1972-02-18

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S AND SENATE GALLERIES OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF UNITED STATES CONGRESS

Mr. Speaker:: It gives me much pleasure to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's gallery and in the Senate gallery of a delegation of very distinguished and senior parliamentarians from the United States Congress representing both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
The delegation, led by Senator Frank Church and Congressman Neil Gallagher, is in Ottawa to attend the fourteenth annual meeting of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group. I know it is the sense of this House that over the years this group, this association, has made a valuable and indeed a positive and significant contribution to the maintenance of cordial relations between our two peoples, between our governments and between our countries, based upon good will, mutual understanding and friendship.
On behalf of all hon. members I extend to our distinguished visitors and friends a most hearty welcome and express the hope that their stay in Canada will be interesting, enjoyable and fruitful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as is customary I should like to inform the House of certain changes made in the ministry since the recess began on January 12, 1972.
It is with great personal regret that I received the resignation on December 31, 1971 of the Hon. J. J. Greene as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I know I speak for all hon. members when I say that we followed our colleague's recent illness with concern and are now delighted with the recovery which will allow him to continue to serve his constituency in Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Although his absence has already been felt by cabinet, it is fortunate that the House of Commons,
and indeed all of Canada, may still benefit from the unique eloquence, common sense and humour of the hon. member for Niagara Falls.

During the parliamentary recess, some changes were made in the membership of the cabinet. The Hon. P.M. Mahoney was made Minister of State to assist the Minister of Finance.
Ten ministers were given a different portfolio beginning January 28, 1972: the Hon. Arthur Laing, Minister of Veterans Affairs-

Shall I dispense, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Lewis:: Dispense. It makes no difference, anyway.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In that case, I shall not dispense, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. E. J. Benson, Minister of National Defence; Hon. John N. Turner, Minister of Finance; Hon. Bryce Mack-asey, Minister of Manpower and Immigration; Hon. Donald S. Macdonald, Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources; Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube, Minister of Public Works; Hon. Ron Basford, Minister of State for Urban Affairs; Hon. Robert K. Andras, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; Hon. Otto E. Lang, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada who will still be responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board; Hon. Martin P. O'Connell, Minister of Labour, who will still be responsible for Information Canada.
I should like to table the correspondence exchanged between the Hon. J. J. Greene and myself. As a few changes were also made in the appointment of parliamentary secretaries, I should like to table the decree concerning those changes.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I just say a word about the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Greene) to whom the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) referred. I will have one or two other things to say about the rest of the Prime Minister's announcement later in the day. On my own behalf and that of my colleagues I wish to express our regrets because the hon. member for Niagara Falls has found it necessary to retire from the cabinet as a result of ill health. I express these regrets all the more warmly because I know that he has never had anything except my own best interests at heart in pursuing his career. He has been a vigorous partisan, as I am sure he would agree. At times he has swung a broad axe and sometimes I felt a blunt axe; but he was always prepared to have an axe swung at him in return. I wish him well, Sir.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 18, 1972
Tribute to Member


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise only to join my colleagues and myself in the wishes expressed to the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Greene). I have already commented about the changes in the cabinet and I see no reason for repeating those comments. I want to tell the hon. member for Niagara Falls that all the things the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said about him were true, that we all enjoyed his part in the House of Commons, his speeches outside and his conscientious work as a minister in a very important portfolio. I regret with all my heart that his illness has made it impossible for him to continue his work. I look forward to listening to him in the House as an honourable and honoured member.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, it is with feeling that my colleagues and I endorse the words spoken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and by other members of the opposition concerning the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Greene). We have always felt a great deal of esteem for him, and we want to testify today that he has always honoured the responsibilities that had been entrusted to him.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Niagara Falls has made a precious contribution to the prestige of the House of Commons through the quality of his speeches and the perfection with which he has always accomplished his work.
I met him yesterday with a group of colleagues and, in the face of the misfortune that has befallen him, he simply said: "You know, my friends, anywhere in life patience is required." Such is the man who said those words.
On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to congratulate him on his work and to wish him better luck in the future with us in Parliament.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43 which I consider to be of urgent and pressing importance. I do so in light of the recent unemployment figures released by Statistics Canada, which indicate that in provinces where Department of Regional Economic Expansion programs are most heavily concentrated unemployment is rising and there is a substantial decrease in the number of jobs. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That the Standing Committee on Regional Development be empowered to undertake an evaluation of DREE programs.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



CANADA-U.S. AUTO PACT-CANADIAN POSITION IN NEGOTIATIONS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 which provides that in cases of urgent and pressing necessity a motion may be moved if unanimous consent is given.
The matter of urgent and pressing necessity arises out of reliable reports, both American and Canadian in source, that the Canadian government changed its negotiation position on the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement between December, 1971, and January, 1972. Such shift in policy has led to confusion abroad and uncertainty at home as to what the Canadian government's position on the automotive industry is, particularly with regard to the production safeguards which currently exist in the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement. Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask leave to move, seconded by the member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce be called upon to make a statement on motions at the next sitting of this House outlining the government's present policy proposals on the Canadian automotive industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: 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.
The immediacy of the motion arises as a result of the wrongful release of Yves Geoffroy from the St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary and his sudden disappearance after said release. The shocking facts are known to everyone. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That the Governor in Council cause an inquiry to be made into the wrongful release of Yves Geoffroy from the St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary and that a special commission be set up to inquire into the same in accordance with the Inquiries Act, empowered to summon witnesses and give evidence under oath and ask for the production of documents deemed requisite to a full investigation into what appears to be a corrupt practice within the administration of law in Canada.
Fe b r u ary 18L1972


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What a best man-Denis.


Mr. Bell:: Poor Rivard.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but we are on motions and only those moved under Standing Order 43 may now be heard. If I understand the hon. member correctly, he wants to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 26 and I shall recognize him when we reach that stage in the business of the House.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I request the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion arising from a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It concerns the impasse in the contract negotiations between the Treasury Board and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers which is seriously affecting the public interest by disrupting air transport and which has also been a factor leading to the loss of six lives when the trawler Gulf Gull ran ashore off Cape Breton Island because navigational aid was off the air at the time of the accident.
With the consent of the House I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That this House urges the government to instruct the Treasury Board forthwith to negotiate in good faith with the Brotherhood with a view to the settlement of any matters in dispute, and this House further urges that if the Treasury Board and the Brotherhood fail to conclude a settlement and to enter into a new collective agreement within three days after such instruction is given, the government take measures to establish procedures for effecting a settlement.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent with respect to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Delay in Unemployment Insurance Payments


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask leave to move a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity in connection with the payment of unemployment insurance benefits. I present this motion bearing in mind the thousands of problems being encountered across the nation and the severe hardship being imposed on those who are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits and who are unable to receive them, a situation which leads to humiliating experiences for claimants. I would add that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration himself said he would welcome any suggestions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member and other hon. members that they should not attempt to argue the case or present substantive arguments in support of a motion under Standing Order 43. If the hon. member has a motion to put forward he should put it now.


John Leroy Skoberg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration be instructed to make an immediate inquiry into the operations of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to determine the causes of the delays experienced all over Canada in the receipt of unemployment insurance benefits and to recommend steps to put the administration of unemployment insurance on a proper and efficient basis.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion put forward by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



STEPS TO EXPEDITE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: I am not sure what I should do, Mr. Speaker. I had intended to move a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 on the same topic. It is of a constructive nature and I am sure all hon. members would want to consider it. Without further preamble I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That this House urges the government to revise its administrative procedures for computer rejects; that a manual pay procedure be established for rejects and overdue claims; that local offices be reopened and temporary offices be established to facilitate the prompt payment of overdue claims and for the general benefit of those insured under the program, and, finally, that the government decentralize its pay processing procedures.

February 18, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
I trust this motion will receive more than the usual response.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has indicated the substance of his motion. The question is formally before the House. I have to inquire, of course, whether there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the matter cannot be proceeded with at this time.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DEALY IN PAYMENT OF BENEFITS-REMEDIAL MEASURES BY GOVERNMENT

Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the necessity for the government to take steps to consider and improve the Unemployment Insurance Commission performance which is several months behind in its payments to thousands of claimants.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has given notice required under Standing Order 26 and I have carefully considered the suggestion he made.
I of course recognize that this is an important matter and one of interest to all hon. members of this House. At the same time, I believe hon. members will recognize that it would not be easy to justify adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 at the very moment when we have before us the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, more particularly today when it has already been determined by a special order of the House that we must, during the course of the day, hear the speeches of the four parties.
I feel, after due consideration, that I must reach the conclusion that it is not possible, at least today, to allow holding a special debate on the subject brought forward by the hon. member for Compton.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in the regrettable absence of the Minister of

Manpower and Immigration, I should like to pose a question to the Prime Minister. I am sure that in view of the seriousness of the tragic delays in the payment of unemployment insurance claims the Prime Minister will be fully familiar with this subject. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he has caused inquiries to be made as to the reasons for these delays, and can he now give the House these reasons in order to explain the very serious delays that are taking place across the country?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, may I draw to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition that, though it is easy to criticize, it is indeed remarkable that an additional 1.2 million Canadians are covered by the new unemployment insurance plan. I further point out that 98.7 per cent of all claims are being processed on schedule, and that only a few days ago a news release was issued concerning the minister's investigation into the problem of delays. It was determined during the investigation that the principal reasons for the delays stemmed from three causes: First of all, a lack of employer records, a situation which is now, hopefully, being remedied; second, improperly filled in claims by claimants and, third, some problems within the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I would point out to the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Raymond J. Perrault: -that now less than 1 per cent of the claims are being delayed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. Let me remind the House at the very beginning that we have only a 40-minute question period. I would hope that each question would not be followed by a debate. The parliamentary secretary should not, in reply to a question, make a lengthy statement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the extraordinary complacency exhibited by the parliamentary secretary, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he personally is now prepared to investigate the reasons for this tragic inefficiency, resulting in tragic suffering by thousands and thousands of unemployed persons across this country. Is the Prime Minister himself prepared to investigate this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the members sitting behind the hon. gentleman had permitted him to listen to the answer, he would have discovered that the reasons for the delays were given by the parliamentary secretary. Therefore there is no need for further investigation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister seems to be so complacent about this subject, may I ask him whether he is prepared, in conjunction with the House leader, to arrange for the immediate establishment of the appropriate committee and for the reference of this whole subject to that committee for investigation, particularly in view of the suffering that is taking place across this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be very much prepared to discuss this with the minister as soon as he returns.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: In two weeks.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If hon. members do not want an answer-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Don't be such a baby. Get up.


Mr. Muir:: I thought the baby was at home.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Four or five or more members are seeking an opportunity to ask supplementary questions. We should try to proceed in an orderly fashion. The hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact reports indicate that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is unfortunately ill and will be away for some two weeks or more-I hope not more-and in view of the fact this issue of the payment of unemployment insurance benefits is a very real one for a good many thousands of people, because 1 per cent at the present level of unemployment involves a great many Canadians, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he could not immediately set up the committee and refer the subject to it, particularly since the Minister of Manpower and Immigration said in the press release to which the parliamentary secretary referred that he would be very glad to come to the committee and discuss the matter with its members? I ask the Prime Minister whether this could not be done today instead of being delayed for two weeks.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The minister did indeed indicate that that was his desire and that it would be his hope that as soon as the estimates are examined by the standing committee he would appear. I realize that this might take a few days, but if the opposition parties are prepared to continue changing our traditions perhaps we could shorten the debate on the Speech from the Throne to one or two days and then go to the estimates right away.


Mr. Baldwin:: We should change the government. [Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
The right hon. Prime Minister has just said that he does not expect a solution before the sittings of the committee concerned. In a letter dated January 26, 1972, the Minister of Labour stated that those problems would be solved within ten days and that a solution would be reached within 72 hours in all other cases. That did not happen.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether in establishing a special committee of the House he intends to examine the administration of those cheques in order to decentralize that system to ensure a more personal and more efficient service?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the facts I disagree with the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. If he knows about some specific cases he might submit them to the minister and see whether in fact a solution can be reached within 48 hours.
As to the hon. member's suggestion, I just proposed to all opposition parties, including the Social Credit party, to shorten the debate on the Speech from the Throne and to deal with the estimates now so as to consider that item.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister suggests that I should submit the cases that I have in mind, but the problem extends beyond this fact. I have already submitted over 400 cases, from my constituency alone. So I should like to put the same question to him again on the understanding that I shall forward to him at once a petition from unemployed constituents of Lotbiniere who object to this inhuman system.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration stated to me four weeks ago today that this was a deplorable situation and assured me that it would be corrected within eight days, does the Prime Minister not consider that his assertion that he will discuss this matter in some two weeks when the minister is expected to return to the House is a disgraceful affront to the unemployed people of this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



DELAYS IN PAYMENT OF BENEFITS-REIMBURSEMENT OF PROVINCES FOR WELFARE EXPENDITURES

John Howard Lundrigan: I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that considerable sums of money have to be expended by provincial treasuries in welfare payments because of the delays in payment of unemployment insurance benefits, procedures have been worked out with the provinces to reimburse them and whether these procedures are acceptable to the provincial governments?
Am I communicating through this sound system, Mr. Speaker, or is the Prime Minister listening to some kind of radio joke program or some television rebroadcast? The question I am asking does not seem to get a response from the Prime Minister. May I repeat my question. I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that considerable sums of money have to be expended by the provinces in welfare payments because of the lengthy delays in the payment of unemployment insurance benefits, appropriate and acceptable arrangements have been made with the provinces to reimburse them, and have the provinces accepted these arrangements?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the hon. member knows, the federal government does pay 50 per cent of all welfare payments under CAP.

February 18, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



DELAYS IN PAYMENT OF BENEFITS-RESOLUTION OF DIFFICULTIES AT BATHURST, N.B., OFFICE

John Howard Lundrigan: Can the parliamentary secretary, who might have a more rational response to an important question, indicate whether he has received an assurance that the situation at Bathurst, New Brunswick, has been resolved and whether there has been a meeting this morning with the students and the clients involved? Finally, can he indicate why the unemployment insurance office was closed yesterday, which precipitated more concern?


Raymond J. Perrault: I am pleased to attempt to answer that question, and I want to assure hon. members that this side of the House is just as concerned as they are about the unemployed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Muir: Why don't you do something about it then?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary might reply to the question.


Raymond J. Perrault: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Mr. Des-Roches, together with the regional director, Mr. Foster, has met with local groups in Bathurst. It has been determined that only a small number of delayed claims have been discovered and action has been taken on them immediately. However, suggestions by leaders of local groups for improving the service will be given every consideration, and the commission is prepared to adopt any suggestion which might lead to better service in the area.


An hon. Member:: That is dishonest and you know it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I notice there are at least four or five members who are seeking to ask supplementary questions on this matter. If hon. members feel that the whole question period this morning should be spent on this one item the Chair cannot object to that, but perhaps hon. members might give some thought to allowing the Chair to suggest that hon. members go to another subject and if there is time at the end we might return to this matter. I will give another five minutes or so to the consideration of this very important matter by recognizing first the hon. member for Hamilton West.



DELAYS IN PAYMENT OF BENEFITS-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION BY COMMITTEE

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact he said that there are some problems within the Unemployment Insurance Commission's administration and in view of the fact the minister emphatically indicated that he was in favour of the convening of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration in order to deal with this matter, would the parliamentary secretary use his good influence in order to advise the Prime Minister to convene
this committee so that this whole sordid mess can be looked into?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a suggestion rather than putting a question. For the moment I will recognize the hon. member for Oxford.



DELAYS IN PAYMENT OF BENEFITS-SUGGESTED REOPENING OF LOCAL OFFICES

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the same matter which I should like to direct to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who also has responsibility for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Will the parliamentary secretary recommend to the Unemployment Insurance Commission that they reopen immediately the local offices that were closed about two years ago, at which time many members of the House in all parties warned that this would cause the mess that we now see? Perhaps this might help in resolving the problem sooner.


Raymond J. Perrault: A number of additional unemployment insurance offices have been opened coincidentally with the establishment of the universality of the world's finest unemployment insurance program on January 1.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege. A very serious situation has developed arising out of the original answer by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration with regard to the number of claims by claimants who are seeking benefits, that are not being looked after properly. The parliamentary secretary stated that either 1 per cent or less of those who are seeking benefits and who are entitled to them are not receiving the said benefits. This is the first time I have heard this figure mentioned.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Robert Carman Coates: Don't you worry about it, I will get to the question. When this matter was brought up in the House in December the Minister of Labour, who is now Minister of Manpower and Immigration but is still responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission, stated there was a 2 per cent backlog of claims not being processed properly. Later the chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission made a statement to the effect that 88 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member but I must interrupt him for a moment. He took the floor on a question of privilege and the question of privilege should be identified immediately. Until now I would be inclined to think and to rule that this is a matter of debate rather than a question of privilege. Would the hon. member indicate immediately why he considers this is a matter of privilege?


Robert Carman Coates: This is not difficult to do, Mr. Speaker. The former Minister of Labour gave certain figures about


delays in claims and the chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission made a statement, not too long ago, to the effect that only 88 per cent of those people who were applying for benefits were receiving them. The minister recently made another statement, after a very short spot-check, about how many claims were being delayed. None of the statements made previously are the same as the one made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration this morning. I think the House deserves clarification of how the parliamentary secretary has arrived at the figure he has given this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The submission made by the hon. member is an interesting one but I think it is really a question of debate. A discrepancy in information supplied to the House cannot, by long-established practice, be raised by way of a question of privilege. I am sure there will be an opportunity to consider the matter further. I see the parliamentary secretary would like to reply to the question raised by the hon. member but I suggest that the matter should not be pursued by way of privilege and that we should attempt to pursue the question period which is quickly running out of time.


Robert Carman Coates: I have a further question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. What I am concerned about is that the House and the people of Canada are being misled by this figure and I do not think the matter should be allowed to stand in that way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That clearly is not privilege and I have to make that ruling. I would hope that the matter would not be pursued on that basis. I appeal to hon. members that if we spend all of our time on one important matter or on points of order or questions of privilege, which are also important matters that cannot be set aside easily, we will not, I think, have a very helpful, effective and fruitful question period this morning. I hope hon. members will co-operate with the Chair for their own benefit in this regard.


Raymond J. Perrault: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Very briefly, the point is that there has been no attempt here to mislead the House. The hon. member is speaking of two different sets of statistics.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously the answer given by the parliamentary secretary indicates the extent to which I suggest, humbly, I was correct in suggesting this is a matter of debate. We could spend many minutes, hours and possibly days in debating what these figures mean. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a supplementary question.



REASON FOR REMOVAL OF UNPROCESSED CLAIMS FROM QUEBEC TO BELLEVILLE

John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a supplementary for the parliamentary secretary. Is he aware that the world's finest unemployment insurance commission moved by automobile from Quebec yesterday 5,000 unprocessed claims to the city of Belleville to be processed and, if so, what does this indicate? Does it indicate that there is a complete breakinquiries of the Ministry
down in the province of Quebec in terms of UIC processing claims and, further, does it indicate that claims in the province of Ontario will be further delayed?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I hope the member also is aware of the fact that the commission processes 600,000 claims every two weeks and 98 per cent are on schedule.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize final supplementaries on this matter by the hon. member for Lotbiniere and then the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. Order, please. Apparently my voice did not carry through. I indicated I would recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere on a supplementary and I believe the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants also has a supplementary which will be the last one.



ALLEGED INSTRUCTIONS TO COMMISSION EMPLOYEES NOT TO REVEAL REASONS FOR DELAYS IN PAYMENT OF BENEFITS

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the parliamentary secretary.
Is it true that officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission have instructed the Bathurst and other offices not to divulge the reasons for the delays in the payment of benefits?


Raymond J. Perrault: I have heard of no such report but certainly the question will be brought under review and consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants will have the last supplementary.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the parliamentary secretary. Since the new computer system created a miracle, namely, a letter to a male unemployed in Nova Scotia saying he was pregnant, could the new system be told nothing like this has happened since Adam gave birth to Eve?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, incidents of this kind can be brought before the appropriate parliamentary committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Raymond J. Perrault: On behalf of the minister, may I welcome again a review and discussion of Unemployment Insurance Commission procedures by members of the standing committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South.
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



FOREIGN INVESTMENT-ROLE OF SCREENING AGENCY-INQUIRY AS TO POLICY STATEMENT AND LEGISLATION

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question with regard to the control of foreign ownership. Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether the government now intends to limit the activities of its so-called screening agency with regard to foreign takeovers? I have been informed it is considering limiting them to enterprises above a certain size rather than giving the agency over-all general supervision.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I could not answer that without making the announcement of the policy itself, and I am afraid the member will have to wait for that policy announcement.


David Lewis: In view of the Prime Minister's statement and in view of his frequent undertakings to announce the policy, at one time before Christmas, at another time before the session resumed and a third time as soon as the session resumed, can he inform Parliament when we may expect this statement and whether the government is also considering, as I am informed it is, some action between the time the policy statement is announced and the time when the legislation for Parliament may be ready, which may take five weeks or as long as three months, I am told?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the usual answer is forthcoming. It will be as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings on a supplementary.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as a bill on foreign ownership is listed among the bills to be brought before the House, can the Prime Minister advise the House when this bill will be brought forward as this policy statement has been promised to the country for many months?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we listed the bill there as we did many other bills because it is the intention to bring them forth in an orderly fashion.



POSITION OF TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES

George Harris Hees: Can the
Prime Minister bring the House up to date as to what has transpired regarding the trade negotiations between Canada and the United States since February 9 when Secretary of the Treasury Connally made the following statement:
The U.S. will seek appropriate means of reducing imbalances of trade with Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, a lot of things have transpired; most of them are false. What is happening is that the negotiations are continuing between the two countries.


George Harris Hees: As a further supplementary-


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



FOREIGN OWNERSHIP-SIMULTANEOUS ANNOUNCEMENT OF POLICY AND TABLING OF SUPPORTING MATERIAL-REASONS FOR DELAY

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to ask the Prime Minister whether the policy on foreign ownership will be announced at the same time as the supporting material will be tabled, or whether the announcement of foreign policy will come ahead of such report or other material, and are the delays due to technical reasons concerning translation of the supporting material, and may we therefore expect this to happen by March 17, or some other date, as again I have been informed?


Right Hon.   P.E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. member gets all these dates. I wish myself I were able to give a very precise date. I am shying away from that. To answer the substance of the question, the intention would still be to make the policy announcement and to have the background material tabled at the same time.
In reference to another question, Mr. Speaker, I would hope these events would take place as close as possible to the introduction of the legislation because we think it would be important for the community to know what kind of details will be going into the legislation as soon as possible after the policy announcement itself.


George Harris Hees: As a further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-DATE OF NEXT MEETING

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether a date has been fixed for the next meeting to take place in the course of the Cana-da-U.S. discussions which the Prime Minister says are continuing? Has a date been fixed for the next meeting, and can the minister indicate what the date is?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker. No date has been fixed yet but soundings are taking place to that effect.


George Harris Hees: As a further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will notice that there are a number of supplementaries still to be asked on this subject. Again we will attempt to move as quickly as we can because soon we will be running short of time.
February 18, 1972



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MINISTER AND CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES VISITING OTTAWA

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Does he propose to take advantage of the presence in Canada of a delegation from the U.S. Congress and meet with them privately in order to put forward Canada's position?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I would love to be invited to do so and I would do my best to attend if I were invited. But I point out that there are quite a number of learned Members of Parliament taking part in these discussions and I rely on their wisdom and intelligence to put forward the Canadian point of view.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister concerning the government's position with regard to foreign investment. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister assured me on more than one occasion last year that these papers and announcement of the government's position were merely awaiting translation and this would be a matter of days, is it a fact that the lengthy delay in announcement of the government's position relates either to new developments with regard to the government's position, or is it due to an inability on the part of the government to make up its mind on this important question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Neither, Mr. Speaker. The government's mind is made up on its general policy position. I indicated a moment ago that this policy position was to be made public at a time when we could also have the background material, and at a time when we would be sufficiently close to tabling legislation for first reading that there would not be a great deal of uncertainty in the minds of the Canadian public as to how our policy would in fact apply.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: As a further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow one last supplementary from the hon. member for Egmont. Hon. members will realize that we have not yet completed the first round of questioning. As a matter of fact we are only on the second question. After that I will have to recognize the representative of the other party to my left. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Egmont on a last supplementary, and will again attempt later to see the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings who has an additional supplementary.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister clear up one mystery and indicate why it has taken two months longer than he originally indicated to complete this important task?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think we need more one-handed economists, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member knows, economists generally argue on the one hand, and then on the other hand.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Egmont rises on a point of order.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Is there nothing we can do with underhanded Prime Ministers?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



AGRICULTURE


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since a considerable number of owners of abandoned farms follow with much interest the policies put forward by the minister, will he tell us if his family farm development program will take into account abandoned farms and if he will raise this question with each of the provinces?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly be taking this into account, but the major thrust of the program in the initial stages will be to assist those people who are caught in a situation beyond their control with respect to their income and who are in fact now farming.



AIR TRANSPORT


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In light of the strike affecting air services, would the minister advise the House as to the state of air services at this particular time, with particular reference to safety?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the state of air services varies from one airport to another throughout the country. Therefore any general declaration is not possible at this time other than to say to the hon. member that the primary demand we are putting upon our officials and the public is that the safety laws be

February 18, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
observed to the maximum. Where we have the personnel there are more flights, for instance, per hour than where there is a shortage of personnel, but I cannot give the figures at specific airports because the situation does vary from one hour to the next.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that some technicians are supposed by law to remain on the job and as there are allegations to the effect that they have not, would the minister advise what his position is with respect to this matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am not sure I heard the question correctly and I apologize to the hon. member. Would he be good enough to repeat the question?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that by law some members of the technicians group are supposed to remain on the job to maintain services and that they are flouting the law. In light of this would the minister advise what his position is and whether any direction has been given to alleviate that situation in order that safety can be maintained?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Let me deal with the final observation of the hon. member first, Mr. Speaker. So far as maintaining safety is concerned, that is being maintained. Where-and I am using the hon. gentleman's comment, not my own- some technicians are flouting the law, this is a regrettable state of affairs. I am advised that they have been told to return to work by their own union but have not done so in some instances. In view of this action we will now, in conjunction with Treasury Board, have to make a decision on what the next step will be. But I want to emphasize again that there is no relationship whatever between any flouting of the law and our determination to maintain safety. Where the safety factor is concerned it takes precedence over everything else. We will only allow that amount of flying out of any airport that conditions permit within the framework of safety.



AIRPORTS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Now that we are on the subject of airports, can he advise when he will announce the location of the new auxiliary airport in Ontario and, if he cannot announce it today, when may we expect an announcement?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, since the House last met there have been very satisfactory further negotiations with the government of Ontario. I do not say this at all unkindly but there has been a change of ministers in the last week or two, which has made it necessary for the new Ontario minister to become more fully briefed on the matter. I have indicated that I am prepared to meet him at any time now with a very definitive proposal with which the government of Canada is prepared to proceed. I have reason to believe

that this will not be very far off, and given those parameters I would hope for an announcement within a couple of weeks or as soon as the government of Ontario is ready.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct an unprovocative question to the Solicitor General. I do not want to disturb the peace of this wonderful day and question period, so I simply ask whether he would be prepared to table the recommendations and report of a group of officials set up for the purpose of looking into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in which the suggestion was made that there should be a dissolution of that force and another name given to the national force next year, providing this government is returned?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as for the first part of the hon. member's question, it is based on facts I am unaware of; in other words, it is not at all intended to change the functions and duties of the RCMP.
As for the second part of his question, the hon. member alluded to the elimination of the word "Royal" from the RCMP's name. This is not envisaged at all. I think the hon. member was temporarily away from the House yesterday. He would have noted that the anti-royalists are on his side.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough so that the hon. gentleman could understand. I ask him if he will table the report that is on his desk that recommends the end of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the setting up of another force similar to the security Gestapo that has already been set up?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, such relationship exists only in the hon. member's mind.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no-it is on your desk.



ELECTIONS


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the commitment he has given on several occasions since June 1968, and in view of the fact that the report of

the Standing Committee on Election Expenses has been before the House for some eight months, I would ask whether the Prime Minister can tell the House now if it is the intention of the government to bring in legislation to deal with the matter of election expenses in time for it to be implemented before the next election.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am told, Mr. Speaker, that would be an impossibility. Even if the legislation were passed now, unless we were going to have an election very late indeed, or even beyond the constitutionally permitted time, it would be difficult to have legislation effective in time for that election.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the right hon. Prime Minister, in view of the fact that we have had an indication from election officials that it would only require two or at the most three months to fully implement legislation dealing with parliamentary election expenses, and in view of the fact that a prominent official of the Liberal party has stated that 95 major Canadian corporations are being solicited for funds for the Liberal party, can he have the legislation brought forward into this chamber so that it may be effective by election time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously argument and the question is not in order. The hon. member for Joliette.



FAMILY INCOME SECURITY


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Would the hon. gentleman indicate to the House whether the negotiations between the government of Quebec and Ottawa regarding family allowances have come to an end and whether the federal government is prepared to give in to the demands of Mr. Castonguay?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the discussions are still proceeding. Meetings have taken place between officials and even between Mr. Bourassa and myself. We have discussed the problem. The federal government's position is unchanged since my last statement to the House on the subject. We are prepared to consider a set of proposals aiming at improving the administration of the various federal and provincial programs.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES-EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER BY QUEBEC

Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Quebec government seems to emphasize one condition-that it be granted legislative power in the matter of family allowances-would the Prime Minister indicate whether he approves that request from Quebec?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if, as I understand the question, it concerns legislative power, the Quebec government has of course every power to pay whatever family allowances it wants to pay, in the same manner as does the federal government, since in effect we have been paying such allowances for over 25 years. So if the Quebec government wants to continue its system of payments and increase its payments to the citizens of that province, the federal government cannot oppose this in any way.
The problem is rather to know whether the two systems can be integrated, and I have already told Premier Bourassa that I agreed in principle. It is now a matter of establishing administrative terms which both governments will find satisfactory.



ELECTIONS


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to that posed by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister bring the House up to date regarding the situation surrounding the 20 Liberal members from Quebec whom he is not going to allow to run and is going to replace with more suitable candidates in the next election?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is not in order. The hon. member for Calgary North.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should state the question quickly because we have just about run out of time.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is that I believe every member of this House has a right to take an interest in the welfare of his fellow members of this House, and I want to make sure that they are generously treated when they are kicked out by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary North.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would-


Mr. Speaker:: If the Prime Minister rises on a question of privilege I would recognize him, but obviously that was not a legitimate question of privilege which was proposed by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings and that is why I interrupted him.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it does affect all hon. members that we do intend to kick out a lot of hon. members, most of whom are sitting in the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Would you like to take a bet on Prince Edward-Hastings? Put your money on the line-put up or shut up. A thousand dollars on Prince Edward-Hastings-

Inquiries of the Ministry
put up or shut up. He won't put his money where his mouth is.


An hon. Member:: That is too much for you, George.


An hon. Member:: Think first, George.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Solicitor General in reference to a matter which I know must be of some concern to him. It deals with, I assume, a friend of his, Yves Geoffroy, who was released wrongfully from the penitentiary. Is the minister prepared to make a statement on motions either now or soon in reference to this matter in order to have the facts laid before Parliament?


An hon. Member:: Like you just did.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to put an end to the regrettable rumours circulated by the press that Mr. Geoffroy is a friend, an acquaintance or a university colleague.
I do not know, I have never known Mr. Geoffroy. He is not among my acquaintances, and never was a university colleague.
As to the advisability of a statement, if the opposition insists on it, I am ready to make one, probably on Monday. I do not think the subject is important enough to take the time of the House to deal with it, not today in any case, in view of my high regard for the statements the party leaders will make in a few minutes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that there has been a tremendous increase in the crime of murder, and in light of the fact that this man was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in the penitentiary, I think this matter is important in relation to the administration of justice so I would ask the minister if he would give us an undertaking to make a statement at least by Monday?


An hon. Member:: That is what he just said.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Have the necessary steps been taken so that
(Mr. Hees.]
war veterans allowance recipients who are also receiving the guaranteed income supplement will not have their allowances cut back when they receive the $2.70 increase in the guaranteed income supplement which is to become effective in April?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my predecessor made a commitment to this House that this would be corrected long before April 1 and I intend to keep that date.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



POLLUTION


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the apparent hardship to new industry in the Maritimes owing to the publication of the regulations on oil levies for control of pollution, would the government look these over, let us know what the full story is behind them, make certain they are fair to everybody and publicize in some way the whole matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I can say emphatically that they are fair to everybody in the sense that they are being applied across the board. May I also remind the House that the legislation under which these levies are being exacted was passed, I believe unanimously, by this House. There is a necessity for a contingency fund to deal with clean-up. I can assure the House and the hon. member that when we feel there is an adequate amount in this fund to take care of emergencies, the levy will be either reduced or dropped, depending on conditions at that time.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What is the amount of the fund?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the hon. member rightly, he asked what is the amount. The amount is 15 cents per ton at the present time.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, excuse me. What will be the amount of the fund? To what amount does the minister expect the fund to build up?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, no upper limit has been put on it because of the limited amount of experience we have had. May I remind the House that the Arrow incident cost the taxpayers of this country in the neighbourhood of $4 million plus and that the one facing us now in Prince Edward Island will probably cost $2 million plus. A reasonable figure might be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $25 million or $30 million.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, February 17, 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.
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher). He spoke forcefully and in an entertaining way. Furthermore, he supplied us with a certain amount of ammunition to be used against his party. One cannot ask much more of the hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie) who seconded the motion on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. He expressed on the subject of Canada feelings that deserve to be remembered.

I should also like to greet the new cabinet, Mr. Speaker, and to congratulate the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) on his elevation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: 
An hon. Member:: Poor John!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -one can only say that gj^ter love hath no man.


An hon. Member:: Get on with the debate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will not spend much timiin dlscussing the Throne Speech itself.
Speech from the Throne


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There were a few-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There were a few, specific, positive measures.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) will not mind my interrupting him for a moment. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that what must be considered as rude remarks are disturbing some hon. members and are certainly disturbing the Chair. They have been coming from certain parts of the chamber during the time when the hon. member who has the floor has been speaking. I think they are entirely unbecoming and unacceptable to the Chair. I hope that all hon. members will co-operate.


George Harris Hees: The people across the way are a rude lot.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, there were some positive measures that I was pleased to see in the Speech from the Throne, measures such as the commitment to improve the Canada Manpower programs. Certainly, any additional steps to improve training and placement services and to make them more adequate for meeting the needs of specially disadvantaged peoples of Canada are very welcome indeed. I was interested in seeing that the federal government has announced its intention to become involved in legal aid. I should like to know what there is new about that, because if this government was not rendering legal aid to Yves Geoffroy, what was it doing!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The speech also stressed the need for harmonious relations with the provincial governments. I would not have thought that was necessary at this point. I was under the impression that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had established harmonious relations between the federal government and the provinces once and for all time, in view of the gracious tribute that he paid recently to the Prime Minister of British Columbia. So, on the whole, I cannot take the speech seriously.
In the circumstances of 1972, it is clear that the government is not capable of implementing effective long-term policies for solving our major economic and social problems in Canada. After all, this government has had four non-election years when it could have set out on that task. It did not do it then. Why should we expect better of it now? The speech is obviously the work of a government that is in love with itself to the point of total blindness. It is too bad that there was a near miss with the calendar, because this throne speech ought to have been presented on Valentine's Day. Surely, it is one of the most glowing hymns of self-love in all the annals of romantic literature.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The just society has disappeared. In the previous throne speech it was described as a distant ideal. I guess that the distance has increased now to the point where it is completely out of sight now so far as this

February 18,_ 1972
Speech from the Throne
government is concerned. The just society has now been replaced, apparently, by an obsessional concern about isolation. I can understand this government's being concerned about isolation. It must be feeling plenty of it right now.
Much of the legislation proposed in the speech appears to be a hangover, holdover or leftover. "Heritage Canada" is something new. It is an interesting plan. The speech indicates that it is intended "to ensure the preservation of items and collections from Canada's past". Well, Mr. Speaker, the government certainly fits that description. Let us stuff the government for preservation, before it is too late.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not believe the people of Canada will take this government seriously. It is a bit much for an ostrich to try and pass itself off as a peacock.
The Prime Minister prides himself on being decisive. Strangely enough, he cannot seem to decide on what basis he wants the people of Canada to judge him at this stage in his career. At one moment he invites us to compare 1972 with 1968. In other words, he asks us to judge him on his record. Another time he says it is his future plans that count and that the past is not really important. I am inclined to agree that the record of past achievements is better forgotten if we consider the political welfare of the present government. This government has been in office under the present Prime Minister for almost four years.
I think we should take up the Prime Minister's invitation and look at what his government has done. I should devote a little time today to make a comparison between 1968 and 1972. I think it would be rather instructive for us all. After all, we have to judge the performance of this government in the coming weeks and months by its record in recent years. Four years ago the government suggested that it had a game plan. The first couple of years were to be for housecleaning. Then, we were to be treated with measures leading up to the just society. As I said a moment ago, there is no reference to the just society in the present Throne Speech. I guess that is not part of the new game plan. Indeed, the concepts of the just society seem to have become a political embarrassment to this government. The only game plan this government has is a political one; that is now very obvious to the Canadian people.
It is likewise obvious that from the very start this government has been living in a world of its own. It had slogans to be sure. The just society was one of those slogans, but the role of those slogans was not to describe the directions the government proposed to take. The role of those slogans was to hide the fact that the government was offering few policies of any relevance, and to hide the fact it had no co-ordinated program of economic management to give to the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: All too much of the government's game plan has been centered around a timetable, a timetable

geared to re-election, not geared to the needs of the people of Canada.
I think the economy of Canada will be moving a little faster than last year. If that does happen, it certainly cannot be credited to the government's recent discovery of industrial strategy as a catch-phrase in the recent Speech from the Throne. The government's record has earned it the reputation of having a mechanistic view of the economy. The new Speech from the Throne tried to assure us that the government will be attempting to bring in proposals of tremendous importance to the future during the next few weeks. We are holding our breath. We are wondering if those new suggestions will equal in importance the fantastic breakthrough the Prime Minister achieved with the President of the United States last December.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is a pretty hard act to follow. When I first read the Speech from the Throne, I thought there was a mistake in spelling in the reference to industrial strategy because, from the behaviour of the government, I thought it was completely committed to industrial tragedy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When I say I think the government is confused about its direction, I do not mean to suggest that the government has lacked ambition. The record is pretty clear on that.

The Tax reform in itself was a challenge. But when the white paper on tax reform was finally completed the government had reached new heights in the art of spreading confusion, uncertainty and dissatisfaction across the country.
For a short period of time, following pressures exerted by an irritated Canadian public, it was thought that the government would come to its senses. But its stubbornness had not been taken into account. With its new tax bill and its amendments to amendments amending the amendments that were constantly piling up over this monstrosity this government was determined to go all the way with its nonsense and confusion spreading.

The climax came when the government imposed closure to squeich further meaningful debate on its so called tax
package.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: At the same time the government announced closure, it announced it was bringing in still more amendments to its own bill. This is one of the more incredible things this incredible government has perpetrated. in its wake, it left a tax jungle across this country and i; ieft the small businessman, including the farmer, besetby a tax structure that means he will need an expert at hiselbow every moment of the day when he is making a decison.
'Will regard to economic management, the record of the 2ovt>nment since 1968 is abundantly clear. Inflation is
February 18, 1972

still with us and unemployment has increased disastrously since 1968. Yes, I say inflation is still with us, despite the announcement of the Prime Minister some 14 months ago that it was licked.
What has the government done? On behalf of the old age pensioners, the government continues to behave as if there were no inflation in this country. The government froze the basic pension and froze the increase in the supplement for the neediest senior citizens at a paltry two per cent a year, regardless of how much the actual cost of living might go up during that year. In its courageous war against the dragon of inflation, the government has put the pensioners in the vanguard of the battle. It was said a few years ago in connection with what was called the war against poverty that there was never a shot fired. I must admit that in the war against inflation at least two shots have been fired, one against the unemployed and another against the older people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister, on a number of occasions, in defending his so-called war on inflation said he was motivated by his government's concern for the little people. Forget for a moment about the hundreds of thousands of little people thrown out of work through the government's deliberate policy of slowdown. This had to be done to protect the interests of other little people we were told, people on fixed incomes, our pensioners. By virtue of the government's legislation, overall a pensioner with no other income is only allowed a maximum annual increase of less than one per cent of what he receives.
We are all well aware of what has happened to retail food prices alone since the government enacted its revised old age security legislation. The tragedy of a pensioner in this country trying to keep pace with that kind of price increase, with no other income but a pension that only increases at a rate of less than 1 per cent per year, is shameful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The thought of it should fill us all, particularly the government, with a deep sense of guilt and a will to correct this inhumane situation as quickly as possible, but I hear no sounds of guilt from the government. Indeed, yesterday the hon. member for Bruce stated that our senior citizens had achieved the just society in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hear no more mention of even those little people from the Prime Minister. Regrettably, there is no indication in this Speech from the Throne that the government intends to correct this terrible injustice. How can this government be taken seriously in its glib platitudes about isolation when it ignores the isolation of so many Canadians who have made their contribution and deserve at least humane treatment? The plight of the old age pensioners is much like the blight of unemployment. The Trudeau government knows how to cause it, but does not know how to cure it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Speech from the Throne


Robert Lorne Stanfield: About a year ago I travelled across Canada to highlight the plight of the jobless.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I want to assure the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) that I was very closely in touch with what was happening. I was glad to hear the announcement of the legalization of marijuana. When I travelled across the country a year ago I did not profess to know all the answers to the unemployment situation. But at that time the government refused to admit that a problem even existed. Our party had four or five constructive suggestions to offer.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is again making general allegations that he cannot substantiate. I should like him to retract a statement he made that while he was on holiday in Guadeloupe he heard I had said that marijuana was to be legalized. That is untrue, and I think the hon. gentleman should retract that statement. I never said anything of the kind. If he heard it while he was on holiday it goes to show he was not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the House should be allowed to hear the Leader of the Opposition pursue his speech. It is a long-established rule that hon. members have to accept the word of another hon. member. I do not think this matter should be the subject of further debate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay); it is the last thing in the world I want to be. I feel very friendly toward him. He is a great help to me in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A year ago we were trying to persuade the government to show some real interest and take some constructive action in fighting unemployment. We made some suggestions for getting the economy rolling again. At that time the Prime Minister called me Canada's chief doomster. In effect, though, he admitted I was right when ten months later his government cut taxes, even though it was then too late for this measure to bite into the heavy burden of unemployment Canada is carrying and will continue to carry for the rest of this winter; indeed, too late to achieve even a 4 per cent rate of unemployment prior to the middle of 1974, according to the Economic Council of Canada.
A year ago, the government pretended the problem did not exist. This year we have two new responses from the government. The Prime Minister says there are lots of jobs around. He says there are lots of "help wanted" ads. I do not know when he started to read them. For a while I suspected he had begun a course in statistical optimism sponsored by the former minister of finance. But I have to assume there just might be something in what the Prime Minister is saying when his old friend Pierre Vallieres found a good job so easily. Second, we find the new Minister of Manpower (Mr. Mackasey) keeping up a brave front as he is faced by the shocking foul-up in getting unemployment insurance payments out in decent time.
30

February 18, 1972
Speech from the Throne
According to that minister-and I am sorry he is not in the House today-this is the fault of the applicants, who lack expertise in filling out complicated forms.


Mr. Prud'homme:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would not wish to leave the impression that Mr. Vallieres had been hired by the federal government. If that is what he said, I should like to point out that it is untrue; it is not in accordance with the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is debate; I suggest to the hon. member that he will have an opportunity to participate in the debate and to indicate what he feels the facts to be.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I did not say that. If the hon. member, who I respect also, will read what I said he will see I did not say that.
The minister's explanation about the difficulties in relation to unemployment insurance payments seems to suggest that since some of the applicants lack expertise in filling out complicated forms the computer does not like certain of these applications and consequently rejects them. But, of course, if a person is plugged in enough to know how to complain to a member of Parliament or articulate enough to write a scathing letter to the editor he may see some action with regard to his payment. The Speech from Throne assures us that no relief from this process is in sight. It says: "The fundamental reform of protective measures which commenced last year with the new Unemployment Insurance Act will continue." Sir, God help the unemployed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I suppose it is only a small percentage of the population which is directly affected, anyway. The minister reassures us as to that. Not everyone has been touched directly by unemployment, and for those who have not, by the government's yardstick, things have never been better. The hon. member for Bruce told us yesterday that things had never been better for the people of this country. This cynicism ignores the reality. If unemployment is not touching everybody personally it is certainly costing everybody who is in employment, money. Cities and provinces are obliged to shoulder welfare costs, costs which rocket when unemployment goes higher, costs which have to be met through additional local taxes. And the cost to the economy in lost productive capacity is staggering. Then, there is the human cost to be considered.
I said about a year ago that protracted uncertainty about government policy and lack of confidence in the government were contributing to a hesitant economy particularly in the case of businessmen who did not know what kind of year they would be facing, did not know under which tax laws they would be living and did not really know whether the government wanted them to stay in business or not. That is not a very good environment in which to create jobs.
The present government certainly has an unenviable record in the amount of alienation it has created in various sectors of the economy. Since 1968 it has alienated the agricultural community by insulting large sections of it, by downgrading the family farm and by trying to turn the

whole rural way of life into a public utility. This was not its only proving ground for alienation experiments. Consider its success in alienating our native peoples. Since 1968 the government has taken a stance of confrontation with labour just as it has with business. Since 1968 the government has alienated region after region in Canada. It has alienated the west by its disregard for the feelings of western Canadians in the fields of agriculture, resource development and economic growth. It has alienated the central provinces by its rigidity in federal-provincial affairs and by its arrogance generally. It has alienated the Atlantic provinces by its callous disregard of the regional impact of its economic policies and by its total failure in the area of regional disparity. In this field I do not believe even the truest Grit could argue that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) has achieved much success, certainly not with half the country presently designated as areas of slow growth. As a climax to his performance, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion resorted to using the economic mismanagement of his own government as an excuse for lack of progress. "How can you expect much", he said, "when the entire economy is as sluggish as it has been?" Well, Mr. Speaker, the answer is obvious: you cannot expect much in those circumstances.
The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council in its fifth annual review assessed DREE and made some specific criticisms, criticisms that members of the Progressive Conservative party had been making for some time. APEC said that targets had to be established, that regional planning should be directed more within the region, and efforts should be made to broaden the economic base since most manufacturing continues to be resource-oriented. The approach of the federal government in this area must be fully co-ordinated. It is incredibly negligent to have departments working at cross purposes, as we have had since 1968. We need a full assessment of DREE and its failure.
There should be more decentralization of decision making in the government, and certainly this applies in particular to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Perhaps if there were more real consultation the department would make fewer costly mistakes and get ahead faster. When faced with this criticism in the House of Commons, the minister made one of the most outlandish arguments that I have ever heard made in the course of defending the government's programs. He said that although the Atlantic provinces were in worse shape in absolute economic terms than they had been before the slow-down, they were really in much better shape relatively because the government's over-all economic slowdown had severely affected the more well to do regions of the country.
The terrible truth, Mr. Speaker, is that that kind of looking glass logic is surely the most emphatic kind of self-condemnation. If the economic slowdown which the government so callously inflicted on this country had a serious impact upon the more well to do parts of Canada, would it not follow that those regions would soon become preoccupied with their own problems? Would this kind of process not lead to a weakening of their will to be the
February 18, 1972

helpmates of disadvantaged regions of Canada, and is this not actually happening? Is this any way to pursue national unity, to pursue a just society? Not in my books it is not, Mr. Speaker. When you are prepared to take pride in the doubtful accomplishment of having made the weak appear to be relatively stronger by virtue of making the strong weaker, you have in fact declared bankruptcy by any accounting of your sense of national responsibility.
In the field of foreign policy the government has, as far as I am concerned, an erratic scorecard: there are some achievements that I approve of and a number of moves that I consider to be quite irrational. In the latter category was the government's unilateral decision to reduce Canadian participation in the operations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I think that that decision damaged our country in at least two different ways. First, we weakened the impact of our voice in the councils of NATO at a time when the importance of that body as a diplomatic force in the quest for peace and disarmament was growing by leaps and bounds. Considering our own expressed concern in this area, I would suggest that the government's decision and approach was, at the very least, illogical.
Secondly, our partial withdrawal from Europe gave the impression over there that Canada was not really very interested in its relationships with continental Europe, and that impression has not helped us at all in this country's efforts to ensure favourable economic relations with the European Common Market.


Mr. Sharp:: Why do you promote that point of view, then? It is not the government's point of view, but maybe it is the Leader of the Opposition's?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not rate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) as one who always understands things, but I thought I had put it simply enough for him to understand. There is no question but that the reduction of the Canadian commitment to NATO gave the impression in the capitals and countries of Europe that Canada was not much interested in relationships with Europe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister can shake his head all he likes, but like other Canadians who have visited Europe since that decision was made I know it is only too true.


George Harris Hees: Mitch does not get around enough to know about that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I want to touch on one other foreign policy criticism which relates to how the government has behaved in the course of the improvement in our relations with the Soviet Union. I want there to be absolutely no doubt that I welcome such improvement. We should by all means talk frankly and in the most cordial possible terms to each other, and I did not, and I do not, express reservations about the exchange of visits between Soviet and Canadian leaders. But I do not consider it appropriate for a Canadian Prime Minister to express concern in public in the Soviet Union about our relations with our neighbour, the United States. Neither do I believe it appropriate for the Premier of the Soviet Union to pronounce publicly on
Speech from the Throne
those same relations here in Canada, especially when the Prime Minister of Canada does not dissociate himself from any of those assertions. Incidentally, I was quite pleased to see the Prime Minister dissociate himself from certain remarks about NATO which were made by the President of Yugoslavia.
Canadians object, and rightly object, if there is any indication that Washington is interfering in the conduct of our external affairs. The same ground rules should obviously apply to Moscow, as they should to any other part of the world. The sheer closeness of the United States, the intensity of our mutual economic interaction, combined with the distance between us in terms of wealth and in terms of power-all these things guarantee that there will be problems in Canadian-United States relations without anybody having to do anything deliberately to worsen the situation. To do so is to act irresponsibly toward the people of Canada. Furthermore, it is degrading to an otherwise very worth-while endeavour.
When I get on to the topic of our relations with the United States, particularly in the course of an assessment of the government's record since it took office, I cannot help but think about how the "just society" became the "secret society" when it came to the elusive Gray report. The Gray report, you will remember, Mr. Speaker, was commissioned as an analysis of the problem of foreign investment in Canada. It was to tell us the facts and recommend solutions. For that reason it was, and it is, a vitally important document to every Canadian.
After first promising that the report would be released and open for discussion, the government did an about face and decided that the report was too much for the Canadian people, that the people would be protected by making the report a confidential cabinet document. That, Sir, was not only insulting, it was stupid and self-defeating. The result was a leak that became a flood. First, there was what purported to be a summary of the report published by the Canadian Forum. That was quickly followed by the Southam News Services publication of a secret cabinet document. That cabinet document showed clearly that the government had tried to mislead the Canadian people when it suggested that the Canadian Forum paper was not really very important.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: One of those heavy water leaks, Bob.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A heavy water leak is nothing compared with the flow coming from this government. I feel sorry when the hon. member for St. Boniface is reduced to the point of coming back to heavy water, because it indicates that he is in a very sad state of bankruptcy.


Mr. Korchinski:: He is a pothead on a trip.


An hon. Member:: Go back to the grass.


George Harris Hees: Some grass!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not want to irritate these people unnecessarily. I understand that the morale is not very high there anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
25020-3i

February 18, 1972
Speech from the Throne


George Harris Hees: They tell me the group of 20 is growing every day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not want to give anybody over there a bad weekend, Mr. Speaker.
Before the recess the Prime Minister told us that the government had settled on its policy with regard to foreign investment and ownership. Various other announced dates were indicated. Two months have passed and the country still awaits the word; confusion and uncertainty still abound. Now, we are promised in the Speech from the Throne some kind of legislation based upon the unrevealed policy developed from that phantom report. Participatory democracy strikes again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If we are to work out our economic relations with the United States, we need some grounds for mutual trust and confidence. Those grounds do not exist now and a good deal of the responsibility must be borne by this government. If we are to work out our relations, some effort must be made to spell out our goals, and that effort must be made in the open with the participation of all Canadians, not in the back room secrecy of Ottawa or anywhere else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I could go on and on and on.


Mr. Gibson:: You are.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My remarks could range from the government's attempts to muzzle the Auditor General to all sorts of unsettling legislation which has been left hanging in the air, but I think I could sum up at this point simply by saying that I believe this government has effectively dissipated one of the most hopeful moods this country has ever experienced. It has largely wasted one of the greatest opportunities ever available to a government of this country.
The momentum of the spirit of 1967 has become the inertia of the malaise of 1972. The evidence of that is everywhere in this country and does not require an endless catalogue of exhibits to support it. The disaffection and frustration which so many Canadians feel toward this government, contrasted with their high hopes when it came into office, is the real test of its record. The real test of government is whether it can create a climate of confidence, co-operation and trust within which people, groups and whole regions can live, develop and prosper in Canada.
The present government has failed that test. It has failed miserably perhaps because it has never really seen it as a desirable objective. The question arises, where are we going today and what should our direction be. We in the party for which I speak believe that there can be just one new direction. We believe that government in Canada must rededicate itself to liberating the initiative and the imagination of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This goes against the tendency that has been noticeable lately to impose universal and generalized regulations for their own sake, perhaps for the sake of making things tidy for the bureaucrats. Tidiness may be a virtue but when it interferes with a free society, then I think it is better to get your housekeeping accomplished in some other way.
The federal government has many tasks before it, and I say it must get its own house in order as a first step to nurturing our economic independence and national identity. In this regard, coordination within the federal government to ensure consistency in all policies-tax policy, competition policy , regional development policy, transportation policy, all policies-is the only workable approach. This was emphasized by the Science Council of Canada in an interim report. So far as I can see there is nothing in the Speech from the Throne that even recognizes the need for that kind of coordination and consistency in the various policies of this government.

Mr. Speaker, of course, Canada needs a long term economic development strategy. That is clear and undeniable, whether we are speaking of foreign investments, whether we are considering our future as a trading nation or whether we are discussing the economic future of the various parts of Canada.
The first duty of the government in the development of some strategy, in the broader sense of the word, must be to determine some order for national priorities, in conjunction with the provinces and the representatives of the main economic sectors. The second step should be to devise legislation to govern the implementation of such priorities.

I see, according to the list of bills, that the government intends to bring in legislation concerning foreign investment, and the Prime Minister referred to it this morning. There is no indication in the Speech from the Throne of what that kind of legislation will be, in spite of the fact that the decision was apparently taken two months ago, we are told. I must emphasize at this point that any legislation of this nature must be a unifying force across Canada and not a divisive one.
The Throne Speech before us pays lip service to the need for an industrial strategy. How can we intelligently consider proposals with regard to foreign investment without having before us the government's articulated industrial strategy? How can we know what we are trying to achieve without this strategy? The government has paid lip service to this concept. It assures us that there will be announcements of tremendous importance to the future of this country within a few weeks, but the speech does not tell us what priorities the government thinks should be the basis of such a strategy.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I leave the chair to resume the sitting at 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
February 18, 1972



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, when I called it one o'clock I was discussing the concept of an industrial strategy in Canada. I have had people say to me: "What is this industrial strategy thing; is it some kind of new political catch-phrase?" I suppose when it is used the way it is in the Speech from the Throne it is not difficult to see or to speculate concerning why that kind of an interpretation could be taken or why that kind of a question could be asked about the significance of an industrial strategy. But, to many people in this country and to me it is much more than a catch-phrase. To me it means a definition of some direction, a definition of some direction based upon specific priorities that are chosen to take us in that direction. It means adopting a sense of direction in both the medium and longer range terms, rather than simply an ad hoc expediency determining the Canadian game plan on a day to day and hour to hour basis.
There are a number of different strategies, industrial strategies and economic development strategies, that are open to Canada which embody the spelling out of various priorities. In other words, the strategies adopted would depend to some extent at least on the priorities one adopted. The government has not given us its priorities. Certainly, it has not done so in the Speech from the Throne. I feel it is important to the people of Canada for me to outline what these foundation priorities are to me and would be to a Progressive Conservative industrial or economic strategy. Our first objective would be the creation of sufficient opportunities for meaningful employment for Canadians, and there is no evidence that the present government of Canada really accepts that priority. Our second goal is the attenuation of regional disparities by a consistent program of economic development. It follows from this that there has to be a complete review of the DREE operation. Our third priority is the pursuit of steady economic growth in terms both of gross national product and in terms of productivity through a program of incentives to encourage the initiative of Canadians in all branches of business, industry, farming and other occupations, whereas today we find a sense of frustration in respect of all our economic activity in Canada rather than a sense of encouragement.
Fourth, we recognize the need as a basic priority to communicate a sense of national purpose to the Canadian people, because if that is lacking then we cannot expect to accomplish very much. I suggest that this government has divided the country rather than give the people a sense of purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think these are the basic priorities of our national strategy that any government worth its salt should have been working on for several years, not as a loose and unco-ordinated or unconnected series of individual measures but as parts of a whole strategy for the development of Canada. That is what the government ought to have been doing, but under the gentleman opposite the process has not even been started and that is why it will be and why it will deserve to be severely judged by Canadians in years to come.
Speech from the Throne
Aside from these priorities there are a number of specific measures the government should have spelled out in the Speech from the Throne yesterday. There should have been a recognition, for example, of this government's responsibility to help provincial and local governments that are caught up in the greatly increased welfare costs that arise from the unemployment for which this national government is responsible. There should have been an undertaking to curb the steady erosion of the way of life represented by the family farm. Some of my supporters here will have a great deal to say about that, Mr. Speaker.
There ought to have been effective measures to ensure the conservation of our fisheries. Some of my colleagues here will have a great deal more to say about that, Mr. Speaker.
There should have been some proposal to draw Canadians together in the fight against inflation, and in particular some clarification of the role of the Prices and Incomes Commission. I say that we should be fighting hard now to get some guidelines accepted in fighting inflation. The Bank of Canada bears a great responsibility for the way in which our economy is performing. Considering the difficulties we have been going through, there should be a thorough review of the bank's policies as they have related to economic growth, unemployment and inflation over the past several years.
We should adopt immediately the concept of a full employment budget in this country. This is no longer revolutionary. That great radical, President Nixon, has adopted it in the United States, and the province of Ontario is operating on it.


Colin David Gibson: Are you in favour of Opportunities for Youth?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am all in favour of youth.


Colin David Gibson: But not of opportunities for them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am even in favour of opportunities for the hon. member who has interrupted me.


Colin David Gibson: Thanks very much.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I realize very well that such a concept of budgeting does not guarantee full employment. But what it would do is show us clearly whether a particular budget is really expansionary for the economy as a whole, or whether it is not.
There should have been an indication of immediate action to right the wrongs done by the government to the old age pensioners, by bringing increases in the old age pension into line with the real increases in the cost of living.
There should have been some indication of a plan to improve our trading position in the world, besides improved credit arrangements of which I approve-at least, I hope I will be able to approve them when I see them. Besides business and other missions abroad, there should have been a plan based upon the realities of the world as it really is. Such a plan should be based upon a recognition that our enterprises have to compete in the world as it really is. All of this requires a tax structure, a

February 18, 1972
Speech from the Throne
tax policy and a competition policy that will enable our industries, including agriculture, to compete in the trade of the world as it really is, and not as some people around Ottawa would like to imagine that it is. Our industries in Canada must be put in a position to compete.
The Government of Canada owes respect to our native and Metis peoples. It not only owes them respect, it also has the duty of providing them with the opportunity for individual and collective self-development. The first prerequisite of any policy on Canada's native peoples must be that it is prepared and implemented in full consultation with their chosen representatives. Opportunity involves freedom. This means, for example, that native peoples should be free to choose whether they wish to live in their own communities or whether they wish to live elsewhere. In either case there should be no prejudice to their social or economic opportunities.
Opportunity also means education. There should be much greater stress placed on the availability of teaching programs that are relevant to native cultures and the languages right through school. And opportunity means economic progress. With the co-operation of the native peoples themselves, there must be more feasibility studies made of the economic potential of Indian lands across Canada. The government should make development capital available on the most generous possible terms to develop that potential. These are some of the things the federal government should be doing to provide the climate in which our native peoples can develop. But I see no indication of them in the Speech from the Throne.
As to our country as a whole and its economy, all of us are now in the position of discussing matters of economic policy without yet knowing the government's policy on foreign investment, which is said to have been decided before Christmas, and which could conceivably have a very substantial effect on any recommendations that ought to be made as to what is an appropriate policy to fight unemployment. The government has become so accustomed to reacting to problems from the exclusive standpoint of its own political interests that it is now quite incapable of dealing frankly with the Canadian people. It is equally incapable of pointing out new directions to Canadians. Fortunately, Sir, there is an alternative government that is able to take up that challenge and point out those directions.
I have already made clear that our commitment is to full employment as based on individual initiative and excellence, and to social justice for all Canadians, not as a slogan but as a right. But that is not enough. If we are to attain the society that we want we must work for it. We must develop a national strategy for survival, and for more than survival. We must develop a strategy for creating a climate where Canadians can excell and find the good life. It is not up to any government to tell people how to live their lives. That is a recipe for totalitarianism. But it is up to government to ensure an atmosphere exists in our country in which individuals can flourish. All right, that does involve a national economic strategy; not one imposed on Canadians by bureaucratic fiat, but instead one that we shall achieve in co-operation with one another.
This means constant and frank consultation between the federal government and the provinces, not to gain

political advantage from some kind of manufactured political confrontation, but in order to work out our common priorities. We have got nowhere in the last four years on this. It means consultation with the various economic sectors of our country, with industry, with labour, with businessmen, farmers and primary producers generally.
We cannot create such a strategy out of a vacuum. The federal government has to take some initiative on this. Unfortunately the government has done nothing of any substance along these lines during its four years in office in order to prepare the way. Such a strategy involves careful analysis of the international market possibilities, to enable us to see the directions that are available to our export industries, and not simply the sort of official hypocrisy that we have had, saying that our policy officially is multilateralism whereas in fact our trade has become more and more concentrated with one country. It involves an equally careful analysis of our own industrial potential to decide where we should put the emphasis. We already have certain areas of excellence. We should be expanding and deepening those areas. That is one economic challenge before us, but it is certainly not the only challenge.
We must have a strategy as well to ensure that beyond the realm of economics the quality of life that is available to Canadians becomes richer and more varied in the years ahead. We have to protect our physical and cultural environment. I do not think there needs to be any conflict between these objectives. There must not be any such conflict if we are to achieve a decent society for Canadians.
The decent society we want depends on a combination of solid economic growth and careful planning for the preservation of our environment. With that as our basis we must also see to it that Canadians who, because of age or some disability, cannot play a full economic role, will have a decent standard of living. These are the objectives that we must set ourselves in the years ahead, and we must go a long way toward them in the next four years. We have many challenges ahead of us, Mr. Speaker, but the basic one is the challenge of defining new directions for our country after the empty years, years without direction, that will soon happily come to an end.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Wishful thinking!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell):
That following the words "Houses of Parliament" there be added:
But we respectfully regret that your government has not only failed utterly to provide an economic climate in which Canadians can have confidence in the future and to give protection to Canadians against the isolation of individuals caused by economic deprivation but, in fact, has deepened the gap between the affluent and those in need.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the hon. Leader of the Opposition in congratulating the mover, the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), and the seconder, the hon. member
February 18, 1972

for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie), of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. One of the happiest aspects of the debate in which we are now engaged, and there are not too many, is the opportunity which is presented to us to listen to elected representatives who remind us that all that we do here, all that the government decides in terms of policies and programs, must in the final analysis be for the benefit of the people.
While the backgrounds of the hon. member for Bruce and the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres are quite dissimilar, as are their constituencies, they are much alike in the high qualifications and deep interest they bring to their work here on behalf of their constituents.
The hon. member for Bruce, a rural constituency in southwestern Ontario, has a long record of public service at the municipal, provincial and now federal levels. He served for 12 years, from 1955 to 1967, as a member of the Ontario legislature before entering federal politics in 1968, and since that date has been very active on House committees on agriculture, veterans affairs and finance, trade and economic affairs.

As for the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, he represents an electoral district that is mainly urban. He is somewhat of a newcomer on the political scene, since he was first elected in a by-election held in 1971. He has come to Parliament with a wealth of experience which is very useful to him here. He has been a member of the Committee on Transport and Communications and, last fall, he attended the United Nations General Assembly as an observer for Canada.

These two men have spoken in the finest tradition of this institution. They have reminded us of the concerns, the hopes and the proud accomplishments of Canadians in two distinct parts of our country. We were given an opportunity yesterday to listen to a candid appraisal of the preoccupations of our fellow citizens. We learn something of the strength of Canada through such speeches.
This morning, as the saying goes, "was something else". I found it difficult to believe that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was talking about the same country. The hon. gentleman performs much as does a badly adjusted camera filter-removing all the light and colour, leaving a dark pallor and a flatness. The effect is startling but it is scarcely realistic. I feel sorry for someone who moves in such perpetual gloom; like the unfortunate fellow whose vacation is always rained out. In time his outlook becomes quite jaded.


An hon. Member:: Maybe he is a bigot.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Listening to him this morning, I thought of another orator and of his fate as he spoke:
There was silence supreme! Not a shriek, not a scream,
Scarcely even a howl or a groan,
As the man they called "Ho!" told his story of woe In an antediluvian tone.
I do not suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition is totally without humour. He is certainly not without love. This morning he felt love for his own words. I noticed that he was repeating what he said in Hamilton a
Speech from the Throne
few days ago and what he said on television last night. If he repeats that speech a few more times, Mr. Speaker, his infatuation with his own talk will grow more enormous. He is not without love and certainly not without humour but I think without optimism, Mr. Speaker. For a man in his position that is understandable. Even his supporters in Toronto are so bereft of ideas to help him that they have been forced to distribute what they describe as a "nonpolitical" tabloid. Isn't that wonderful? Non-political. Can you imagine what would happen if they ever switched to radio? We would be treated to a solemn announcement: "This has been a paid non-political broadcast sponsored by that non-political party, the non-Progressive Conservatives." It is unquestionably another first for that party. For some time it has been non-national and non-representative. Now, it is non-political as well, and by its own admission.
But we know under what difficulties the hon. gentleman labours. His policy committees struggle and struggle seeking some original programs, yet the results, always, are totally predictable. Faced with the government's proposals for the settlement of the offshore minerals dispute, this venturous group could say nothing more than "We don't think much of it". When the government published its white paper on foreign policy, the comment was the same, "We don't think much of it". Now, even before we have spelled out our proposals for control of the Canadian economic environment, they have begun the same old refrain "We don't think much of it". So long as these unimaginative souls have their needles stuck in that single groove, I hope for his own sake that the Leader of the Opposition never asks them what they think of his own leadership record.
What was totally missing in this morning's speech, Mr. Speaker-when once the opening comedy turn was concluded-was a balanced appreciation of what is happening throughout the world. This period of history is not a tranquil backwater, and those who talk as if it were or should be, reveal that their instincts are more fitted for reminiscence than for leadership. All about us, in Asia, in Africa, in the Middle East, even in Europe, smouldering discontents, unrealized expectations, unresolved animosities, have burst forth in violent and tragic proportions. Concurrently, an international fiscal crisis of a dimension not witnessed in four decades has swept across the world and affected every one of the industrialized countries in varying degrees.
These are facts, Mr. Speaker. This is the reality of life on this planet in the 1970's, a reality that was forecast in the Speech from the Throne 16 months ago when we were reminded of the conflicts which could be expected in the turbulent decade of the seventies; a forecast that was airily dismissed at that time by gentlemen opposite who preferred life in their comfortable cocoons to that in the world beyond.
Canada can no more ignore these events and these pressures than it can by itself control them. We cannot live separate from others on this planet; we cannot divorce ourselves from the plight and the problems of our neighbours. But neither should we permit ourselves to follow the example of the hon. gentleman opposite and tear at our flesh and wail in self-pity.

February 18, 1972
Speech from the Throne
Unsettled times are seldom comfortable to those whose attitudes are fixed, whose mental anchors are in the past, but they can be rewarding to the imaginative for they provide the necessary environment for improving social conditions, and some chance for avoiding the otherwise inevitable revolution against advantage and privilege. The winds of change need not always strike with hurricane force. A society receptive to innovation, with a government responsive to social needs, will find itself able to harness the energy of those winds and benefit from them.
Resilience and stamina are among the characteristics of Canadians, Mr. Speaker, not pessimism and despair. Spokesmen opposite conveniently overlook the fact that Canada has faced two crises of grave proportions in the past 16 months and has emerged from each of them stronger and with increased self-confidence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: One of those crises, which commenced with the events of last August, has led to the revaluation of every major currency in the world except Canada's. It has led as well to pressures upon us of considerable magnitude seeking trade concessions.
The government's response to these pressures, Mr. Speaker, has been one which is respected by Canadians and by our trading partners alike. We have stated that trade is Canada's principal source of prosperity; that, consequently, we will no more foresake that prosperity than we will demand from others unbalanced benefits, unfair protection, or unreasonable arrangements.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Canada's proud record as one of the world's leading trading nations was gained through a policy of mutual advantage and broad access. Our successes are the result of superior products, aggressive marketing, and reliability as a trading partner. They have not been achieved as a consequence of the unfair techniques employed by some countries. The government has no intention of hindering these talents and successes of Canadian businessmen in order to prove to any country our dedication to conviviality or good fellowship.
The Canadian dollar was at a free and fair value on August 15, 1971. It was there because this government had the courage and the foresight in June, 1970, to anticipate severe monetary disturbances and to take steps to diminish their impact on Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The dollar remains today at the same fair value-the only major currency in the world not revalued-because this government refused to back down when the going got tough. There is not the slightest reason to believe that we will be less firm in defence of our trading interests in weeks and months to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Canada's trading posture with the United States will be varied to the mutual advantage of both countries when once negotiations to that end conclude. It
will not be varied because some politicians and commentators in this country are so impressed with dramatic language that they fill front pages with stories of catastrophe, imminent doom and unrelieved tension.
The crisis of the past few months has been real enough, Mr. Speaker, and the stakes vital to our prosperity. The situation has called for a more balanced assessment, however, and much cooler nerves, than were evident recently in many members of the opposition who have seemed hypnotized by unsubstantiated threats and cries of anguish from unnamed and often unknown sources.
Good relations, Mr. Speaker, with other countries are not built out of give-aways any more than they are built out of intransigence. The respect with which Canada and the Canadian government is regarded in other countries comes from our record of honesty and fairness in our transactions and relations. Ours is an enviable reputation in these respects, and I am not about to diminish it. Nor, I hasten to add, and notwithstanding all too much comment to the contrary, is any government anywhere demanding or suggesting that Canada agree to substantial concessions under threat of grave retaliation. The United States does not conduct its business with Canada in that fashion, much as such a myth is employed by the NDP and others as a tonic to grow hair on their chests.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Last November, the Conservative party asked this House to entertain a motion of non-confidence in the government, condemning what it claimed were deteriorating relations between Canada and the United States, and criticizing the alleged absence of communications between Ottawa and Washington. The Conservative spokesman, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie), devoted some time to one of his favourite, and wholly unsubstantiated, theories that there were no telephone calls between the White House and my office, that there were no exchanges of correspondence between the President and myself, and that the leaders of the two governments no longer "spoke freely and regularly on matters concerning our countries". Such jibberish, Mr. Speaker.
Apart from the preposterous falsity of these allegations, does that gentleman now suggest that had Canada been nicer to the Americans we would have been exempted from the 10 per cent surcharge? Not Norway, not Burma, not Togo, not Mexico, nor any of the other countries of the world affected by that blanket policy, but Canada? By a smile and a prepaid telephone call, I could have avoided for Canada the impact of the surcharge! How simple is the conduct of foreign relations when one is the critic, not the executor!
I challenge the Conservatives, Mr. Speaker, to describe honestly and candidly to the Canadian people what their posture towards the United States would be in this difficult negotiation. Would they have gone to Washington cap in hand, to employ their own phrase, and agreed to a forced upward valuation of the dollar in order to prove their friendship with the United States? We didn't, and we did not endanger Canada's good standing with the United States in any way by not doing so. Would the Conservatives have made unilateral trade concessions in order to free us of the requirement of tough bargaining? We didn't,
|Mr. Trudeau.|
February 18, 1972

and we don't intend to do so now. Just what is the stand of the Conservatives? A sell-out to the Americans to prove friendship? Or do they secretly admire the way in which the government has handled these negotiations but are too small to say so publicly?
I can assure this House, Mr. Speaker, that relations between the governments of the United States and Canada are at this juncture as friendly and congenial, and as mutually respectful, as at any time in our history. If opposition parties are unhappy about that, or have no stomach for hard negotiating, let them say so; but please let us hear no more double talk about annoying the Americans. Just as the United States government stands in support of America and Americans, we stand in support of Canada and Canadians.
The task of each government is to seek such reasonable variations and adjustments in our trading relationship as to benefit us both. That is the issue, Mr. Speaker, and that is our objective. If the opposition parties disagree, then I wish they would address themselves to that issue and those objectives and stop chasing their colourful theories. Then the people of Canada will be able to decide for themselves the merits of this situation and decide, too, just which party is most responsible with respect to policies toward the United States. The government record is solid accomplishment, not fantasies of either frightened timidity or false bravado.

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the events which took place in October 1970 and August 1971, there have been great achievements in Canada. Improvements whereby Canadians have benefited in the fields of social justice and quality of life, the undeniable economic success of private enterprise, progress on the international level must certainly all be acknowledged. Yet they should be considered within the context of the great trials we have had to overcome successively, also taking into account the unrest and disturbances which have marked national life and international relations of several other countries. Such accomplishments did not come about by chance; they reflect in a startling manner the very great concern which this government very promptly brought to bear on its structures and its organization as well as its governing ability.
The country it is this government's intention to build will be patterned according to well defined intentions and objectives that have been fully spelled out. We shall not abandon it to the blind and unpredictable course of events. With such a purpose, science and technology are two factors of over-riding importance and a sound economy is another.
-
If our country lacks available resources, most of our social objectives will remain unachievable. But the growth of national wealth is not necessarily equated by disorderly economic growth, just as social progress and welfare are not necessarily conflicting. Our economy can meet human needs through the supply of employment, goods and services, without giving rise in the process to the dire problems some countries have experienced: overpopulation, deterioration of the environment, over-sophis-25020-4
Speech from the Throne
ticated technology. A middle course must be found: man must be in balance with Nature; he must be in harmony with his fellow men. Conditions must be achieved wherein all fields of the economy, including the primary industry of food production, are reasonably profitable, and both efficiency and self-sufficiency are encouraged. But these conditions must be compatible with the necessity of a healthy environment and a social order favouring the development of the individual.
A number of problems facing the Canadian economy today are similar to those which are plaguing other countries; a comparison can be made between the way Canada has remedied those difficulties and the results obtained elsewhere. I think our solutions, in most cases, are very satisfactory. A number of our problems however stem from the very nature of the Canadian economy. Nowhere else do exporters have such free access to the most extensive and diversified market in the world; nowhere else does the investment picture favour to such a degree the movement of foreign securities; nowhere else are the important sectors of two economies tied so closely as those of Canada and the United States.
Our solutions to these problems will not only affect our standard of living, but will help determine the very future of Canada and shape our society. These considerations have greatly affected the policy on science and technology as well as the industrial strategy project with which the responsible ministers will acquaint the House.
The members of the opposition never fail to point out that such measures may very well be of value for the future but they ask, what about the present state of the economy? What about those who are now unemployed? Mr. Speaker, I admit willingly that those questions are relevant. I should like to discuss the matter with members of the opposition, but in order that Canadians better understand the situation and the value of the means suggested as remedies, all the factors involved in the problem of unemployment in Canada should be taken into account. The large number of new jobs being created in Canada should not be overlooked, nor the fact that, between 1965 and 1970-the last period for which statistics are available-over one million new jobs were created in Canada. This figure exceeds the total number of new jobs created in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Those seven countries, whose total population is twelve times our own, created jointly fewer new jobs than Canada did over that five-year period. And this thrust is being maintained. More than 200,000 new jobs have been created in Canada in 1971.
But in its discussions, Mr. Speaker, the opposition could not be bothered with those factors. It chooses to ignore what has been achieved and to resort to this simplistic assertion that the government is unmindful of the unemployment problem and indifferent to job creation. It is not very tricky to sort out the facts and cast away those which are unfavourable to political sectarianism. Could the government be accused of indifference towards unemployment when it has created the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which has earmarked $907 million in the past three years to create new jobs in the regions that needed them most? That same government has also drawn up all the training and manpower mobility pro-

February 18, 1972
Speech from the Throne
grams in order to improve workers' abilities and help them adapt to available jobs. It is the same government which has clearly informed the United States that it was not prepared to make unilateral commercial concessions detrimental to Canadian workers.
It is the same government, Mr. Speaker, which had attempted to rationalize various important industrial sectors in order to increase their efficiency and which will introduce during the present session of Parliament an industrial strategy together with amendments to the Fair Employment Practices Act and the Canadian Labour Code. It is the same government which has also proposed radical changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act and designed the local initiatives program which has resulted this winter in the creation of 82,500 new jobs.
Mr. Speaker, this again illustrates the difference of approach between the opposition parties and our party. The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) has stated, for instance, that we were exceedingly optimistic when we forecast that 70,000 new jobs would be created and that we would be fortunate if we could reach 50,000. Well, Mr. Speaker, our forecast was in fact incorrect; it actually failed through excessive modesty because we have already reached the 82,500 mark.
Mr. Speaker, no one on this side of the House is trying to elude the problem of unemployment. But we meet it with legislation and programs and not, as the opposition does, with sophistries.
The Local Initiatives and Opportunities for Youth programs constitute, in the field of employment, original experiments whose success cannot be questioned. They have shown the way in which public funds can be used in a system of decentralized decision-making. The participation at the local level of private groups and municipalities avoids administrative delays while allowing for the dynamic contribution of those who are most familiar and most concerned with the interests of their social community. The real originality of those programs lies in the fact that they favour local participation and decisionmaking while creating numerous jobs and bringing the community lasting benefits.
Moreover, those programs reflect our feeling that the greatness of Canada will be measured not by the level of the gross national product but rather by the way in which we use our resources to solve our human problems.
Canada should not be measured in terms of gross national product, or miles of railway line, or by the number of telephone calls made by each person in a year. Outsiders do not think of us in those terms nor, in the final analysis, do we. Canadians have little desire to be the biggest in the world by any standard of measurement and have no desire to be more powerful, more influential, or more visible than any other country.
There is something much more than mere familiarity which binds us to our country. There is here a quality which is recognized often by outsiders but which we seldom admit to ourselves. It is a belief that in this country, perhaps more than in any other, there is an opportunity for each of us to be ourselves-to be creative, to be free,
(Mr. Trudeau.]
to be accepted. We have been influenced by our vast spaces and disciplined by our rigorous climate. For centuries we were separated by thousands of miles of open sea from our cultural fountainheads in Britain and France. For 150 years we have learned to live in peace and cooperation with a restless, energetic giant which in its stirrings often seemed unaware or uncaring about our somewhat precarious existence on its northern flank.
We have here every opportunity of escaping the wretched and needless consequences of racial or religious or linguistic turmoils which have reduced men and women in many places to bestial levels of hatred and vengeance even as it exposes their children to misery and brokenhearted distress. The promise and the potential of man is surely not to be wasted in such destructive pursuits.
We have not always escaped these kinds of activities in Canada, but we have been able to contain them and it is my earnest hope that we can avoid them in the future. We can do so by recognizing that discontent is often a product of injustice. This country is ever so much richer and offers ever so much more freedom to individuals because of its human diversity. There is no uniformity, no flatness, to Canadians. They are themselves to a degree not possible in many, many societies. Canada is richer by five million times through the presence here of that many persons whose cultural heritage is other than British or French. We dare not attempt to imagine how bland Canada would be, how devoid of so many exploits and accomplishments, were these people not part of our society.
Nor could I conceive of a Canada without either of its major fractions-those persons who trace their origins back to Britain or to France. If at any time major elements of any of these three fractions, or of that fourth fraction which preceded us all, our Indians and Eskimos, were to disappear, Canada would cease to be what it is today and we should all be the losers. This change could come about, I suppose, by some kind of government coercion but it would be a most unenlightened political party, quite unlike any on the Canadian national scene today, that would attempt such a retrogressive step. More likely, this abandonment of our past and surrender of our identity could come about through indifference and assimilation.
Of these there will always be some, I expect, but I believe that the great majority of Canadians view this land as a place where each of us is able to grow and reach fulfilment, secure in the knowledge that we are free from discrimination; a place where Canadians who live and work and play and think in either the English or the French language may continue to do so and to communicate confidently with their government in their own tongue.
I regard these attributes, Mr. Speaker, not so much in terms of Canadian unity as in terms of the character of Canada. The overwhelming majority of Canadians living in every part of this country conduct their lives and carry on their daily relationships with other Canadians on a basis of tolerance and understanding and common benefit. When I see evidence to the contrary, however, evidence of policies which can have no other effect than to turn Canadian against Canadian and to fracture this
February 18, 1972

country into compartments, I will not stand mute. It matters not to me in what region these policies appear, it is my obligation to oppose them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was not elected by the people of Canada with a mandate to put any part of this country in its place. My mandate came from my conviction that in Canada there is room for every individual and for every region.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I regard it as my duty to oppose policies from any source which provoke intolerance and threaten the unity of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The federal government represents every Canadian in every province and territory. It is responsible to all Canadians, not simply to those in the wealthy regions or those in regions where additional political popularity would be helpful in elections. That is why we shall continue the system of equalization payments, for it is one of the basic pillars of our federal system. If it is our belief that the unity of Canada is essential, as it is mine, then no party leaders can claim the luxury of opting out when situations demand standing up and speaking up for principle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There are many issues which will involve us in the course of this session, Mr. Speaker, but I repeat that none is to me so important as is my belief that this Canada is a favoured place, and that it is so because persons in every part of the country are able to seek fulfilment through the help and understanding of their fellow Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I look forward, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure do the leaders of the opposition parties and, I sincerely hope, all members, to a session which will enhance the image of this institution in the eyes of all Canadians and serve as evidence of its relevance in a democratic society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian of a group whose origin is neither French nor English, I can agree without reservation to that part of the Prime Minister's speech in which he spoke so glowingly about our country and about its people. The right hon. gentleman did not need, and I presume he did not intend, to read members of this House any lecture about the greatness of this country, the greatness of its potentialities and the greatness of its people. When he entered into that kind of Chamber of Commerce poetry, Mr. Speaker, I suspect it was because he needed a diversion of that kind to hide the hollowness of the rest of what he said.
In particular, I cannot but chortle when this sophisticated man, given to so much casuistry, accuses the opposition of being sophists. But the most characteristic approach of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the most characteristic of his attitudes, is the transfiguration which
25020-4J
Speech from the Throne
makes him assert that criticism of the government is criticism of Canada. When members on this side of the House draw attention to what they honestly believe to be wrong due to a situation which the government has created they are criticizing this great country. And this immense defender of its greatness is putting us in our place. I do not accept that kind of thing and I intend, as bluntly as I know how, to point out to the Prime Minister and the government the ways in which they have misgoverned and misruled this country for the last four years.
Further on in his speech he talks about the fact that Canada was the only country that did not revalue its currency in August, 1971. It is this kind of word-playing that gets my goat sometimes, to put it in simple language. The Prime Minister knew perfectly well that floating the dollar would and immediately did result in a revaluation of the Canadian dollar by 6 or 7 per cent. If he had said that Canada refused to revalue the dollar further, it would have been a statement of truth. The statement that was actually made was one of doubtful honesty.
The Prime Minister spoke toughly about the way he is negotiating with the United States. I wish he or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) would tell this Parliament and the people of Canada exactly what it is the government has done in these negotiations. I wish they would tell us what concessions they have made in regard to the auto pact and the defence sharing agreement. Because they have made concessions, and until we know what those concessions are, we are entirely justified in being suspicious about the jobs and other things that this government is giving away.
As we start this what is probably the last session of this Parliament I cannot escape the conclusion that the Trudeau years have been wasted years for my country. Failure and incompetence have been the mark of this government despite the trust with which the people of Canada invested the Prime Minister.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to recall the excitement of 1967, our centennial year, the year of Expo, the year when Canadians felt that at last they could begin to realize Sir Wilfrid Laurier's prophecy that the twentieth century belonged to Canada. Promise was in the air, there was pride in Canada's accomplishments and confidence in our country's future. We all felt that Canada was at the threshold of a new adventure. In 1968 a man came on the scene in this country who appeared to appreciate the pace of change in modern society and to be ready to use his talents to attack imaginatively the problems that have troubled the compassionate Canadian people-poverty, inequality, human waste and citizen alienation. The Canadian people gave that man their trust, and the Prime Minister has steadfastly betrayed that trust for four years.
The man of change became a callous traditionalist, mouthing phrases about the future but tied stubbornly to the methods of the past. The vision of a just society was a fine one, not to be disparaged, for it echoed the deepest desires and the highest goals of civilized men. But four years in office have shown that the vision lacked sincerity, that it was a high-sounding phrase to be used in a game to win and to hold power. The dilettante, carefully orchestrating his mood from playfulness to toughness, from soft

February 18, 1972
Speech from the Throne
words to authoritarian acts, diddled with the future of our people. Seldom was there any evidence of depth of feeling about the people's needs, their yearnings and their condition.
We have often heard this man speak of efficiency in the terms of the technocrat, cold and distant. He has used the power of his office to confuse rather than to clarify, to manipulate rather than to evoke participation, even to distort when he thought it necessary. We have heard him dismiss the tragedy of unemployment as a mere annoyance. We have seen him mouth unpleasant words even in this House of Commons and insult workers who could not strike back. He treated all Canada as his stage to act out his moods as if the nation's business was little more than a game.
I speak of the Prime Minister rather than of the government as a whole, because he has made himself the government in a way and to an extent not known before in Canada's history. More than any previous Prime Minister he has concentrated power in his own hands. It is doubtful whether even the members of his cabinet have as much say about policy and the future of this country as have the personal advisers with whom he has surrounded himself. He has concentrated the direction and even the tone of government in his own citadel. He has not been able to prevent the occasional leak, so that we sometimes learn of things not intended for our eyes and ears. His interpretation of participatory democracy is to tell Parliament and Canadians only what he thinks they ought to know and only at a time of his choosing.

He has doubled or tripled his entourage. Thanks to his court and his favourites, he has ears throughout the country, he has eyes in every department, and he has control over all important government functions. He has imposed amendments to the Standing Orders, not to modernize our proceedings-everybody would have agreed to that-but first and foremost to decrease the influence of Parliament and prevent it from interfering in any way with his own methods and plans.
The Liberal party, Mr. Speaker, inside and outside has turned itself to the promotion of the cult of personality; the unquestioning admiration of his herd, in this House, is proof of shameful moral abdication to the will and the whims of one man. They are the ones who have portrayed the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as Machiavel-li's Prince; he has simply played his part to perfection.
Mr. Speaker, I remember the right hon. Prime Minister's very words published in Cite Libre in 1963, about the Liberal party, and I quote:
Since I have been observing politics, I have no recollection of having witnessed a more degrading sight than that of all the Liberals who have turned their coats in tune with their leader when they saw an opportunity to seize power.
With the head of the flock showing the way, the rest followed with the elegance of cattle scurrying to the feeding-trough.
That very realistic description of the Liberal party still stands today, under the leadership of the man who wrote those words.

The Speech from the Throne is another example of the playacting of this Prime Minister and his government. It is
[Mr. Lewis.)
full of banal phrases about love, understanding and isolation. It is totally devoid of meaningful proposals or anything as lowly as a concrete plan. One of the very few specific undertakings in the speech, one of significance, is that "co-operation with the business and industrial communities will be extended even further". No doubt, Mr. Speaker; there is an election in the offing. The Prime Minister must not fail to extend co-operation to the 95 corporations on whose support the Liberal party has operated for a many years, according to a recent statement made by the Ontario chairman of the Liberal red carnation fund.
We are also informed that the Canada Labour Code changes and the competition bill are being revised to reflect the many representations made in past months. Whose representations are these, Mr. Speaker? I have little doubt that they are the representations of the Canadian Manufacturers Association and other allies of the Liberal party, and that the legislation will be watered down to suit their purposes.
I was therefore not surprised to find that the Throne Speech contained not a word about electoral reform, about limiting campaign expenses, about disclosing the sources of party funds. A Liberal government, you will recall, appointed a royal commission to study this matter. The commission reported in 1966. After much prodding a House committee was established and it reported last June, but the Prime Minister is not yet ready for a reform which he himself proclaimed as being essential to democracy. His excuse earlier today was that it was too late to apply it to the next election, as if he could not have done it last year and even the year before. But he will not make these changes, he will not have these democratic improvements, indeed not. Instead, he yields to pressures from his corporate friends to water down legislation and to shuffle cabinet ministers around so that nothing and no one could offend his corporate friends, particularly on the eve of an election.
Heartbreakingly significant is the fact that, despite talk in this Throne Speech about poverty, justice and isolation-and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) should have noticed this, and if he did not he should not hold the position he does-the Throne Speech does not contain a single reference to the native peoples of Canada, a group of Canadians who have suffered unrelieved poverty, injustice and isolation for decades. I cannot even understand the callousness responsible for this incredible omission.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Chretien:: Read the text.


David Lewis: Finally, look at the couple of meaningless sentences accorded in the speech to the overriding concern about the foreign control of our economy. The words about Canada's identity and the greatness of our country . have a hollow ring in the absence of a concrete undertaking to regain control of the economy so that Canadians may have the opportunity to shape their own future according to the social priorities of their own choosing.
February 18, 1972

In short, Sir, the Speech from the Throne is in my view a high school essay in purple prose, and the more banal the idea, the more purple the prose. In many places it is an apology for past failure rather than a plan for future action. The rest is a histrionic pose waiting for the curtain to rise on the election which is apparently again to depend on froth, image and phrase. I am confident that this will not work in 1972 as it worked in 1968.
In the first session of this Parliament, on September 16, 1968, speaking in the Throne Speech debate at that time I uttered the following words:
The likelihood is, and I hope I shall be proven wrong-and I will apologize to the Prime Minister if I am wrong-that we shall wake up four years from now and find the same 20 per cent poor, almost the same regional disparities, a similar crisis in education, in housing and in urban life generally. No doubt there will be a patch here, a repair there, and an improvement elsewhere because whatever the stripe of the government we always manage to make a little progress. But the major inequalities and most oppressive social neglect will still be largely with us. The just society will still be a political slogan and a seemingly unreachable dream. More, Mr. Speaker, is the pity, because it is so unnecessary.
These were the words I uttered almost four years ago, and I say more is the pity indeed, a pity that unfortunately I do not have to apologize to the Prime Minister because my forecast proved to be not only right but in some respects an understatement of the conditions we find in Canada today. To the poverty which bothered our conscience in 1968 the government has deliberately added massive unemployment. Urban problems have multiplied. Congestion in our cities, pollution of the air and water, land speculation, regional disparities, poverty of our native peoples and the poverty of 20 per cent or more of our population, all this human waste in our society remains at least as serious and as unacceptable as it did four years ago. There have been some patches. There have been some little repairs here and there. The government can list some legislation about which it will boast as it did in the Throne Speech which closed the last session.
As I said in 1968, any government is bound to make some improvements, even this one, but only an insensitive and blind partisan can fail to see and admit, if he has any concern for people and any humility at all, that the years of this government have not moved Canada forward but have aggravated problems whose solution the Prime Minister promised four years ago.
I want to say to the Prime Minister, in view of some parts of his speech, that I condemn this precisely because I am proud of my country and its immense potentialities. I know that in the 100 years or more of its existence Canada has come a long way from its early pioneer beginnings. It has developed into a major nation with modern capacities and a great people. Governed sensibly with concern for people and with modern ideas and instruments, this country can in time eliminate poverty and inequality and build a society in which all Canadians take a proud part. This is what participatory democracy is all about, and it is the total failure of this government to respond to the needs of the modern society that my party condemns and that in my view history will condemn.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party and the Progressive Conservative party live and function under the yoke of outmoded doctrines. They stand with their friends in the
Speech from the Throne
large corporations, the only remaining doctrinarians within our society, with the exception of a handful of scatter-brained romantics of the extreme left.
The government and the official opposition are status quo parties. The Prime Minister does speak of change. What his action and his policy clearly reflect is his rejection of all real change in economic and social structures, in the balance of power within our society and in everything essential to the implementation of a system of human equality. His idea of change is expressed in the well-known proverb: "The more things change, the more they remain the same."
We of the New Democratic Party believe that modern technology demands increasing involvement of the government in the economy. The forces of the market can no longer serve the common good unless they are coupled with significant supervision and in certain cases direct control. Modern production has changed considerably, from the technical point of view as well as in complexity. For instance, the time lapse between deciding to produce a new article and introducing it in the market place has been extended, because of the elaborate stages in its development, the survey of the market and all the other factors now involved in the planning of production and its processes. Some even claim that a four- or five-year period is required in the case of a new car.
The main sectors of modern production require a great deal of time and money. The raw materials, the power, the many basic requirements as well as the infrastructure require the type of investment that only large corporations can finance.
In addition, finding the proper assortment of trained employees in the labour market requires time. These prerequisites of the post-industrial era foster the concentration of wealth and power in an ever decreasing number of units.

The objectives of these corporations are primarily the maximizing of profits and of power. Their investments and production priorities are governed by a market which they themselves control. Through modern image advertising on an unprecedented scale they create wants and needs to suit their interests. It is only by coincidence that their decisions may occasionally match the needs and priorities of society. Only public investment, public planning of the use of our human and material resources and large scale government involvement in setting priorities can successfully cure poverty, regional disparity and social alienation.
In Canada the corporate control to which I have referred has meant increasingly foreign corporate power. The objectives of the multinational corporations are not only those of profit and power but are global in nature and therefore take little account of the needs of a particular host country. This is why the New Democratic Party has been deeply concerned from its inception with the problem of Canadian independence. This is why we believe in the necessity of regaining control of Canada's economy so that the Canadian people will be in a position

February 18, 1972
Speech from the Throne
to shape their own destiny and their own future in accordance with our country's needs and capacities.
After years of discussion and a growing sense of Canadianism, after numerous studies and reports, this government was finally forced to undertake to develop a policy on what it apparently calls "domestic control of the national economic environment". On numerous occasions the Prime Minister has promised a statement of policy on this subject. In reply to proddings, he first promised it some time before Christmas. More recently he has been promising it some time before the resumption of the sittings of this House. Again, a little earlier this year he promised to make the statement immediately on the opening of the new session.
This morning, in reply to a question I posed to him, the Prime Minister said he would not announce the government's policy on foreign economic control until the supporting material becomes available and indeed until the legislation is ready. We know, Mr. Speaker, that will not likely be until April. The fact of the matter is that the material is not anywhere near ready; the government's hacks have been set to rewrite the document that was leaked last fall, and to water down the policy. What will emerge is a half measure. On the basis of information I have received, I am convinced that the government will limit the activities of the screening agency to only the biggest takeovers, ignoring smaller takeovers which might well in time have greater cumulative impact.
The Department of Trade and Commerce reported earlier this month that major foreign-owned corporations showed stronger growth than Canadian companies in the 1964-69 period. This means that foreign ownership is strong in the growth areas of our economy, so a relatively small takeover may, over the years, turn into a big intrusion in the economy of Canada.
The Prime Minister also said this morning that the announcement of policy on foreign economic control would wait for the introduction of legislation. What sort of delay this will produce is impossible to say. It may take five weeks or three months. I have seen estimates of that sort. I do not know how long it will take. I am far from convinced that this represents any real protection against a rush of takeovers in anticipation of the so-called screening agency. That threat existed from the moment it became known that the government intended to move in this direction. I call on the government now to take steps to prevent this happening, to prevent any other takeovers taking place before the legislation is passed by this House.
One simple expedient which I propose to the Prime Minister would be an announcement by him that the eventual legislation would be made retroactive to the date of his announcement of his foreign investment policy. In sum, the announcement is further delayed, the uncertainty continues and takeovers continue. Indeed, I cannot help wondering whether we are likely to get any policy before this Parliament is dissolved for the next election.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to another phase of the discussion about the government's performance. Recently the government, uncomfortable about its record, has begun to nurture a new myth. I have heard Liberals try to persuade the Canadian people-the Prime Minister himself has indulged in this-that even if the government

has not always been right it has at least been competent and strong. The role of the swinger is to be changed into the image of the strong man, the competent administrator. He has just shown us how he can do it. He played his role very well both in the House and outside. I have never, doubted his acting ability. The record shows that this is just another myth. Strength there has been, perhaps, although unconcerned obstinacy would be a more appropriate description of the Prime Minister's and the government's attitude in many critical situations. But competence there has not been, unless one permits oneself to be dazzled by flow charts of bureaucratic rearrangements.
The fact is that the record shows that the words written by a mutual friend of the Prime Minister and myself, the poet Frank Scott, about the late William Lyon Mackenzie King, apply to this Prime Minister and his government- "Do nothing by halves which can be done by quarters". To me government competence must be measured by its contribution to human welfare, by its successful control of economic and social forces to this end. By this criterion, and indeed by any other, this government has shown dismal incompetence, leaping from crisis to crisis, full of excuses and threats rather than solutions. I will, as I said, before I sit down move a subamendment to indicate one such solution.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how one can consider competent a government which has purposely implemented an economic policy aimed at creating massive unemployment. Only those who scorn human considerations can do so and consider competent a government which has forced thousands of Canadians into unemployment. For instance, let us consider the unbelievable mess that still exists where the application of the new Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned, the situation of the thousands of unemployed who suffer as a result of inexcusable delays and who at times even have to depend on welfare until they receive their due.
The very nature of the present government and the cynicism of its leaders has come out in broad daylight for all to see in the way they treat the unemployed. Instead of being concerned about them, the Prime Minister was very proud of himself when he announced to the country, a year and a half ago, that he was willing to tolerate a 6 per cent rate of unemployment in his so-called fight against inflation. Unfortunately, his wishes have never ceased to be gratified these last 21 months. Then, the Prime Minister and his assistants became embarrassed and started to look for excuses. They talked about the large increase in the labour force; they claimed that the number of people on the labour market was exceptionally high and they expressed satisfaction at the increase in the number of jobs.
It is not enough that the Prime Minister used these excuses on previous occasions. He did so again in his speech today, boasting about the increase in the labour force and in jobs. Let me place some facts before the House by comparing two periods of Liberal government, the Pearson and the Trudeau periods, with respect to
February 18, 1972

these excuses. The average annual increase in the labour force in the five Pearson years from 1963 to 1967 inclusive was as high as 3.1 per cent, and in the Trudeau years dropped to 2.9 per cent. The average annual increase in employment in the Pearson years was 3.5 per cent; in the Trudeau years it dropped to 2.3 per cent. As far as participation rates are concerned, the average rate of increase in the Pearson years was twice as high as in the Trudeau years; it went from an average increase of .32 to an average of .15.
The average rate of unemployment in the five Pearson years was 4.4 per cent. The average rate of unemployment in the four years under the Trudeau government has been 5.5 per cent. Once and for all, let us not have these dishonest excuses about increases in the labour force, unemployment and participation rates. These excuses are false, as shown by the history. In short, unemployment between 1963 and 1967 inclusive was substantially lower despite higher increases in the labour force and in participation rates.
Indeed, to find a period of unemployment in the last 15 years comparable to the present, one has to go back to the years 1958 to 1962 when a Conservative government was in power and pursued policies similar to those pursued by the present government. If anything has ever proven how these two parties are exactly alike, this history alone proves it. If the Liberals can take consolation out of the fact that a Conservative government did not do any better, they are welcome to such consolation. And if the Conservatives think they can persuade Canadians to believe that despite their record when they were in power they can do better now, I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and his colleagues that they underestimate the intelligence of the Canadian electorate.
But the Prime Minister was not satisfied with those excuses. He went a shameful step further. He resorted to insulting the unemployed and the intelligence of Canadians generally by declaring that there are many unfilled jobs and the unemployed could have them if they were only ready to take them at lower wages and at considerable distances from their homes. I have often asked myself seriously what was the purpose of this statement.
Everyone knows that even in the crisis of the thirties there were some unfilled job vacancies. Everyone also knows that there are, unfortunately, some few members of our society who reject their duty to provide for themselves. But the Prime Minister's own Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) on more than one occasion has underlined, as a result of surveys, that the number of such people is a small and insignificant proportion of those on welfare and/or unemployed. What, then, was the Prime Minister's purpose in making the assertion about job vacancies and repeating it two or three times, if it was not to mislead the Canadian people about the seriousness of the unemployment crisis and to encourage a mean backlash against dealing humanely with people in need?
One of the spots the Prime Minister pointed to in one of his assertions was Sudbury. Even at the time he was speaking Inco was laying off employees. Since then further lay-offs have been announced, to the point that the entire community is concerned about its future. I have not heard the Prime Minister condemn Inco or other corpora-
Speech from the Throne
tions, many of them foreign-owned, for ignoring their duty to their workers and their obligations to the communities from which they have extracted huge profits through the years. Indeed no; the corporations are too powerful. He aims his strictures at the unemployed, the helpless and the weak, and I say "shame." In any case, the Prime Minister knew or should have known that his statements were unfounded. The job survey made by a department of his government showed that throughout 1971 there were from 10 to 26 jobless Canadians for every job vacancy, whether temporary, seasonal or permanent. This kind of attitude, I have said before and I repeat, with sadness, but I believe it needs repeating, was possible only for a man who never had to scramble to pay his rent.
Look at DREE, Mr. Speaker, and tell me where that shows competence. The Prime Minister boasted about the fact that over $900 million has been spent by that department. That is precisely where the incompetence lies. One of the few specific undertakings made by the Prime Minister in 1968 has turned out to be a shambles in application. Every objective body in the Atlantic area, and every objective expert in the field of regional disparity has* criticized the planlessness and lack of initiative in the work of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, despite the sincere intentions of the minister in charge.
In the minister's own province, in the Gaspe area, there was an excellent example of this with an expenditure of $250 million, most of which went to researchers and almost none of which went to the people in the area. The purpose was good; the implementation has been a model of incompetence. Hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars have been offered and received mainly by large foreign corporations. And the result? Hardly a ripple in the objective of removing poverty and disparities in the disadvantaged areas of Canada.
Think of Bathurst, New Brunswick, where the minister, the Leader of the Opposition and I attended an angry day of concern some weeks ago. Lay-offs and shut downs haunt the present and future of this disadvantaged part of Canada. Think of Corner Brook, Newfoundland, where lay-offs by a large pulp and paper corporation have raised unemployment levels to near disaster. Think of Temis-camingue in Quebec where CIP is closing down a plant employing 875 Canadians. And then remember the millions of dollars given to Parsons and Whitmore to build competing pulp mills in Saskatchewan, and the $13.7 million offered to a subsidiary of IT and T to build a new mill in Quebec.
I see you are about to rise, Mr. Speaker, to tell me my time has expired. I wonder if I may respectfully ask for a few extra minutes to complete my remarks.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Lewis: I say, Sir, that this is not competence; this is planless chaos. I am not saying that nothing has been accomplished. Some new jobs have been created and I welcome that. But the program as a whole has not even made a dent in regional expansion. And it will continue to fail, as all such programs have failed in the past, because

February 18, 1972
Speech from the Throne
of its reliance on profit-oriented corporations to build communities. Direct public participation, either alone or in partnership with private enterprise, and over-all development planning are essential in the fight against regional disparities. These have been absent, and the result is not a program of regional development but a program of welfare to huge, wealthy corporations. This may be competence for the strong; for the weak it is waste and frustration.
I was going to deal with a number of other examples of what I believe to be incompetence. I shall skip two or three of them in order not to take too much advantage of the kindness of the House, but I do want to refer to two of them briefly. I ask the House to study the government's policy with regard to the native people. In 1968 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development produced a new Indian policy with much beating of breast and loud fanfare. Today that policy is dead, as it deserves to be, because it was conceived in departmental isolation imposed from above and was rejected by the Indian people across the land. Where is the competence in this abortive exercise?
Finally, recall if you will the grain stabilization bill. Again, an important concept mutilated by thoughtlessness and incompetence. For years the farmers, particularly the grain farmers, have demanded a program that would give them adequate income security to protect them from the vagaries of weather, the international market and the international price. When at long last the government tried to give an answer to this age-long need to strengthen Canada's rural life, it produced a miserly and unacceptable plan, a plan which would have stabilized poverty. Our determination to prevent so callous a betrayal of the needs of farming Canadians, and the united opposition of almost all farm organizations as well as the three prairie provinces, caused the withdrawal of that bill.
The instances I have referred to-and I could refer to many others-are sufficient to disclose, in my view, a government which has been incompetent as well as indifferent, which has reacted to crisis rather than planning ahead of time, which has indulged in image and subterfuge rather than tackling with feeling and imagination the problems besetting the Canadian people.
Since I had the honour of being elected leader of my party last April I have travelled across Canada a great deal. Everywhere I saw the evidence of Trudeau's wasted years. I met with representatives of the poor at organizations like the Neighbourhood Centre in Halifax and the Inner City Project in Vancouver. They told me of their frustration and anger because the position of those they represented had hardly improved. They proudly outlined their organizations which had gained in strength and in their capacity and determination to demand redress against bureaucratic red tape, against the deprivation which haunts their families and the grudging subsistence on which they are forced to live. Many of them are developing agencies of self-help which could make an immense contribution to eventual elimination of the poverty culture in society. These agencies deserve our support and the New Democratic Party will fight to see that they get such support.
[Mr. Lewis.J
The sad, heartbreaking fact is that the number of poor has not decreased. One out of every five, and perhaps even one out of every four Canadians continue to live at or below the poverty line. The hopelessness, indeed the despair in the eyes and faces, of young and old, white and native, child and mother, bring shame on a society as rich as Canada. Inequality and insecurity remain dominant characteristics of the human condition which our present economic and social values impose on people.
Many members on both sides of the House have visited Indian, Eskimo and Metis communities in all parts of this country. I challenge the Prime Minister, his colleagues and cohorts to defend the neglect seen everywhere; the 80 per cent and 90 per cent unemployment in many of these communities, the desperately shoddy homes we have provided for these people, the cruelty of an economic regime which robs people of their self-reliance, ignores their physical wants and threatens their cultural values.
I think of the elderly woman in British Columbia who had to battle for months before she was able to gain access to water without the difficulties from which she suffered. I think of the communities I visited at Pictou Landing in Nova Scotia, Moberly Lake in British Columbia, Fort McPherson in the Northwest Territories, and many others. Everywhere I heard cries for jobs, for an opportunity to develop their own answers to their needs and to obtain some security and some dignity in their lives.
Particularly am I often haunted by the cry of an intelligent young woman in an Eskimo community in the Northwest Territories. After a lengthy and factual presentation of her people's problems and grievances she suddenly paused and cried desperately, "Why am I talking to you? What is the use? We have talked to politicians and political leaders for years without result." These are conditions in Canada in 1972. They were there before 1968 but they are still there, still neglected and ignored, and this government continues to be responsible for that neglect.
True enough, one could walk through some streets in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax and see nothing but imposing new office buildings and high-rise apartment buildings and watch cars roll by and admire store windows full of attractive goods. These are a measure of the living standard reached by many in this country. They are a measure of a certain kind of progress and of the impact of technological advance. But I often question the meaning of this so-called progress and the direction which technological society is taking.
My party and I do not belittle the achievements of Canadians and the greatness of our country, particularly when compared with conditions in some other lands. It is not doom and gloom I am talking about. I am merely expressing a profound conviction that the Canadian people have the compassion to want ardently to remove this unnecessary human suffering, that they have the capacity to achieve this goal and that they have the collective wealth, skills and will to build a society based on equality without the hopelessness and indignity of poverty and alienation.
This, Sir, was the challenge that Canadians saw in 1967, this was the dream evoked by the innovations of Expo, and this is the vision which this government has lost,
February 18, 1972

which this Prime Minister voiced in 1968 and, having come to power, has systematically trampled. It is because of this, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
and in particular has taken no effective steps to relieve the serious unemployment situation that has affected Canadians in all parts of this country throughout its term of office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, some might feel that I have a lot of nerve to speak on this day set aside for party leaders, but the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Caouette) is now in Regina to chair a quite important meeting of our party and he has asked me to speak in his place. However, the House will not be the loser, since the hon. member for Temiscamingue, the leader of the Social Credit party, will be among us next Monday and will have the opportunity to take part in the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I also wish to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in reply (Messrs. Whicher and Lajoie), because they have satisfactorily performed the thankless task entrusted to them. I said "the thankless task", because it must be difficult for anyone to praise during half an hour this Liberal government which has been in office for the last four years, considering the bad legislation which was passed, its mistakes and omissions.
On several occasions, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated that he did not want to be judged on his past administration-and I understand him-but that he would like the electorate to look to a rosy future under another Liberal government. The Prime Minister realizes that the colour of the Liberal party is less and less popular and he would undoubtedly like it to turn from red to pink.
If the Prime Minister regrets the past, the mistakes of his government during the last four years, he should say so. If he is simply asking us to forget them, he is making a big mistake, because the Canadian voters will tell him so at the next federal election.
How, indeed, could the Canadian people forget the unemployment which has raged under the Liberal government? Here is the government's unemployment record during the past four years, according to data from Statistics Canada on February 8, 1971 and volume 27, No. 1, of catalogue 1971-001:
Dec. 14, 1968 373,000 unemployed Dec. 13, 1969 383,000 unemployed Dec. 12, 1970 538,000 unemployed Dec. 1971 530,000 unemployed Jan. 1972 665,000 unemployed
This represents an increase of 292,000 from December 1968 to January 1972.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that in January, 7.7 per cent of the Canadian labour force was unemployed, compared with 3.9 per cent in 1965. There is the setback that we owe to the Liberal government of the three doves launched into the electoral sky in 1965.
Speech from the Throne
Today, during the oral questions period, we have seen that this government is still taking shelter behind the officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and saying that it is the unemployed, the claimants who are at fault.
Well, Mr. Speaker, over the holiday season, I myself have been flooded with calls and visits from claimants who were deprived of unemployment insurance benefits that they were entitled to because of a lack of understanding from officials of the Commission, mainly those who work at the central office in Montreal, behind an "electronic brain". Well, Mr. Speaker, these people were deprived of a right they had under an act of Parliament, through a misinterpretation by civil servants.
We could have expected, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment being so high, so many industries being closed or operating well under their capacity, prices would tend to drop. On the contrary, since the present government came to power in 1968, consumer prices have kept soaring. I have some statistics here dated February 17, 1972, that indicate the rate of price increases for December 1971 to January 1972, in the fields of good, housing, clothing, transportation, personal and health care, leisure and reading, drinking and smoking. For the city of St. John's Newfoundland, the price index between December 1971 and January 1972 jumped from 125.0 to 126.1, on the basis of 1961 equals 100. For the city of Halifax, this figure was approximately on the same level; for Saint John, New Brunswick, it rose from 126.9 to 127.4; for Montreal, 128.9 to 129.6; for Ottawa, 133.0 to 133.6; for Toronto, 131.6 to 132; for Winnipeg, 131.1 to 131.4; for Saskatoon and Regina, 125.6 to 126.3; for Edmonton and Calgary, 130.3 to 130.8; for Vancouver, 129.4 to 130.
Mr. Speaker, this shows that the cost of living for one month only continued increasing from December to January as it had during the preceding months.
According to these statistics, the consumer price index in Canada reached 136.7. In December 1969, it was 127.9; in December 1970, it was 129.8; in December 1971, it was 136.3 and today, it has reached 136.7, or an increase of 6.9 per cent over the last 13 months. This is how the federal government has failed in its fight against inflation. Prices are spiralling; families are ever more unable to provide for themselves and have to run into heavy debts, as does the government, by the way.
Here are a few eloquent figures regarding the indebtedness of Canadians to loan and finance companies. These figures are quoted from Catalog 61-004 of February 1972 and show the trend in the debt of Canadians since 1961. On December 31, 1961, this debt was $4,314 billion in 1962, $4,769 billion and in 1963, $5,351 billion. That was when the Liberals took power.
In 1964 that debt amounted to $6,143 billion; in 1965 to $7.4 billion; in 1966 to $7,648 billion; in 1967 to $8,474 billion; in 1968 to $9,704 billion; in 1969 to $10,969 billion; in 1970 to $11,525 billion.
Since 1961 the amount of money owed by Canadians to loan companies, finance companies and stores had nearly trebled. Since 1963-the year during which the liberals came to power-the indebtedness of Canadian consumers

February 18, 1972
Speech from the Throne
has doubled, whereas it has increased by about 20 per cent since 1968, the year during which this Prime Minister came into office. The indebtedness of Canadian consumers is increasing at the same rate as unemployment and the cost of living. While consumers get into debt, the federal government follows suit and gets into debt in a dangerous way in spite of heavy and ever-increasing taxes and higher tax revenues.
As stated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in his budget speech for 1971-1972, our country's indebtedness has increased by 784,800,000 in 1968 and by 576,100,000 in 1969. It did decrease by 392,600,000 in 1970, but increased again by 417,600,000 in 1971. At present it amounts to $25,201 billion.
As shown in Table 1, Section 6.4 of the Public Accounts for 1970-1971, the not outstanding public debt, which amounted to $10,940,200,000 in 1970, reached $25,201,200,000 in 1971. It is also interesting to see that this government is spending more and more money which it draws from the taxpayers, while at the same time maintaining high level of unemployment, allowing prices to rise constantly, and increasing our national debt.
In 1970, the government has in various ways collected $12,324 from the taxpayers, while in 1971, the budgetary operation, as the then Minister of Finance liked to call this highway robbery of the taxpayer, exceeded $12,769 billion, leaving a deficit which will only be known at the tabling of the new accounts-probably after the next election-so as to avoid scaring taxpayers away.
Yesterday, the opening of the session was not covered by the CBC technicians, while CTV workers refused to cross their fellow NABET workers' picket lines. Whatever causes for the dispute festering at the CBC, there is evidence of dissatisfaction, suspicion and antisocial feelings. One only has to see the federal electronic technicians whose functions are designated, meaning they do not have the right to strike, in the process of paralyzing air traffic in the country, and by the same token, endangering not only our economy but also human lives, and also, turning to other sectors of the public service, for example, guards and teachers in Quebec threatening to strike, the question must be asked if the right to strike granted to employees of the civil service, specially in sectors as vital as police, airports and communications, should not be reviewed for the public good. At least this is what Father Emile Bouvi-er thinks. This is how he was winding his remarks in a T.V. broadcast from Sherbrooke-as reproduced in La Presse on February 15 last-and I quote:
However, the unexpected choice made by the union in resorting to compulsory arbitration brings us back to the settlement of disputes in the public services brought about by the 1944 legislation. It brings us back to the solution of British Columbia with its bill 33 in 1968 and to that of compulsory arbitration in Australia. Even if the right to strike is granted, labour disputes must be settled either by enforceable arbitrator's ruling or by legislation similar to Bill 1 or 25. The first solution is perhaps the safest and the least expensive. Maybe we should return to more realistic legislation which, in essential public services, would require compulsory arbitration with enforceable ruling.
The Throne Speech hardly refers to international trade problems and makes no mention whatever of the consequences for Canada of Great Britain's entry in the Common Market and of the American policy aimed at restoring a favourable trade balance. The government
[Mr. Laprise.J
should have informed the population of its intention, on what it will do to correct the situation so that thousands of Canadian workers will not become unemployed on account of the restrictive policy of the United States.
With regard to newspapers, the Canadian government is cornered, caught in the trap and this during an election year because, as it happens, the American government has to face its electors and it intends to show a rosier picture even at the expense of Canada. If the U.S.-Canada trade crisis is taking a difficult turn, as headlined Diman-che-Matin last February 13, it is no doubt necessary to keep cool but this is not sufficient, with all due deference to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) who is now in the process of losing his eternal smile. But is the government not to blame for this trade crisis?
As early as May 3 last, after resigning from the Trudeau cabinet, the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) stated the following as reported by Le Devoir, and I quote:
Mr. Eric Kierans confirmed the fact that it was really because of his complete disagreement with the economic and fiscal policy of the Trudeau government that he resigned as Minister of Communications.
These policies that he spurns, Mr. Kierans qualifies them as outdated since they consist, he said, in blindly promoting foreign investment to the detriment of the available labour. He added that we must stop believing that it is essential for Canada to sell its natural resources.
Among other things, he said he found it deplorable that Canadian missions should be sent throughout the world to sell our natural resources-
He could have said: to give them away.
-and that Canadians were the worst negotiators with Washington while being at the same time the most naive.
It is false to believe that more exports mean more economic pump priming. It all depends on what we export. It is also false to believe, he said, that efficiency and productivity depend solely on investments.
Where is the solution? There again, the hon. member for Duvernay, since he resigned from the Liberal cabinet, has been expressing ideas that are quite acceptable to the Creditistes.
Commenting on the statement made by the hon. member for Duvernay, Mr. Francois Gauthier, an economist and professor at Laval University, wrote in the Montreal magazine Les Affaires that the government is indeed wrong in wanting to restart the economy through investments rather than by meeting the demand first.
Here is what this economist, Mr. Gauthier said:
Mr. Kierans stresses the fact that federal policies "are forcing investment rather than demand to lead the economy". He adds and rightly so: "If I were in business, my first task would be to find out what demand there is and to provide for investments, and this not because someone would be enticing me with tax concessions".
If one considers the whole of the Canadian economy, this reasoning is right even though it runs against what most economists are thinking. Indeed, when the level of demand is such that it produces a major underutilization of machinery and plants, it goes without saying that any economic recovery must proceed from an increase in consumer expenditures. When machines are idle, the natural incitation to invest is weak or absent. Any additional investment may moreover show itself to be non-profitable when demand is insufficient.
February 18, 1972

At the present time it looks as if an increase in investments (the plough) should succeed in inflating demand and decreasing unemployment. And yet one does not need to acquire an honorary PhD to realize that such a strategy is wrong, because it only benefits certain industries which employ little manpower and because it can only in fact maintain stagnation and unemployment.
A resumption of the consumers' actual expenses would be the best thing to ensure a general increase in investments whenever the level of usefulness of existing capacity require it.
Although one may not agree entirely with Mr. Kierans. one could not but admire his attitude when he says in such a delightful way: "No, Ottawa does not see at all what should be the best thing to do."
We should also, Mr. Speaker, promote the economical development, create new industries, so as to meet fully the requirements of the Canadian consumers and provide work for those who are able and anxious to work.
Was it the government's final word in putting forward those projects that come under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or the State Department to help our young people?
Is it with such an over-simple method consisting in providing grants to friends, outrageously rich industries, firms paying high dividends every year, that the government think they will solve the industrialization problem in Canada?
Mr. W. H. Pope, an economist at the Ryerson Polytechnical Institute in Toronto, does not agree with that suggestion and he recommends low-interest loans to Canadian firms. In the February 10, 1971, copy of Le Droit, we could read the following:
According to Mr. W. H. Pope, professor of economics at Toronto's Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, the federal government should grant Canadian firms low-interest loans to stimulate the country's economic growth.
Such loans, bearing a 2 or 3 p. cent interest, would enable Canadian corporations to operate with a smaller profit margin.
American firms operating in Canada would not be eligible for such loans and with a decrease in their profits, the incentives for foreign investments would disappear.
"Such a large decrease in the profits of American subsidiaries should considerably help in reducing the current drain of $1 billion from Canada in interests and dividends". Mr. Pope writes in his book entitled "The Elephant and the Mouse".
Mr. Speaker, such remarks almost meet Social Credit proposals according to which any new production should be financed with new funds. Here are the Social Credit proposals:
Purchasing means available to the people of this country should always be jointly equal to the joint prices of consumer goods offered for sale in the country, and such purchasing means should be cancelled on the purchase of consumer goods.
The sums necessary for financing production should derive not from the profits which are reinvested, nor from personal savings, but should be new credits having been created in view of some new production. They should be recalled only according to the ratio of general depreciation to general appreciation.
Now I still have to briefly explain the mechanisms which will permit the financing of the new production. They say over and over again that Social Credit wants to destroy the present banking system. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, under a Social Credit government, the banking system would be called
Speech from the Throne
upon to play a part even greater than, its present one, though different.
Let us imagine that an industrialist, considering the actual demand, determines to produce 100,000 shirts to be sold for $5 each. He does not have the necessary funds to hire workers, pay salaries and purchase the raw materials. He simply will go to any bank, explain his needs, his expansion projects, the actual demand for shirts priced at $5, the possibility of making a reasonable profit and of reimbursing the loan received, while allowing the bank itself to make some profit.
The bank will analyze the pros and cons and will grant the required loan of $400,000. Where will that money come from? It will not come from the bank vaults or from the savings it holds in trust. The bank will obtain the credit free from the Bank of Canada, credit which it will have to refund on the due date of the loan made to the shirt manufacturer. This is why the bank should take some precautions before granting a loan. It should check whether demand exists, analyze the competitive position of the borrower and his ability to pay back the loan when it falls due. But will the bank charge interest? As you like.
To administer the bank and to meet his customers' needs, the banker will have to rent office facilities, hire competent staff, and pay for salaries, wages and services. Those will be administration expenses. To remain in business he will also have to make a profit. That these administration expenses and this legitimate profit be called "interest" as they are now, I have no objection to that. But for sure this interest will not be as high as it is now since the bank will get its credit free from the Bank of Canada without having to pay interest as banks now do.
The implementation of this policy will have a number of results.
The first is that capital will no longer be in short supply. Any corporation willing to produce consumer goods for which demand exists or which are required by other corporations for processing into consumer goods, will no longer have to resort to ruinous loans and will no longer be obliged to increase its prices outrageously to meet its expenses and make a legitimate profit. It will not have to rely anymore on foreign capital because if foreign investors find it economical to finance a Canadian concern, it would certainly be the case for any Canadian bank and the Bank of Canada.
A second result would be to eliminate foreign control. The above remarks easely prove that if we eliminate the need for foreign capital to finance our production, then our means of production and our natural resources will remain in Canadian hands. We would then be in the position to repossess in a short period of time our Canadian wealth presently controlled by foreigners.
A third result, though not the least, would be to provide the consumers with an ideal purchasing power.
Nowadays, Mr. Speaker, strikes are called in almost every sector and every industry. All sorts of demonstrations for salary increases are taking place.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that workers need not salary increases but rather an increased purchasing power.

February 18, 1972
Speech from the Throne
There is evidence, since strikes have been carried out, that the workers are no better off today than they were before. Their purchasing power has simply not increased, it has rather decreased.
At the present time, because of the financing of production through savings and profits, and for other less important reasons, there is inequality between the sum total of prices relating to production and that of the purchasing power generated by that production. In order to catch up with prices and in exchange for their participation in production, the consumers demand wage or salary increases which in turn are reflected in the ever increasing prices. It is the vicious circle of inflation.
To bring back stability between total production prices and the existing purchasing power the Social Credit Party offers a simple solution. It consists in giving the consumer a discount equal to the difference between the total prices and the existing purchasing power.
Let us say that a product is valued at $1,000 and a total of $800 has been paid in direct purchasing power, whether for purchasing raw materials or paying wages and salaries to employees. The consumers would then be eligible for a discount of 20 per cent which would allow them to purchase all available products. At the end of each month the retailer would bring to his bank vouchers for the discount granted, $200, and the bank would credit $200 to the retailer's account. The bank would then call upon the Bank of Canada which would reimburse the amount credited to the retailer.
The Creditists can therefore rightly suggest that the implementation of the policy would give all Canadians a perfect purchasing power, that is to say neither too high nor too low but just right to insure perfect stability with total prices.
Those are the main policies we offer this country and they are the true solutions to our present major problems.
Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the Throne Speech ending the last session as well as in the Throne Speech opening this session the same pattern of language.
The right hon. Prime Minister spoke today of the crisis of October 1970. That crisis, Mr. Speaker, was not spontaneous but it was premeditated and made possible because of bad administration and an inadequate economic system which made individuals and Canadian workers feel that they were being ignored by their leaders and only had laws they did not want. Those they want the government refuses to pass.
So leaders, individuals took the lead of groups of dissatisfied people and lead them to protest and violence.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if the present situation is allowed to go on we can probably expect those acts of violence to be repeated. The economic situation which now exists must obviously be changed. We must undertake a complete reform of our economy. This is why our very first political step must be to give each and every individual a tangible interest to defend, a concrete substantial reality for which
he will then, and only then, be prepared to fight and to make the sacrifices which he feels are necessary.
That tangible interest is not any obscure collective ownership of the means of production and of property, which in the past 30 years has done nothing for the Soviet masses, who also go on labouring hopelessly, day after day, on the threshold of poverty. This is all balderdash.
It is not a so-called "subsistence" minimum. It is not "collective agreement". It is not any vague "capital-labour association". It is not "pools" of any kind. Those things are all meaningless illusions within our present economic system, and they do nothing to correct the basic flaw of the economy, which is still considered, implicitly, as good and valid.
The interest of each individual, and the only true one, is to be able to benefit right now from a fair share of the present resources of the nation. It is, as was clearly stated in a famous encyclical letter, a certain degree of affluence and culture, not only for a few but for all workers, resulting from a fair distribution, in an amount adequate to meet the needs of decent subsistence, of all the goods which natural and industrial resources as well as a really social organization of economic life can supply for each and every member of the economic and social organization.
When each individual has this tangible thing to defend which will make real his personal interest in the society in which he lives, which will be his own indisputable uncontested share in the advantages of human association, when economic advantages become a fact and a daily reality, then, and only then, will the individual have an interest in supporting his government and abiding by its laws-and he will do so.
Today, more than ever before, any citizen has to question, demonstrate and resort to sit-ins in order to be listed to. And unfortunately the leaders in these disputes and demonstrations are not all Mahatma Gandhis or Martin Luther Kings, who could do so without resorting to violence.
There is nothing to show that violence will not endure so long as will prevail this atmosphere of uncertainty which may hit at any time any industry anywhere. Yesterday, workers in Temiscamingue-Sud thought that they had a secure job. Today, they are in the ditch, and the same is true for some nickel miners at Sudbury. There is less and less hopes for the automobile workers. We know the situation in which farmers find themselves. Whether big or small, nobody can hope to live without a subsidy from the state.
That is where the Liberal party has led us. That can no longer last. The Canadian people will see to it.
On motion of Mr. Deachman (Vancouver Quadra) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Trudeau the House adjourned at 4.25 p.m.

Monday. February 21, 1972