1972-06-21

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege.
Last Saturday, the newspaper La Presse reported that the hon. member for Joliette had asked for the resignation of the right hon. Prime Minister. I should like to advise the House, and at the same time reassure the Prime Minister, that I have never made such a statement. It is my duty to add that the statement was made by another Roch, who is no relative of mine. I trust this incident did not inconvenience the Prime Minister too much.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Turner (London East).
[Editor's Note: For the text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. lack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was a great success. Representatives of 112 nations agreed at Stockholm, often unanimously, to a set of principles, an action plan and an organizational structure which will help mankind to fight pollution on land, in the sea and in the air.
The success of the first UN Conference on the Environment was due, in large measure, to the leadership shown by Canada and by Canadians. The efforts of Secretary General, Mr. Maurice Strong, in laying the groundwork for the conference are well known. Our Canadian delegation, with representatives from the provinces and from industry, helped to frame many important resolutions and to ensure that recommendations important to Canada were embodied in the final action plan. Principles of particular interest to a country like Canada with its long coastline and its proximity to highly industrialized areas
in the United States were initiated by us and were endorsed by all other nations at the conference, many of which face pollution problems similar to our own.
Before listing a number of Canadian initiatives which were endorsed by the conference at Stockholm, I would like to pay a special tribute to the work done by our officials. Mr. Allan Beesley, more than anyone else at the conference, helped us to take a giant step forward in the development of international environmental law. Mr. Robert Shaw and Dr. David Munro represented Environment Canada with distinction. Mr. Paul Tremblay and Mr. Geoff Bruce of the Department of External Affairs made sure that our recommendations were always in tune with other developments in the United Nations organization and that our Canadian delegation operated like a team at all stages in the conference's deliberations.
I might note, parenthetically, that the international press rated our delegation as the strongest contingent in Stockholm. Its reporters reached this conclusion mainly because we outlined our objectives at the beginning of the conference and then managed, as a result of a great deal of lobbying and debate, to have them emerge virtually unscathed in the final declaration and action plan.
Our collective accomplishments, Mr. Speaker, cover a broad front. They range from the identification of atmospheric pollutants of global concern to the dumping of toxic substances on the high seas. Provisions were made for the protection of endangered species, of wildlife and for the payment of compensation when the effects of pollution originating in one country were felt in another country.
A world registry of clean rivers is to be set up and the harvesting of renewable resources, including fish, must be placed on an optimum, sustained yield basis.
More specifically, in the area of marine pollution Canada deliberately set out to utilize the Stockholm Conference as a means to the further advancement of international law. We tabled a set of marine pollution principles, all 23 of which were endorsed by the conference.
A statement of objectives was also agreed upon, stressing the need to manage ocean space and the special interests of the coastal state in that management process.
The Stockholm Conference referred to a conference to be held in London later this year draft articles for an ocean dumping convention which provides not only for effective control from an environmental point of view but also for enforcement by all parties, including coastal nations, against "ships under their jurisdiction".
With regard to the special rights of coastal states, the Stockholm Conference took note of them and "referred these principles to the 1973 IMCO Conference for information and to the 1973 Law of the Sea Conference for action".

June 21, 1972
Environmental Affairs
Canada also tabled, well before the conference, a declaration on the human environment consisting of legal principles analogous to the UN declarations of principles on outer space and human rights. We were the first country to do so. Some states opposed the introduction of legal principles into the Stockholm declaration, but we persisted.
The declaration on the human environment approved at Stockholm last Friday contained the principles introduced by Canada, based on the Trail Smelter case, namely, the duty of every state not to pollute the environment of other states, the duty not to pollute the sea, the air and outer space beyond the jurisdiction of any state, and the duty to develop the law concerning liability and compensation in respect of such damage.
A further consequential principle flowing from these three, the duty of states to consult with or notify states of activities which may have an environmental impact on them, received close to unanimous support but was referred to the twenty-seventh United Nations General Assembly for further consideration.
If I had to identify the area in which I believe our delegation made the greatest contribution, Mr. Speaker, it would have to be on the marine side. Freedom of the high seas must not include the freedom to pollute. That freedom, or licence if you like, has been shaken by the Stockholm Conference. Further deliberations at the international level, including the Law of the Sea Conference in 1973, will be necessary in order to spell this principle out in some detail. But the basic theme is there. Thanks to Canadians, it has been expressed in legal language. Its elaboration in actual practice now only seems to be a matter of time.
Rather than take up further the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask your permission to table two documents. One lists, in some detail, the marine principles which Canada initially proposed and which were subsequently endorsed by the conference at Stockholm. The other is a copy of the statement which I made at the opening of the conference and which summarizes the position our delegation took throughout its deliberations. Could I please have permission of the House to table these two documents for inclusion in today's Hansard, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of documents referred to above, see Appendices A and B.]


John (Jack) Davis: That completes my statement on motions.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best summary of the outcome of the Stockholm Conference appeared on the editorial page of the Christian Science Monitor on Monday, June 19. The lead editorial concluded with the words:
To rally all the participating nations in support of the conference proposals at a meeting lasting only 11 days was something of a tour de force. Much of the conference's success was due to the
extraordinary skill and untiring energy of its chief organizer, Maurice Strong of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The editorial continues:
But the conference could only have succeeded if the desire to succeed was universal.
The measure of universality achieved at Stockholm is a measure of man's new concern for the future of his planet and of the whole human family.
It was heartening to know that efforts to use the conference for advancement of side issues which might have wrecked it were unsuccessful. The nations of the world have recognized formally the prime concern about global pollution of the oceans, the atmosphere and the earth. The United Nations Organization has not often been able to bring about joint and universal declarations on a major world problem. We can all join with the minister in this brief glow of satisfaction in a successful conference.
But, of course, agreements on principle are a long cry from successful action. We have learned that here in this Parliament where we have had ringing declarations of principle on environmental matters, followed by hopeful legislation and then inability or failure to carry it out. It is even more difficult in the world body where so many divergent interests are involved. It will require constant and continual pressure to carry out the principles agreed upon and we should continue to support Maurice Strong in these efforts.
It was unfortunate that our delegation brought some adverse criticism on its initial abstention on the issue of nuclear testing. However, the subsequent change of position rectified our international standing on the final vote, and the Canadian delegation is generally reported as contributing actively to the conference. While we are glad that our delegation was in evidence, Canadians would really have accepted nothing less.
In conclusion may I say that in view of the activities of Canadians at the Stockholm Conference, outlined by the minister in his statement, it is incumbent on him to enlist the support of his colleagues in an active anti-pollution effort in Canada. We cannot preach abroad with any reality unless we act at home.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the minister back from the conference in Stockholm and we congratulate him for the good press he received. The members of this House are very eager and anxious to hear and see how the minister's successful diplomatic manoeuvering will be translated into action at the international level.
We welcome the statement of accomplishments and the apparent accord of the United Nations on many important aspects of our global environment. Our party fully endorses and applauds the general position taken by the minister and the Canadian delegation on a number of important international environmental issues. We wish, however, that this apparent leadership would extend to those major environmental problems facing us in our own nation. The leadership, planning and action required to implement positive programs are sadly lacking at the federal level in Canada. In my opinion, sound and positive

June 21, 1972

moves on a national scale would not only encourage the world community of nations to tackle global problems but would convince them that we were sincere in calling for a global approach to pollution.
The Stockholm Conference calls for international standards. Why, then, does this government not insist on national standards within our own country? Why do we pass legislation which in effect has fragmented standards from one end of Canada to the other? Why do we allow land use regulations in the northern 40 per cent of our nation to be so watered down through pressure from major economic interests that these regulations cannot adequately do the job of protecting the delicate ecology of the north? Why is the only major portion of Canada where all resources are under federal jurisdiction, namely, the area north of latitude 60 degrees, not included under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Environment?
We talk about international standards and control, but the Minister of the Environment does little when major ecological problems face us such as in the James Bay area. Why did his department not insist on full ecological surveys being made before the project commenced? What about the St. Lawrence River where the water is so badly polluted that it is not safe for bathing? Have we no jurisdictional rights in this area, or are the department and the government afraid to move?
There is one point I would like to raise in connection with the Stockholm Conference, and I will be brief. The tendency of this government to pussyfoot in the face of pressure from powerful lobbies was made clear in Stockholm. A $1 million offer to contribute to research on low pollution alternatives to petroleum sources of energy was withdrawn. The international press claimed that it was due to pressure from powerful oil interests. These same economic interests have forced this government to downgrade its land use regulations needed to protect our northern areas. We find that oil exploration is going on in a large portion of northern Canada without adequate controls.
May I say in closing that we welcome the accomplishments of the Stockholm Conference and the part played in it by Maurice Strong and our Canadian delegation. We are looking forward to seeing this expression of leadership in the international field translated into action. We are going to ride herd on the minister to see that this action is taken.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened with a great deal of attention to the statement of the hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis). I thank him for sending me a copy of his statement around one o'clock, but I must point out that I did not receive the French translation until 2:17 p.m. exactly. I would have liked one of my colleagues to comment on this statement, but because we did not receive the French translation soon enough, I was forced to select myself to make comments on it. When the minister has statements to make, I wish he would send us the translation soon enough for my colleagues and myself to read them before hand.
Environmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the role played by Canada at the United Nations Conference on the Environment at Stockholm where the delegates agreed, often unanimously, to a set of principles, an action plan and an organizational structure which will help mankind fight pollution on land, in the sea and in the air.
Mr. Speaker, we are in complete agreement with the minister on these basic principles which will help all mankind but, nevertheless, we must not forget that in Canada, in the provinces and in the municipalities an action plan must also be established to fight efficiently sea, air and land pollution.
Some municipalities and some provinces are asking the central government for help in depolluting the lakes which supply some cities with their drinking water. For example, in Rouyn-Noranda, help has been requested for many years to clean Dufault Lake in order to build an adequate Water system. But they always get the same answer that funds are not available, notwithstanding the fact that the government has the financial means to go to Stockholm to decide what will happen on the shores of the United States, of Africa, etc. We are not against this and we are happy that the government's participation is very efficient and that it draws the attention of the world to these problems. However, Mr. Speaker, I would like the government to pay as much attention to the municipalities and provinces in Canada in order to help the population in its fight against pollution of any kind.



REQUEST THAT ST. JEAN-BAPTISTE DAY AND DOMINION   DAY HOLIDAYS BE OBSERVED ON MONDAYS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER

Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to submit a motion under Standing Order 43, with the request that hon. members kindly listen instead of saying "No" as usual. Since the national holiday of French Canadians and Dominion Day both fall on a Saturday, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott):
That the Mondays following these two holidays be proclaimed holidays for Parliament and all the personnel of that institution.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion submitted by the hon. member for Joliette. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity. The motion therefore cannot be put.
3336

June 21, 1972
Provosed. Legislation



TRANSPORT


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that it has now been 838 days since this Parliament unanimously adopted the report of the Standing Committee on Transport relating to road transport in Labrador I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House instructs the government to immediately initiate negotiations with the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec on construction of a highway system across Labrador linking it with the national highways system; and that the Minister of Transport, who made the initial commitment on March 6, 1970, report to this House on or before the final day of this session on the progress made.



DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY. TRADE AND COMMERCE ACT AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE FILING OF MONTHLY REPORTS ON NAMES OF COMPANIES AND AMOUNTS OF GRANTS UNDER CERTAIN PROGRAMS

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-219, to amend the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Act (public disclosure).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to file monthly reports on the names of the companies and amounts of grants authorized under programs of the department such as PAIT, DIP, IDAP, PEP and GAAP.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



TRAFFIC SAFETY ANNUAL REPORT-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It concerns the traffic safety annual report of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson).
In view of the fact that information on motor vehicle defects is organized-I am sure inadvertently-in such a way as to be entirely useless to the motoring public, and in view of the fact that the federal government has an indisputable responsibility to make this information known to the public in the clearest possible form, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan):
That the Minister of Transport take immediate steps to review his department's annual report with the intention of providing the public with clear and comprehensive information on motor vehicle defects.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43, this motion also requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and therefore the motion cannot be put.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
June 16, 1972-Mr. Broadbent-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act".
Mr. Speaker:: The Chair referred yesterday to some procedural difficulties which were perceived in relation to the bill now proposed by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and indicated the grounds of objections that had come to mind. If the hon. member has any opinion to express in relation to the procedural aspects of this bill I will hear him; otherwise I will express the views of the Chair.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, before doing that I would ask the Chair to clarify which of the two amendments to the Regional Development Incentives Act the Chair is referring to. I am presenting two bills to amend the same act.


Mr. Speaker:: This bill has an explanatory note as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that incentive grants under the Regional Development Incentives Act result in permanent benefits to the economy and the people of designated regions rather than benefits to private enterprise.
I think the explanatory note would identify the bill.


John Edward Broadbent: On the procedural point, Mr. Speaker, I would say that it is certainly not the intention of the bill to increase public spending in this area at all; rather it is intended primarily to redistribute the spending already allocated and approved by the government and to ensure that a greater percentage of the funds goes to Crown corporations as opposed to private corporations. Because the bill involves no increase in expenditure I would think it should be allowed.
June 21, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for the views he has just expressed. I think he will agree, upon reflection, that it is not only the amount approved or recommended by the royal recommendation that cannot be changed but there is also a prohibition against a redirection of the amount that is approved or recommended to the House in the royal recommendation.
To my way of thinking, the hon. member proposed that any moneys committed under the act are to be redirected in a manner other than that envisaged in the royal recommendation which preceded the bill establishing the Regional Incentives Act. In addition, I suggest to the House, and to the hon. member in particular, that the effect of the proposed bill would be that the government would purchase control of private firms with public funds. I am not sure whether this second aspect is necessarily true. But certainly there is no doubt in my mind that there is a redistribution of funds and that this is contrary to the strict terms of the royal recommendation. In the circumstances, I do not think that a bill proposed in those specific terms ought to be put to the House.



AMENDMENT TO ENSURE THAT PUBLIC FUNDS ARE NOT USED AGAINST INTEREST OF CANADIAN ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE

John Edward Broadbent: for leave to introduce Bill C-220, to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that public funds are not used contrary to the interests of achieving and maintaining Canadian economic independence.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Ryan: 1.	With respect to the foreclosure action against Rochdale College by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (a) has a Notice of Desire to Redeem been filed by the original defendant (b) has a Writ of Possession been obtained (c) has a judgment been signed on the covenant of the mortgage with a reference ordered to determine the rights of subsequent encumbrancers?
2.	Have any person, persons, firms or corporations registered claims against Rochdale College and, if so (a) in what amounts (b) on what security (c) which ones have intervened in the said foreclosure action to protect their equity?


Hon. Ron Baslord (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1.
(a), (b) and (c) No. Pleadings have been noted closed
Questions
against all the defendants, with the exception of Revenue Properties Central Developments Limited and Rochdale College, and affidavits of production have been filed by the required parties.
2.	Yes. (a) and (b) Claims have been registered by the organizations listed below, in the amounts and on the basis of the security indicated: (i) Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the amount of $5,395,287, as at May 1, 1972, on the security of a mortgage, (ii) Rubin Corporation, now known as Revenue Properties Central Developments Limited, in the amount of $417,838 as at May 31, 1971, on the security of a mortgage. This mortgage was subsequently assigned to the Royal Trust Company as Trustee, (iii) Campus Co-Operative Residences Incorporated in the amount of $90,000 as at May 31, 1971, on the security of a mortgage, (iv) Nu Sigma Nu Fraternity in the amount of $120,000 as at May 31, 1971, on the security of a mortgage, (v) Revenue Properties Central Developments Limited in the amount of $245,044 as at May 31, 1971, on the security of a mortgage, (vi) Student Management Services in the amount of $52,000 on the security of a debenture, (c) The following have intervened in the foreclosure action: Rubin Corporation (Revenue Properties Central Developments Limited), Campus CoOperative Residences Incorporated, Nu Sigma Nu Fraternity, Revenue Properties Central Developments Limited, Rochdale College.


TRADE BETWEEN CANADA AND SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	(a) Since South Africa left the Commonwealth in 1961, has there been an increase or decrease in trade between Canada and South Africa (b) what is the extent of this increase or decrease since 1961?
2.	(a) Since South Africa left the Commonwealth in 1961, has there been an increase or decrease in Canadian investment in South Africa (b) what is the extent of this increase or decrease since 1961?
3.	What is the extent of the "extensive sanctions" applied by Canada towards South Africa as referred to in the government's review of foreign policy (United Nations Foreign Policy for Canadians, Ottawa, 1970, p. 18.)?
4.	Does Canada still accord South Africa the benefit of the British (or Commonwealth) preferential tariff and, if so, is the government considering abrogating this privilege?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. (a) (b) In 1961 total trade between Canada and South Africa amounted to $50.4 million-Canadian exports $37.8 million; Canadian imports $12.6 million. In 1971 this trade totalled $117.4 million-Canadian exports $62.8 million; Canadian imports $54.6 million.
2.	The total book value of direct Canadian investment in South Africa in 1961 was $17 million. In 1970, the last year for which figures are available, direct Canadian investment was $70 million.
3.	The "extensive sanctions" referred to in "United Nations-Foreign Policy for Canadians", page 18, are applied, not to South Africa, but to Rhodesia (as expressly stated in that document) in compliance with Security Council Resolution 253 of May 29, 1968 and formally enacted by an Order-in-Council on December 28, 1968.
3338

June 21, 1972
Questions
The sanctions cover virtually all transactions with Rhodesia with certain humanitarian exceptions. With regard to South Africa, Canada maintains an embargo on the sale of military equipment and spares. For the rest of our trade with that country, we are governed by our general policy of trading in peaceful goods with all countries and territories regardless of political considerations (also enunciated in Foreign Policy for Canadians, Volume 6, page 19).
4.	Canada exchanges preferences by virtue of bilateral agreements with South Africa as it does with Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and the Commonwealth Caribbean. The consideration of the status of the agreement with South Africa is based on the concept of mutual advantage.


NUMBER OF CANADIAN RESIDENTS REFUSED CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP SINCE 1945
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many Canadian residents have been refused Canadian citizenship in each year since 1945?
2.	What were the reasons for refusal of Canadian citizenship, in general terms, in each case?
3.	Are there any persons who have been refused Canadian citizenship still resident in Canada and, if so (a) how many (b) for what reason?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1. Since the Canadian Citizenship Act came into force on January, 1947: 1947, 5; 1948, 142; 1949, 152; 1950, 98; 1951, 232; 1952, 252; 1953, 147; 1954, 195; 1955, 256; 1956, 228; 1957, 308; 1958, 356; 1959, 395; 1960, 289; 1961, 311; 1962, 371; 1963, 337; 1964, 323; 1965, 287; 1966, 135; 1967, 130; 1968, 64; 1969, 13; 1970, 52; 1971, 24. Some applicants have been refused more than once. Many applicants have obtained citizenship upon a second or subsequent application.
2.	(a) For lack of statutory qualifications as to (1) residence or domicile; (2) language; (3) good character; (4) knowledge; (b) For lack of compliance with other statutory requirements such as oath of allegiance or intent to reside permanently in Canada, (c) By exercise of ministerial discretion.
3.	Undoubtedly, but full information is not available on the movement of immigrants or any other residents of Canada.


NATIONAL GALLERY OF CANADA-AMOUNT PAID FOR ART PIECE ENTITLED &quot;KLONOS&quot;
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	What was the amount paid by the National Gallery of Canada for an eight-part fibre glass art piece entitled "Klonos"?
2.	Is it the intention of the National Gallery to exhibit this art piece in Venice in October, 1972?


Gérard Pelletier: I am
informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows: 1. The National Gallery does not announce the prices paid for works of art.

2. The National Gallery has chosen the eight-part work by Walter Redinger called Klonos as part of the Canadian participation in the Venice Biennale. Since reaching that decision, it has decided to acquire the work; the purchase is not yet complete.


HIGHWAY FATALITIES IN CANADA
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the number of highway fatalities in Canada in 1960, 1970 and 1971?
2.	What was the rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles in those years?
3.	What was the number of Canadians killed in 1915 in World War I and in 1944 in World War II?
4.	What was the rate of such fatalities as related to numbers involved in those years?


Mr. I. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by Statistics Canada and by the Departments of Transport and Veterans Affairs as follows: 1. and 2. The table below shows the number of highway fatalities in Canada in 1960, 1970 and 1971, and also the rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles.
1970
Number of Highway Rate per 100 million Fatalities in Canada	vehicle-miles
3,283
5,080
5,480 (partially estimated)
7.6
6.4
Not yet available
3.	In so far as the Department of Veterans Affairs is concerned: Fatalities (a) 1915, 4,607; (b) 1944, 19,211. In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned: (a) Number of Canadian Merchant Seamen who died by enemy action during the year 1915: 43; (b) Number of Canadian Merchant Navy personnel and seamen of Canadian birth or giving Canadian addresses of other merchant navies who died by enemy action during 1944: 45.
4.	Strength 1915, 191,654; 1944, 505,659 (1); Percentage of fatalities 1915, 2.4 per cent, 1944, see Note (1).
(1)	This figure includes army and navy strength but excludes RCAF strength as these statistics are not available. It is therefore not possible to show a true percentage of fatalities.
(2)	Information is not available on the number of Canadians who served in Allied Forces.


POST OFFICE SERVICES-THUNDER BAY
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has the Postmaster General received a complaint from the Thunder Bay Citizen's Association, dated March 16, 1972, outlining the general deterioration in postal services at Thunder Bay?
2.	What action has been taken to resolve the problem?


Mr. Gerald Richard Cobbe (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is, yes. The answer to the second part is as follows: Even though the situation is now back to
June 21, 1972

normal, the Regional General Manager, Ontario Postal Region, is presently reviewing the postal service at Thunder Bay. A detailed report outlining his findings will be submitted to my office on completion.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	For each year 1961 to 1970 inclusive, by province and territory, how many persons speaking (a) an Indian dialect (b) an Eskimo dialect where employed (i) full-time (ii) part-time by CBC radio and television broadcasting industry?
2.	For each fiscal year 1969/70 and 1970/71, how many persons speaking (a) an Indian dialect (b) an Eskimo dialect did CBC lay off for want of funds?
Return tabled.


CHAMPLAIN CONSTITUENCY-PROJECTS UNDER LIP
Mr. Matte: Have groups or municipalities in the constituency of Champlain submitted projects under the Local Initiatives Program and, if so (a) what is the nature of each (b) for each of these projects what was (i) the code number (ii) the date of submission (iii) the names of those in charge (iv) the amount of the grant requested (c) which of these projects were accepted?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Mr. Godin: For the year 1971-72, has the Department of Manpower and Immigration entered into contract with employers or companies pursuant to Section 6 of the Adult Occupational Training Act and, if so (a) how many contracts were signed in the Province of Quebec (b) what were the names and addresses of the contractors (c) in each case, what was the duration of the contract?
Return tabled.


Mr. Hales:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary three questions in my name which have stood on the order paper since March 16. One of them deals with a matter that arose last year. May I remind him that I should like to have the answers as soon as possible.


James Alexander Jerome: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 66 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents.
Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions stated by the Parliamentary Secretary, does the House agree that notice of motion No. 66 be deemed to have been carried?


Some hon. Members:: Agree.



CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO INSTALLATION OF CO-AXIAL TELEVISION CABLE, CALAIS, MAINE AND ST. STEPHEN, N.B.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 66-Mr. Flemming:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence with the Minister of Public Works relating to the permitted installation and use of a co-axial television cable suspended from the International Bridge between Calais, Maine, and St. Stephen, New Brunswick, which cable is purported to be owned by Acadia Cable TV Limited.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 15 and 20?



COPY OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE AND PHOTOGRAPHS REGARDING ISSUANCE OF PASSPORTS TO YVES GEOFFROY AND CARMEN PARENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Woolliams:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents, application forms, photographs and letters leading to the issuance of passports to both Yves Geoffroy (or in his alias name, if any) and Carmen Parent.
Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the documents asked for in this notice of motion pertain to a matter that is still sub judice. I suggest that in the circumstances the hon. member might wish to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the motion could stand until the court case is over. It must have been pending for a considerable length of time because the Geoffroy incident and his return occurred some time ago. I ask that the motion stand and, when the court case is over, I am sure the government will bring forward the documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



COPY OF STUDY ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE ARTS UNDERTAKEN IN 1966-67 FOR SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study on the federal government and the arts undertaken in the fiscal year 1966-67 for the Secretary of State as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st Session of this Parliament.
[Stage Direction]
June 21, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I move the motion on behalf of the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Mr. lames Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the present motion is the same motion for the production of papers as that of previous sessions. As has been pointed out, the study referred to was a confidential report to the Secretary of State and as such is considered to be a privileged document. I would therefore request that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


James Alexander Jerome: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of comments made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare respecting support for anti-poverty programs having to come from middle-income groups and expressing concern about the possibility of higher taxes damaging the incentives of those who desire to be rich. I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the position of the government that incentives among the middle-income groups are not a matter of concern at the present time?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, of course they are, and I believe that is what the minister was saying.


Mr. Nowlan:: Oh, no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the startlingly high unemployment figures published recently for the month of May and in view of the concern just expressed by the Prime Minister about the effect of taxation on incentives, is he considering additional measures to reduce the rate of unemployment and thereby directly fight poverty and directly reduce the burden of maintaining anti-poverty programs upon the middle-income groups?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if we have any announcements to make along those lines further to the ones we made in the budget, we will make them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in connection with any information that the Prime Minister might feel free to give. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he is considering any additional
legislation at this time which would reduce the benefits being received by middle-income groups under present legislation, other, of course, than the 3 per cent increase in income taxation which will come into effect on January 1 and presumably affect all income taxpayers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Leader of the Opposition will keep these statements in mind the next time he presses for increased benefits for the poor people of the country.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. As such a high burden of taxation is borne by middle and low-income Canadians now and as the corporate share of the tax burden which was about 45 per cent in 1950 has dropped to about 12.5 per cent under the present government, would the Prime Minister give serious consideration to increasing the share of the burden paid by the corporate sector?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to concede the premises of the question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Was the Minister of National Health and Welfare expressing government policy when, in his speech yesterday in Quebec City, he said that the government's policy was to save the rich, soak the middle class and seduce the poor in taxation policies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as happens invariably with questions from the opposition, they always misstate facts when they are quoting something a minister said outside the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the Prime Minister has just made a very irresponsible statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I may say, if he wants to take issue-


Mr. Drury:: Order!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on a point of order and I will be happy to follow your direction. So far as I know, the President of the Treasury Board is not in charge of the conduct of the proceedings of the House.


An hon. Member:: Thank God!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I simply wish to say on the point of order that if the Prime Minister wishes to take issue with the way in which any minister has been quoted he has a perfect right to do so, but it is going even beyond the

June 21, 1972

distance he usually goes to besmirch all opposition members as he has just done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is right. I should not have referred to all members but only to those who ask questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the enlightened Prime Minister. As one member of the nobodies-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, all those who clapped are going to be in the nobody class after the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I used the past tense to give full credit to this government which is a past government. All those who clapped-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor for a supplementary. We have been proceeding for a while now without making much progress. We are still on the first question. We appear to be launched on a typical Wednesday question period when members come out of their caucuses in fighting humour, but I hope we can make some progress. The hon. member may ask a supplementary.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I certainly agree with Your Honour's admonition. To try to help Canadians make progress as to where we are going in this country, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare was expressing government policy when he said that the middle class was going to bear even more of the tax burden of the land, having in mind that the tax reform bill seemed to be heading that way had other members of the government not come forward and diluted the impact. Is the middle class of this country going to accept and be responsible in a tax way for more of these programs than at present?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a misquotation of what the minister said.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for one supplementary, continue the round and return to the hon. member if he has further supplementar-ies on behalf of his group.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary will be very short. Did the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare have a conversation before the Minister of National Health and Welfare made that speech in the province of Quebec?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Bell:: He had one afterwards.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in this environment I have some questions for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the minister's glowing report about his work in Stockholm-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: When a minister gives a glowing report about himself, I think his colleagues ought to applaud him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I want to ask the minister whether in his department there is any co-ordinating agency with other departments of government to make certain that activities in which other departments may engage do not have a deleterious effect on the environment contrary to the policies that are supposed to be implemented by his department? Is there any agency in government that oversees that kind of thing?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. There is a co-ordinating agency in the environmental protection service of Environment Canada with officers positioned in five separate regions in Canada.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking about regions. I will be more specific. Was the minister's department consulted by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion when it agreed to assist in the establishment of an ITT-Rayonier plant in Port Cartier, Quebec, and the receiving of a very large tract of land for cutting? Was his department consulted about this in view of the fact that ecologists at the University of Waterloo suggest this would create a virtual desert in a very important part of the Quebec north shore and destroy wildlife as well as other aspects of the environment there? Did the minister even know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the dedication of large acreages of forest land is concerned, I am sure that is a matter for the province and the provincial forest service to decide. With regard to pollution abatement procedures, in that the federal government was going to make a financial contribution our environmental protection service worked closely with DREE to ensure that the proper clean-up facilities would be included in the new plant at Port Cartier and that they will be capable of

June 21, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
operating in such a manner as to meet our new nationwide pollution standards.


David Lewis: I am concerned about whether there is machinery that can protect the environment before any harm is done. In view of the minister's concern about the salmon fishery in the east, for example, has he looked into the question also raised by ecologists at the University of Waterloo that this entire project in northern Quebec will adversely affect some 30 sources of salmon fishing in a very important part of that province and, indeed, of Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, while the inland waters fishery, in this case salmon fishery, is administered by the province of Quebec, we enjoy the closest possible liaison with the provincial authorities in this regard. I can assure the hon. member that we have been very concerned, as is the province of Quebec, with not only the maintenance but the revival of salmon runs in that province.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South for one last supplementary and then the hon. member for Churchill.


David Lewis: Will the minister inform the House whether these matters have in fact been looked into by his department and whether there have been discussions between his department, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the province of Quebec relating to these aspects of the undertaking and any others?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report to which the hon. member refers, but I can assure him that with respect to those matters he has mentioned today we have been working closely with the province and, of course, with the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion.



PROPOSED RAISING OF LEVEL OF SOUTH INDIAN LAKE, MANITOBA-REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET WITH LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment. Has the minister received a request from the council or the people of the South Indian Lake area of Manitoba for a meeting with the minister with regard to their concern about the damage that may be caused to the ecology and the environment of the lake and surrounding area because of the recent decision to raise the level of the lake to 850 feet? If so, is the minister prepared to meet with the council as requested?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe we have received such a submission. I am certainly prepared to meet these people. However, I would want to meet with them in the presence of the provincial authorities who I believe have a greater responsibility than the federal government in this connection.



LABOUR RELATIONS


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Following the talks he had with the Maritime Employers Association and representatives of the Montreal longshoremen's union, has the minister found that the conflict may soon be settled and when does the minister think that it may be?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I met with the representatives of the two parties yesterday and I will be meeting again this evening with representatives of the Maritime Employers Association. I trust that we will make good progress at these meetings.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, have both parties already accepted the suggestion of the minister that they should meet with him in order to discuss this problem with a view to settling it?


Mr. O'Connell:: We are in the process of meeting, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon I received a wire from the International Longshoremen's Association accepting the appointment of a commissioner, with the understanding that prior to this the two parties must agree on the conditions of a return to work and the lifting of the suspension, that is to say, resumption of operations at the port. That is understood to be a condition precedent.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-REPRESENTATIONS BY WESTERN GRAIN ORGANIZATIONS FOR ACTION TO END DISPUTE

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the statement made by the president of the Alberta Wheat Pool that the tie-up of the St. Lawrence ports has reduced export grain loadings by two and a half million bushels a day and has resulted in the loss of important wheat sales to China and barley sales to Europe, may I ask the minister whether he has received representations from western co-operatives or, indeed, from the National Farmers Union that he take action to bring this tie-up to an end?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have received representations from many economic interests that are concerned about the disruption of facilities in these ports. We are doing all we can to bring the disruption to an end.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: May I ask the minister whether, failing an immediate agreement between the two parties, the government will take action to operate the stevedoring firms and see that movement of cargo gets under way and continues?

June 21, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. That is both hypothetical and a representation. The hon. member for Crowfoot on a supplementary.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-POSITION OF MARITIME EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION RESPECTING BARGAINING

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Has the Maritime Employers Association given an indication that it is prepared to bargain in good faith in order to settle this very disruptive longshoremen's strike?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am meeting with the board of directors and the president of the Maritime Employers Association this evening.


Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister of Labour has not taken immediate action to settle the strike, does he intend to allow the Quebec Minister of Labour to intervene, as Mr. Cournoyer stated he would if federal action is not taken immediately?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question was asked yesterday.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. It is reported that at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment some 200 recommendations on pollution control were made, and, of course, all these measures will have to be ratified by the United Nations General Assembly at its fall session. Since the Soviet Union and other east European nations, with the exception of Roumania and Yugoslavia, stayed away from the conference, will the Stockholm proposals, especially those dealing with oil pollution on the high seas, be applicable to the Soviet Union, and will any special effort be made between now and the fall session of the United Nations to secure agreement from the Communist countries to the conference's recommendations?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am confident that these principles will be adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations and, having been adopted by the General Assembly, I assume that they will be equally binding on those few countries, such as the U.S.S.R., which did not attend. My general impression is that they support the principles. I cannot answer the question as to whether there will be lobbying in the interim; perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs can assist the hon. member.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Canada is reported to have volunteered to donate $7.5 million to a $100 million environmental fund. Will the Soviet Union and the Communist countries be contributing to this fund, and what criteria will be used by the fund's managers to compensate developing countries for trade lost because of the new environmental standards?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the U.S.S.R. or the other Communist bloc countries will be contributing. Half a dozen countries at the Stockholm conference voluntarily named amounts that they would be prepared to commit to this fund to be used basically for new environmental initiatives, not for trade loss compensation.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister been advised that a group of Canadians, including Councillor Seguin of Hull, on a recent visit to Quebec House in Paris were asked by Quebec cultural delegate, Yves Michaud, to remove Canadian flag lapel pins on the ground that the wearing of these was provocative and that Quebec House was the soil of the province of Quebec? If so, what has the minister said or done about this incident?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary ol State for External Affairs):: I have not heard this story before, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport in connection with foghorns with laryngitis. In view of complaints that lives and property are being needlessly endangered by the new automatic type foghorn that the department is installing at certain locations-I cite Leonard Island lighthouse as an example-would the minister undertake an early review of the whole program concerning the use of automatic foghorns and give consideration to whether or not we should return to the old, reliable air horns that everybody had to listen to whether they wanted to or not?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have already initiated this review since quite a number of fishermen on the east coast have made the same complaint to me. The alleged authorities on these matters say that there they are more effective, but the people who actually make use of them are arguing the point and I am trying to resolve these two differing points of view.
3344

June 21, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


INVESTIGATION OF AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT IN WHICH COUPLE FOUND DEAD IN CAR IN WATER DUGOUT INVOLVED
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General. It arises out of the disappearance of an elderly Holden, Alberta, couple last September 4 who were discovered in their automobile in a water dugout in the Peace River district last Sunday. In view of the fact that a motor vehicle accident had occurred and was reported on September 4 in the area where the couple's car was found, plus the fact that evidence now reveals that the couple's car was involved in a motor vehicle accident, may I ask the parliamentary secretary whether the Solicitor General has ordered a full inquiry into this incident in order to determine if there was an element of negligence on the part of the investigating body in regard to its failure thoroughly and adequately to investigate all aspects and details surrounding this accident at the time of its occurrence?


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take the question as notice but I can assure the hon. member that a complete inquiry will be made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


FINANCE
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question.
I should like to ask him with all due respect whether financial institutions have increased their interest rate with the government's approval?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker,
I have too much respect for the hon. member to reply off-hand, and without consulting with the Minister of Finance.
But, Mr. Speaker, I should simply like to suggest that the hon. member should read again what the Minister of Finance said a few days ago, namely that government action has resulted in a decrease in bank interest rates last week.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that 148 miles of the shoreline between Wiarton and Collingwood are privately owned, leaving only two miles available to the public, will the government take the

necessary action to make the 12 miles of shoreline within the confines of the tank range available for public use?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take a look at this proposition.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that the president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation has stated certain matters cannot be dealt with because of litigation before the courts, will the minister ask the president to stop compulsory retirement at age 60 in that this question is also before the courts?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the statement by the president of the corporation.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, without going into great detail as to what the president of DEVCO said-and the minister can check it closely-in view of the fact the question of compulsory retirement at age 60 is now before the courts, does the minister not think the families of Cape Breton miners deserve this protection until the court case is decided?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course that is a representation by the hon. member to the minister.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is he now in a position to make an announcement concerning restitution or any form of payment to the farmers in various parts of southwestern Ontario who had a large part of their crops destroyed by the recent unseasonable frost?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything to add to the statement I made in the House yesterday.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, has the minister received representations from the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Marketing Board, in view of the fact that he failed to turn up at their meeting when he was making his tour to determine the extent of damage suffered by tobacco growers?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the hon. member is incorrect. I met with some officials of the
June 21, 1972

Ontario tobacco marketing board and, by the way, a number of them were on the tour and meeting with me to view the damage in the area.


POLLUTION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the ruling a few days ago by a judge in Winnipeg that two chemical firms accused of contributing to the mercury pollution of Lake Winnipeg could not be prosecuted, in part because the relevant sections of the Canada Water Act have not been brought into force, does the minister intend to bring these sections into force in the near future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might be allowed to ask a supplementary question. I am not sure whether his question was noted.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Minister of the Environment was listening to my question. Perhaps I could rephrase it. In view of the failure of the Manitoba government in its attempt to prosecute firms allegedly contributing to mercury pollution in Lake Winnipeg because a judge has said that no agreement designating water quality management areas has yet been entered into by the government of Canada with the province, does the minister intend to negotiate such an agreement in the very near future?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, these agreements depend not only on the initiative of the federal government but on the willingness of the provinces concerned to enter into such agreements. I have detected no such willingness on the part of Manitoba, for example. I might add parenthetically that had the Fisheries Act as now amended been enforced at the time of that spill-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is in the realm of debate.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of the Environment how many water quality management areas have been set up in Canada in the more than two years since the act was passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question should be placed on the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


GROUNDS FOR TEMPORARY RELEASE OF CHARLES DAVID HEAD FROM PENITENTIARY
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Justice. I refer to the question I asked yesterday as recorded at page 3291 of Hansard. My question was as follows:
Would the minister make a full statement on motions in reference to the granting of the temporary release, indicating whether there was any supervision after the man was released and also setting out the rules, the law and the grounds by virtue of which this person was released in those circumstances?
I was asking for the ground rules applied in the case of temporary release. The Solicitor General answered:
Mr. Speaker, I do not see any reason why I should comment on the private life of an individual at this time.
Subsequently the minister mentioned on television the history and criminal record of a certain person. In view of the fact that he said there was no question of this man getting a life sentence, I should like the Attorney General of Canada to check a report which appeared back in 1967 in a newspaper in Vancouver which stated that this man received a life sentence from Mr. Justice Gregory.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should attempt to ask a question. I suggest, with respect, to the hon. member that the question might be put more briefly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I respect your ruling, but if I do not give the minister the facts he is not able to answer. I would ask him to check the record, in view of the fact the Solicitor General made a statement outside the House which he would not make here, in order to determine whether the man in question did in fact receive a life sentence at that time.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that on an appropriate occasion after the Solicitor General has ascertained the facts in regard to the situation he may make a report to the House. In the meantime, I must say I am not helped much by the hon. member's usual combination of accusations and garbling of the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I see the hon. member for Calgary South laughing. He had a lot to say the other day. But let me put these facts to the Minister of Justice, because he appreciates that criminal records are confidential and are available only to the police or to the minister. I ask him whether-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member. He was recognized for the purpose of asking a question. I did not gather that this was what he was doing but as I was rising he was asking a question and he may proceed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you for your help, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the Solicitor General gave facts outside the House which are available only to himself, will the
3346

June 21, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
minister check the records to see if the facts stated yesterday are correct?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not think I should comment on what may have been said outside the House by the Solicitor General. I am sure that if the hon. member wishes to put the question properly to the Solicitor General when he is next in the House, it will be clarified.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I now rise on a question of privilege. The Minister of Justice, having said that I garbled the facts-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Just a minute. Take your time and don't get excited. The Minister of Justice said I garbled the facts about the Solicitor General going outside the House and stating what he would not say inside the House. The minister not having checked the facts, I ask who has garbled the facts? When it comes to a question of credibility, the ministers have the records and we do not. Let us find out whether they are prepared to check these facts and give them in the House rather than on television like the Prime Minister does.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course that is debate.


POLLUTION
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed either to the Minister of Transport or to the Minister of the Environment. I am not certain which minister is responsible. It concerns the Cherry Point oil spill of a couple of weeks ago. Has either the Department of Transport or the Department of the Environment initiated a study of the recent oil spill to indicate the cost of clean-up, the adequacy of the clean-up and the adequacy of protective measures? If so, will a report of the results of this study be made to the House as soon as possible?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a study of this type is now a routine measure in such incidents in order for us to accumulate a body of additional information. There is no good reason why, once the facts have been assembled, they should not be made public.


CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-UNITED STATES POSITION AT STOCKHOLM CONFERENCE REGARDING SIMILAR OCCURRENCES IN FUTURE
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment concerning the deliberations at the Stockholm Conference. Did the United States commit itself at Stockholm to any future position which would apply in situations similar to the Cherry Point oil

tragedy? Also, can the minister say whether the conference altered in any substantial way the United States policy, and what was the substance of the change, if any?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, a number of the principles endorsed at the conference would have a bearing on circumstances similar to those at Cherry Point both in anticipation and prevention of such incidents in the future, but certainly in respect of contingency plans, clean-up and compensation.


UNITED STATES REPLY TO RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister received any reply from the government of the United States on the resolution passed by the House on June 9 in respect of the oil spill at Cherry Point, on the motion of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East, and also on the resolution unanimously passed by the House on May 15 on the motion of the hon. member for Skeena? If so, would the minister undertake to table copies of the replies from the government of the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the last time I was in the House I did say we had received a reply to the representations which the government made, supported by the resolution of this House, that the question of the movement of oil in the narrow waters of the Pacific coast should be referred to the International Joint Commission. That was turned down by the United States which instead has suggested it be referred to the committee on trans-border environmental problems, which will be presided over by my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, and the chairman of the council on the environment in the United States. So far as the resolutions of this House were to that effect, this is the reply from the United States.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a last supplementary, but there are only three minutes before the end of the question period and we must try to move along.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he or the Minister of the Environment can give the terms of reference of the committee on transborder environmental problems. Can the minister tell us when the committee is likely to meet, and will Canada insist that the question of the Cherry Point-Valdez route be an item on the agenda?


Mitchell William Sharp: My colleague can perhaps answer part of that question, but since he has been away I have had access to the messages received. The United States would like to refer to this committee what we had intended to refer to the International Joint Commission, which does include the question the hon. gentleman mentioned. We are concerned about present and prospective movements
June 21, 1972

of oil in that area and their consequence upon the environment. I think the terms of reference we had in mind for the International Joint Commission will apply to this committee, but of course there is a difference between a committee like this and the IJC.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Labour concerning the labour dispute in the St. Lawrence ports.
Since he met yesterday with both parties involved, I would like to ask the hon. minister if he told them he had proposed the establishment of an inquiry commission to find a solution to this dispute, and when he intends to do it?


Abram Ernest Epp: The
question of the inquiry commission was discussed with both parties. I am meeting again with the Maritime Employers Association this evening for further discussions on this subject, as well as the prior conditions which are to be worked out between the two parties on arrangements for return to work and lifting of the suspension.


QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-SUGGESTION THAT MINISTER ADOPT GET-TOUGH POLICY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that the minister has used every approach possible, can he assure the House that when he meets with the parties this time he will have a get-tough policy, with government alternatives to settle this whole matter in the event the parties do not come to agreement within the next two days? When he meets with them this afternoon and this evening, does the minister intend to adopt a get-tough stance? Also, in light-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked a question and he should allow the minister to reply.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, we are proceeding on course. I have no intention of committing this Parliament to any action, and if that is what the hon. member is suggesting perhaps he ought to clarify his question further.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have almost reached the end of the question period. The hon. member has a supplementary and will be recognized for that purpose.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the minister has now placed me on the government side. We will be over there after the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What a dream!
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact that public interests are being adversely affected, particularly in the city of Montreal and surrounding area, to the extent of $1 million a day, I again ask the minister whether he will get tough in this situation, because the public cannot afford it?


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


QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-SUGGESTED INCREASED USE OF PORT OF CHURCHILL FOR GRAIN SHIPMENT
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is addressed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the great difficulty in moving grain through ports on the east coast, could the minister inform the House whether action is being taken to extend the use of the port of Churchill?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: To the
best of my knowledge, as much grain as can be moved through Churchill is being moved through there. However, if there is a possibility of further shipment through that port we will look into the matter. I was advised by the National Harbours Board that they are looking into the matter of greater movement through Prince Rupert which can be done with the existing facilities.


QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-GOVERNMENT POSITION RESPECTING ESTABLISHMENT OF TRUSTEESHIP
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
It refers to the question I asked him yesterday about the telegram from the Montreal Port Authority. Now that the right hon. Prime Minister has had time to read this telegram, can he tell us if he recommended to the government that trusteeship measures be instituted if the dispute is not settled soon, or if he intends to do so?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have read the telegram, but I must remind the hon. member that this telegram mentioned trusteeship at the same time as other measures that we should consider, and a choice was given to us. This is exactly what the Minister of Labour has done; he took other measures.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With the consent of the hon. member for Oxford who wishes to rise on a question of privilege, the hon. member for Crowfoot might be allowed to ask a supplementary; then we will go to the question of privilege and call orders of the day.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT

June 21, 1972


GRAIN MOVEMENT AND PORT FACILITIES-REQUEST THAT HOUSE COMMITTEE STUDY ANNUAL REPORTS OF CNR AND AIR CANADA
Mr.  J. H. Homer@Crowfoot: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the movement of grain and port facilities. Is the minister now in a position to direct the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications to study the annual reports of the CNR and Air Canada so that this whole matter can be gone into before the dissolution of this Parliament?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: would think that would be a matter for the government House leader. I certainly have no objection, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before calling on the hon. member for Oxford I think it is my duty to again remind hon. members that the duration of the question period is only 40 minutes. I have the impression that some hon. members come into the House with the feeling that they have the right to ask questions every day. I see them coming into the House armed for the purpose of asking questions. I do not think it is fair to other hon. members that they should have to wait day after day for an opportunity to ask their questions. I think that some day the Chair will have to exercise its responsibility, forget about the first and second rows, and call on other members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I notice that the cheers come from the third, fourth and fifth rows. The hon. member for Oxford on a question of privilege.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, my point of personal privilege refers to a question I asked earlier today of the Minister of Agriculture concerning his meeting with the Ontario Flue-cured Tobacco Marketing Board. The minister informed the House that he did meet with the board and that they made certain representations. I have in front of me a copy of the Tillsonburg News for Monday, June 19. It refers to the minister's visit to that area on Friday, June 16 last. The report reads in part as follows:
Mr. Olson was scheduled to appear at the head offices of the Ontario flue-cured tobacco growers' auction exchange about 4 p.m. on Friday, and there were the chairman and vice-chairman of the board, directors, committeemen, farmers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly indicate his question of privilege? The hon. member knows that a dispute between members as to fact has nothing to do with parliamentary privilege. I think I should remind hon. members that we are to hear from the Leader of the Opposition in the supply debate this afternoon.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The point I am coming to is that the minister misled the House in his reply. There is no argument about that. I asked him a question and I think the minister might like to revise his answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The answer I gave was accurate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, that is a dispute as to facts. I suggest to the hon. member that it is not a question of privilege. Orders of the day.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a suggestion to make regarding the length of speeches today.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint John-Lancas-ter is rising on a point of order regarding the length of speeches. I suggest this can be raised once we have called the order for this afternoon.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, my idea was not to have this time taken out of the opposition day. I am following the example of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who has done this on many occasions. I propose that speeches be limited to 30 minutes in the case of the first speeches by the official opposition and the government, 20 minutes for the major spokesmen of the other two parties and that all other speeches be limited to 15 minutes. I also propose that we negotiate, in the way we have successfully in the last few days, for the remaining time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We agree, Mr. Speaker.
[ Translation]


Mr. Fortin:: We are in agreement, Mr. Speaker.


Roch La Salle: I agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently there is agreement.


Roch La Salle: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette agrees. [English]
There is agreement, and it is so ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This House regrets the failure of the government to proceed during the current session of Parliament with a positive legislative program; and particularly regrets its failure to carry out the program proposed in the Speech from the Throne on February 7, 1972, and adopted by this House, thus betraying the trust placed by this House in the ministry to provide adequate measures to meet the needs of Canadians.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the issue at stake in this motion is really whether one can place any confidence in the undertakings given by this government, because in going into this session of Parliament the government was committed
June 21, 1972

to action on a number of measures outlined in the Speech from the Throne and in the list of proposed legislation which the government circulated at the time the Speech from the Throne was presented. In addition there were, of course, left-over promises and commitments from the previous session. The major one of these, by the way, seems to have disappeared completely.
As to the previous session, may I remind the House that in the third session of this Parliament 14 bills were introduced but were not passed. In other words, time in the House was consumed during the third session on 14 bills which did not pass. In addition, during the third session of this Parliament, the session previous to this one, there was a total of 21 bills in the list of bills to be introduced but which in fact were never introduced, and most of these have never come to light since then.
In other words, during that session of Parliament not only was a lot of time lost on 14 bills which were taken part way and dropped, but in fact 21 bills which were supposed to be introduced, according to the assurances of the government, were never introduced and for the most part have not been introduced to this day. So it is not just a question of this session, it is not just a matter of the government saying that we are only part way through this session, because we have been here since the middle of February.
Looking at the list of legislation that the government proposed and the other bills that were not on the list, the scoreboard goes something like this in the present session: there were 29 bills on the list; five that were not on the list have been introduced, for a total of 34. Of this total, only five have been passed although we have been here since the middle of February, and others are at various stages ranging from first to third reading. Some of the late arrivals, of course, are obviously being used simply as showcasing for some possible election platform.
The most significant left-over commitment was the one made by the former minister of finance, in the other place to the Senate Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee on December 20, 1971. The former minister appeared in the other place at that time in order to seek quick passage of the so-called tax reform bill which was at that time being railroaded through this House by means of closure. The finance minister of that day had indicated to the committee several areas where he said it was-
-felt that amendments were necessary both along the lines that the Senate committee had indicated and in other areas.
The minister said that these amendments could not be presented during January and February. But here we are, approaching the end of June, and we have not seen any of these amendments yet. The former minister of finance made the commitment that amendments would be introduced in the Commons as soon as possible to cover these areas in the so-called tax reform bill. Such a bill has never appeared and to my knowledge there has been no indication of what the amendments are to be.
It is appalling to me that there seems to be absolutely no concern on the part of the government about the confusion and damage to the economy resulting from this exhibition of bad faith and incompetence. This is a breach of promise, unquestionably, and a serious breach of the trust that members of this House, members of the other place
Procedure of Legislative Program
and Canadians generally should be able to place in the intentions of the ministers concerned.
Then we come to the intentions regarding new and revised legislation that were expressed by the government. I do not propose this afternoon to run through the whole catalogue myself but there are a couple of assurances, a couple of measures of a most serious nature which I want to discuss in some detail. Foremost ip this regard we have the promise in the Speech from the Throne of an industrial strategy. As reported in Hansard of February 17, it was to be "an industrial strategy prepared for the peculiar character of the Canadian economy".
I want to be fair to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). I am sorry he is not in the House this afternoon. I will not say anything in any way abusive so far as the minister is concerned, although some of my remarks may appear to be critical. He told us in the House on June 6 that such a strategy would be forthcoming later rather than sooner. I can see the minister's difficulty. Designing an industrial strategy for the peculiar character of the Canadian economy is one thing; trying to sell to the public the idea that you have any kind of strategy, taking into account the peculiar state of the Canadian economy after four years of this government, is quite another thing.
Let us consider the state of the economy. "Peculiar" is perhaps too charitable a word. Today unemployment, which we have had for some time, is in excess of 6 per cent, seasonally adjusted. We have consumer prices running some 5 per cent higher than a year ago. And we have the Canadian dollar rising above the level of the American dollar, despite the fact that we also have a deteriorating position in our foreign trade. We have a floating dollar which, it was always said, would give us more ability to pursue an appropriate domestic economy policy. But we have the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce saying that we have no capacity today to increase the purchasing power of Canadian consumers through direct Canadian government policy.
What we have is surely an unparalleled combination of conditions. To achieve all three of these contradictions simultaneously in only one term of office is surely a mark of the brilliance of the government. In sports circles the achievement of these three contradictions at one time could be called a hat trick, but in no circle could it be presumed to be the result of any deliberate economic strategy.
Who could be operating on the basis of such a strategy and end up with high unemployment and a high rate of inflation at the same time, coupled with a rising Canadian dollar, associated with a deterioration in our trade position? The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) tell us that there is absolutely no point in reducing personal income tax in order to put more money in the hands of the Canadian consumer and thus spur job creation in Canada, because they say the increased purchasing power would only be used to buy imported goods. Whose fault is that?

June 21, 1972
Procedure of Legislative Program
Why are imports currently cheaper than domestically-produced goods? Who ever told us that the floating dollar was supposed to increase our ability to manage our own economy? Who told us, following the last international monetary meeting, that our dollar would not float up to a level that would be injurious to our exporters and at the same time make imports more attractive in price competition with our own products? Who gave us those assurances? Where is the strategy of a government which set up a situation whereby, by its own admission, we now have less capability to take proper stimulative measures to deal with unemployment? The government has brought this about, even though we were told we would have more flexibility to do our own thing.
We have a floating dollar, but according to these ministers we have no capability to expand consumer demand in Canada. The government has reached the stage where it is simply wallowing around in its own contradictions. We not only have unemployment and inflation-we have sort of got used to that-and we not only have our dollar rising, but at the same time we have a deteriorating position in our trade. We are not used to the latter; that is a rather novel condition in Canada. Thirdly, although a floating dollar was supposed to give us the capability in Canada to expand our economy as we saw fit, or contract it, we are now told by the government that we have no such capability today.
It is no wonder that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce now talks about announcing an industrial strategy policy later rather than sooner. But the announcement we are all awaiting, Sir, is the one from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) setting the date for a general election-because based on the record and the state of economic affairs at this time, and the complete incapacity of the government to live up to its undertakings, we can only hope that that announcement will come sooner rather than later.
Surely as a first step toward being able to develop and implement a national industrial strategy a government must have its own house in order. It must have the will and the capability to co-ordinate the whole range of policies involved in such an undertaking.


Mr. Stafford:: We have that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government has the capability to create more contradictions in our economy than any previous government in Canadian history. It has exhibited neither the will nor the capability to reconcile the different aims in our country. On the contrary, we have seen example after example that this is likely to be the most unco-ordinated government that ever came to office in Canada. We have seen national economic slowdown policy in conflict with regional development policy. We have seen fiscal and monetary policy in conflict with trade policy. And we have seen a tax reform policy and a so-called competition policy which have unsettled the entire private sector of the economy. Talk about the right hand not knowing what the left hand is supposed to be doing! Here we have a situation where the right foot and the left foot keep colliding in going into the same mouth.
Where do the provinces fit into the government's planning, or lack of planning? Again, in terms of industrial

strategy it appears that a number of provinces are trying to shape some basic policies of their own in the absence of any federal initiative or any indication of where the federal government is going. This was the position expressed by the Premier of Alberta in a major address to the legislature of his province. I do not think that premier was being partisanly political in his remarks. His message seemed to me to be very moderate and responsible. His government would like to see some leadership in this area from the federal government, but in the meantime his government would have to make some moves on its own.
Indeed, what else can any province do? The federal government has not even indicated what it means by "industrial strategy." On that score it cannot play the old trick of throwing the ball back to us, because in my remarks during the Throne Speech debate I gave a pretty full accounting of what my party believes this term to involve and the goals we would associate with the pursuit of such a strategy.
But the government, Sir, has not given us any definition, has not given us any idea of what its concept is. I would like to know if the government envisages making a selection of industries which have good futures, or making a selection of certain sectors which it decides have good futures and encouraging those industries or sectors. Is that the sort of strategy the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has in mind? I do not know. But I am certain of one thing at this point, and that is my very frank scepticism of the government's capacity to follow through on its promise in the Speech from the Throne that it was going to present this country with a strategy for economic development.
For example, we were promised "policies for the use of science and technology designed to contribute not only to industry but to the qualitative improvement of the life of Canadians." Where are these policies, Mr. Speaker? Nobody can say. Nobody knows where they are. These days the only spokesman on the government side-I do not know whether he is on the government's side, but he sits on that side of the House-regarding any kind of strategy position is the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans). He says that we have plenty of manpower and a scarcity of capital. I am not overlooking the proposals made by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), but I am referring now specifically to the hon. member for Duvernay.


Mr. Bechard:: Take both of them with you.


Mr. Dinsdale:: His heart is not over there, either.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Somebody on the other side is offering both these hon. members to us, but I do not know if he has authority to do that or if he has direction over their decision. I think he had better concentrate on getting some action from this government.
The hon. member for Duvernay says that we have plenty of manpower and a scarcity of capital, and that therefore we should develop labour-intensive industries with a vengeance and withdraw emphasis altogether from the field of resource development. Whatever else it may do, I hope the government will not take this attitude in
June 21, 1972

any extreme way. If this line of thought were followed to its logical conclusion, we would end up as a nation specializing in handicrafts.
The former minister says that we should back off development in our resource industries because they are capital intensive. Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask hon. members whether the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, whose economies are based upon resource development, should be subjected to some kind of limitation in this respect. I should like to ask whether the standards that the people of those provinces have achieved through resource development are in some way considered to run contrary to the national interest.
I would find it difficult to agree that the search for minerals off the coast of the Atlantic provinces and the development of such resources would be contrary to the interest of that part of Canada or to the interest of the country as a whole. Surely discouraging such development is not in the national interest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think we should recognize, too, that manufacturing is increasingly becoming capital-intensive and that labour-intensive manufacturing operations are finding it more and more difficult to compete with countries which have more labour which costs less than in this country. I suggest that this approach, pushed to any extreme, would be a rather strange way to lead Canada into the technological age. A large proportion of the employment of this country is in the service industries. I suggest that the search for and the development and exploitation of resource industries provides a large market for sophisticated service industries.
I agree that we will see a capital shortage in this country during the 1970s. We have only to look at the requirements for the development of electrical power, the expenditures proposed by the telephone industry and the increasingly capital-intensive nature of our industries generally. There is also the fact that farms are becoming capital-intensive, in addition to the requirements of what we generally refer to in this country as social capital.
There will be a tremendous requirement for capital in this country in the 1970s. 1 do not think we can allow the inward movement of capital to keep the dollar at a level inappropriate for the development of trade and, therefore, employment. The inward flow of capital that we have seen in recent months is holding up the dollar. It is not due to investment in resources, in manufacturing or in any other kind of industry. Investment in industrial development in 1972 is very little higher than it was in 1971; in fact, it is so disappointing that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) devoted most of his budget to an effort to increase the rate of investment in Canada.
Today we have the rather weird situation of a very high demand for short-term capital which is not associated with any increase in industrial investment. It seems to me that the government has turned the country upside down. This demand for short-term loans is not associated with investment in industry. Our short-term rates are high.
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance should succeed, what are the government's plans? What shall we do when
Procedure of Legislative Program
investment is increased to the rate I would like to see it and the rate that I believe the Minister of Finance would like to see it? We shall need large sums of capital to support this investment which the minister is seeking. How does the government propose to cope with that situation and the effect it may have on the dollar?
How do we establish our priorities so that we can limit this inward flow of capital to levels which will not maintain the dollar at a level that is totally inappropriate for a decent level of employment? We will then have the requirements of industry added to those of the government. While the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has referred to the importance of phasing pipeline development in this country, that is only one aspect of the problem. We recognize that our problem goes far beyond that.
If we are going to talk about economic strategies for development, we have to work out priorities for capital- and not in what I would call the simplistic manner put forward by the hon. member for Duvernay. Despite all its task forces, this government has done no work at all on this program except, perhaps, in consideration of the proposal mentioned by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with regard to phasing pipeline development.
In other words, the government has not only helped create and tolerate contradictions in our economy, but we seem to be moving completely in the dark. Not only is there no indication of an industrial strategy but there is confusion about tax amendments which the government has failed to produce and the commitment of a competition policy which has been deferred until the fall. Nobody knows what is happening in regard to that, and nobody can make any plans about what mergers might be possible to meet our competitive position in the world. This is the kind of confusion that has been created by the government-starting a certain course, giving certain assurances, then backing away and failing to deliver the goods.
One bill that was proposed in the Speech from the Throne and did see the light of day was the foreign takeover legislation. Perhaps this revolutionary and forward-looking piece of legislation is the reason all the other promised pieces of legislation have not materialized. I can imagine the cabinet putting so much time into this one glorious effort that it just could not get around to anything else. I do not want to joke about this, Mr. Speaker. I presume it cannot be easy and it would take years of work and reams of recommendations, including the document prepared by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray), to distil it into relative insignificance.
This task would, understandably, leave no time for the reconsideration of competition policy, for the preparation of income tax amendments or for the job of preparing an industrial strategy. It would leave no time for fulfilling the promise of an amending bill with respect to tax legislation and it would leave no time, of course, for the other matters that will be discussed by other members during the course of this afternoon's debate. This is all very understandable.
As things now stand, I suppose this session would have to be called "the takeover session" in tribute to the gov-

June 21, 1972
Procedure of Legislative Program
ernment's unique accomplishment in this field, an accomplishment we had looked forward to for so long. With any luck, Sir, an election will come soon. That will be followed by another kind of takeover session and I think most Canadians are looking forward to that.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, under the order the House made earlier today I shall have only 20 minutes in which to deal with the subject of the motion. This debate might be considered, I suppose, as a Throne Speech debate in reverse. I shall not have enough time to cover all the ground I should like to cover.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Call it a second look debate.


David Lewis: I wish to begin by quoting briefly four passages from the Speech from the Throne. That speech grandiloquently said:
This country fails in its essential purpose if it does not ensure that its most precious resource, human talent, is not wasted away.
The Throne Speech sounded the bell when it said:
Job opportunities must be found and income uncertainties overcome if all Canadians are to share in the richness of this land.
They were fine words. The Throne Speech dealt with the north of Canada and it said, with a great beating of its breast, if a Throne Speech may be said to beat its breast:
-development will not be permitted at the expense of the northern peoples and the northern environment.
Then the Speech from the Throne announced the following:
Another step, and long overdue, consists of policies to ensure the equality of women in Canadian society. These will be announced this session.
We are still awaiting that announcement. The reason for my repeating these sentences, fine in spirit, banal in thought and meaningless so far as action is concerned, is this: the Throne Speech of last February was another example of the way in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his associates have tried to persuade the people of Canada over the last four years that they can look forward to real progress in achieving a decent, humane, human, just and compassionate society. All these adjectives the Prime Minister has used at one time or another. As I said in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, anyone looking at the country today would be right in saying, as I did, that the Trudeau years have been wasted years.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the people of Canada to look at Canada in June, 1972, and compare it with the Canada of June, 1968, when the people, with a great deal of hope, said to the present Prime Minister, "You look like a swinger; you look like a modern man. We will vote for you and give you power." Let us look at the country and see what has happened to this swinger in the last four years.
Unemployment in 1972 is very much worse than when the present government took power. Progress in housing has been almost negligible in terms of meeting the needs of the Canadian people for homes.


An hon. Member:: That is not right.


David Lewis: No progress has been made in setting up machinery for planning our urban centres and avoiding the planlessness, overcrowding and unmanageable pollution from which the larger centres in this country suffer. Consider pollution, a subject we discussed earlier today. In that area we have passed some laws which have not been proclaimed. We have passed some laws that were proclaimed, but the regulations have not been brought down. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) has been attending a convention in Stockholm and playing the hero there. There has not been-I say this dogmatically, believing it to be true-a single significant step either to stop further pollution or to clean up the pollution of our rivers and lakes across Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: and no teeth. Indeed, the foreign takeover bill that is now before a committee of this House is without sense.
According to reports I have read in the press, the only amendments the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has introduced with respect to the foreign takeover bill have been those that the Canadian Manufacturers Association and the Chamber of Commerce have required. These amendments would raise the floor, so that more takeovers can take place or pass even that limping screening process which the government has proposed in that bill.
I, as the leader of my party, in common with other Members of Parliament and in common with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), travel across this country a good deal. I say to the government and to members of the House who are listening to me that I do not say these things with pleasure. My colleagues in my party are not asking me to say these things with any great glee or any degree of pleasure. I say them with sorrow, regret and pain. I say them when I travel across the country.
For a few days near the end of last week I travelled to the area represented by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), who apparently will speak on behalf of the government later today. I have visited Cape Breton Island, the province of Nova Scotia and other parts of the country over the years and have found that exactly the same kind of problems beset the people of Nova Scotia and the people of the area which the minister represents. I find that in 1972 the condition of the people of Cape Breton is no better than when I visited the island in 1938. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is worse because in 1938 and for many years after that I spoke to audiences in Cape Breton and in the audiences there would be some young people. It is almost impossible to find young people today on Cape Breton Island, except those still going to school, because there is no opportunity for a young Canadian to build himself a life in that part of the country. The same is true of many other parts of Canada from coast to coast.
When one travels across this country one meets, as I did the other day in Vancouver, groups of old age pensioners who simply cannot live on what they receive from the old age pension, even if they should receive the total guaranteed income supplement. Many of them complain to me that because of the way in which the rules are written and applied it is difficult for them not to try to hide a few hundred or a few thousand dollars which they may have saved throughout a lifetime of work. If they expose this money as being theirs, they will be even worse off than they are now-and they are bad off as it is.
I ask myself, this Parliament and the people of Canada how these things occur. Why has this government failed so miserably and dismally in improving the conditions of the people of Canada? In endeavouring to carry out the first goal which I cited from the Throne Speech, why has this government failed in its essential purpose? It is because it has not ensured that its most precious resource, human talent, is not wasted away.
Why does this happen? Since I only have about five or six minutes left, I will give a brief answer. It is that this government is totally corporation oriented. No matter
Procedure of Legislative Program
what piece of legislation it deals with, and no matter what area of activity it enters into, the first consideration of this government is the corporate sector of society and the handouts it can give to that sector. Every time you ask for an improvement in the quality of life for the people of Canada, there is no money available. However, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has no hesitation in bringing down a budget in which he makes a $500 million gift to the corporations of this country one year and $700 million the second year. He has no hesitation in handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to the corporations, but every time one asks for an improvement in the quality of life of Canadians there is no money for it.
I have added up what this government gives to corporations. Including tax write-offs, tax holidays, depreciation write-offs and depletion allowances that it gives to corporations in this country, the government pays out every single year more than $2 billion to corporations.
When speaking to the Social Development Council in the city of Quebec, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) had the nerve to say that we must have selectivity; we cannot have universality and we cannot improve the lot of the poor in Canada sufficiently, because if we try to do that the middle-class will have to carry the tax burden. The people-I use the word "people" in the legal sense-who ought to carry the tax burden in this country and who do not carry their fair share are the corporations. They get away with murder.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Forty-six per cent of the corporations in Canada-I am talking about large corporations-pay not a single, solitary penny in taxes. Poor Shell Oil, the large, poverty-stricken, penniless, multinational corporation,, made $250 million in profits over a period of five years and paid not a single, solitary cent in taxes to the federal treasury! Falconbridge Mines made a similar amount of money over a similar period and paid $15 million in income tax to the federal treasury. That is a rate of about 7 per cent. Having done that, they received a $4 million grant from the federal government.
This is the kind of situation the people of Canada face. This is the truth they have to be told. This government is corporation oriented. If the government would stop giving these handouts to the corporations of Canada, it would have the money to increase contributions to our needy people; it would have the money to cut income tax for those making less than $10,000 a year. These people would spend every penny available to them and really make the economy hum by increasing the total aggregate demand.
It is a government, as it is a system, of corporate rip-off. It is a government whose party is financed by 95 corporations. I say to the corporations that they are smart; they are getting a good return for every one of the $30,000 they give to the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: This government is concentrating on the large private businesses of this country, letting them carry on and depending on them to provide the jobs, goodies and generosity which they have in their good hearts. I do

June 21, 1972
Procedure of Legislative Program not know where the Minister of Finance or anyone else finds good hearts in the corporations, when I find it difficult to find any heart at all, but they always do. The time has come for the government of this country to become people oriented instead of corporation oriented. The time has come when all the laws and policies of government have to be directed toward the people of this country, particularly those who work for a living in factories, offices, on farms, in the mines, fishing or whatever. The time has come for the government to change its attitude and direction. So long as we have a government of the kind we have across the way, so long will there be failure in Canada doing its major job, which is to make sure that its human talents are not wasted.
My eyes wander along the aisle to the Leader of the Opposition and the people who surround him. I ask myself, are they capable of changing the direction of government in this country? The answer is obviously no. No matter how deep one's regard may be for the Leader of the Opposition, and I have great personal regard for him, he is no different from the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: In the Leader of the Opposition there is not the slightest difference from the Prime Minister of Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: As far as his policies and philosophy are concerned, there is not the slightest difference. The Leader of the Opposition expresses himself a little differently. His mother tongue is different. He comes from a different part of the country. In opposition he sounds serious about wanting to do something for Canada, just as the Prime Minister sounds serious about wanting to do something for Canada. I say to him, if you want to find a time when unemployment was as high as it is now, you will find it during the term of office of the previous Conservative government. I ask myself what the Leader of the Opposition would do about foreign control of the economy. The answer is obvious: he would appoint Steve Roman, of Denison Mines fame, as minister of industry, trade and commerce to screen takeovers in Canada. He would certainly have the kind of man who would protect Canada's economic independence.
I was not in the House yesterday because I was returning from a western tour, but on looking at yesterday's Hansard I noted that the Tories moved a motion condemning the incentives program of the government. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), who undoubtedly is slated for a portfolio if the people of Canada are blind enough to elect the Conservatives into power-it does not require any more blindness than was the case previously-urged that the corporate tax reduction announced in the budget to come into effect on January 1, 1973, be implemented right away as of July 1, 1972. His corporate friends do not have even the patience to wait until next January. The corporate friends of the

Minister of Finance were told they would have to wait six months, but the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings cannot wait that long. He wanted further tax incentives for corporations in order to improve productivity.
When we of the New Democratic Party proposed that pensions be increased to a level of $150 a month, the Leader of the Opposition told a group of pensioners-so I was told in Vancouver-that that figure was too high to be acceptable to him, that the country could not afford it. In my opinion-I say this knowing that it will be offensive, but I cannot help it; I have to speak the truth as I see it-


James Alexander Jerome: We know you cannot help it.


David Lewis: -the Liberal and Conservative parties of this country are both corporation oriented. Their concern for the people is secondary, and so long as they are in power it is the people who will suffer.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I just heard the list of future Progressive Conservative cabinet appointees. I could perhaps in turn give that of the future New Democrat cabinet, if that party ever comes to power: Michel Chartrand, Minister of Labour; Marcel Pepin and Louis Laberge at the Department of Education, Yvon Charbonneau to get the provinces to agree with Ottawa, and Raymond Laliberte, probably special adviser to the Prime Minister-undoubtedly the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. Speaker, those shadow cabinets will not change the situation which prevails today in Canada. However, I find very surprising the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, which reads as follows:
This House regrets the failure of the government to proceed during the current session of Parliament with a positive legislative program; and particularly regrets its failure to carry out the program proposed in the Speech from the Throne on February 17th, 1972, and adopted by this House, thus betraying the trust placed by this House in the ministry to provide adequate measures to meet the needs of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, now the Leader of the Opposition blames the government for not having enacted the intentions expressed in the Speech from the Throne; yet, he was completely opposed to that speech when it was given on February 17 last. The behaviour of politicians is sometimes strange. That is why I was not surprised, yesterday or the day before, to hear that the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition had gone to the zoo in Granby. That is where he won such wonderful support in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne was moved by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) and seconded by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie). The Leader of the Opposition, as reported on page 34 of Hansard for February 18 1972, moved the following amendment:
-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.
June 21, 1972

The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition was justified. The leader of the New Democratic Party introduced an amendment to that amendment on February 18, as reported on page 45 of the House of Commons Debates. It read as follows:
-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.
It referred to this government. Mr. Speaker, the amendment was put and the Leader of the Opposition as well as the Progressive Conservative members and those of my party voted in favour of it.
Later on, that is on February 22, we introduced the following amendment to the amendment:
That the amendment be amended by striking out all the words after "economic deprivation" and replacing them with the following:
"resulting from the absence of any monetary reform tailored to the needs of the Canadian society."
It was put on February 23, as recorded on page 195 of Hansard and the Progressive Conservative as well as the New Democratic members voted in favour of the monetary reform which we proposed in order to meet the needs of the people.
On February 23, the amendment of the Leader of the Official Opposition was put. We voted, as the members of the Progressive Conservative party against the Throne Speech. However, the Progressive Conservative members are now asking the government to carry out the measures outlined in the Throne Speech, while they voted against it. We do not find that quite logical.
Something is missing somewhere. It may be sincerity or perhaps understanding. Terms are misunderstood. Something is not going right. You are either for or against something. If you are against it, let us not come back two months later and say: We condemn you for not having applied what we were opposed to.
Mr. Speaker, this is about what is happening. By introducing the amendment, they are saying to this government: You are incompetent, you did not apply the measures contained in the Throne Speech. And yet, the Progressive Conservatives were asking this government not to apply them because they were worthless.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that parliamentarism compels the opposition to say "no" when the government says "yes", in some cases, but I do not think that this is an efficient way of opposing an inefficient government. When a government fails to keep its promises or meet its commitments, it is up to us to tell it so. But if we object to its taking a certain course and then later blame it for not having done so, I am at a loss to understand and can make neither head or tail of it. Let us be consistent.
We voted against the Speech from the Throne because we sincerely felt it did not contain adequate measures to meet the needs of the population of Canada in all fields of economic activity.
In that speech everything was mentioned: taxation, fiscal reform, etc. This last is being applied by way of taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots, pur-
Procedure of Legislative Program
porting to enrich the poor by impoverishing the middle class. Finally, we shall discover that we have yet more poor, that we have no middle class left because it has been taxed into oblivion. We have got to the point where we are taxing taxes.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there is a tendency to eliminate the middle class solely for the benefit of the rich people, because the poor do not get anything out of it. Old age pensions have been raised recently. The increase meant only $2.80 more per month for the have-nots, which is not enormous. Old people will not be able to raise their standard of living with that amount, even though pensions from now on are going to be tied in with the cost of living. It means that every time the cost of living will go up 1 per cent pensioners will get an increase of 80 cent a month.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne dealt with taxation. We have fought in this House the new taxation which is, furthermore, accompanied by income tax forms which are a hundred times more difficult to understand than the previous ones, to the extent that some accountants are completely baffled. They have to check and recheck time and again their audits. In the budget speech, the government has undertaken to reconsider the tax forms so that they might become more understandable. This is a bureaucratic "gimmick". Yes, it creates jobs.
Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the Speech from the Throne advocated passage of 34 bills, five of which have been adopted since February while 29 others are still on the order paper and have not yet been dealt with.
For instance a new formula should have been submitted concerning federal-provincial relations, but the government is hesitating. Improvements should have been made in agriculture and increased aid provided to our youth, to the Local Initiatives Program as well as to the retraining of the unemployed to enable them, at least, to become more educated unemployed, but nothing has materialized. Aid to youth has decreased from what it was last year and the problems have not been lessened either.
I said yesterday that of the 17,000 projects under the Local Initiatives Program, only 5,000 had been accepted; that more than 19,000 projects under the Opportunities for Youth program had been submitted to the government and a little more than 3,000 of them had been approved. We are up against a stone wall. We are repeatedly told: We have no money to approve more projects.
Mr. Speaker, the industrial strategy for Canada has been also dealt with and the more we discuss this project, the more plants and industries are closing down, not only in one specific province, but all over Canada. Plants are closing down because products are not being sold. This is what industrial strategy is all about!
And while plants are closing down, workers, such as those of the textile industry in the Eastern Townships are asked to go on pension at the age of 54, not on their present salary, but on part of it in order to make way for younger people.
In the meantime, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is in China or Japan purchasing textile products to enter into dishonest competition with

June 21, 1972
Procedure of Legislative Program.
the Canadian industry. How can one say that this government is honest with the Canadian people?
Mr. Speaker, for other reasons, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce also went to Russia. I think he went to China twice and if he goes a third time, I would not be surprised if he were mistaken for a Chinese.
A moment ago, I heard the Leader of the official opposition say that the government will run out of long and short term capital and he is wondering where it will find such capital. I would ask the Leader of the official opposition where he would find capital if he were the Prime Minister.
Whether short or long term capital is involved, it does not matter since to us capital represents the possibility of developing our industries and our natural resources. And to the extent that the Canadian people will be able to develop our natural resources, the government will have to say to the Bank of Canada: You extend credit according to the natural resources development in Canada. We would then be masters of our own economy and not the Americans' slaves.
Mr. Speaker, the more we advance in life the farther the emergence of this just society promised by the Liberals. The expression "just society" was on the lips of every government member; vote for us and we shall give you a just society. And the more we advance-I hear the applause of two or three colleagues-the less we hear about justice in the economic and social fields.
People are sent to hell; no matter if the people involved are the "Lapalme boys", the young or others who come to meet the Prime Minister of other government members, they are told: if you are not happy, vote against us.
Not long ago in Medicine Hat, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), was challenged by people that were frustrated and the Prime Minister told them: if you are not satisfied, vote against him. Simple all right, but why were they not told to vote against in 1968?
Here, Mr. Speaker, is another issue on which the government has made promises: bilingualism, which we favour all across Canada. The objective is a knowledge of both official languages. However, there are various ways of going about it in order not to discriminate.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that when a 50-year old public servant is told that unless he learns a second language he will lose his job, this is discrimination, and the government does not have the right approach. There is only one way-very easy at that-to make bilingualism a reality in Canada: it is to advocate the teaching of both official languages in schools throughout the country right from the first year, in co-operation with the provinces-since education is a provincial matter-but with the financial assistance of the federal government, which has financed a commission to teach people how to speak English outside Quebec and how to speak French in Quebec.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: This is exactly what is being done.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that this is exactly what is being done. It is exactly what is not

being done. Name me one school in British Columbia which is subsidized by the federal government so that French may be taught there-although all parents would be in favour of it. This is what I say when I go to western Canada, and I do not hesitate to say it: everybody agrees to have both official languages taught from the first year on, not at the age of 20 or 35. Public servants in Ottawa now have to go on courses to learn French. When are they going to learn it? You do not learn a second language easily when you are 40 years old.
And here, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on his efforts to learn French-


Albert Béchard: He was over 40 when he started!


David Réal Caouette: Yes, he was, and this is why he will never speak French fluently. However, he can express himself in French. I for one started learning English when I was 20, and I still cannot speak it properly. I know it.
Mr. Speaker, if we started teaching both languages right from the first year, in less than five years, our young people would be speaking English and French fluently across Canada.
When my two boys were respectively four and five years old, my neighbour in Rouyn was a Ukrainian who had a small boy of the same age. The three children played together. We have members of Ukrainian descent in the House and I am happy to have them; in fact, they are Canadians who speak Ukrainian. My two young sons played with their little Ukrainian neighbour and one night, at supper, the two little ones were speaking together and I could not understand a word they were saying; they were speaking Ukrainian without anyone forcing them to do so, but simply because of their contacts with the small neighbour they were playing with.
This is how we will solve our bilingualism problem in Canada. We must not force a francophone to learn English at age 40 or 50. If he wants to learn it, congratulations, but if he does not wish to do so, he should not be forced. This is a democratic attitude which would promote unity in Canada.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I feel flattered at the opportunity accorded to me to follow the leaders of the three opposition parties in the debate this afternoon. Probably my contribution will be more objective than theirs because my appreciation of events is not dazzled by the elusive prospect they are nourishing, that some day they might head the government of this country. These hopefuls, about to be disappointed and probably decimated, were showing their wares this afternoon and vying with each other concerning why their party is the best. That was very interesting. Because I am not in that position I can approach the motion somewhat more objectively than they can, for the reasons stated.
The motion criticizes the government for not carrying out the program outlined in the Throne Speech. The wording suggests the opposition believes that the measures contained in the Throne Speech were adequate to
June 21, 1972

meet the needs of Canadians. On that basis the motion appears to be a motion of confidence in the government, at least in February. Secondly, the opposition has a measure of responsibility in the discharge of House business. If the opposition has not seen fit to assist the government in carrying out those measures which the opposition believes are adequate measures to meet the needs of Canadians, then the opposition has not fulfilled its duty. From this point of view the motion appears to be a motion of non-confidence in the opposition. Also, if we recall the oft repeated dictum of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), that the government proposes and the opposition disposes, the motion could be interpreted as a condemnation of the tactics the opposition has employed during the current session.
In a general way, as we know, the Throne Speech sets out the broad policy lines of the government's social and economic policies. When these were set out for this session by the government, the opposition, especially the official opposition, disparaged the policies at the time, heaped ridicule upon them and condemned them as being inadequate. Now they condemn the government for not ramming them through the House. The attitude of the opposition was negative, harsh and critical. They took refuge in a smokescreen of bilious platitudes.
The opposition has protested almost every sound piece of legislation brought forward by the government. Now they complain bitterly that some items in the program remain to be dealt with. That point was made very effectively by the leader of the Social Credit party. The official opposition especially condemns what it appears to support and supports what it appears to condemn. The opposition motion is directed to the serious question of the government's program in this Parliament and, in particular, this session.
I should like to answer the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) by relating some information about the legislative process and some documented facts about the tremendous amount of work this Parliament has accomplished, to show that the opposition's excessive abuse of parliamentary time in recent months has delayed the passage of some items of legislation which are part of the Throne Speech.
There is no doubt that time is a limited resource in the legislative process. From the perspective of the government House leader the legislative process is a complex process of anticipating and reconciling conflicting demands in a limited amount of time. This government will not be judged by the last three months alone; it will be judged by its program to date through four sessions of Parliament, ending possibly this session. Compared with the decade of the 1960s, the present Parliament to which we belong in its first two sessions sat longer and passed more bills of a lengthy, complex and technical nature than had been passed in the previous decade. Between the sessions of 1960 and 1968, Parliament sat an average of 142 days per session. During the first two sessions of this Parliemant we sat, on the average, 176 days.
In the previous period to which I referred, Parliament enacted, on average, 46 public bills per session. During the first two sessions of this Parliament we enacted 65 bills per session. The number of pages of enacted legislation
Procedure of Legislative Program
has risen from an average of 461 in the period between 1960 and 1968 to 659 in the first two sessions of this Parliament. In other words, this Parliament had to deal with approximately 1) times as many pages of enacted legislation per sitting day as it did on an average during the sessions from 1960 to 1968.
When we turn to the legislative performance of the third session of this Parliament, last session, it is possible to see an even greater acceleration in business. If we include all the sessions between 1960 and 1970, we get an average of 148 days; but in the third session we sat 243 days. In that session Parliament enacted 65 public bills, whereas the average number of public bills in the last decade was 49. Indicative of the technical and more complex nature of modern legislation, the third session passed, on the average, 1,037 pages of legislation compared with an average of 497 in the sessions between 1960 and 1970.


David Lewis: Am I wrong, or were you minister from 1963 onward?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member is quite right. I am talking about the productivity of the current Parliament, to which this motion directs itself, in comparison with previous Parliaments. In terms of all the tests that we can apply, in terms of the pages of enacted legislation, of the labour of members sitting in the House and the output of bills, the record of this Parliament has been a good one.
Up to the present session the government has, therefore, been able to complete one of the most comprehensive programs ever put before Parliament. The government has proposed and has completed legislation in every conceivable area-economic growth, social justice and the quality of life. It has acted in the field of social justice by revising and raising old age security pensions and veterans pensions. It has reformed the Canada Labour (Standards) Code to raise the federal minimum wage. It has revised the Unemployment Insurance Act and it has brought before Parliament substantial revisions to the criminal law and generally to the legal system.
The government has responded to new demands, such as the increased concern with environmental matters, in several legislative steps including the creation of the Department of the Environment itself, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Canada Water Act, and so on.
In addition, during this Parliament the government has been much concerned with the maintenance and strengthening of an effective democratic process. It has put forward revisions to the Canada Elections Act. It put forward the Statutory Instruments Act, and on two occasions it undertook the comprehensive reorganization of government structure. In order to strengthen national unity-the leader of the Social Credit party referred to this matter- it put forward and brought into effect the Official Languages Act. In matters of economic growth the government has produced much important legislation, almost too numerous to outline at the moment, including the Canada Corporations Act revision, the investment companies act, the employment support act, the Regional Devel-

June 21, 1972
Procedure of Legislative Program opment Incentives Act and many other important pieces of legislation.
Despite the words of the Leader of the Opposition about a left-over bill, which I hope will be facing him shortly, this Parliament has undertaken the most extensive reform of the Canadian taxation system in our history. I am not complaining about this. I have noticed, however, that in this session the opposition has spent at least part of its time on political campaigning. In fact, I am told that some of the Leader of the Opposition's colleagues are concerned about how badly he has misjudged the date of the election. Instead of spending his time boning up on the legislative program, he has spent a good deal of time campaigning around the country.
I am not scandalized at the fact that parties should get immersed in politics, but I do not think we should blind ourselves to the effect that that preoccupation has on the legislative program of the House of Commons. I have not complained about it, but I find it a bit galling to have the Leader of the Opposition and his House leader complain about the appalling record of legislative progress, a record which they have extensively participated in creating.
Today is the seventy-eighth sitting day of this session. Let me say first of all that more than 40 per cent of that time has been spent on business other than government legislation. I have personally regretted every single day that was lost to the legislative process, but we did have to meet our parliamentary commitments by spending a day on the Speech from the Throne, which was so popular in February and so unpopular in June-or is it the other way round-eight more days for the address debate, an important debate, and six days on the budget. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was demanding that we complete that debate. Today is the eighteenth day spent on the business of supply, opposition days, and two days- or was it one-were spent on the motion of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) on that memorable occasion when we accepted his motion in the House of Commons.
All I am saying is that in this session we have had 43 days available for government legislation. And what has happened to these 43 days? On February 17, the Prime Minister tabled a list of proposed legislation for this session. It consisted of 29 items. We have added some since, all items that were popularly received, such as the old age pension increase, the veterans pension increase, the new pension bill that was given first reading yesterday, and one or two others. But of the original 29, the government has made a deliberate attempt to get as many through Parliament as possible. Of those 29 bills only six remain to be brought forward and three of them require the completion of consultation with the provinces or with the private sector as promised in the Speech from the Throne.
I believe that is a pretty good record. It is nothing to be ashamed of, considering the dynamic world in which we are living. We know perfectly well that items of legislation are dying in the House because members find them not very important or refuse to pass them. Since February we have brought forward 23 of these items; they are all on the order paper and available for discussion. What has happened to these bills? Without casting any reflection, I must

say that the House has not shown any real readiness to deal with these bills reasonably rapidly. As I have said so often, in the British House they spent a maximum of two days on second reading. Probably they give most bills second reading in a day or less. Of course, if we had done that in this House there would be no need to complain about the legislative pace.
Let us go back to the 43 days. On five of the 43 days we debated second reading of Bill C-4, the CNR financing and guarantee bill. It has not received second reading yet.


Mr. Benjamin:: And you know why.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Of course I know why-because there is a price tag attached to the passage of the bill. I understand that and I accept it. I accept the capability of any person in this House to refuse passage of a bill. I am just pointing out that we have had five days on second reading and the bill is still where it started. We spent at least nine of the 43 days, and probably all of them, on second reading of the Family Income Security Plan bill. That bill is out of committee, at report stage. The federal-provincial fiscal relations bill took four days on second reading and two days at report stage, for a total of six days. Those four bills, Mr. Speaker, only one of which is passed and is now the law of Canada, took 24 of the 43 days that were available for government legislation in this session.
I say this to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all hon. members, harping back to the debate that we had on time allocation, that if the House of Commons takes 24 days to complete one bill and partially complete three others, we are not measuring up to the requirements of modern life and the requirements of a modern legislature.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I leave it at that. I make no complaints; I merely state the facts. As the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert said, this side proposes and that side disposes. That is how that side disposed of these items of government legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I now want to refer to the days that are set aside so that the opposition may tell Parliament what policies it would like to bring forward. I realize that the opposition must criticize; it must bring the government to task. But surely in our system of government, with an official opposition having had 50 days in this Parliament all to itself to bring forward alternative policies, with that kind of opportunity this House and the country should know where the official opposition in particular stands on all questions of public policy. But we do not. And they do not, which is worse.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have had carping criticism. We have had one motion after another repeating the same tired, bilious platitudes. To date we have had fourteen motions on unemployment from the Leader of the Opposition and his party. The same wine has been put in differ-
June 21, 1972

ent bottles but we still do not know what kind of draft the Leader of the Opposition is preparing for the people of Canada. We ask, what is their position on economic policy? What is their position on industrial strategy? What is their position on constitutional reform? What is their position on the role of Quebec in Canada? What is the official opposition's position on the guaranteed income, which has been endorsed and disowned so often that it is difficult to know how that party could guarantee anything?
What is the official opposition's position on foreign involvement in the economy? Today the Leader of the Opposition gave the foreign takeover bill hell in the House. A few days ago he said he would vote for that bill, but today it was worthless, insignificant and a charade. Where do they stand on social justice? Where do they stand on questions of social life, the qualify of life in Canada?
There is hardly an aspect of public interest and public policy that this government in the past four years has not legislated upon or on which it has not declared to the public where it stands. There are undoubtedly some remaining issues but no government in the history of this country has done a better job, perhaps too good a job, of telling the people of Canada where it stands on controversial matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Leader of the Opposition-I must give him credit-did bring in a new tax proposal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He came up with a new policy in the budget debate when he brought forward his constant dollar income tax proposal. Probably it was the only time in this House that confusion was put forward as a major national policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Since then the Leader of the Opposition has dropped that proposal; at least he has not talked about it recently, or today in the House of Commons, because the careless rapture felt by the disclosure of that proposal has now dissipated in the subsequent bleak dawn of practical enlightenment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was a rosy scheme in which the taxpayer would pay his taxes in constant 1971 dollars. If it is a good scheme, why restrict it to tax payments? It should work right across the board. Maybe we could give back tax overpayments in constant dollars, or maybe we could pay the members of this House in constant 1971 dollars. But probably we ought to leave aside that question of the Leader of the Opposition for a moment; we do not know what he stands for.
Members of the official opposition have very little to offer, so far as I can make out, except their working over bones of policies and old programs that come back again and come forward again, that are withdrawn only to be put forward once more. One almost expects them to come
Procedure of Legislative Program
up with the slogan of Sir John A. Macdonald in his last election campaign: The old flag, the old party, the old leader. But they cannot very well do that either; they are somewhat constrained in that particular situation.
I have listened so often to these speeches on supply days that all I can say is that the performance of that party- here I agree with the leader of the NDP-has been bereft of inspiration. It does not inspire anybody, certainly not in this House. It is devoid of constructive thought. It is really bankrupt of any worth while solution to the problems of Canada. All we get from that party is a long, interminable keening over the state of the nation. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, one can search through the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition, his statements, his pronouncements, his television interviews, his radio interviews for some smidgen of an alternative policy. What would he do, in contrast to this dreadful government? We never hear anything about that. There is no alternative, no proposal. He is like a mourner at the funeral of his own party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When I listened to the leader of the New Democratic Party I took exception to some of the things he said. I thought he was a modern man; I thought he lived in the 1970s. I did not believe that his attitudes, his policies and prejudices were still firmly anchored in the 1930s. We have, in the unrehearsed and obviously unprepared address of the leader of the New Democratic Party, a real demonstration from the heart of what he felt. In my view the New Statesman would not even publish it. It was the old hat of the thirties. He tried to tell us that conditions in the area I come from are worse today than they were in 1938. Nobody who lives there and nobody who knows that part of the world would agree with him.
I thought it was rather typical that he should anchor his position so solidly to the thirties and drag out that old stuff about corporations pouring money into the coffers of the Tory party and the Liberal party, and that therefore we are all supine servants of the corporations. Mr. Speaker, there is no more careful defender of the corporations in his constituency than the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). He is very upset if there is any indication that a corporation in the Maritimes is to be helped by this government, because he recognizes as well as I do that corporations provide jobs and if they close their doors in his riding or in Cape Breton it is a serious matter for a Member of Parliament.
We are not corporation oriented; we are not servants of any corporation in this country. Any party that in one session has been able to put on the legislative program the family income security plan, the guaranteed income supplement program, increases for the veterans, the Local Initiatives Program and the Opportunities for Youth program-programs for which such bodies are hardly enthusiastic-is hardly frail or supine.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, it must have given the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) a good deal of satisfaction to get a lot of his frustrations off his chest in one fell swoop. He has had to present some of the bad, poorly drafted legislation that we

June 21, 1972
Procedure of Legislative Program have had in the last couple of sessions and it must have been difficult for him to persuade so many people to vote for it. In his remarks he neglected to mention that some of the delay has been caused by members supporting the government who were not satisfied with the legislation either. I think we should bear that in mind.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed the remarks of the government House leader. His presentation was very humorous and he managed to conceal the main thrust of the opposition motion, which is that the government has not presented a good deal of the legislation that was promised in the Speech from the Throne. I do not want to carp on this, but in fact our motion refers only to this session and in order to find something positive and productive the minister had to go back through the whole of this Parliament. Only at the end did he come around to this session and give us the reason why there was very little positive legislation. If we have had such an amount of good legislation during this Parliament, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask why the country is in the mess it is today. I think that question is raised by the presentation of the President of the Privy Council.
In the Speech from the Throne on February 17 I was very happy to hear the following words:
-policies designed to promote a related yet distinct sector of the economy, tourism, will be revealed in coming weeks.
That was a simple, straightforward declaration of intention by the government, but unfortunately with the session and undoubtedly this Parliament coming very close to an end we have not yet seen any proposal nor any legislation. This is one item I have picked from the many contained in the Speech from the Throne on which legislation was not even drafted or presented to the House. Certainly the President of the Privy Council cannot complain that we held up legislation which has not been put forward.
This may be one of my last speeches in this House, Mr. Speaker, and it is suitable that I should address myself to the failure of this government to bring out legislation to help the tourist industry. That was the situation I found when I arrived here 15 years ago: tourist business had hardly been discussed in Parliament. For many years this industry had struggled along with very little support or interest from the government. Representing a district in which tourism was of vital importance, I began a campaign, which I think was reasonably successful, for recognition of the tourist industry as valuable to Canada both as a means of revenue and a means of earning foreign dollars.
At the time tourist facilities were outmoded, unattractive and neglected. The operators could get no financial support from the private or the public sector to update their premises and were beginning to lose business to the northern United States where the industry was recognized and supported. In the years 1958 to 1961 the government introduced a series of measures to improve the industry and provide better facilities and more income for Canadians. At that time there were many roadside cabins which had been left over from the war and were outdated. In the early 1960s some of these began to be replaced by motels, lodges and resorts and others were renovated and made more attractive.
The government at that time required the Industrial Development Bank to classify tourism as an industry, which had not been the case previously. The situation has not changed at all, Mr. Speaker. The Industrial Development Bank clings to the old idea that they must get their money back; a borrower has to prove that he can repay a loan or the bank is not interested. This is not why the Industrial Development Bank was established. It was set up to provide capital in places where the private sector would not.
The government of that day said to the Industrial Development Bank, "We must reclassify the tourist industry as an industry coming under your responsibilities." We did that by legislation and then money began to flow to the tourist industry. The Small Businesses Loans Act, passed in 1961, covered in its provisions tourist operations. Here, again, the present government has carried on the policy which was begun then. It has done this successfully. Tourist operators have obtained large sums from the Industrial Development Bank and under the Small Businesses Loans Act for carrying on a reasonably competitive type of business in this country. I give credit to this government for carrying on policies begun under those two pieces of legislation which are now ten years old but are still extremely effective.
Also, the government of that day stepped up its advertising and representation abroad, increased the number of travel bureau offices and showed a real desire to promote new techniques. The present government has carried on those innovations but has not done anything to improve, update or assist the tourist business. For the last nine years we have not seen any new approach or recognition of the needs of the tourist industry on a national scale. Centennial year, 1967, generated a tremendous response from beyond our borders and encouraged travel within Canada. We have been coasting on this wave for the past four years and no effort has been made to maintain momentum.
We have not been given any indication of what the government had in mind when it made the important statement referred to in the Speech from the Throne. It might have had in mind financial support. The industry certainly could use it. Or it might have been thinking of better promotion of Canada abroad, and that certainly would be helpful. It might have been considering package tours from abroad supported by federal efforts. This idea has been talked about over the years. Some agents have inaugurated limited private travel plans.
Mr. Speaker, we want something more, something greater than is represented by a few rich Americans hunting polar bears in the arctic. In large part that has been the type of business which has been generated, and it is not enough for this country. We have not been told what the government had in mind. Perhaps somebody just threw that statement in for effect, so to speak. I hope not. But since no bill has come forward, that is how it looks now, four months later.
My time, unfortunately, is limited. May I read into the record figures relating to our balance of payments. Except for centennial year, 1967, Canada since 1963 has

June 21, 1972

experienced an increasingly worsening balance of payments position relating to travel. In 1964 our balance on travel was in deficit to the extent of $50 million; more went out than came in. In 1966 the deficit was $60 million. In 1968 the deficit decreased to $30 million largely because the previous year, centennial year, had generated a positive inflow of $423 million. In 1970 our deficit with respect to the balance of travel payments was $226 million. In 1971 it was $201 million, slightly less than in 1970 but showing the same general trend. So we have gone downhill very badly in our balance of payments in travel.
Quite a bit of money is involved. After all, we are dealing with foreign funds here. Our travel balance in the first and fourth quarters of the year has been increasingly adverse. There has been a combination of failures. We have failed to promote our greatest asset, winter sports, and more Canadians have travelled abroad. The figures show that we are moving backward with respect to travel. It is obvious that we need policies which are designed to promote tourism, as proposed in the Speech from the Throne. It is equally obvious, Mr. Speaker, that those policies have not been forthcoming.
The government, in the present session or indeed in any further session of this Parliament if there should be one, will hardly find it possible to support and improve one of our best producers of foreign currency. I think it is tragic that this area has been so completely neglected. I have picked one of many. It is unfortunate that no bill in this area has come forward since this session began.


Mr. Andre Ouellet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is worded as follows:
This House regrets the failure of the government to proceed during the current session of Parliament with a positive legislative program;-
There is a charge which is not truly founded and if the Leader of the Opposition were a lawyer and if the plea which he made this afternoon were made in court, the judge would not hesitate to dismiss the case.
The remarks made previously by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) demonstrate how groundless the motion of the Leader of the Opposition is.
I have listened, carefully of course, to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I am not at all surprised that he should try to minimize the extremely important effects of the government's legislation. But what makes me particularly sad and disappointed is that in the course of his speech he failed to suggest any new solution to the current problems in Canada.


Albert Béchard: He has none.


André Ouellet: All he can do is repeat and I would say that his words are a true reflection of his party. It is a real indication of the weaknesses of the Progressive Conservative Party which is old-fashioned, worn and exhausted. I think that the best parts of his speech were those where he repeated the comments of the hon. member for Duver-nay (Mr. Kierans). I find it quite sad to see that the Leader
Procedure of Legislative Program
of the Opposition has to take his views from government members when he wants to be interesting.
I would also like to point out some comments previously made by the Leader of the Social Credit party of Canada, the member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). When he begins to speak, everything is fine, but it always turns for the worse. Indeed, he can never refrain from exaggerat-. ing, railing against the government and saying half truths.
The leader of the Social Credit was talking through his hat today when he blamed the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) for going to China. It is true that the minister did so and he may even go back. However, it is wrong to suggest, as the leader of Social Credit did, that the minister is going to China to promote imports of Chinese textile products in Canada. He should have wanted to say-and this is what he should have said-that he goes over there to sell our products to the Chinese.
Mr. Speaker, we know the importance of a dynamic foreign trade for our country. The population of Canada being small, we must export large quantities of goods to maintain our standard of living. This government went to great efforts in order to increase our exports, and they increased, during the last six years, from $8 billion to $18 billion. This is what the government is doing, and what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is also doing when he goes to China; he tries to sell our products. And this is not at all the same thing as what the hon. member for Temiscamingue claims.
To return to the motion before us today, I will remind you that Speech from the Throne of February 17, 1972, was excellent. Its purposes were the following: the government will introduce bills concerning the continuing development of our natural resources, the means of giving more generous help to those among us who are in need, the involvement of a great number of Canadians into community activities which are rewarding, the preservation of our natural heritage, the strengthening of our national identity and of our own image.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we cannot agree with the second part of the motion of the Leader of the Opposition where he bewails the government's inability to carry out the program outlined in the Speech from the Throne of February 17, 1972. Let us examine together the motions and bills studied and passed by Parliament. Due to the time limit, I will only mention a few.
Since the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) is present, I would like to say a few words on the bill concerning national parks. Thanks to the leadership of this minister, there are now national parks in all ten provinces of Canada. I take this opportunity to congratulate him on the establishment of national parks in the province of Quebec. This has been awaited for a long time, and we should be delighted with the new legislation opening the gates.
I want to say a few words about the bills covering amendments to the Canadian Labour code, to the National Housing Act, to family income security and finally to foreign ownership control.

June 21, 1972
Procedure of Legislative Program,
We now live in a time when strikes are a daily occurrence, when people find it hard to remain composed in the face of such a rising tide of work stoppages occurring every day and the government introduced a bill to revamp the labour legislation, especially in the industrial relations sector. The government wanted to establish legislative measures and mechanisms to help employers and unions better settle their disputes. They tried to adapt their legislative measures to the needs of the 70's.
I believe we can say that people would like the relations between employers and employees to be stable. That is the aim of the bill and that is why we can say that that measure is part of the continuous efforts of the government to promote free collective bargaining and constructive settlements of disputes.
I should like also to point out all the government's efforts to improve housing in Canada. I believe it can be said that most Canadians are now enjoying decent housing. Unfortunately, a few Canadians do live under unacceptable conditions. That is why the government introduced during this session new programs to supplement the ones already inforce, to meet in a better way the housing needs in the various population areas, and also to establish new research mechanisms in the planning and housing fields.
Therefore, housing has priority with the government. They intend to meet the needs not only of young people who wish to have a house of their own at the beginning of their married life but also of retired older people, so that they may have appropriate housing at a moderate cost. The government also intend to meet the needs of middle-income Canadians who work hard in order to provide their family with a small house within their means. It seeks also to satisfy the low income citizens who want something else than public subsidized accommodation where only disadvantaged people live.
In the field of social security, I believe that the government has made extraordinary efforts to fight poverty. Through its proposed bill on family allowances, it wants to implement the principle of selectivity, according to which a fairer redistribution of resources will allow some 2 million low or middle income families to improve substantially their economic situation.
We know that about 75 per cent of Canadian taxpayers earn $7,500 or less a year. It is those people that the government had in mind when it decided to double-or in some cases to almost treble-family allowances. In order to implement that project without increasing taxes, the government suggests a new vertical attribution of the $820 millions earmarked for family allowances. This is surely an extremely improved piece of legislation which will enable about 35 per cent of Canadian families to receive $15 a month per child under 12 and $20 a month per child between the ages of 12 and 17.
Such legislation, Mr. Speaker, is the basis of a guaranteed income plan in Canada. It is the corner stone of the required policy and, I think, the best legislation of the whole administration of the present government for achieving a just society in Canada.

Finally I would like to say a few words about the very wise policy of the Canadian government regarding foreign investments.
Such investments have been most important in the development of Canada and no doubt they can remain so. It does not mean that we should turn it down, but we should make sure that, in the long run, foreign investment will be beneficial to our country, and that all these takeovers by foreign companies will help Canada.
I think that the policies introduced in the House during this session are meant to help our country develop as fast as possible, taking into account the needs and aspirations of our people, in order that their vital interests are protected.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to mention again, in closing, that the motion before us today, which states that the government failed to do what it should, is unfounded.
The world we live in is troubled, agitated and in full swing. Problems are plentiful.
It is in the light of that complex and challenging reality that we should consider and appreciate the leadership of this government. It can be said that, in these particularly troubled times, the government of Canada remains alert and active. It has succeeded in dealing with problems, with crises, and is more than ever trying to improve the living conditions of every Canadian.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I am excited and happy to be able to say a few words to you and to this hushed, crowded and expectant audience as we finish the discussion on this very important motion. I would not for the world have missed the performance of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). I enjoyed it immensely. It was one of the finest performances he has put forward in all the years that I have known him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am reminded, though, of what a French marshal said of the charge of the Light Brigade: It was magnificent, but of course it was not war. It was a fine performance, but it was not exactly what I would call a reasoned argument in defence of that which is indefensible. I was impressed that he found it necessary to level so much attack on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I was impressed by it, but not at all offended, hurt or worried; because, as Sir John A. Macdonald once said, when you look in the orchard and see sticks and stones under a tree, that is the tree that bears the good fruit. As Sir John A. Macdonald also said, strong winds blow against high hills. It strikes me that the minister, who is a Nova Scotian, has just come to realize that there is an immense threat posed to the Liberal party by the Leader of the Opposition.
It is very fitting that one of the debates zeroing in on the conduct of this House and the country should be moved by the Leader of the Opposition who, in the discharge of his duties, has proven time after time that he, and not the minister of finance-no matter who he may be-has an
June 21, 1972

understanding of the problems facing this country. If the minister does not believe me, then all he has to do is pick up a document that emerged yesterday, the report of the Prices and Incomes Commission. They have sustained the view that the Leader of the Opposition advanced long ago.
If he does not believe me, he can consult the former minister of finance, who in his great conversion a few months ago has moved to the very points of view that the Leader of the Opposition had been proclaiming across this country month upon month. If he does not find conviction there, he can look at what the Leader of the Opposition said many months ago about the fate of the Canadian dollar. On that matter, too, his views have been verified, underscored, underwritten and sustained.
I have the greatest regard for the President of the Privy Council. He is a fine scholar and a great exponent of the Gaelic people. But I thought that today he might have been following the advice that I am told an old Speaker gave to an incipient orator, that when the going gets tough you should yell like hell. Perhaps that was the advice he was following.
I was also impressed by the hon. member who preceded me. He was obviously a man of immense courage, because in his 15 minutes he actually took time out to say what a wonderful job the present government had done with respect to poverty. Of all things to bring out in the performance of the government! I am inclined to look at the document that the Senate committee produced after careful study, certainly much more time than 15 minutes. They opened their report "Poverty in Canada" with this, alas, much more serious statement:
Poverty is the great social issue of our time. Unless we act now, nationally, in a new and purposeful way, five million Canadians will continue to find life a bleak, bitter, and never-ending struggle for survival.
In the face of documentation of this kind how can anyone believe that they are credible when they stand up and tell this House and the people of Canada that this country has never had it so good? I notice that the minister complained that on 14 occasions there have been motions on unemployment. Why 14? Because the problem is there. Unemployment stalks this land yet, and the efforts of the government with reference thereto have usually been such as to increase the burden and exacerbate the problem. As they have backed away from one economic policy after another they have finally realized the outrageous situation that they have allowed to develop. For a modern, wealthy, great country to be burdened with the rate of unemployment that Canada has is simply outrageous, intolerable and absolutely unnecessary.
To stand up and proclaim that things are going well would not go very far with the young people of Canada today. Never have more of our young people been so anxious and frustrated about the future. There is not a member of the House who does not hear day after day from the fine young people of Canada-university graduates, high school graduates and graduates from technical institutes. What is their problem? It is that they cannot find word and that they want work.
I am not one who believes that our young people are a mass of lazy louts who want handouts. They want jobs but they cannot get them. Year after years this government
Procedure of Legislative Program
has proven its incapacity and inability to provide meaningful employment. As one of my eloquent colleagues says, the government have also revealed their insensitivity to the problem. In their great desire to push inflation around the corner-obviously it has not even been pushed around the corner-they said they would stand all sorts of unemployment and let the people like it. Tell the youth of the day that the country was never better governed! Tell the youth of today that they never had it so good!
Mention has been made of various programs-ad hoc programs, Opportunities for Youth, LIP, and so on. Of course, they do help; with such a terrible burden of unemployment we welcome anything that is an improvement. But what happens when these programs end? What is the situation when the young people are laid off as each little project is completed? The blight on our economy remains. The figures continue to be appalling.
From the very beginning of his career as Leader of the Opposition-and he will not be there very long; he will be going across the floor soon-the Leader of the Opposition has singled out unemployment as the economic crime that must be fought, and he has fought it vigorously, wisely and well. The hon. member who preceded me complimented the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). I love to hear ministers being complimented. He has taken a heck of a long time in getting a second park for Prince Edward Island. This matter has been discussed for five years, so the minister is not responsible for all of the delay.
However, are our native Indian people happy with this government? I have been watching the scene for some years now-I am not as old as I look-and I have never seen greater unrest or more anxiety than I see today among the native people of this country. They are frustrated and uncertain. They are organizing their beefs and their discontent as never before in the land. I am not surprised, because there is far too much cold, callous reaction toward the great needs of these people. I note with satisfaction that they themselves are articulating their problems and pressing their complaints. But much more must be done.


Mr. Chretien:: Never was so much money given them.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: If the minister is satisfied that they are properly looked after and that there is no problem, then he may live in that dream world. But I do not, and I think the Indian people will agree not with him but with me. The minister from Nova Scotia suggested that the Leader of the Opposition was not sufficiently decisive. Such an allegation from a member of such a government! He is a literal and lineal descendant of Mackenzie King: "conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription." "Foreign ownership yes, but foreign ownership no". "Election expenses yes, but election expenses no."
We have had a grand grab-bag of pusillanimous, selfcontradictory, internally distorted legislation presented by this government. Would we say that the foreign takeover bill is decisive? It had a delayed pregnancy, perhaps that was the problem, but I would never produce it if I wanted to look at something that was the epitome of decision.

June 21, 1972
Procedure of Legislative Program.
What about the handling of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline? This is a beautiful and magnificent example of a unified, decisive, dynamically united government! Not only do you have to find out which minister is speaking to know what the policy is; you have to check all the speeches of one minister because they are internally contradictory.
I have done quite an exercise in this regard and I hope some student will produce an MA thesis on the lack of government solidarity. This is about the right period if he wants to make first-hand observations. Another issue which is interesting, if you want to talk about being decisive, is that concerning fisheries. Will we tell the fishermen of Canada that this government gives them strong, decisive leadership? Just try telling that to the fishermen on the east coast and the west coast. With all due apologies to the party to the left, the government is waffling, weaselling and pusillanimous. It cannot stand up for our fishermen even against the smallest countries of the world, yet it has the nerve to talk about being decisive.
Another area that might be in someone's mind when we talk about decisions is that of constitutional reform. The minister went back over the whole four years. I will have to cover the same terrain to be consistent with him. What about constitutional amendments and those glorious days when we were going to settle this problem? The four years of the present government have been marked with frustration and non-accomplishment in the constitutional field. This country is no more united than it was in 1968. We have had dominion-provincial conferences one after the other, which have amounted to nothing more than polite failures. We are not even up to the Fulton-Favreau stage on constitutional amendment; in fact, we have gone back.
There were some Canadians in 1968 who thought they mjght be choosing a government which would put some solutions forward to our vexing constitutional problems. The minister spoke about the bleak dawn that was following a rosy period. I say to him that for this government the moonlight reveries of 1968 are long since passed. It is not dawn we are at now, it is high noon, and you know what happens at high noon. He quoted the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and said, "We propose and they dispose". I suggest it will not be us, but the people of Canada who will dispose: they will dispose of the government.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, in his hard hitting, well documented speech this afternoon the leader of our party put forth a bill of indictment against this government for its record of legislation which has favoured the wealthy and corporate segments of Canada and shamefully neglected and undermined the well-being of the people in the low and middle income groups. He is not the only one in this country to bring this type of indictment against the government.
At a meeting this week in Quebec City of delegates to the Canadian Council on Social Development, a report was discussed. It was prepared by top civil servants in the federal government and by social workers from across

the country. Let me quote some of the things said in this report:
The federal government through its anti-inflationary policies is seen to be increasing the number of Canadian families in need of public financial assistance-a decision in which the provincial and municipal governments are not included.
But the federal government contributes only 50 per cent of the increased welfare funds needed by the provinces and the municipalities.
This underlines what the previous speaker pointed out, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). This government, in spite of the boasts and claims that it was going to clear up the constitutional muddle, has done nothing whatsoever of a tangible nature to get rid of these very severe dislocations which affect people's lives. Let me quote again from this report:
What has resulted, in Canada, is a fragmented approach to a wide range of possible objectives, accompanied by ad hoc policies involving duplication and conflict-conflict among programs, among government agencies and different levels of government or between private and public interests.
What is required is a new and comprehensive framework of goals and objectives to serve as a basis for policy planning.
One thing this government will not do is plan a comprehensive framework within which to work. It will not do so because it will not take the only objective which is workable, and that is to orient its policies toward the well-being of people and the environment in which they live, instead of orienting them to suit the large corporations and their profit-making ventures. Consequently, the government does nothing or worse than nothing.
The report goes on to say that in the past 20 years the spread between the richest and the poorest income categories in Canada may have widened by at least 30 per cent. It says there has been no change in the distribution of income during this time. It warns that low income people have lost faith in the government because they feel they cannot exercise influence over the policy decisions of government.
Let me give one example of why I think there has been this loss of faith on a large scale. We have in this country what is known as the National Anti-Poverty Organization. It is an organization of people who have had a rough time in life, people on social assistance in every field you can name, low rents, housing tenants, people concerned with family day-care centres because they must go out to work, single family heads who have to work, young people and a whole range of low income people.
The National Anti-Poverty Organization was formed under great difficulty. However, it has held conferences in British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Manitoba. The organization was fortunate enough to obtain a grant under LIP which was used up at the end of May. These people did not realize that there was a regulation to the effect that any program or project requesting an extension at the end of May could only be funded to June 16. Being anxious for funding, as they were very close to their margin, they put in an application for an extension, only to learn that under the regulations there is no possibility of being funded to September.
What will happen to all the attempts of these poor people who have been trying hard to gain a little confidence in themselves within the framework of law and
June 21, 1972

order in their country and its institutions? Every single thing they have done to date will fall by the wayside. Their attempts to establish day-care centres, information centres and neighbourhood self-help groups will have been to no avail.
I suggest this is symptomatic of the way this government is attempting to handle the matter of unemployment. Instead of coming to terms with the fact that unemployment on a large scale is a feature of our technological society today, and planning accordingly, the government has set up a straw man. It says that young people are unemployed for only two months between college courses or high school years, women are in the labour force to get a bit of pin money and are there for a short time, and there are a lot of part-time people involved.
With this attitude the government is approaching the problem in a very spasmodic way. This is apparent in the Local Initiatives Program as well as in the Opportunities for Youth program. This is one of the great flaws in these two programs. They are fine on a temporary basis for those who are able to get under the wire, but of the 250,000 young people who will be unemployed this summer only
30,000	will be able to obtain benefits under the Opportunities for Youth program. This is a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed.
Far too many young people today are unemployed all year around. They are unemployed not just for one year but for many years. The sooner the government recognizes this fact, the better opportunity these people will have of being able to enjoy a decent life. I believe the government has made a mess of these programs. They could have been good programs. Some of them have helped to a certain extent, but because they are short-range and are hit-and-miss affairs they do not contain any planning. Projects which are put forward by well established people of influence and ability are accepted and funded, while projects from poorer areas which do not have university graduates to help them are not funded although the need may be much greater. I think the Opportunities for Youth program and the Local Initiative Program are far too shortsighted at present. The government has done nothing to save the precious human material to which it referred in the Speech from the Throne.
I wish to move to another matter. Reference was made by an earlier speaker to the needs of the Indian people in this country. In the city of Vancouver there is an Indian friendship centre. The people who operate that centre are native Indians. They are trying to overcome the terrible feeling of prejudice and mistrust which has existed between them and the rest of society. They have gone ahead and have operated this Indian friendship centre. They have applied for grants but have been unable to obtain any help or any funding. Is it any wonder that the Indian people lose faith in the government's ability to respond to their needs? Poverty and unemployment will not go away. If the government knew anything about either poverty or unemployment it would know this because it would be in contact with the people who are chronically in a state of poverty, unemployment or both.
Procedure of Legislative Program
I want to say a word about the legislation which had been promised for women. The Speech from the Throne said:
Another step, and long overdue, consists of policies to ensure the equality of women in Canadian society. These will be announced this session.
All we have seen in this respect is machinery in the form of white papers and task forces which have considered the problem of women all over again. I know a lot of hard and conscientious work has been done by these various committees. I am not decrying or denigrating it. I want to say, however, that in spite of the promises in the Speech from the Throne there clearly has not been brought forward a single piece of major legislation affecting women during this session.
There are some useful pieces of legislation in the works, but they are not yet complete. I refer to the adult occupational training act amendments, jury duty for women, repeal of the vagrancy section of the Criminal Code, and so on. These are not yet completed and I think it is doubtful whether some of them will get through before this session ends. But what about the main recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women? What about the national day-care act that was called for, which would have provided not only 50 per cent funding for the operation of day-care centres under the Canada Assistance Plan but also 70 per cent of their capital cost for the first seven years?
We cannot get away from the fact that most provinces are unable at the present time to afford day-care centres with their present resources. What has Ottawa done about giving the lead in respect of this matter to ensure the construction of day-care centres? Under the Local Initiatives Program, 90 day-care centres were set up for a short term of a few months. This has been extended for another few months. But these little day-care centres will die like flies unless the government in Ottawa is prepared to fund them on a permanent basis.
Women are becoming sceptical. They are waiting for enactment of the major recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Not one mention is made in the report brought down the other day by the minister of one of the most important recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, that concerning the repeal of the abortion section of the Criminal Code. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) who spoke the other day pointed this out very clearly.
In respect of family allowances, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women did not recommend the monstrosity we have before us called FISP. It recommended that family allowances be increased. It did not mention this jargon about selectivity, which means a needs test, a means test or whatever form it might take. The things I have mentioned have not been accomplished. These are the things about which people are concerned.
Some mention was made by the parliamentary secretary about housing. I have only a moment or two and will make my comments brief. The best I can do is quote a couple of paragraphs from an editorial in the Ottawa Journal of Friday, June 16:

June 21, 1972
Procedure of Legislative Program
If the government's commitment to do something about Canada's housing needs was as deep as the one to its own re-election, the new program would have been presented to Parliament much earlier, not in the tag-end days of a session.
Further, the article states:
Until workers start repairs on the first older home in the first city to receive a grant in some distant day, or home ownership becomes possible for more families, the whole program, admirable in theory though it may be, cannot be taken much more seriously than pre-election window-dressing.
My main quarrel with this government is that it has relied on style and window-dressing. The people who have crowded up to the window with their noses pressed against the pane in order to see the goodies inside see that
there are goodies in there all right, but not for them. They know there is sufficient money for such things as roads to the north but that there is no money for the needs of the people. The moment of truth for this government is at hand. The people of this country did not elect it to help big business become bigger and more successful. It was elected to help our people in their day-to-day problems, and it has failed lamentably in that task.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 58, the proceedings on the motion have expired. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
June 21, 1972



APPENDIX A


[Stage Direction]
IN A PLENARY SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ON THE 14th OF JUNE, 1972
Governments collectively endorse the following principles as guiding concepts for the Law of the Sea Conference and the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) Marine Pollution Conference scheduled to be held in 1973.
The twenty-three principles in question are as follows:
1.	Every state has a duty to protect and preserve the marine environment and, in particular, to prevent pollution that may affect areas where an internationally shared resource is located.
2.	Every state should adopt appropriate measures for the prevention of marine pollution, whether acting individually or in conjunction with other states under agreed international arrangements.
3.	States should use the best practicable means available to them to minimize the discharge of potentially hazardous substances to the sea by all routes, including land-based sources such as rivers, outfalls and pipelines within national jurisdiction, as well as dumping by or from ships, aircraft and platforms.
4.	States should ensure that their national legislation provides adequate sanctions against those who infringe existing regulations on marine pollution.
5.	States should assume joint responsibility for the preservation of the marine environment beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
6.	The states at higher levels of technological and scientific development should assist those nations which request it, for example by undertaking programmes either directly or through competent agencies intended to provide adequate training of the technical and scientific personnel of those countries, as well as by providing the equipment and facilities needed in areas such as research, administration, monitoring or surveillance, information, waste disposal and others, which would improve their ability to discharge their duties consisting of protecting the marine environment.
7.	States should discharge, in accordance with the principles of international law, their obligations towards other states where damage arises from pollution caused by their own activities or by organizations or individuals under their jurisdiction and should co-operate in developing procedures for dealing with such damage and the settlement of disputes.
8.	Every state should co-operate with other states and competent international organizations with regard to the
elaboration and implementation of internationally agreed rules, standards and procedures for the prevention of marine pollution on global, regional and national levels.
9.	States should join together regionally to concert their policies and adopt measures in common to prevent the pollution of the areas which, for geographical or ecological reasons, form a natural entity and an integrated whole.
10.	International guidelines and criteria should be developed, both by national Governments and through intergovernmental agencies, to provide the policy framework for control measures. A comprehensive plan for the protection of the marine environment should provide for the identification of critical pollutants and their pathways and sources, determination of exposures to these pollutants and assessment of the risks they pose, timely detection of undesirable trends, and development of detection and monitoring systems.
11.	Internationally agreed criteria and standards should provide for regional and local variations in the effects of pollution and in the evaluation of these effects. Such variables should also include the ecology of sea areas, economic and social conditions, and amenities, recreational facilities and other uses of the seas.
12.	Primary protection standards and derived working levels-especially codes of practice and effluent standards-may usefully be established at national levels, and in some instances, on a regional or global basis.
13.	Action to prevent and control marine pollution (particularly direct prohibitions and specific release limits) must guard against the effect of simply transferring damage or hazard from one part of the environment to another.
14.	The development and implementation of control should be sufficiently flexible to reflect increasing knowledge of the marine ecosystem, pollution effects, and improvements in technological means for pollution control and to take into account the fact that a number of new and hitherto unsuspected pollutants are bound to be brought to light.
15.	Every state should co-operate with other states and with competent international organizations with a view to the development of marine environmental research and survey programmes and systems and means for monitoring changes in the marine environment, including studies of the present state of the oceans, the trends of pollution effects and the exchange of data and scientific information on the marine environment. There should be similar co-operation in the exchange of technological information on means of preventing marine pollution including pollution that may arise from offshore resource exploration and exploitation.
3368
[Stage Direction]
16.	International guidelines should also be developed to facilitate comparability in methods of detection and measurement of pollutants and their effects.
17.	In addition to its responsibility for environmental protection within the limits of its territorial sea, a coastal state also has responsibility to protect adjacent areas of the environment from damage that may result from activities within its territory.
18.	Coastal states should ensure that adequate and appropriate resources are available to deal with pollution incidents resulting from the exploration and exploitation of seabed resources in areas within the limits of their national jurisdiction.
19.	States should co-operate in the appropriate international forum to ensure that activities related to the exploration and exploitation of the seabed and the ocean floor beyond the limits of national jurisdiction shall not result in pollution of the marine environment.
20.	All states should ensure that vessels under their registration comply with internationally agreed rules
and standards relating to ship design and construction, operating procedures and other relevant factors. States should co-operate in the development of such rules, standards and procedures, in the appropriate international bodies.
21.	Following an accident on the high seas which may be expected to result in major deleterious consequences from pollution or threat of pollution of the sea, a coastal state facing grave and imminent danger to its coastline and related interests may take appropriate measures as may be necessary to prevent, mitigate, or eliminate such danger, in accordance with internationally agreed rules and standards.
22.	Where there is a need for action by or through international agencies for the prevention, control or study of marine pollution, existing bodies, both within and outside the United Nations system, should be utilised as far as possible.
23.	States should assist one another to the best of their ability, in action against marine pollution of whatever origin.
June 21, 1972


[Stage Direction]
Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I bring you greetings from Canada. I bring you greetings from my Prime Minister, the Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who speaks on behalf of all my countrymen. Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific, are prepared to join enthusiastically in the adoption of measures which will help to improve the quality of life for all mankind.
The main message which I wish to convey to this great assembly today, Mr. President, is simple. It is this. Nature is all important. Nature's laws, themselves, are universal. They are far-reaching. They deal with life. They concern us all.
Man breaks nature's laws at his peril. He breaks them and succeeding generations are the poorer for his lack of foresight, his lack of sensitivity, his lack of statesmanship on the ecological front.
Man-made laws, up until now at least, are different. They differ from place to place. They differ from one country to the next. They differ often markedly, from one continent, or from one part of the world to another.
But nature's laws are more exacting. Like the fundamental truths of biological science, they can not be ignored. Mankind may bend them to suit his convenience. But he will find, in the end, that he is all the poorer for having upset nature in a vain effort to win some short-run economic gain.
What bothers me most is the thought that man, as his numbers and affluence increase, seems bent on creating a dull and uninteresting environment for himself. Mass production, mass consumption, mass disposal, massive refuse heaps-all these are characteristic of an age which has lost sight of the balance of nature, of the revitalizing force which still exists in our great outdoors and which, itself, is threatened by our increasingly pedestrian way of life.
Biology, as a science, is still in its infancy. We know even less about biological phenomenon than we do about economics. All the more reason for going slow. All the more reason to try to unravel the mysteries of nature, to monitor changes in our global environment, to play it safe in the harvesting of our living resources. All the more reason to prepare environmental impact statements before, and not after we launch new projects on a major scale.
25319-27*
I am not one of those, Mr. President, who believes that economic growth and environmental quality are necessarily in conflict with one another. Quite the opposite. I believe that sound economic planning involves environmental statesmanship of the highest order. A good engineer understands the forces of nature; a good economist, because he takes the long view, must also be concerned with nature's biological scheme of things.
New jobs are needed. Challenging new jobs are needed everywhere. But it is often the character of these jobs, rather than their number, which is at issue. They, like the industries to which they are attached, must go with the grain of nature, not against it. We must add to the variety of life. They must help to make the process of living more interesting for everyone everywhere.
Of course we must be careful. We must not make unnatural substances and scatter them around. Produced for one purpose, they may have unfortunate side effects which come back to haunt us in the long run. Hence the emphasis on biodegradation; on the need to replace insidious substances like DDT with other chemicals which are not harmful to living things.
These observations flow from our own experience in Canada. Artificial substances like the poly-chlorinated bi-phenols (PCB's) have had a devastating effect on our salmon runs and our bird life. We have stopped using them for this reason. We have replaced them with other substances which are more effective from an overall, resource management point of view.
We have learned, to our sorrow, that insect sprays which help to preserve certain forests, can also destroy a local fishery. We have learned that new processes using mercury, while they tended to cut the costs of other chemicals, constituted a hazard to man himself. Nor were these effects localized in their extent. Frequently they spread to other segments of our Canadian community, from province to province, and into the international sphere as well.
We moved quickly to contain these substances, to stop their production; either that or recycle them, keep them entirely within the factory fence.
There is an interesting corollary here. In protecting our local environment, we are often protecting the environment of our neighbour. By practicing environmental statesmanship, we are also helping to enhance the quality of life in lands that we will never see. Good neighbourliness, like cleanliness, begins at home. Multiplied by similar actions on the part of others, it can be an environmental boon to all mankind.
The draft Declaration on the Human Environment, which we will be shortly considering, Mr. President, con-
[Stage Direction]
tains certain basic principles which Canada endorses as a desirable code for international behaviour. There is, for example, the principle that each nation accept responsibility for the effects of its environmental actions on others. Too often in the past the interests of our global community have been sacrificed by the short-sightedness, I might even say the callousness, of the few.
"Thou shalt not pollute the environment of thy neighbour, the ocean or the atmosphere". This dictum seems self-evident to me. I trust that it will become a part of our global environmental ethic in the future.
I am a firm believer, also, in environmental objectives and standards, levels of performance, which are based essentially on biological criteria, but criteria which also make economic sense as well.
These global objectives, these global standards, involve a simple test. This test pertains to life itself. Living things must not only continue to survive, they must flourish. If anything they should increase in their number and variety as the years go by.
Remember also, that life in its most sophisticated forms is our own first line of defence. Endanger a single species at the top of the food chain and you are endangering the lives of men, women and children everywhere. Wipe out an animal species like the whale, or a bird like the bald-headed eagle, and mankind may shortly be in trouble too.
These elementary standards, these biological tests, these natural criteria should not be confined to any one country. Properly drawn, they are valid everywhere. They rest on a universal truth and they should, therefore, be global in their application.
Nature's laws are difficult to define. This is why we need more research; especially research on the biological
front. But a lack of information should not be allowed to obscure an important point. The case for world-wide standards I believe, is incontestable. It is incontestable, not only because the cost of being clean may not be a cost at all, but because the destruction of all kinds of living things is bound to be destructive from the point of view of society as a whole.
Pollution havens are not for us. They are inexcusable in a comparatively affluent country like Canada. They are inexcusable, also, in the less developed parts of the world. They are inexcusable because they are shortsighted, because they ignore the destruction, close in, of other resources. They are inexcusable because they also tend to make lives of the local population a dull, drab and even painful thing.
Mr. President, a great deal is expected of this Conference; a great deal in the allied fields of research monitoring and resource management. It can also help us to establish the kinds of global standards that I have been talking about. A number of international institutions will have to be set up for this purpose and, above all, to ensure that our man-made rules approximate ever more closely nature's marvelous way of doing things.
And so, Mr. President, I end where I began. Nature's laws, in truth, are universal. Man-made laws, especially in the area of the environment, must become universal as well.
The Declaration on the Human Environment marks a beginning. Hopefully, it will provide us with a framework of laws and institutions which will help us to protect nature in all its forms. Environmental protection can add immeasurably to the quality of life. It can add, tremendously, to life's enjoyment by men and women the world over.
Thank you Mr. President.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 22. 1972