1972-02-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
METHADONE AND AMPHETAMINES-STATEMENT ON ACTION TO CONTROL ABUSE	.
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister oi National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the government, as many members are aware, is deeply concerned about the non-medical use of drugs and the effects of such use on the individual and on our society. As part of our program to combat this hazard through a balanced comprehensive strategy, I wish to announce important action in relation to two different types of drugs, the abuse of which has been a public health problem of major proportions in this country. I refer to action against the abuse of methadone and the amphetamines.
Methadone is an opiate-type synthetic drug which has become widely used in the treatment of heroin addiction. During the last year, staff of my department have received many reports of misuse and abuse of methadone. As a result of concern over misuse of this drug, the former Food and Drug Directorate of my department and the Canadian Medical Association established a joint committee in 1970 to investigate the proper place of methadone in the care of narcotic addicts. Concern about the abuse of methadone also was raised by the Le Dain Commission in its final report on treatment, which was submitted to the government a few weeks ago.
As a result of the recommendations of the joint FDD-CMA committee and of the Le Dain Commission, I have decided to restrict the availability of methadone in the following way: Physicians will be permitted to prescribe methadone only after they are authorized to do so by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Those so authorized will be considered to be qualified by reason of expertise and the availability of necessary facilities and ancillary services to utilize methadone effectively in the treatment of heroin abuse.
In line with the recommendations of the Le Dain Commission, authorized physicians will be required to be associated with a specialized clinic. Requests for authorization will be considered by an expert advisory committee to be appointed by me in co-operation with the medical profession. I expect that necessary regulatory changes can be made and the methadone control program instituted within a few weeks time. The program should be fully operational by June 1 of this year. In the meantime I call upon the physicians of Canada to utilize restraint in the use of methadone.
Although smaller amounts of amphetamine are now being prescribed in Canada than a few years ago, considerable evidence has come to the attention of my department indicating the over-prescribing of these drugs by some medical practitioners. Considerable evidence also exists that the related drugs, phenmetrazine and phen-dimetrazine, are misused in a manner similar to that of amphetamines.
Medical authorities are agreed that the legitimate medical uses of amphetamines are extremely limited. They have at best only a minor role in rational drug therapy, primarily for the treatment of two relatively rare and obscure disorders, narcolepsy and hyperkinesis in children.
As a result of my grave concern about the serious public health implications of amphetamine abuse, I have decided that the use of amphetamines and the related drugs, phenmetrazine and phendimetrazine, will be limited to treatment of only those disorders for which they are indicated on medical grounds. Use of these drugs for treatment of obesity as so-called "diet pills" will no longer be permitted. Any physician wishing to prescribe amphetamines, phenmetrazine and phendimetrazine will be authorized by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to do so provided he wishes to use the drugs for treatment of bona fide narcoleptics and hyperkinetic children. In co-operation with the Canadian Medical Association and L'Asso-ciation des Medecins de Langue Fran^aise du Canada, a list of consulting physicians will be drawn up to aid in verification of the diagnosis of these relatively rare disorders.
I am extremely pleased with the co-operation being offered to us by the medical associations of Canada in helping solve this important problem.
I am fully aware, as are other hon. members, that this action to control misuse of legally prescribed amphetamines does not directly affect use of these drugs by so-called "speed freaks" who obtain their drugs from illicit sources. Nevertheless, this action does indicate the serious light in which the government views amphetamine abuse and should have marked effects on an important aspect of abuse of these drugs, that by adults who obtain their drugs on prescription.
It will take a few months to work out the details of the amphetamine control program in co-operation with the medical profession. I expect, however, that the program will be fully operational by September 1 of this year.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I make a brief mention of another aspect of our total program to control the misuse and abuse of drugs. In January of this year, we invited parents and others receiving federal social assistance cheques to send for a free information booklet entitled "A Parent's Guide to Drug Abuse". Public response to this
198

Control of Drug Abuse
offer has been most gratifying and, in fact, almost overwhelming. To date, nearly 500,000 requests for the booklet have been received by my department and more especially by the directorate on the non-medical use of drugs. Because of the large volume of requests, it is taking my staff longer than they had first anticipated to provide copies of the booklet to all who have requested it. I ask the public to be patient. Everyone who requests a copy of this useful publication will be sent one. This booklet is but the first in a continuing series of factual presentations on various aspects of drug abuse, aimed at providing the facts on this serious problem to Canadians as part of our over-all drug education program.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, we cannot help but welcome the statement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) that his department is deeply concerned about the non-medical use of drugs and the effects on the individual and society.
One of the disturbing things to be noted is that the drug methadone at one time was the cure-all for heroin addicts; addicts were put on this drug so they could be weaned from heroin which was habit-forming. Today we find that methadone is also habit-forming. We wonder in so many cases whether drugs that are being used today which we feel are safe and not habit-forming will turn up tomorrow on the list of those that are habit-forming. The minister will realize that talwin is a drug which could be bought a short time ago without prescription and now is on the prescription list. It was supposed to be a non-habit forming drug. So the story goes.
I wonder whether on the whole we are providing laboratory and research facilities adequate to test the effect of these drugs on human beings. People I have spoken to in this field say that laboratory and research facilities are totally inadequate to test these drugs to determine whether they are or are not habit-forming. I believe the minister realizes this is the situation. He has stated on a number of occasions that more facilities should be provided. However, they are being provided very slowly. I believe this is a very important point.
In bringing these drugs under control I wonder how the minister intends to look after the situation in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon Territory or in other huge and sparsely settled areas which are served by one doctor or even paramedical personnel. I wonder how the people in these areas will be treated and what provisions have been made for treating them. Are they to be brought out to clinics and treated at the expense of the government? The minister did not make this clear.
I also want to dwell for a moment on the fact that the minister has not said very much about the situation of younger people in respect of the use of drugs. I think this is the key to the whole problem. They are growing up in an age in which drugs are thought to be the answer to almost everything and to all problems. I believe it is paramount today that we educate our younger generation in regard to the fact that any drug can be harmful to the human individual. I think this should be part and parcel of the work the minister should carry on in the field of food and drugs. People should be educated that drugs are not the answer to many social problems.
(Mr. Munro.]
I congratulate the minister on this step and suggest to him that we should go further and provide facilities for people living in outlying territories. We should provide laboratory facilities for the treatment of people when they are referred to a lab by a doctor for testing in order to see what the results are, so that more research may be carried on in this field and so that we will have the answers more quickly and not after we find that people are addicts.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose one could start very easily by classifying this statement as a pretty insignificant response to a rather massive problem which has existed in this country for some years and is increasing in intensity as each month goes by. I rather regret the fact that the minister, after examination of the first report of the Le Dain Commission and the treatment report which came out a short while ago, was not able to do better than this in terms of attempting to cope with the non-medical or abusive use of drugs.
[DOT] (i120)
Part of the approach the minister has taken relates to methadone and the dispensing by prescription of methadone as a substitute drug particularly for heroin addicts. Under the proposal the minister will be limiting the opportunity of physicians to dispense and prescribe methadone to specialized clinics. The first thing wrong with that approach is that we will still be using a chemical that will create or help to create a euphoric or semieuphoric condition in the addict himself. We will not be coping whatever in any way with the internal emotional difficulties of addicts that make them addicts in the first place. This is just a stopgap measure. All that will happen, as the minister knows because there has been abuse in the use of methadone itself, is that we will create, in addition to a group of heroin addicts, a group of methadone addicts either in substitution or in addition thereto.
It has been a conscious policy of the Parole Board in issuing parole to addicts who are in penitentiaries to try to place them on parole away from the big, urban metropolitan centres, away from the street, away from the area where drugs are easily available, and parole them to out of the way or smaller communities. If we are going to follow that practice, and I think the Parole Board is, then the minister by this program is denying those heroin addicts who are paroled to out of the way or smaller communities what benefits may arise from a methadone treatment program. He is confining the prescribing of methadone to physicians who are associated with specialized clinics, and the prospects are that the specialized clinics will be in cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal.


John Carr Munro: No, hospitals.


Frank Howard: them are now undergoing a methadone treatment program through private physicians. If those physicians are to be denied the opportunity to continue to prescribe methadone except in specialized clinics, many of those on parole who are using methadone as a substitute drug for heroin will get into difficulties.
The minister talks in terms of wanting to confine the prescription of amphetamines and other drugs that fall within that class to certain medical uses. I think that is a good move. We have known for a long time that probably the people who have contributed most in a total sense to the thinking of society that you can cure anything with a pill have been those in the medical profession who have dispensed pills, potions and lotions without full knowledge of their effects. The attempt now to confine this is a good measure. I hope doctors will pay heed to it. I hope also that drug manufacturers will be required to provide more information on the side effects of drugs that are developed and used for such purposes.
It seems to me that the minister's statement does not really cope with the underlying reason why people want to drop out of society, why they want to use drugs, why they want to create a false feeling within themselves, why they want to escape from the realities of the world. This action is simply a small patchwork program in light of the over-all problem. It is necessary to engage in an educational program, to try to explain and to get people to understand what the realities of life are all about, and not just approach the problem by using one drug as a substitute for the other.
I wish that the minister had taken the course in this statement-it is long overdue-of rejecting the proposal in the LeDain Commission report which suggests that we give a semi-legal status to heroin so that as a last resort, whether it be in specialized clinics or elsewhere, a heroin addict who fails to agree with the methadone treatment, program can get heroin itself. That recommendation should have been rejected by the minister as soon as it was made. The absence of any comment in this document on this matter means two things. The moment the LeDain Commission recommendation was made with respect to classifying or giving heroin some sort of semi-legal status, it was applauded by every heroin addict in the country because they foresaw the prospect of being able, in time of short supply of heroin, to proceed to treatment centres and get free fixes to carry them over a period of time until the supply increases.
I know that you are getting apprehensive about the time I am taking, Mr. Speaker, but to me this is an extremely important matter which was left out of the statement and should have been in it. I will only be a moment more, if I may.
The other point is that a number of young people in our society are on the borderline; they are unsure whether they should try heroin, having used other drugs. When the LeDain commission report on treatment came out and gave some sanction in its recommendations to the use of heroin, a number of young people in this nation in the drug scene said: This is fine, heroin is O.K., it has the endorsement of the LeDain commission.
Some addicts in the city of Vancouver whom I know, people in the addict world and people trying to do some-
Control of Drug Abuse
thing about it, know that a number of youngsters applauded that recommendation. They were unable to draw the distinction between the commission report and government policy and began trying heroin themselves because it had some sort of semi-legal sanction. Every day the minister delays in rejecting that concept he is contributing to the growing population of youngsters who are trying heroin. I wish the minister would abandon this insignificant patchwork program and out of his conscience do something worth while for a change instead of announcing such piddling measures.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to thank the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) for the measures announced today to control the abuse of methadone and amphetamines.
We are particularly happy about the valuable and essential co-operation of medical associations. Without their powerful participation, the announcement made today by the minister would only be empty words.
That measure announced today will have the effect of restraining the "official" availability of those particular drugs, but as the minister himself recognized it, that does not affect at all use of those drugs by addicts who get them from illicit sources. There lies the main weakness of governmental action with regard to the control of the distribution and illegal consumption of various drugs in Canada, specially among the young.
Today's statement, Mr. Speaker, should not make us forget what the federal government did in that field.
Indeed, an official OPTAT inquiry revealed the following:
A comparison of results obtained in 1969 and 1971 shows that:
Consumption of barbiturates has tripled and that of hallucinogens other than LSD almost tripled:
Consumption of marijuana and LSD had more than doubled;
It has increased by a third in the case of stimulants and tranquilizers;
It has increased by almost one tenth in the case of alcohol and tobacco;
the proportion of a glue consumers was the same in 1971 as in 1969.
Consequently, government action in that sphere is still pending, and statements in fact merely constitute a control of official prescriptions but in no way-which is more serious-do they affect illegal consumption.
In closing, I quote an excerpt taken from an article published in La Boussole, of Nicolet, on December 11, 1968:
Here is what Dr. Homes had to say during a panel discussion at which the medical profession was recognized as a leader in the fight against toxicomania:
"Although we usually speak of toxicomania as a disease, it is more specifically the symptom of a disease rooted in social and economic conditions that tend to create dissatisfaction, sadness, conflicts and tensions in the very soul and spirit of human beings.
This means that one of the greatest experts in this field states that the source of that insecurity is ascribable to the social insecurity from which young Canadians are suffering at the present time. Neither the family nor other voluntary organizations dealing with drugs can do any-
200

February 24, 1972
Control of Drug Abuse
thing about it, since the federal and provincial governments are primarily responsible for that economic and social security.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, so long as the federal government merely takes steps in co-operation with medical organizations and associations to control consumption and distribution of drugs legally prescribed, so long as it does not take any drastic steps to control unlawful consumption and distribution, so long as it fails to take economic and social measures enabling young Canadians to live in economic and social security, so long as it continues marking time on this issue, the government will be channeling Canadians towards the use of drugs.
That is why we are concerned with the government's attitude, its apathy, its complacency in regard to the findings of the LeDain report. We are anxious to know, at the earliest, the position of the government which is hedging behind the report for the purpose of obtaining the votes of young people, whereas I consider saving these young people and giving them security to be more important than securing their votes.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Iean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, to comply with the request of several hon. members and in accordance with Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table in the two official languages copies of a study on marketing in the Canadian footwear industry.



TRANSPORTATION


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to the Atlantic provinces. It arises out of the latest increase in rail freight rates, the eighth in the past 29 months, and the imminence of a further 2.5 per cent decrease in subsidies and a corresponding increase in freight rates. Since these increases have worked hardship on industries in the area and are prejudicial to the public interest I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates):
That this House urge the government to immediately impose a freeze on rail freight rates until a new Atlantic transportation policy, embodying the proposals of the twelfth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, is formulated.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance, now that he has been in his new post for some time, a question of great public interest. Would he give us his forecast with regard to the rate of unemployment in Canada for the balance of the year? Can he give us his forecast as to the amount by which unemployment will be reduced by the end of 1972?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I expect to deal with that subject later today in the Throne Speech debate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I beg your pardon?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. gentleman to wait. I expect to deal with that subject later today in the Throne Speech debate.


Mr. Lewis:: There is no guarantee that the minister will.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to wait hopefully. May I ask the minister during the course of his participation in the Throne Speech debate, and now that he has had a full opportunity, as I am sure he has, to study the recent report of the Economic Council of Canada, he will indicate whether he is satisfied that investment in the private sector in Canada requires further stimulation in order to achieve satisfactory employment results?


John Napier Turner: Again, Mr. Speaker, I will be dealing with that. However, I think the report to which the hon. gentleman referred was itself cautious in that it recognized that the results of the survey were affected by the widespread uncertainty at the time that the mid-October survey was conducted. The report or survey of the Economic Council said that the trends indicated were susceptible to substantial change in response to the alteration in business conditions and the economic outlook. I remind the hon. gentleman that two key developments occurred after that survey was taken. They are the October 14 announcement of new economic measures by the government and, second, the international agreement on exchange rates.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the new minister would not exhibit the deplorable complacency that the Prime Minister exhibited yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: 
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we have not reached the debate but we have been given the runaround for quite a while on this question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister specifically whether he is now prepared to assure the House, either now or when he speaks later, that Canadian industries will be put in a position to compete with American industries which are to receive advantages under the DISC program? In other words, is the minister prepared to assure the House that he will bring in measures to countervail the effect of the DISC proposals in the United States and enable our industries to compete, invest money and create employment in this country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will be dealing with this subject later today. The hon. gentleman will have to make up his mind whether he is satisfied or not with what I say.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



CONTRIBUTIONS TO ASSIST UNITED STATES TO CORRECT IMBALANCE OF TRADE WITH CANADA

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Quiet, please!
Mr. Speaker, has the government had an estimate made of the number of Canadian jobs that will be involved in the further contributions which this government has said it is willing to make in order to help the United States government correct the temporary imbalance of trade it is experiencing with Canada at the present time?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are watching that situation closely. I want to say to the hon. gentleman that I look forward to a good deal of non-partisan support and advice from him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: May I ask a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, following that non-answer. As the present rate of deterioration in Canada's balance of payments position with the United States makes it very clear that within the next three or four months we will be put again in a deficit position with the United States, does the government feel that the Canadian people should be called on to make the great sacrifice of the loss of a large number of jobs simply in order to placate the tough United States Secretary of the Treasury?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster wishes to ask a supplementary.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has already recognized the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I thought the minister was struggling to get to his feet to try to answer that very sensible and straightforward question. Might we have an answer?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Might we have an answer?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: This minister will be just the same as answerless Ben.


An hon. Member:: Sit down, George.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint lohn-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of which I gave the minister notice. Will the minister be announcing in his speech today the new look in respect of the officials of his department that has been intimated? Will there be a change in the deputy minister who is responsible for policies that have not worked?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order.


George Harris Hees: This guy will be worse than Ben.
.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Solicitor General a question based on the documents he tabled in the House Tuesday night.
Since Mr. Geoffroy's application did not specify whether the marriage was to be celebrated outside the institution, and since the two reports that the minister tabled refer to a marriage within the institution, could the Solicitor General say when and how the request was made for the marriage to take place outside the institution?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the exact date when this occurred, but the agreement was made between Mr. Geoffroy and the classification officer. The latter submitted the application to the internal committee of the institution which is made up of 16 members, 11 of whom took part in the proceedings that morning. The members of the committee approved of the leave unanimously. There was only one vote, and it was on the question of granting leave for 72 hours or 50 hours and eventually it was decided to grant 50 hours.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, come on, come on.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Are you interested in learning the truth? The whole question was referred-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 24, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The minister should be given the opportunity to reply to the question.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The whole question was referred to the director of that institution, Mr. Brennan, and he gave his final approval.
That has been done in accordance with the rules of the Canadian Penitentiary Service. Consequently, at least 14 persons did take part in that decision. And they were unanimous.



RELEASE OF YVES GEOFFROY FROM ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF OTHER DOCUMENTS

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question.
Are there other documents, such as another request by Mr. Geoffroy, that include the decisions made by the authorities and, if so, would the Solicitor General be prepared to table them in the House?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously the decisions that have been made have been put on record. As to whether those documents should be tabled, that would be, in my opinion, an infortunate precedent and I certainly hesitate to do it. I wonder why the hon. member challenges my word.


David Lewis: Perhaps I shall be better able to express myself in English on this point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is only a guilty conscience which could suggest I was questioning the minister's honesty.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member says he has a point of order. I hope he will express it.


David Lewis: With great respect, I do not often abuse the rules and I do not intend to do so now. I think I am entitled to the opportunity to say to the Solicitor General, through you, that only a guilty conscience could have suggested that my question in any way impugned his honesty. In view of the disclosures in the documents to which I have referred, when everyone concerned, the director, the head of the education department, the chaplain, the social service worker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might indicate the basis of his point of order. It seems to me he is entering upon a debate with the minister. He should indicate why he feels there is a point of order and I will make a ruling on it.


David Lewis: There are really two points involved. Perhaps it would have taken less time had I been permitted to finish my remarks. The first is that my question did not impugn the veracity of the minister in any way. The second concerns the tabling of further documents. I say that in view of the fact the documents the minister has tabled show that everyone concerned assumed that the marriage would take place inside the penitentiary, and in view of the fact that the marriage was, in the event, allowed to take place outside, with the consequences of which everyone is aware, it is only right and proper that a

Member of Parliament should request the minister to table and that the minister should table all other documents connected with the matter so that we may know what happened.


Mr. Speaker:: That is still not a point of order. [Translation]



RELEASE OF YVES GEOFFROY FROM ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY-REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY

Mr. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Considering that the whole Geoffroy affair is becoming more and more obscure and that, obviously, the minister finds it difficult to give any information, I would like to know why he persists in refusing to have an impartial judicial inquiry made into the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: That question is surely out of order. The hon. member wants to know why the minister stubbornly refuses to make such a decision. In those terms, the question is surely out of order.


Martial Asselin: I would like to redraft my question, Mr. Speaker.
Does the minister feel that, in order to settle this matter, an impartial judicial inquiry should be ordered?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing obscure in this whole affair. The truth has been stated. If the hon. member does not believe me, Standing Orders may be invoked, and I am willing to abide by them.
In any event, I believe it has been admitted that a mistake has been made and, unfortunately, following this incident, the success of a progressive program within our prison system will be compromised, because a mistake has been made, and I ask what facts-



RELEASE OF YVES GEOFFROY FROM ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY-INQUIRY RESPECTING CONTENTS OF DOCUMENTS TABLED

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General.
Since Mr. Geoffroy was actually convicted of strangling his first wife and was granted parole for the explicit purpose of remarrying, could the Solicitor General explain the content of some of the documents he tabled? First of all, were psychiatrists consulted, and how many times? If so, what did they recommend? Were their services requested by the Parole Board or by officials of the penitentiary?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: There have not necessarily been consultations with psychiatrists. There were consultations with religious authorities who approved the marriage.



RELEASE OF YVES GEOFFROY FROM ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY-METHOD OF TAKING DELIVERY OF PASSPORT

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Secretary of State
February 24, 1972

for External Affairs. Can the hon. gentleman say whether the fake passport apparently used by Geoffroy was called for or whether it was mailed and, if it was called for, whether any identification was asked of the person picking up the document?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The application was mailed and the passport itself was mailed to the address on the application form. It was obviously not picked up by Mr. Geoffroy.


An hon. Member:: Are you sure?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would have to make inquiries to find out who did pick it up. I shall endeavour to obtain the information for the hon. gentleman.


Robert Jardine McCleave: A further supplementary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he tell us whether his department was asked to deal with visa applications by anyone using the fake passport in Geoffroy's case?


Mitchell William Sharp: Visas are not issued by the Canadian government except, of course, for entry into Canada, and obviously they did not want to move in this direction.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Can he explain to the House the purpose of the reception given in mid-January in Molson's Brewery in Montreal for a number of RCMP officers? This reception was sponsored by the government. Can the minister explain what that was all about?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Frank Howard: Could I rephrase the question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might rephrase the question, but certainly in the way it has been asked it might very well be the kind of question that should be placed on the order paper.


Frank Howard: The urgency of the matter requires an answer now, Mr. Speaker, and putting it on the order paper would not achieve that result. Would the Solicitor General mind checking to see whether such a reception was held and relate the circumstances of it to the House? At the same time, would he indicate why he was not there, or was it held without his knowledge?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PETITION FROM EDMONTON CITIZENS PROTESTING CHANGE IN NAME

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime
Inquiries of the Ministry
Minister advise the House whether he has been informed by his office that a telegram has been received from some 11,500 citizens of Edmonton and area concerning the change in the designation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? If so, what has been his answer to that telegram?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would indicate when the telegram was sent, perhaps I would be able to trace it. I have had no notice that such a telegram is in my office.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The telegram was dated February 22, and if the Prime Minister or anybody else wishes I am quite prepared to table it since I have referred to it. Here it is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he cannot table the telegram.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is a document that has been referred to. It is not an extraneous object that is brought into the House contrary to the rules. This document is the same as a government document that is used for the purpose of reference.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is expounding a novel theory with reference to the tabling of documents. The hon. member for Greenwood.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the government introduced a white paper on the subject of immigration proposing reforms in 1966, and in light of a very recent report by the immigration department signed by the present Minister of Justice which stated that measures were needed to correct the situation regarding the back-up of immigration appeals, is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation dealing with this vitally important subject at an early date?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the ministers who have been involved with this question in recent years have realized that we would either have to change the act or plug its loopholes, and the new Minister of Manpower and Immigration is giving attention to this problem.
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH

February 24, 1972



MOBILIZATION OF RESOURCES TO COMBAT CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES

Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of recent epidemiological studies which indicate that mortality and morbidity caused by heart disease and strokes have reached epidemic proportions, having taken the lives of 77,000 Canadians last year, I would like to ask the minister to inform the House whether he has any plans to mobilize all necessary resources and launch a national attack on cardiovascular diseases, Canada's number one killer?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize that his question is somewhat wide in scope. If the minister can reply very briefly he will be allowed to do so, but normally the information sought should be given by way of a statement on motions.


John Carr Munro: I can reply briefly, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we are doing something to try to combat this disease, a very serious disease indeed. We are contributing over $1.5 million to combat this disease through the Medical Research Council to various medical educators and scientists all across Canada. We also contribute in this area through the health resources fund. We are also sharing projects with the Heart Foundation to combat this disease.



CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-POSITION OF UNIONS AND COMPANIES ON RETENTION OF CANADIAN SAFEGUARDS-RECONCILING OF STATISTICS

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As it now appears, or the impression is abroad, that the minister considers the two major Canadian safeguards in the United States-Canada auto agreement no longer of the major importance that they were when the pact was initiated, can the minister indicate whether this view is shared by the Canadian trade unions and the Canadian automobile corporations?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I know it is shared by the automobile makers, the manufacturers themselves. It is shared by all of them. I also know it is shared by many other people but they might not all say so in public.


Harold Warren Danforth: Since one of the main or apparent contentions is that the negotiations are based on a discrepancy between Canadian and United States figures regarding trade imbalance, has any progress been made between the two groups in reaching a common denominator in this respect?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is talking in terms of the trade balance in respect of merchandise in general, including automobiles, I assume. Efforts have been made in this regard. Mr. Stans, who was then secre-

tary of commerce of the United States, came here a few months ago and we agreed on a procedure to be followed. Meetings have been held since and I am told that some degree of progress is being made in reconciling the statistics used on both sides of the border. I understand that if you look at exports and imports you have different sets of figures, and that efforts are being made to reconcile the differences and that certain progress is being made.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the previous question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was recognized for the purpose of asking a supplementary to the question now before the House. If he has no supplementary at this time perhaps he could be recognized later. The hon. member for Selkirk has a supplementary question to the question now before the House.


John Edward Broadbent: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, simply to clarify the point that I meant that I had a supplementary to the first question asked by the previous speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


John Edward Broadbent: In terms of clarifying what the minister said in reply to the question, is he saying he has had explicit support from the heads of the automotive companies for the government's original intention to give up the safeguards in the Canada-United States automotive agreement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. I was very careful to answer the precise question that the hon. member for Kent-Essex put to me. His question was: Is it recognized that the two formal safeguards have no direct effect any more on the economic decision-making process in the automobile industry, or words to that effect. That is as I understood it, and my answer was that this is generally recognized by the manufacturers and has been said to me on a number of occasions. Then I implied strongly that other people also believe that but they will not say so in public for other reasons.


John Edward Broadbent: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby for a last supplementary on this subject. Immediately afterwards we will go on to the next matter and I will recognize the hon. member for Compton.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that the president of at least one of these corporations and the president of one other major producer of automobiles, I understand, have gone on public record as opposing any change in these safeguards?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Perhaps one of them who has a particular problem might have said so. Sometimes he needs one of the safeguards and does not need the other, and we have had to make adjustments to accommodate him. I am sorry that this is so complicated. In his particular case he may
February 24, 1972

think that the safeguards have legal importance, but I was talking specifically about the economic decision-making process and whether a plant should be here in Canada or in the United States. My answer was that the two formal safeguards do not exercise any direct effect on the decision-making process in existence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Luc Pepin: They may have a side effect-
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but I feel that we should proceed to another subject.
* *
*



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Would he say whether he intends to use the Industrial Development Bank in answer to the request of several businessmen who claim that the interest rates of the chartered banks are too high, and that it would be time to reduce them, because this is harmful to industrial and commercial development?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I regret, Mr. Speaker, but industrial development does not fall within my jurisdiction.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-ESTABLISHMENT OF CABINET COMMITTEE OR OTHER CO-ORDINATING BODY

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. It relates to the proposed James Bay project of the government of Quebec. In view of the fact there is federal responsibility in several departments-Environment, Indian Affairs and Transport- has a cabinet committee or some other federal co-ordinating body been set up to consider this problem from the federal aspect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this question is being considered in the proper areas of government.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Am I to take it from the answer of the Prime Minister that for the time being we should address our questions to the ministers involved in the particular aspects of this project?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-CONSULTATION WITH INDIANS AFFECTED

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister consulted with the Indians now living in the province of Quebec who have been making violent objections to the whole James Bay project? If so, has the minister communicated this information to his colleague, the Minister of the Environment?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that I am in constant contact with the Quebec Indian Association, that I met Chief Max Gros-Louis about this as recently as last week and Chief Delisle as well as Mr. Gros-Louis a few weeks before.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-DISCUSSIONS WITH QUEBEC BY INDIAN AFFAIRS MINISTER

Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, a number of my questions have already been asked. Is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development also having discussions with the government of the province of Quebec about this very serious matter and expressing the view of his department as strongly as possible in these discussions? Also, is he prepared to give the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development a complete rundown on his discussions when his estimates come before that committee for examination?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have already had the opportunity of speaking a couple of times to the Quebec Prime Minister as well as to the Minister of Industry and Commerce in that connection, the latter being to some extent responsible for the James Bay Development Corporation. During the consideration of my department's estimates in committee, I will be pleased to give to its members my opinion in this regard.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of the widespread scepticism in the financial community about the minister's DREE programs, the latest evidence of which can be found in the econonic report of the Provincial Bank of Canada, is the minister reviewing the strategies within his department and will a statement be made regarding the goals and objectives of the minister's programs?

February 24, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should read the very good article about my department in the Financial Times and he might then change his mind.


James Aloysius McGrath: I wish to ask a supplementary question arising out of the annual report of the minister's department wherein it is stated that grants under the Area Development Incentives Act are 22 per cent lower than last year's claim, representing a loss of 12,264 jobs. Is an investigation being made to determine how many of the remaining estimated jobs are still in existence?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will have to make an analysis to answer this. Do you not have people in the opposition who are interested in research?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean Marchand: We pay for that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister should address his reply to the Chair.


James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East on a last supplementary and then the hon. member for Broadview and the hon. member for Annapolis Valley.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the annual report of the minister's department wherein this wide discrepancy under the Area Development Incentives Act appears, I think it is incumbent upon the minister to give an undertaking that an investigation will be made to determine how many of the jobs created under this program are actually still in existence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is arguing in favour of his previous question.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is for the
Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the serious building problems concerning structural defects and repairs experienced by home owners of the Talvin housing project in Hull, Quebec, and the refusal or lack of communication by CMHC officials and the builder, and possibly the minister, will the minister agree to arrange a meeting with representatives of the home owners in this housing project and call to the meeting CMHC officials and the builder?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: will inquire into it, Mr. Speaker. If a meeting will serve some useful purpose, I have no objection.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON LOW-COST HOUSING

Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister table in the House the report of the special task force which I believe has reported to him on the whole question of low-cost housing, in particular the financing of the rehabilitation of existing housing, co-operatives and non-profit housing? Will he table that report in the House?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there have been a great many studies within the ministry and the corporation, the results of which will be reflected from time to time in legislation laid before the House.


Francis Andrew Brewin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will first recognize the hon. member for Greenwood on his supplementary or if he prefers, on his point of order.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The point of order I was going to raise was that I directed a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs relating to a specific report of a task force. The minister made a general reply. Would he deal with my question about the task force report on low-cost housing which he has, which is available and which this House and the public should have?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am examining the very large number of studies and reports that have been made to determine which ones should be laid before the House and when. That is still being examined.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My question arises out of one asked earlier by the hon. member for St. John's East and concerns a specific project within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The minister has had some notice of this question. He gave me the courtesy of an answer, but in his reply this week he did not indicate whether the order in council authorizing federal approval for a land improvement project involving-


An hon. Member:: Question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will come to the question in a minute, loudmouth. I appreciate some of the problems. I understand that the minister's department and Treasury Board authorized the land improvement project affecting all Nova Scotia which was submitted by the government of Nova Scotia. Has Treasury Board now passed the order in council? When can we have final approval by order in council for this project?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not think Treasury Board
February 24, 1972

passed this order in council. I do not think it has been approved yet by Treasury Board. I hope it will soon be approved.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CO-OPERATION

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the numerous observations made by certain hon. members, and particularly of their interest in the James Bay project, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the federal government leaves to the province of Quebec the entire responsibility for the James Bay project and whether he is prepared to co-operate in so far as possible and to grant subsidies and loans?


Right Hon.   P.E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The question is complex, Mr. Speaker. Of course the establishment of hydroelectric services on a river within a province falls under the jurisdiction of that province. Still, such undertakings may have consequences in areas under the responsibility of the federal government, for instance on the Indian population, the financing method, the export of energy-if that is the intention-the establishment of means of transportation, if the provincial government waits for the federal government to build them. Now for all those reasons, we are interested in certain aspects of the project and it is those aspects that the government of the province of Quebec will have to discuss with the federal government if it wants to have our co-operation.
At present, the federal government has made no commitments.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday he told the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings that it had not yet been determined who is responsible for any of the leaks of confidential government documents. I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman what methods of investigation are now being used by the government in view of the fact that some of these leaks or disclosures took place a number of months ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the same methods as always have been used. I requested the minister of each department in which a leak might have originated to make an investigation in his department and, in cases where he felt it was within his responsibility, to discuss with the Solicitor General the importance in some cases of having the police pursue and
Inquiries of the Ministry
investigation or otherwise-whether it should be pursued by the department itself with its own facilities.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether there is any instance in which the matter has gone beyond the minister of the particular department and the Solicitor General has been consulted by a minister of the government with regard to any particular leak, if I may use that word.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check to see if any minister in fact has brought in the police in any case.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for a brief supplementary. There are only two minutes left before the end of the question period.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is addressed to the Prime Minister. Since the four unnamed, undefined and impersonal monitors in the Solicitor General's department are to monitor security and problems of security within the country, does their jurisdiction extend to monitoring security within the government as a directive from the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I answered this question. When there is any suspicion of a leak within a department it is the minister of that department who makes the investigation. There is no over-all authority of the RCMP to go into a department and make an investigation of matters coming within the jurisdiction of the department.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether we might pursue the matter tomorrow. We are running short of time. The hon. member for Malpeque.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ]. A. MacLean (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. What reply has he made to the Prince Edward Island Potato Co-ordinating Committee with regard to their request that potatoes purchased under the potato stabilization program be diverted at least in part to stock feeding?
Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply very briefly. We are trying to work out a program which will be useful in this respect but, as the hon. member knows, these potatoes would be sold back at a very low price and we want to make sure that they do not wind up as table potatoes or as processing potatoes at that time. We want to be very careful also that we do not short the market and have to replace these potatoes.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. MacLean:: Will the minister be in a position soon to make a further statement on this matter and also on the request which has reached him from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other organizations regarding a subsidy on breeding hogs?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In respect of the first part of the question I hope so. I will look into the second question.



HOG DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS-SUGGESTED PRESS RELEASE TO RESOLVE CONFUSION

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it the minister's intention to issue a press release to help relieve the confusion that seems to exist among the hog producers of Canada when they apply for their deficiency payments? The confusion arises out of the word "other" in the program.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, these forms obviously were printed before the announcement was made. As a matter of fact, as long ago as September I indicated there was a high likelihood of a deficiency payment being made and we did make up the forms and distribute them across the country. At that time we did not know on what level it would be paid and therefore all categories, including a category for "other", were included.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, when the minister is giving this information perhaps he might explain why the word "process" is spelled "precess".



PENSIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Even though there is no mention in the Throne Speech of the subject of old age pensions may I ask the minister a question based on the statement he made several times during the last session that parliament could at any time increase the basic amount of the pension under the Old Age Security Act. Does the government intend to bring in such a measure during the course of this session?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention in this regard, but I would remind the hon. member that the last time we dealt with this matter, about a year ago, we brought in the second largest increase in Canadian history.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Forty-two cents.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 23, 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.
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity and privilege to take part in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. First, of course, I should like to express my deepest appreciation for the contributions made by the mover and the seconder of the address in reply. I am particularly interested in the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took the time to give some information regarding the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher). I note he indicated to the House that this member had sat in the provincial house from 1955, I believe, until 1967 and was then elected to the House of Commons in 1968.
When I listened to the hon. member's speech and then reread it I could readily understand why he was in the opposition in the Ontario Legislature for such a lengthy period of time. There are two particular statements I should like to bring back to haunt the hon. member. First of all, as recorded at page 9 of Hansard, he said:
Without any doubt I can say here this afternoon that the senior citizens of Canada have the benefit of the just society promised by our government.
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the more irresponsible statements I have heard since I have been here. I do not know where the hon. member lives or why he has not received the same type of mail I have received from these poor, frustrated Canadians, frustrated because of the attitude of this government in terms of lack of senior citizen housing, in terms of the high cost of living and in terms of removing the escalation clause in respect of the minimum old age security payment. These people constantly write to me and I am sure to all other hon. members. So far as I am concerned they do not believe they are living in a just society and they are not likely to do so in the very near future unless there is a change of government.
I should like to bring up another matter.


Mr. McBride:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There is the man of the cloth. I read the editorial about him. I will let my remarks stand. I support the editorial fully. It appears that the hon. member will not be back with us for the glory and edification of the people of Canada after the next election.
Let me quote another statement made by the hon. member for Bruce. As recorded at page 13 of Hansard, he said:
When the chips are down, the people of Canada will appreciate the good life that this government is allowing them to live.
I underline the word "allowing". Is that a responsible statement? I wonder whether in fact this is the fact. Is "Trudeaucracy" allowing the people of Canada to live? Let me set the hon. member straight because if they are living they are living in extremely adverse conditions. It is no wonder the Prime Minister has indicated he will not go to the people on his past record but rather intends to
February 24, 1972

concentrate on future plans. If we look at this matter of allowing people to live and the record of the government in terms of human frustration and alienation, we can readily understand why all of us wait with baited breath his announcement of the next election.
Just let me point out the dismal failure of the government in certain areas, and this must be repeated and repeated again because these are the issues about which people are concerned. This government is possessed of certain highs, such as high taxes, the high number of bankruptcies and lay-offs, the high payment they gave to old age pensioners amounting to 42 cents, and high unemployment. At present 665,000 are unemployed. The Prime Minister has said this is a regrettable side effect of the government's fiscal and monetary policies. What concerns me is the fact that those who are deserving and should be rewarded are not considered. There is the case of Mr. Vallieres. For the life of me I do not know what was the philosophy behind hiring him, particularly when I hear the then Minister of Labour condone such action and tell us that this type of person is more worthy than Lord knows how many unemployed of whom there are about 10 per cent to 12 per cent in the province of Quebec. The minister has condoned this action and I for one do not accept it. This is the kind of climate in which we are living as a result of this government's involvement with the destiny of the people of Canada.
We have also had lows. There is the low in the confidence of Canadians in the government. There is the alienation that exists in the west. We all know about that because we have all travelled out west. There is also the alienation that exists in central Canada as a result of the rigidity of this government, and the alienation that exists in the Atlantic provinces as a result of this government being bankrupt of ideas to solve or reduce regional economic disparities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Of course there is also a new low in Canada-United States relations. But then I wonder what we can expect when we find that the Prime Minister on an overseas tour registered some concern vis-a-vis our American friends when he stated that he fears a cultural, economic and military take-over by that country. This is the gist of the message. We cannot wonder then at this new low in U.S.-Canadian relations and at the fact that Canadians have to suffer a little pain. We should reiterate and re-emphasize to our American friends that we are their best trading customers. We must tell them that if we have to suffer any pain they in turn will suffer pain also as a result of their economic policies that hamstring us.
I should like to make a few comments with regard to the employment record of this government. The Prime Minister, in his reply to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) the other day, had much to say about gloom and doom. Surely it is the role of the opposition to point out the inadequacies and failures of this government. If in our words there is gloom, perhaps there is need for gloom when there are some 665,000 people out of work. It is not only the individual who is out of work that we have to consider but, as I have stated continually, we have to go
Speech from the Throne
down the ladder and consider the bus driver, the taxicab driver, the corner grocery store owner and the small businessmen whose livelihood depends on the income or lack of it of the 665,000. We get confused and we say that there are only 665,000 people out of work, but this is the nitty-gritty of our economic stability because without these people being able to purchase goods and services the economy founders.
On page 2 of Hansard for February 17, 1972 there is a reference in the Throne Speech to "our success ... in the creation of new jobs". The next day the Prime Minister expanded on this theme and said:
The large number of new jobs being created in Canada should not be overlooked.
If anyone is overlooking anything, it is the Prime Minister; he is the one who is ignoring facts. The Economic Council of Canada has estimated that during the period from 1970 to 1975 the rate of employment growth needed to absorb the labour force growth and to reduce unemployment to about 4 per cent would be about 3.3 per cent per year. In 1970 employment increased by 1.3 per cent, and in 1971 employment increased by 2.5 per cent. Only 299,000 jobs were created in 1970 and 1971 together-a mere 21 per cent of the 1.4 million we need by 1975. Accordingly, there is a gap of 1.1 million jobs to be bridged in the next three years if we are to reduce unemployment to a more acceptable level.
What does this shortfall in job creation mean in human terms? It means that only 64 per cent of all labour force entrants in the past two years have found jobs. It means that only half of all men entering the labour force between the beginning of 1970 and the end of 1971 found jobs. It means that only 46 per cent of all young people entering the labour force in these two years found jobs, which is tragic, to say the very least.
Since the Prime Minister took office at the beginning of May, 1968, employment has risen by 5.5 per cent, the labour force has shot up by 9 per cent and consequently unemployment has almost doubled, rising from 366,000 in May, 1968, to the present figure of 665,000 in January, 1972. This is the record on which the Prime Minister wants to stand. This is the record about which he boasts.
The Prime Minister admonishes Canadians not to overlook:
... the fact that, between 1965 and 1970-the last period for which statistics are available-over one million new jobs were created in Canada.
Perhaps this is the problem with the government's policies on unemployment. The Prime Minister is now aware that Canada's employment and unemployment figures are available right up to January, 1972, and consequently he is acting on the basis of long outdated figures. Canada's job creation, the Prime Minister continues, was much faster than in other countries between 1965 and 1970. Maybe this is true, but few other countries in the world have a labour force growth as rapid as Canada's and few have an unemployment rate as high as Canada's.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development published in May, 1970, their projections for needed employment growth in their member countries between 1970 and 1975. These projections show that Canada was far ahead of all other industrial countries in

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne
the need for employment growth during the decade. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that these projections show that Canada was far ahead of all other industrial countries in the need for employment growth during the decade. Between 1970 and 1975 Canada's needed employment growth was estimated at 15 per cent compared with only 9 per cent for the United States and no more than 5 per cent for any other country. Obviously, then, other countries in the 1970s do not need to aim as high in employment growth as does Canada because their labour forces are not growing as fast. This is the point that I believe the Prime Minister deliberately missed. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's pleasure at Canada's employment growth rate is rather hollow and meaningless.
Of more relevance is another figure, the ratio of unemployed people to vacancies in various countries. The most recent figures in this regard are for the third quarter of 1971. They show that in the European countries the Prime Minister referred to in his reply to the Leader of the Opposition, being Belgium, France, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom but excluding Italy for which there were no job vacancy figures, there is a vast difference in the competition for available jobs. In these European countries there were only 1.3 unemployed persons competing for each vacant job whereas in Canada at the same time there were 10.6 unemployed persons competing for each vacant job. Quite a difference in this regard.
There is another way to view the Trudeau employment record, and that is by comparing the rate of growth of employment, the rate of growth of the labour force, and employment rates during the Trudeau years with the records of previous Canadian governments. There were several years in the pre-Trudeau era which managed a higher rate of employment growth and a lower unemployment rate even when the labour force was growing faster than today.
I refer you to the year 1966, Mr. Speaker, when we had an annual increase in the labour force of 3.9 per cent and an annual increase in employment of 4.2 per cent and an unemployment rate of 3.6 per cent. So we see that in 1966 Canada's employment growth was faster than anything in the Trudeau years. In spite of the fact that her labour force grew faster than in any year since, the unemployment rate was lower than any annual rate the Trudeau government has been able to show.
Rather than look at all these facts and at Canada's 665,000 unemployed, the Prime Minister prefers to tell the nation that every cloud has its silver lining. Why do the unemployment figures matter, he implies, when Canada's international record in employment growth from 1965 to 1970 is unsurpassed?
More than this, the Prime Minister has recently been repeatedly telling the unemployed that jobs are available but they are too lazy to get them. The great mining centres of Canada such as Sudbury, he says, are crying for workers. The fact that INCO has been planning and carrying out lay-offs for several months has done little to dampen his enthusiasm for this approach to the unemployment problem. The Prime Minister and his advisers, before he visits and insults the unemployed in this manner, at least

in Ontario, should read the recently released report of the Ontario task force on employment opportunities for welfare recipients, especially page 67 where it is stated:
There is comparatively large-scale unemployment now affecting all areas of the province, if not to the same extent elsewhere, to the extent that no area has a shortage of labour.
Sincerely, Mr. Speaker, Canadians have heard enough of the Trudeau government's misleading figures and its excuses.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Canadians need and want a comprehensive set of policies to deal with the problem, not a re-run of the old rhetoric that tries to sweep the problem under the rug and away from the government's hands. "Out of sight, out of mind" seems to be the Trudeau government philosophy toward unemployment.
I understand that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) wants to speak immediately after me. Perhaps he will give some indication of the industrial policy that the government intends to implement in order that we can have economic growth and full employment. I should like to hear what the Minister of Finance has to say about full employment. As I said, "out of sight, out of mind" seems to be the Trudeau government philosophy toward unemployment and every statement in the throne speech is dedicated to that end.
The present Canadian ills of high unemployment and rising prices are the products of the anaemic and petty economic policies of the Trudeau government. The issue now is whether those policies are changing. I do not believe they are.
I know that the Minister of Finance is waiting most anxiously to state the direction in which this great country should be pointed under the present regime and we are waiting with bated breath for his speech. I know that the former Minister of Justice in his new position as Minister of Finance will display the same compassion and the same humanitarian feeling toward the Canadian people as he has in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This is what we are talking about- people. I know the Minister of Finance is concerned and what he has to say to us this afternoon will be on the record for the edification of all of us. I hope the recent change in the finance portfolio is of some significance.
I should like to tell the minister of a meeting I attended in the city of Hamilton not too long ago. I hope other members will have the same sort of meeting because I found it most gratifying, informative and interesting. The labour community was invited but unfortunately did not see fit to attend. If we want to move toward some co-operation, negotiation and understanding between labour, business, government and management, I am at a loss to understand why labour did not attend.
The businessmen were concerned because they were being bombarded by an excessive amount of legislation that, as they said, left them no time to run their businesses. They placed great emphasis on the tax bill which was recently implemented by closure; they also placed great emphasis on the competition bill and its dire effects,
February 24, 1972

with particular reference to the tribunal. They referred to the labour bill with its features regarding technological change and referred to high management being unionized. They were concerned about the poor draftmanship in these bills. In at least one instance, the tax bill recently forced upon us, I know this is to be true. We know that the bill is not in a perfect state and that amendments have been made to amendments to amendments and that there will be further amendments. But the government has the gall to say that they have removed any uncertainty from the business sector and from the private sector, meaning the individual. How can there be any confidence, how can they say that there is no uncertainty when there are still amendments pending?
Another point they brought up, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that this government does not listen to the points brought out in the briefs submitted. They hear the phrase "participatory democracy" and are invited to send their briefs, but they indicated to me that they believe this means nothing because the briefs are thrown in the wastepaper basket. I have already said that all the brains in this country are not in the House of Commons.


Thomas Miller Bell: Not on the other side, anyway.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There are brains outside this place; as a matter of fact, there are more outside than inside. The government would be well advised to pay more attention, and particularly the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride). I told the House what is going to happen to him. Another matter they were concerned about was the philosophy of this government. They do not know what that philosophy is.


An hon. Member:: They don't have one.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I cannot tell you. I want you to tell the Canadian people. What is your philosophy? Where are you going?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Where are you going? You have the whole country upset and frustrated about what Canada is going to be like in the next six years.


Mr. Crouse:: They are going out in the cold; that is where they are going.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I want to let you know that Hamilton is concerned about the economic climate. As an industrial city it is extremely concerned, obviously, about the type of legislation that is introduced, the philosophy behind it and whether it provides any incentives. We do not think that the government has thought about this. I hope the new Minister of Finance will take everything under review and that past mistakes will not be used as a basis for any new philosophy he may develop. That is what concerns me.
At the significant finance ministers conference in Jasper the Minister of Finance made it clear that he really does not have the intellectual baggage to explain new mistakes with new rationales. He decided, instead, to settle down and carry the flag of chronic errors and
Speech from the Throne
shortcomings. The minister said he was going to undertake a study in order to find new ways to control inflation. Such a study is certainly called for. We have not yet seen any of the research studies of the Prices and Incomes Commission. Undertaking them was one of its primary responsibilities. Also, Mr. Speaker, we have experienced two and a half years of mass unemployment because the government decided to fight inflation the old way.
Inflation has appeared again and unemployment is massive. Are we to repeat past erroneous policies or introduce a new policy? In Jasper this matter was clarified. More retainers may be paid and more research studies undertaken, but the underlying policy is not about to change. I hope the Minister of Finance will correct me if I am wrong in this regard. I hope he will indicate I am wrong. The minister of Finance made it clear that he believes inflation at present is primarily caused by excessive demand pull. He said that there should be a moderation in the government sector. While the provinces and most advisers disagree, the Minister of Finance made it clear that, even though 665,000 are unemployed, accelerated economic expansion should be rejected. Furthermore, he repeated the ill-advised and malicious proposition that governments must continue trading off jobs to control prices. He said:
We have to watch very carefully now the balance between the problem of unemployment and the problem of rising prices.
I hope he will explain that.


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would be good enough to distinguish between what I said and reportorial remarks attributed to me in the article.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Finance will shortly be delivering his speech. He can correct me and point to any errors I have made. He said that his goal is to provide a job for every Canadian willing to work but that the speed with which this goal is reached must be consistent with stable prices. The minister hardly expressed himself in the hottest of prose; yet the message was clear: "Play it again, Sam, the old way." Why must this be so? Why can we not have a Liberal government with a new policy? Surely it is not sticking to the old policy because the old policy has proven to be right. Everyone, from Richard Nixon to Paul Hellyer, from Mel Watkins to Rene Levesque, knows it has not worked and that it will not work. We will not get price stability by operating away below potential and tolerating high unemployment. The only consequence of that policy has been human misery, national disunity and the exaggeration of those very structural faults that produce chronic inflation.
Why is the government adopting that position? Surely the reason cannot be that this government is cold and indifferent. After all, we must assume the Minister of Finance wants to be liked and that the Prime Minister would rather be loved than hated. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we can achieve stable prices within a strategy of full employment. We can reduce the differences in incomes and employment between all the regions. We can have a more just society. There is a will in this country, and there are resources and policies available to accomplish this goal. All that is required is a co-ordinated federal effort and the confidence of the private sector. I suggest that

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne
remarks such as that the premier of a province is a bigot will not help.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am about to finish, Mr. Speaker, in case your patience is becoming exhausted.


John Napier Turner: No, go on until one o'clock.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The difficulty is that this government is worn out. It does not have the energy or confidence to choose a new course. It is a government that can no longer take initiatives beyond the pork barrel. Mr. Speaker, this country is sick and tired of style. It wants content.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: When I think about style, I think about what that style has meant, Mr. Speaker. It has meant that the Prime Minister has called several members bums and idiots and said to western farmers: "Why should I sell your wheat?". Style has meant the use of words like, "Mange de la merde". When some young chaps dared to question the Prime Minister he is reported to have said, "I will kick your posteriors." That is what style has meant. It has also meant that he has called Members of Parliament nobodies. All this is the result of style. When the Prime Minister shows disdain for parliament, is that style? Of course, the fuddle-duddle matter need not be gone into at great length. Style has also meant that the Prime Minister has called the prime minister of a province a bigot. You certainly will not make provinces co-operate in that way.
In view of all this and in view of the lack of strategic policies I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas), that after the words "Houses of Parliament" in the main motion there be added the following:
but we find intolerable the utter failure of this government to bring forward a decisive policy to achieve full employment and the continuing uncertainty and hesitancy in the economy because of the chronic indecisiveness of this government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member that I have some doubts about the procedural acceptability of his amendment. It is well known that there cannot be two amendments in the same debate which cover the same specific area. I do not want to be difficult about the matter, and if there are really no objections I am prepared to accept the amendment. I think I must warn hon. members that when one amendment has been voted on hon. members cannot come forward with a similar amendment in the same debate. One amendment having been voted down, hon. members cannot, in the same debate, come forward with a second, similar amendment. I think hon. members should be careful not to bring forward a second amendment that is substantially the same as the first one.
Having said this, but not wanting to be difficult, I will put the amendment to the House if no procedural objection is raised. Is there any objection? There being no opposition to the motion, I propose to put it to the House.


Mr. Fairweather:: No one is suffering from a fire in the belly.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has not submitted the amendment in proper form. His proposed amendment begins with the words, "but we find intolerable", etc. The amendment should be proposed in its full terms. It is difficult for me or for the Table to determine exactly what words the hon. member would like to remove.


Murray Arndell McBride: And those people want to run the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may we have a little quiet from the other side. I am sorry for the inconvenience which has been caused.


An hon. Member:: And you people want to run the country.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am sorry for the inconvenience that has been caused, Mr. Speaker. I believe I indicated that I was moving, seconded by the hon. member for Moncton, a motion to the following effect: that immediately following the words "Houses of Parliament" there be added those words in the motion as printed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is quite in order.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member's motion is to be added immediately after the words "Houses of Parliament" and reads:
but we find intolerable the utter failure of this government to bring forward a decisive policy to achieve full employment and the continuing uncertainty and hesitancy in the economy because of the chronic indecisiveness of this government.
[DOT]	(1250)


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity which this debate affords me of speaking to the House for the first time under my new responsibilities as Minister of Finance. Moreover, I wanted to face this chamber first, before speaking elsewhere.
With regard to the point of order which may have arisen as a result of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), may I say we do not want him or the House to feel that the reason we did not challenge its acceptability was that we accept the proposition inherent in that amendment. It was merely that, not having had an opportunity to help him draft it, we did not with to deprive the House of an opportunity to deal with the subject matter that he wished to introduce.
I should like to say at the outset how much I enjoyed the speech of the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) who moved the address in reply. I think we all found it to be up to his style of wit. It was a telling, very pungent speech and I am sure members from all sides would wish to congratulate him on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT]	(1250)


John Napier Turner: With regard to the speech made by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie), in support of the motion relating to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, I must say that his
February 24, 1972

debut in politics is full of promise and that everyone wishes him a successful career in the House not only now, but especially after the next election.

May I also, at the outset, thank Members of Parliament on both sides of the House who have been kind enough to write me, talk to me and offer me words of encouragement and friendship. I value my association with this chamber more than anything else and I shall try to live up to what confidence they may have in me and conduct myself in a way which will not descend into partisanship.
In assuming my new duties I am taking over from a colleague who has borne the burdens of this office for the last three and a half years. He has borne them with good humour, even temper, fortitude and a sense of resilience, and I am sure all hon. members would wish to join with me in extending him best wishes in his new role as Minister of National Defence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Before I get into the substance of what I have to say, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to call it one o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as a member of this government since it took office in 1968, and indeed of the previous government under Mr. Pearson, I have had close contact for some years with the economic and financial issues that confront us. While I am familiar with the problems, I recognize that I have a lot of homework to do on the matters that are the particular responsibility of the Minister of Finance.
I also recognize that I have a lot of hard thinking to do on the best means of dealing with the central economic and financial problems facing the country. I want to assure the House that about such questions my mind is receptive to the best counsel I can get from any quarter. I start from the premise that no one, nowhere, has a monopoly on wisdom. I begin with a good many convictions but with an open mind.
In my judgment, the first responsibility of this portfolio concerns the management of the Canadian economy as a whole. As I see it, the prime objective of economic management is to obtain the greatest increase in jobs, in production and in the real income of Canadians that it is possible to achieve on a continuing basis. Setting the objective of economic policy is easy; attaining that objective is immensely complex and difficult, judging not only from our own experience in this country but from the experience of all nations.
It is not a problem that will yield to simplistic solutions, solutions that ignore the realities of the world in which we
Speech from the Throne
live. In pursuit of this objective it is important to recognize that the Canadian economy does not operate in isolation nor in accordance with the dictates of Ottawa. On the contrary, the national economy is exposed to many forces both at home and abroad which restrict the federal government's ability to control the direction of that economy with infinite precision.
Ours is essentially a free enterprise economy, not one whose every movement is determined by the state. Certainly, the federal government will play the central role in guiding its course, but every day millions of Canadian consumers-workers, farmers, fishermen, businessmen, investors-make individual decisions in the marketplace which over time have a massive impact on the state of our whole economy.

Provinces and municipalities also have great influence. How much tax they levy, how much they spend, how much and where they borrow-all those decisions have a bearing on the workings of the economic system. Twenty years ago, those two levels of government spent only about 36 per cent of every Canadian tax dollar. Today the ratio is about 60 per cent. Now that provinces and municipalities spend .half as much again as the federal government they are in a position where their impact on Canadian economic activity is substantial to say the least.
On the other hand, our economy is far from isolated from the rest of the world. We are probably more than any other nation influenced by the international economic environment. We are a trading nation by necessity, and 25 cents out of every dollar we make comes from abroad. In 1969, export of Canadian products yielded the equivalent of $653 for every man, woman, and child in Canada. Although Japan is considered as one of the world's great trading nations, its export revenues for the same year were only $187 per capita. Moreover, we are deeply affected not only by trade variations but also by the decisions of other capital cities and financial centres of the world. The actions of governments in Washington, Tokyo, London, Paris and Bonn, the decisions made by businessmen and financiers in New York, Chicago, Hambourg, Rotterdam and Zurich can all have a bearing on our prosperity here in Canada.
It must be recognized that there is a fourth and universal constraint on the ability of all governments to ensure that the economy achieves the desired course at all times. That constraint is the limit of knowledge. Medical men have not yet learned all there is to know about medicine, nor economists about economics, even though great strides have been made in both fields over the past several decades.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I watched the eyebrows of some members opposite being raised. In my last portfolio of justice I was dealing with the imprecisions of the legal process. I now find I am dealing with imprecisions based on the varied biases of the economists. If I thought

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne
there were imprecise concepts in my former portfolio, I find that imprecision is not unknown to the present.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Despite substantial progress in developing policies and mechanisms for guiding the economy, it still remains difficult to determine with precision the state of the economy and its direction at any given time. It follows that there are always difficulties in determining what levers should be pulled, with what force, and at what exact time, in order to bring about a correction in the course of the economy. Then, too, there is the problem of the long and varying intervals between the application of a measure and its effects on the economic process. A further complication stems from the fact that during this intervening period, new and previously unforeseen forces may develop, requiring still further adjustments to be made.
These, then are the factors not within our control: Individual market decisions; the influence of the provinces; the vulnerability of our economy to world forces; the imprecision of the art of economics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: As a result of all these elements, there are significant limits on the manoeuvera-bility of a Minister of Finance and his ability to exercise precise control over the course of the economy. Anybody in my position who yields to the pretense of sounding omniscient is either a charlatan or a fool. I hope I never play this charade in the House or in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: A good many of the decisions for which I now have a special responsibility will of necessity be based on predictions about how our own citizens and those in other countries will conduct their own affairs in the marketplace and about what action may be taken by the governments of other nations. Predictions take some skill, but they also take some luck. I hope that I will enjoy the necessary measure of both.
Despite the very real limitations on our ability to control the course of the economy, it has on the whole fared remarkably well over the course of the last decade and more. Throughout most of the 1960's, the Canadian economy experienced the greatest period of sustained expansion in its history. Like that of virtually every other industrial nation, our economy within the past few years has gone through a difficult adjustment period as a result of the heavy price and cost pressures that built up during the latter half of the sixties.
For me, the most painful aspect of this adjustment process has been the emergence of unacceptably high levels of unemployment. My first and most urgent priority is to provide continuing and well-paying jobs for those Canadians seeking work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Since the fall of 1970, the growth of our economy has been accelerating in response to the progressively stronger stimulus injected by the federal government, reinforced by the complementary

policies of provincial governments. The real growth of the nation's output of goods and services during 1971 amounted to 6 per cent or more. An increase of this magnitude is almost double that of the previous year, significantly above the long-term growth trend, and more than that achieved by any other industrial nation in the world, including Japan. I expect that Canada's economic growth will be even faster in 1972.
I noted with interest, Mr. Speaker, that in the January issues of its "Business Review," the Bank of Montreal pointed out that one of the most marked phenomena accompanying changes in the rate of economic growth is the slowness with which expectations adjust to changes already under way in the economy.


Mr. Saltsman:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister will accept a question at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister wishes to receive a question, he may do so. I have to be guided by his wish.


John Napier Turner: I would like to wait until after I have completed my remarks, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member will have enough patience and I have enough voice, I will be glad to see what I can do.
Over most of the past year, the Review said, there was evidence of what is called a "recession syndrome", particularly among businessmen. The report continued:
Adding strength to business pessimism during the past year, were the uncertainties arising from the very unsettled international financial situation, the establishment of the surcharge and other trade protection measures in the United States, and the avalanche of proposed legislation affecting business.
As a result, it was perhaps understandable, the Review added, and I quote:
-that less attention would be given to the actual performance of the Canadian economy, which in spite of many prophecies of doom and gloom, displayed considerable resiliency as the year wore on.
I believe that the truth of the bank's observation about the growing strength of our economy is now becoming apparent to the great majority of Canadians. Certainly, there is a new-found sense of confidence in the economic outlook for the future among members of the business community now that there has been a realignment of currencies and the removal of the United States' surcharge. There is every reason to believe that this renewed confidence will lead to increased capital investment, a building up of inventories, and other spending by business, which, in turn, will provide a further stimulus to economic growth. In saying this, Mr. Speaker, I do not for one moment mean to suggest that we face no pressing economic problems today or in the days ahead.
We can have a strong expansionary economy, a rising GNP, strong retail sales, strong consumer spending, together with intolerable rates of unemployment. It has become quite clear that optimistic statistics are no answer to human problems. A priority of any economy must be the personal fulfillment of people. Statistics are no substitute for jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 24, 1972


John Napier Turner: No economy works as well as it should if there are men and women who seek work and want it but who cannot find it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Our most urgent and pressing task is to bring about a substantial reduction in the level of unemployment. Our goal, our objective, must be the provision of a job to every Canadian who is seeking work.
I would not wish to mislead you or the Canadian people into thinking this goal can be easily or quickly reached. I would remind you that promises of miraculous resolution of economic problems are rarely fulfilled. I do wish to express my confidence that we will make good progress toward this objective in the year ahead.
For several years now, no other industrialized nation in the world has even come close to matching Canada's truly remarkable performance in creating new jobs for its people. In its way, the growth of employment in Canada is comparable to the fantastic growth of productivity in Japan, although it is far less often appreciated, particularly by Canadians. During the decade of the sixties, the rate of growth of new jobs created in Canada was nine times faster than that in Western Germany, nearly six times faster than that in Britain and four times faster than that in France. Canadian employment during that period also grew at a rate that was about 50 per cent higher than that in either the United States or Japan. While most recent comparisons are not available for all countries, it is a fact that employment grew three times more rapidly than the United States during the first two years of the seventies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought you said statistics were not the answer.


John Napier Turner: I fully recognize that statistics are no substitute for jobs. But if we are to deal in a realistic way with the manpower problems confronting us, I think it is essential to recognize how extraordinary they are in nature. They stem primarily from the fact that for a number of years Canada's labour force has been growing far more quickly than that of any other industrialized nation in the world. The Economic Council of Canada has estimated that between 1965 and 1980 the total increase in Canada's labour force in absolute terms will exceed that of Britain, West Germany and Italy combined by some 20 per cent, even though the present population of those countries is around eight times that of Canada. The problem in Canada is compounded by the severe impact of winter on employment in many fields, by the vastness of our nation and by the limited economic opportunities in some regions of the country. The quickening pace of economic growth is now absorbing more and more of our unused human and material resources. As the expansion continues, however, we will begin to face a new threat to our prosperity, that of renewed rises in costs and prices.
During 1970 and 1971 Canada's price performance surpassed that of every other industrialized nation. But in
Speech from the Throne
recent months there has been some acceleration in the rate of Canadian price increases. Although this is partly attributable to special factors relating to food, there has also been a sufficient increase in other sectors to provide a warning signal. This leads me to what in my judgment is the fundamental problem of economic management. This is the problem of maintaining maximum growth of employment and production in the economy, while at the same time preventing the development of inflationary pressures which eventually could undermine the very foundations of the economy if allowed to go unchecked. To keep the problem in perspective, it should be remembered that substantial progress has already been made during the postwar period in reducing the violent swings from boom to bust that used to be experienced in western economies.
But we still have some way to go in achieving strong, but stable economic growth on a sustained basis. In some respects, the job of maintaining strong but stable economic growth has become tougher to deal with than ever before. Certainly, this has been the experience of many nations in recent years and the conclusion of two major international bodies, the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The problem is that once inflation has been set in motion by excessive demands on a country's real capacity to produce goods and services, it tends to continue to accelerate long after these demands have been brought back into closer balance with productive capacity. Costs continue to chase prices and prices to chase costs around and around in an everrising spiral. This strong, pervasive and stubbornly persistent kind of cost-push inflation represents a new element, a new kind of force working on our economy. Cost-push inflation has frequently occurred to some extent in the past, but more recently it has taken on a far more virulent form. Just as no one fully understands the reasons for this development, neither is there any clear consensus about how best to bring it under control without causing long-term damage to the economy as a whole.
Resolving the problem of restoring and maintaining full employment while avoiding the risks of inflation is a matter of fundamental concern. I have requested officials of my department to take a new look at the anatomy of unemployment and inflation as a matter of priority to see whether we can suggest what needs to be done to create productive jobs for those who want to work without causing an excessive erosion in the value of the income and savings of ordinary Canadians.

There are other long-term problems which we must face. Some are urgent for the only reason that in the world we live in, time and space are increasingly compressed. Changes are quickly occurring everywhere. Tomorrow can at any time become today. Those considerations are as applicable to our economy as to other aspects of our community. They are evident in the scientific and technological fields. They are evident in the outstanding role which the multinational corporations are called to play and the division of various countries throughout the world into trade blocs.
If we refuse to fall back in that race, we must meet the challenge raised by changes around us. It has sometimes

Speech from the Throne
been suggested that some of the steps which we proposed in this regard have created a climate of uncertaincy prejudicial to business matters and the economy. As I have said before, I understand that need for stability. It is in the nature of man and institutions to try to resist change, to cling to the familiar, the tested, the conventional wisdom applicable to yesterday's problems. But I also know that if we stick to the status quo, if we refuse to face the challenges of relentless changes in our midst, there is but one certainty-eventual economic stagnation. I feel there should be more understanding in our country with regard to the need for adopting to progress and evolution. That does not mean, however, that no room should be left for discussion between reasonable men on how to meet the imperatives of those changes. I therefore expect in this regard, constructive suggestions from every quarter.
Among other things, we should consider how our industrial policy should evolve in this world of progress, to achieve a better distribution and a more efficient exploitation of our resources, human as well as material. We should find the means to encourage the development of technology, production and employment in those sectors that offer the best possibilities for increasing our competition with other countries. We must continue to press toward the reorganization of several industries, for greater specialization and production, so that Canadian products might be more competitive on both domestic and international markets.

The formation of commercial policy, which is an integral part of our over-all economic policies is, in conjunction with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) a special responsibility of the Minister of Finance. I intend to devote careful attention to our commercial policy. The division of the world into large trading blocs, to which I referred a few moments ago, presents particular dangers to Canada as a major trading nation and one of the few industrialized countries without free access to a market of 100 million people or more. The unwinding of the international crisis that posed such a serious threat to the maintenance of the post-war trade and payments system for several months during the latter half of 1971 has been a matter of considerable relief and satisfaction. We in this country must now use what influence we can bring to bear to press for a resumption of the postwar movement toward greater liberalization of international trade. The dangerous alternative would be a move backward toward greater protectionism. This alternative would present a serious threat to our economy and certainly thwart our efforts to bring about greater diversification of our trade.
The House is well aware that there still remain outstanding issues involving bilateral trade relationships between Canada and the United States. As my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has made clear, we remain hopeful that a number of these issues between us can be resolved to the mutual benefit of both countries. May I add that I much appreciate the efforts made to explain Canada's position and its point of view by those members of this House and of the other place who met recently with their counterparts from Washington on the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group.

We are also giving very careful consideration to the implications for Canada of the United States so-called DISC legislation. This seems to me to be a rather thinly disguised export subsidy. As an exporting country we must be concerned about the world's greatest industrial nation resorting to such a practice. We have already received a number of helpful representations from Canadian businessmen. My senior officials are now making a detailed examination, with the assistance of knowledgeable people in the business community, of the likely impact of DISC on our exports to third markets, on production in Canada for the Canadian market, and on the prospects for potential plant expansion.
I do not wish to forecast at this stage what the results of this detailed investigation are likely to be, nor what policy we will be proposing.
One of my important responsibilities relates to the custody of our newly reformed tax system. Without going into all the wide variety of social measures which we will have brought forward during this Parliament, I might point out that this new system by itself rebuts the allegation in the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) that this government has deepened the gap between the affluent and those in need. Tax reform has resulted in taxes being reduced or eliminated for 5,700,000 Canadians.
One million Canadians have been removed from the income tax rolls completely. A special tax relief of a substantial nature was provided for hundreds of thousands of elderly Canadians. At the same time, the tax reform provided that those who were affluent would bear a fairer share of the load. The allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) simply collapse under the weight of the facts.
Any piece of legislation that is so mammoth and so complex is bound to raise problems. This was fully recognized by my predecessor who gave a commitment to examine a variety of areas in which problems might arise. I am quite prepared to live up to that commitment and to consider adjustments to the law, provided that those adjustments do not sacrifice the underlying principles of reform, where it can be shown that its application had unforeseen and unreasonable consequences. I have asked the new minister of state, whom the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) kindly assigned to help me and who performed so ably in helping to pilot the tax reform legislation through the House, to take on the initial task of examining the problems that may exist and the steps that might be considered to correct them.

In our approach to the various problems we face, it will be essential to establish improved communication and better understanding between the government and other sectors of the economy in order to develop the basis of better co-operation. We are all in the same boat and I believe we are rowing on the whole in the same direction. What we should focus on is a greater agreement on the means of reaching our goal.
First and foremost there should be co-ordination and closer links between federal and provincial governments
February 24, 1972

on the policies and programs likely to affect the economy. My first task on taking up my present assignment was to chair the annual economic and fiscal conference of provincial ministers of finance and treasurers.
In the discharge of the responsibilities involved in my previous portfolio, I attended, with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) several lengthy conferences concerning the revision of the Canadian constitution.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there consent to allow the minister to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: I want to thank the House for its courtesy.

But the discussions held in Jasper served to convince me, once again, that arrangements, with regard to taxes, expenditures and other financial questions between the two levels of government are the keystone of our Confederation. Such relations are vital for a proper division of powers and responsibilities between Ottawa and the provinces. I shall give more information on this subject in the next few days, when I introduce a bill providing for the extension and improvement of such financial agreements between the two levels of government.
Apart from working in closer co-operation with the provinces, I would also like to take part in the development of closer relations between the federal government and other sectors, such as business and labour. The government's primary objective is to promote the national interest by the best and most effective means available.
So, I very strongly hope to benefit from representations and advice from the business community, labour unions, farmers' and consumers' groups and others on the policies and programs that are needed in order to best serve national interest. I realize, of course, that one problem remains: that of reconciling opposite interests of different groups and their often conflicting views on the best way of contributing to national interest. However, as better communications link us, it should be possible to develop a wider base of agreement on what we should do to serve public interest together.

Almost every decision faced by the government involves finding a reasonable balance between competing rights and claims that will best serve the interests of the nation as a whole. As Minister of Justice, I found that most of the decisions I had to take involved a judgment weighing individual liberty on the one hand and the welfare and safety of the community on the other. These judgments were not easy and, although they were made with the best of intentions, I am sure they were not always right.
In my new portfolio, I expect that I will also have to seek a balance between other claims that may at times
Speech from the Throne
conflict, for example, between incentive and economic growth on the one hand and equity and redistribution of national wealth on the other. I hope that the policies for which I am responsible will help to ensure the maintenance of a fair and improving standard of living for every Canadian without impeding the economic growth that is a prerequisite for raising the quality of life in the nation as a whole.
I accepted this portfolio because I believe that the major issues facing Canadians for a number of years to come will be economic, that in the final analysis it will be the bread and butter issues that count. That is not to say I believe that the life style issues with which I have had to deal in the House and in the country in the last three and a half years have now become irrelevant-by no means. The quality of our lives is pertinent and relevant to any civilized people. But quality cannot be enjoyed unless there is an underpinning of economic sufficiency.
In that context I want to conclude by pointing out that the Canadian economy is not, as the opposition would have it, weak and growing weaker. Quite the contrary, it is strong and growing stronger. I have said that in taking hold of my new responsibilities, I see our first priority to be to provide good jobs for Canadians who are seeking work. This we will do and we shall try our best to do it without inducing an erosion in the purchasing power of the incomes and savings of the average working man and his family. I count on the support of this House in moving toward that goal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) is rising for the purpose of asking a question.


Max Saltsman: I wonder whether the minister would accept a question. First of all, let me congratulate him on his address to the House and ask him whether, in discussing employment and unemployment levels, he will give some kind of target figure. We are interested in the comments he had to make about his desire to provide jobs for all Canadians seeking work, but it would seem to be more significant to give us some indication of what levels of employment he is looking for and what levels of unemployment the government will tackle.


John Napier Turner: I will not get into the game of targets, because I will not be satisfied unless there is a job for every Canadian who wants to work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Change the tax system- it's a killer.


Mr. Orlikow:: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said that his first objective was to provide jobs. We have had for 21 months-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I recognized the hon. member for the purpose of asking a question. I hope that he will come to the question quickly.


David Orlikow: The question is very short, Mr. Speaker. We have had more than 6 per cent unemployment in 21

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne
months. Can the Minister of Justice tell us what he expects the unemployment figures will be by the end of this year?


Some hon. Members:: Finance, finance.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am interested less in forecasts than in results, and I am going to do my best to achieve those results.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Frank Howard: I should like to pose one question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) if I may. He was obviously using a prepared text. May I ask if he provided a copy of it to the Leader of the Opposition and does that account for the absence of the Leader of the Opposition?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Where is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)?


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish I could congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on the statement he made today to the effect that our economy is growing stronger and that his first priority is to create jobs for Canadians. Unfortunately, I cannot do that because his predecessor made this same statement in the House at least a dozen times, that our economy was growing stronger and would create jobs. The time now is for action, Mr. Speaker. What we need is action and not empty rhetoric. If the minister does come forth with specific legislation for the creation of jobs, I am sure all of us on this side of the House will join in applauding him.
This is the fourth Speech from the Throne during the term of this Prime Minister and most of us expect it to be the last before a general election is called some time in 1972. This gives us an opportunity to assess the government's activities over the last three years, as well as the opportunity to offer some alternatives. These have been disappointing years to say the least, wasted years-perhaps even dangerous years to the future of our country when you look at the long term values. In 1968, because of his style and acting ability, the Prime Minister personified the change that Canadians wanted. They wanted a new direction after centennial year, a break with the past, an innovator. The Prime Minister realized this and capitalized on the hunger for change, but he has completely failed to satisfy this appetite in the people.
I remember very well my maiden speech in this House when I spoke about the young people of this country and what I thought they wanted, what they expected of this place, of parliamentarians and of the government. I should like to read one short paragraph from that speech which I thought was a challenge to the government and to Members of Parliament. At that time I said:
For young people democracy is on trial right here and now. We have heard a lot about alienation, about frustration, student unrest, riots, hippies and similar groups within the youth com-

munity. All of these phenomena are important to this House for one reason. That reason is that the verdict on the democratic system by many of these young people has already been made and that verdict is guilty-guilty of irrelevance, guilty of lack of purpose, guilty of lack of meaning for their lives but, most important of all, the political system has been found guilty for its failure to produce results here and now.
That was one of the challenges that faced the government when it took office in 1968. The political process had to prove itself, not just to the young people of the country but to many others. As Members of Parliament we had to prove ourselves to the people. Politicians could no longer get away with some of the half-truths and the old rhetoric of days gone by. I feel quite sincerely that the government has failed to meet this challenge; they have failed rather miserably.
We find that the young people in the country are still cynical and that this cynicism has spread to other groups, the western farmer, the worker, the unemployed, the poor, the Indian and Metis. This feeling of despair that Ottawa does not really care about them is real, and it is by no means an accident. I think that the Prime Minister must bear responsibility for it because it was he who tantalized the imagination of many Canadians with new approaches and style. He brought many people to a high level of expectation in 1968 and then let them drop.
The campaign of 1968 caught the mood and the tune of centennial year, the mood of optimism, of innovation, of the future. Sensing this, the Prime Minister picked up the mood and promised action in three broad areas; first, national unity; second, the just society and, third, participatory democracy. I suggest that these have all been monumental failures, disasters, and each of these themes is returning to haunt Liberal Members of Parliament. I should like to look at each of these themes later in my speech, Mr. Speaker.
The Speech from the Throne leaves me cold, and I am sure it leaves most of the Canadian people out in the cold. It is similar to every Throne Speech delivered since this Prime Minister came to power. It is full of flowery rhetoric and self-praise, as well as references to our great and rosy future. I do not think I am being unkind when I say that I get the image of the Prime Minister as the selfappointed philosopher king who feels he has a divine right to govern. I think I even see some of that in the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) when he said today, "We will look after you; don't worry about it, we are going to create jobs*' and so on.
Every so often this philosopher king descends from his throne, and condescends to lecture the members of this House in a professorial manner, telling us not to worry, that things will be better, that life in Canada is second to none-perhaps second only to Heaven itself. The Throne Speech was full of this and it is the kind of rhetoric that has been given the Canadian people for the past three years. That attitude of divine right is being transmitted to some cabinet ministers. A short while ago in Vancouver when speaking about the economy the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) sais that there was nothing wrong with the economy, that it was in good shape and it was time Canadians woke up to this fact. I suggest that exactly the reverse it true. It is time the government woke up to the fact that the economy is not in good shape. I
February 24, 1972

think the people know that and will not tolerate this kind of approach much longer.
In these days of mass communications, new technology and modern education, people are aware of the conditions that exist. They are aware of what can and should be done. The voter in Canada is well informed and knows that we can do better. For example, he knows that in this country there is a great deal of wealth, technology and education, and that if we wanted to change the country socially and economically we could do so in a massive way and could do it immediately.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that some changes have been made. Any government will make a few changes. We have had recognition of China, a few winter works programs and the establishment of DREE, which was a failure but at least it was established. We have had a few patches here and there on the economy in an effort to fix up the system. That is not good enough.
What I want, what our party wants and what I am sure in increasingly large numbers the Canadian people want, is an overhaul of the entire system; a new system of government, a new approach. Patches are not good enough for most people in Canada. The unemployed want jobs, not just fancy rhetoric or the Minister of Finance talking about jobs that will be created some time in the future. They want jobs now. The farmer wants a farm that is economic and viable; the poor want opportunities and they are not getting them; the Indian and Metis people are tired of rhetoric and want action; Quebec, the Prairies and the Maritimes want to be equal partners within Confederation. Perhaps most important of all, more and more Canadians want our country to be independent, economically and socially, from the multinational corporations. Patching the system will not solve any of these problems, Mr. Speaker. It may hide some for a while and may quieten some of the unrest for a short period of time, but if we do not do something drastic soon unemployment will worsen, the welfare rolls will swell and Canada will become nothing short of a banana republic, supplying raw materials to multinational corporations. I do not think the Canadian people want that type of country and will not tolerate this type of approach. If we do not change direction democratically, then perhaps some of our people will seek change in a different way. I am referring to what is going on in parts of the United States, in Ireland, in the Middle East, in Pakistan, where many people have chosen a different option. I do not want that to happen, and it is not necessary for it to happen. We must bring change in our country in a meaningful way that will satisfy the people.
I want to go back to the promises which the Prime Minister made in 1968. At that time, he talked a lot about participatory democracy. I think that phrase has come to haunt hon. members opposite. I do not think any one of them can say that in this country we have had participatory democracy. There has not been national participation in the process of government. Instead, we have had task force after task force and white paper after white paper. We have had study groups. Now, there are to be white papers on white papers and task forces to study what other task forces have not studied.
Speech from the Throne
The Prime Minister thinks that participatory democracy is the process whereby the Prime Minister's office and not the people, not Members of Parliament and not even the cabinet, decides what must be done. I think you will find evidence of this contention in the speeches made in the last few months by the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) and the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) after they had left the Trudeau cabinet. To me, participatory democracy means allowing people to make decisions that affect their lives. To me, it means more than just listening to people; it means involving them in a meaningful way. It means more than elections every four years; it means listening to farmers, workers, small businessmen and young people, and asking what they want to do in evolving policies that affect them. That is not happening at all, under this Prime Minister. Instead, the Prime Minister's attitude towards certain groups, such as the Lapalme workers, has been made well known. To the Lapalme workers he said, "Manger de la merde". That is the type of insult the Prime Minister has aimed at the workers.
And what did he say to the western farmers? He said, "Why should I sell your wheat?" On one occasion he is alleged to have said, "You are quite wealthy, because I see $20,000 tractors out here." This is the type of attitude he has displayed towards farmers. And what has he done to help unemployment? At an elaborate, upper-middle class dinner in Toronto, he said that there are lots of jobs in Canada for those who want them. That has been his attitude towards the unemployed. When welfare recipients in Hamilton became too militant, the grant given to them by the Department of National Health and Welfare was cut off. That is not participation. Yet many people thought there would be participation when the Prime Minister took office in 1968.
The Opportunities for Youth program is an example of how this government operates. Even under that program, participation is limited. First of all, the program excludes non-students. It excludes the young people of this country. We know that in January of this year over 13 per cent of our young people between the ages of 14 and 34 were unemployed. They should be participating in a program like this, but they are not. According to the government's own sources, participation in the program has been confined to middle class students, and mostly upper-middle class students. They are the ones who are involved in Opportunities for Youth. If your father's bank account is big enough to support you at university, you can get a job under Opportunities for Youth. That is the type of participation this government has had in mind for the last several years. We know that some can participate, but the participation is primarily confined to the wealthy people of this country and to the multinational corporations. I suggest, with respect, that the government listens to those corporations.
I cannot help but remember a statement recently made, by Mr. Rankin, I believe, the president of the fund raising group of the Liberal party in Ottawa. He talked about 95 corporations which are giving funds to the Liberal party. I think the Liberal party probably listens to these corporations, and listens carefully. Why has there been a delay in the announcement regarding foreign ownership policy? Why has proposed legislation dealing with campaign funds been shelved? I wonder, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne
these 95 corporations are exerting pressure. Perhaps they do not want the government to announce its policy regarding foreign ownership. Perhaps the government does not want the public to know about the people who contribute campaign funds to various political parties. Perhaps the Liberal Party wants to fill its campaign coffers first before making such announcements. After all, the party would not want to bite the hand that feeds it. That is the way the system in this country works.
I also want to know how much some of these corporations that obtain tax concessions and tax write-offs "participate". One way of finding out who "participates" in this way is by looking at the tax laws of our country. You can find out about the type of country you have if you analyze its taxation system. I have some statistics before me which tell a good deal of the story. Over the last ten years, one finds that different companies have been paying different rates of tax on their profits. Gas and oil companies in Canada, most of which incidentally are foreign owned, in the last ten years paid taxes on only 5.7 per cent of their profits in Canada. Mining companies in the last ten years paid taxes, on average, on 13 per cent of their profits and retail merchants, who are at the other end of the scale, paid taxes on 90 per cent of their profits. The man with a small business paid a great deal of tax, yet gas and oil companies, most of which are multinational corporations, paid taxes on only 5.7 per cent of their profits. There you see "participation". It is "participation" by companies like Shell Oil, Gulf, IBM, Parsons and Whitmore, and others like them. That is not the type of participation that my party wants or that the people of Canada want.
One can see the same sort of "participation" behind the recent cabinet shuffles. We know that Bay Street and big business were not too happy about the competition bill and certain amendments to labour statutes being considered. The former minister of consumer and corporate affairs and the former minister of labour were removed from their positions. In their places were appointed ministers more acceptable to the business community. If that is participation, it is not the type of participation or double standard that my constituents or members of my political party want.
The second great promise that the Prime Minister made in the 1968 election campaign was the promise of the just society. That, too, has come to haunt hon. members opposite. As I suggested when talking about taxation, the just society benefits the wealthy of this nation. It benefits the multinational corporations. This is serious, and affects many people in Canada. Many in my constituency, including farmers, the unemployed and elderly people, are very angry now when they hear talk about the just society. I was amazed to hear the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) say, in beginning the Throne Speech debate, that the just society had arrived for the old people of Canada. The just society has arrived for the pensioners, according to him.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps if you lift the rock, you will find it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I can only say to the hon. member for Bruce that there are pensioners I know in Yorkton and Melville who would like to confront him eyeball to eyeball

and tell him what they think. This is the type of statement which is making more and more people lose confidence in Canada, in the Canadian economy and in the Canadian political system. The best evidence that the just society is not here is the high level of unemployment in Canada. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Prime Minister can say anything they want about how many jobs have been created and about the participation rate of the labour force. The fact remains that our unemployment rate is higher than that of any industrialized country. As we sit here this afternoon, nearly 7 per cent of the Canadian work force is unemployed. That is almost 700,000 Canadians. And this is not the whole story. We know that when the rate of unemployment is so high, there is hidden unemployment, people who have dropped out of the labour force, women who have not registered for employment but who would work if they had an opportunity to do so, people on welfare, people taking manpower courses, people on other courses the federal government is sponsoring. If all these were included there would probably be more than 800,000 people in Canada who would like to work today but who do not have jobs. It does not matter what we say in the House of Commons or what the Minister of Finance says about statistics. The stark reality is that many thousands of citizens in Canada are today walking the streets in sub-zero weather looking for jobs.
In 1971, an average of about 6 per cent of the working population were without employment during the year. It was not the same 6 per cent all the year round. Different people are out of work at different times of the year. If one counted all the people who were unemployed at various times during 1971 I believe one would find that upwards of two million people were unemployed in Canada at one time or another during the year. This affects us in many ways. It affects those who are unemployed. It affects their families directly. If all these people are included, one would find that five or six million people are directly affected by unemployment.
Any study will show that prolonged unemployment brings about many long-term disastrous results for the country. Unemployment of this magnitude creates a further core of permanently poor people, a further core of people who will be permanently unemployed even if the economy should return to operating at full capacity. Second, unemployment of this magnitude means that the economy is suffering, because it is not operating at full capacity as it would be if everyone was working. We are not producing the goods and services we could be producing if everyone had jobs. There is not as much demand within the economy as there would be if more people were getting incomes from jobs. Moreover, we cannot in these circumstances put an end to regional disparity.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion was established on the basis of an economy operated at or near full capacity. This has not been the case and, as a result, the DREE program has been nothing but a total disaster.


Jean Marchand: Oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The same can be said about the manpower program. It is not possible to operate a successful man-
February 24, 1972

power program when more people are being trained than there are jobs available for them, as is presently the case. The government conducted a job vacancy survey and from this we find that there are many fewer jobs available in Canada than there are people being trained to fill them. These are reasons for aiming toward a fully operating economy, an economy which provides full employment.
When we are talking about a just society we are not simply talking about the unemployed, we are not simply talking about the Indian people and the western farmers. We are talking about an attitude toward people of this country. Again, I wish to refer to the tax system in an effort to find out what the government means when it talks about a just society. We spent several months formulating a new tax policy. We spent several years on its preparation, going back to the Carter Commission and, finally, we came up with a new tax policy. This shows we do not have a just society in Canada, and that the term just society is very much of a farce.
Consider the cases of three men, each earning $10,000 a year. They have no dependants, yet they are all taxed differently because they earn their money in different ways or draw it from different sources. The first earns his money by working in a factory, or as a teacher. He will pay $2,285 in income tax. The second man makes his money from capital gains. He will pay only $844 in tax under the terms of the new bill. The third man makes all his money from dividends. He will pay only $193 in tax. This is the just society of the Liberal government. This is the just society which is being perpetrated upon the Canadian people. It is no such thing. It is just a laugh, and that is why it is coming back to haunt Liberal members who sit opposite.
The Minister of Finance told us that thousands of people who used to be liable for income tax will pay no income tax at all under the new tax bill. It is true the government did throw a few crumbs to the low income earner and that they now expect him to be happy. They increased the tax payable by those in the middle income range and lowered it as far as wealthy people are concerned. Again, I wish to use the cases of three single people to show hon. members what has happened. First, let us consider the case of a single man without dependants, earning $5,000 a year from wages or from working, say, as a farmer or as a teacher. His taxes will be decreased by $14 under the new bill. The taxes payable by a man without dependants who is making $10,000 a year will go up by $56 a year. Now, consider the case of a third man without dependants, a man who is a real pauper. He is living in poverty, making $100,000 a year. His taxes go down by $1,011.


Mr. Otto:: How much is he already paying in taxes?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The man who earns $10,000 a year will pay $56 more, and in the case of the man who earns $5,000 his tax goes down by $14. Is this the just society? It is not my type of just society. It is not the just society our party talks about or that the people of my constituency talk about, or are concerned with. It is the just society of the Prime Minister because he has a different concept than I do. He comes from a very wealthy background. He has the approach of an aristocratic millionaire-


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


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -and, of course, he would give a different interpretation than the one I would give, coming from a different background.
Then, there is the third great promise of the Liberal party. It is one hon. members opposite are very touchy about, national unity. This was one of the big issues upon which the Prime Minister campaigned. The Prime Minister undertook to unite this country, but in my opinion he has probably done less to unite Canada in three and one half years than any Prime Minister before him. One has only to consider what has happened since 1968. Since that year we have seen in Quebec the emergence of the Party Quebecois which won 24 per cent of the votes in the last election in the province. Spokesmen for the government can say what they like about this, but to me it is a clear indication that there is something drastically wrong about the way in which the Prime Minister has sought to solve the question of national unity. We have witnessed the emergence of the FLQ in Quebec, and everyone recalls the events of October, 1970. We have seen in western Canada the emergence of a number of organizations, respectable organizations, which are today questioning the value of our relationship with Ottawa and wondering whether we should seriously reconsider our role vis-a-vis Ottawa. They see Ottawa as a distant enemy, as an institution which is doing more harm than good in their lives. Without knowing very much about the maritimes, I understand that a similar situation is developing there, too.
I would hope that Canada could be a strong country, that Canada could be united. But this cannot be brought about by speeches alone or by constitutional conferences which fail to produce results. It must be recognized that we are dealing with regions which have special problems, special concerns, and individual aspirations. This, in itself, is a source of strength. The cultural mosaic of Canada is something which all of us can cherish. But before we can think in terms of a united country, all these regions must become equal partners. Today, because of the variations in the economy and between sections of society, this is just not the case. As the economy is presently oriented, industry naturally tends to locate in what is known as the golden horseshoe and in these circumstances, other regions of the country feel they are unwanted, that they are discriminated against. This is one of the reasons the Prime Minister has failed to achieve national unity; he has failed to tackle some of these basic problems which have arisen from coast to coast.
May I mention a few concerns of the prairie people? The role of the Prairies throughout the history of its development has been that of a supplier of raw materials, agriculture goods, and natural resources. As a result, we do not have much of an industrial base. In addition to this, tariffs and transportation costs have continued to discriminate against our future development. It has been pointed out many times that with an economy of this sort, which basically relies on raw materials, one has to export much of one's wealth, and this means that jobs that could be had in western Canada or in rural Quebec or the Maritimes are lost to us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret that the time of the hon. member has expired.
222

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, could I ask for two or three additional minutes, with the consent of the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, each of the regions of this country has special problems that we must solve if Canada is to remain united in the future. In my part of the country we are exporters of raw materials and importers of manufactured goods. We export jobs as well as wealth.
In addition, in my part of Canada there is a good deal of concern felt about the future of the agricultural industry and the rural way of life that is being systematically destroyed. Today one sees farmsteads abandoned, the population of villages dwindling and communities that are turning into ghost towns. This must be stopped if the regions like the prairies are to have any confidence in the government at Ottawa. This country has a great future ahead of it, but to realize this future we must change direction and introduce some radical socio-economic measures. Our economy must be operated at full capacity and we must have a policy of full employment. We know how this can be done. It is the case in many other countries of the world today.
We must also tackle immediately the question of foreign ownership so that Canadians can control their own economy and destiny. We must redistribute power and wealth so that the ordinary people of Canada can have more say over what happens to their country, as well as their own destinies. Unless this is done, I do not know what the options are. But one thing I do know is that more and more Canadians might start looking for an alternate method of expressing themselves; and I do not want that to happen because we in Canada are capable of making the changes I have suggested in a democratic manner. We have the resources, we have the knowledge, and we have the technology to do so. All we need is a change in government policy that will redress our problems and change our priorities, so the average person will reap the benefits instead of the foreign corporations or the very wealthy.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I should like first of all to extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. The mover, the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), in his robust way, set forth his views on a wide breadth of subjects as they were dealt with in the Speech from the Throne and as they were dealt with by the hon. member. The hon. member does have an enviable faculty. Whether or not one agrees with him-and it would be an exaggeration to say that he is totally agreed with at all times in this House-he certainly has the faculty for commanding attention when he speaks.

Also, Mr. Speaker, to my friend, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie) who also took part in the debate and supported the motion for an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I should like to offer my
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger)]
congratulations to the hon. member who hails from the historic region of Trois-Rivieres and who is part of a very distinguished line of representatives for this riding.
If on the one hand, my friend, the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) is a veteran, a more experienced fighter who shows great wisdom, on the other hand the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres brings to this House all the originality and freshness of a new member and, in my opinion, he will certainly follow the very worthy tradition of this riding whose representatives have always been most clever.

It seems to me appropriate in entering this debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne to take the occasion to share with the House a few of my initial thoughts in approaching my new assignment as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The management of our earth resources is central to our economic and social well-being, to our national purposes, to federal-provincial relations, and is essential to our role in the international community.
Before proceeding with this question, however, I should like to join with the other hon. members who last week paid tribute to our colleague, the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Greene), for his conduct of this important portfolio which it is now my privilege to hold. I should like to join in that tribute and to say that it will be no small task to match his vigour and grasp of the perplexing issues, and the effort that he has made to bring all Canadians into the dialogue that will steer Canada's course into the 1970's and beyond. We are all looking forward to having our colleague with us again, his being able to share with us, both in the proceedings in public in this House and in private, the benefit of his wisdom and his incomparable good sense and humour.
To the serious and complex questions that are posed in my portfolio, there are really no simple answers. Canadians everywhere are concerned about the husbanding and developing of our resources, both for generations present and yet to come. It is clear that alternative courses can have consequences that would range across the broad spectrum in the future character of Canada as a whole, and many of its provinces and regions in particular.
To cite some of the complex, indeed critical, issues in the mineral and energy economy I would name the following: first, the orderly development of the resource base and the expansion of domestic and foreign markets; second, capital availability and issues relating to ownership and control; third, taxation policies. Fourth, there are major problems requiring new policies in the Arctic frontier and in the ocean frontiers off our two shores. Fifth, there is the question of economic growth and the establishment of environmental quality standards; sixth, the serious question of the need to integrate energy supply and demand patterns and to achieve reasonable energy costs; seven, the establishment of viable coal and uranium industry development; eight, the creation of transportation systems at realistic costs; and finally, but not least, the stability of communities that are dependent on the resource industries for the well-being of their people and the future of their children.
February 24, 1972

These and other problems have brought into sharp focus the need for the federal and provincial governments as well as industry to play a closer and more effective role in our resource development as an urgent matter of national interest. There is increasing acceptance of the interdependence of our respective roles and the clear fact that national policies, to be effective, must be the result of our combined experiences, our shared purposes and our common needs.
We at the federal level need to hold talks with the provinces to ensure that we have a thorough understanding of their views on resource management. It has been for the purpose of establishing such effective liaison that I have already met with Premier Lougheed of Alberta and will be seeing Premier Regan of Nova Scotia and Premier Hatfield of New Brunswick in the near future.


Mr. Barnett:: How about Premier Bennett?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would be delighted to see the hon. gentleman at any convenient time. As the son of a New Brunswicker, I look forward to seeing another distinguished immigrant from my father's province. There is no doubt that the provinces, as the owners of much of our mineral and energy wealth, are now playing and will continue to play a central role in the framing of national policies for resources. I believe we can find ways for them to contribute to the development of international negotiating positions, though the responsibility for these positions must always remain ultimately the responsibility of the Government of Canada.
We must make ourselves aware of their concerns, and they of ours. We need to take their concerns into consideration and, to the extent possible, choose approaches and policies that reflect these interests.
As outlined in the Speech from the Throne and I quote: -a continuation and strengthening of government-industry relations is necessary in order that such areas of challenge as environmental impact and the increasing demand both within Canada and abroad for resources and energy be fully addressed.
I have had an initial meeting with the representatives of the oil industry at Calgary and intend to spend much more time with the representatives of that industry, with the expectation that the National Advisory Committee on Petroleum and the National Advisory Committee on the Mining Industry formed by this government will provide a growing avenue of co-operation between industry and government.
The Speech from the Throne deals in some detail with the importance of international markets for our products and Canada's resources will continue to occupy an important place in our relationships abroad. The government has recognized this relationship over the past year or two when missions abroad have sought to extend our influence and promote a better understanding of resources and policies affecting them in Australia, Japan and Europe. Later this year, I hope to lead a mission to China in returning a visit paid earlier this year by that country to Canada which had a coast to coast look at our mineral and metallurgical industries in operation. Of particular importance in this field, of course, are the relations
25020-15J
Speech from the Throne
between Canada and the U.S., a subject that I will discuss in just a moment.
Speaking in general terms, there is a very real need to accelerate reviews of policies affecting minerals and energy and to achieve a consensus on the thrust of resource policy for the 1970's. These are needed to help ensure that our long-term approach as well as shorter term decisions are formulated in the best interests of all Canadians and to realize optimum national benefits from our resources. I hope to bring statements of these policies to the House this year.
I would add that resource policy must complement broader policy concerns for industrial strategy. It must provide improved social-economic security. It must provide improved performance of the domestic economy. It must represent an effort for expanded and diversified exports. It must emphasize the need for social sensitivity in northern development and, above all, it must emphasize the greater participation of Canadians in the decisionmaking process on problems and opportunities facing the nation in the 1970's. If the hon. member will allow me the privilege, I will be glad to entertain a question from him after I have put my argument.
A delicate balance must be maintained between the economic growth required to sustain a viable resource sector and the environmental impact of all aspects of resource discovery, development, transportation and marketing. The quality of the demand for energy must be assessed as well as the supply, and the tremendous capital requirement needed for all energy activity. What will be sought over the months ahead will be a blending of individual resource policies with national strategies to achieve as effective a balance as possible. Certainly, a set of blanket solutions will never adequately cope with our problems.
I would like to say a few words about the earth sciences. It is of crucial importance to have the facts of a situation before acting on it, and one of the prime responsibilities of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is to provide the Canadian public with the essential information on the earth beneath our feet, which will allow Canadians to make wise decisions on how we live on it, play on it, exploit it, or preserve it for the future. Scientists in my department view the earth in its four dimensions: first, vertically, determining its properties from the surface to the central nickel-iron core; second, horizontally, from the Atlantic to the Pacific continental margins; third, from the U.S. border to the high Arctic, and, fourth, from the earth processes of the present time to those which folded our landmass and formed our ore deposits several billion years ago. From this perspective of information and understanding, they seek to provide us, policy makers and public alike, with unique insights for the future habitation and enjoyment of our Canadian landmass.
They tell us the size and shape of our landmass; they describe its natural textures and man's impact on them. From the days of the lone surveyor and his pioneering explorations in our frontier areas we are moving into the satellite age, with earth resource satellites such as ERTS monitoring our changing land surface every 17 days. Our scientists not only describe the land surface, but its subsurface as well. Through the national seismological ser-

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne
vice they monitor earthquakes and nuclear explosions alike, satisfying man's curiosity by defining the properties of the earth's inaccessible interior and, at the same time, providing the public with insights into the detection of nuclear explosions and their possible effect on Canada, or on the earthquake risks which must be considered in building and engineering construction.
The national geomagnetic service defines the changing magnetic field over Canada and the movement of the north pole, thus providing the essential information for navigation by compass across Canada. The geologists provide the key insights on where our resources are, how much we have, and whether they can be exploited. Simultaneously, they seek to generate new employment in declining mining communities, to assess the terrain impact of pipelines and engineering construction, and to advise on the potential resource loss when land is used for such alternate purposes as parks and hydro-electric power generation.
As many of my colleagues are aware, the 24th International Geological Congress and similar congresses in the fields of photogrammetry, cartography and geography will convene this summer in Montreal and Ottawa. They will involve more than 10,000 scientists from approximately 100 countries. 1972 is being hailed as Earth Sciences Year in Canada. The government of Canada has recognized the significance of these events through a series of commemorative postage stamps, to be issued during the year; and schools and universities across the country are undertaking special classroom and outdoor projects emphasizing the earth sciences.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will quote from a recent statement by His Excellency the Governor General: Our nation's vastness, and the great variety of its physical structures and resources have made the earth sciences particularly important in the development of our country. Those knowledgeable in this field have been and remain, our explorers, helping to uncover the riches of the earth and teaching efficient management and conservation of those resources.
This government recognizes that the performance of our resource and energy industries has been a basic building block in the growth of Canada's national wealth, opening new frontiers, accumulating capital for re-investment, enhancing the scientific and technical skills of Canadians, and accounting for a useful export surplus. The maturing of these industries and their importance to the economy suggests the critical part they will play in furthering the development of other economic sectors as well as the quality of life for all Canadians.
I want to spend the few remaining minutes at my disposal in this debate to cover some of the problem areas of concern to us in the management of our resources. Canada has been and remains one of the most favoured nations in the world in so far as the availability of energy is concerned. We are the second largest per capita consumer nation and the sixth in total energy consumption. In recent years the component cost of fuel in most industrial activity has remained in the area of 4 to 5 per cent. We cannot automatically assume that we will always be in such a favourable supply position.
Much of our early industry was based on low cost hydro-electric energy. We are fast running out of economic sources of supply and the large potential projects that

remain are subject to considerable environmental and capital requirement concerns. Accordingly, we are as a nation increasingly turning the thermal electric generation, either convential or nuclear, and in these fields we must maintain lower fuel costs and achieve more efficient generation techniques if we are to continue to have a lower electric energy cost than most competing industrial nations.
Our nuclear research program and our assistance to electrical general and transmission research at such facilities as Hydro Quebec's Electric Research Institute will help realize these efficiencies. The uranium industry currently faces an over-supply position accompanied by depressed world prices and a consequent lag in exploration activity. On the other hand, current known uranium resources are fully committed near the end of this decade and it is obvious that increased exploration will be needed, given the eight years of lead time required to bring new deposits into production. Over the past year officials of my department have met with representatives of both consuming and producing countries to assess this situation and determine measures to stimulate this activity. We have been in consultation also with representatives of this very important industry in Canada and we hope to be tabling during this session a revised uranium and thorium bill.
I have already referred to the importance of our relations with the United States in the resources field. Our starting point in this relationship is that Canada and this government will continue to bargain hard to get access to markets for resources which have been further processed in Canada to the highest degree possible and to sell them at the best opportunity prices. At the same time, we should all bear in mind that Canada does not have a monopoly in most of these export-oriented resource industries and cannot expect, therefore, to lever massive advantages in terms of price or access to markets merely by sitting back and waiting for foreign buyers to come pounding on our door. Our policies must reflect a studied appreciation of the resources which may from time to time be available for export as clearly in excess of our own requirements and we must know our own needs. One of Canada's energy policy objectives is to ensure adequate and dependable sources of supply at reasonable costs. To this end the government is moving in a systematic way in the development of an inventory of our resources of oil, gas, coal and uranium.
Our trade relations in these matters with the United States will be among the most sensitive and important in coming months. The question of access to markets raises immediately the United States embargo on uranium, for example, a position that must surely be altered if the United States is to supply the needs of its industry toward the end of the decade.
In another area we are moving closer to the goal of full and unimpeded access to United States markets for oil and gas produced in Canada which is clearly surplus to domestic security and commercial requirements. In this connection, of course, one of the most important issues that has been before the House in the recent past has been the question of the west coast tanker route proposed by
February 24, 1972

the United States. My colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has made clear in the House, and the government in an aide-memoire sent to Washington last August stated in the strongest possible terms Canada's reservations with respect to the ecological and other hazards of movement of oil by tanker from Alaska, down the west coast and through Puget Sound to northwestern United States refineries.
The recent report of the United States coastguard dealing with the potential dangers of such an adventure has only served to reinforce the view that all possible alternatives ought to be given serious study before any unilateral action is taken. In this regard we have made clear, with the government's Guidelines to Northern Pipelines of August, 1970, that we welcome applications to build oil or gas pipelines from Alaska through Canada in a land bridge to the continental United States.
I should here comment that a very effective program of co-operation between government and industry is one reason studies have proceeded to a point where we feel that we will be in a position within a year to receive and consider applications for northern pipeline construction. This co-operation should serve as a model for other government-industry relationships.
On the difficult question of foreign ownership in the resource field members will recall the measures taken by this government to sustain Canadian control over our uranium industry and the successful manner in which my predecessor interpreted the will of this House that Home Oil should remain a Canadian company. Anyone concerned deeply about the future of Canada must acknowledge a very real concern about the foreign ownership or control of key resource industries. At the same time, however, it is important to appreciate fully the huge amounts of investment capital which will be required to maintain a viable resource sector that can, in turn, contribute so much to the development of an industrial strategy for a stronger Canada. I favour a pragmatic look at the advantages and disadvantages of any particular investment action proposed for our economy with foreign investment having the onus of demonstrating its contribution to our Canadian wellbeing and to the aspirations of Canadians.
In the months ahead, members of the House will have opportunities to take part in the debate on policies for husbanding and developing Canada's energy and mineral resources, particularly under the consideration of departmental estimates. In my view these questions which fall under my responsibility are among the most important questions to be decided by Canadians in this decade. I will look forward to the contributions of hon. members and of provincial governments, industry and Canadians generally as the government moves to form its policies in this vital area. Perhaps a good starting point would be to ask my hon. friend if he would like now to pose his question.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister both for his courtesy in allowing me to ask a question and for making a statement, so soon after taking over his department, which I know will be of use and value to everybody in the country. The question I should like to ask him for clarification purposes relates to the re-examination of the report on Fundy power. His predecessor made a statement in April last year to the effect that the federal
Speech from the Throne
government would be willing to re-examine this report in co-operation with the province of Nova Scotia and the province of New Brunswick, the original partners in the examination. Over the period since that time, there have been some problems but I understand that they have been ironed out now and that the provincial governments have named their representatives to such a re-examining committee. I am wondering whether the minister's department is in a position to carry out such a re-examination, and if the House will be informed of the type of re-examination which will be conducted.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I thank the hon. member for his question. I did indeed find, as he suggested, a record of consultation with regard to a review of the Fundy tidal power studies. This is one of the questions which will be on the agenda for my meeting on Tuesday next both with Mr. Hatfield of New Brunswick and Mr. Regan of Nova Scotia. I should like to take that record and discuss it with them, and then hope to be in a position to arrive at a quick decision of which I would be glad to keep the House informed when I return.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, might I be allowed to ask another question of the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister prepared to accept a question from the hon. member?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: When the minister made reference to the aide-memoire sent by his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to the government of the United States with reference to the west coast tanker route proposal, was he quoting from the text of that document as sent to Washington.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No. I would have to refer the hon. member to the previous remarks made by my colleague. The remarks I made were intended to be a paraphrasing both of the remarks of my colleague in the House and the aide-memoire. I think I am correct in saying it is not a quotation. Certainly, I did not have it written in quotation marks.


Mr. Mather:: May I ask the minister a question in connection with his remarks with regard to the possible avoidance of the shipment of crude oil down the Pacific coast by tanker, particularly the coast of British Columbia, and the hazards involved in that. Have I understood him correctly to say that his department welcomed the application from companies for the construction of a pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley, and that the department would be in a position, perhaps within a year or this year, to receive such applications? Does he know whether such applications are pending or are likely to come this year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member states approximately correctly what I have indicated, that there has been a program of research conducted both by private firms and also further research conducted under the aegis of the government. We expect to make great progress in the research in the coming field year this summer for the various studies that will be conducted. We hope

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne
then to be in a position, particularly from the standpoint of the National Energy Board, to entertain applications and to assess their sufficiency, particularly from the standpoint of economic and ecological considerations. I do know that a number of consortia have been formed among interested pipeline carriers and producers with respect to the possibilities of a northern pipeline. Whether in due course these will mature into applications can only be? speculation on my part, but I think one can assume that with the very well defined source of energy resources in the north, applications will be coming forward. Whose they will be and the exact timing, only time will tell.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the privilege of participating in the debate on the Speech from the Throne and I should like to seize the opportunity to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. The hon. members for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) and for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie) performed this task with much dignity.
I have read His Excellency's speech over and over again, and I have even taken the liberty of making a few comparisons with past speeches. My conclusion is that the 1972 Speech from the Throne was merely a repetition of previous efforts and that no doubt the results of the whole thing will be the same as we have already experienced, and no more.
In this document, the present situation is described as in a dream, but when the dream comes to an end and we fall back to earth we realize that the same malaise, the same problems are still with us.
I am now particularly thinking of the unemployed. It is well known that the unemployment picture in Canada remains critical. It is a real tragedy for those involved. Mechanisms and programs brought forward by the government with much fanfare of publicity to eliminate unemployment and regional disparities have proved inadequate.
There are more Canadians now having to do without essentials because they are or have been unemployed for a certain period during the past three years. We are therefore further from the promised just society than at the opening of this legislature's first session.
In the Speech from the Throne for the third session, which began in October 1970, the just society was mentioned as a remote objective. This year, it has been left out, no doubt because the objective was so remote it was lost sight of.
I personally believe that the long quotations and the bombast inserted into the Speech from the Throne are just vain words and window-dressing. And that is all the more true when we consider the treatment the unemployed are now subjected to.
I suppose that most other members, as I did, spent the parliamentary recess trying to palliate problems created by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. That is why I should like to deal with the matter right away.
At the opening of this session, opposition members called for a review of the present situation, but in vain. It

seems that the government is unwilling to face a situation which it knows to be bad, or is unaware of it.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Perrault) endeavoured, during the oral question period on February 18, to minimize the situation by saying that a mere 1 per cent of benefit payments were delayed. I do not know what criteria he used to establish such percentage or where he got his statistics, but I will not ask him to prove his assertions, lest I would again upset the computer and delay the issuance of benefits.
I myself had the opportunity of asking for the revision of numerous files. Some of those cases have been solved. But a great many cases remain outstanding and they are not recent either. Some of these applications were filed in September, October and November 1971, and I notice that applications resulting from illness are usually those which lead to the longest delays in the issuance of benefits.
I am under the impression that the personnel entrusted with this service is inadequate and that in some cases the files are lost so that it becomes necessary to ask the applicants for new medical certificates, thus further disrupting the orderly operation of the administration.
In a particular case, a young man had filed an application in early December. After waiting a month and a half, he called me to explain his problem. I submitted the case to the UIC and eight days after asking for a revision of that file, an official informed me that the pay center had asked for photocopies of the decisions of the computer. Now even the computer goes wrong.
Another person, who stopped working for the same reason on August 23, 1971 and who resumed work more than two and a half months ago is still waiting for his benefits, and this after having produced four medical certificates. In other cases, income tax was unfairly deducted before the law came into force.
In some cases, they do not manage to trace back the contributions of the claimants who have to make further calls on their former employer. I even had to call employers to ask them to be kind and please produce a new certificate.
I could give scores of similar instances, but what is the use, when facts are being distorted and all the errors attributed to the claimants.
Last January 26, I received a letter from the Department of Labour informing me that in all pending cases, where it would be found that the settlement of a claim would be delayed through administrative inefficiency, benefits would be paid within the next 72 hours. It was also suggested that all claims submitted before December 1, 1971 would be reviewed within the next ten days, and that a decision would be taken.
Following this, I did not find any improvement and on February 15 the office of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration issued a communique stating that all claims for benefits in arrears had now been settled.
Since then, his parliamentary secretary has confirmed that the situation would become normal again during the month of March. Was he expecting the unsettled claims to disappear with the melting snow?
February 24, 1972

Mr. Speaker, what I find odd in all this is that I received no complaint from officials of other departments to the effect that their pay cheque was in arrears. I never had to complain that my own cheque, which I receive on the last day of each month, was late. I find it strange that it has been possible to organize a very efficient accounting system in all other departments, so that everybody be paid on time whereas complaints have been piling up for the past six months at the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
It seems to me it should have been possible to foresee the surplus of work that would result from the application of the new act and to get ready for it.
Please note that my criticisms are not aimed at the civil servants who do the best they can and who are even willing to do their utmost that their fellow citizens' claims might be met equitably.
To my mind, the problems stem from the administrative procedures adopted by high level bureaucrats in the Unemployment Insurance Commission who failed to foresee the problems that might crop up after centralizing the offices in the major centres.
Today we reap what was sowed five years ago by people who suffered from delusions of grandeur.
I see only one quick solution and I would ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) and his parliamentary secretary to make note of it. The claims that are pending should be transferred to information offices where the reasons for the delay would be considered in the presence of the claimants. Some will say that this procedure could be expensive but, in my opinion, it would be less expensive and more efficient than the present one, because it would reduce the number of phone calls on the part of officials and claimants with regard to the same case.
I know that it is boring to hear the same things over and over, and others have said these things before me, but one must understand that it is worse for the claimant who has been waiting for two months and even longer for the cheque to which he is entitled and which he needs. If only this money came from taxes! But no! This money comes from a common fund to which both workers and employers contribute.
As to the problem of unemployment itself, I have referred to it at the beginning of my speech and, as far as I can see, there is nothing new in the Speech from the Throne indicating that it will be solved shortly. In this regard, we shall have to be content with dreams, as is the case with the Speech from the Throne.
In that famous document, one reads:
-events in Canada and elsewhere have continued to demonstrate the turbulence of this age of changing values and shifting attitudes.
I wonder to whom those words are addressed, if not to the successive governments we have had in the past 50 years.
Considering that Canadians have to pay $5 billion, for interest only on federal, provincial, municipal and school debts, with the blessing of this federal government and its predecessors, I say that it is not among the people that one must look for those changing values but right here.
Speech from the Throne
Those $5 billion distributed to the people would mean $275 per year for every man, woman and child. For an individual worker who works 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, that would mean 14 cents per hour, while for the married worker with three children, it would mean 70 cents an hour.
I think it would be needless to seek elsewhere the reasons for the increases in prices we have known these last few years. No matter what the income and the direct taxes of a person, most taxes are hidden indirect taxes, that is to say they are added to the price paid by the consumer in its everyday purchases.
That is confirmed by the report of the Senate Committee on poverty, which states that 56 per cent of an annual income under $2,000 goes in taxes.
Further on in the Speech from the Throne, we read the following:
Economic security is one of the most effective forces which to conquer social isolation.
But who contributed to the creation of economic insecurity and social isolation in Canada? Is it not the system that gets us deeper and deeper into debt every day and keeps the Canadian people in poverty by depriving them of half their income-even more, sometimes-so as to pay interest to those who hold the power to create money? Do we not see here again that values are being upset and minds giving way to instability?
Imagine! We must ask private interests permission to use the production created by our people. If that is not unsteadiness of mind, I wonder what it could be.
Again in the Speech from the Throne, we read this:
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 it 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;
How magnanimous, Mr. Speaker! One would think that we are in a monastery. There are a number of questions that we should ask ourselves. If total public and individual debts in Canada top one hundred billion, can it be said that our heritage has been wisely managed, and that the sharing is still equitable? Is human dignity being respected when, as this is actually done in Quebec, widows are forced to travel 50 miles and more to go and get a poor little welfare cheque of $5, when it cost her perhaps $6 and $7 for taxi fare to go to that office? When the young fellow who has been told: Go to school and learn something, and your future will be bright, is offered starvation wages when he does graduate from school, is this sharing and respect for human dignity?
Let us take the case of widows and people under 65 who do not draw old age security benefits and who are unemployed. Are these people getting their fair share, they who have been working for many years and who now find themselves unemployed because of sickness or age? What are we waiting for to lower to 60 the age of eligibility for old age security?
And yet over the past years, these very people have entrusted their confidence in the country's management.

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne
They have worked hard to make Canada the best country in the world. They have sacrificed themselves to give their country sons and daughters. They had them educated at the price of many sacrifices to get what? A country in debt and to be tenants in a country inherited from their parents and which they have improved themselves, to be proletarians within an economic system which gives the highest priority to machinery and money. And yet other countries with an average income less than ours are already granting old age security to their senior citizens aged 60 or more. Why not Canada?
This is where this country's administration has been leading us. There will still be junior civil servants, planning technicians and economists paid by the system to devise more programs which will give rise to more problems and drive us even faster in to bankruptcy. Wellmeaning people are being mislead by those programs and this bureaucracy, so much so that everybody is at a loss. As it happened when they were building the Tower of Babel, short and long term programs are being set up which are leading nowhere. And yet our citizens are caught in it and work hard at the tower. The workman does his best to patch up the cracks which have shown up over the years while the graduate works at adding additional steps to the tower to have it rise even higher.
In a different field, the Speech from the Throne stated and I quote:
A major factor in the strength of the Canadian economy is provided by exports. The Government will pursue vigorously the initiatives it has taken throughout the world to develop and maintain Canadian markets. Those advantages already gained by ministerial missions to other countries will be enlarged in a number of ways. One of these will involve the provision of better credit facilities.
This is another masterpiece. I wish that our missions sent abroad for granting interest-free loans would get lost and visit Canada to obtain information on regional needs and give Canadians the same kind of loans they make to foreign countries.
If such missions have been so successful in the past in foreign countries, why not try the experience here in Canada? Our people are no dumber than people in other countries, and the missions might prove just as successful. If so, they might intend to continue in the same manner.
I have a suggestion for the minister in charge of housing (Mr. Basford) in this regard. Why not start activities in the field of construction? We have already financed an interest-free loan in Great Britain in order to persuade the British to purchase Canadian materials for building their homes. I should be quite interested to see what the results would be in Canada.
However, one thing we are not short of now is needs. Moreover, this field is labour-intensive and material-consuming. It is one of our economy's most important sectors and could provide even more jobs.
We now have a shortage of housing, and the height of foolishness, Mr. Speaker, in my province, the province of Quebec, is that they are preventing construction workers from practricing their trade, subject to a fine, by making a working permit mandatory. That is another instance of upside down values and true mental instability.
To start this experiment, the minister responsible for housing could call on his colleague, the Minister of

National Revenue (Mr. Gray), to remove the 12 per cent sales tax on building materials. This would be a true step forward to help those who need housing and to create jobs.
Another way to assist the building industry would be to grant a subsidy on the interest paid upon the purchase of houses for low-income people. Instead, we accept through social welfare to pay for the cost of housing that is often above $100 or $125 per month. We do not want Canadians to become home-owners; we would rather let them be tenants, even if it is more expensive, Mr. Speaker. This is where our management of the country is leading us.
A few years ago, we granted other interest-free loans to Jamaica for the construction of sewage and water systems in the city of Kingston, the capital. Why could we not grant the same privilege to Canadian municipalities whose numerous programs gather dust on shelves for lack of funds or because the interest rates are too high?
The construction of sewage treatment plants would create jobs and simultaneously contribute to the fight against pollution. There is another field in which Canadian needs are tremendous. If extending credit facilities to other countries is a good thing, it might be time to check whether or not it might not also be so, here in Canada, before dashing right and left.
With regard to our exports, Mr. Speaker, obviously we must find new markets and keep those we already have. We have to import products that are manufactured here in Canada; I am thinking of agricultural products that have to be imported from tropical countries. Now, our exports help our balance of payments, but in spite of that, ti will be hard to convince us that we must export in order to survive. Nor do I agree with the economists who in every country in the world, preach that exports must be greater than imports, How, then, could all the countries in the world at one and the same time export more than they import? It is absurd to think that all countries could have a favourable balance of payments at the same time. Before exporting, it is necessary, in my opinion, to meet domestic demand, to fulfil the needs of the people for food, clothing, housing and public utilities.
Until such time as those objectives are met for the benefit of the people, we must ask ourselves questions and try and find out what is truly wrong in our country. Until we find means to cope with internal consumption and succeed in making use of the available manpower and factory potential, we will have to ask ourselves questions. The duty of management is to implement mecan-isms to ensure the welfare of the Canadian people.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out an excerpt from the Senate Committee on Poverty Report where it is said that one Canadian out of four, which means five million Canadians, receives an income which is less than what is considered as the threshold of poverty.
This is a great challenge that management will have to take up as soon as possible, because the gap between poverty and affluence increases from day to day, as yvell as the number of destitute people. The number may double in five years. The challenge is a serious one, and we must face it.
February 24, 1972


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, along with other Members of Parliament who have already spoken in this debate I, too, wish to commend the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) for moving the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. If life in Canada is not quite as good and glowing as he would have us believe, it is certainly not as dark and dismal as some opposition spokesmen have contended. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie) delivered what I thought was an exemplary speech in seconding the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. His constituents have good reason to be proud of his performance. I think he did particularly well in drawing attention to the government's plans to take further steps to stimulate our economy. Effective measures in this area will contribute much to national unity and national pride. It is difficult to feel at one with other Canadians or to take delight in our national identity if economic circumstances separate some in an unhappy state of poverty and misery.
The hon. member for Bruce stated in his speech that Canada pays the highest old age pensions in the world. I am not able to refute that statement, and it may very well be true, but it seems to me to be quite beside the point. The point is, surely, that pensions almost always turn out to be inadequate if they are based upon a fixed number of dollars. The constant complaint of most people whose income depends upon a pension is that it seemed like a very comfortable sum when it was first set up, but shrunk to poverty level in purchasing power because of inflation.
A recurring term in the Speech from the Throne is that of "isolation". In the constituency which I represent, the electoral district of Thunder Bay, isolation is more than just a word-it is a daily reality for many people.-North of the CNR mainline, a great many of my constituents, native Indians of Canada, live in isolated reserves and settlements. Many of these native persons are now migrating into cities and towns and the result for them is a feeling of terrible alienation. The city is seen by them as a foreign land, owned and operated by white men. Social and sometimes even psychological disorientation sets in, and all too frequently this leads to serious personal problems for these people. Many Canadians see only these Indian people who have been stripped of all human dignity caused by severe cultural shock and it is sad but true that there is a tendency to judge all Indian people by these unfortunate souls with whom they come into contact.
Some communities have now set up what are called Friendship Centres for native people. For those who may not know, these centres are social service agencies which exist to administer programs to meet the evolving needs of all migrating native people. The Department of the Secretary of State presently provides small grants to assist these centres. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State is here. He knows my feelings about this, namely that the grants are much too small and that the centres which are in greatest need are not getting grants sufficiently large in proportion to those received by centres which are not doing the same job. For example, the Friendship Centre in Thunder Bay deals with people from all over the region and is called upon to
Speech from the Throne
bear correspondingly large costs for administration and programming. As for programming, the provincial government provides a somewhat larger sum of money but nevertheless, these friendship centres are today facing a financial crisis and find themselves unable to provide the quality of staff or the level of services that they would wish. Accordingly, I take this opportunity to call upon the government to adopt a reasonable policy of assistance to migrating native people, one which will include a much more generous measure of support for Friendship Centres.
On the same subject, that is, the isolation of native people, it is further necessary that steps be taken to improve the systems of communication and transportation among the scattered reserves and settlements in Northern Ontario. It is now possible to achieve this goal by relatively inexpensive means.
The Speech from the Throne proposes that the CBC be authorized to extend its services in a comprehensive fashion. Many of my constituents have no television or radio service at all. Others must tolerate very poor reception and most must content themselves with only partial service at best. For example, in nearly one half of my constituency, television viewers face a blank screen following the national news at 11:00 p.m.-there is no late evening television. I suppose that some here would argue this is not a drastic deprivation to be suffered, but if a person is a shift-worker and lives in a community which offers little else in the way of entertainment, a blank screen can be an annoyance of some consequence. There is a real demand for this service. Recently, a petition was posted in two stores in one small community and within a week 375 signatures were collected. The CBC is well aware of this gap in their service and I am pleased to say that steps are soon to be taken to correct this situation. We have now received such an assurance from the President of the CBC.
The hon. member for Bruce noted in his speech that his constituency has a second channel, an alternate TV service. There is not even a slight hope, Mr. Speaker, that my constituents will see the CTV network for many years to come. Therefore, although we may criticize the CBC for its less-than-perfect service and question its efficiency, although we may grumble about its programming, we do realize that if we did not have a publicly-owned broadcasting system in Canada, many Canadians outside the larger urban centres would enjoy neither television nor radio reception of any kind.
The Speech from the Throne also contained reference to seven new national parks created in Canada since 1968. One of these parks, Pukaskwa National Park, is located almost entirely within my constituency. It gave me great pleasure to participate in the official signing ceremonies, together with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and the Ontario Minister of Lands and Forests. Approximately 725 square miles in area, Pukaskwa National Park takes in some 50 miles of rugged Lake Superior shoreline. At its widest part, the park will span some 30 miles inland. The land is part of the Precambrian Shield, rugged in nature with numerous bays, beaches, rocky points and islands along the shoreline. In the interior of the park are numerous wild rivers,
230

Speech from the Throne
creeks with waterfalls, rapids and many small and large lakes.
In developing the park, the Indian people will be fully involved to ensure that important economic and employment opportunities are realized by them.
So far, I have been referring to the east end of my constituency around Lake Superior, near the towns of Marathon and White River. I should now like to move to the other end of my constituency, nearly 500 miles to the west. Here we find the energetic, progressive pulp and paper town of Dryden which now boasts a modern, paved airport capable of handling medium-range jetliners-this in a community of 7,000 people which serves a district that has about 15,000 people. In this area, the semi-isolation of being located along the Trans-Canada highway and on the CPR mainline, miles from anywhere, has now been shattered. To date, the federal government has spent nearly half a million dollars on the development of this modern municipal airport.
May I add that during the forthcoming election campaign, whenever it may be, on behalf of my constituents I extend an invitation to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) and to the leaders of the opposition parties as well, to drop into Dryden as they jet back and forth across the nation trying to win votes. I can promise them all that a warm and friendly response awaits them.


Robert Jardine McCleave: What about the rest of us?


B. Keith Penner: As long as you do not all come at once, if you spread out your visits over a period of time, we will make the best possible arrangements for you.
The Speech from the Throne states that the government will continue to develop programs to strengthen secondary industry. I say to this government that the economic growth and development of Northwestern Ontario depends in large measure on lower freight rates. Freight rate incentives would assist this region to attract resource processing and manufacturing industries, as well as stimulating the existing primary and resource oriented sectors. Remote geographical location and low population density contribute to an inequality of opportunity, which we have always had to live with, but it seriously affects our ability to compete with other parts of Canada and abroad. Long haul distances significantly increase the selling price of goods and materials in the marketplace.
As most hon. members know, the pulp industry has suffered badly in recent years and prospects for 1972 do not appear much better. Pulp markets are in considerable oversupply and no realignment is in sight. Many one-industry pulp and paper communities are now living under the cloud of threatened lay-offs and even permanent shutdowns. The industry is, relatively speaking, labour-intensive; wages are reasonably good and working conditions are generally fair to good. My constituents have taken note of the generous treatment extended to prairie wheat growers with the recently announced two-price system. We approve of this and the assistance offered to the Canadian book publishing industry, but we want to know, in this government's design of a so-called "industrial strategy", what consideration is being given to

the pulp and paper industry. Hopefully, it is not a policy of assisting in the establishment of new mills while allowing older mills to close their doors, thereby causing the death of communities, with all the social waste involved as well as the dislocation of thousands of people.
The electoral district of Thunder Bay is a resource-rich region of Canada. I was pleased to hear this afternoon the speech of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), and I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the member for Rosedale on his recent appointment to this most important portfolio.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


B. Keith Penner: We are looking forward to his forthcoming visit, his non-political visit, to Northwestern Ontario to see some of the mines there in operation.
Mining is one of the big industries in Northwestern Ontario. It is a risky enterprise which helps to open up the north. It is true that this industry gets a special tax deal, and that under the new tax legislation it will continue to receive favourable treatment provided an investment is made in the first place. I note that periodically members of parliament from both sides of the House, and also would-be experts in the academic world, call for a fostering of job-intensive industries in preference to the resource industries. Usually, the people who advocate this policy as part of an industrial strategy come from large cities like Toronto or Montreal. I appreciate their sincerity in wanting to see many more jobs created quickly, and with that I have no quarrel. One problem is, of course, that fostering job-intensive industries means the continuing rapid growth of large urban centres, while the hinterland of Canada remains dormant. I suppose that ecological pantheists who equate God with nature may cheer at this prospect, but urbanologists must shriek with despair at the thought of cities expanding endlessly and relentlessly.
The fact is that we in the more remote areas of this country also want a part of the action. We resent very strongly undue exploitation of any kind, whether that exploitation is directed from Wall Street or Bay Street. What we want is an orderly, rational development of our resources, taking into account the wisdom of conservation and the necessity for environmental protection and preservation. Thus, we regard it as being callous indeed to say that there should be no development at all, little or no investment in resource industries.
The development of the Mattabi mine on Lake Sturgeon has given the little railroad and tourist town of Ignace a big lift. A town plan has been drawn up, and the building of many new homes offers the promise of the good life to these people in Northwestern Ontario without it being necessary for them or their children to migrate to the choking atmosphere of Toronto or some other large centre. There are other communities, such as Geraldton, Nakina, Armstrong and Beardmore, that look forward to the day when some of the mining exploration that has been going on for years around those towns leads to development, production and job opportunities, with the growth of these communities and their economies.
One of the characteristics of being a Canadian is having the ability to meet the challenges of living in a northern
February 24, 1972

environment, not in any simple, primitive condition, but in an advanced civilization in which we make use of the many tools and techniques of modern industry to provide for ourselves a high standard of living. We in the north want to share in these benefits.
On another subject, Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne promises that parliament will have the opportunity to consider a new Canada Labour Code. One of the most controversial aspects of this proposed legislation has been the technological change provisions, which would provide the trade unions with notice of all significant technological changes and, in carefully defined circumstances, permit them to negotiate during the lifetime of an agreement provisions designed to assist employees in adjusting to the effects of technological change. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has officially opposed these provisions, saying that they would jeopardize the economic well being of industry and Canadians generally.
There is another important and strong argument on the other side, however, and this counterview has been well expressed by the small Chamber of Commerce located in the little railroad town of Nakina, in my constituency. Recently, they took it upon themselves to write a letter to the national president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in which they took the opposite view to what their parent body has said about the proposed Canada Labour Code and the technological change provisions. I think the House should hear what they had to say, because what they said comes from first-hand experience. The letter reads:
Our small community has had two close brushes with "technological change" when the CNR attempted to run-through in 1964 and again in 1969. We know too well the results of such changes when not brought on with care and consideration of all things concerned.
If the CNR run-through had taken place-and we don't know that it still won't-it would have left Nakina with one-third fewer residents and the reduction of earning power by almost one-half. The result would have been fewer tax dollars coming into the town office, businesses would have had to cut staff drastically, with some merchants fearing they would have to fold, thus causing an even greater loss of employment.
Technological change is inevitable, but to do it in a haphazard way, not taking into account the employees and communities involved, is to seriously jeopardize our "economic well being". We believe that unions should have the right to stall change, if only until the signing of the next collective agreement, so that technological change may be bargained about sensibly and brought on smoothly by minimizing the adverse effects.
It is with these people that I will take my stand because I experienced this run-through threat in 1969. A former Member of Parliament from another party had this same experience in 1964. The point made in that letter is a good one. We hope the government will proceed with this part of the Canada Labour Code and see it through.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: As a final point, Mr. Speaker, I note that the Speech from the Throne speaks of policies designed to promote tourism in Canada. Tourism is another important industry in Northwestern Ontario, and we welcome all efforts by the federal government which will further assist in its growth and development. It is most important,
Speech from the Throne
however, that the economic benefits from this industry accrue mainly to Canadians.
In this regard, hon. members may recall the stir and fuss raised by elected representatives from Northwestern Ontario concerning U.S. licensed aircraft operators flying sportsmen into our region and reaping rich rewards from our resources. They were profiteers of the worst kind from south of the border, taking all they could get and contributing nothing to either the regional economy or the national economy. As a consequence of the concern and activity of many persons in Northwestern Ontario over a protracted period of time, the air transport committee of the Canadian Transportation Commission in December 1970 placed restrictions on these U.S. licensed aircraft operators. They were permitted to make two traffic stops only, one at the customs port of entry and the other at a licensed base of a Canadian chartered commercial air carrier. We considered this to be a significant victory for Canada and Canadians but, alas, our hurrahs were shouted a little too soon.
In May of last year, an American operator, Frank E. Bohman of Minnesota, applied for a review of the order of the air transport committee. On August 27, the review board, despite strong arguments from elected representatives and various departments of the government of Ontario, amended its order governing U.S. carriers of fishermen and hunters into our region. Although some restrictions are still in effect, they are so watered-down that the only possible interpretation is that what we now have is another Canadian sellout. The efforts of those of us who spoke against Bohman and in defence of Canadian enterprise and our own resources were labelled by the Canadian lawyer representing this American profiteer as jingoists. When the economic history of Canada during the 70's is written, the infamous Bohman case may well be indexed under the heading of "Our National Shame". This, of course, was not a government decision. I recognize that. I had the impression, however, that the Canadian Transport Commission and the air transport committee existed for the wellbeing of Canada and Canadians. The Bohman case causes me to have second thoughts about that.
The Throne Speech debate is a good opportunity for all hon. members to comment favourably or otherwise about the times in which we live. Like artists, we take brush to canvas and paint our pictures, bright or dark. In reality, the scene is one of contrast, for as the Prime Minister said in his New Year's address to the nation, quoting the opening lines from Dicken's novel "A Tale of Two Cities"-"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times".
Horace Greely, in his "American Conflict", remarked that the illusion that times that were are better than those that are, has probably pervaded all ages. However, we see the picture of our times, this Parliament has a great deal of work to do for the betterment of our nation and for the well-being of its citizens.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, a year ago, during a visit to the Port of Saint John, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) gave certain undertakings with regard to an automobile and forest products facility known in our area as Pier 14A. Although many of us hoped it would be within the ability of the
25020-16!

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne
provincial government of New Brunswick to provide this pier, it has proved to be beyond the capacity of that province. I urge the Minister of Transport, in this preliminary way, to take a new look at the need for this facility and to live up, if I can put it that way, to the undertaking he gave to our province and people a year ago.
The second aspect, and then I will get to the main thrust of my speech, concerns both the province of New Brunswick and many who live along the Bay of Fundy. I refer to the 15 cent oil levy which is to be exacted as a result of an order in council passed because last year we amended the Canada Shipping Act. The major problem here is that inward and outbound fuel oil will, in a sense, be double taxed. Also, there should be a cutoff time once the Maritime pollution fund is built up. Industry and the public should have an assurance about this. Once again, we see that the people who live in a particular part of Canada are paying a particular price because of the fact they live along the seaboard.
Lastly, a motion in my name about the need to ensure improvements in the domestic feed grain and marketing system will be debated later. I do not want to be out of order by discussing it now. It remains a continuing source of frustration and irritation for our eastern Canadian farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I propose to outline and comment upon the significance for Canadian publishers and the general public of Canada's non-adherence to the UNESCO agreement on the importation of educational, scientific and cultural materials, the Florence agreement, which has been operating since 1952.1 accept the fact that there is a certain risk in speaking about this issue because perhaps publishing and the distribution or free flow of knowledge is not usually expected to be a popular subject in the parliamentary sense. I want to acknowledge the help and interest of Mr. Paul Thomas, a parliamentary intern, in gathering a good deal of the data to support the remarks I make today. I am sure any of us who have had the privilege of having the assistance of parliamentary interns want to compliment the donor foundation for its generosity and want to say a special word for these young people who have added immeasurably to the zest and interest in the parliamentary process.
The main purpose of the agreement is to help fulfil a basic aim of UNESCO, as set forth in its constitution, "to promote the free flow of ideas by word and image". The agreement aims to reduce tariff and trade obstacles to the international circulation of educational, scientific and cultural materials, principally by means of contracting states forgoing custom duties on such materials. Many categories of printed materials are covered by the agreement, but the most important category is books. The United Nations lists 63 countries as applying the Florence Agreement. Unfortunately, our country is not among these.
Canada has not signed the Florence Agreement according to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). In answer to a question of mine on June 30, 1971, as recorded at page 7510 of Hansard, it has not been considered to be in Canada's interest to abandon the
limited protection offered domestic producers against imports of certain educational, scientific and cultural materials, as long as important trading partners maintained barriers against Canadian exports of these materials. The minister went on to say that Canada's accession to the agreement was under continuous review. The principal non-tariff barrier to Canadian book exports is the United States manufacturing clause. In the U.S. Copyright Act the phrase "Manufactured in the United States" means that the type must be set, plates made, sheets printed and books or periodicals bound in that country. The manufacturing clause provides that any work in the English language that is first published in the United States must be manufactured there if United States copyright protection is to be obtained. This holds true regardless of the nationality or residence of the author.
Any English language work first published abroad, and written by a foreign author residing abroad, need not be manufactured in the United States if copyright protection is to be obtained. Thus, the clause has no effect on a Canadian writing in Canada and selling into the United States. For an American writing and publishing abroad, there is a limit of 2,000 imported copies on which copyright protection can be obtained. A new United States copyright law has been under consideration in Congress for several sessions. In the 90th Congress, bill HR 2512 would have eased the provisions of the manufacturing clause somewhat. For example, the requirement of U.S. manufacture would no longer apply where at least a substantial part of the work has been written by a foreign author or, under certain conditions, by an American residing abroad. Moreover, a violation of the manufacturing clause would not jeopardize, as it now does, the protection of non-publication subsidiary rights such as dramatic television and motion picture rights. This bill, however, has apparently not been acted upon in the present 91st Congress because the responsible Senate subcommittee is trying to untangle the copyright problems raised by cable television. Pending revision of the United States law, Canadian book sellers and printers have pressed successive governments to seek a special exemption in exchange, perhaps, for Canada's removal of duty on United States books.
Canada now levies a 10 per cent duty on imported books. The percentage is of the cost of the book. There is provision in the Custom and Excise Act for exemption of certain categories of books. Technical books, for example, are exempt from duty, but the act does not define this term; its application is left to customs officials. Curious anomalies arise because of the imprecision of the act. The book by Manchester, The Death of a President, was first classified as a biographical work, subject to the 10 per cent surcharge. Later, it was reclassified as history and became exempt. Books adopted on university courses are also exempt. If a book is sold to an educational institution, the bookseller may apply for a rebate, though many do not because of the time and red tape involved in dealing with the customs department.
Mr. Barry Britnell, Chairman of the Copyright Committee of the Canadian Booksellers Association, stated that practically all of Britnell's books come in duty-free, but partly because he takes the time to seek exemptions. As an explanation of the price differential between Canadian

February 24, 1972

and United States copies of books, the duty does not appear to be all that significant. While pricing policies vary, Mr. Britnell stated that some publishers spread their duty across all their books, non-exempt and exempt, so that the increase in price would be less than 10 per cent on any one book. Mr. Britnell felt that some publishers did use the duty as an excuse to maintain prices at levels slightly higher than warranted.
There are more important factors at work than the surcharge causing higher book prices in Canada. At various times the following factors have been of greater or lesser significance: higher distribution costs in a relatively sparsely populated country, costs of providing additional services, catalogues, promotion for imported books, the current exchange rates in some cases, provincial sales tax, financing difficulties of Canadian publishers, brokerage fees, and the schedule of discounts that a principal offers a Canadian agent.
I admitted at the outset that it is risky to discuss a subject like this, but I feel the issue perhaps is important enough to have it on the record. Perhaps following the comments I make, those in this field will be able to make some comments and criticisms of the proposals I make and the issue of the free flow of books in the world, so the adherence to the Florence Agreement will thus become an acceptable policy to the government of Canada.
The various sectors of the book business appear to be divided over the appropriate course for Canada to follow with regard to free trade in books. The Canadian Book Publishers Council on January 27, 1972 passed a resolution requesting the government of Canada to seek an exemption from the manufacturing clause in a revised U.S. Copyright Act as a stimulus to the unrestricted flow of books into the United States from Canada, as is presently the situation in the reverse direction. The members of the Canadian Independent Publishers Association headed by Peter Martin regard the CBP as effectively controlled by foreign subsidiaries of United States publishing houses and, therefore, insensitive to the issue of publishing Canadian materials. This group apparently regards the copyright issue as of minor importance compared to the more urgent issue of the survival of a Canadian book publishing industry.
The Canadian Booksellers Association takes the position that adherence to the Florence Agreement should follow the securing of an exemption from the United States manufacturing clause. There is a feeling in this group that the Canadian surcharge attempts to protect Canadian publishers in an ineffective manner by raising the price of United States books. This point is made in the brief by W. H. Smith & Sons to the Ontario Royal Commission on Book Publishing where it is stated:
This tax is levied on the supposition that it in some way supports the Canadian book industry. This is not so and we suggest that it should be removed. The funds raised by this tax are not reinvested in the industry, but go into the general revenue of the government. It does not positively assist the Canadian publisher. It simply makes American books more expensive and so the only loser is the Canadian purchaser and reader.
All three groups point out that Canadian international copyright law gives copyright protection to a foreign publisher wishing to sell his books in Canada, regardless of where they are manufactured. Thus, there is no economic
Speech from the Throne
incentive for a foreign published book to be made in Canada, even if it is a best seller with a volume that would be attractive to a Canadian manufacturer.
I should like to discuss for a minute some of the major problems of the publishing industry in our country, and then make some suggestions about that. Public concern about the survival of a Canadian publishing industry has been aroused by such recent events as the sale of two Canadian publishing firms to Americans; the announcement by McClelland & Stewart Limited of its financial difficulties and the decision of the Ontario government to provide $1 million in no interest debentures to avert the possible bankruptcy or sale of the company to American interests; the hearings of the Ontario Royal Commission on Book Publishing; the publication of the study of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on "The Canadian Book Industry"; the warnings of the Davey Committee on the Mass Media about the declining health of the industry; and the criticisms from the industry that the federal government has made no plans to use the occasion of International Book Year, 1972 to stimulate interest in books and to launch a co-ordinated policy of support for Canadian publishing.
I should like also to refer to the recent revelation that the Secretary of State's (Mr. Pelletier) proposals to cabinet for assistance to Canadian publishing had apparently been considerably narrowed down within the cabinet, and, most recently, the announcement by the Secretary of State pending the development of the government's long term policies. The major problems of the book industry in Canada include: the high percentage of imported books consumed; the distribution problems encountered by Canadian publishers; the absence of a real Canadian presence in certain fields of publishing such as the mass paperback market and children's books; the difficulties faced by publishers in obtaining operating capital; the practice of Canadian libraries and educational institutions of dealing with foreign book distributors who have larger stocks but fewer Canadian titles; the limited export markets due to such factors as U.S. copyright law; and the peculiarities of a market served by French and English language publishing industries operating under different conditions, through different techniques, and, to some extent, with differing philosophies. Each of these problems will be discussed briefly, and then I will try to make some assessment of the government's recent proposals.
The ITC study of 1969 states that the Canadian book industry is made up of about 300 organizations publishing books and approximately 25 manufacturers whose principal activity is manufacturing books. Of these, about 100 publishers account for virtually all books authored or adapted and manufactured in Canada.
Of the estimated $222 million worth of books at publisher's sales value consumed by Canadians in 1969, 65 per cent were imported books, 25 per cent were Canadian published and manufactured books, and 10 per cent were adapted books manufactured in Canada. On a language basis, 52 per cent of books sold in English Canada are direct imports, 14 per cent are adaptations, and only 34 per cent are produced and published in Canada. Of these, 80 per cent are published by foreign controlled firms, so

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne
that only 5 per cent of all English language books sold are authored, published and manufactured by Canadian controlled publishers. Only 30 per cent of the French language books are locally produced. I apologize for these statistics, but I think that in the context of these remarks it might be interesting to have them in some form on the record.
Of the $144.8 million worth of imported books consumed in Canada in 1969, 80 per cent came from the U.S.A. Since 1966 the volume of U.S. books imported has risen by 57.6 per cent, a scant 8 per cent and 7 per cent respectively come from Great Britain and France; about 58 per cent of the imported books were distributed by Canadian publishers, and the remaining 42 per cent were sold directly to Canadian wholesalers and institutions.
The ITC study also notes that the value added by book manufacturing and publishing accounted for .09 per cent of the 1969 Canadian gross national product. The contribution is approximately one third of the contribution made by the book industries in leading book publishing countries, and that fact might well be underlined. During the year 1969, the Canadian book industry exported only $5.5 million worth of books. Destination of exports is not given, but presumably a high percentage goes to the United States.
The English language industry has several large firms, but is principally dominated by a number of small firms having less than $2 million sales volume and relatively low capital investment. Larger firms earned more money and the small firms were in the vulnerable position of earning very marginal returns. Canadian publishers make most of their profits by acting as agents for foreign publishers. Canadian books tend to lose money. According to Paul Audley, Macmillan of Canada has been instructed by the British parent to cut back on its publication of Canadian works for precisely this reason. The respondents to the ITC survey cited capital availability as the greatest advantage of an agency relationship. In an argument familiar to the broadcasting situation, it is argued that imports in effect subsidize less popular Canadian books.
Canadian publishers also made profits by printing long runs of standard school text books. For the ITC sample, textbooks represented 65 per cent of total sales in English, somewhat lower than in the French language sector. This source of revenue is being undermined by increased competition from foreign sources through the "buying around the agent" practice. This involves placing institutional orders directly with foreign distributors, who carry large inventories, have sophisticated processing procedures, and buy in bulk at reduced prices. Often this means that institutions are buying American or French books. Moreover, there is a general reluctance among foreign publishers to modify their textbooks to suit Canadian conditions. This is a very urgent point.
Canadian owned publishers produced only 46 per cent and 45 per cent of Canadian elementary and secondary textbook sales respectively. I do not suppose many people in Canada are aware of this fact. Only 9 per cent of post secondary textbooks were produced by Canadian owned publishers. Ryerson Press and W. J. Gage Limited, both recently sold to American firms, accounted for a great part of this textbook production, and now there are only
[Mr. Fairweather.)
two Canadian owned houses that do any significant amount of textbook publishing.
This is a somewhat long and boring speech about an interest that has come to me because I reviewed a book once published in the U.S.A. on the life of an American ambassador, Chester Bowles. The sale price in the United States was $12.95 and in Canada $18.75. I commented on this differential and I have had a flood of information from interested people since. So, I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, you have to put up with this; I am sorry.
Two areas where the Canadian presence in publishing is virtually non-existent are children's books and popular paperbacks. If any of my colleagues have tried to pick up at an airport a popular Canadian paperback when they are going to and from their constituencies, they know the difficulty of which I speak. According to Paul Audley, less than five children's books were published by Canadian firms last year. In the popular paperback field, distribution arrangements that permit monopoly control on outlets to arise means that almost all paperbacks sold in drug stores, department stores, newsstands, airports, etc. are foreign titles, mostly American. The problem of access to the shelves is a recurring theme in the testimony of Canadian publishers to the Ontario Royal Commission on book publishing.
There are several reasons for the paucity of Canadian children's books. Most children's books are sold in department stores and supermarkets, so Canadian publishers again have difficulty finding outlets and owners buy from foreign jobbers. Successful children's books have become colourful, often with expensive illustrations, so that long runs are necessary to offset costs. The CBPC estimated that over 50,000 copies sold are needed to recover costs, and even then recovery is slow.
I want to discuss some obstacles to export, then make a suggestion or two, and then sit down. Presumably, an industry with a small, sparse density market would seek export sales. There are several obstacles to exports by Canadian publishers beyond the copyright problems with the United States already mentioned. There is little demand for non-fiction trade books published by Canadians because the subjects are of little interest outside of Canada. The most popular Canadian authors often have separate United States and United Kingdom publishers and when a joint run with another publisher is possible, the printing is usually done outside Canada.
Manufacturing costs of books are generally higher in Canada, which in turn is reflected in higher prices. The risks involved in entering other markets and the costs of promotional and distribution facilities are too great for Canadian publishers with low profit levels. It is unappealing to those publishers' agents who are content to profit from being importers.
Traditional financial institutions have shied away from providing loans to publishers because of the uncertain nature of the business. This point was repeatedly made by publishers to the Ontario Royal Commission on Book Publishing when it was stated that long-term development loans at reasonable rates of interest were needed to allow for the development of Canadian books. This financing difficulty is most acute for the smaller, new houses which
February 24, 1972

are often publishing the most interesting Canadian material. Foreign-owned houses are often a part of a conglomerate with powerful financial backing. Credit is easier for them to obtain.
Ironically, McGraw-Hill partly financed its takeover of Ryerson Press through funds borrowed from Canadian banks.. When foreign-owned publishers handle Canadian books, they are often able to offer the authors sizable advances, the assurance of a larger market and better promotion and distribution. The Canadian houses often lose their authors and revenue.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) announced on February 11, 1972, a five-point assistance program for the book industry: allocation of $500,000 in the fiscal year starting April 1 for bulk purchases of books by Canadian authors, which will be donated by federal agencies to public libraries in Canada and abroad; Canada Council grants totalling $1 million in the coming fiscal year for the publication of books by Canadian authors, double the amount spent last year; grants of $215,000 to finance English and French translations of Canadian books, an increase of $100,000 over last year; a $500,000 program by the trade department to open Canadian book distribution offices in the United States, Britain and Europe and to extend Canadian participation in international book fairs; contracts to commercial publishers for the printing of certain government publications.
The minister stressed that these were interim measures and that a permanent committee on publishing would be set up to prepare long-term policies. Still to be determined is the definition of a Canadian book and a Canadian publisher, but the minister is quoted in the Toronto Star, of February 12, 1972, as saying: "We definitely will help only Canadian houses". I just want to enter one caveat here. When the department is getting the list of Canadian books together, I hope we will not have a repetition, and I am sure we will not, of the selectivity that was forced upon the United States State Department in the infamous days of Senator Joseph McCarthy when people poked around to make sure that the titles were fit for the people to read. I think it might be extreme to expect the government to have Walter Stewart's book "Shrug" on all the book shelves, but if it does not have this type of book then there could be the danger that people would think there was censorship in the way titles were picked.
My first comment must be that these steps are very modest compared to the proposals submitted to cabinet last February, when the Secretary of State called for "immediate government action" before "the last resistance to the foreign flood collapses." In that memorandum the following recommendations were made: creation of a Canadian publishing development corporation; approval of the sum of $250,000 and two man-years for the activities of International Book Year; approval of the additional sum of $300,000 for the Canada Council for doubling its program of assistance in the area of creative writing and periodicals and study of additional measures.
The Secretary of State has made no special announcement regarding federal plans for International Book Year. His second cabinet proposal of September, 1971- these things keep pouring out-was for spending $450,000, not $250,000 on such programs as reading tours for Canadian poets and writers, book caravans to rural com-
Speech from the Throne
munities, French literature bookmobiles to Francophone communities outside Quebec, library programs, two special literary prizes, a special children's book prize, translation of important books and donations of paper and bookmobiles to underdeveloped countries. These are imaginative and valuable projects and it would be unfortunate if the government has decided not to pursue them.
Now I am going to skip a paragraph of my speech because my time is running out. While welcoming the program, most Canadian publishers agreed that it will only be of marginal importance. There is a clear need for additional measures. If we designate broadcasting as being vital to the development of national identity, invest large sums of public money in it and regulate both content and financial control, how can we neglect book publishing which is also important for the development of national ideas, values and identity?
I suggest some measures beyond the Secretary of State's proposals to be considered, as follows: first, federal-provincial discussions to develop a policy of institutional purchasing-libraries and schools-from Canadian wholesalers or publishers whenever possible. An estimate is that institutional purchasing outside the country for 1969 amounted to $40 million. Second, investigation of the distribution arrangements under the Combines Investigation Act; consideration should be given to a Canadian content quota system for paperback and magazine distribution racks. Third, the modernization and standardization of the tariff regulations to eliminate the bewildering array of separate items. Fourth, government encouragement for co-operation within the publishing industry for the compiling of basic data and also for standardization within the industry. Fifth, because children's books are so important as socializing forces, steps should be taken to encourage development of Canadian titles. In the centennial year there were prizes for children's books. Sixth and last, use of the CBC networks to draw more attention to the enjoyment and enrichment found in books.
Mr. Speaker, I have tried to give the House some ideas which, if they could be acted upon by this government, would aid our common purpose which is the purpose enunciated at the beginning of my speech, the promotion of the free flow of ideas by word and by image.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Good speech.


Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne commits us to attack and overcome social inequality and isolation of the individual whether it be caused by lack of economic opportunity or remoteness from a mainstream of life. I agree with these proposals and express confidence that we shall go a long way toward our goal. There is another protection of individuals, however, the protection of all individuals in Canada, which I believe to be of overpowering urgency. It is protection of the public against unreasonable price demands and unreasonable wage and salary demands which bring about disruption and loss from strikes or the "rejection syndrome" under which a settlement which has been worked out by union representatives is later disavowed, with further negotiations, disruption and loss. Parliament and the legislative assemblies of Canada either alone or,

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne
preferably, with the co-operation of labour, simply must create the machinery whereby the public can try to protect itself from this immense and disturbing force.
For centuries, big business was the robber baron which had to be attacked, weakened and controlled. Today it is the large, organized unions which can wreak havoc on the whole public which is defenceless to defend itself. Big business has been controlled to a large extent by tough corporate laws and by anti-price fixing and anti- combines legislation. But organized labour has a special and privileged position in law. It has special status. Unions are not responsible for their illegal strikes or slowdowns, either to their employer or to others when they bring injury through loss of business or loss of employment. If the technicians who maintain flying equipment had to face the fact that they were responsible in law for any breach of the act, I am confident they would be there, they would be maintaining the machines and the aircraft would be flying.
I am not speaking for big business although some parts of it, particularly the pulp and paper and chemical industries, are in trouble. It faces tough international competition. I speak for the public, a large part of which is hurt every time there is a demand for an unreasonable wage or price increase. Just as the managers of big business used to think only of themselves and obtain the highest prices they could get while disregarding the public interest, so today many labour bosses are concerned only with what they can get for their own group; they disregard what is happening to the public. I ask, why are governments so reluctant to pass legislation which would allow the public to protect itself? I sense a change coming, and I hope it will come shortly.
I suggest that labour itself wants controls and that only relatively few of its political leaders wish to hold on to the power and notoriety of the strike. The vast majority of us, perhaps 75 per cent, are labourers in the sense that we are workers: this includes housewives, typists, farmers, technicians and all others who are not in management. All these people I have mentioned look to us, the Liberal party which makes up this government, to protect them. I believe the majority now feels that all strikes must be outlawed and a new system of settling disputes introduced, a system which would include protection for them, the public.
If the bakers can strike and force the retail price of bread to double, does the public not have an interest? Is it right that an organized union can bring about a price increase which can be passed on to the public without there being an opportunity for the public to object and be heard? If a crane operator, through his union, can force the construction industry to pay him $20,000 a year for a 40-hour week, is it not reasonable for the farmer to demand the same, or perhaps more, considering his investment? If the farmer were to do that, I submit the price of milk would go to $5 a quart. Of course the public is interested.
In Great Britain, one group caused personal inconvenience, physical discomfort and economic loss to everybody on the island. A few radar technicians in Canada who rejected the settlement worked out by their union

representatives have caused annoyance and interefered with our right to go about our affairs. They have endangered the lives, to some extent, of many and caused financial loss, directly or indirectly, to almost every person in Canada. This strike, following as it does a strike by the controllers, is hurting Canada far out of proportion to the number of people involved in the conflict. This just does not make sense.
In the United States a new group under the name Common Cause has organized to blunt the force of organized power groups which seek to and would take more than their share of the national income at the expense of others. There is mounting public concern for the elimination of costly strikes which can disrupt the welfare of a whole city, be they in private industry or in the public service.
Our strike record in Canada is notorious. I believe it is the worst, or highest of the world's leading industrialized nations. As a result, our prices have been increasing at about 4 per cent, and wage settlements at something over 7 per cent annually. This is far in excess of any increase in productivity and, of course, causes inflation. Inflation not only results from wage-price increase; it also comes about from disruption in the industry struck and in other complementary or service industries serving the struck industry. When union workers not on strike refuse to cross the picket line at a striking plant no matter what the cause, their refusal permits the striking union to spread its quarrel, and thus its injuries in the form of unemployment, inefficiency and inflation, far beyond its own reasonable jurisdiction.
If prices increase too much, the public can switch its taste and buy something else, or we can lower customs barriers. The public can do quite a bit to resist unreasonable prices. However, when it comes to wage and price demands, the employer is forced to settle at an ever increasing rate of increase and pass the increase on to the public which is defenceless. The public includes not only other organized labour but people who are not organized and are without any power to obtain a similar increase or any increase to offset the increased prices they must pay.
If, as I said earlier, a crane operator can force the construction industry to pay him $20,000 a year, why should not the radar technician demand a similar return? Why should not the industrialized farmer demand it? Considering the hours he works and the capital he has invested, he might demand such a return. I suggest that if the farmer were given the same rate of return as the crane operator or others in the construction industry, food would cost five to ten times as much as it now costs. Therefore I say the public interest has to be protected.
If inflation continues at between 5 per cent and 7 per cent, what will happen to capital and the ability to create jobs? The plant manager who budgets to save $100,000 in ten years, and utilizes his borrowing capacity to borrow $1 million in order to build a new wing for his plant and create 200 additional jobs, will find in ten years that the buying power of his savings will have shrunk to the buying power of today's $40,000 and he will not be able to do as he planned. If he waits another ten years, the buying power of his savings will be even more depleted.
February 24, 1972

The man with a fixed income has savings perhaps of between $25,000 and $50,000. He is a small capitalist. In ten years, with today's rate of inflation prevailing, the buying power of his capital will be cut in half. If a large capitalist has, say, $10 million, the amount required to create a large plant and create 500 jobs, he will find he cannot. In todays international market one must rationalize or specialize. To build a plant of half the size won't do. It would not be able to compete. Eventually, only the state will have the necessary funds and the capacity to own and operate big business. We will then have arrived at a state of complete socialism.
Just think where we are heading. We are heading for the situation which exists in the communist-socialist nations. In Yugoslavia and even Bulgaria a man can own his own home, a plot of land, the tools with which to work it, and a small business. The government, of course, owns and operates all big business. The government will allow an outsider to bring in $5 million and invest it and split the profit. He can take away 50 per cent of it.
Are we not, through inflation and our own greed, rapidly reaching the same place? This is the biggest threat in Canada today. With the drop in money value, millions are unable to live on their incomes, many more are unable to save for an emergency. More still will year by year see their savings depleted; they will be forced into a near-poverty position in circumstances which require government aid. This, in turn, will increase taxation generally and require yet more money from the private sector, making development even more difficult. No matter how wellmeaning the government might be, it can never keep up.
If we set out to ensure that every person in Canada received the same proportionate increase in income as the big, powerful unions can enforce, inflation would be far above 10 per cent a year. Inflation is a real threat to our society and, since it causes greater individual economic isolation and greater imbalance as between one area and another, it is a threat to the nation itself. I suggest:
1.	That all strikes be made illegal and an offence unless approved by the public as represented by a group of about 40 citizens impartially chosen from the province in question. They would act as a jury now acts to determine rights in both civil and criminal disputes, and as the United Nations seeks to act when two nations are in dispute.
2.	That all wages increases above a set amount, perhaps 2 per cent, be illegal and an offence unless approved by a similar jury.
3.	That Parliament give a clear direction that unions must assume full responsibility for their actions, as all other persons and organizations in society must do, many of them with less power and less capacity to affect adversely the public interest, by according them the capacity of suing and being sued and making them financially responsible for all damage caused by illegal acts, not only to the employer but to the public.
4.	That all unreasonable price increases-and this would have to be established after labour had become a fixed expense-be subject to turnback and penalty or a special tax. I am aware that if wages and salaries are controlled,
Speech from the Throne
we cannot leave a slack which somebody else might take up. Prices would have to be legally controlled as well.
Canada is now somewhat alone in the world with respect to trade patterns. All our governments are totally committed to promoting international trade by searching out new markets and urging greater productivity in order to lower production costs. We are in competition with nations such as Japan, whose people are united by group spirit which makes them a tightly-knit family devoted to production at a price acceptable in the international market.
We simply cannot afford the industrial conflict and the inflation which it produces to disadvantage us in world markets. To organized labour I say: I am not speaking against you. I am speaking, I believe, for the vast majority of you, for your wives, for unorganized labour and for all who must live on fixed incomes and who wish to see our economy on a sound, fair and healthy basis and moving forward for the good of us all.
Some will say that the restrictions I propose should be applied to those in essential public service only, at least at first. I find this point of view difficult to accept. Although the two air strikes have harmed the businesses of many people and denied employment to others, with resulting hardship, particularly in Mississauga in my constituency,
I am sure that a strike by International Nickel at Sudbury or General Motors in Oshawa would harm just about as many just about as much.
George Meany, who heads the AFL-CIO, said recently that strikes no longer made sense and should be done away with because they are causing increasing chaos and hardship to more and more people, and that strikes by people earning $7,000 a year or more no longer made sense. To them the strike is a double-edged sword. It is good to hear responsible labour speaking out in this way. I expect Mr. Meany's research department turned up the fact that though a member of a union might gain $1,000 a year, much, if not all of this advantage, was cancelled out if one took into account the other side of the ledger-the wages lost while on strike and the increased costs incurred for various products because of other strikes.
Mr. Donald MacDonald, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, when speaking to the Empire Club in Toronto in November, 1968, about stoppages, strikes and lockouts, said:
This is a price which we have to pay for preservation of the democratic process of collective bargaining and it is a price we are going to have to continue to pay unless and until somebody evolves a better method of settling disputes.
To Mr. MacDonald and members of the NDP I say: Would you be so committed to the use of force if unions were legally responsible for the results of their actions? Mr. Meany suggested binding arbitration. Is my suggestion so different? Workers demanding increases would go before a group of citizens not knowing whether they would be allowed as much as had been offered, or less. In most cases they would settle, knowing they would be dealt with by authority other than straight force.
Some will say it cannot be done, but if our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) can meet with Mr. Kosygin, and if Mr. Nixon can meet with the leaders of China and thaw the ice at least, surely our labour leaders can meet with gov-

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne
ernment and representatives of industry and work out a formula that would be worth a trial. If we were to succeed, we would make our nation the healthiest industrial nation in the world and the change would be for the benefit of all Canadians. If Canadian organized labour does not agree with my suggestion, I hope it will at least look seriously at the advice of Mr. George Meany and resolve to try to find a way of settling disputes which is more civilized, more just than the continued use of the strike and one which will not harm so many innocent people.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, we are told in the Speech from the Throne that it is the intention of the government that many areas of Canada be preserved in their natural state for the enjoyment of this generation and generations to come. Some of the grandeur as well as the wilderness of Canada's north will be guaranteed perpetual preservation through the creation of three large national parks north of the sixtieth parallel. The speech states further that these three parks, plus the seven new parks created since 1968, mean that for the first time in our history every province and territory will include within it a national park for the benefit of our people.
These are worthy ambitions and accomplishments. However, I wish to take issue with the government; they have shown lack of foresight and indifference to park development in my constituency, where an ideal opportunity exists for them to demonstrate to our people the sincerity of their policy to provide recreation areas where people can enjoy them.
The federal government is the sole owner of 17,500 acres in Grey county known as the Meaford tank range which has been declared surplus, and no area could be more ideal than this for park development. The Department of National Defence took over the tank range property on July 24, 1942. The farmers living there were required to vacate over 100 farms. Four schools and two churches were closed. There were 258 acres of apple orchards embracing over 8,000 trees, along with a sizeable peach orchard on Mountain Lake, which were sacrificed.
These people were reluctant to leave their homes. Many of the families and their ancestors had lived there for over 100 years. Furthermore, the price they were forced to take for their property was insufficient to establish a similar operation in another area. There was no consideration given to sentimental values. These people showed considerable loyalty, viewing their sacrifice as essential to the war effort. The area at large suffered a severe loss in the closing off of such a productive farm area.
To this day there is evidence of much sentiment in respect of this property. I have received many letters from people inquiring how they might go about getting their property or that of their ancestors back into family hands. Through this correspondence it was brought to my attention that there was a family graveyard in the range. Burials took place there from 1851 to 1937. The fishing operations from Vail's Point were the means of livelihood for several families. Mountain Lake was a popular place for sport fishing and family picnics. This lake and surroundings is one of the most beautiful areas in Ontario.

The Meaford tank range consists of 17,500 acres. Of this, some 15,000 acres are within impact or danger areas of former artillery tank and anti-tank ranges. Apart from impact areas, there are parts of the range which are known to contain unexploded munitions which strayed from normal trajectory because the shell hit the ground and the ricochet altered the intended impact area. It is difficult to determine how many acres could have spent ricochet rounds on them; it might well be some 1,000 acres. This leaves approximately 1,000 acres which were used for field exercises during which blank ammunition and certain types of training grenades were used. It also includes the roads and building sites. The area used for field exercises is relatively clear. The areas which are being used and are comparatively safe are the beach at Vail's Point, the boat launching area at Mountain Lake and the immediate vicinity of the administrative camp area.
The Georgian Bay shoreline within the confines of the range is approximately 12 miles in length. There are approximately 28 miles of roads suitable for travel by automobile. Ten thousand acres of the range are wooded. Mountain Lake is approximately 1 j miles long and 350 yards wide. The perimeter of the range is 25 miles. In seeking information I put this question on the order paper:
Does the Department of National Defence have trained personnel qualified to decontaminate the tank range target areas?
The answer was yes. But, as usual, an effort was made to sidetrack the issue by the following statement:
However, the number is small and there would not be enough qualified personnel to deal with a range decontamination project of such magnitude as Meaford.
In my opinion these are the men who should be doing the visual clean-up while sufficient numbers are being trained to do a complete job. In answer to a question in respect to the water system and the buildings, it was stated these were maintained until September, 1970, but that since that time they have not been maintained. I was informed it would require approximately 10 miles of fence at a cost of $42,000 per mile, to enclose the area contaminated so that the part of the range remaining could be certified safe. Fencing the range, in my view, would be a waste of money unless there were a few acres of known concentrated contamination in need of precautionary measures until an over-all clean-up was completed.
I will not take the time here to list all the questions I asked and their answers because some of them have been made public. However, I do want to say that from March 17, 1970, about the time it was rumoured the range would be closed, until October 15, 1971, I asked 20 questions in the House of Commons in respect of the range and converting it to a national park, and since November 4, 1971,1 have had 19 questions answered on the order paper.
The government did work up some concern and agreed to meet a deputation from the Grey county council here in Ottawa at an office of the defence department. The deputation received a briefing in respect of the contamination of the range and it was evident the department was trying to dodge the issue. However, they did agree to give consideration to suggestions the Grey county representatives
February 24, 1972

might care to make at a future date. It really amounted to a polite brush-off.
The promotion of a park in Grey or Bruce county has been one of my ambitions ever since I entered politics. In fact, on one occasion, after making an appeal to the Pearson government for park development in the Bruce peninsula, a cabinet minister told me: "If the provincial government would make a suitable area available, the government would develop a national park".
We now find ourselves with an area made to order and owned by the federal government. It is apparent from the many representations that have been made in the press, on the radio and by mail to me and to the government that the development of the range into a national park would bring the most benefit to the greatest number of people since the southern Georgian Bay area has been designated as ideal for recreation and tourism.
We are continually made aware of the thousands who visit our established parks, not only Canadians but many from abroad. A park in Grey county would be of easy access to millions of people in southwestern Ontario and the neighbouring states in the United States. It would bring in enough revenue to normalize the economy of the area, which is suffering under present conditions.
As early as July, 1970, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development stated that "its national and histories parks branch considers that the tank range property is related closely to the Georgian Bay Islands national park complex and has a number of desirable features in terms of park use". There is very little shoreline on any lake or waterfront in southern Ontario that is not lined with cottages, and a national park on the range would preserve a few miles of shoreline in its natural beauty. Vail's Point could be developed into an ideal boating and yacht basin, a much needed accommodation in Georgian Bay in these days when more and more yachts ply our waters.
Mountain Lake has a good stock of fish. The 10,000 acres of woods provide good cover and refuge for the deer population and, under present conditions, is a game sanctuary. Excess deer population migrates to other areas where hunting is permitted. It is also a bird sanctuary where birds are not exposed to the many chemicals used so freely these days and which may be responsible for the scarcity of some species, notably the bluebird. It could be a bird watcher's paradise.
There are good ski slopes which the army used for training their ski troops. The existing buildings and the water system would all fit into the scheme of a national park. Visitors could arrive at the park by plane because the flying field and runway are in fairly good shape and could be improved. The range has the potential for a first-class national park and it is conveniently available to the area of southwestern Ontario where we have the highest concentrated population in Canada. These are the taxpayers who are making much of the new development possible.
We have been told the range is highly contaminated and dangerous, yet deer hunting has been carried on annually for many years, not only by the militia but by civilians as
Speech from the Throne
well, and they have travelled over much of the area. Many people have trespassed on the range, several as recently as the hunting season last fall. The militia and their friends have fished on Mountain Lake for many years. Snowmobilers have travelled over miles of the range.
Children have trespassed on the range. In answer to a question on the order paper I was told that two boys trespassing on the range in 1951, found a thunderflash and took it home. They removed the powder from the thunderflash and put a match to it. Both boys were severely burned when the powder exploded. This is the only recorded accident after 25 years of excessive trespassing. Happily, both boys recovered. The time will surely come when the people of the country will demand a clean-up at the range and some government is going to see that the job is done.
Does this government think that the people of the day are going to reconcile themselves to living with the fact that the largest part of the range will be left with its contamination for five generations or more? According to the opinion of the defence department, this period of time will necessarily have to expire before any degree of safety can be assured. Or, Mr. Speaker, are we going to insist the whole area be cleaned up in the same way we are eradicating pollution from the rest of our environment? The range was contaminated by the militia during the training of troops who were required to preserve freedom for Canada. This was a worth-while and necessary function. Now, after declaring it of no further use militarily, the government should have no hesitation in cleaning it up and returning it to the civilian population.
The information on file in the defence department indicates that the locations of 684 unexploded shells are known and the locations of 90 unexploded shells are not known. Furthermore, many of the shells are confined to the Sucker creek gully and the Hogshead at the west end of Mountain Lake. I was privileged to travel to all parts of the range which were accessible by automobile, in the company of an army officer. During the tour he pointed out many shells in the target area lying on the ground and some partly buried. It was my understanding that when a shell or other explosive was fired but failed to explode, its location was marked on a map.
I maintain the task of cleaning up the range can be accomplished, and for much less than the $150 million the government has estimated. This is a convenient figure used to discourage or delay any action on a clean-up program. This observation was confirmed by officers who spent many years in the militia. The Department of National Defence has personnel who are experts at locating and disposing of unexploded munitions, and the flimsy excuse they use in answering my question on the matter cannot be justified. If more men are needed, it is only a matter of selecting men to take the necessary training.
It is certainly a fact that it will be a dangerous job, but personnel of our militia are trained to protect our people in any emergency or existing national danger. The tank range contamination is no exception. The problem was created by the militia, and it is their responsibility to clean it up. At this point, I would like to quote from the Armed Forces Review, Ottawa Report on the White Paper on Defence:

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne
On the problem of getting the public to support a bigger defence budget the cabinet apparently senses that the public, in general, is apathetic about its armed forces and in order to justify an increased budget, the paper is trying to find something for the armed forces to do that is obviously peaceful and constructive.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the decontamination of the tank range surely qualifies as a peaceful and constructive project. In fact, it would be a challenge to the armed forces if they were given an opportunity to make it a reality. The government needs to display a little intestinal fortitude and get on with the job. In Grey county and surrounding counties there is practically unanimous agreement that the danger to humans on the tank range should be removed at the earliest possible date and action taken toward park development before the facilities there deteriorate any further. A Conservative government will not hesitate to enact the necessary measures to restore this beautiful area to the civilian population to whom it belongs.


Mr. Yves Forest (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Bruce and Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Whicher and Mr. Lajoie).
The first, with his customary dynamism and eloquence, recalled the major achievements of the federal government, particularly in the field of social security, and mainly through fiscal relief, of the increase of old-age security pensions by the guaranteed income supplement, of the increase in pensions and allowances paid to veterans, etc. and our colleague, the new hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, also made a very outstanding maiden speech, which is to his credit.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne dealt with the main issues of concern and interest to all Canadians at this time, such as the economy, industrial development, unemployment, exports, housing, agriculture, penal reforms, family income security, labour, the status of women within Canadian society, etc.
In order to cope with economic problems and support the expansion which has been making itself felt for some time already, to keep our competitive position on world markets, closer co-operation between government arid the business and industrial sectors is envisaged.
In my opinion, such co-operation is essential and is auspicious as the private sector will always supply most of the jobs and investments required for continued growth likely to give adequate impetus to all activities essential to the welfare and security of Canadians.
In a world where increasingly broader coalitions are being formed, often excluding us or at least placing us in an unfavourable position, and with a necessarily limited domestic market, we must absolutely aim for efficiency by putting science and technology to full use in order to assist such firms as are not afraid of innovating.
That task is one of the greatest challenges now facing Canada. That is what is called industrial strategy to be designed in keeping with characteristics peculiar to the Canadian economy and which will soon be announced, as the Hon. Minister of Commerce, Trade and Industry (Mr. Pepin) stated here yesterday.

Fortunately, Canada has numerous resources, the development of which surely spells progress; still, only orderly development, coupled with co-operation by private enterprise can ensure the evolution of our economy toward standards that better suit the needs of the future.
In the last few years, we have expected too much from our economy and we must avoid burdening it with expenditures that are unreasonable or rules that are too rigid in a country that is so vulnerable to foreign competition. Still, the co-operation must come not solely from the government but also from the representatives of industry and unions who must agree to avoid the turmoil of strikes which finally help no one and harm the Canadian people as a whole.
Forming industrial committees or councils in the various industries, groups composed of reputed experts from the three sectors who would study the various problems ahead of time, who would make recommendations on production, prices, wages, etc, strikes me as an excellent idea for we should all realize that an efficient formula must be found, before long; otherwise, we will eventually have to resign ourselves to controls-not voluntary at that-over prices, incomes, wages, with all the consequences that would entail, especially with regard to growth, investments and initiatives.
Thanks to intelligent planning, to our work and sacrifices, to discipline and common sense, through wiser use of our resources and co-operation, by remaining united instead of divided, we will surely give Canada the future it deserves, though there are now only twenty-odd million of us who live side by side with the greatest economic power in the world endowed with a domestic market of over 200 million people.
Mr. Speaker, to replace the now outdated and somewhat discredited Combines Investigation Act, the Speech from the Throne did announce the introduction of a newly revised and improved Competition Act along the lines of a bill which passed first reading during the session which ended a few days ago. This is to get to know the views of all those concerned in accordance with the participatory policy of this government-and indeed many representations have been and still are being received.
The purpose of this new legislation will be to protect consumers against truly harmful commercial practices without, however, inhibiting business operations, considering that agreements between individual companies are often useful and may even become a necessity.
Serious reservations have been made with respect to the proposed legislation, especially in connection with the duties and powers of the court which is contemplated and with the suggested procedure. The forthcoming consultations, as well as the consideration and discussion in this House and before the committee, should enable us to pass this legislation so vital in a field which is so important to the Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker, a few months ago all the free countries of the world were faced with an economic crisis which for several of them was followed by radical changes but due to the foresight and shrewdness of this government our country has gone through this difficult period with far
February 24, 1972

fewer problems than most other industrialized nations. And according to the latest forecasts by international economic experts from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the prospects in Canada for 1972 are excellent. An increase in the actual Gross National Product is expected, and it is believed that our country-and that without any mandatory control-has maintained the lowest rate of inflation among all member countries of that international organization.
Since we now have the highest ratio of labour as compared to the population, and in view of the ever rising participation rate mainly as a result of greater and greater numbers of women entering the labour market, the rate of unemployment has reached an alarming level despite increased economic activity. That will remain the constant concern of the government, as is mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. It must be noted however that more Canadians than ever before are working and that over 200,000 jobs were created during the year.
Besides, the most recent figures released a few days ago show that 25,000 jobs have been created in January 1972, and that over the past four months only the number of jobs has increased at an annual rate of 5 per cent, which represents an unprecedented rate of increase for this time of the year.
The various machineries introduced by this government ought to further decrease the rate of unemployment, when the effects of the subsidies of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, in aid to industry, make themselves increasingly felt and also when thousands of jobs are provided this winter through the excellent Local Initiatives program.

Speech from the Throne



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), that the white paper entitled-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I should ask the chamber if there is unanimous consent for the minister to move a motion. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that the white paper entitled "Defence in 70s", tabled on December 7, 1971, be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Honey):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume proceedings at eight p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this new program is greatly successful everywhere. In my riding, especially, the people have welcomed enthusiastically the possibility to submit projects of their own corresponding to local needs, which meets requirements that had been felt for a long time in the various communities.
Over half a million dollars have been allotted to date for the different jobs and I congratulate the officials of the Manpower and Immigration Department who have approved valuable and constructive projects. I also congratulate the various Manpower Centres that have greatly helped in preparing and putting into effect various projects.
The "Opportunities for Youth" program was also greatly appreciated last year. Thanks to the experience which was gained, this program will surely be improved and, considering the additional credits available for student employment next summer, thousands of them will be able to find jobs and the help they need to continue their studies.
Mr. Speaker, before going on to another subject, I would like to call it six o'clock.
The House resumed at 8 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 and the amendment thereto of Mr. Alexander (p. 212).
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, just before recess, I had time to speak briefly of various matters mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, such as our economy, future legislation on competition, the unemployment rate and the excellent results of the Local Initiative Programme in my constituency.
During the recent recess of Parliament, I met several small businessmen who informed me that assistance to existing industries was inadequate, that it is quite difficult to get a loan from the Industrial Development Bank or chartered banks under the Small Businesses Loans Act and that an agency should be set up to assist them in obtaining loans in special circumstances at more than reasonable rates, in order that they may overcome certain problems, finance profitable projects etc. I believe that

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne
suggestion deserves consideration by this government as additional assistance to industry.
However, the textile industry remains the main employer in my constituency, as in many other communities in Quebec and Ontario, and I have always taken an interest in this matter, like most of the hon. members concerned.
The textile industry is an extensive Canadian endeavour which provides 95,000 jobs in the primary sector, and more than 100,000 in the secondary sector. Fortunately, the government has realized that that industry, which had made constant efforts and large investments to improve its equipment and its techniques, and which can favourably compare with similar industries in other countries, except low-cost countries, needed a new orientation, and it implemented in May, 1970 a national textile policy which has so far had beneficial effects; some imports have decreased or are under greater control.
That industry needs a large labour force, and it is essential that it be protected, for I cannot fathom how it could be replaced, and its production and employment potential remains great.
Thanks to the efforts of the government and the industry the situation improved in 1971 as compared with 1970 and in the primary textile industry, for instance, employment increased by 3,725 between May 1970 and September 1971.
Forecasts for 1972 are optimistic provided consumption stays at its present level and the economic climate keeps improving. This is the opinion stated last month by the Canadian Textile Institute which admitted that the government's policy had encouraged industry, restored its confidence and stimulated investment. But improvements are still required since industry accounts for slightly more than half the total market of textile products and, per capita, we are importing much more than the United States, Great Britain and the European Community and this is an abnormal situation.
Lately, I was surprised to find that our trade balance with Japan was more or less on a par and even unfavourable this year, a situation which I think uncceptable while we are exporting almost exclusively raw materials required by that country and importing manufactured products such as textiles, electronic components, etc, which we could mostly produce here.
But there are other countries. I found yesterday while studying the latest statistics published by the Montreal Gazette that with Hong Kong and Taiwan our situation is even worse and, in one case, it was mentioned that last year we had been importing for over $80 million while exporting a bare $12 million. As other countries, it is high time that we take positive and efficient steps to protect our interests by setting in advance an acceptable level of importation and that we have an overall control policy regulating our import? from low-cost countries instead of relying on individual countries' action, a system which never worked.
Finally, our textile products policy should be announced in advance and for a rather long period of time so that this industry may plan its projects and investments.
Mr. Speaker, agriculture also involves a good many people in my riding, especially the dairy industry, and the dairy products price support plan has had beneficial effects and has brought about increased stability in our dairy farms. The producers I had the pleasure to meet recently seemed satisfied with recent improvements. The higher grants and larger quotas, the ordely marketing, the co-operation between producers, are all factors which helped increase the returns from industrial milk production. The average income which was $4.64 per hundredweight in 1967 is now up to $5.40; all the surplus milk that glutted the dairy market has now disappeared and the average production has greatly increased.
There still remains the problem concerning feed grain and its prices. This is a complex problem as I have seen it after meeting with representatives from the Catholic Farmers Union, etc.
The right hon. Prime Minister (M. Trudeau) in a speech he delivered to the Federated Co-operative in Montreal last February 2nd discussed the subject at length. He suggested possible solutions and I hope the equalization formula that was put forward will finally prevail.
The small farm development program announced in December will give the small farmers who want to remain as such the opportunity of building up profitable operations. The federal policy favours the family unit which is the best form of farming.
The national marketing Act will allow producers in several branches of agriculture, if they so desire, to work together and plan and organize the marketing of their products.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne announced that the government pledges participation in legal aid. I trust steps will be taken to ensure that the provinces can extend the legal assistance that is already available, although almost exclusively in the larger centres and to a limited number of citizens, precisely because of limited means.
Mr. Speaker, although no mention is made of it in the Speech from the Throne, I expect the government will soon introduce a new bill concerning bankruptcies and insolvency, so that a more coherent and complete system can be set up that is better suited to the needs of our times. The Bankruptcy Act was last amended in 1966; since then, improvements were made in the managing of bankruptcies, but too many of them are still questionable or insufficiently controlled.
A study committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Roger Tasse tabled a report several months ago and made quite relevant suggestions. To my mind, the matter of introducing a new bill is pressing so that it can be studied and discussed as soon as possible by all interested parties.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne announced several other interesting proposals which I shall not have time to discuss this evening. I am referring to the continued development of our national resources and the Canadian north, the promotion of more imports although these have already reached a record level, especially thanks to the participation, work and comptence of the Minister of Industry Trade and Commerce and his officials, which have earned him the admiration and respect of all Canadian industrialists.

February 24, 1972

The Speech from the Throne announces an elaborate, ambitous, exacting program which at times calls for long term solutions; still, they are appropriate under the circumstances, they meet the present needs of the country and its citizens and this program, Mr. Speaker, will get the support of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding my comments I would like to deal with a major problem affecting the constituencies of Brome-Missisquoi and Saint-Jean, that is the spring floods along the Richelieu River which especially those last years have caused considerable damage to the riverside residents and to all farmers whose lands are bordering the river and its tributaries in an area particularly suitable to farming. They have caused millions of dollars of damage and I realize that it is a complex problem as it concerns mostly the provincial government and the federal government to some extent and on account of the effect of these floods on the level of Lake Champlain the American authorities. I hope that the steps taken by my hon. colleague from Saint-Jean (Mr. Smith) and myself in co-operation with all the private agencies of the area will prompt the authorities to settle that problem as soon as possible.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like at the outset to congratulate the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), the mover of the Address in reply, and the seconder, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie).
As usual, the hon. member for Bruce has made a rather remarkable speech. As for the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, he has shown in a brillant fashion that he is deeply interested in his constituents.
With many others I recognize that the Speech from the Throne has set some great objectives.
There is talk of increasing the national wealth through the development of a global industrial strategy and a more judicious use of science and technology, of asserting Canadian identity and protecting the environment, of developing and improving the quality of life for Canadians through better social laws and an improved legal system.
Such are the great objectives which this government has proposed to the Canadian peolein the Speech from the Throne.
I should like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to make a few remarks. I shall perhaps be severe occasionally but I should like to be most fair and pragmatic.
Considering the results for the past four years, surely I will not merely say that this government has not done anything. Surely, there have been efforts. We have and also certain difficulties, disappointments and achievements. Obviously, we cannot absolve this government so easily, considering that in 1968, this country had 300,000 unemployed and that today, this figure has swelled to 650,000.
On the other hand, I must admit that efforts have been made, at times in the field of textile products, at times in that of tax reform, which had long been needed. In agriculture some greatly appreciated changes took place and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Speech from the Throne
Pepin) has adopted a very sensible policy with regard to exports.
I have always been fascinated by the policy of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which, taking into account the subsidies paid to Quebec, my own province, has given special consideration to regional problems. There again, the Local Initiatives program is a good policy. Unfortunately, it is too much of a short-term one which nevertheless has resulted in the creation of some jobs.
One must not forget either Bill C-262 with regard to the $80 million provided to fight the American surtax, with success, I believe.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we must admit that those measures were appropriate and that an effort has been made. Did the results prove adequate? Did those efforts restore in Canada that economic stability which all of us are longing for?
Of course, there are two types of major problems: economic and constitutional and I should like to deal with them briefly. Indeed, I am convinced no hon. member would condemn a policy of full employment. But it seems to me that none of us has found the magic solution that would all at once bring about a policy of full employment.
We all agree to such a policy just as much as we agreed to the setting up of a just society. Nevertheless, it seems to me that with a little objectivity and co-operation we could get closer to this just society.
As far as stabilizing the economy of Canada is concerned, I had the privilege from time to time to recommend to the government many meetings with businessmen. Tonight I read in a newspaper that more than 1,000 Canadian businessmen will convene in Ottawa in March and April to meet Canada's High Commissioners for Trade. These conferences will be preparatory to meetings with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, at which a solution to the slump in business will be considered.
It would certainly be important also to meet with the leaders of labour and employer organizations. I suggest that the government would have everything to gain by meeting these industrialists and businessmen more often than he has done to date. I have had the opportunity to ask that a summit conference be held on the subject and I do realize with great pleasure that efforts are made in that area.
It is obvious that no solution is forthcoming from this government. It is also obvious that opposition members or opposition parties have not found any solution either.
I believe the only way to create an appropriate economic climate would be to have the Canadian people participate in the decisions that must be made, by telling them about the difficulties the government is going through at the present time.
There is no shame in recognizing one's own inability to find a solution which has not yet been found. Should I ask the government to recognize their inability to bring forward such a solution, it might cause laughter among some hon. members, but I am sure that admitting one's own inability in finding the necessary solution in front of the Canadian people would be a proof of courage and honesty.

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne
It seems to me we have reached the point where the government really needs the advice of experienced businessmen and I believe that the solution probably lies there. A better informed public would show much more understanding and I believe that members of any party in the House could be invited to cooperate with the government more than we have up to now, all for the common good.
We have been looking for all kinds of solutions; short term solutions were devised. I had the opportunity and the privilege to offer and suggest some measures to the government. Tonight, I should like to ask the government to pay more serious attention to old age security and to availability of benefits at the age of 60. I know that the Speech from the Throne mentions social security measures. However, no details were provided as to whether the government intends to introduce a bill allowing people 60 years old to go into well-deserved retirement and receive, of course, an income exceeding by far that which is granted today. Considering that 300,000 or 400,000 people are aged 60 to 65, such a measure would greatly decrease the rate of unemployment and, at the same time, bring closer at hand a favourable social climate, because it is the government's responsibility to grant holidays to those who deserve them and to provide jobs for those in the working age group.
I should also like to call the attention of the government to the withdrawal of the 11 per cent tax which has repeatedly been mentioned in the House. I believe that it is the responsibility of each member of this House to remind the government that this measure apparently concerns each sector of the building industry; therefore, the government should approach those sectors directly or indirectly associated with construction and, with their co-operation, try to provide a credit large enough to bring about an increase in the number of housing units in Canada, subject, of course, to certain conditions. I still believe that the removal of this 11 per cent tax would result in new housing starts.
Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to read carefully some of the proposals pertaining to recreation which the responsible minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), had in mind in connection with his future policy.
I noted today that the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced a $222,000 grant for four hockey programs in Canada which will be carried out during the winter. I think this is a timely grant and a very desirable policy. However, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister on the possibility of allocating certain monies to the construction of covered skating rinks or arenas in various municipalities in each province.
Having been active in sports circles for many years, I am sure several municipalities would be much interested in the building of skating rinks that would not necessarily be equipped with artificial ice as it is very costly. Nevertheless, I believe projects from $75,000 to $100,000 would be possible in thousands of Canadian municipalities.
The minister responsible for that should consider the possibility of establishing credit, 50 per cent of which would be provided by the federal government. It could be

discussed with the provinces. They could assume 25 per cent of the expenditures and I am sure the municipalities would be willing to pay 25 per cent. I think such a policy would create employment. Materials would have to be used to a certain extent and the project would enable hundreds of thousands of young hockey players to practice their favourite sport and it would enable Canada to train young people and keep them busy playing hockey.
I again emphasize the need for filtering plants in municipalities anxious to fight pollution. Indeed, it will always be in order to consider the possibility of issuing credits for such purposes and I always believe it would be good policy.
I said a while ago that agricultural measures had been passed these last years. I am referring in particular to Bill C-176 which is an indispensable tool to ensure the marketing of farm products and which was, I believe, one of the most useful legislative measures passed in this House during the last four years.
I should like just the same, Mr. Speaker, to say that Bill C-176 is but a tool, that its value will depend upon what the people responsible for its implementation will do. If we consider our experience with the feed grain policy in force for many years, I believe that Bill C-176 will be just as important.
No doubt, the government will soon change this policy so that eastern producers can enjoy the same benefits as their western counterparts, if we really want to have fair competition.
Bill C-176 will not be very effective unless the feed grain policy is changed. I appeal here to all eastern members, who I think know the problems of farmers, and especially of producers without an income who have been faced with this problem for a number of years and who consider this policy as discriminating against the producers of one area of Canada.
I do not think that eastern members have ever hesitated to approve grants to assist western producers, and I think our duty as eastern members is to ask our colleagues from the West to support our demands for changes which will be equitable for all producers.
I would also like to bring to the attention of this House the necessity for the government to seriously consider creating the new department which I had requested. I have already asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on this matter. He told me, without leaving me much hope, that a new minister of state attached to the Department of Agriculture would be appointed to represent eastern Canada.
In view of the complex problems of agriculture, I think it would be most advisable for eastern Canada to have a representative in the cabinet who would be in a position to discuss subventions. Moreover, if a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada was appointed, I think western Canada would also be entitled to have a minister of state who would be their official representative in the cabinet for agricultural problems.
In view of the existing complex problems, I think that all Canadian producers would welcome such an appointment.
I noticed in the Speech from the Throne that the government intended to introduce legislation regulating cigarette
February 24, 1972

advertising. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government will tackle to a greater extent the problem of educating the young or the public at large on the dangers of cigarettes, but I would expect above all that it will not limit itself to harassing the sectors directly related to tobacco. Having received many recommendations from my constituency and realizing that nearly all producers of cigarette tobacco in Quebec are in my riding, I often had the opportunity of talking with them. I know that the bill introduced last fall has caused them great concern, and I always wondered why the minister had not first taken the initiative of meeting the Canadian cigarette manufacturers. In my opinion, that question could have been resolved without alarming the whole sector involved in the production of cigarettes in this country. I dare say that an education program along those lines, similar to that on alcohol, should be desirable. An education program on cigarette tobacco could be launched.
Knowing full well that the special or designated areas will be reviewed on June 30, I shall take advantage of this opportunity, of course, to talk about my riding which has had the advantage and privilege of being recognized as a designated area. I should therefore ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) to pay special attention to conserving that designation; I would even dare ask a more special designation that might entail even more interesting advantages. The minister, who gave a favourable reply two years ago by recognizing a designated area in my riding, will surely not hesitate, considering the present economic situation which is as difficult as elsewhere in Canada, to consider the importance of the request I make on behalf of my electors.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make those few remarks. In the time I have left, I shall say a few words about a problem which may perhaps affect Quebec more particularly, that is, the constitutional reform. As a member from Quebec, it is my duty to fight for the interest of that province like all the other Quebec members who work here. I recognize that all the members of other provinces first have that responsibility; to my mind, we can perform our duties only by looking after the interests of our area, before and above all else, because in any event Canada benefits from it.
After four years, I must deplore the fact that not much progress has been made with regard to the constitutional reform. Must I point out, for the guidance of the members from the other provinces, that it would be enough to study once again the briefs presented at the federal-provincial conferences in the last ten years by the two political parties in power in Quebec, to know exactly what Quebec wants, and on what conditions Quebec can keep on hoping to live within the present system. I am thinking about the changes that have taken place in the last several years. Today, not only Quebec, but other provinces also, talk about decentralization of power and, in my view, Quebec has submitted some briefs that are weighty enough to show that it is imperative that such a policy of decentralization be introduced.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that, in fact, it is up to the Quebecers here in the House to establish such a policy. I must deplore the fact, however, that after four years it has not yet come about. I felt optimistic at one time, because of the large number of Quebec members on the government
Speech from the Throne
side and in the cabinet, and I believed that, because of this, an agreement could be reached between Quebec and the federal government.
I must now deplore that as far as telecommunications, social policies and family allowances are concerned, there has been and there are still some misgivings. I must also deplore the fact that the positions of the Quebec Minister of Health concerning family allowances have not been immediately endorsed.
Apparently other problems have arisen in connection with the policy recently announced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) on the repurchase of small farms.
I have every reason to believe that the role of a Quebec member is to support Quebec's demands. I am aware of the co-operation that existed during the 1970 elections in Quebec between the federal and provincial Liberals. I must say that I am quite disappointed to note the lack of support given to those demands by the Bourassa government. I do not say that Quebec has not received grants. During the past four years, I think that Quebec has never received so many grants under various well conceived and justified policies for Quebec. But I think that is not enough because it will take more than short-term grants to please Quebec.
It is also important for a Quebec member in the House to inform hon. members from other provinces. I recall that in April 1970 I took the liberty of saying 15 days before the provincial elections that on account of the federal government's procrastination 20 per cent of Quebecers would probably vote for Quebec's secession. Many hon. members and newsmen were amused, but on the day following the April 29 elections they admitted that my forecast had not been that far off. Try as hard as we can to hide the two-nations problem and the principle of the particular status or the legislation that is of particular interest to Quebec, I feel it is a step backward to refuse to face this problem and discuss it in this House.
I am hopeful that the report on the constitution will be presented soon, according to the answer the Prime Minister gave me this week in reply to a question I asked him. Once this report is tabled, I hope we will succeed in bringing about a debate on constitutional reform. I know an election is near at hand. Perhaps it is not quite fair to speak of constitutional reform at this time, but I feel it is my duty to inform hon. members that it is imperative for the future of Canada to seriously consider Quebec's demands and for every Quebec member to inform his colleagues from other provinces instead of trying to make them feel that those who believe in the independence of Quebec are few in number.
The figures are there and I believe constitutional changes might really prove to Quebecers that their future is still in Canada. We would thus have done something positive. These remarks are being made in that spirit, in order first of all to invite hon. members from other provinces to realize the situation prevailing in Quebec.
I recognize that certain provinces require special legislation as we realize that differences exist between provinces. I feel that Quebec also must succeeed in having its differences accepted and if we seriously accept such

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne
recognition we will be contributing to building a better Canada.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to call upon the federal government's special co-operation for the James Bay development project which has been discussed for several days in the House. I trust that those who made comments did so in a positive manner.
The James Bay development project is specific to Quebec. It will benefit the country as a whole. The federal government should also offer its co-operation by way of services, grants and loans in order that the government of Quebec may actually find the amounts required to carry out this project in Canada.
Before closing, I should like to mention that the Speech from the Throne makes no mention of a reform which is essential in this Parliament. It has to do with limitation of debates. I know the government attempted to introduce such an improvements. Once more I appeal to objective hon. members, asking them to give serious consideration to "limitation", "scheduling" of debates. There is a tendency to plan everything today, and I believe we have omitted to program ourselves. It would be well that hon. members seriously consider limiting debates in order to give Parliament greater efficiency. I do not feel we can continue to speak of efficiency in view of the time we have wasted since I have been in the House.
I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, since my time seems to have expired, that my remarks will get particular attention from those who are responsible for the policy to be worked out to correct some shortcomings that we have in this country. I am confident that my appeal, both to hon. members from Quebec and from other provinces, with respect to economic and constitutional problems will receive special attention from everyone and lastly that the Parliament of Canada, through serious and effective programming, will succeed in getting back the confidence of Canadians, through serious work that will give them satisfaction for the benefit of our country, Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne for the distinct purpose of once again making an earnest plea to the government and to this Parliament for a massive effort to improve the lot of our pensioners, indeed, of all our older and retired people.


Mr. Thompson:: They have never had it so good, to quote the Liberal mover of the Throne Speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear an interjection immediately that they have never had it so good-


Mr. Faulkner:: From the Tories.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and I am prepared to say, indeed I am prepared to assert, that it is a lot better to be an old person today than it was 25 years ago. But as a Liberal member said earlier today, that is not the point. The point is that we should be making of the later years of our existence what the poet Robert Browning had in mind when he said:
Grow old along with me!

The best is yet to be,
The last of life, for which the first was made.
I welcome as strongly and as warmly as I can all the things that are being done to meet the problems of our youth. I welcome the Opportunities for Youth program of last year and I am glad there is to be one this year. I think there are a great many things we must do to make life more hopeful, more promising, more exciting for the young people of this country. I should like to suggest that one of the ways that we can contribute to a better life for our younger people is to make it possible for many more of our older people to leave the labour market so there will be more jobs for those who are younger.
Let me make it clear that I am not asking just for an increase here or an increase there of a few dollars in one pension or another. I am not asking just for supplements on a means test or an income test basis. I am not asking just for pensions to be raised so people can maintain the level of existence they have had. I am asking for a massive effort to make old age one of the best and most exciting periods of life.
I suggest that one of the ways to do this, one which fits in with an acceptable, decent and civilized philosophy of life, is to accept the fact that there comes a time when people ought no longer to have to work to stay alive but, having made their contribution, they should have a sufficiently high guaranteed income to engage in pursuits that will make life interesting for them and that will contribute to the excitment and the interest of life as a whole. I am asking the members of this Parliament to get over the notion that when we talk about old age pensions all that is meant is welfare or supplements or sufficient dollars to keep body and soul together. I want us to talk about old age as a portion of life that should be made the best of all the years we are on this earth.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come for this Parliament to look at all the pension plans that come under our jurisdiction; indeed, to look at the whole question of pensions in our society and not be satisfied with just a piddling increase here or there. The time has come to review and upgrade all our pension plans, making them programs that will produce the kind of life that I have suggested for all those of older years.
I intend from this point on to be specific and to make suggestions that I think should be accepted regarding the various pension plans that come under the jurisdiction of this Parliament. I refer, first of all, to the Old Age Security Act. I still think that when that act was first passed and came into effect on January 1, 1952, it was one of the most advanced pieces of social legislation ever passed in this country. That act still is, in its basic elements, an advanced piece of social legislation, but some of its virtue has been lost by the introduction of an income test into part of the pension paid under it.
I think the time has come for the pension payable under that act to be raised to $150 a month across the board, without any means test or income test in it at all. I also urge that the escalation of the pension be re-established for everyone. At the present time the escalation applies only to those people who get a guaranteed income supple-
February 24, 1972

ment on top of the $80. This means that those who get only the old age security pension have it fixed at the $80 level until Parliament decides otherwise.
I suggest that an escalation element should be restored to the entire pension and that it should not be an escalation limited to 2 per cent per year. When the cost of living is increasing by 4 per cent or 5 per cent per year, to raise the pension by only 2 per cent per year is to condemn the recipients of it to a losing battle. The least that should be done is that the pension should be increased each year by the full amount of the increase in the cost of living.
I go further than that. In these better years that I am talking about, our older people are entitled, not to only enough to keep up with the standard of living that they had when they went on pension, but to share in the increased standard of living. They are entitled to share in our increased gross national product. We should find an even better formula than the cost of living index for our pensions, bearing in mind that what we should be talking about is not pensions as a form of welfare, just so many dollars to keep a person's body and soul together until he dies, but we should be making that period of life one of the best in human existence.
Not only do I call for the old age security pension to be raised to $150 a month and for a proper and adequate escalation feature to be reinstated, but the time has come to write into the act a provision enabling anyone who meets the other qualification, namely, a certain length of residence in Canada, to draw the pension at age 60 provided he is prepared to leave the labour market or is out of the market, as is the case with many people, particularly spouses of pensioners.
This is a theme I shall repeat as I talk about some of the other pension programs that come under our jurisdiction. I have also heard it suggested tonight and during the course of this debate by others, in passing. I am making it the whole burden of my speech. The time has come, not just to retire a few people here and there so there can be a few jobs for 25-year olds, but to make a massive effort to make it possible for people age 60 or over to leave the labour market in order to pursue other things which would make life interesting for them and to create more jobs at the other end. It will not only create jobs for those of younger ages by virtue of the fact that if a person who is older leaves a job, somebody else can move into it. If one accepts the kind of program I am advocating, namely pensions that will enable all our people to live in decency and dignity in their retirement, it is going to cost something. In fact, I am surprised there has not been an interjection already asking from where the money is going to come.
If the kind of program I am advocating is put into effect, a lot more work will have to be done to produce the goods and services to enable the older people to live without working. It might even require the employment of about 650,000 people. I suggest that is something we need in Canada today, with that number now unemployed.
One of the ways to meet the objective stated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) this afternoon, namely, that he does not want to see even one person unemployed in Canada, would be to accept the kind of program that makes it possible for people aged 60 and older to leave the
Speech from the Throne
labour market. Work will have to be done to provide for their needs. In this way jobs will be created for those of working age.
I move on to the Canada Pension Plan. Here, too, there should be some major amendments. One of them is a change such as I have been suggesting for the Old Age Security Act, namely, making it possible for persons who leave the labour market to draw their full Canada Pension Plan benefit at age 60. We already have that principle in the Canada Pension Plan. One already receives it automatically at age 70, but anyone can get it at age 65 if he leaves the labour market.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that principle be extended by permitting all those who leave the labour market at age 60 to draw their full Canada Pension Plan benefit at that time. I am trying to emphasize that with pensions of this kind, $150 a month old age security and full Canada Pension Plan benefit at age 60, there would be an inducement to many people in that age bracket to leave the labour market, let alone the fact it would solve the problem of those who are forced out of the labour market by today's economic conditions.
I also urge that the Canada Pension Plan be amended, as suggested by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, to make it possible for married women who are at home to draw benefits in their own right under the Canada Pension Plan. There are various ways this can be done. Payments can be made by them or for them. The principle is one that I think is right. I commend the Royal Commission on the Status of Women for having proposed it. This is something we should do at the earliest possible moment.
If we were to make just these two sets of amendments I have talked about, amendments to the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan, there would be enough pension money available at age 60 for thousands of our people, for thousands of married couples, to encourage them to retire. It would have a real effect on the employment situation as well as on the goods and services that would have to be produced. I suggest that on all counts it is an economic move that we would be foolish not to pursue without further delay.
In passing I should like to say a few words about one other pension plan that comes under our jurisdiction, one that we do not refer to very often. That is the pension for the blind. In the old days, the Old Age Security Act, the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act were dealt with concurrently. If the pension under one was increased, it was done under the others. We have altered all that. The Old Age Security Act is on a different basis and the Canada Assistance Plan has taken over from some of the others. In the process, the pension under the Blind Persons Act has stayed where it was, at a basic $75 a month. The least we can do for our blind people is provide them with the kind of pension I have talked about. Like the old age security pension, the blind pension ought to be $150 a month. I urge that there be such an amendment to the Blind Persons Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne


Stanley Howard Knowles: I come now to the Public Service Superannuation Act and the pensions we pay to retired federal civil servants. This general phrase can be taken to include retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel, retired personnel of the Canadian armed forces and many other groups of people who come under various federal pension plans.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: And change the CNR pension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am coming to that, and all the rest of them. If I miss any before I am through, the hon. member can let me know.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I am with you all the way.


An hon. Member:: Except when it comes to a vote.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Then, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With regard to retired public servants, I am still proud and a bit excited over the tremendous move we made a couple of years ago when we provided for the pensions of retired civil servants to be escalated every year if the cost of living went up during the previous year. The result was that many of our retired public servants got a pretty good boost a year or so ago and they receive an increase every January. But that increase is tied to a 2 per cent ceiling. When the cost of living increases 4, 5 or 6 per cent in a year, and these people only get a 2 per cent increase in their pensions, they are fighting a losing battle.
I plead that the same thing be done for them that I have argued for in respect of old age security, namely, that the least we do is increase those pensions by an amount which reflects the full increase in the cost of living. But in my view that is not enough. I want these people not only to get enough to buy the same basket of goods and services, but also to be able to share in the rising standard of living that a new generation is able to produce because the older generation brought it to that point.
So I urge this kind of improvement in respect of the Public Service Superannuation Act and in the acts which govern the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian armed forces and others. In passing I put in a word, as I do every couple of weeks, for the retired RCMP and armed forces personnel who are not yet 60 years of age but who are denied the increase they will get after age 60 because that was written into this special legislation a couple of years ago.
I have said several times that any argument the government had for this is gone. In the new arrangements made last year for public servants to retire at age 55 and some between 50 and 55, it was provided that they get the escalation in their pension then without having to wait until they are 60 years of age. Since this is now possible for public servants under 60 years of age, I think it is grossly unfair and is gross discrimination to deny this increase to RCMP and Canadian armed forces personnel who have not yet reached age 60.
There are quite a few other changes which need to be made in all these acts under our jurisdiction affecting employees of the ftderal government, but in the main the 
sort of thing that needs to be done is to provide for adequate escalation consonant with the increase in the cost of living and the increase in the standard of living.
May I also point out that there are changes having to do with the retirement age that could be made. The changes made last year were in part good in that at age 55 a public servant with 30 years' service can retire on the full pension he has to that point. I believe we should encourage the possibility of these people retiring, say, any time after age 50 on the full amount of whatever pension they have earned. Old age is not just a period of life when we come with a bit of charity or supplement to keep people alive; it is a period of life when we should be making the best of all our years on earth.
Now I come to something mentioned just a moment ago by my good friend across the way. He did not need to suggest it, for I have been speaking on this for 25 or 30 years. I refer to the pensions of CNR employees. Here, again, I want to express pleasure that at long last, about a year ago, one change was made and CNR pensioners who were then retired received an increase covering the years they had been retired. But there is one serious shortcoming in that. It was a one-shot proposition. Retired public servants get their 2 per cent increase every year as long as they live, but the CNR pensioners got it last year only. They do not get any further increase this year and there are no other increases in sight for them. I contend that this escalation of pensions of retired CNR employees should be put on an annual basis at least the same as is done in connection with retired public servants.
But, again, although I ask for these things and use the words at least, I am not satisfied with a 2 per cent ceiling, or an increase related only to the cost of living; but it would be a start to get that much. A year ago the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) said that anything further would have to be negotiated, but it seems to me the chances of that happening are not very bright and what is needed is for this government to make to Canadian National Railways the same kind of representation it made over the years for an initial escalation, only now the representation should be for an annual escalation in CNR pensions.
There should also be a complete review of the formula under which CNR pensions are calculated. I put it in the simplest terms. The employees are asking that their pensions be based on a 2 per cent factor, that is, that their pensions be calculated on the basis of 2 per cent for each year of service. That is the story with the public service; that is the story with many good pension plans. Our own is even better but I shall not talk about it tonight, for my views about our own plan are on the record. I believe that Canadian National Railways being a government-owned company, it is one which ought to pay some attention to views like this when they are expressed in Parliament. It is also an organization which ought to be told by the government what it should be doing in this field.
Let us not stop with making representations to Canadian National Railways. The Canadian Pacific Railway needs to have some pretty strong things said to it. At long last, after something had been done for retired public servants, for retired RCMP personnel, for retired armed services personnel, for Canadian National employees and a lot of other people, the CPR came through with some-
February 24, 1972

thing. But I wonder how many members of this House have examined that "something" to find out how little it is. In particular, I cannot speak too strongly of how iniquitous I think it was for the CPR to say that any of its employees who retired prior to January 1, 1956, were to get no increase whatsoever. That is still the case today. Many, of course, have died since the change was made and many more will die before anything can be done.
However, I believe a pension increase of that sort, made somewhat comparable with what was done for retired public servants, somewhat comparable with what was done for CNR employees but which left out all the old-timers who retired before January 1, 1956, was something of which even the CPR with its thick hide ought to be terribly ashamed.
Mr. Speaker, I see my time is going on. However, there is another piece of legislation which comes under our jurisdiction which I think we should also look at very thoroughly. That is the Pension Benefits Standards Act. This is a fairly new piece of legislation and I am glad it is on our books. We have it federally and at least four provinces, perhaps more by now, have similar legislation. These various acts are statutes which determine the conditions pensions under federal or provincial jurisdiction must meet. We have laid down in the Pension Benefits Standards Act some pretty important requirements that pension plans which come under federal jurisdiction have to meet in order to get registration and in order to qualify for income tax deductibility. So we do have a fair control over the pension plans of the railways, the airlines, the banks, the steamship companies and the elevator companies. All these employers come under federal labour jurisdiction.
To the extent that the provinces in their legislation tend to match what we put into the Pension Benefits Standards Act, we are in a strong position to determine what private pension plans ought to provide. I think one of the things we should write into the Pension Benefits Standards Act is the requirement that every pension must have in it a provision for escalation.
I assert, Sir, that the day of a fixed pension is for the birds. The day is gone when any human being no matter whom he worked for should be asked to go out on a pension and stay at that level for the rest of his life. I think we should say to the companies whose pensions are registered under own legislation-and I think the provinces should say it to those employers who come under theirs-that a pension is not a pension and a plan is not approved unless there is a provision in it for pensions, once started, to be escalated at least according to the increase in the cost of living. But again I say that I think it should be according to the increase in the standard of living. That is something which we should be writing into our Pension Benefits Standards Act.
Maybe I am looking somewhat ahead, but another point which should be written into that legislation is early retirement, which I have tried to stress through all my remarks tonight. I think that just as I want written into the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan the provision that people can retire at 60 if they leave the labour market, so I think private pensions plans should
Speech from the Throne
have the same kind of provision in them. To me this is the point we have reached.
I came here in a day when we fought to improve pensions which were only $20 a month and we thought we had a victory when we got them increased to $25 or $30. In those days it was a case of keeping body and soul together. But times have changed. We are fast moving into an era where the work ethic is disappearing, an era in which people have rights because they are people, not because they have done a certain type of work. To carry out all that, I think we have the obligation, indeed the right, to fight for pensions across the board that include escalation after they are put in pay, and also for pension plans that include provisions for early retirement.
Before my time is finished I should like to say something about one other group of pensioners. I deliberately left them to the last because I think their case is particularly important. We control entirely, in the Parliament of Canada, the question of the pensions that we pay our veterans. I have had the privilege of being a member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, and last year we made certain improvements. I am pleased that they were made and I am glad to be able to say that many veterans are better off because of the changes that were made in the Pension Act and in certain other pieces of veterans legislation. But the fact that they are slightly better off is beside the point.
It is still urgent that the basic rates paid under the Pension Act-basic rates for disability pensions-should be increased, and it is also extremely urgent that the allowances that we pay under the War Veterans Allowance Act should be increased and that the means test provisions in that act should be greatly modified if not done away with altogether. I speak as one who believes strongly in the concept of the guaranteed annual income- not a means test supplement such as we get from the other side but a truly guaranteed income-that some day will be available to everybody. I believe it should start now for all our older people, and a particularly good place to start it would be with our veterans.
Just as I have suggested that old age security should be available at the age of 60 to those who are prepared to leave the labour market, I would do for veterans as we used to do in another context; I would lower that age for them. I would say that any veteran who has had war service-and he does not have to prove anything else- should, not later than at the age of 55, be able to get a sufficient pension to enable him to leave the labour market and to enjoy a little more of that exciting period in life that we call old age, because of the service that he gave to his country.
I make this plea both for veterans and for all our older people as strongly as I can. I am not standing up here asking for another 42 cents or for another $5 or $10. I am asking for a whole new approach, a new rationale, a new philosophy about old age. It must not be a time when we just keep people around until they are carried out to the cemetery; it is a time of life which should be made the very best.
It can be done, and I repeat that in doing it we will not only be making things better for our older people but we will be requiring a tremendous amount of work to be done

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne
to produce the necessary goods and services. Thus we shall be putting our younger people to work as well and helping to solve the pressing problem of mass unemployment. .
Therefore, I commend to the government and to this House the suggestion I made at the beginning of my remarks, namely, that we launch a massive effort to make things really better for the older people of this country.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, with this Throne Speech we are nearing the end of the four-year period of the present administration. First, I should like to add my congratulations to the mover and seconder: they did quite a good job on such a poor document.
Now I would like to examine the four-year record of this government. After the long years of minority government, the people of Canada were perhaps expecting and hoping for a majority government even though they might not have necessarily agreed with the party in power. The electorate were led to expect a good deal from the just society, but the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was quite right when he said that the just society is only for the Grits. Now it does not seem to be for anyone, even for the Grits.
Let us look at what this administration has done for the country. I would like to agree with one thing that the hon. member who preceded me said in his speech with regard to the great consternation about freezing old age pensions at $80 a month. The old people, in the years when they were paying sales tax and income tax, were led to believe that a pension would be given them regardless of their station in life or their income. Now they find their pensions frozen and they are most unhappy about it.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was elected he was expected to unite the country, or so people thought. There was to be an official languages bill to unite the two main language groups in Canada. The languages bill was to avenge the French for the Plains of Abraham and do justice to the English. What has happened? Canada is more disunited than ever. Quebec is under strong pressure to declare that province unilingual in order to safeguard what the Quebec people believe is a continuation of their language and culture. A severe backlash is developing in the rest of the country against this bilingual policy and we may well experience a severe confrontation in which surely no one will win.
We are at loggerheads with the United States, our neighbour to the south. The Prime Minister declared in Russia that the United States was a cultural, economic and even military threat to Canada. On his return to Canada, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) went scurrying south to carry the message that Canadians loved their great neighbour and invited Americans to invest their dollars in Canada.
We know that for western Canadians the period this government has been in office has been one of alienation and many western Canadians in their multicultural society are having second throughts regarding the value of confederation. The new tax structure will have a particularly severe impact on western Canada, with its strong bias against the resource industry and against the individual entrepreneur. In many ways the attitude this

government has adopted has meant a reversal of the days of the Northwest Fur Company, when the whole of the western lands were subservient to Montreal fur interests.
The period this government has been in office has been a trying time for the agricultural community in western Canada. Since 1968 we have witnessed a precipitous drop in the grains income of the whole of western Canada. The grains income in the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 amounted to $1,400 million and $1,300 million respectively. The year 1968-69 saw a drop in the income of the grain industry to around $850 million. Had any other community or any other segment of the Canadian economy experienced a one-third reduction in their gross income at a time of continually rising prices and rising costs of production, there would have been widespread outcry and disastrous results.
What did the government do? In the years 1968-69 the government sat supine while export markets all over the world were lost to Canadian grain. The survey of that year will show that we sold barely 150 million bushels of wheat, although the export figures would be slightly better due to shipping changes. It was a disastrous year for Canadian exports of wheat and barley. It can be said that there was an almost complete sales failure in the 1968-69 crop year. During the whole of the year the goven-ment did almost nothing to increase Canadian grain sales.
Through the Wheat Board, as the handling agent of western farmers, there was nothing that farmers as a group could do but exhort the government to use their influence to alleviate the situation. If anything, the 1968-69 crop year was a reminder that whatever the Wheat Board might be, it has to be an agency to sell grain. If, in the government's wisdom, farmers are to have an income supplement policy to increase their income, it is not to be done through the Wheat Board. The board's duty is to sell grain on the world market at a competitive price. The disastrous loss of sales in 1968 and 1969 are still being felt both in volume and in loss of income.
The following years have shown an increase in the movement of grain. But for the large failure of the American corn crop last year our marketing situation would have been much more serious. This year the grain industry seems to be running into further trouble. The warning of Mr. Vogel, head of the Wheat Board, that the world price of wheat has softened considerably brings no comfort to the western grain industry.
And what about the ill-fated stabilization bill, a bill that would have relieved the government, at least in the 1970s, of contributing any significant amount from the federal treasury to augment grain income? With the phasing-out of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, $50 million to $60 million that the western farmers had received each year in the previous 15 years had to be replaced with a formula whereby there would be little or no chance of payout in the decade of the seventies. As well, the farmer would have had to subsidize the fund to the extent of 2 per cent of his gross earnings, so that his levy alone would have been almost certain to carry any payout under the plan in this decade. Small wonder, then, that the stabilization plan found little favour with the opposition and the farmers.
February 24, 1972

Now we have a two-price system for grain. But it is not really a two-price system at all. It is merely a formula for calculating an amount of money to be taken out of the federal treasury and paid to the grain producers of Canada. Suffice it to say that a suitable stabilization plan for income supplement has not been produced by this government.
Then there is the passage of Bill C-176. This is a bill designed to implement supply management. The market sharing arrangements can result only in the decrease of quotas, with the productivity in the prairie provinces to be transferred to the central provinces on a purely political basis. It is a far reaching bill. It obviously will take the livestock industry, eggs, chickens, turkeys, pigs and cattle and abrogate the market and implement drastic changes in the producing and selling aspects of the industry. Like the dairy industry, Bill C-176 is designed to transfer the meat industry from western Canada into the more central areas. This can only cause a more marked reduction in the production of meat in western Canada and have the effect of further reducing the ability of the agricultural community to sustain its population in western Canada.
With this exercise in supply management we are heading into a period of rigid controls within the whole agricultural industry-a type of control that can only make for inefficiencies, that can only make for increased cost to the consumers without any real increase eventually in the price to the producers. The establishment of quotas means the reduction of the agricultural population at a faster rate and further alienation of the western agricultural industry. It means that we have virtually removed ourselves from the possibility of export markets for our meat products. Bill C-176 will eventually result in demands that manufactured products be prevented from free movement within Canada.
I should like to quote from the Manitoba Co-operator of February 17, which says this about Bill C-176:
Surely this is a lesson that has been learned from the experience of the nations of the European Economic Community. Trying to dismantle the overbearing economic costs of agricultural production distortion is now the main preoccupation in Europe. And, at the same time the European farmer has not improved his individual lot one iota. He is economically depressed and unhappy. With the production potential of the United States adjacent to us on this North American continent there is even less hope of even limited temporary success in legislating parity to a deficient resource area.
And certainly western Canada with her whole economic future tied up in the welfare of the primary industry of agriculture cannot concede on this issue.
To those who do not come from agricultural ridings I would suggest that Bill C-176 will have considerable effect in the years to come.
This government is now involved in the problem of how to deal with our enormous neighbour to the south. With the strong nationalist feeling demonstrated in the anti-Americanism of the Prime Minister and his succinct statement that he found the United States a cultural economic and political threat to Canada, he arraigned himself on the side of those who found great comfort in baiting the American eagle.
We witnessed the Prime Minister's Washington journey. He returned saying he had won a great victory over the Americans. What is happening now? On one day we have
Speech from the Throne
the Prime Minister telling the House of Commons about the tough line the government is taking with the Americans and that it will continue to be tough; then we have the external affairs minister (Mr. Sharp) in Winnipeg saying Canada is prepared to make unspecified concessions to the United States to prevent a serious rift between the two countries because of disagreement over the automobile agreement.
So our relations with the Americans are now in limbo, but it is costly for us. We really cannot afford a policy of "wait and see". Until last August financial relationships between Canada and the United States were more or less clearly defined. As long as there is definition, each party knows where the other is and businessmen can act accordingly-but uncertainty is now the order of the day.
There is the American DISC legislation, an act of the American government that will have serious effect on our industry, an act that really the so-called Canada-firsters, the Committee for an Independent Canada, should wish to be passed because it will mean the repatriation of production now undertaken in Canada to be carried out in the United States. These people are peculiarly quiet at this stage. DISC will be a financial inducement for an American to export to Canada what is now being produced in Canada.
What are we doing? At a time when we are increasing our tax on industry by means of the recent tax changes, the Americans are making a better climate for their industry. There are many areas that need to be defined in our relationships with the United States. Take the decision of the National Energy Board to change in midstream the rules and the guidelines under which the export of natural gas would be allowed. It smacks very much of influence by the government, on a purely political basis, to prevent the export of natural gas on terms that were previously agreed upon. There is a feeling that the Americans need our natural resources in ever increasing quantities and that either we should not sell to them or we should sell them at a price that is much greater than we are presently receiving.
In dealing with the matter of foreign control we have shown great inconsistency. We have been since 1969 awaiting the Gray report on foreign ownership. The delays have been endless and we are still waiting. The policy of the government is purely ad hoc. They improvised in the sale of Home Oil and they improvised in the deal with Denison Mines. All the actions of the government indicate complete confusion.
What about the Canada-United States auto pact? Its value may well have been overestimated. Our exports and imports would both be lower, but in a truer perspective if we disregarded the auto pact figures. The auto pact is primarily an arrangement among the parents and subsidiaries of United States automobile manufacturing companies, sanctioned by government. It seems likely that with the attitude of American unions that more manufacturing be done at home, with the decision on where autos are to be produced being made in Detroit, the auto pact could be reduced in value and may eventually become meaningless.
So this administration is powerless to negotiate with the American administration, the Nixon administration, an

Speech from the Throne
administration that views the Canadian government with a deep-seated suspicion of having a love affair with its enemies. It seems likely that we will again have to deal with the Nixon administration after the November election, a prospect which this administration must view with considerable horror. The Manitoba Co-operator carries an article, reprinted from the Globe and Mail, which in part reads:
We have been kept in the dark for the good of two governments, not for our own good. In Canada, at least, we are probably in real jeopardy until those two elections are over.
The author of that article is referring to our election and that of the United States. I should like to say a few words about the Official Languages Act, Mr. Speaker. This act has caused severe dislocation in our civil service and has not in any way helped to correct the situation for which it was designed. It has failed because of a peculiarity of human nature. The fact is that no one is bilingual; a person has a mother tongue and a working knowledge of a second language. The present official languages legislation has worked to bring about the almost complete exclusion of the merit principle in the civil service. I think it has caused disruption in the civil service and will cause increasing tension in the future.
The administration of the act is open to all manner of bias, favouritism and discrimination, real or imagined. Of course, so far as the individual affected is concerned, real or imagined grievances are equally bad. Our having decided to adopt an official languages policy really means that everyone in Canada must by definition be a Francophone or an Anglophone in order for people to fit into the official languages category.


Mr. Dupras:: Come on, now.


William Gordon Ritchie: This has not satisfied the province of Quebec and the French communities in that province are jealously protecting their language rights, rights which we all agree they ought to have. There is at present severe pressure on the provincial government of that province to declare French as the official language of the province. This necessarily means that English will become a secondary language, which indicates that the official languages policy in Ottawa has not, in the opinion of that province, met its needs.
Similarly, from the Anglophone point of view, the enunciation of the official languages policy has meant that effectively the unilingual Anglophone has been shut out of the decision-making process in the civil service as well as all the other bilingual areas. So the official languages legislation has not helped the unilingual Canadian, no matter whether he is Francophone or Anglophone, and has made our civil service a type of Janissary civil service based on some sort of ability to speak two languages, or the ability to convince someone that one can do so.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


William Gordon Ritchie: The official languages legislation can only harden the division of the country into two groups, Francophone and Anglophone. If we are to have two official ' languages in this country we will have to make provision in the civil service in order that a unilingual person, be
(Mr. Ritchie.]
Francophone or Anglophone, can enter the civil service and in his own language proceed through the civil service and go as far as his talents will carry him in his language, without ever having to learn a second language, at least in theory. This will necessitate both French and English language units in the civil service. The number of units in each group will be proportionate to the number of people in each language group in each province.
In no other area has this government created a stronger backlash, particularly in western Canada, than in the area of its official languages policy. It is an intellectual's solution to a very complex problem. There seems to be no way around it except on a numerical basis, setting up within the civil service Anglophone and Francophone language units which are to care for English and French speaking peoples in the two working languages of Canada. The official languages bill has done much to cause disunity in Canada and if the legislation is carried to the fullest extreme it will be a grave factor in bringing about the fragmentation of our Canadian nation.
Mr. Speaker, this government in its four years in office has shown complete indifference toward and lack of understanding of western Canada. Its record in agriculture is dismal. The new tax bill indicates that the government intends to tax the resources of western Canada and its development will be slow until some time in the future. The movement of Air Canada from Winnipeg to Montreal and the concentration of Canadian National Railways in Montreal are designed to further this subservience. The downgrading of the Port of Churchill, a port which would allow the western farmer access to a lever with which to combat the monopoly position of the port of Montreal, has been actively carried on by this government. This is a shortsighted policy because Churchill would not provide much competition to the great port of Montreal. This government's activities in handling our affairs are building for us a sort of nationalistic ghetto. In future we will pay a heavy price, both of an economic and a social nature, for the activities of the government.


Maurice Dupras: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member who has just sat down if he thinks his contribution will promote unity in general.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. (Mr. Cullen).


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, quite candidly, I did not intend participating in this Throne Speech debate because it was my good fortune two years ago to be selected by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to move the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I know how big an honour that is for a Member of Parliament, particularly for one newly elected as I was in 1968. For that reason, my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne are heartfelt.
I know the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher). He comes from Ontario and I know that he spent 12 years in the Ontario Legislature. He established a distinguished record there before seeing fit to move into the federal field. The hon. member had a splendid record in the
February 24, 1972

Ontario legislature. He has brought to this House his dedication and his ideas about the kind of Canada he wants to see.
Where did the hon. member for Bruce, who is Englishspeaking, who does not speak one word of French, who is a veteran, having spent five years overseas, spend part of his holidays? I understand he spent it in Rimouski, Quebec. He went there and tried his best to speak French, because he is convinced that the only way the Englishspeaking Canadian will understand the French-speaking Canadian, and vice versa, is by going into his living room and trying to communicate with him. If he cannot do it in English, he will do it in halting French or in sign language. He will even do it over a bottle of beer. Nevertheless, he will find a way to communicate with his Quebec colleagues. That is where the hon. member for Bruce spent part of his holiday, and I commend him for it.
He did not do it for political advantage; I doubt whether there is one French-speaking Canadian living in the constituency of Bruce. Nevertheless, the hon. member for Bruce went to Quebec and tried to communicate with French Canadians because he is trying to understand what they are saying to those of us who are English Canadians.
They have a lot to teach us, Mr. Speaker. They know how to live, they know about joie de vivre, a term we do not have in the English language. He wanted to learn about them, and when he spoke he must certainly have spoken as a Liberal because that is his political philosophy. Yet he also spoke as a Member of the Parliament of Canada. As I say, he went to Rimouski, I believe, to find out what the people there think about English Canadians and what French Canadians think about English Canada. He did his best to communicate with the people in that province.
My colleague who seconded the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie), is a brave man. I think of him, a married man, trying to establish himself in Ontario, largely an English-speaking province. He has eight children, yet he is prepared to offer himself as a Member of Parliament so that he may serve his country. I invite all hon. members to read his speech. His comments are humorous, yet one can see the dedication of this hon. member who has come here seeking to serve his country. That is why I have hope for Canada. In this country there are Englishspeaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians, and here there is a French-speaking member who came to Ontario. And what did he say about his eight children? They are not French-speaking, they are bilingual. That is the kind of members we have in the House of Commons.
The calibre of the members of the House of Commons is, I think, second to none. It was my good fortune to speak to the former leader of the New Democratic party. I came here as a brand new member. After I had been here for two years I was sitting beside him in the economy section of the aircraft, which is where Members of Parliament travel, and he said our system brought the best, over-all, kind of Members of Parliament to the House of Commons, men who did not come to the House after building up a reputation, but who came here having
Speech from the Throne
everything to look forward to, having established their businesses, be it insurance, farming or the practice of law. He said these were men who could have rested on their laurels, but instead they chose to come here to represent the people.
He said that, member for member, this was the best House of Commons of which he had ever been a member, and he was speaking from the experience of 35 years in provincial and federal governments. So I am proud to be a member of this House and I hope it will be my good fortune to serve in the next Parliament.
I came down with two obligations, as I saw it. No man can be an expert in every field. So, like many members here, I saw fit to serve the veterans and the senior citizens. I think the people who deserve the highest praise are the Hong Kong veterans, because they have broken through one barrier. If a man was a Hong Kong veteran his widow will now get $200 a month pension. Hopefully, we shall raise this in the future. We have heard members on the other side and on this side say that prisoners of war generally speaking should be given something similar, and I am sure they will come before the Veterans Affairs Committee. We had a Veterans Affairs Committee of which I was proud to be a member, and I served briefly as chairman. It did not seek to De a partisan committee, but to serve the Canadian people as a whole.
These are all motherhood things. Let us move on to topics upon which we are not all agreed. Let us get into labour legislation. There has been a concerted and, I think, unfavourable attack on the Labour Code legislation. The situation is that we have decided-and I hope the new legislation will bear this out-that where a technological change of significance is introduced by companies which will have the effect of laying off a significant number of employees, then the collective bargaining agreement will be reopened.
I think this is good legislation. I say so for this reason. Put yourselves in the bargaining room. You have the company representatives on one side of the room and representatives of the workers on the other. The company lads are sitting there, and they know when they are bargaining that they will be introducing a technological change which will have the effect of laying off a significant number of employees, be it 200, 300, 500 or 50, depending on the size of the company. They know, when they are negotiating a pay raise, be it 10, 15 or 20 per cent, that they will not have to pay not only the increase; they will not even have to pay the salaries or the wages of the individuals, of 20 per cent of the people employed by their company. They are not in a position to say, "we are going to give you, in effect, the sleeves of our vests; we are going to give you a 15 per cent pay raise," because they know that in the course of the three years of the agreement 20 per cent of the labour force are not only going to receive the increase but are not going to receive any salary at all.
The fellows representing labour or the union do not know this. So if the company says "Gentlemen, this is something we should tell you; we are going to introduce a technological change which will have the effect of reducing our staff by a significant number," the boys on the other side will say, "We know what the score is and now we can bargain within the terms of reference explained to us."
254

February 24, 1972
Speech from the Throne
But if the company fails to do that and says, say a year later, to its employees, "We have brought in a technological change. We do not need 200 of our employees and we shall have to lay them off," then I say it is right in law and it is certainly right in equity that the contract should be reopened so that the employees can go back and say, "Just a minute. We don't think it is right. This is a technological change we did not know anything about, and maybe we should renegotiate the contract we have."
I think this is good legislation. If the company tells the employees or the people bargaining for the employees that it intends to introduce a technological change, the contract will not be reopened. But if it is bargaining knowing that it intends to lay off a certain number of workers, and if it does not tell the people on the other side of the table beforehand, I think we are not playing the game according to the rules and the government has an obligation to step in and make a change. I support this legislation wholeheartedly and I am confident the government will not back away from its present position.
It was my good fortune to serve as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. I went into that department wondering how a man who was in the Canadian forces during peacetime maintains his level of competence, and how he has pride, a certain professionalism which he should bring into the job. I was in that job only for about three months but I was convinced that the Canadian forces bring to their job a sense of pride, a sense of professionalism which was the precedent set during wartime by the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Army.
There is a sense of dedication and professionalism that these men during peacetime still bring to their particular jobs. I think more could be said about this, but unhappily it is not done in peacetime because people seem to think that if you cannot do anything else you can get a job in the Canadian forces. That is not so any more; you have to possess a certain degree of intelligence and education to be a good member of the Canadian armed forces. We happen to be blessed with 80,000 or 90,000 members of the forces who bring with them this degree of dedication. I say, thank God for these men who serve during peacetime, when they do not get the kind of recognition they might during wartime.
I want to speak about another subject, that of the environment. The suggestion has been made that the government is not concerned about pollution and has not taken any action in this field. I supported the idea of appointing a Minister of the Environment. At long last we have a minister whose main obligation is to co-ordinate the areas so that we can do that which is best to control pollution be it of the air, of the land or of our water.
We have good legislation under the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis). We have a situation now where we are trying to clean up the Ottawa River, which means we have to bring the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario and the federal government into reaching some kind of agreement. We are facing a similar situation in the Great Lakes, where we have to deal with two or three provinces, important cities, the government of the United States and various states in the United States. We are endeavouring to do that which is necessary to see that our Great Lakes are cleaned up. Certainly it was a severe
[Mr. Cullen.)
blow to learn that the amount of money to be provided in the United States for pollution control was to be reduced. Reports indicate, however, that this may not have the detrimental effect we thought it might have in so far as pollution control of the Great Lakes is concerned.
There is another area which should receive more publicity, that is, the degree of co-operation between the United States and Canada with respect to the surveillance of the Great Lakes and the fact that some of the ships using the Great Lakes see fit to ignore the fact that if they dump their bilgewater, which has oil in it, or if they dump the other material which has the effect of despoiling the water, it has a tendency to come up on the beaches of the Great Lakes. This is another area in which we need surveillance. If I am driving along and I know a member of the Ontario police force is a mile down the road, I am not going to be speeding. That is what we need in the Great Lakes, a form of sophisticated surveillance.
I am happy that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) has indicated that he is coming to the Sarnia area, to that great area where we have Lake Huron and its beautiful beaches, to see whether we should not think about having some form of aircraft or sophisticated surveillance so that ships either coming down the lakes or going up, or even ships parked in the lakes by reason of some hold-up in the lakes, do not dump their bilgewater or garbage into the Great Lakes and pollute them, with rubbish washing up on the beaches of Lake Huron, be they on the Canadian or on the United States side. But this government is aware of the problems in this area and I am hoping that the kind of surveillance I am looking for'will be provided.
I want to make just one more comment before I conclude. When I ran during the last election campaign I adopted a rather presumptuous campaign slogan which was "Cullen for Canada". It had a nice ring to it and had the alliteration that politicians look for. But for this particular member it had a meaning, too. I ran on the understanding that we were going to have an Official Languages Act, that we would recognize that any Canadian in Canada, be he French or English speaking, could go to any government department and speak his own language. Someone whose mother tongue was French should be able to go to any post office in British Columbia or Ontario and speak French and be understood. By the same token I, as an English-speaking Canadian, should be able to go to the remotest part of Quebec and speak English in a post office or any federal office.
Such a situation does not mean we are ramming French down the throats of English-speaking Canadians. Neither is it ramming English down the throats of French-speaking Canadians. All it means is that a French-speaking, unilingual Canadian is able to go to British Columbia and use his native tongue in any federal office. This is the way it should be if we sincerely believe that this is truly a bilingual country. I support that kind of philosophy completely.
There has been some misrepresentation of the Official Languages Act. Many people have said that it has the effect of spreading French to western Ontario or western Canada, or that it spreads English through Quebec. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is, as I have said,
February 24, 1972

merely ensuring that unilingual Canadians, be they English-speaking or French-speaking, can conduct business in any federal office or government department in their own language.
I for one cannot understand why people are opposed to learning a second language. It was a treat to me. I take French lessons two days a week, which means I have to get up earlier than I normally do. I had a splendid opportunity to learn French when I went to Le College Militaire de Saint Jean. I remember when you, Mr. Speaker, and I celebrated our passing of "legon quatorze". We were both thrilled that at last we could communicate with our French-speaking colleagues. They would come across to our table and ask us for the English word for such-and-such. We were able to communicate with them and have a great time. Last summer I visited Quebec and used my French to get food and lodging. I did not run into any separatism, merely friendship. When they say "hospitalite is spoken here", let me tell you that that is true.
I think Canadians have an obligation to learn the second language, but I would prefer to think that Canadians have the opportunity to speak the second language. You will find no nicer people than the French-speaking Canadians of Quebec, northern Ontario or St. Boniface. Neither will you find any nicer English-speaking Canadians than those in southern Ontario, in the area I represent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this debate has reflected, particularly in the nature of the amendment that has been moved by my colleague from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), a disillusionment today that is very worrisome to many of us who have been in Parliament for many years. We have seen the growth of a confrontation of ideology, a confrontation of region, a confrontation of ethnic origin. I use that term very advisedly and with apologies to this House, because I do not believe in a confrontation of ethnic origin.
I as an individual am a product, on my father's side, of generation upon generation of French speakers and Irish
Speech from the Throne
speakers. Much more recently, on my mother's side, my ancestors have come from continental Europe, from Belgium. Like the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen), who has just resumed his seat and was also a veteran in the last World War, I married an English girl, as did thousands upon thousands of Canadians. We look upon this sort of linguistic, ethnic confrontation as though it were a plan from the devil to destroy the Canadian nation. There is nothing quite so diabolical as this, to my way of thinking.
I am sure that from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland and from the forty-ninth parallel to the north pole there are hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of Canadians who think alike. Yet here we are in this day and age exposed to a philosophy, espoused by government, of confrontation; a philosophy of the government that says you are either on this side or on the other side.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Not on language.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) should be the first to recognize that. There is no place in Canada for this sort of thing, certainly not within his city or my city. I will take no place behind anyone in this House when it comes to the question of who is a Canadian, whether one is of French origin, of English origin, or Irish or Scots. So let the hon. member make his own speech.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Yes, I will.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But only when I have finished my speech. He is the hon. member who is known as "the loudmouth interrupter".


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
25020-17l

Friday, February 25, 1972