly apparent to those of us who live in the capital region. In a sense, the capital region has become the area of experimentation of this policy. If our nation is to succeed with this, we must succeed here. First, many people I have met expressed grave concern over the fact that in the public and secondary schools in this city, in any event those which English speaking children attend, bilingual education is in a very primitive stage. I have long been of the

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne
opinion that because the policy of the federal government has created this situation, we should be prepared to jump over the constitutional barrier and give support to bilingual education in the elementary and secondary schools here. Many people believe that if this were done they would be heartened as to the future and be more prepared to face their own problems.
Second, the increasingly bilingual nature of this city has produced problems in the private sector. The private sector is not like the public sector which has a more tender concern and is bound by statute and moral obligation to look after its employees. I, and no doubt others, have heard of cases where employees have suddenly been dismissed because it has been decided to make this or that operation bilingual. I am told this is true. This question was raised and debated at a public meeting a few weeks ago which was sponsored by the CBC. A number of people have become unemployed because they are not bilingual and now, through the auspices of the Department of Manpower and other federal agencies, are not even able to acquire an elementary language course which might make them suitable for their old career. This type of language training should be added to manpower courses.
My time is drawing to a close. There are many things I could have spoken about such as the problems of farming, recreation and business in my constituency. However, I have spoken as fully and, I hope, as fairly as I could about this supremely important national problem. I believe that if we do not do this properly in the Ottawa region, and if we continue to not recognize the problem which exists, we will create a condition which will become a festering sore in the whole of the country. There is evidence available to me, as I am sure there is to other hon. members, that this is becoming a matter of concern elsewhere in this country. In the application of the bilingual policy, we should recognize that there is a crisis of confidence. There is disbelief, to an alarming degree, about the fairness of the policy. There is a credibility gap in many of the explanations which have been made about it.
I suggest that if the rather modest and sensible proposals made by Mr. Spicer and myself were implemented, we would go a long way towards correcting the grave problems which we face.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset that my participation in the debate could have been improved had I followed the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand). I express gratitude for what he has said. However, flattery is very healthy, except if you inhale it.
I want all hon. members present to inhale at least two words which the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion said with regard to a subject which I have been following closely for over three years. I refer to the situation affecting the Cape Breton miners under the Devco Corporation. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion referred to my representations. That is right and justified.
I very much appreciate the acceptance by hon. members of a petition put before this House on this subject

matter. I also very much appreciate the findings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which came out with a very favourable and unanimous report with regard to the petition.
The minister having said I was right and justified, and every member here today having received correspondence from me, and not a member in this assembly to whom I have spoken having found fault with the representations I have been making-this includes many members on the government side who have listened fairly to the representations I have made-I feel my action was justified. My timing would have been better had I been able to follow the minister and remind everyone of the remarks he made with respect to my representations as being right and justified.
Of course, my timing might have been even better had I been able to follow up in debate the information made available by the Order in Council passed on December 7 remitting certain taxes to Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited. This is a United States oil company. I say this because the Sun Oil Company of Philadelphia owns most of the capital stock and has provided major production finance. This oil company entered the'literary field and immediately produced a best seller-a hard luck story which it sold for $6 million. There is not an author alive who could have done better.


An hon. Member:: What about Clifford Irving?


Donald MacInnis: Even Irving could not have done as well as this. Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to tell you a story which will bring us $6 million, as much as Great Canadian Oil Sands got for its hard luck story, though I am sure I have a Pullitzer prize-winner here. We can start with the most recent move made by Devco. It is disturbing. It is unfortunate. It will bring about serious economic and social problems in the mining towns in Cape Breton. On Friday last, despite the legislation which has been placed before us, despite the appeals made by many people- including a committee composed of municipal, provincial and union representatives who came to Ottawa within the last couple of weeks-the corporation has again closed a colliery, this time in the town of Glace Bay. I say this is in defiance of the legislation which has been passed in the House setting up the corporation.
I should refer momentarily to the preamble to Bill C-135, an act to establish the Cape Breton Development Corporation. In that preamble the operative words are, "for the modernization and rehabilitation ... "Mr. Speaker, no attempt whatsoever was made to rehabilitate or modernize. This cannot be denied. The preamble to the legislation goes further. It says the duty of the corporation is to-
-reorganize and operate the mines with a view to the rationalization of coal production therefrom and the progressive withdrawal of the corporation from such production in accordance with a plan which takes into account progress in providing employment outside the coal-producing industry and in broadening the base of the island's economy.
I say, without fear of contradiction, that the closing of No. 20 colliery on Friday last is in contradiction of the terms of this legislation. The petition placed before the
February 29, 1972

House, and the correspondence carried on with every member of this House, outlines quite clearly that all I have sought on behalf of the miners of Cape Breton is that which the government itself has undertaken to give but which Devco has never delivered. All I request of the House of Commons is that hon. members stand behind legislation which makes provision for the people of the mining areas of Cape Breton and the general economy of that island, the promises placed before the House in accordance with the terms of that legislation and further supported by the intent announced by ministers while the legislation was before the House.
I understand that all parties are holding caucus meetings tomorrow. I ask all members attending them to make an appeal on behalf of these miners and their families, bearing in mind that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the minister responsible for the Devco organization, has described my representations as being right and justified. I ask them, also, to keep in mind the fact that a United States oil company has just received $6 million by way of remission in taxes. I contend that in justice the Cape Breton miners should be given what is their due. It would amount to a lot less than $6 million and it would benefit between 1,700 miners who are today walking the streets despite the fact that they are still of an age at which they should be accepted by industry, even by government standards.
If members will keep this in mind, they will be backing up the statement made earlier today by the minister responsible when he described my representations as being right and justified. Flattery is healthful, it is said, only as long as one does not inhale it. I would ask everyone to inhale those two words "right" and "justified" and to make representations for the sake of 1,700 or so miners.
All hon. members are aware that a large portion of my appeal on behalf of these men has been based on section 18 of the act. Section 18 makes it imperative for the Devco organization to set up pension arrangements for every person employed by that organization. Again, without fear of contradiction, I say this has not been done. No pension arrangement has been set up for the employees and dependants of Devco. Then I move on to section 18(A)(2), where it is stated that pension arrangements for the benefit of former employees and their dependants should be set up. We have seen some action in this field in recent months, though not to such an extent as to meet the requirements of the legislation.
As I have pointed out, the legislation requires a pension arrangement to be set up for former employees and their dependants. To show how far this corporation has gone, Mr. Speaker, let me say that there is not a dependant of a former employee of Devco receiving anything by way of a pension. The Devco literature itself points this out. On the death of a pensioner, a widow will receive a pension for the month in which her husband dies and the month following, but not thereafter. This is in direct contravention of section 18(A)(2).
Now we come to a most interesting area, the area with regard to which I find myself most disturbed. Many hon. members have heard the representations I have made on behalf of miners who were obliged to use their own UIC fund in order to subsidize their pensions. Mr. Speaker, I shall have to ask hon. members to excuse me because I
Speech from the Throne
have used the word "pension". It does not belong in any such context concerning Devco. It is pre-retirement leave. A man who qualifies for old age security benefits does not receive anything from Devco by way of pre-retirement leave pay. But the fact that these miners have been required to subsidize their retirement pay is shameful.
Many hon. members are familiar with the consequences of this subsidization: the matter has been placed before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I have here a copy of two cheques received by a miner in one month. Each is made out in the amount of 1 cent. If there is any question or doubt about whether these copies are authentic, I will produce the actual cheques. I have hundreds of copies available for any member who may wish to examine them. I can also produce evidence from a number of miners who have received nothing at all.
Here I have two separate cheques, representing one month's allowance from Devco, made out for one cent each. These miners were promised protection when this legislation was passed-but let us see how much protection the individual has had. I can document the evidence I have here; in fact, I will say nothing in this debate that I cannot support with documented evidence. I have before me a report by the Great West Life Assurance Company regarding a small number of employees in the Devco organization who worked on the railway and were given the opportunity of paying into what is referred to as a voluntary contributory pension plan. Let me review the situation of the railway workers under this organization. The railway employees have always worked on a seniority basis. Any man who worked for the railway reaches his best earning years as he acquires seniority.
Here we have the case of a man who had just reached this point and was looking forward to his last five years of service being his best earning years as a result of wage increases and a position of seniority that kept him fully employed every day. He had reached the age of 60 and was paying into the voluntary contributory pension plan which had been in effect only for a short number of years. After his first year he received from the Great West Life Assurance Company an estimate of the monthly pension that he would receive at his normal retirement date. Because this man was in the plan for only a short time, his estimated monthly pension at normal retirement date, which is 65, was $45.34 per month.
But what happened in his case? As the result of an arbitrary decision of the responsible Devco authorities, this man lost five years' work. I appreciate that these officials are no longer with the Devco organization. It took some time to see through their incomptence and inability, and they are no longer with the company. Nevertheless, Blackmore and Ord were responsible for the fact that this man did not get any protection. Although I am grateful that Blackmore and Ord are no longer with Devco, the results of what they did to the miners are still being felt. Today, miners walking the streets in Glace Bay, New Waterford, Sydney Mines, Dominion and Reserve Mines are paying for the sins and maladministration of Black-more and Ord.
As I was saying, this individual was looking forward to his best five years of employment and was building up a
390

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne
pension that would amount to the "enormous" sum of $45.34 a month. As a result of the maladministration of Blackmore and Ord, he was compulsorily retired at age 60. Consequently, his contributions toward his retirement were curtailed. So although in January of 1969 he was looking forward to a monthly pension of $45.34 at age 65, at the end of 1970, his first year of forced retirement, his pension was reduced to $32.19. In other words, $13.15 a month has disappeared from this man's pension because he has been forced into retirement. Granted, he was promised protection-and I shall refer to that later. For the next four years this man will receive less as a result of his being forced into retirement by Mr. Blackmore and Mr. Ord-happily no longer with Devco-and the miners of Cape Breton are continuing to pay for their maladministration.
Again I ask hon. members opposite to keep in mind the remarks of the minister that my representations were right and justified. In view of the fact that $6 million has been given to a United States oil company, I appeal to hon. members to give to the miners that to which they are entitled through legislation and the promises made by the minister when the bill went through the House.
If I have not put sufficient appeal into that argument, let me remind hon. members of some of the statements made before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs by Devco officials. When they appeared before committee in 1969 they claimed that this position had been accepted by the Cape Breton miners. Let me assure hon. members that that is not so. That is another of the blatant lies told by Mr. Blackmore, the responsible official in the coal division at that time. I say that that is a blatant lie, and I will repeat that statement outside the House of Commons on any platform in Canada, even in Alberta where they will have to suffer him now. I will support that statement with that of no less a person than the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who has given it to me in writing. The Cape Breton miners today are living with a lie told by Mr. Blackmore. They are living with the maladministration of Mr. Blackmore and are paying a very high price for doing so. I ask hon. members to keep this in mind and to ask the government, on behalf of the Cape Breton miners, for a fair deal.
I said that I would refer to certain statements made before the standing committee by Devco officials. Basically, what I am asking hon. members for is to have this government refund to the miners the money taken from them through the subsidization of their own retirement by the UIC fund. In this connection I refer to section 18(l)(b) of the legislation. Section 18(l)(a)(i) and (ii) call upon the government to set up pension arrangements for all present employees and their dependants. Section 18(l)(b) calls upon Devco to set up pension arrangements for former employees and their dependants, and reads as follows:
(1) The corporation shall by by-law provide ... (b) for the contributions thereto to be made by the corporation out of moneys administered by the corporation for the operation of the coal division-
That spells out where the pension money is to come from. But Mr. Blackmore and Mr. Ord decided to use the UIC fund. Although I do not have a great listening audience, this is recommended reading and I would ask each

and every member of the House to check the accuracy of what I say. Let me repeat that I am going to say nothing that I cannot back up by documented evidence. Page 29 of the sixth report makes it quite clear that Devco admitted the use of coercion to subsidize the miners through the UIC fund. In face of that admission by Devco, and in view of the $6 million remission, how can we deny the Cape Breton miners their rightful benefits under UIC?
At page 29 of the sixth report it is said that they used coercion to get the men to collect UIC in order to subsidize their own retirement. They said that in 1968-69 this plan had been well explained to everybody involved. Why, then, did they say again before the committee, as appears in the sixth report, that they had to take certain questions back to Sydney in order to analyse their position, and they admitted they could not fully explain it in 1971? Again, that evidence is contained in the committee's report.
Why did they say to me on this occasion that I was asking questions on which they had not done enough homework? They were the high-priced help and the administrators of this plan, and they told me that I was asking questions on which they had not done enough homework. I always said that if Mr. Blackmore had hung around long enough I would have had him up on a charge of contempt of Parliament because he told the parliamentary committee that all the unions had been advised on this matter.
I would ask hon. members to read the committee proceedings at page 19. This is the evidence put before the committee by the then chairman of Devco, who said:
There is no question about that so we will say that if a thing is a fait accompli, it is not so much that it is consulting, it is probably telling. That is the whole root of the matter.
The subject matter of that discussion was whether or not the unions involved in this pre-retirement plan had been consulted on the matter. The then chairman of Devco used the expression fait accompli. The unions were told of the arrangement after it was agreed to. It was not a matter of negotiation. Yet we have Devco submitting to the committee what they refer to as a pension plan which was available to miners in Cape Breton. They call it the 23 plan. This was never a pension. The miners have never contributed to it, and it was something which the company could have cut off at any time,; In fact, the record will show that at the time of the closure of the former Dosco mine, Dosco did cut this off. It was never a pension.
Yet now, when Devco produced their evidence before the committee, they referred to this 23 plan as a pension plan. That is very strange, because on June 20, 1967, the minister responsible for piloting the bill on Devco through the House, Bill C-135, an act to set up the Cape Breton Development Corporation, as recorded on page 1756, referred to this as a gratuity. Those are the words of the minister responsible at the time the legislation went through the House. So how can Devco call it a pension?
I would further substantiate my claim that the legislation under section 18 (1) (a) and (b) has not been conformed with and that the Cape Breton Development Corporation is supposed to conform with that legislation. This is a matter that can be checked out. You can ask Mr. Kent, the president of Devco, what the situation is with respect
February 29, 1972

to pension arrangements laid down in the legislation of 1967, and he will tell you, "We are now negotiating". They are now in negotiation with respect to pensions covering the employees and their dependants under section 18 (1) (a) and (b). There is no doubt that the legislation has not been conformed with, despite the claims Mr. Blackmore made before the committee. He was then in charge of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, coal division.
I referred to the remark made by the minister regarding the situation in the mining towns of Cape Breton today, numbering in excess of 1,700 men, all of them at an age which would make them acceptable to industry in accordance with government standards. They are now walking the streets, and in many cases they are forcibly retired. I refer to the situation in the town of Glace Bay, where the mine was closed in defiance of the legislation which asked them to rehabilitate and reorganize the mines; and also to statements made before the committee when Devco officials told us that no pit would be closed until alternative work could be provided. The legislation refers to alternative work being outside the coal industry. Yet last Friday Devco announced the closure of the mine in the town of Glace Bay.
What is the situation? The legislation was passed in which it is quite clearly spelled out that Devco was to broaden the base of the island's economy. I buy that-but I also insist that the economy of Cape Breton Island can just as well be broadened from the towns of Glace Bay, New Waterford, Dominion and Sydney Mines as it can be from any other place on the island. I have always maintained that the energy of Devco should be extended in the direction of the town of Glace Bay and other towns on Cape Breton so that they could obtain the protection referred to by the minister who represents Cape Breton Island when he said on June 15, 1967, at page 1579:
-and in the meantime build up alternative industries so that there will be a cushioning effect on displacement and so that the total economy and the total community will be protected.
This is what I referred to as the intent of the legislation, because when the legislation is going through the House and has been studied clause by clause and questions come from the opposition or even from the government side of the House, whether or not a particular clause is passed depends on the answer provided by the minister at the time.
The miners in the community were promised by the minister at that time that their total community would be protected. All that Devco has so far accomplished in the mining towns of Cape Breton is to remove from these towns millions of dollars. The social obligation which was recognized at the time the legislation was passed by the House has been completely ignored. I am hopeful that under the direction of Mr. Kent, many of the evils left behind by Mr. Blackmore and Mr. Ord will be corrected. The fact remains that it will be a long, hard tow because of the fact that good legislation has been completely ignored.
I appeal to members of the House to take my plea into consideration. I can ask for nothing on behalf of the Cape Breton miners and their communities than that which was promised in the legislation. All I ask for is that which was granted by way of legislation and passed in the House. Support such as was given by the Justice and Legal
Speech from the Throne
Affairs Committee would require all hon. members of the House to stand behind something that this House has put in writing as a promise to these people and their communities.
I am not asking for $6 million for these 1,700 miners. If you are going to compare hard-luck stories and produce $6 million for an American company, surely you can back up your own words and the words of the minister. We, as Members of Parliament on all sides of the House should appeal to this government to deliver to these miners what they were promised in 1967 by way of legislation. I am not asking for anything more and I would not be satisfied with anything less. Surely on the opposite side of the House there must be somebody who can take up my cause in the Liberal caucus tomorrow, before the cabinet, and plead it on behalf of the Cape Breton miners.


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:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hear hon. members suggesting that the hon. member should continue. Of course, I am in the hands of the House in this regard. However, I wish to indicate that this evening will finish the Throne Speech debate, and there are many members who wish to speak. I repeat that I am in the hands of hon. members. Does the hon. member have consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, since I am making an appeal as strongly as possible I will not infringe on the good will of the House. I spoke of the pension arrangements provided by funds allocated to the coal industry. I might mention that Mr. Ord said that UIC funds were being used because they were public moneys. This has been denied by the minister in charge of the UIC fund. He has clearly stated to this House that the UIC fund belongs to those who contribute to it. In this respect Mr. Ord was wrong; Mr. Blackmore lied about UIC. I have documentary evidence to that effect.
With respect to the protection of the communities referred to by the minister from Cape Breton Island, I would refer to the minister responsible at the time the legislation was put through who, when asked about the situation with respect to any mining town that may have suffered because of a mine closure and thus had lost tax revenue, said:
This is exactly why we are providing millions of dollars to help develop the industrial basis of these towns.
I am sure that on reflection members of the government and its supporters would wish to see, with respect to legislation passed by this House, that it would deliver to the miners that which is theirs, including the return of their UIC benefits, the setting up of protection for present employees and their dependants and for former employees and their dependants, something which is not evident today despite what was laid down and promised by legislation in 1967. Again, I thank members of the House for their indulgence.
392

Speech from the Throne


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity in the fourth session of the twenty-eighth Parliament of Canada to participate in the debate in Reply to The Speech from the Throne by congratulating the mover, the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), and the seconder, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie). They performed their task with distinction by appraising frankly the situation in our country and reminding us all of the aspirations, the concerns and the achievements of Canadians and their government under the leadership of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who recognizes the changes in modern society and uses his talents and energy in persistently attacking our country's problems to provide a better life for all Canadians. The goal of a just society which he is striving to achieve is our deepest desire, and we wish him success.
The government's record in the first three sessions of this Parliament is an enviable one. I think that all Canadians should be proud of the reform legislation which Parliament has passed to improve the quality of life for all our citizens. I think we should also be proud of our country, rejoice in its great potentiality and be thankful for so many blessings. I agree with those who have stated before me in this House that there is no better country in which to live. *
It is my privilege to represent in the House of Commons the people of the cosmopolitan constituency of Parkdale. It lies near the heart of the city of Toronto, on its southern borders, and I am proud of these hardworking, loyal citizens of various cultural backgrounds who through their industriousness are making a significant contribution to the development of Canada. Above all, they cherish the freedom and unlimited opportunities which Canada offers to all who are willing to work for self-improvement.
Many people in Parkdale are new Canadians. Having found freedom and opportunity here in Canada, they have a firm determination to preserve it. Consequently, they have understandable concern about people in other lands who do not share these blessings or who have lost them. At this point in Canada's history and development, the people of Parkdale, along with their fellow Canadians, are working together in that great national effort to develop further the good life in Canada, to promote the principles upon which our confederation is based and to help further develop Canadian identity and strengthen national unity.
The Speech from the Throne has outlined the federal government's philosophy and legislative program for the fourth session of this Parliament. I welcome the philosophical attitude and intentions of the federal government which were stated in the Speech from the Throne, especially in the following words:
Everyone of us is enriched through involvement in this stimulating process we call Canada. Our goals and hopes are bound up in the restlessness and vitality of this rich land. We in this place have a special responsibility to help bring these goals and those hopes within reach, to make real the Canada of which our forefathers dreamed: a land so large that some of its will remain always serene and unspoiled; a society which believes in the dignity of every single individual; a community which husbands its resources and shares them justly among this generation and those to follow; an enterprise which permits and provokes each Canadian to contribute his skills and his talents. There will be an opportunity in this session of this Parliament to pursue these ends.

Mr. Speaker, I hope all of us in this House will give most serious consideration to the government's program and, above all, co-operation. I welcome the announcement in the Speech from the Throne of Heritage Canada, the proposed legislation which would set up a broadly-based corporation to preserve individual buildings and sites in areas of historical and natural value that are regarded as nationally significant. Heritage Canada will add a new dimension by involving individual Canadians who are becoming increasingly aware and interested in preserving their historical, architectural and natural heritage. Heritage Canada will be launched with the aid of a generous federal endowment grant to give it a start, and the private sector will have a major role to play in it. Specifically, its aim is to enable anyone anywhere in Canada interested in preserving our historical and natural heritage to play a part in discharging a national responsibility.
Our cultural heritage is a vital part of the quality of our life. We must not only preserve it but make it available to all Canadians. Lack of knowledge about the culture and history of the various groups that make up our population has had more to do with dividing us than any other single factor. Historic sites and monuments, historic parks and museums enrich the quality of Canadian life and strengthen the fibre of national unity. Such endeavours will teach us who we are. Communication and understanding are essential in a pluralistic society like Canada. We should do everything possible, therefore, to deepen that communication and understanding which I believe are essentially to greater appreciation of one another. This type of Canadianism is the foundation of the federal government's policy on multiculturalism so enthusiastically received by all the ethnic cultural groups in our country. I urge the government to allocate all the necessary resources to make these programs successful.
In the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, the federal government stressed the importance of economic security as one of the most effective forces with which to counter social isolation. It stated that more job opportunities must be found and income uncertainties overcome if all Canadians are to share the richness of this land. We welcome the government's statement that the attainment of such an economy and increased employment has a very high priority in its programs.
At this time I should like to emphasize to all hon. members that the Employment Support Board Act which was passed in this House last September, in the last three months of 1971 saved approximately 7,700 jobs; the Opportunities for Youth program last summer provided
30,000	jobs and the Local Initiatives Program, initiated a few months ago, has already created 90,000 new jobs. This means that real and effective steps have been taken to find jobs for our rapidly expanding labour force which encompasses Canadians from age 14 to 70.
I agree with the government that our economy is dependent, as are the economies of other countries- especially those that are highly industrialized-on research innovation. We welcome the remarks of the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Gillespie) a few days ago when he outlined for us the government's program to improve research facilities in our industries.
February 29, 1972

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that our industries be given more assistance and incentives to further increase their productivity and competitive position. A major factor in the strength of the Canadian economy is provided by exports. Although the government has in the past amended the export credit legislation, it should improve this legislation and develop programs which will help to sell more of our products throughout the world. This will also require the government to take bolder steps to strengthen our secondary industry.
In view of our rapidly growing labour force we must not become complacent even though the United Nations organization for economic development and other financial bodies have stated that Canada's economic performance is outstanding and that our industrial output has grown faster and prices have risen slower than in any other democratic country in the world. True, our dollar is strong. True, our economy is growing rapidly. However, inflation and prolonged strikes, if allowed to continue, especially in essential services, can endanger our economy as well as inconvenience the public.
At least twice a year in my regular report to the people of Parkdale I have included a questionnaire to ascertain their views on some urgent and important matters. The majority of those who replied expressed themselves in favour of some form of control of prices and wages to fight inflation, and also favoured compulsory arbitration in labour-management disputes especially where they concern essential services or the public sector. Recently, a prominent labour leader in the United States admitted that strikes are outmoded and that better ways should be adopted to solve labour-management disputes. People today appear willing to submit to controls and other restrictions in order to ensure a stable economy and to protect their jobs. We must protect the savings of our people, especially those living on fixed incomes, such as our senior citizens. I urge the federal government to fight inflation without producing unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, I think that most Canadians would agree that a major economic problem in Canada today is cost-push inflation, where increases in costs have exceeded increases in productivity. The schizophrenic state of our industrialized society, where big unions and huge corporations compete for survival alongside unorganized workers and small businesses, has contributed to inflation and especially to an economy which has been very difficult to manage with traditional economic theories and tools.
Today new theories and tools are needed. I believe this is a top priority need to which our government should give attention. This may mean a real change and, therefore, essential adjustments may be required in our life. It would be rigidity or stupidity if those responsible should refuse to. make the changes and adjustments which are necessary to ensure an economy that would lead to full employment and, if possible, zero inflation. We should adapt to change more quickly. Our failure to do so will serve only to perpetuate chaotic economic conditions. Of course, we should not be so naive as to believe that these changes and goals can be achieved instantly. Any opposition party spokesman who promises to perform instant miracles is irresponsible and should not be trusted.
I also urge the government to protect the economy and consumers from the real causes and harmful effects of
Speech from the Throne
labour-management disputes. The right of an individual to bargain for his conditions of work and withhold his labour is part of the philosophical basis of the free enterprise economic system. However, we must always keep in mind that the concerted withholding of labour by employees as an economic weapon to pressure employers to accept their demands always has an indirect and adverse effect on the suppliers and consumers of the product or service. Moreover, when the effect of a strike is to deprive the public of an essential service for the carrying on of day-to-day living or to withhold from the public a convenience or essential service which is paid for by it through taxes, the public usually regards this as unfair or intolerable and pressures the government for protection and restoration of order.
Strike action, most of the time, benefits no one. Wages are lost, production comes to a halt and consumers who depend on the services or products are adversely affected. A strike is expensive to all concerned, including the innocent consumer. This is even more true when public servants withhold their labour. Those who accept employment with the government have a special responsibility to the public for whom they perform services.
Governments at all levels, and their agencies, Mr. Speaker, should devote more attention and resources to the problems of our retired citizens. More and more people are retiring at an earlier age, and retirement brings on personal and social problems. One solution to the personal problem faced by many older people trying to lead a useful and challenging life is to provide them with opportunities to help solve the problems of our society. The Canadian Executive Service Overseas program, under the sponsorship of the Department of External Affairs, is a step in the right direction.
I should like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to express our appreciation to the former minister responsible for urban affairs who has done a great deal to produce more housing and has come to the assistance of our cities in an imaginative way. In 1971, 220,000 housing starts were achieved, which is a record in our history. In the past three years of this Liberal government, more low-cost public housing was built than in the previous 20 years. But our government will not be resting on its laurels. It announced in the Throne Speech that it will be proposing to Parliament fresh concepts and continuing research in neighbourhood improvement, with emphasis on the need for low-cost housing.
I wish the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) success in his new responsibilities and ask him to seek closer liaison with our rapidly growing cities. A fast-growing city, like my native metropolitan Toronto, encounters many problems and has many special needs. There are projects in Toronto involving the waterfront plan, metro centre, transportation and improved airport facilities which need major attention by the federal government. People in Toronto are asking for lower air fares, landing rights for more transatlantic air carriers and an early decision on a second airport to better serve the area's air travelling residents. I repeat my appeal to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) to give these matters his urgent and favourable consideration.

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne
We can proudly say, Mr. Speaker, that in instituting social justice our government has made sure that the health of our people receives top priority-for without health of mind and body, nothing can be realized. We can proudly say that Canada has made great progress in improving its health and welfare system, especially since 1957, with the introduction of hospital insurance, followed by medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan, youth allowances, the guaranteed income supplement, many consumer protection laws, new drug programs, restrictions in the use of DDT and phosphates, the Canada Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the day-care centres program and many other programs. The budget for the Department of National Health and Welfare alone for the next fiscal year is $3.8 billion, and I believe that this sum will go a long way to improving still further the quality of life of our citizens.
Last week the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) announced a new program in the House to combat narcotic addiction and the misuse of stimulant drugs. If this program is to be successful, it must be properly enforced. Methadone maintenance and amphetamine restriction programs are a fairly good beginning in the national effort to control drug abuse. I hope the minister will soon give his further attention to the other recommendations in the policy statement of the Canadian Medical Association issued on February 14, and particularly to that statement which said that the drugs most extensively used and most frequently misused today are alcohol and tobacco. Programs and necessary legislation to deal with these problems should be developed in co-operation with provincial health authorities without delay. The increased incidence of venereal diseases should also receive greater attention by governments at all levels.
Canada's number one killer, Mr. Speaker, is cardiovascular disease. In 1971, about 77,000 Canadians died of various forms of cardiovascular disease. Last year, heart attacks and strokes alone accounted for 50,000 deaths in Canada; yet only $5 million was spent on research in these diseases. Of that total, only $1.5 million was contributed by the federal government. I therefore wish to renew my appeal to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to launch a full-scale national attack on cardiovascular diseases. The minister should allocate more financial resources to increase research in this field and to assist the provinces in the provision of better emergency treatment and long-term care in the areas of heart disease and strokes. Also, he should help in launching a campaign for the education of the public.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that the Speech from the Throne has clearly outlined our problems and our goals. It has also announced remedies and means to deal with them. I hope that Parliament will act responsibly and support the government's proposed legislation so that the quality of life for all our people may be further improved.


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, may I have the consent of the House to revert to motions in order to bring forward the terms of reference for the special joint committee on the constitution? This motion has been cleared by all the parties and its purpose is to set up, or reconstitute the committee so that it may make its report to the House at an early date.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the minister. Is it agreed that the House revert to motions in order that the minister may move his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That a special joint committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to examine and report upon proposals, made public, or which are from time to time made public by the government of Canada, on a number of subjects related to the constitution of Canada during the course of the comprehensive review of the constitution of Canada, which review was agreed upon at the Constitutional Conference of the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premiers and Prime Ministers of the provinces in February, 1968, and alternative proposals on the same subjects;
That the committee have power to appoint, from among its members, such sub-committees as it may deem advisable or necessary;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee have power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers, and records, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the quorum of the committee be 17 members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, as long as both Houses are represented and that the joint chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when 7 members are present so long as both Houses are represented;
That the papers and evidence received and taken on the subject in the second and third sessions be referred to the committee and made part of the records thereof;
That the following members be appointed to act on behalf of the House of Commons on the special joint committee, namely: Messrs. Alexander, Allmand, Asselin, Breau, Brewin, De Bane, Dinsdale, Fairweather, Gibson, Gundlock, Hogarth, Lachance, Laprise, MacGuigan, Marceau, Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo), McQuaid, Osier, Prud'homme and Rowland.
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting Their Honours to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems so advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I will now leave the chair to resume same at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
February 29, 1972



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resume at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, February 28, 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.
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, in the speech he delivered on February 18 last, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who obviously wished to defend his government subjected to attacks from all sides, did not spare any effort to make us believe that all is well in Canada. He even quoted some statistics to show that Canada had created more jobs than seven European countries put together: France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Everybody will agree with me that it is relatively easy to create thousands of jobs when thousands of workers are unemployed. But in countries with a low rate of unemployment and a small labour force, the task becomes more difficult for manufacturers.
On page 10 of the Economic Council of Canada report entitled "Performance in Perspective 1971" there is a comparative table of unemployment rates in certain OECD countries. Of all the countries mentioned, Canada has the highest rate.
For instance, in West Germany, the unemployment rate is only 0.6 per cent, whereas it is 5.9 in Canada-those are the figures for 1970.
In Japan, the unemployment rate is only 1.2 per cent, and in France, 3.3 per cent. Even in Italy, it is only 3.5 per cent, whereas it is 5.9 per cent in Canada.
So when the Prime Minister wants to make comparisons with European countries in the matter of unemployment, he should tell the whole story and quote the statistics which show that the unemployment rate is higher in Canada than in any European country.
In our country the current unemployment rate is increasing among workers of all ages and both sexes. For workers between 25 and 44 years of age, it has gone up from 93,000 in 1965 to 157,000 in 1970. For workers between 45 and 64 years of age, it has risen from 70,000 to
106,000	over the same period. As I said, this phenomenon can be observed in the case of women as well as men.
Despite the Prime Minister's effort, despite the ministers' making presents right, left, and centre in order to create thousands of jobs, the unemployment rate goes on increasing in Canada, for young people between 14 and 24 years of age as well as for workers 25 years old and over. The unemployment rate has been increasing constantly since 1968

the date at which the present government came to power.
In that connection, here are some statistics from "Manpower, December 1971." The publication contains a table indicating the average unemployment for Canadians from 14 to 24 years of age. In 1968, the average was 6 per cent;
Speech from the Throne
in 1969, it was 5.9 per cent, for 1970, it was 7.7 per cent and for 1971, it was 8.8 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, if the increase in the rate of unemployment is higher among young people, it remains that it is generalized. Unemployment is like a cancer undermining the whole Canadian society, and in my opinion, had the prime minister consulted his immediate advisors, it is likely that the whole content of his speech would have been changed. Many ministers of his Cabinet are perfectly aware of the situation.
First here is what the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) said at Jasper on February 1, 1971, as reported by the Canadian Press:
The federal government has agreed to work out a program to deal with unemployment which will probably be very high next winter, stated yesterday the president of the Treasury Board, Mr. C. M. Drury.
As for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) he was also forecasting unemployment and, for a wonder, he foresees even more during the next winter.
Mr. Speaker, I was sorry to learn that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration had to be hospitalized. I therefore take this opportunity to wish him an ea,rly recovery.
Be that as it may, here is what Le Devoir of February 10th last reported with regard to the minister's statement, and I quote:
665,000 unemployed in Canada, 233,000 in Quebec, (that is over 35 per cent of the total number)-and that is not all: the federal Minister of Manpower, Mr. Bryce Mackasey, thought it wise to warn us that the situation would go from bad to worse in the coming months!
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lamoureux) the Speaker of the House of Commons, member elected under the Liberal ticket in 1965, stated at a public meeting held in his riding that 19 per cent of the workers were unemployed, and we know that his riding is represented in the Ontario legislature by a Conservative minister. In spite of that, in the spring of 1971, unemployment in Stormont went up to 19 per cent.
The Prime Minister did try to have the people believe that there was no discontent. I can assure the House that the unemployed workers themselves realize this winter that they are left behind. For those who are the victims of unemployment in Canada at the present time, this is a real tragedy, a situation worse than any other up to this day.
Personally, I spent half the adjournment period-and I presume that most members did likewise-trying to untangle the difficulties involving the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Due to the constantly increasing number of unemployed workers, the officials of the Commission are overwhelmed with work and in spite of their good will and their overtime, the situation remains the same. In my opinion, the worst backlog is with respect to claims covering periods of illness. In addition, the staff dealing with claims in insufficent, and I think that this government should give particular attention to this problem.
Even though the Speech from the Throne is full of optimism, even though the Prime Minister says that every-

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne
thing is fine in the best of all worlds, there still remains the fact that it is with pessimism that experts in international trade view the years ahead. Here is what the Secretariat of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) thinks about prospects for 1972, according to a dispatch from Geneva:
-the increase in international trade exchanges will not be higher in 1972 than in 1971, that is five per cent, a much lower proportion than the average for the sixties.
As for the reasons behind our trade difficulties, Mr. Speaker, we can summarize them quite easily.
In the first place, Canada has to export a number of products of all kinds; raw materials, finished and semifinished products. Our country must export much more than it imports because it must pay for the services rendered by other countries.
These services include the interest on money Canada borrows abroad. Then, Canada has to pay for transportation of its imports and exports because we have no merchant marine. We must therefore charter foreign ships to transport our products. Finally, Canadians travelling abroad spent more than tourists visiting Canada. These are the reasons for our services dificit, that is why, even when our trade balance shows a surplus of some $400 million for the last quarter of 1971, our deficit in the service sector was over $600 million, leaving a current account deficit of some $200 million.
That is one of the reasons why we should strive, without resorting to foreign capital to develop our natural resources and ensure the expansion of our industries. We could then consider giving Canada a merchant marine enabling us to transport our products while providing work to our dockyards and a host of related industries.
Mr. Speaker, another sector where economic activity should be followed closely, I suggest, is home construction. There is a shortage of housing and we know that throughout Canada the slums should disappear. We know that home construction is an important factor at the manpower level.
It is no secret that the financing of housing at acceptable interest rates would help this branch of our economy. The government, which helps some foreign countries by granting them loans at low interest rates, should also help the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with the same conditions. The corporation could thus meet the requests of customers interested in things other than the exorbitant interest rates charged at present which has a workman who gets one of these loans to repay the cost of three houses in the following 25 years: one for the principal and two for the interest.
So, to reactivate home construction, there is no need for miracles; it would be enough to do for Canadians what we do for foreigners. As the 11 per cent tax on building materials is never charged on products sold to foreigners, I suppose it would be normal for this tax to be removed for Canadians also and replaced by a 10 per cent discount on materials sold inside our country.
Mr. Speaker, I have the conviction that it is possible to meet the needs of Canadians. Even though I am known in the House as a Social Credit Party member, the fact
[Mr. Godin.J
remains that I am aware that poverty exists in our economic system and that we must eliminate or at least alleviate it.
First of all, with regard to the problem of poverty, one must ask oneself if it truly exists in Canada. A national product of $90 billion in 1971, for a population of 21,500,000, meant $4,300 per person. And we can only repeat that, if poverty exists, it is poverty in the midst of plenty.
According to the data published in the 1970 Canada Yearbook, our country is the second largest in the world, the largest in North America, and the world's largest nickel producer. In 1969, 25 per cent of the total production of zinc of the non-communist world was produced in Canada.
In 1969, Canada was the second largest molybdenum producer, after the United States. It was one of the five largest cobalt producers. It accounted for 70 to 75 per cent of all exports of asbestos and 35 per cent of the world's production. Canada was the largest producer of potassium and the most important producer and the first sulfur exporting country in the world.
Canada is also one of the three most important fish exporting countries. Because it is seen as a very important producer of grain, Canada is called the "granary of the world". Mr. Speaker, the list of our country's achievements is a very long one and its potentiality is unlimited.
If, as a governing body, we give the people the means to obtain all that they need to subsist, there will be no longer any problem of poverty.
Mr. Speaker, in the last few years this government has introduced many projects designed to boost our economy. It went as far as loaning money to the Chinese so they could buy our wheat. They obtain loans on fairly long terms and then they buy from us the wheat they will be eating during the forthcoming 24 month period.
Millions of dollars are handed over to France so that they may have their boats built in our shipyards.
In order to restore our economy, Canada has been subdivided into "special" or designated areas. Last year, I was with a group of visitors travelling through Manitoba and Saskatchewan and I discovered that the majority of the people we met were convinced that the Prime Minister was responsible for the current economic crisis prevailing in the Western provinces because he, being a French Canadian, was channelling all the funds into Quebec. This is what they think over there.
The same situation prevails in the Maritimes. As a member of the Committee on Transport and Communications, I have had the privilege of visiting this other part of the country, and almost all of the briefs submitted on that occasion by the Chambers of Commerce, the various social agencies and the governing bodies of several cities, would wind up with this particular sentence:
"Gentlemen of the government, you are treating us shabbily because we are far from the capital, and we know Quebec would not accept such a situation."
So, Mr. Speaker, in the view of the citizens of the Maritime provinces and those of the Canadian West, Quebec gets very good treatment. Quebec is favoured but is well aware that many of its citizens also have financial problems.
February 29, 1972

Throughout all this, the Canadian government has commandeered quite important groups to analyse the situation. Among these agencies is the Economic Council of Canada, which, in December 1964, submitted its first review entitled "Economic Goals for Canada to 1970".
That agency's second annual review was published in December 1965, entitled:	"Towards sustained and
balanced economic growth".
In November 1966, another review was produced on "Prices, Productivity and Employment".
In September 1967 a review by the Economic Council of Canada was published, entitled "The Canadian Economy from the 1969's to the 1970's."
In September 1968, another review was published, entitled "The Challenge of Growth and Change."
In September 1969, another review was published to make us aware of Canada's perspectives for 1975.
Mr. Speaker, all these reviews produced by the Economic Council of Canada having failed to make a meaningful contribution to date, are now making proposals for 1975.
Mr. Speaker, without knowing them, I am convinced that those who are responsible for the Economic Council of Canada make comments on coming years simply because they know they will no longer be there then.
Study No. 17 of the Economic Council of Canada was presented in November 1967, and was entitled "Economic Cycles in Canada." On page 25 of that report, we read, and I quote:
The identification of the "reference" cycle is based on the overall performance indicated by the "peaks" and and the "troughs" of the "particular cycles" .. .
Further on, we read this:
The period between the trough or lowest point in a reference cycle and the peak or highest point of return is generally known as "expansion". The period between a peak and the following trough is called a period of "contraction".
On page 23 of the same report, Mr. Speaker, we find something fantastic, and I quote what its authors had to say:
In length, economic cycles can vary from over one year to ten or twelve years;
Mr. Speaker, after reading that report, one can assert that the Pharaoh's economists mentioned in the Bible were surer of themselves than the economists who now surround the Prime Minister. You will recall that the Pharaoh had been warned that there would be seven years of abundance following seven years of famine. That was clear.
Today, in this country, to justify poverty in the midst of plenty, the economists take no chances. In fact, the economists surrounding the Prime Minister state in their reports that:
-economic cycles may vary from one to 10 or 12 years.
Mr. Speaker, to suppress hardship, poverty and insecurity among the Canadian people, certain measures are required. Those measures must of course be somewhat different from all that is being done at the present time and that has led the people to this imbalance to which we are referring and that we want to correct.
Speech from the Throne
To get off the beaten track, Mr. Speaker, it has to be conceded that the situation is not what it was 75 or 100 years ago. It has to be conceded that following the technological revolution man, as a worker, is more and more replaced by the machine. Anyone who reflects upon the progress of machines which keep increasing in number must logically conclude that our civilization is heading toward the establishment of a system where, on the one hand, human labour tends to decrease constantly and to be replaced by machines while on the other production has a tendency to increase indefinitely.
Now, these two logical consequences of technology are in the present state of the economic system quite incompatible.
Man can get products-even if they are in great abundance-only by working but at the same time machines are taking jobs away from him, hence the infernal cycle of economic crises, unemployment and unfortunately, wars which find there one of their main causes.
It is in time of peace that we discover more easily the victims of our present system because the whole production is directed toward regular consumption.
Since workers have less and less to do in the manufacturing of products, fewer and fewer products are sold while there are more and more unemployed.
So there is only one way out: to get rid of that economic rule whereby every product must have a commercial value and to admit that some products may be depreciated, in other words given free of charge.


Some hon. Members:: Here it comes.


Roland Godin: The minimum living wage is a necessity. Our country has and will have at its disposal more and more means of living that were inconceivable at the time of the ox plow.
It has been said time and again that the machine has to serve man and not the other way round. One infallible way to put automation at the service of man is to distribute profits equitably. It is as clear as that.
Without raw materials and natural resources, a country is at a disadvantage. However, we Canadians are blessed in this regard for we are amply endowed with both.


Some hon. Members:: Now, he is coming to it.


Roland Godin: We also have an adequate transportation system, highways, navigable rivers and railway and air transport systems that can be improved if necessary.
When we consider our manufacturing facilities, we find that many are operating below capacity and that some have closed altogether.
There is no shortage of manpower in Canada. The stagnation in our plants is caused by our failure to sell our end products.
The goods that fill our stores and warehouses are Canadian products or products exchanged with other countries. For all practical purposes, this production that fills our stores and warehouses may be regarded as Canadian.

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne
A great many individuals and governments would purchase more Canadian goods, individually and collectively, provided they would not be required to borrow money at exorbitant interest rates, thus getting deeper into debt.


Some hon. Members:: There we are.


Roland Godin: Others cannot afford or are not sufficiently solvent jto purchase the goods they need. That is why such goods remain unsold in stores and warehouses. Indeed, it is the lack of purchasing power in the hands of the potential buyer which is at the root of our economic problems.
The fact that the same thing happens in all modernized countries does not warrant, I think, our tolerating such a situation.
Throughout the world, highly qualified people have exposed the current situation and suggested solutions. Some of those solutions could easily be applied by the Canadian government.
The increasing public debt at all levels is enough of a proof that it is time to improve the system.
The government has had inquiries conducted in all fields; many would be surprised at the number of people appointed to find out the reasons for our economic and social difficulties. Unfortunately, those people must follow strict instructions and until now they have investigated everything except the operations of our money and credit system. Iq my opinion, this is why it is high time to give up the ostrich policy.
Considering that, currently, money is born and dies in the chartered banks empowered by the government to-


Some hon. Members:: At long last we are going to have it.


Some hon. Members:: Now we will hear about
Caouette's machine.


Some hon. Members:: Here it comes.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I deplore that it is called "Caouette's machine" but I would point out that this machine had-


Mr. Latulippe:: Anyway, it is still better than the "tax machine".


Mr. Gauthier:: Yes, better than the "tax machine".


Roland Godin: -been announced mainly by the Right Hon. Mackenzie King.
Indeed, we need a statutory monetary power that would put the monetary institution at the disposal of the community.
It is urgent that the money supply be first regulated and determined as a function of a certain national production level that would be scientifically and regularly calculated.
Second, it is urgent that the Bank of Canada alone be authorized to expand the money supply needed by Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh! Here it comes.


Roland Godin: Third, that any additional line of credit extended by the Bank of Canada be charged to a national credit account.


Some hon. Members:: Here we are.


Roland Godin: Fourth, that the money deposited in the national credit account be allocated for the needs of the Canadian people according to their wishes, as expressed through their representatives in Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roland Godin: Once this solution is implemented, Mr. Speaker, whenever the level of the national inventory of buyable products passes a certain point, this will be justification to increase the money supply by an amount equal to the value of the inventory above a certain level. The additional money will be created by the Bank of Canada, after it receives authority to do so from Parliament, and will be deposited in a national credit account. If the level of the inventory of buyable products goes down it will then be necessary to reduce the money supply. And in order to reduce the money supply, there is no better way than taxation. This means that when the whole population and the accountants responsible for supervising the national inventory, i.e., the people who will have authority to balance the national credit account, then we will turn to the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Benson), who will waste no time in laying hands on whatever excess there is.


Mr. Duquet:: You have the wrong minister!


Roland Godin: Once this solution is implemented, the present allocation of funds from the national credit account by Parliament will be accomplished without creating any further national debt, and will at the same time reduce taxes. The Canadian people will be assured at all times that there is enough money to purchase the buyable production available in Canada, such available buyable production being the final result of the efforts made by Canadians, individually and as a group.
Once this solution is implemented, it will follow that the increase in production resulting from automation, cybernetics, and so on, will become a real blessing for Canada. This solution will remedy once and for all the distribution blockage which at present restrains the economy of the western hemisphere countries, of which we are part.
Implementation of this solution, Mr. Speaker, will allow chartered banks, which provide a service necessary in our society, to remain free competitive enterprises. The only change will be that only the Bank of Canada will be empowered to create additional money supply for the needs of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: It is over, at last!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: know what an honour and a milestone it is in the history and life of any parliamentarian.
In the last few hours I have re-read the Speech from the Throne, and I have read or heard most of the comments that have been uttered in this debate during the last eight days. Having done so, I can sympathize with the point of view once expressed by Winston Churchill when he said that democracy is the worst possible form of government except for all the others.
The exercise of looking at what I might describe as the total package of the so-called Throne Speech debate is also useful in that it gives one a better understanding of what a growing number of people, particularly young people, are beginning to question more and more; that is, the relevancy of this institution. They are beginning to say more frequently and with more conviction that, to use the modern expression, this simply is not where the action is.
The fact is that when one looks at the totality-I am saying this in an objective way-we have not in fact had a debate at all, in the strict sense of the word. Certain members have said during this debate, with a measure of truth, that it does provide an opportunity for individual members to speak on behalf of their constituencies or, indeed, to talk on any topic of their choosing. But the end result of that, when one looks at it in its total context, is that it is simply not worth it-which might be the conclusion of a group of students if, let us say, they were to examine this debate as an essay assignment or something of that sort.
Indeed, when I read the total package I came to the conclusion that this whole process is now rather an anachronism. It is true that it is sanctified by tradition and that there are certain aspects of it, as I have said, that members regard as being tremendously important. But in terms of communicating additional knowledge about the affairs of this country to the public or even, indeed, to members of the House, I would have to say that the exercise has not been much of a success.
I think the best example I can put forward is the fact that when one analyses literally the total contribution to this debate of members of the opposition, one finds that they have not at any time-or perhaps, to be fair, I should say with very few exceptions-come to grips in any realistic way with the many issues raised in the Throne Speech, some of them contentious and some controversial. The fact is that these issues have been glanced over, if indeed touched upon at all, and we have fallen back almost totally on what might be described as confrontation politics. In a sense, the whole objective seems to be to smite the government hip and thigh.
There is no better example of this than the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I read it in full again this afternoon. I find it takes up eight pages in Hansard. Of those eight, six and a half pass before the Leader of the Opposition even gets around to indicating what kind of policies his party might pursue in the event of their gaining responsibility for government. But he even deals with that question in a most casual and offhanded fashion. There is nothing basically wrong with this, Mr. Speaker: it is fair ball, fair game. It is a form of political activity, or political strategy if you like. It is
Speech from the Throne
probably as old as the parliamentary system: it is based on the assumption that governments don't get elected, but simply that other governments get defeated.
I can imagine the Leader of the Opposition and his advisers and speech-writers sitting down and saying, "What we should do now is create a compendium of all the discontents, real and imagined, in this country at the present time. We have to indicate that we are on the proper side of each one of them. We have to get in that bit about old age pensions; and don't forget about the native peoples. And whatever you do, don't leave out that longstanding commitment about the small, family-held farm. Wrap these all up in a bundle and then fall back on your most imaginative writer for a few, hopefully, humorous one-liners. Then stretch out the paragraphs in the most tortuous way you can so that you eventually get to some kind of punchline."
That is in fact what the first six pages or more of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition reflect. He has an absolute right to do this and it is a quite appropriate stance for him to take, to smite the government hip and thigh. But I say to him and to hon. members opposite that it is rather naive of them to expect that the public will accept as an alternative to the government a party which simply does not put forward alternatives and does not get down to arguing the basic and very important issues which are not only stated in the Throne Speech but are so obvious to all of us in this House.
As a member of the government, when listening to the Leader of the Opposition I felt a kinship with the two sailors who, after a very rough Saturday night, found themselves compelled to go to church parade on Sunday. They went, and discovered that the sermon was on the Ten Commandments. It was a real old-fashioned, hell-fire and brimstone sermon admonishing people as to what would happen to them if they broke the Ten Commandments. The two sailors listened silently; then as they emerged from church one turned to the other and said, "At least we haven't made any graven images." Time after time the Leader of the Opposition has come forward and said that the government has done absolutely nothing right. I would remind him that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as I read the speech of the Leader of the Opposition I began to wonder what would happen if in fact positions were reversed and we had the speech of the Leader of the Opposition as the Throne Speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Let us look at what the position would be if in fact we had the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, delivered in this House, as the document that was read by His Excellency the Governor General. What would we find in it with regard to policy? What would we find in it with regard to plans, alternatives and options that the opposition-which then, of course, would be the policy formulating body-would undertake? First of all we would have this:

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne
Our first objective would be the creation of sufficient opportunities for meaningful employment for Canadians-
Motherhood! Sheer, unadulterated motherhood! There is not a word about how this would be achieved, not a single word from this party which would provide sufficient opportunities for meaningful employment for Canadians.


Mr. Bigg:: Tell us something about transportation, and not political garbage.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It looks like we're scoring, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: What I started to say, Mr. Speaker, was that having made this very profound statement with which nobody can disagree, the Leader of the Opposition gives no indication of how his party would wrestle with the universal problem, experienced in industrial countries at least, of how one achieves full employment while at the same time controlling runaway prices and wages and all the other problems that have inflation as their root. Nor does he indicate whether his party is in favour of price and wage controls. Is it in fact the policy of the Tory party to introduce price and wage controls? Does the Leader of the Opposition support them, or is that the private preserve of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), that perennial Peter Pan of the Tory party?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: One can imagine what the reaction would be if this statement of the Leader of the Opposition were in the Throne Speech, standing all by itself, unprotected: Our third priority is the pursuit of steady economic growth in terms both of gross national product and in terms of productivity through a program of incentives to encourage the initiative of Canadians in all branches of business, industry, farming and other occupations.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what is known in legal terms as the basket clause. You throw the whole works in together. You get in the motherhood words, like "incentives" and "initiatives" and you latch them on to every conceivable pressure group in the country. How this is going to be achieved, we do not know. It says nothing. And what about this marvellously ingenious phrase:
Fourth, we recognize the need as a basic priority to communicate a sense of national purpose to the Canadian people.
I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that the first politician who ever took to the hustings in Canada invented such a phrase. In fact, there is nothing new or ingenious about it. Even Dalton Camp and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) could agree on that one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: But, Mr. Speaker, I ask you, what kind of initiative, what kind of incentive and what kind of national purpose? Are these initiatives that are going to be provided, and have been included in this basket clause, to cover all manner of people-incentives of the sort that would give a guaranteed annual income, something which is an anathema to a large section of the party opposite? Or is there to be an incentive for the free-wheeling free

enterpriser section of the Tory party? You have to choose between these two kinds of incentives.
Is the incentive going to be freer trade, which undoubtedly many of the farmers might very well want; or is there to be more protection for the businessman whom the Leader of the Opposition puts cheek by jowl with all the other occupations in that phrase? I say once again that if the Leader of the Opposition expects the people of Canada to swallow these kinds of generalities, he is very much mistaken. Next in this imaginary Tory Throne Speech we come to these words:
We should adopt immediately the concept of a full employment budget in this country.
That is it, full stop, paragraph, nothing else.
We should adopt immediately the concept of a full employment budget in this country.
How are we going to adopt it? What kind of full employment budget? The Leader of the Opposition points out that in fact this has been done in the United States. Mr. Speaker, it was done about a year or so ago in the United States; but is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the results that flowed from it there are the kinds of things we want in Canada? Is that the model we want to follow? Has he forgotten that just a few months after the so-called full employment budget was introduced in the United States their levels of unemployment were still virtually what they were before, and that in addition the United States had to undertake the most drastic kind of fiscal and monetary measures, perhaps the most drastic known in the history of that country? He simply says, calmly and coolly:
We should adopt immediately by the concept of a full employment budget in this country.
Then we come to this one, and it is a real puzzler. If this were in a Tory Throne Speech, I do not know how I would respond to it. The Leader of the Opposition said:
There should have been some proposal to draw Canadians together in the fight against inflation and, in particular, some clarification of the role of the Prices and Incomes Commission.
What does that mean? Does it mean that this party which has vilhfied the Prices and Incomes Commission from the beginning will retain the commission? If it intends to retain it, presumably it will make substantial changes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Please do not bother me while I am at work. I don't go down in the sewer and take your time. The hon. gentleman will have his time, if he has not had it already.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Tell us about freight rates.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: We are hitting you, boy, right where it hurts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I think hon. members should let the minister complete his remarks. An hon. member who wants the floor can seek it by the normal procedure. The Minister of Transport.
February 29, 1972


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentlemen are as confident as they say they are, that after the next election they will be over here, they should be listening and getting used to it, because if that is the case that is what I will be telling them then. Is that all right? Let me repeat this gem: There should have been some proposal to draw Canadians together in the fight against inflation and, in particular, some clarification of the role of the Prices and Incomes Commission.
As I say, is the suggestion that the role of the Prices and Incomes Commission should be changed drastically? If it is, surely it is not unreasonable to say to the Leader of the Opposition-


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Tell us about transportation.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will tell you about transportation. I would like to put you on your horse and send you out of here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: On second thought, maybe I got the horse wrong.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Now who is getting under whose skin?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The point is, Mr. Speaker, that it is impossible for the opposition to leave a comment like this standing without indicating whether they have plans, presumably, for the retention of the Prices and Incomes Commission. Are they going to have some form of enforced wage and price controls? If they are, the country and this House has the right to know, rather than leaving it in limbo. Incidentally, the only other support that is given to that particular sentence-and imagine this in a Tory Throne Speech-says:
We should be fighting hard now to get some guidelines accepted in fighting inflation.
This is from a party that has consistently and without exception said that guidelines will not work. I can quote from many speeches of members opposite asking when the government is going to give up the folly of guidelines. Now they are suggesting that this is the solution. Again I have to ask, Mr. Speaker, are these the guidelines that are going to be enforced, or is this to be some kind of voluntary exercise of the sort that hon. members say is meaningless and ineffective?
I should like to come now to-


Donald MacInnis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: My point of order arises from the statement made by the minister. He said he was prepared to quote, and the question arises: Who is he going to quote and what is he going to quote? Let's hear it.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if I had a little time I am sure I would be able to find-


An hon. Member:: We will give you all the time you want.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: What I said, Mr. Speaker, is a matter of record and I think it can be supported-that indeed many
Speech from the Throne
members of the party opposite have indicated that the voluntary guidelines exercise is not a workable solution to the inflation problem. In fact, it has been an almost basic tenet of their arguments over the last four years.
Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the Leader of the Opposition, toward the end of his speech he did recognize that there was necessity for him to make some comments about policy and to assert some leadership. I will say that in reading his speech I noticed that he added a new wrinkle to the old, so-called confrontation politics; that is, there are occasions when he comes down squarely on both sides of an issue. This is what is known as the "sweet reasonableness approach": you do not really take a stand until you have had an opportunity to weigh public opinion and get some idea of how the cat of public opinion is going to jump. So we have various references to this, and, on the other hand, that.
He says during his speech that many of the points he makes with regard to policy will be elaborated by those coming after. I searched and found nothing in the way of elaboration or policy declaration that followed. For example, on a matter that is of great concern to me-Newfoundland-he said one line, and one line only in the whole speech:
-more effective measures to ensure the conservation of our fisheries.
Nobody disputes that. But what kind of measures does the leader of that party suggest; and would they be prepared to support the kind of unilateral action that is being recommended by certain members of the party, a kind of gunboat diplomacy? Are they in fact prepared to assert unilateral control over the continental shelf? Is this the policy? If it is, we have a right to know. In fact, not only do we have a right to know, but that kind of discussion in this House would be useful because this is one of the most complex of subjects.
If the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to assert, as a matter of policy, that regardless of international agreements, regardless of treaties, regardless of international law, we propose to move unilaterally in that direction, then I say it is his obligation to spell that out and not simply to have it quoted as a possibility or even a faint hope by some of his followers.
Finally comes a ringing declaration. This has got to be the most inane sentence I have ever read, standing by itself. He said:
Our industries in Canada must be put in a position to compete.
Now, what industries? And compete with whom, and under what circumstances? Tonight I do not propose, despite what hon. gentlemen have said, to talk about transportation, to go into it in detail because there will be an opportunity during the debate on the Canadian National-


An hon. Member:: Don't talk about it. You don't know.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Do you want an answer? Would you like to take the floor? I would be happy to give you the floor.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


An hon. Member:: Careful about that one, Don.

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: What do you know about freight rates? Do you want some more?


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


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, what I was about to say with regard to freight rates and the whole question of transportation was that in point of fact I am exercising the democratic right which many members opposite have explained as being part of this debate, that is, that a member is free to talk about any subject of his choosing. This is what I have chosen, and I feel it is apt.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I was asked by the hon. member who has the floor to rise and say something and explain why I want to talk about transportation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Hon. members know we must abide by the rules of the House. The minister has the floor, and unless he yields the floor no other hon. member can speak. The rules do not permit us to go from one hon. member to another and get into an exchange. Each hon. member has to make a speech in his due time, and only when recognized by the Chair. The Minister of Transport.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) on a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: You are quite right, of course, about the rules, Mr. Speaker; but I would point out that in this case the minister, not doing very well having the floor, gave it to the hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: On the point of order just raised, the hon. member knows, I am sure, that it is for the Chair to recognize hon. members and not for a minister or a private member.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for his short, instructive lecture on parliamentary procedure.


Gerald William Baldwin: Any time.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As the hon. member knows, I am always anxious to hear what hon. members opposite have to say. I wish to say once again, if I may answer my hon. friend, that the debate on CNR financing is coming up in a few days and it was my intention to devote a speech at that time to the questions which he raised. I hope that will dispose of the matter.
What I was going to say on the question, if I may put it in simple terms, of making sure that our industries in Canada are put in the position of being able to compete is that the subject is tremendously complicated and involves

transportation. I merely want to say that, ironically, I have received even in the last few days protests from Manitoba to the effect that the freight assistance we are providing in eastern Canada constitutes unfair competition. Therefore, one has to go to western Canada to hear something good said about transportation in eastern Canada, and vice versa.
I say in all seriousness that it is not enough simply to add that our industries in Canada must be put in the position of being able to compete. We must round that out, when we talk about competition. How are they to compete, and with whom? Are we talking about international trade? Are we talking about the tremendous competition which goes on among the various regions of Canada?
As the statement stands in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, it is meaningless, totally and absolutely. And so, Mr. Speaker, in concluding my commentary on this sort of imaginary Tory Throne Speech one must say to use a stock phrase, that it is more significant for what it does not contain than for what it says. Even in terms of a speech by the Leader of the Opposition, about the best that can be said for it is that it is essentially rambling rhetoric and oversimplication. Indeed, it would be well if most of us in this House, regardless of where we sit, heeded something once said. I do not remember which particular philosopher said that the essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity, but if ever there was a denial of complexity one can see it in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I could put everything of a policy nature which was contained in his remarks on one page.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: And the Speech from the Throne could be put in one sentence.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am sorry to say that his statements were not in the least significant. My time is running out, Mr. Speaker, and I may not be able to do justice to the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis) and the other heavyweights who took part in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I confess that I was singularly disappointed by the contribution of the leader of the NDP. He knows-and I wish he were here tonight-that I have great respect for him and for his debating ability. Yet when one looks at his contribution in this debate, once again it is easy to see that he has totally avoided saying anything about his party's policies and, on that occasion at least, he resorted to the cheapest kind of political haymaking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: He began by describing the Throne Speech as a speech made up of purple prose. I wish he were here, because I would tell him that if he were to read his remarks with intellectual honesty he would discover that the further he went into his speech the more purple he became, and by the time he had finished anything in the Throne Speech, in terms of rhetoric and purple prose, had been left far behind in his remarks. I confess that my difficulty with the NDP is not one of philosophy or ideology. There are many matters on which that party and I
February 29, 1972

agree completely. I think we can resolve our differences of ideology as mature people who can look at the issues and confront them squarely. But, Mr. Speaker, what really irritates me about the NDP is the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitudes which that party adopts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: On every occasion, that party likes to feel that it is the possessor of all truth and wisdom. If we could go back to the days of Cecil B. de Mille and he were to make a film about this House, I think it is fair to say that if he made it according to an NDP version all the rest of us would sit here in darkness, total and utter darkness, and a thin ray of light from heaven would shine squarely down on their corner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: They don't even swear in the NDP.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the NDP is finding no great difficulty in restraining his enthusiasm for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Indeed, one can say that his attitude toward him falls somewhat short of idolatry. I realize that the Prime Minister does not need me to defend him against the slings and arrows that political leadership inevitably attracts, yet I must express my resentment about one comment which the leader of the NDP made in his remarks.


An hon. Member:: Just one?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, just one. He was talking about the unfortunate effects on certain elements of our society which our economic difficulties are creating. He was talking about the Prime Minister's attitude toward those people. Once again I say that the government is fair game for the opposition to attack. But the Leader of the NDP said that the attitude of the Prime Minister of this country to those people was an attitude of someone who has never had to scramble to pay the rent. I say that is purely and blatantly an appeal to prejudice. I will tell you the sort of category in which I would place that remark. I place it in exactly the same category as another statement that at one time was heard in this House and it practically drove the NDP out of its mind. It has now gone out of existence; we do not use it any more. Putting it in its simplest terms, the NDP leader's remark is in the same category as the one in which it was alleged that no man was fit to sit in this House and govern if he had not had to meet a payroll. That kind of remark, in common with the remark of the leader of the NDP, was calculated to create a prejudicial appeal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.
Speech from the Throne


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the Chair to assume that the House gives consent to extending the minister's time and that he may complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Provided he sticks to the NDP, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to hon. members and undertake not to impose unduly on the time of the House. I again say, in all seriousness to the NDP, that they are not the repository of all compassion in this House.


An hon. Member:: The minister should think about his record.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I say to the hon. member and to others over there that although I cannot speak for the Prime Minister, I can speak for myself. I have had to scramble to pay the rent and I would be glad, even though I am not sure whether hon. members would particularly enjoy the experience, to trade poverty stories with them at any time they choose. There are a great many hon. members of this party and in this government who are in exactly the same position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: So let us have no more of this talk.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I repeat that one group only does not hold the conscience of the House. All of us, in our own way and on the basis of our own convictions, are sincere people trying to do the job for which we were sent here.
I should like to make one or two other points of a personal nature, if I may, Mr. Speaker. Six of us in this House are different from other hon. members in one respect: we are different from all other members of the House. I speak of myself and the five fellow Newfoundlanders who are present. We are different because we did not mature or grow up as Canadians. Actually, we were adults before we became Canadians. We did not enter confederation until most of us had reached adult years. Of course, I can speak for myself and cannot speak for the other Newfoundland members, but I am sure that their sentiments are the same as mine.
I personally voted on two separate occasions against becoming a Canadian. My reasons for doing so, although it is not necessary for me to go into detail, had to do with the fact that I prized my independence. I was concerned about my personal independence and about that of my country. This is something which all of you can understand, I am sure, in your own way as we struggle in this country for a greater degree of independence and sovereignty.
I say in conclusion that being a relative newcomer to confederation and having been honoured by Canada in a way in which very few people get to be honoured by this country, I perhaps recognize more than most the necessity for equality for all the people of this country.

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I was disappointed in some respects that neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the leader of the New Democratic Party chose to make any reference in their remarks either to national unity in the context of the Official Languages Act or anything relating thereto. Unfortunately, when references are made to this subject they tend, as has been evidenced in this debate, to generate a degree of emotion. This is not a bad idea, but I suggest it is the wrong kind of emotion. For my part, I have no desire either during this debate or at any other time to inflame or add to the difficulties which we are presently experiencing. I can say that as someone who has been given great opportunities since becoming a Canadian and has travelled this country widely from one end to another, I understand and feel a kinship with those whose mother tongue is French.
There is not a great deal of difference down underneath. Certain stories are told. They may be the kind of derogatory stories, although perhaps humorous, about the backwoods French Canadian woodcutter and the Newfie stories about which we hear so much. I feel there is a certain distinction about the fact we have both reached a maturity that enables us to laugh at ourselves.
Although we Newfoundlanders do not suffer the added problem that alienation creates when there is a language barrier, nevertheless I believe that we in Newfoundland and I as one Newfoundlander understand how it feels to experience this kind of alienation. Of my own achievements as far as they relate to government activities, the one of which I am most proud is that this Parliament, with the support of all parties, passed and endorsed enthusiastically the Official Languages Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I hope there is no suggestion at the moment that any party or any member of this House is prepared to compromise the principles of that act. If there are injustices, of course we have to deal with them; but we must deal with them on both sides. I appeal to hon. members to realize that when the Official Languages Act was set up and, in fact, when this House felt in its heart the necessity to right historic wrongs, it removed it from the political arena and tried to lift it above politics. It tried to make this an issue that would unite Canadians and not one to divide it. I believe this will continue to be the case. I am prepared to stand upon the achievements of this government and its policies in this regard and, believe me, there is no better place that I would rather stand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson). He left me wondering as to what he said. As he said, no wonder the young people are questioning. They are questioning speeches such as he made when he should have been dealing with the substantive issues that were almost contained in the Speech from the Throne and with which he did not deal. Instead of that, he erected a Throne Speech of the opposition. He gave me the impression that I was over there, he was over here and he was delivering a speech in criticism of a Throne Speech that came from us.

I wondered for a moment where I was in the House, whether I was on Your Honour's right or left.
I say it was dishonest for the minister to say the things that he did. He called the New Democratic Party sanctimonious. He ended his speech with a plea for national unity. He criticized the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for things that he said, and called it motherhood; yet that is exactly what he was doing. As I sat here I tried to sort out all these matters. He drew an analogy between himself and other impecunious Liberal members who sit on the government side, and their inability to pay the rent. This put me in mind of the writings of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he made the allusion to the brave donkeys lining up at the trough.
It pulled at the strings of my heart to hear the difficulties that the Minister of Transport and his colleagues have gone through. I contrasted his remarks with the difficulties being experienced in every riding in this country by constituents of every member of this House, those sitting opposite and on this side. They are undergoing extreme hardship because of the inefficiency and every other shortcoming of the government with regard to the administration of Unemployment Insurance. I listened to the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) talk this afternoon about the streamlined efforts that are being made by the Unemployment Insurance offices. I still think of the people in my constituency, and I am sure in others, who have to apply for welfare because of the inefficiencies of that department.
The minister spoke in sanctimonious terms and made accusations against the leader of the New Democratic Party regarding the Official Languages Act. I have sat in this House as a member of the government as well as a member of the opposition. I know the record of the former prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), with regard to bilingualism in this country. I know that the cubicles in the corners of this chamber were installed under his prime ministership. I know that bilingual cheques came about under his term in office as prime minister. The simultaneous English-French translation system came about under his prime ministership. Suddently we hear the Minister of Transport being as sanctimonious as hell about being the inventor of all these innovations.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: Someone on the other side said "Order". I did not say "Fuzz off"; I do not spell it that way. I did not say "God-damn". However, if we have reached the stage in this House where these epithets are in order-


Stanley Howard Knowles: But they are not.


Erik Nielsen: -then at least I can refer to the place below.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't act like the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Erik Nielsen: I remind the Minister of Transport that the Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission started under the previous Prime Minister, yet the minister stands in his place, sanctimonious as all get out, and speaks as
February 29, 1972

though it was all invented by the Prime Minister of the day and his government.
There are serious concerns being expressed, not only here, unvoiced by those who sit in the back benches opposite but I am sure they are heard in caucus every Wednesday morning. There are concerns that we have gone too far. When I first started hearing these things 15 years ago they were being expressed by French-speaking Canadians who were not being heard; they were not regarded as equals in this House. So these changes came about. We brought in simultaneous translation, and other steps toward rectifying this inequality were taken. No criticism was directed at that time against French-speaking members who rose in this chamber to complain of the imbalance in terms of English-speaking and Frenchspeaking membership of the civil service. We listened and I am sure most hon. members listened. In all likelihood it was as a result of those speeches and the attention given to them that changes came about.
Now, when the reverse is the case and when concern is being felt by English-speaking Canadians that the pendulum has perhaps swung too far in the other direction, there is intolerance; in effect there is bigotry-a label of Birchism or McCarthyism is attached to anyone who dare support the opposite point of view. That there is another point of view there can be no doubt. It is very real. No one in this House who has travelled through the west can fail to appreciate immediately that it has reached serious proportions and that there must be some lessening of the rapidity with which the government is proceeding. This sentiment is very real and very logical. There is nothing McCarthyist about stating this point of view because it is a reasonable view held by a large number of Canadians.
The Minister of Transport spoke about employment. Members of the government have indicated that they invented unemployment; they sought to cure inflation. The Minister of Transport wants to disassociate himself from that policy, but the former minister of labour took pride in the fact that the government took the course it did. He said it took a great deal of courage to implement a policy such as this in order to curb inflation.
The Minister of Transport said that one page would have contained the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition. Yet when I look over the Speech from the Throne and compare it with the minister's speech, a speech which has taken things out of context, isolated them and tried to demolish them, I cannot but wonder about the direction the government is taking. Is it any wonder the young people are asking questions?
I have before me a background paper which was used by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis). I am happy to see he is present in the chamber, one of the few ministers who is here tonight. This paper served as a basis for discussion at a special meeting of the Capilano Liberal Association in the North Vancouver Community Centre on December 11, 1971. It is entitled, "What do western Liberals want?" and the author is the Hon. Jack Davis, P.C., M.P., Minister of the Environment. The hon. gentleman makes an inventory of what he supposes western Liberals want.


Gerald William Baldwin: They want to get into the cabinet.
Speech from the Throne


Erik Nielsen: They're almost all in the cabinet already, either that or they are parliamentary secretaries or chairmen of committees. He says they want to be free to act on their own. They will never get that freedom under the present Prime Minister. They want to explore new horizons, he said. They want to pull the rest of Canada into a world of fantastic tomorrows. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what kind of trip the minister was on when he used those words, but he certainly was not down to earth. He listed this one under a series of subtitles. First, he said, good relations with the United States are wanted. Here is a government which has gone out of its way to destroy good relations with the United States, yet in this hypocritical way the minister and, I am sure, the rest are trying to erect an image in western Canada and elsewhere supposed to reflect the constructive efforts they are making to bring about good relations with the United States.
At the same time we have a Prime Minister who makes derogatory statements with respect to the United States while on a visit to the U.S.S.R. and countenances statements by the Premier of the U.S.S.R. which are derogatory to the United States while on a visit to Canada. He refuses to refute them, allowing Canada to be used as a platform for anti-American sentiment expressed by the communist world.
The Minister of the Environment says we need partners across the Pacific. The government is certainly not doing anything to encourage this. Then, he says, the Liberals want less protectionism in Canada. Mr. Speaker, he is a member of a government which has passed legislation insisting on control of foreign ownership, insisting upon restricting investment capital flowing into the country. It has given some $6 million as a tax rebate to a United States oil company. No wonder young people are put off by this kind of hypocrisy!
In juxtaposition to this desire for less protectionism in Canada, the minister wants more foreign capital for expansion. This puts me in mind of a speech made by the former minister of mines, energy and resources, the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Greene), and a speech made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), one delivered in one part of the United States and the other in another part in the south. One minister was saying we needed more capital, and the other was asserting that we did not need more capital.
Here is the Minister of the Environment telling his friends in Vancouver that we need more foreign capital for expansion, while at the same time with its tax reforms the government is erecting barriers against foreign capital which, in the Yukon at any rate, has resulted in a diminution of the investment flow by some 70 per cent in the last mining exploration year. The ECC has indicated that by 1973 that inflow of capital will have been curtailed by 18 per cent.
Last, but not least, the minister told his friends in Vancouver that what he wants is more projects and less red tape. Here we have a government which is obsessed with the idea of control, a government obsessed with the concept of power, yet the Minister of the Environment says we need more protection and less red tape. He has visited my constituency, that colony in Canada, that colony in North America which is run on puppet-strings manipulat-

February 29, 1972
Speech from the Throne
ed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as is the case in the Northwest Territories. And the minister says that we want less red tape! We like that. We endorse it 100 per cent. But let me ask why the government does not cut out the red tape. Why does the government not adopt policies and projects that will result in an administration in this country that is designed to reduce, not expand?
I was looking over the figures of civil service hirings during the last quarter and had always thought that there was a growth of roughly a net 1,000 a month. However, I find that in April, 1971, the growth was something in the order of 3,000 net, and slightly under 4,000 net growth in May of 1971. That is explainable by the six newly created ministries in the government during the regime of this Prime Minister. And the Minister of the Environment has the hypocrisy to say that what we need is more projects and less red tape!
The sixth item in this great paper that he delivered was this, "Wanted: Less government and more tax cuts". I did not hear the minister during the tax reform legislation make a plea for the prospector. Prospecting is a very important pursuit in his part of the country, yet I did not hear him make a plea for the prospector's wants, that he not be subject to the capital gains tax, the imposition of which has literally killed prospecting in his country and in mine. Neither did I hear him rise in his place and utter one criticism of the increase in taxes that was imposed on his constituents and others in this country. He has the gall to go to the west of Canada and to tell those who attended the meeting of western Liberals that he wanted more tax cuts, and he supports a government, in his hypocritical way, that imposes further taxes!
Less government, he says. Yet we have more boards, more commissions, more regulations, more provisions in our statute law, giving the government more and more power. There is more interference with the private lives, liberties and freedoms of the individual. The minister has the hypocrisy to go to Vancouver and say, "We want less of this" and then does nothing about it. Instead of delivering this paper in Vancouver, the minister should have been trying to convince his cabinet colleagues of the truth that is contained in it. But even better, it would have been an indication of his bona fides and sincerity had he risen at any time during his time in this House to espouse the principles that he sets forth in this paper.
Then again in this paper he says that the over-all tax bite is increasing. Then he compounds his hypocrisy with untruths, because he goes on to say that this trend toward even greater government influence in our economic affairs is bothering western Liberals, that it is bothering many independent-minded Canadians from coast to coast. Many people, he says, unthinkingly blame Ottawa for this trend. Few of them realize that the provinces, and to a lesser extent the municipalities, are the villains. So not only is he attempting to cover up the inadequacies of his party; he is also attempting to throw the blame, wrongfully and falsely, on the provinces and municipalities. He is trying to blame them for the excesses of his own government.

Then he asks what western Liberals want Ottawa to do about this. He says that they want the government to curb its own spending. But, more than that, they want the government to stop collecting revenue for the provinces and municipalities. They want the other two levels of government to collect their own taxes. It will be interesting to see what is brought forward tomorrow when the equalization legislation comes up for debate.
The minister responsible for the legislation, and his parliamentary secretary have been telling us about the 90,000 new jobs that have been created by the new incentives program. I do not know what is going on in other constituencies in the country but I can tell hon. members what is going on in mine. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are going down the drain. In one instance, $17,000 odd was spent on a group of Indian people to cut wood which they would have had to cut anyway to employ themselves during the winter months. Some $17,600 was approved for another Indian band to repair housing on land set aside for the use of Indian people, none of the money being applied. In fact, the situation is becoming so alarming that the Indian people who were allotted this money have taken to cannibalizing empty houses to keep their fires going. Thousands of dollars are being wasted in this fashion. I say that the claim of 90,000 new jobs is an outright lie, and the quicker the Canadian people realize that taxpayers' money is being spent in this fashion, the better.
The Minister of Transport played down this debate. He said, in essence, that it was a useless exercice. I think this debate is a good exercise, if for no other reason than to expose the inadequacies of the government. He said that the Leader of the Opposition did not put forward alternatives. We have been putting forward alternatives for almost the last four years, alternatives that in some cases, admittedly belatedly, have been accepted by the government.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last April we started speaking about the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada. We started speaking about the likelihood of a very critical unemployment situation developing in the fall. But the government did not listen to us. Our alternatives were just sloughed off. We advocated a revocation of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, and have been doing so for a good number of years. We advocated real, meaningful tax cuts as far back as last April. We advocated other measures too. But the government adopted the position that everything was rosy, that inflation was going away, that unemployment was going away, that the economy was expanding. All these hypocritical statements came from a government as sanctimonious as the minister who has just spoken.
Everything the government said has turned out to be wrong. This is why our young people today are asking questions; it is why they are disillusioned. The government is not saying it like it is. It is not telling the people of Canada the truth. Try and get the truth in this House, Mr. Speaker. Ask questions of ministers, or of the Prime Minister, as I attempted to do yesterday. He knew exactly what I was talking about when I asked him about the special security force. Again I am misnaming it, but the Prime Minister knew what I meant. Yet he chose to hide behind the hair-splitting subterfuge that it was not specifically designated. There are some ministers who will
February 29, 1972

answer questions forthrightly, but very few. The Minister of Transport is usually one of them, but I was disappointed to hear the kind of speech he delivered tonight because he certainly did not evidence his usual forthrightness when answering questions. Try to get straighforward answers from the government and from the ministers, and you do not; you get everything from a ducking and a weaving to outright deceit in their answers.
I believe, Sir, that the minister is correct when he says that the young people are disappointed and disillusioned. They are so because politicians think that the most important thing in the world is to be re-elected. I suppose that is the most important thing in the world to a good number of them. But when they think for a moment they will realize that the most important thing is a confrontation with the issues of the day in a forthright manner.
The government proposal of the Minister of the Environment, in the great paper which he delivered in Vancouver, was for decentralization of decision-making, and he spoke of Crown corporations. In recent weeks a new Crown corporation was set up which is called the CDC. I want to revert here for a second to my remarks about the French-English question which exists in Canada. It makes one wonder, when we read statistics like this concerning the CDC.
On the CDC, the board of directors consists of 18 members and of these 18 members one director comes from British Columbia, one from Alberta, one from Saskatchewan, one from Manitoba, one from New Brunswick, one from Nova Scotia, and there is no director from Newfoundland and no director from Prince Edward Island; there are four directors from Ontario and eight from Quebec. The quorum on that board of directors is eight. What that means is that all the membership from the province of Quebec, numbering eight plus one more to side with them, can make decisions which will result in the flow of capital into that or any other province unlimitedly. It seems to me that there is cause for concern about this state of affairs. Why is this imbalance present?
I stand behind the right hon. member for Prince Albert when he spoke today about security. The fact that this separate security force has been set up in Canada is very disconcerting to me as well as to a good many other Canadians, and I am concerned about the fact that we are hearing nothing about it. The Prime Minister promised in April of 1969 that we would be given a full day of debate on this matter when the security report was tabled. We have not been given that opportunity, and apparently he has backed away completely from his position and now says that we should take an opposition day for the purpose.
Speech from the Throne


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 5 of Standing Order 38, to interrupt the proceedings forthwith and put any question necessary to dispose of the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Whicher) agreed to.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That the said address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing), in accordance with Standing Order 58:
That this House at its next sitting consider the business of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn would the government House leader confirm that there has been no change since last Wednesday when he indicated the order in which government business would proceed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take the bill indicated last Wednesday, namely, an act to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, and following second reading we will proceed with the list of bills as given. If there are to be any changes I will advise my hon. friends.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have just one more question, Mr. Speaker, of which I would like now to give the government House leader notice. Will he some time within the next week or ten days indicate that the government intends to bring in a budget before Easter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.
On motion of Mr. MacEachen the House adjourned at 9.50 p.m.

Wednesday. March 1. 1972