1972-02-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43 and, with your permission, to make a very brief explanation of it.
The unfortunate incident in Bathurst, New Brunswick, yesterday underlines the fact that some of the problems and delays connected with the payment of unemployment insurance benefits are still affecting a good many people. I would remind the House that the minister concerned has on several occasions emphasized his willingness that the matter be studied fully by the appropriate standing committee. Since we are all agreed, I would suggest that the House might consent to my motion being put without debate.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the subject of delays in payment of unemployment insurance benefits, the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act generally and the regulations which include holiday pay, vacation pay, severance pay and similar income in the definition of earnings be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
I suggest that the motion might be put without debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for York South requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I request the unanimous leave of the House to propose a motion arising from a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It concerns the deadlock which has been created following the failure of
the federal government to reach agreement with the provinces with respect to offshore mineral rights. The result of this impasse has been uncertainty in mineral exploration development and discontent among the provinces affected. Furthermore, the people of the poorer regions of this country, who saw some promise of economic prosperity in the potential of offshore development, now find the rigid attitude of the federal government most discouraging.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That immediately upon his return from Nova Scotia the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources make a statement on motions outlining the government's position concerning the sharing of responsibilities with the provinces in the realm of offshore mineral rights and the sharing of the royalties derived therefrom.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. The Chair will inquire whether there is unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
Mr. Speaker:: May I revert to and invoke a practice which has arisen in recent years with regard to the introduction and first reading of public bills. On today's order paper there are listed some 149 bills for introduction by private members. It was not possible for the Chair to review the provisions of each of these bills. May I therefore suggest to the House that we adopt the procedure agreed upon in several recent sessions, namely, that we proceed to the introduction and first reading of these bills so that each may be scrutinized between now and its being called for second reading in order to allow the Chair to consider whether there is any defect in any such bill with respect to the practices and usages of the House.
I suggest that by unanimous consent all the public bills listed for introduction on today's order paper be deemed to have been introduced, given first reading, ordered to be printed and to stand for second reading at the next sitting of the House, subject of course to a subsequent examination as to the regularity of each bill.

February 25, 1972
Public Bills

I therefore suggest that with unanimous consent of the House all public bills listed on today's order paper to be introduced, be deemed introduced read for the first time and ordered to be printed for second reading at the next sitting of the House, subject, of course, to subsequent study establishing whether each one is in order.

Is this agreed?


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I raise one question for clarification. Does the reservation that Your Honour has quite rightly put upon the viability of the introduction of any of these bills imply a declaration or adjudication only when the bills come forward for debate or is it Your Honour's intention to review the whole list and express your views at some date in the relatively near future? Otherwise it would seem to me a bill which had really been improperly introduced could acquire some degree of respectability by remaining on the order paper and, as a matter of fact, could draw comment, correspondence and what have you from the public.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Edmonton West. In due course at some later date perhaps there might be consideration by the House of the suggestion of the Chair in respect of the bills about which reservations might be expressed. For the moment this is somewhat hypothetical. Having made a preliminary study of the bills it seems that at least the first 25 or 30 are acceptable from a procedural standpoint, so there would be no immediate difficulty in this regard. However, in due course and after due notice an opportunity will be given to hon. members to indicate their views about the regularity of specific bills on which I might express reservations.
Is the procedure to which I have referred agreed to by the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill C-9, to amend the Criminal Code (abolition of corporal punishment)-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-10, to restrain the use of tobacco-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-ll, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act-Mr. Anderson.
Bill C-12, to provide for the establishment of an Environmental Council of Canada-Mr. Goode.
Bill C-13, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (floor penalties, criminal joint tortfeasors, and moieties)- Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-14, respecting boating safety-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-15, to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of the result of opinion polls)

Mr. Coates.
Bill C-16, to amend the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act (public and financial accountability)-Mr. McCutcheon.
Bill C-17, to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (seat belts)-Mr. Mather.

Bill C-18, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-19, respecting employment with the Government of Canada not covered by the Public Service Employment Act-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-20, to amend the Criminal Code (attempt to commit suicide)-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-21, to amend the Canada Labour Code (provision for ten general holidays with pay)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-22, to amend the Criminal Records Act-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-23, to amend the Immigration Appeal Board Act-Mr. Haidasz.
Bill C-24, to establish a Commuter Passenger Train Authority (Ontario)-Mr. Roberts.
Bill C-25, to amend the Canada Elections Act (proxy voting)-Mr. Horner.
Bill C-26, to amend the Broadcasting Act (cigarette advertising)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-27, to amend the Indian Act-Mr. Foster.
Bill C-28, to amend the Bank of Canada Act (braille denomination)-Mr. Ricard.
Bill C-29, to amend the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act-Mr. Thomas (Moncton).
Bill C-30, to amend the Department of Justice Act (annual report)-Mr. Fortin.
Bill C-31, to designate Major's Hill Park-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-32, to amend the Criminal Code (pollution)-Mr. Anderson.
Bill C-33, to amend the Canada Elections Act (proxy voting)-Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-34, respecting packaged perishable food-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-35, to amend the Criminal Code (preventive detention)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-36, to amend the Criminal Code (control of weapons and firearms)-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-37, to amend the Criminal Code (air piracy)-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-38, respecting the disclosure of financial interests by Senators, Members of the House of Commons and certain other persons-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-39, respecting noise in factories-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-40, to amend the Department of the Environment Act (fisheries)-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-41, to amend the Fisheries Act (licensing)-Mr. Barnett.
Bill C-42, to provide for the Protection of News Sources (press privilege)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-43, to amend the Criminal Code (vagrancy)-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-44, to amend the Income Tax Act (Section 239)- Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Bill C-45, to establish a Newfoundland Crossing Authority-Mr. Marshall.
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-46, respecting the presence of the National Flag of Canada in both Houses of Parliament-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-47, to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of straw poll results)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-48, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (charity versus closed-shop union dues)-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Bill C-49, to amend the Department of Regional Economic Expansion Act-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-50, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Bill C-51, to amend the Criminal Code (air piracy)-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-52, to establish the Office of Parliamentary Commissioner-Mr. Thompson (Red Deer).
Bill C-53, respecting the designation of Rideau Hall and Government House as Rideau Palace-Mr. McBride.
Bill C-54, respecting Members of the House of Commons as directors of crown corporations-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-55, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Whelan.
Bill C-56, to amend the Department of Transport Act.- Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-57, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-58, to amend the Food and Drugs Act-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-59, to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act (economic/social factors)-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-60, to amend the Criminal Code (alteration of odometer)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-61, to amend the Statistics Act (area statistics)- Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-62, to amend the Criminal Code (company-censored housing)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-63, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons- Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-64, respecting Canada Day-Mr. Gibson.
Bill C-65, to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs)-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-66, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act-Mr. Broadbent.
Bill C-67, to amend the Criminal Code (disturbance in Parliament)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill C-68, respecting the protection of endangered species-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-69, to amend the Divorce Act

Mr. McCleave.
Bill C-70, to provide for the establishment of the Alaska-Yukon Highway Authority (Alaska Highway)-Mr. Thompson (Red Deer).
Bill C-71, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate)-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-72, respecting disclosure of names of drug addicts-Mr. Haidasz.
Public Bills
Bill C-73, to amend the Broadcasting Act-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-74, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Deakon.
Bill C-75, to prevent the invasion of privacy resulting from the misuse of information stored in data banks- Mr. Goode.
Bill C-76, to amend the Criminal Code (abortion)-Mrs. Maclnnis.
Bill C-77, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (labelling)- Mr. Anderson.
Bill C-78, respecting the use of the expression "Parliament Hill"-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill C-79, concerning the Exportation of the growth and produce of Canada-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-80, to amend the Canada Evidence Act (incriminating statements)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-81, to amend the Canada Labour Code (three weeks annual vacation after three years)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-82, to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (bumpers)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-83, to amend the Criminal Code (wire tapping, etc.)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-84, to amend the Holidays Act (Victoria Day)-Mr. Scott.
Bill C-85, to provide for the constitution of a Federal Transport Commission of Inquiry (impartial investigation of transport accidents)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-86, to amend the Financial Administration Act (Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration)-Mr. Thompson (Red Deer).
Bill C-87, to amend the Canada Elections Act (election expenses)-Mr. Roberts.
Bill C-88, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (St. Luke 11 ;46)-Mr. Anderson.
Bill C-89, to amend the Canada Labour Code (increased minimum hourly wage)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-90, to encourage the recycling of post-consumer waste (paper)-Mr. Goode.
Bill C-91, respecting the disclosure of financial interests by Senators and Members of the House of Commons-Mr. Roberts.
Bill C-92, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Hopkins.
Bill C-93, to amend the International River Improvements Act-Mr. Goode.
Bill C-94, respecting the International airport at Vancouver-Mr. Goode.
Bill C-95, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (freedom of conscience)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-96, to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act-Mrs. Maclnnis.
Bill C-97, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-98, to better assure the public's rights to freedom of access to public documents and information about
[Stage Direction]
February 25, 1972
Public Bills
government administration (administrative disclosure)- Mr. Mather.
Bill C-99, to amend the Canada Labour Code (fair employment practices)-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-100, to amend the Canada Labour Code (age or sex discrimination)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-101, respecting the designation of the Speaker of the House of Commons as the Member for the Electoral District of Parliament Hill-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-102, respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day-Mr. Macquarrie.
Bill C-103, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (time off without loss of pay for appearance in Citizenship Court)-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Bill C-104, respecting disclosure of credit rating records-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-105, respecting Human Rights-Mrs. Maclnnis.
Bill C-106, respecting supersonic aircraft-Mr. St. Pierre.
Bill C-107, to amend the National Defence Act (aid of the civil power)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-108, respecting the hunting and fishing rights of Indian Canadians-Mr. Simpson.
Bill C-109, respecting air transportation employees in the Northwest Territories-Mr. Orange.
Bill C-110, respecting the protection of children from poisonous household substances-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-lll, respecting the continental shelf-Mr. McGrath.
Bill C-112, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965 (duration of House of Commons)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-113, to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-114, to amend the Canada Labour Code (severance pay)-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-115, to amend the Public Service Employment Act (age discrimination)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-116, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (labelling of dates on perishable commodities)-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).
Bill C-117, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (National Capital of Canada)-Mr. Isabelle.
Bill C-118, respecting the right of the public to information concerning the public business-Mr. Baldwin.
Bill C-119, respecting the establishment and administration of a fund for the mutual aid of children and older persons (Foster Grand-parents)-Mr. Ryan.
Bill C-120, to amend the Criminal Code (battered child)-Mr. Southam.
Bill C-121, respecting the control of lobbying-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-122, to amend the National Housing Act (municipal water and soil pollution projects)-Mr. Alexander.
Bill C-123, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965 (duration of House of Commons)-Mr. Rowland.
Bill C-124, to amend the Indian Act (rights of Indian woman upon marriage)-Mr. Rock.
Bill C-125, respecting tar and nicotine content in cigarettes-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-126, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965 (Yukon and N.W.T. Senate Representation)- Mr. Nielsen.
Bill C-127, to amend the Public Service Employment Act (political partisanship)-Mr. Burton.
Bill C-128, to better assure the public's right to freedom of access to public documents and information about government administration-Mr. Roberts.
Bill C-129, to amend the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan (reduction in qualifying age)-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-130, to provide for the protection of news sources (press privilege)-Mr. Fairweather.
Bill C-131, respecting the protection of records of Canadian Business Concerns-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-132, Proclaiming the Canadian Flag Day a National Holiday-Mr. Haidasz.
Bill C-133, to amend the Railway Act (reduction in passenger service)-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-134, respecting the race and national origin of Canadians-Mr. Downey.
Bill C-135, to amend the Criminal Code (young offenders)-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-136, to amend the Immigration Act (mental retardation)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-137, to amend the Criminal Code (air and water pollution)-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-138, respecting rate fares for disabled persons on federal modes of transport (free or reduced rates)-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill C-139, to amend the Criminal Code (kidnapping)- Mr. Caouette.
Bill C-140, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-141, to amend the Financial Administration Act (Public Accounts)-Mr. Hales.
Bill C-142, to amend the Criminal Code (obliteration of motor vehicle serial numbers)-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-143, to amend the Criminal Code (adjournment for accused to obtain legal representation)-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-144, to amend the Criminal Code (attempted suicide)-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-145, to amend the Broadcasting Act (equal time to opposition parties)-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-146, respecting the labelling of hazardous household products-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-147, respecting the labelling of detergents and cleaning agents containing phosphate compounds-Mrs. Maclnnis.
Bill C-148, respecting Canada Day-Mr. Broadbent.
Bill C-149, to amend the Inquiries Act (publication of reports)-Mr. Alexander.
Bill C-150, to amend the Supreme Court Act (judicial office)-Mr. McCleave.

February 25, 1972
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-151, respecting Conservation Day-Mr. Sula-tycky.
Bill C-152, respecting tobacco as a health hazard-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-153, to amend the War Measures Act-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-154, to amend the Canada Corporations Act (not agents of Her Majesty)-Mr. Fortin.
Bill C-155, to amend the Criminal Code (attempted suicide)-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-156, to amend the Indian Act-Mr. St. Pierre.
Bill C-157, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act-Mr. Howard (Skeena).


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the tragic circumstances brought about by the lateness of payments of unemployment insurance claims, resulting in suffering and undue hardship and culminating in continuing demonstrations in the Bathurst area, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he would give the Bathurst matter a high and urgent priority and commence an immediate investigation in order to ascertain the reasons for the late payments in the hope that there may be immediate payment of outstanding claims?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: As the
hon. gentleman knows, this matter is a first priority with the government. We are doing everything possible to speed up the payment of claims. The parliamentary secretary to the minister is here, and I am sure he would be happy to supplement this information.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact that the minister responsible has, in no uncertain terms, given consent to the convening of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration in order that this whole matter can be delved into in the hope that proper conclusions can be reached, will the Acting Prime Minister, in conjunction with the acting House leader, convene the Standing Committee forthwith so this matter can be looked into and, hopefully, in order that the necessary solutions can be arrived at so as to make this act more feasible?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can assure the hon. gentleman that the government has nothing to withhold. It is making efforts to make this new and improved unemployment insurance plan workable and to ensure that payments are made on time. It is my understanding that the estimates can be referred at any time, if they have not already been referred to the committee, and the comments of the hon.
Inquiries of the Ministry
gentleman can be made in the committee and the parliamentary secretary and others can answer.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That does not achieve payment.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I find the Acting Prime Minister's answer wholly unacceptable. In any event, can he assure the House, pursuant to the policy that was set down by the minister responsible, that so far as the Bathurst area is concerned unpaid claims will be paid within the next 72 hours?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister suggested that perhaps I could assist in clarifying the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Answer yes or no.


An hon. Member:: You caused a riot down there.


Raymond J. Perrault: First, on behalf of the minister I wish to advise the House that I intend to speak about the Bathurst situation later this morning in the Throne Speech debate. Second, all claims which have been brought to the attention of the commission have indeed been paid.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond J. Perrault: Third, the New Brunswick Federation of Labour has issued a statement saying that the situation has been very much overblown, and I will read that into the record of the House this morning. Fourth, further demonstrations serve only to impose further hardships on those entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: The parliamentary secretary said that all claims have been paid. I would like to ask him, if that is so, why in Bathurst we had the disgraceful situation which occurred yesterday?


Raymond J. Perrault: Let me say to the hon. member that he should be more diligent in his research. He should contact the Canadian Labour Congress, Ottawa headquarters, and he will be a wiser member if he does so about the situation in New Brunswick.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the place to get information was in Bathurst, not in Ottawa. However, I wonder whether we can get from the parliamentary secretary, not the kind of partisan speech which we usually get but on an early occasion, if not today, a statement outlining what the government intends to do to ensure that the kind of occurrence which happened in Bathurst yesterday will not take place in other places in the next couple of weeks?


Raymond J. Perrault: I will be pleased to give the House a full report this afternoon.
262

February 25, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



DELAYS IN PAYMENT OF BENEFITS-MEASURES TO RESOLVE DIFFICULTIES IN MONTREAL

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister.
As he told us a few minutes ago that the Unemployment Insurance Commission was attempting to find means of speeding up processing of claims for unemployment insurance benefits, could he assure us that something will also be done about releasing files in Montreal which, for some reason or another, come from the computer, are filed away and left undisturbed so long as the claimant does not mention them, and also about informing claimants of any contradiction which might arise?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the representations of the hon. member and I am sure the Unemployment Insurance Commission will investigate them.



DELAY IN PAYMENT OF BENEFITS-ACTION TO PREVENT LOAN-SHARK OPERATIONS

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the department aware of loan-sharking operations, the lending of money against unemployment insurance cheques, resulting from the delays in payment and, if so, what action is the commission taking to prevent this occurrence?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, the situation will be investigated. If indeed, such a situation exists it is clearly despicable.



BATHURST, N.B., DEMONSTRATION-NUMBER OF ACTUAL UNEMPLOYED INVOLVED

Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the parliamentary secretary. Can he tell the House whether he has any estimate of the number of actually unemployed people who were involved in the problem in Bathurst and how many were trucked in from outside to demonstrate?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, the total number of claims lodged is 10,132, and after the matter was drawn to the attention of the commission only 22 were found to be legitimately or illegitimately delayed, if you want to put it that way. Those cases have been taken care of. Twenty-two out of 10,000 is not a bad batting record.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



REQUEST FOR DECENTRALIZED ISSUANCE OF CHEQUES TO EXPEDITE PAYMENT OF BENEFITS IN CALGARY AND EDMONTON

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether in the course of his investigations he would look at the situation that exists in the cities of Calgary and Edmonton, which is similar to that raised by other hon. members? Payment of unemployment insurance cheques is now centralized in Winnipeg, causing hardship and delay in Calgary and Edmonton, cities of approximately 400,000 people each. This seems to be the hold-up. Will the parliamentary secretary investigate this matter so that the cheques can get out to the people and they can get something to eat?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, the plan is continually under review. If the hon. member has a specific suggestion to make it will be given detailed consideration by the commission. I would suggest that he surely does not want to return to the long dreary line-ups of ten years ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members are seeking supplementaries, but I think we might complete the first round of questioning and return to this subject. I see the hon. member for Trinity, the hon. member for Wellington and others. I think we should complete the first round of questioning and then return to hon. members' supplementaries on this subject.



CANADA-UNITED STATES-INQUIRY AS TO CONTINUING OF NEGOTIATIONS-REASONS FOR DELAY

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Are trade negotiations continuing with the United States administration and are any meetings taking place now between officials or other representatives of the two governments?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I reported previously, Mr. Speaker, that the contacts are maintained. I have also indicated that attempts are being made now to ascertain how and when the actual negotiations will be resumed.


David Lewis: In view of the first part of the minister's answer, would he inform those of us who find it difficult to understand why there are delays in the resumption of negotiations? Why are there difficulties in getting the two sides to sit down again to negotiate? Are some conditions being put to the Canadian government which are preventing that from happening?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the usual quote applies here-it takes two to tango. The American negotiators have other things to do. They are busy in Congress for example, and they are presumably also reviewing their positions in these negotiations, and so on. I do not think the delay is abnormal. It is understood by both sides that the doors

February 25, 1972
are open and that negotiations will resume at the earliest possible moment.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance the government itself has given to these negotiations and to the possible results of them, can the minister indicate when they are likely to begin again, or are they deliberately being delayed until after an election in Canada in order that the negotiations and the results might not interfere with certain intentions of the Canadian government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member can do his own thinking, his own prognosticating, his own forecasting or whatever he feels like doing on this matter.


David Lewis: That is pretty revealing, Mr. Speaker.



MINI-TYPE SUBMARINE-ROLE OF DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS IN POSSIBLE SALE OR RENTAL TO RUSSIA

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Haliiax East):: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a further supplementary question of the minister within a narrower area and having to do with the irritants that the minister talked about on previous occasions. Specifically, can he indicate to the House the basis on which some of his departmental officials continue to act on behalf of International Hydrodynamics, I believe it is, on the west coast with respect to the sale or rental of the Pisces deepwater submersible to the Soviet Union?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my department issues export permits and that is the basis of our departmental involvement in this matter. I am not sure what the hon. member wants me to answer. Would he help me out?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, briefly, can the minister indicate whether or not any officials of his department are either en route to the United States or are going there shortly to reopen negotiations with our American neighbours with respect to the sale or rental of the Pisces, either on an open or constrained basis, to Russia?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I could find the reference to a previous answer in which I said that consultation has been going on, and presumably it is still going on, between Canada and the United States on this particular matter. Is there anything wrong with consulting?


J. Michael Forrestall: Has the minister advised the Department of National Defence of his action?



CANADA-UNITED STATES-POSITION REGARDING RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister clarify his earlier answer? On the one hand he seemed to suggest that the talks had ceased on the basis of mutuality, if you like, between Canada and the United States but that the door was open on either side. On the other hand he seemed to suggest that it was the Americans who had broken off the talks because they were trying to consider the Canadian offer. Would he be a little more precise? Has the government of Canada said to the government of the
Inquiries of the Ministry
United States that it would like an early resumption of the talks, or have both governments simply said, one to the other: We will stop talking now but if it is in the interests of one or the other we will resume them again soon?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the Americans are quite aware that we are open to a resumption of negotiations at the earliest possible moment. We are ready to go whenever they are.



TRANSPORT


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to acquire one or several hovercraft for use by the coastguard service?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the reported and unprecedented 35 per cent unemployment rate in the construction industry in Toronto, which probably is reflected in other parts of the country as well, and in view of the statement by the president of the Canadian Construction Association attributing this fact to a dropoff in plant and industrial expansion, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government intends to take measures to stimulate capital investment? I ask this question especially in view of the latest Economic Council of Canada report which underlines the substantial decline in capital investment in Canada.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance answered this question yesterday in the question period and in his speech. There has been a notable recovery in confidence following the introduction of the measures that the government announced on fiscal policy last fall and the solution of the international monetary problem. As far as we can foresee, there will continue to be in this country as rapid an expansion as in any country in the world during 1972.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister a supplementary question. In light of the statement made by the president of the Canadian Construction Association wherein he refers to uncertainties within the federal government with respect to the competition bill and other federal trade and employment policies, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether we can expect a
25020-18;

February 25, 1972
1	Inquiries of the Ministry
statement from the government with respect to these legislative measures?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. These measures have been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, and government policy, of course, will be announced at the time the measures are introduced.



INDUSTRY


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, in light of the grave concern of my constituency resulting in a meeting involving many hundreds of people a few days ago because of the imminent closing of a coal mine in Thorburn, Nova Scotia, and in view of the comments made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in his speech yesterday about the viability of the coal mining industry, can the parliamentary secretary or the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether the government will advance aid to the McBean colliery until such time as these policies to make coal mining viable are formulated?


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the hon. member's question and bring it to the attention of the minister.



DISCUSSION WITH COMMONWEALTH CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES ON SUGAR TARIFF REBATE

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister concerning the tariff rebate on Commonwealth-Carib-bean sugar which caused a great deal of trouble a while ago and which under protest the government reinstated to the end of 1971. Can the minister advise what the situation is for the current year and whether discussions have or are being carried on with the governments of the Commonwealth Caribbean countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, so far there has been no change in policy. There are no discussions going on now with the Caribbean countries. We will have to have discussions, of course, arising out of the need to make a decision whether we will continue the rebate, and, they will also be interested in the report of the tariff commission which deals with the same subject.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Do I understand from the Acting Prime Minister that the rebate has been paid and is being paid now?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that it has not been stopped.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-POSSIBILITY OF STOPPING PROJECT IF ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE EXCESSIVE

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment or his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact the minister indicated to the House the other day that ecological research on the James Bay project does not deal with the question whether or not the project should proceed on the basis of environmental damage because it is a provincial problem, can the federal government stop this or any other project if the ecological damage were excessive and interfered with certain areas under federal jurisdiction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the question as asked is defective in a number of ways. It is clearly hypothetical. The hon. member might like to rephrase the question. I know the matter is important and I do not want to be unfair to him.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, will the federal government stop this project if the ecological damage is excessive?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the department in consultation with the government of Quebec, is preparing a comprehensive list of further studies to be carried out during the next few years. The hon. member should remember that our preliminary environmental study was carried out. It served the basic purpose of pointing out areas which require further study. We are now establishing this list in co-operation with the province of Quebec.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-CONSIDERATION IN STUDIES OF ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE IN RELATION TO BENEFITS

Randolph Harding: Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment tell the House whether the question of ecological damage versus benefits is being considered in the studies now going on relating to the proposed Mackenzie River pipeline?


Eymard G. Corbin: All aspects of the problem are being looked at, Mr. Speaker.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-EARLY ANNOUNCEMENT OF FEDERAL CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statement yesterday by the Prime Minister of Quebec that his decision on the James Bay project is irreversible, does
February 25, 1972

the federal government expect shortly to outline its conditions for approval of this project?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a considered answer to that question which the hon. member understands is of very considerable importance. I hope he will allow me to take the question as notice.



MANPOWER


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will he indicate whether the $150 million LIP budget has yet been allocated and, if not, how much of this fund remains to be used for unapproved projects?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, as of yesterday afternoon approximately $4 million remained to be expended under the terms of this program. Almost 88,000 jobs were involved, exceeding all estimates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: Of the approximately $4 million yet to be expended, how much of that is for programs originating from local groups and how much from municipalities under the LIP program?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, the actual allocation of the $4 million, of course, remains to be known. To this time, of the funds which have been allocated, $146 million, $92.2 million has gone to the private sector and $53.4 million to municipal projects.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: A supplementary question. Can the parliamentary secretary explain why as far back as two weeks ago people were receiving letters stating that their applications had been refused because the government had run out of money?


Raymond J. Perrault: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that the number of applications under this program in process of consideration-as hon. members know, the application deadline was January 31-exceeds the remaining money available. Further applications, therefore, cannot be considered.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will allow one last supplementary on this subject.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-FUNDS ALLOCATED, AMOUNTS SPENT, APPLICATIONS RECEIVED, BY PROVINCES

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I have a supplementary question for the parliamentary secretary. Is the government now prepared to make public the allocation of funds under this program to each province? Also, is the government prepared at the earliest possible date to make public
Inquiries of the Ministry
information on the amounts of money spent in each province and the total amount and numbers of applications received from each province under this program?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I will make this request known to my minister. I know it will be given careful consideration.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister with regard to hijacking or skyjacking. Is the government going to bring in regulations, similar to those introduced by the United States federal aviation authority, ordering all airlines to screen all passengers and baggage as an anti-hijacking measure?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think this question ought to be directed to the Minister of Transport under whose jurisdiction it falls. I am sure he will be happy to answer it when he returns to the House.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will a statement be made by the minister on the study prepared by his department which indicates that the Canadian footwear industry will be destroyed by 1975 unless federal government action is taken?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is probably in the marketing study that I tabled in the House yesterday. In recent months my department has conducted two major studies on the footwear industry, one on the degree of efficiency reached by the industry and another on their marketing practice and techniques. This is one of many contributions we are making to this industry. We are now developing a footwear plan, particularly with the government of Quebec and following up with the government of Ontario. As a matter of fact, in a few minutes I will be meeting the provincial minister from Quebec on this particular issue. We hope to develop the fullest co-operation between the two levels of government, each using its own instrumentation and maybe not finding the solution but substantially improving the present situation.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A short time ago a footwear plant closed in the town of Milton, Nova Scotia, which accounts for my interest in this matter. Will steps be taken to help revitalize the footwear industry, for example, in the province of Nova Scotia?

February 25, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the minister's answer covered the question.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour in his capacity of reporting for Information Canada. Bearing in mind the fact that one reason for setting up Information Canada was to co-ordinate the services of the various departments and, hopefully, to reduce their costs, and also noting in the estimates tabled this week that the cost has now increased to $1 million a week, is this increased spending on government information to be a continuous policy or is it geared specifically to this fiscal and election year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.



MANPOWER


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question about the Lift program which I will address to the parliamentary secretary, though I do not approve of asking parliamentary secretaries questions because they cannot speak for the government. Does the fact that there are no more funds available mean that the urgent messages that cross our desks notifying us that certain projects have been approved will now cease? For example, I had one come to my desk this morning, despite the fact that the promoters of the project were notified a week ago.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to answer that question without receiving further information from the hon. member, but we will give the matter very careful consideration, if such information is made available.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald MacInnis: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might ask a supplementary and then we will pass on to the next question.


Donald MacInnis: Are members going to be notified that these approvals have been made a week after they have announced by another minister? Are these wasteful messages going to continue?



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the minister's recent statement about the necessity for more national parks, can he say what progress, if any, is being made in negotiations between the federal government and the province of Manitoba in regard to a second national park in that province?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we are not making very much progress in this regard. I am a bit disappointed because when the premier of the province was a member of this House he asked me when we were going to have a second national park in Manitoba but he has now been premier for three years and has not moved on it yet.


Robert Simpson: Can I take it from the minister's reply that the next move is up to the province of Manitoba?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Of course, Mr. Speaker. Crown lands within the boundaries of Manitoba are under provincial jurisdiction.



STATE OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN FEDERAL AND SASKATCHEWAN GOVERNMENTS CONCERNING ESTABLISHMENT OF SECOND PARK

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. In view of the fact that his department promised the province of Saskatchewan a second national park as long ago as 1965, can he say whether an agreement has been reached or is about to be reached with the province of Saskatchewan?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member the same answer in regard to Saskatchewan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have from time to time suggested to hon. members that it was not in order to ask questions during the question period about applications for national parks. Normally these questions ought to be placed on the order paper. The hon. member for Trinity.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Could the parliamentary secretary advise the House how many people were drawing unemployment insurance benefits as of January 31 of this year?
February 25, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that that question is in order. I always have reservations, according to long-established practice, about allowing questions requiring statistical information. However, if the parliamentary secretary can supply the information the question will be allowed.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for providing prior notice of his intention to ask this question. Statistics Canada compiles the number of claims registered for unemployment insurance benefits at the end of each month. The latest published figure shows the number at the end of October, 1971, and this was published in January, 1972, in the document "Statistical Report on the Operations of the Unemployment Insurance Act". It is expected that the January figures will be available toward the middle of April.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the parliamentary secretary explain to the House why there is a three or four month time lag in getting these statistics? Certainly this is a reflection of the present situation that exists in the commission and I do not think it is good enough. Would the parliamentary secretary undertake to ask Statistics Canada to get the statistics out within a month following the end of a month so that Members of Parliament would have meaningful information available to them?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, the gathering of statistics on the subject is a complicated matter. For example, the figures are overstated by 20 per cent in terms of active files. If a claimant does not report because of becoming re-employed, a period of five weeks is allowed to elapse before his claim is transferred to the inactive file. The object is to acquire as accurate statistical data as possible, but this does take time.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it arises out of the answer given yesterday that he would obtain information on how the fake passport in the Geoffroy case was delivered.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the passport was delivered in the mail. The application was received in the mail and the passport was delivered in the mail. Having talked to the RCMP I am advised that in view of the possibility of damage being done to the police investigation it would be desirable that no further disclosure of information concerning the passport be made.
Inquiries of the Ministry



RELEASE OF YVES GEOFFROY FROM ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY-RCMP INVESTIGATION INTO PASSPORT-POSSIBLE CHARGES

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question and I hope that the minister will not use the excuse that the matter is under investigation to refrain from answering it. Would the minister advise the House when the investigation was commenced by the RCMP and when the minister received information about the forged passport? I think that is very important and I see nothing in it that would hurt the investigation. In addition, are there any charges contemplated at this moment?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, to the final question the answer is no. As I said in my original answer, all the documents that have been produced are, in the opinion of the police, forgeries. The RCMP obtained access to our files as soon as they began to be concerned, which was immediately, about how Geoffroy and his wife had left the country. We had issued no passport in his name. The police went through the files and discovered in the files a passport application with Geoffroy's picture in it, and that is how it was identified. That discovery was made on January 28.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Could I ask one further question, Mr. Speaker. When was this information brought to the minister's attention in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs? When did you get that information, and when did you advise the Solicitor General?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will assume that that question was addressed to the Chair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sorry, Sir.


Mitchell William Sharp: The information was conveyed to me by the police immediately. It was conveyed to the Solicitor General, who is responsible for the police, at the same time.



RELEASE OF YVES GEOFFROY FROM ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO DISPOSAL OF PERSONAL ASSETS

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Acting Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether he has called on the RCMP to conduct an inquiry as to how Mr. Yves Geoffroy disposed of his property, on the very day of his evasion from Canada or the day before, and whether there is anything suspicious about this case?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not personally aware of these circumstances. It would not ordinarily be my responsibility as Secretary of State for External Affairs to inquire into those circumstances. This is a question that should more properly be directed to the police, to the Solicitor General.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

February 25, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Annapolis Valley on a last supplementary on this subject since we will be running short of time. The hon. member for Broadview will be recognized immediately afterward since he has been very patient.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We have all been patient, Your Honour, and Your Honour has been patient too from time to time. Without trespassing further on your patience, I will put my question to the Acting Prime Minister. As Acting Prime Minister would he consult directly with the Solicitor General so that the Solicitor General can report to this House on Monday whether any inquiry or investigation has been made into business transactions that may have been carried out by Mr. Geoffroy after his release from penitentiary and before his disappearing act?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Hansard will be scrutinized very carefully by the Solicitor General and that he will endeavour to satisfy the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask a further supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair did undertake a moment ago to recognize the hon. member for Broadview.



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

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Secretary of State for External Affairs told us that the passport had been sent out by mail. Was it sent by registered mail, and to what address was it sent? I cannot see that giving this information would affect the police investigation.


Mitchell William Sharp: It was, of course, sent by registered mail, as passports always are. I have discussed with the police the specific point which the hon. member has raised. They said that from their point of view it would be desirable if no further information about the passport were revealed and it seems to me I should take this into account in answering these questions. As far as the administration of passports is concerned, I have nothing to hide. I am withholding the information only to facilitate the investigation by the police, which I hope will result in the apprehension of Mr. Geoffroy.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact the New Brunswick Federation of Labour has stated that there are 290 unprocessed claims, as contrasted with the statement the parliamentary secretary made this morning that there are only 22, would he check further into the matter? At the same time would he agree to make a

statement on motions on Monday regarding the reasons for the delays in payments all across Canada, and more particularly regarding the fact that the Unemployment Insurance Commission has included in income such items as severance pay, vacation pay and holiday pay?


Raymond J. Perrault: The statistics to which I referred earlier referred to claims alleged to be sources of delay by the demonstrators who met with officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission last week. The hon. member may have later information about another group of claims. I will look into the situation. I hope, as I said, to report to the House later today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are running short of time. There are just three minutes left before the end of the question period. We should try to move on as quickly as we can.



BATHURST, N.B.-USE OF BELLEVILLE COMPUTER TO PAY CLAIMS

Alfred Dryden Hales: My supplementary question concerns unemployment insurance and is addressed to the parliamentary secretary. Recently a report appeared in the Globe and Mail to the effect that 300 signed cheques had been sent out from the Belleville computer centre in Ontario to pay immediate claims. Was consideration given to this by the Moncton office so that they might pay immediate claims in Bathurst?


Raymond J. Perrault: I can say without equivocation that the report in the Globe and Mail was totally inaccurate and based on misleading and false information.



SUGGESTED PAYMENT OF ALL OUTSTANDING CLAIMS WITHIN TEN DAYS

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: In view of the continuing difficulty in paying outstanding claims, can the parliamentary secretary give the House any assurance that all outstanding claims for benefit throughout the country will be paid within the next seven or ten days?


Raymond J. Perrault: That is a difficult commitment to make. However, it is the firm intention of the commission to reduce to an irreducable minimum any delays occasioned by inefficiency.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What does the hon. member mean by "irreducable minimum"? I am concerned about the unemployed.
February 25, 1972



REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES CONCERNING PROHIBITION AGAINST IMPORT OF CANADIAN URANIUM

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister tell us whether the representations which were made to the United States government early in December seeking a relaxation of the restriction on the import of enriched Canadian uranium for the United States domestic market have resulted in any change in this restrictive policy?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am very sorry, but my answer will be somewhat coy. I have refused on previous occasions to say what is contained in the agreement ad referendum which was reached at one point during the negotiations to the governments of the United States and of Canada. To answer this question on uranium I would have to use the knowledge I have with respect to what was contained in that agreement ad referendum.



TAXATION


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he has the information for which I asked him last Wednesday with regard to the remission of $6 million to Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited and the reason this sizeable sum of money was paid out by way of remission of sales tax paid by the company between 1963 and 1967. The minister said he could not recall the details but he undertook to obtain them and respond in the House. Since the details are not difficult to get, perhaps the minister is prepared to tell us now what they were.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: There was, in fact, such an order made-I have confirmed this-


David Lewis: I know. I saw it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance. I have spoken to him and he has undertaken to give the details required on his next appearance in the House.


Donald MacInnis: supplementary question to the minister with respect to the reimbursement made to this United States controlled company. Would the government undertake to give the same consideration to the miners of Cape Breton who have been denied unemployment insurance as a result of the use of coercion by the Devco people?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am certain that the miners of Cape Breton are getting much more consideration by Devco, a Canadian government supported corporation, than the company referred to is getting.


Donald MacInnis: A further supplementary.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: We are running short of time. The hon. member may ask a last supplementary and I shall then recognize the hon. member for Laprairie.


Donald MacInnis: The minister has indicated that the miners are getting fair treatment. Would he read the report of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and realize that Devco, a Crown corporation, used coercion to take this money from them?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON ELLESMERE ISLAND DISCOVERY

Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister give us any additional information regarding the Panarctic Oils strike on Ellesmere Island?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have no additional information to give to the House, except to say that this is the first oil discovery in the Arctic Islands. It is a very important discovery, as it was made at the eastern tip of the Arctic, which means that it is much closer to the markets of eastern Canada.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, February 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ross Whicher for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Alexander (p. 212).
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret not having taken the opportunity, during the few minutes which were allocated to me last night, to congratulate the movers of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
After all, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie) is fairly new in this House. As for the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), whom we know as an old militant, he showed in his remarks rather too much partisanship. I think he attempted to secure for the benefit of the Liberal party all possible praise, albeit imaginary, while we must admit that, like all members with little experience in this House, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres is getting a great deal of praise today. But let him have no illusions: he has received his last spontaneous applause. From now on, if he wants praise he will have to deserve it. This is something which all members of this House have had to experience at one time.

February 25, 1972
Speech from the Throne

I was hoping that the new Minister of National Defence would remain so that we could examine his stewardship as Minister of Finance over a number of years.
The Speech from the Throne does not, of course, disclose anything unusual. It has been commented upon by my colleagues at considerable length. The commentators outside have been even more stringent in their criticisms of the paucity of the Speech from the Throne in respect of financing or dealing with the very difficult situations facing the country, not only economically but socially and politically. Also these are not necessarily all domestic problems but include those from abroad. I must say I found that the task of writing the Speech from the Throne had been assigned to that person on the government side, who perhaps qualified as the possessor of the most purple prose that could be used. We have never seen the like of it, and I trust will never see it again. The list of legislation, of course, which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tabled on the conclusion of the speech is a rather mixed bag of not too many things. I am sure the more controversial of those items will see the light of day last. The new Competition Act and the changes in the labour standards, as well as a few other proposals which appear there, certainly will not come forward early in the session.
At this time we are in an election year. There is no denying it.


An hon. Member:: It may be next year.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Certainly, this colours the attitude of the government and the attitude of the House in this debate. I am not critical of that because the essence of politics and partisanship is exposed. This is the arena, this is the forum, and it is sometimes, Mr. Speaker, your unenviable task to act as referee in the exchange of ideas. It is a good thing your duties do not extend to being a referee of a physical exchange between hon. members. We get comments from the exterior, sometimes by editorial writers, who cluck, cluck when there has been a verbal dispute and sometimes a certain amount of verbal disarray in the House of Commons. We get this cluck, cluck and I wonder what they do in their editorial boards and editorial conferences. This is the forum for the expression of ideas. This is where the government must put its programs to the test before the representatives of the people. There is no other place for that expression.
I have absolutely no regrets or reservations about how we conduct our affairs. Do some people think this is a board room of some giant corporation called Canada or that it is an executive body? It is not. Here, we are discussing ideas and programs. We are not making the decisions which actually put these into practice. There is approval or disapproval registered on behalf of the people of Canada. The same thing takes place in the legislatures of the provinces. I sometimes feel the harshest critics of this institution are those people who know least about it, and who know least about the actual workings of this institution as well as the men and women who compose this institution, the Members of Parliament. According to some individuals, at election time the people of Canada go through the gutters of the nation, if there are such, to gather up people. If these people are so possessed of all this knowledge and science, why are they not on the scene

offering their help here rather than back at some nameless desk or behind some microphone where they cannot be seen. They are not held responsible for their ideas or expressions.
Having said that, I now turn to the minister's speech. I am sorry he is not here. He actually misled the House the other day. I asked him a question with regard to statements he had made on behalf of the government of Canada at the ministerial conference in Banff between finance ministers. He indicated at that time that I should bide my patience because in his speech he would give us the answers. I have combed that speech. I listened to it, and I combed it in Hansard, but I found nary a word of what was said at that conference. There was nary a word of the problems that were discussed. Naturally, there were the views that were leaked out of the conference. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) asked him some questions and he indicated that later in the day he would answer them. Again, there has been a dead silence on the subject. To that extent, I charge the minister not with misleading the House but with "conning" the House into deferring or turning aside some questions which could have been very embarrassing. But that is not the way to answer. If questions are serious, and these were serious questions, they are deserving of answers.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is not a new boy in Canada. This is his third or possibly fourth cabinet appointment. True enough, it is a new portfolio for the minister but he has participated in cabinet meetings at which the economic implications for this country have been discussed. If I know my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton, he is not a silent member of the Cabinet and should know the problems. I will say that his speech yesterday was disarmingly fresh in difference of approach. I think one of the first things he has done has been to take that stable of speech writers which previously furnished speeches to his predecessor and given them a holiday. I hope he gives them a permanent holiday because from them we had pronouncements from on high expressed with dogmatic, shall we say, certainty. My colleague from Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) tells me, there was that dogmatic certainty of pronouncements from a Delphic oracle. They were statements which came down from the Mount of Olympus. In strange contrast, the minister yesterday admitted there were difficulties and a lot of factors which made it very difficult for a Minister of Finance to accomplish his task. The best they could do was to give intelligent forecasts. But I trust this minister will not have the feeling of his predecessor, and in some ways the Minister of State who was assigned to the Minister of Finance, in that as I say their pronouncements were made with certainty.
I remember the former Minister of Finance saying many times what would happen to the economy. Now, the Minister of Finance is saying that, unless a man is a charlatan or a fool, he will not make these hard and fast predictions. I will take the minister at his word, but in that case what does he think of his predecessors who did go make these hard and fast forecasts? What does he think of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who just a few months ago said "we have turned the corner; we have mastered inflation and we can now turn to the problem of unemployment"? This administration has no more mas-
February 25, 1972

tered inflation than they have managed to crawl to the moon on their hands and knees. The minister says we are faced with the twin problems of unemployment and inflation.
It would be interesting to know the position which the Minister of Finance took at the conference in Jasper. Did he or did he not say that there is enough stimulus in the economy to deal with unemployment this year? Is the Bank of Canada now reversing its policy about the amount of stimulus that is to go into the economy because they are afraid of inflation? Do they feel that by the time we get to the end of the year the unemployment situation will have been taken care of and that in the third and fourth quarters of this year we will start moving on an upward trend? It is certainly not indicated that we are moving on an upward trend now, it has to be sometime later. Are those factors at that time going to determine the date of the elections?
We look at the forecasts, and they say that the economy is going to go forward so much in 1972. However, this disagrees with the observations of the Bank of Tokyo which says that there is going to be a slowdown in 1972 and that recovery will be slow. From what the government has said about the performance of Japan, there must be some credence in the observations of the Japanese. They cannot approbate and reprobate.
So what do we have for the forthcoming year? I expect that the Minister of Finance will give us a budget. When will this be? Perhaps the Minister of State, who still has to enter this debate, may be able to tell us when we may expect it. I do not say he will tell us that on a certain night at 8 p.m. the budget will be delivered, but he should be able to tell us in his speech how many of the glaring errors in Bill C-259 will be corrected, those that are more obvious. They knew they were wrong when the bill was before the House but because it would have been difficult to add more amendments, and they were gunshy of amendments because of the criticisms that they had faced over the hundreds that they had put in since the introduction of Bill C-259, we will now get them this year. Is the Canadian public going to have these further inequities inflicted on our economic system Those are the things we want to hear from the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) if and when he takes part in this debate. We will see whether we are going to get the answers to the questions that I put to the Minister of Finance the other day.
I have another question: did the Minister of Finance and his officials in Jasper advise the provinces that the federal and provincial governments should end the expansionary efforts which culminated in the October mini-budget? I ask the Minister of State: is this the position of the government of Canada today, that the proposals contained in the mini-budget of October are to be the peak of the expansionary efforts of the government of Canada, and are we now going to see provincial entrenchment as a result, or just what will this be? I ask the minister to be frank with the House. The government should come clean with the people of this country. We have already seen credibility gaps right, left and centre. We have several credibility gaps in the Solicitor General's Department, as well as in
Speech from the Throne
the Department of the Minister of National Revenue as a result of being told by the Prime Minister when we were going to get the government's policy on foreign ownership. It was going to be last June and then it was going to be in September. There was a leak in September which created some difficulties at that time. Then, it was going to come before the end of the session, and in the interval we heard that it would be soon or that it would not be long delayed. The last we heard was that it was going to be introduced around February 16. Now, there is no such indication and the whole question has been put into cold storage. This is part of the credibility gap.
There is another credibility gap that I think we should put on the record. Some weeks ago the Prime Minister took one of these quasi non-political forays into Toronto that the Prime Minister loves to take these days. There, he lectured to people about what should be the work ethic of a lot of people. He said that there were jobs available in the country if only people would get off their sternums and go and get them. It was quite a lecture. Now, I will give a reply to that. It is contained in a delightful letter, and I will ask the House for some forbearance while I read it. The letter appeared in the Victoria Daily Columnist of February 16. Perhaps the Prime Minister will not like this. This may be part of bigot land and there might be some prejudice against the Prime Minister in some of the statements made.
The letter is signed "unemployed". It reads:



PM'S JOBS

[Stage Direction]
Several days after Mr. Trudeau announced via a TV interview that there was an abundance of jobs in Canada, if anyone was willing to leave the cities and not expect an enormous wage, I phoned the local Manpower Office to apply for one. I am unemployed and registered with Manpower. I informed them that I was willing to go anywhere in Canada and work at any job at all.
What more could you ask of an individual?
The first person I spoke to knew nothing about these jobs, or the Prime Minister's statement, and passed me on to another staff member. This man said that he had heard that such a statement had been made, but knew nothing about these jobs, and connected me with another who was equally at loss and could not supply me with any information. By the time I had been referred to several other clerks, all presumably of higher rank, I could see that one and all treated the PM's statement as a big joke. When I finally reached the end of the "buck-passing" line, the clerk in charge admitted to me that at the present time there were no jobs to be had anywhere in Canada through Manpower.
One week later, I again phoned, and received the same runaround, being told "if there are any of these jobs Mr. Trudeau hasn't told us where they are".
Is this a true picture of the employment situation in Canada or is the PM using the old whitewash brush? Or is Manpower just not doing its job? If so, why won't they refer willing and able people to available jobs?
Does the general public know that the policy of local Manpower is when supplying a demand for hourly paid workmen to the largest federal government employer here in this area, namely DND, is to refer ex-service men who are on pension. What chance has any young man under 40 years of age to get into an hourly pay position in say HMC Dockyard, when the openings are being filled with men already on government pension? I understand a few
[Stage Direction]
February 25, 1972
Speech from the Throne
exceptions are being made occasionally; under what conditions I do not know.
Perhaps Mr. Trudeau should look into this situation.

Mr. Bechard:: Signed . . . ?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: "Unemployed".


Albert Béchard: An unemployed Conservative?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I don't know. After all he does not express his political views. This is an attitude that one sees reflected in other letters to the press and letters to Members of Parliament. This is not a letter written to me, it is a letter written to the public and the point is clear. That is part of the credibility gap, part of the substantiation of the motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).
I want to speak briefly about two matters before I return to the economic section of my remarks, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the other day I addressed a question to the Prime Minister asking if the government had abandoned its clear undertaking to the former minister of manpower and immigration, since there was an absence of any mention in the list of legislation of amendments to the Immigration Act or the Immigration Appeals Board Act. In reply to previous questions from myself and some of my colleagues the answer of the former minister was that these amendments plus a white paper were imminent, just over the horizon. It almost became a game between myself and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) to determine what he meant by "soon". Now, we have the disquieting rumour, and it may be much more than a rumour, that up to half a dozen senior officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration- and I know this as a personal fact-who have been working very hard on amendments to the Immigration Act in order to bring some order to a chaotic system and whose work has been put aside for an indefinite period aux calendes grecques, are about to resign or ask for reassignment. I certainly want to know why.
Is it fair that there should be over 7,500 appeals pending before the Immigration Appeals Board? The board works hard but the maximum work load that it can carry in a year is 950 cases which is a fair number. But there is a backlog of 7,500 cases. Some of the people who presently have appeals based on a bona fide difference of opinion with the Immigration Department as to their qualifications under the points system will be old men and women, have children and grandchildren before their case is reached. In the meantime, they will be suspended in limbo if the silly program which now exists and this inaction is allowed to continue.
This problem has to be resolved. I am not advocating or implementing any philosophy, "a la Joe Sedgwick", that we are going to answer this question. The system is arbitrary, and has substituted a so-called administerial discretion by a bureaucratic discretion. Any person who dares to object to an assessment of points under such a system must face a special inquiry and be subject to a deportation order before he can get to the Immigration Appeals Board.


Mr. Haidasz:: Shame!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is nothing more degrading, more intimidating or more of an administrative blackjack than this requirement that an immigrant, particularly one allowed in as a visitor who has made application for immigrant status to be given, say, 45 points, and then presumes-I would guess that the immigration officials even say "dares"-to question the assessment. He must go the deportation route before he can get an adjudication on his qualification on points since the Supreme Court of Canada has decided that the Immigration Appeals Board is competent to do that. One would almost think that this pile-up of appeals is part of a calculated program by immigration officials to get at the Immigration Appeals Board, to so jam up the system that something has to be done. There is something rotten in the whole set-up.
As my last point, Mr. Speaker, if I may, I should like to speak about the RCMP.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired but he may continue with the leave of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I wish to thank hon. members, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not abuse the privilege. The last point I wish to make deals with a subject I have raised in this House this week, and in public last week, with regard to change in the administration policy about the designation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -on buildings, on automobiles and on boats. I grant that this was not instituted yesterday nor by the present minister. But, Mr. Speaker, it has now become focussed in the minds of the public because of some glaring examples of what the minister says is merely administrative policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Since when is administrative policy not to be reviewed in public? What sacrosanct bureaucrat is entitled to say it is purely administrative and therefore there is nothing to it? Mr. Speaker, the minister is not honest with the people in regard to this.


Mr. Kaplan:: Shame!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) can go out to Saskatchewan or Alberta or Manitoba where the RCMP have a fuller profile than in central Canada. This year the province of Alberta was preparing to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the original force behind the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We are now told that they are going to be just "police" for greater identification. What arrant nonsense! All I can say is that the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) should meet with the bureaucrat responsible for this decision and if it is a commissioner's decision then the commissioner should appear before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to explain. Why is it that ordinary citizens, without any organization behind them, signed a telegram-11,500 of them-and sent copies to the Prime Minister and myself. Why is it that I have petitions from kids, and telegrams. My colleague from Vegreville (Mr. February 25, 1972

Mazankowski) has a telegram. I am told that there are in excess of 1,500 names on it, and it comes from a town that does not count 4,000 inhabitants. Protest has arisen in New Brunswick about this matter. This is not a question involving bilingualism; it is one involving the identification of the force. When I am outside "K" Division Headquarters in Edmonton, I want to see the coat-of-arms of the RCMP without having to get out of my car and walk up to the plaque to be able to read, "Royal Canadian Mounted Police". I do not want to see just the word "Police". I want to see that it is "K" Division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
In the town of St. Albert, where there is a detachment of either 18 or 20 Royal Canadian Mounted Police force personnel who act as municipal police and provincial police, I want, when I come to their headquarters, to see clearly the words, "Royal Canadian Mounted Police". Anybody who says that tourists or the public want to be able to identify that force with the word "Police" instead of with the initials "RCMP", is crazy, because the letters RCMP stand for one thing and one thing only, one of the best police forces in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am not trying to butter up anybody when I say that. Why identify the force just as ordinary police, and I am not in any way degrading any local police forces. Surely, we must consider the identification of the RCMP.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: And the history of the force.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I hope the minister will reply, and not say something like "Oh, but this does not bother anybody very much." He was on radio last night and so was I. Of course, in the province of Quebec the RCMP show a low profile. Their duties do not bring them in regular contact with the people of the province. The same is true of Ontario. In these provinces there are efficient, competent and sizeable municipal and provincial police forces. This is not always so in the rest of Canada. In many communities of western Canada the RCMP carry out very efficiently the duties of municipal police. The crime rates in those areas show the results of their presence. So, on almost the one hundredth anniversary of the establishment of the RCMP, we come down to this: they are to be shown as Police and, in small letters, presumably underneath, they will be identified as RCMP or Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Soon they will be so identified at the bottom of the decals on the side of police cars. They will be shown as RCMP where the slush and mud can cover those letters. What we want to see today on the door of a police car is "RCMP" above the crest. That is what we want.
Some hon Members: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to support the amendment moved by my colleague from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, at the outset,
Speech from the Throne
may I say that congratulations are in order for the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie). They both acquitted themselves eloquently in the best tradition of parliamentary democracy. I think we listened with enjoyment to their remarks.
In the Speech from the Throne His Excellency stated:
Throughout, pressures for change around the world emphasized to us that the excitement and the promise of modern technological achievements become hollow and mocking to those who find in society little understanding of their hopes and little provision for their needs.
He continued:
Economic security is one of the most effective forces with which to counter social isolation. Job opportunities must be found and income uncertainties overcome if all Canadians are to share in the richness of this land.
Together with my colleagues on this side of the House and, I am sure, the majority of members in this chamber, I am in profound agreement with those words and I want to relate my remarks to them. I do so, not only because of my personal convictions, but because I am associated with a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), a government, a department and, indeed, a minister with a deep concern for those in need and those threatened by economic insecurity.
For almost two years I have worked with a minister who has demonstrated beyond question that he cares about people and has compassion for them. If he were in the chamber he would be embarrassed to hear me utter these remarks.


An hon. Member:: He certainly would be.


Raymond J. Perrault: A great many measures which have been advanced by the minister and by this government are overwhelming evidence of the government's concern for people. The newly appointed Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey), with the full support of his colleagues, has advanced social legislation of real worth. Many members of this House have supported that legislation. Within the ambit of the Department of Labour there have been such advances as equal pay for similar work, maternity leave, severance pay, provision for individual and group notice and an end to loss of employment because of the inequities of garnishee. While he was Minister of Labour, with the support of our Prime Minister and his colleagues, he introduced proposals to revise the old Industrial Relations and Disputes investigation Act. Among its several provisions is one designed to enhance the security of Canadian workers confronted by the impact of disruptive technological change.
If the minister were not incapacitated he would be speaking here today in my stead and discussing with hon. members the subject of unemployment insurance. I am pleased to tell you that he will be back soon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond J. Perrault: He wants me to express to members in all parts of the House his thanks for the letters, cards and expressions of sympathy which have come from all sides of this House.

February 25, 1972
Speech from the Throne
A few months ago, with the overwhelming support of the House, support which extended at times to assistance in evolving details of the legislation, the minister brought into being the new Unemployment Insurance Act.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Oh, oh!


Raymond J. Perrault: At times, certain hon. members suggested changes and variations in the act. Hon. members associated with the committee, throughout the long hearings and the meetings that were held, attempted to construct what we hoped would be the finest program of unemployment insurance in the whole world.


An hon. Member:: And you all failed.


Raymond J. Perrault: All hon. members agreed about the need for change and reform in those measures designed to provide income protection for the unemployed and those temporarily without work. Indeed, Canada and Parliament made history last year because, undoubtedly, even if one considers the difficult period of transition, the new unemployment insurance plan is the most advanced measure of its type in the whole world.
A few months ago I attended an international congress of those responsible for the administration of unemployment insurance schemes in many nations, and it was conceded that our program was the best and most comprehensive.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Then, why is it not working?


Raymond J. Perrault: Here is a measure which recognizes the new social fact that job disruption can affect anyone. For this reason, unemployment insurance is now almost universal, or has been as of January 1, with 1.2 million Canadians having been added to the scheme and I think they are pleased to participate in the new unemployment insurance plan.
Eligibility requirements for benefits have been substantially modified, with the result that it is now much easier to qualify for benefits. The benefit level itself, up to $100 a week, is related to current earnings and there is provision for automatic adjustment to this benefit level in relation to a change in average earnings. Benefit duration is related not only to recent work history but also to prevailing economic conditions. A claimant assistance program has been established whose objective is to help claimants get work by providing job search information and guidance. The object, surely, Mr. Speaker, of this plan and other allied plans must be to assist the workers of Canada to return to useful employment as quickly as possible. That is why, when appropriate, claimants are directed to agencies for job placement, counselling or financial assistance.
Here is a measure which recognizes the fact that there are three million women in Canada's work force, with vast numbers of them providing their families with the economic margin between grinding poverty and a decent level of living, women who now have the right to pregnancy benefits when their earnings are interrupted by such natural events. Here is a measure which regards Sickness on the job or off the job as an interruption of earnings, a measure which recognizes that family costs continue,

regardless of the reason a breadwinner becomes ill. These and other important features of the legislation became available on June 27 last with full operation becoming effective last January 1.
I am well aware of the fact, as is the minister, that there have been criticisms of the plan and its implementation. Indeed, members from all parts of the House have demonstrated remarkable and commendable diligence on behalf of their constituent claimants. That is the job of all of us, wherever we sit in this House, to work for our constituents and make sure they are well served by the programs available to them.
Whenever a fundamental change as vast as this is introduced, inevitably a transition period, an adjustment period, occurs. Apart from the administrative challenges and the countless procedural considerations, there is the task of education. Even today, eight weeks after universality, about 80 per cent of the calls to Unemployment Insurance offices across Canada relate to matters other than claims. The majority are from people seeking information.
Having said all this, it is interesting to note, however, that while members have made known the problems of their constituents, none have asked abandonment of the plan because the unemployment insurance reforms in Canada were long overdue. We know that unemployment is critical to the individual regardless of a man's political belief or any other consideration. Parliament can be proud of its work. The task is to make the new plan work as effectively as possible.
I assure you that the criticism of Unemployment Insurance which has been voiced over recent months has not been dismissed lightly by the minister. You know him too well. You know him as one who gets things done, especially where people with problems are concerned. As a matter of fact, he is so busy at the hospital that he may have to come back to the House early in order to get a rest. No matter how few people are deprived of their legitimate benefits, and the number involved has been very small in comparison with the total, to those people, those families, it is a considerable tragedy and this government, in fact no government, can remain complacent while such need exists.
The minister has taken action. During the recent recess the minister held discussions with interested groups and Unemployment Insurance Commission officials to determine the validity of the criticism and to determine whether changes ought to be made in the processing of claims that would more effectively deal with the needs of the unemployed. The minister announced early this year that all claims filed would be reviewed to determine if in fact there was cause for special measures. While individual delays cannot be excused or avoided, it is a fact that the vast majority of all claims filed with the commission are processed within the prescribed time. Some hon. members have asked what is the "prescribed time". The suggestion is that our concept may be different from theirs.
The new act provides a two-week waiting period before payments are made. In effect, this means that when a claim is filed a person must have had a two week gap in his earnings. Since payments under the act are made in
February 25, 1972

arrears and since a claimant must declare that he was in fact unemployed and available for work for the period of his unemployment, it stands to reason that payments are not normally made until the fourth week of unemployment.
The investigation conducted by the commission identified three main areas of claim delay. First, some claimants fail to complete their application forms accurately. I believe the claim reform is now in its sixth review. We have invited the Canadian Labour Congress and other interested bodies to suggest form modifications which will make it as simple as possible for the claimant to file his application. Second, some employers fail to provide employees with their contributions records or their separation certificates. Third, a number of errors occur in the processing of the claims. That is not denied.
The commission has undertaken an extensive effort to provide claimants with detailed information in order to assist them in understanding the procedures involved and to help them complete their forms accurately. The commission has established, in addition to its regular offices, an extensive network of service centres for the purpose of giving effective service to claimants. The commission is continuing its efforts to identify problem areas and to evolve more effective means of dealing with claims.
It can be said that in recent weeks there has been a substantial improvement in claims processing. Members will recall that last week the minister announced the results of a survey he had requested of all claims filed since December 1971. The survey revealed that a majority of claims had been delayed through a lack of vital information from either the employer or the claimant. Some 5,000 claims, less than 1 per cent of the total claim load, were discovered to have been late.
I remind hon. members that 600,000 cheques are processed every two weeks. In the month of January, there was a payout of $130 million. This is a massive program. Every effort is being made to reduce delays to that irreducible minimum. In saying all this, I do not deny that the problems of the 5,000 were very real. Understandably, they were not interested in statistical analysis. They were not interested in a debate between the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and opposition critics on the subject of statistics. I think all of us are concerned about the individual and his well being.
No one denies the right of working Canadians to receive unemployment insurance benefits when their earnings are interrupted, but I want to say a brief word about another group of workers who deserve consideration. They are the workers of the Unemployment Insurance Commission who have been confronted with the heavy burdens imposed by the transition period. They have put in many hours of overtime in recent weeks or months. They are workers in their own right-workers without a right to reply in many cases to the criticism which has been directed against them. Like all of us, they make mistakes, but they are a remarkably efficient group. I think members will agree that reported cases of delay are dealt with promptly by the commission personnel.
At times they have been criticized most unfairly by the media and some members of the House.
Speech from the Throne
I suppose it may be tempting for some to traffic in human misery.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond J. Perrault: But, fortunately, most of the media and the members have resisted this temptation. Most of the members have been very cooperative. On behalf of the minister, I thank them. However, there are exceptions. Was the public interest served a while back when wide publicity-


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


Mr. Gleave:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I object to the remark of people trafficking in human misery. All of us have had to do a lot of work with regard to the problem of Unemployment Insurance claims. I do not mind the parliamentary secretary defending his employees. That is probably his responsibility, but it is not right-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that this is hardly a point of order. It is a matter of debate between the hon. member and the parliamentary secretary. Perhaps the hon. member might want to take part in the debate later.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the hon. member is in that great majority of members who have attempted to make this plan work, and I am pleased to take this opportunity of so stating; but there have been other examples where the responsibility of certain statements made both inside the House and outside can be questioned.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Why don't you withdraw your remark?


Raymond J. Perrault: It may be tempting for some to criticize the plan, but I ask was the public interest served awhile back when wide publicity was accorded to a claimant who filed a claim for benefit and who complained of inexplicable delays in getting paid? It was determined that this lady had been advised within days of filing her claim that she did not have the required labour force attachment to qualify. However, the news story dealing with this case completely ignored this fact. What was even more unfair was that the article went on to describe the personal difficulties of the person, stating that she and her family were faced with unnecessary hardship as a result of commission inefficiency. I do not think that was fair.
Last Saturday a story appeared in the Globe and Mail to the effect that the computer had produced 300 blank cheques. First of all, this is not technically possible on the computer. It could occur on an ordinary piece of equipment that is still used for some payments, and this piece of equipment is called the "interpreter". After an exhaustive and costly search throughout last weekend, the commission identified the possibility that one such cheque could have been produced several weeks ago.
Then, the hon. member talks about unfair statements on my part. Let me give a specific example which should be brought to the attention of this House. A question was asked in this House on February 18 by the hon. member

February 25, 1972
Speech from the Throne
for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), who made the breathless allegation that 5,000 claims could not be processed in the commission's Montreal pay centre and had to be moved to Belleville for processing.
What are the real facts? It is a standard emergency procedure, in any pay centre and in any operation of the magnitude of the commission's, to have standby facilities in case of snow storms or other situations which could backlog the work. In fact, however, no work from the Montreal region was done at the Belleville computer centre last week or in the recent past. Yet, the member chose to make an issue of a perfectly prudent provision of administration which anyone should be happy to know is available to meet problems.
The hon. member went on national television to, in effect, tell people from coast to coast that they could not have confidence in the Unemployment Insurance Commission because of these alleged procedures. What does the hon. member want to prove? I will let him answer that question, but my advice to him is simply that if he wants to seek out so-called "informants" from within any government organization, he should at least retain reliable informants. Better still, he should check his allegations with responsible people.
Much has been said about the unemployment insurance service in Bathurst. Indeed, in recent hours there have been reports of public demonstrations there. The Bathurst office is served by a staff of 17 in recognition of the varied problems which can arise in a community of 15,000 people. The claim load in the Bathurst office is in the area of 10,000. Last week, 172 cases of alleged delay in payment were presented at the Bathurst office. To begin with, 32 of these cases were duplicates. Of the net total of 138, 22 cases involved some form of delay. Among the 22, those entitled to payment have been paid. Twenty-two out of 10,000! Not good enough, but pretty good.
Perhaps the best answer to those critics of the service in Bathurst is to be found in a report from the Moncton Times dated February 23. In part it reads as follows. The headline is "Claims Reports Blown Up-Labour Federation".
The New Brunswick Federation of Labour says the claims crisis at the Bathurst Unemployment Insurance Commission has been blown out of all proportion.
Greg Murphy, the federation's secretary-treasurer, said Tuesday that the Canadian Labour Congress in Ottawa had learned that there were not nearly as many claims outstanding as had been reported by protesters.
Mr. Murphy was commenting on a statement released by federation president Paul LePage which said that information received from meetings in Ottawa "conflicts" with reports they had received from the regional development organization known as CRAN.
The Secretary-treasurer said officers of CRAN had contacted the NBFL complaining about the claims situation and looking for financial aid to support continuing demonstrations at the Bathurst UIC office.
He said the federation refused the financial aid, but decided to have the Canadian Labour Congress in Ottawa investigate.
Mr. Speaker, some members opposite say that they are allies of the Canadian Labour Congress. There may have been a communications problem in parts of the UIC, but there is certainly one between the CLC and certain hon. members opposite. The article continued:
[Mr. Perrault.)
They found, he said, "that there weren't nearly as many claims as CRAN said there were."
"This thing has been built into a bigger thing than it actually is."
Nevertheless, he said, the CLC in co-operation with the NBFL has appointed Bill Craig, a steelworker representative in Saint John to act as a special CLC representative in the Bathurst region.
"All legitimate claims will be channeled through Mr. Craig," he said. The CLC representative would then meet with UIC officials to do what he can to straighten out the matter.
Mr. Murphy said the CLC representative would act on behalf on any person, whether labour oriented or not.
That is a constructive approach on the part of the CLC. In marked contrast to the half-truths and rumours and other kinds of tawdry and tattered reports which have been hauled into this House by certain members, the CLC, Mr. Speaker, acted with a sense of responsibility.
Today another report was brought breathlessly into this House by one of the hon. members opposite. He declared that in excess of 200 claims in New Brunswick were being delayed beyond the number of days mentioned by me earlier this day during the question period. Let me tell the hon. member that if he would get on the telephone he would determine that all these claims have now been fixed up. So, let us check our facts first, whether we are on the government or on the opposition side, before levelling criticisms against this great plan.
I repeat that when a man is unemployed it is dangerous and immoral to traffic in his human misery. And one does traffic in human misery by failing to check ones facts.


David Orlikow: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Raymond J. Perrault: If the object of the Bathurst demonstrators was to draw to the attention of the UIC and the government certain problems that were confronting one segment of the population, then they have made their point. The service at Bathurst has been measurably improved, and I would be pleased to enumerate these improvements for hon. members.
One can well understand the sense of frustration at high unemployment levels. Indeed, efforts are underway at both federal and other levels of government to increase employment and to stimulate industrial development. If I were unemployed and were living in New Brunswick, I, too, might participate in jobless parades. Indeed, I suggest any hon. member might. But I say that in choosing the Unemployment Insurance Commission as their target, I believe that as of today these Bathurst demonstrators are misguided. Their point has been made. Further demonstrations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Raymond J. Perrault: May I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but it being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
February 25, 1972
Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in the debate, one can understand the sense of frustration in Bathurst arising from high unemployment. Efforts are proceeding at the federal level and at other levels of government to increase employment and to stimulate industrial development. But the point has been made. Further demonstrations are self-defeating. Indeed, such demonstrations do a positive disservice to those who have a right to unemployment insurance benefits. The disruption of procedural routine in the UI office in Bathurst can only mean hardship for those who are out of work.
In recent days a number of demands have been made that the question of unemployment insurance be brought before the appropriate standing committee of the House of Commons. I would remind hon. members of the words of the minister on February 15, when he said:
I am well aware that delays which did occur in December and January and which we have now corrected have been of considerable concern to Members of Parliament. As soon as parliament reconvenes I would welcome an invitation from the chairman of the House committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration to take the initiative to have the situation reviewed by his committee. It may be that a great deal of the concern which has surrounded the situation stems from an incomplete understanding of what the claiming of unemployment insurance entails. Purely as a suggestion, therefore, I believe it would be most important that the committee should take the time to visit and study the operations of the Commission within its offices. We shall spare no effort to make sure that Members of Parliament have every opportunity to examine the operation of the claims process and to make any recommendations they see fit.
The minister has asked me to reiterate his desire to have this matter brought before the appropriate standing committee, not in order that there may be a partisan political debate but in order to determine how we can make the world's best unemployment insurance program work at its most satisfactory level of efficiency.
As hon. members know, before this matter can be considered by a standing committee the House must debate the question and must refer the matter to Committee. However, I am encouraged to learn that the standing committee will be meeting next week. Hopefully, early committee meetings will be held to discuss the question of unemployment insurance. The matter under discussion next week is, I believe, the committee's organization and procedure. Hopefully, meetings to discuss unemployment insurance will take place after the House has taken appropriate procedural action.
In recent days the suggestion has gone forth that there should be more offices established, more telephone lines, more staff and more computers. Let me give you some figures. Prior to implementation of the new act there were 65 full time offices and 67 localities where services were provided on a part-time basis of one to three days per week. There are now 119 full-time offices and 85 localities where service is provided on an itinerant basis of one to three days per week. Furthermore, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) has made quite clear that the close to 400 offices of his department will assist in every way possible in dispensing co-ordinated services with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. This process of integration is well advanced. Today, in at least 43 localities across Canada UIC offices are located in
Speech from the Throne
the same buildings as Canada Manpower Centres. While the UIC works with Members of Parliament, unions, companies, welfare groups and other organizations, the doors, the telephones and the mails of the UIC are open to all and the capacity to meet the public by all these means has been multiplied many times in the past few years.
Unlike other organizations, including most welfare agencies, which operate only on a scheduled interview basis, the UIC meets people and answers their inquiries as they come. There are approximately 1500 employees alone whose task is to answer inquiries. Last year 8 million inquiries were handled. This year, the annual rate will be about 12 million. Special attention is not accorded to Members of Parliament or the unions or the social agencies-


An hon. Member:: What about the special phones.


Raymond J. Perrault: -but to the claimants because these officers are appointed to serve people regardless of political stripe. In fact many MPs and many elected members at other levels have gone out of their way to seek out problems and it is their right to do so as representatives of the people. In this regard, the minister wants to thank the many Members of Parliament of all parties who have written to him and to the UIC thanking them for their help. The commission, as an agency dealing directly with a large public, deals with more than 6 million employees, more than 400,000 employers and more than 1.5 million individual claimants in a year. The commission has always tried to co-operate with the people's representatives as a matter of policy and service.
In summary, lest we all become confused by the great welter of statistics which has been showered down on us in recent months, I should like to outline to hon. members just what would happen to, say 100 claims filed with the Unemployment Insurance Commission today. First of all, all 100 would receive a notification of the status of their claim within two weeks. Eighty-eight would be told that their claim is in order and they would receive a cheque within a week or 10 days. Ten would be notified that payment of their claim would be postponed or disallowed for any number of reasons including participation in a labour dispute, vacation pay, severance pay, non-availability, voluntary quits, and so on. Two of these 100 would be told their claim cannot be processed for payment unless missing information is supplied or explanations are provided as to discrepancies in information supplied by claimants and their employers.
In any event, the Unemployment Insurance Commission paid out $102 million last December as compared with $60 million in December 1970, and $130 million this January as compared to $85 million last January. In both months the rate of unemployment was more this year than last. This would indicate to me that not only is someone getting paid but that the welfare savings in respect of unemployed unemployables must be substantial, totally apart from the job-creating impact of these dollars.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but the time allotted to him has expired, unless he has the unanimous consent of the House to continue. Does the House give its consent?

February 25, 1972
Speech from the Throne


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Five minutes.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of the House for their courtesy. As I was saying, this "payout" indicates to me that not only is someone getting paid but that the welfare savings in respect of the unemployed must be substantial, totally apart from the job-creating impact this kind of money means for the economy. It is estimated, for example, that in the year 1972 welfare services across Canada will be saved $80 million as a result of this new Unemployment Insurance plan with its lower eligibility. It is no wonder that the Toronto welfare administration stated the other day that substantial savings are being realized in the greater Toronto area as a result of the new Unemployment Insurance plan.
Whenever particular cases are brought to our attention or to the attention of the commission they are investigated immediately and corrective action is taken if necessary. But again let me emphasize that in most cases many delays have been found to be outside the control of the commission staff itself.
There has been a great deal of misguided criticism of the computer system which the commission has been using for the past three years. It is hoped that further sophisticated computer technology will assist the commission to provide even more efficient computer service across this country. It is always easy to try to find a single cause of blame such as the computer. The fact is that the introduction of the computer has enabled the commission to introduce procedures which speed up the processing of claims and avoid inconveniences and difficulties for the vast majority of people. I am sure no one would want to return to the humiliating days when people had to line up every week at the unemployment insurance office in order to collect their benefits.
It must be made abundantly clear that unemployment insurance is not welfare. It is an entitlement and the claimant must prove his entitlement by meeting all the conditions of the law and by providing all the information required to make a proper decision. There will always be conditions which postpone the payment of benefits because these conditions have not been met. People must be available, capable and searching for work and they must not be the cause of their own unemployment. The law is very clear on these points and postponement of benefits due to these reasons should not be viewed as delays.
Again, it should be said that the minister has indicated that he wants these and other matters to be discussed before the committee when the committee chooses to invite him to one of its meetings. I am convinced that a great deal of concern which has surrounded this situation results from an incomplete understanding of what the payment of unemployment insurance benefits is all about. I would suggest it would be useful for the committee to take the time to visit and study the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Commission within its offices.
We are aware of the fact as well that there is some difficulty in respect of vacation pay, holiday pay and associated matters. These questions are now under detailed review by the minister and by the department.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
Meetings have been held with representatives of the trade unions and submissions have been received from these and other groups in respect of these aspects. Hopefully the questions of holiday pay and severence pay may be clarified in the near future.
There is clear evidence that the publicity given by the media in recent weeks is having some beneficial impact because we are finding that claimants and employers are being more careful in submitting the proper information whenever a claim is filed. I suggest that once the public at large has become more familiar with the requirements of the program fewer delays will occur. I invite any member of the House to bring to our attention any case in which they feel there has been undue delay and I undertake to ensure that every situation will be looked into promptly. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the Canadian Unemployment Insurance program, in our view, is one of the best in the world and I am confident that most of the major questions in the program will have been resolved in the very near future.
Let us all endeavour, without partisan disputation to make certain that this program works as effectively as possible. This is in the interest of all Canadians because unemployment does not exempt anyone because of his politics, religion or ethnic background. It is a personal disaster for that person. He must be provided with income support during that time when he is without funds and we must make sure that this plan works. The hon. members on both sides who have been very helpful in an effort to make unemployment insurance work better have the thanks of the department, the government the minister and, undoubtedly, the Canadian people.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a certain amount of nostalgia that I rise to speak in this Throne Speech debate on February 25, 1972 since, as a great many of you know, I have more or less burned my bridges behind me. A new, young, bright candidate who is to run under the banner of the Conservative party in my riding has been nominated. So I say with a feeling of nostalgia that this may be the last Throne Speech debate in which I will have a chance to participate.
While I am on that matter, I would like to say that I appreciate the camaraderie which has existed in this chamber throughout the years. The friendships, the associations and the goodwill have always been part of the feeling that I have had for this chamber and this has been accentuated by my associations with my colleagues on both sides of the House.
When I say "Thank you" I would like to say that I bear the same feeling toward all those who have occupied the Chair in which you are sitting today, Mr. Speaker, all the members of the staff who sit at the table and all the people who have made this organization work from day to day. It has been a tremendous experience for me. My days are numbered by what we call destiny or by the Lord, but my days in the House of Commons are numbered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of Canada. It is as simple as that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 25, 1972


William Marvin Howe: On the occasion of the nomination meeting in my riding I was much impressed by the fact that seven outstanding Canadians presented their names for the opportunity to represent our party in that part of the world. It was also gratifying to note the tremendous interest that was created at that meeting. We had the biggest meeting that I have ever seen, probably because I was leaving and getting out of the picture. At any rate, over 900 people attended that meeting in my own village that night. It gave me a tremendous feeling of satisfaction that through the interest that was created at that meeting I was assured that the young individual who had been chosen that night was going to come to the House and sit on the same side of the House as the Conservative party. I feel that the reason the interest was created was probably that the people are beginning to realize that our leader, the Hon. Robert Stanfield, is an honest, sincere man and a great organizer who will be given the opportunity to lead this country after the next election campaign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Marvin Howe: Having said that, I would like to join all those who, as is customary in the Speech from the Throne debate, have congratulated the mover and seconder who brought honour to themselves and to their particular areas by being chosen for this duty. Probably the one whom I know best is the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), and I would like to say a word about the things he said in the House that day. As I remember the comments that were made about him when he was a member of the Ontario legislature, he was at that time considered to be one of the most quiet and sedate people. He spent a great deal of time criticizing the government of Ontario. I have watched him in the House and I have noticed that it is a little hard for him to sit quietly on the government benches when he feels that things are being done with which he does not entirely agree. However, the peons of praise that he heaped on the Trudeau government would appear to have all the earmarks of the preacher preaching for a call. Someone started the rumour that he may be slated for the Senate one of these days. No doubt he is one of those members who make cabinet ministers wince at caucus meetings, so probably they will be glad to get him out of the chamber and into the Senate where he might be a little quieter.
Having spent a great deal of time in my riding, which adjoins that of the hon. member for Bruce, I have the suspicion that the great flood of oratory he released upon this chamber was engendered by the criticism of the government which was heaped upon his head during the Christmas recess. If he took the course which I did of speaking to individuals and groups, he must have found it appalling that a government which had just three and a half years ago risen to such peaks of national popularity by the use of such catch phrases and charisma as the just society and participatory democracy should have engendered the oft repeated phrase which I heard during the recess, namely that Trudeau must go. I was flooded with this during the recess. One wonders how this could have happened in such a short time. Probably the Chamber of Commerce summed it up best in their brief to the government on January 31 of this year when they said the following:
Speech from the Throne
As a matter of fact, Mr. Prime Minister, during the year 1971 the chamber had over 125 substantive contacts with you, members of your cabinet and their officials, and Senate and House of Commons committees, including representations on most of the major legislative issues facing parliament last year. Despite this, I think it would be fair to say that, at the present time, there is a certain feeling of confusion and frustration on the business side with respect to business-government relations. There is a feeling among businessmen that even if they are being listened to, their views are not being understood by some government policy makers. There is a feeling that they are not getting through to those in government responsible for decision-making. There is a feeling of impatience among businessmen that their attempts to develop strong, growing enterprises are not appreciated, or sympathized with, by some responsible government representatives.
This brief was presented on January 31 of this year. Just the other day someone asked the Prime Minister in the House what the government had done to allay the confusion among the business world which started last fall. We all remember the group of businessmen who came to Ottawa in late November or early December, about the time we were discussing the tax bill. We all remember, too, how they went away shaking their heads because they were not any more knowledgeable about the tax bill when they went away than when they had come. They were disturbed and confused by the number of regulations and controls that had been presented to them. As I said, the other day the Prime Minister said that all these problems were solved by the budget in October and by the fact that the government had stabilized the dollar. He said that there is no more confusion in the business world, that it had all been straightened out. This is not true because this brief was presented on January 31 and the budget was brought down in October.
I should like to make one final quotation from this brief which substantiates what I have been saying. It refers to the tax reform and reads:
We would like to stress that, in the final result, the actual process involved in the development of the tax reform legislation created a very high degree of uncertainty and confusion among persons who must make decisions having a direct bearing on the forward thrust of the Canadian economy.
The words "confusion" and "uncertainty" are reiterated time and time again. This feeling does not only occur among businessmen. It also occurs throughout every segment of our economy. The fact is that this confusion and frustration were not only felt by the members of the business community but by the thousands of unemployed, thousands of old age citizens who find their life savings melting away under the onslaughts of our uncontrolled inflation, and by the small businessmen and farmers who could not comprehend the complexity of the capital gains tax and its effect on their personal holdings.
Is there any wonder, when one looks at this mess, that the chorus was unanimous from all quarters in my own riding that Trudeau must go? It is easily seen that the government appreciates that its stock has dropped to a very low ebb. Today one hon. member put a question to the minister in charge of Information Canada. He asked why the department was spending an extra $52 million, or some such figure, on government information services. We know that the government is disturbed about what people are thinking because everyone is being flooded with these pamphlets, such as this one entitled "Highlights for Individuals-Tax Reform and You", and "Rental

February 25, 1972
Speech from the Throne
Income and Undeveloped Land-Tax Reform and You", and "Goodwill and Similar Assets-Tax Re'form and You", and "Valuation Day-Tax Reform and You". And so it goes, Mr. Speaker. Floods of information and material come out of government offices trying to explain to the people of Canada what all this legislation means to them. But they cannot understand it; they do not know what to do and so are confused and disturbed. They feel that we must have a change.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration spoke about the situation at Bathurst, and other members have talked about the confusion at unemployment insurance offices. I have here a letter that just came yesterday from a man who has not worked since November 23. When I wrote to the minister about this on January 26 the man had not received a cent of unemployment insurance. It is interesting to note that, according to the letter from the minister's office, all of a sudden on January 24 a computer payment of $486 was made and the next day a manual payment of $437 was made.
Where is this great organization, this great unemployment insurance program that the parliamentary secretary claims is the greatest in the world? When I hear the hon. member for Bruce and the parliamentary secretary talk about programs like the unemployment insurance, the veterans' affairs and the old age pension being the greatest in the world, I wonder what the man in the moon is thinking. We will be up there one of these days. Will they be the greatest program up there, too, or on Mars? I have sat in this House for a number of years, Mr. Speaker, and I know the problems that exist from province to province and region to region. You cannot take the programs that work in other countries and expect them to work here. They talk about our programs being the best in the world but a lot of people, particularly the unemployed under 24 years of age trying to find work with no hope for the future, are not so sure that they are the best.
The Globe and Mail which carried the headline about Bathurst has another headline "35 per cent out of work in building unions-highest rate ever". I was a member of the government that inherited the tremendous unemployment problem in 1957-58. It was not created by the Conservative government but was inherited from an overbearing government that had sat for over 22 years. What did the Conservatives do about it? They brought in the winter works program. Last year in this House it was suggested that in view of the unemployment situation the Prime Minister should initiate a winter works program, but we were told that this was an outmoded approach and would not be used. Then, all of a sudden the Prime Minister saw the light. When he realized that the problem would not just go away, there was a crash program for employment and help to municipalities which was the same as the old winter works program. But the Conservative program had put a lot of carpenters, electricians and service people to work during the winter who had previously been drawing unemployment benefits. They were given jobs to help householders fix their premises. The slogan was "Why wait for Spring-Do it now" and it was successful.
Last fall an organization of people engaged in construction presented a brief to the government pointing out that the cost of a house had increased by approximately $1,000 in the last year and suggesting that removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials would help reduce that increase. Nothing was done about that.
There has been a lot of talk about providing housing for people on middle and low incomes. Even if some of these people could manage to buy a home, they could never manage to get it paid off. Surely, the insurance companies and banks, even the Bank of Canada, could sit down together and find a way of reducing interest rates so that the average individual could afford to buy a house. With interest rates of 9 per cent or, 10 per cent and 15 per cent or 20 per cent on second mortgages, it is pretty difficult for the average individual to manage, even if he can get the down payment together. It means that he will carry a load for the rest of his life. There was nothing in the Speech from the Throne about help in these two areas.
Mr. Speaker, when I first participated, in a Speech from the Throne debate on December 1, 1953, I spoke about the importance of decentralizing industry. In the area I represent there are small communities which have been crying out for industry and assistance from governments for many years. They would like to get a little factory or something to provide employment for young people graduating from high school so that they would not have to leave the area. I have been calling for this for years and on December 1, 1953, I used the following quotation, which appeared at page 530 of the Hansard of that date:
We have heard it said, and we presume that it was meant seriously, that it was the desire of our great leaders to decentralize industry and to build up the smaller communities where the labour situation is easier and the living costs are less.
After the end of World War II, we lived under the threat of atomic warfare but today I think we have a greater challenge, that of pollution and destruction of our natural environment due to the urban sprawl which is causing so many problems. When the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) was in charge of housing he talked about satellite cities as did his successor. One of the reasons I have been so interested in the location of the international airport to be built some place north of Toronto is that I know it to be a slow growth area. Many communities there have lost population over the last 25 years. In a township in my riding there are 67,000 acres and only about 50 active farmers, so it could accommodate the airport. It would create incentive for all the little towns and communities and enable them to grow. I think this is a matter worthy of serious consideration and that is why I presented a motion in the House recently.
I sometimes feel that big decisions involving 50,000 or 100,000 people should not be left to the bureaucrats in the deputy minister's office to make but should be made by all members of the House. I think a committee of this House should look at the sites in question, then sit down with the people of the area to discuss the matter. That way the best interests of the people concerned and the best interests of the country will be maintained. It is the best way to consider the site of an international airport such as the one to which I am referring.

February 25, 1972

I know some will say that if the committee looks at any particular site or parcel of land, some people may assume that the government intends to establish the airport at that site, buy up land in the area and drive up land prices. Nevertheless, there are federal and provincial organizations that can take care of this sort of thing. Of course, if four different sites are looked at, for example, the committee could make its report or recommendation in camera, and that report can be forwarded to the officials of the department. I think that is the way a decision as vital as this ought to be taken. That is why, when I saw an item in the Toronto Star last Monday indicating that Pickering had been chosen as the site for the new international airport, I was disturbed. I knew interest had been displayed in the site. However, on calling the minister's office, I learned that no decision had been made.
Another r^Sson for establishing a committee to look into this matter is that such a committee would stop speculation. As I suggested, the longer this process goes on the greater the number of areas of the province will be considered. People will start buying little bits of land here and there in the hope of making tremendous profits in case any particular piece of land is chosen for the airport.
I have always been interested in seeing that railroads that serve my particular area are maintained. However, four years ago the Canadian Transport Commission autocratically decided to remove all passenger service in my region north and west of Guelph and west of Stratford. This has been a slow growth area, and rail service is important to it. By removing the service, the possibility of growth and increase in the area is removed. When people want to establish a factory in any area, they first ask, "What kind of transportation is there in the area?" I raised this matter in the committee last year. I was sorry that the Air Canada strike made it impossible for the Committee on Transport and Communications to go to western Ontario and look at the situation first hand, because I do not think the decision to remove that train service was a valid one.
The regulations under the National Transportation Act provide that before any passenger train service can be removed there must be evidence of good alternative service. At the meeting in Owen Sound it was thought that the assurance there would be alternative service had been given. However, the bus service is inadequate. The service that is provided for most of the area is inadequate and inefficient, and has not improved transportation facilities in that part of western Ontario. I am concerned especially about elderly people who cannot drive their cars and who must use existing services. There may be a good bus service on the eastern side of the area; I concede that. However, an equal service has not been developed on the western side of this particular area. I feel that the committee in question should be set up as soon as possible to look into this whole matter. If possible, arrangements should be made for it to go to the area to hear the tremendous number of briefs which many people have prepared. So far, these briefs have not been used.
The committee could not make its trip to western Ontario because of the air strike. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that this committee will meet soon and will consider the motion that was passed in the previous session of parliament. I think that a similar motion will be accepted by the
Speech from the Throne
House in the present session, and the committee will be able to go to western Ontario and look at the transport problems of the area. I am referring to the problem relating to passenger transportation. I hope the committee can assure the people of the area that adequate transportation facilities will be set up.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, it has been a pleasure to represent my constituents in the House of Commons. I feel, as I have tried to indicate, that given the situation that has developed in Canada and the trends which are being shown not only in my riding but right across the nation, after the next election the member who will come down in my place, as well as those who are sitting with me on this side of House, will be sitting on the government side, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) will be prime minister of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But not "and Howe"!


Mr. Oza Tetrault (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I must congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. The hon. members from Bruce and Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Wicher and Mr. Lajoie) performed their task well, in view of the difficulty of commending the government while remaining realistic.
In his speech of February 18 last, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) who most evidently sought to defend his government under general attack, attempted to convince us that all is as well as can be in Canada. For instance, he resorted to statistics to show that Canada had created more jobs than seven countries of Europe together, namely France, Germany. Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Great Britain.
Mr. Speaker, it is quite easy to create jobs when hundreds of thousands of workers are unemployed, but when countries enjoy a low unemployment rate and have a shortage of labour, how can industry, or even governments, create jobs?
Mr. Speaker, we did hear the government state that they had found a solution to unemployment through development of new projects such as Opportunities for Youth, the Local Initiatives Program, and Regional Economic Expansion, which can be called the second election fund of the Liberal party, but all these dishonest plans will have cost Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars in order to convince them that an attempt is being made to find solutions to their problems.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You rejected them.


Oza Tétrault: I would ask the minister to repeat what he said as I did not understand.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was asking the hon. member whether those projects were rejected in his constituency, whether he recommended that his constituents refuse to participate in the Opportunities for Youth, Local Initiatives and

February 25, 1972
Speech from the Throne
Regional Development programs for the reason he has just given, that these programs were dishonest.


Oza Tétrault: Mr. Speaker, to reply to the minister, when you can't have what you want, you take what is available.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Even if it is dishonest?


Oza Tétrault: That is just what the Liberal party is doing now. That is not what people want. They want something else, not the loans now being granted. Canadians will have to pay interest on the debts resulting from all those projects. We will never live long enough in Canada to pay off ail those debts, or even the interest on them. That is the reason for my objections to those programs.
According to the National Institute Economic Review, published in March 1971, Canada is the greatest champion of unemployment, as compared with the above-mentioned countries. Western Germany, which was devastated by the World War II, has the lowest unemployment rate

0.7 per cent-whereas Canada's is 5.9 per cent, counting only registered claimants, and perhaps 7 to 8 per cent counting all unemployed persons.
What were the results of the promises made by the Liberal Party in 1968 for a just society?
We can therefore infer that unemployment exists not only among young people, although it is higher for them. Unemployment is increasing among workers of all ages and of both sexes.
A publication by Statistics Canada, dated September 1971 and titled ''Unemployment Data" shows interesting figures on unemployment, besides indicating that since the Liberal Party came into power in 1968, unemployment has kept rising steadily in all sectors of the population, I quote:
BOTH SEXES	1965	1970Age 14-19	65,000	117,000Age 20-24	44,000	107,000Age 25-44	93,000	157,000Age 45-64	70,000	106,000MEN	Age 14-19	43,000	74,000Age 20-24	33,000	80,000Age 25-44	78,000	125,000Age 45-64	61,000	87,000WOMEN	Age 14-19	22,000	42,000Age 20-24	11,000	27,000Age 25-44	15,000	32,000Age 45-64	8,000	19,000
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tries very hard, the ministers distribute gifts right and left to create thousands of useless and non-productive jobs; still, unemployment keeps going up in Canada. Amongst the young of 14 to 24, as well as amongst the workers of 25 or more, the rate of unemployment has grown increasingly in Canada since 1968, when the Liberal government came to power.
Mr. Speaker, recently I received a card-which my colleagues doubtless received as well-sent by Le Cheminot canadien and asking that pressures be made upon the government to obtain full employment. Here is what the card said:
An act on full employment guaranteeing all Canadians who are able and willing to work a job suited to their competence and skills and paying a decent wage.
Mr. Speaker, as my leader said recently, instead of calling for guaranteed full employment for all Canadians, that card should have called for a guaranteed salary for each and every Canadian, which is what Social Credit advocates.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals seem to find that funny; however, we shall certainly have to change our system. There is talk of providing full employment, but if there is no work now, it is because we have too many products in Canada. Even if Canada has 600,000 jobless, production is abundant. Stores are full of goods. In Ottawa or Hull, in my own region, Lac Saint-Jean, everywhere, stores are filled to capacity, and they say: We musLprovide jobs. How can this be achieved when there is*a surplus of products? There is the problem. That is why the Credi-tistes are calling for a guaranteed income for everybody. We must increase the purchasing power, so that people may purchase already existing products. Then, manufacturers will increase their production and everybody will be happy. This is what this government must consider.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The situation is quite the opposite. Inventories are lower than ever and this is why imports have increased.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor and should not be interrupted.


Oza Tétrault: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister will probably have a chance to explain himself later on.
I went to my constituency of Chibougamau where 450 miners have been on strike since December 18, 1971.1 met a sizeable group of strikers and they asked me if the provincial and federal governments could not help them. I have done my utmost to get something for those strikers, but to no avail. They are getting $20 a week plus $2 per child to live in Chibougamau. Thus a family of five is getting $30 a week. Of course neither the provincial nor the federal government is to blame for those people being on strike. However, if a dog is not allowed to starve neither should we allow our citizens to starve. Yesterday I received a petition asking me to do something. Those people are in a bad spot. My leader, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), stated in one of his speeches that Canada should ban all strikes and that they should be settled by a council comprising union representatives, government officials and company executives.
This morning, I was listening to one of my colleagues who quoted the following statement by Mr. George Meany:
Strikes today just don't make sense.
That is a man who controls 16 million workers in the AFL-CIO.
Mr. Speaker, it is something quite new for a labour leader to make such a statement. However, I find it very logical, because in the province of Quebec itself, that is in Montreal, a traffic problem exists. People's lives are in danger, just because a strike has not been settled.
(Mr. Pepin.]
February 25, 1972

Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech dealt with our international relations. I wonder what purpose such relations have served, if not to give rise to a large number of interest-free loans, not to say gifts to some countries. Yet, our country should, through the Bank of Canada, grant some credit based on national values and the initiatives of Canadians. My colleagues and I have often said this but, apparently, the hon. members opposite do not want to hear!
On October 21, 1971, an opposition day allotted to my party, my colleague the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) moved a motion, that I myself seconded, for the payment of the old age security pension at age 60, as well as to the wife of a retired person, whatever her age.
I stated on that occasion that in my riding I had come across many cases where married older citizens received only $135 a month because their wives did not have the age required to get a pension. This situation continues to be a daily occurrence. As recently as yesterday I received a letter about a similar case. What can you tell those poor people except that their situation is due to a government without understanding or concern. It is not an act of charity for the government to give our older people a reasonnable pension.
Mr. Speaker, what I am saying might sound rather pessimistic but, realistic as I am, I can only see this situation as being very gloomy.
This is where the Trudeaumania that prevailed in the 1968 election has brought us but this swollen prestige will surely be deflated in the next election. I am very cheerful when I think that for the first time in 100 years we will no longer have puppets to head Canada's government.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke a while ago about our national debt. I have here a newspaper clipping giving rather interesting figures on the subject of our debt. This article goes back to 1970.	.
Canada after 100 years of confederation had a public debt of over $38 billion in October 1970-
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, there are not many people who know how long it would take to count a billion in one dollar bills. A person could start at the age of 18 and would still be counting at the age of 75. Here is the rest of it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Why do that?


Oza Tétrault: -while the debt of the province of Quebec alone, including municipal, school and hospital debts, was then over $10 billion. In view of public debts so considerable one can wonder how long the citizens will be able to take it.
Mr. Speaker, it gave me great pleasure to say a few words and I hope hon. members will take those remarks in consideration.


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply. They are a credit to the House, to their ridings and to their party.
I intend today to give an account of the measures taken by the government, since 1965, to do away with regional disparity in Canada.
Speech from the Throne
When the expenditures of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion were under consideration on March 29, 1971, the minister (Mr. Jean Marchand) stated, and I quote:
When the department was established, I admitted that it would face considerable difficulties. A complete re-organization of what had been the basis of the Canadian economy for a century was required. I figured at the time that fifteen years would be required to effect such changes and to give them a solid foundation. We have, for a long time, been aware of the considerable unequality which exists between the people of the various regions of the country.
However to do away with that, and to establish sound conditions which would ensure the progress of the whole of the Canadian people is not a task that can be done quickly. To say that one or two years are enough would not serve the interest of the Canadian people. To attain our objectives, we must consider our long-term economic potential and envisage social changes in a long-range perspective. Considering, however, the extent of the task, it is of the utmost importance that we act as rapidly as possible and in the most realistic manner possible. As a matter of fact, it is only in this way that we can ensure the development of our country and, in truth, its survival.
Mr. Speaker, I have quoted this statement in order to inform the House of the objectives of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
I am not trying to overstate the economic progress made in the Gaspe riding, and I urge the government to pursue its efforts.
I want to assure Canadians from prosperous areas that funds allocated by the government to regional development of the Gaspe peninsula and eastern Quebec have had good results, and I can show that there has been a real start upward in the area which I represent in this House.
In spite of a certain slowdown in the North American economy, the economic development of the Gaspe peninsula has progressed considerably, If the economic situation had continued in Canada after centennial year things would have been very different in eastern Quebec, particularly in connection with implementation of regional development programs. Even so, the unemployment rate is no higher in 1972 than it was back in 1963 when the Progressive Conservatives were in power.
The Gaspe area is recovering from a long illness, and the remedies provided by legislation concerning economic incentives, and especially by the new Department of Regional Economic Expansion, have contributed a great deal to its development.
The reforms proposed in order to reduce administrative costs at all levels of government have been accepted, and the population now recognizes the value of grouping services in centres and subcentres defined on the basis of economic or geographical considerations.
In the Gaspe Peninsula, and more specifically in my riding, six hamlets were closed down and most of the 225 families involved as well as the 220 households which were relocated as a result of the expropriations for Foril-lon park were moved to the designated service centres. The contribution of the government of Canada toward the purchase of the lands, the relocation grants and the housing subsidies to the families that lived in the hamlets and Forillon park now amount to over $10 million.
In conjunction with the development of the service centres, two hospitals were built thanks to a federal contribu-

February 25, 1972
Speech from the Throne
tion of $1.5 million, and three composite high schools, thanks to another federal contribution of $2,138,000. Grants totalling $1.5 million were made for the construction of low rental housing units in the designated centres to enable the relocalization of those same people. Millions of dollars in grants also went toward the construction of water and sewage systems in the designated centres.
The Department of Public Works and FRED also granted over $8 million for the construction of fishing wharves and harbours.
With regard to the construction of the Gaspe airport, which cost $878,000, the government has just granted the town of Gaspe a subsidy of $210,000 for the construction of an air terminal, this through the winter works program of the Department of Transport. With regard to the highway system, since 1964 Ottawa has granted a subsidy of $13 million for repairs to Highway 6 located partly in the riding of Gaspe and partly in that of Matane. In addition, a $2 million subsidy was earmarked for building access roads to natural resources, which resulted in 1969 in the setting up of a new mining industry near Sainte-Anne-des Monts, by the McIntyre mining interests which invested $14 million in that new plant. That new plant now provides employment for 200 workers with a total annual salary of $1.6 million.
The production of Mines Madeleine Limitee during the first year of operation was about 20 million pounds of copper and 200,000 ounces of silver. Refined metal at this new plant accounts for a yearly gross value of $11.7 million. The Mines Madeleine Limitee contributed-greatly to the economic and social recovery of the northern part of the Gaspe peninsula and I advise the directors of the McIntyre Mines Group to keep on with their prospection, in order to find other resources in the Gaspe subsoil.
With the help of subsidies from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the collaboration from the province of Quebec, Noranda Mines Limited undertook last year improvements of $110 million in its Gaspe Copper Mines Plants. It is estimated that the number of new permanent jobs that will be created in Murdochville, once the program is implemented, will increase by 280. The work should be completed by the end of 1973. The Gaspe inhabitants are grateful to the Noranda Mines Limited group who chose Murdochville as the site of those new plants and I hope that the eventual establishment of a copper refining plant in the Gaspe area is still being considered.
The Gaspesia Pulp and Paper Ltd Company, in Chandler, put in in 1968 a second newsprint machine, following a contribution from the federal government and economic incentives of about $2.7 million.
Mr. Speaker, the pulp and paper industry has already contributed very much to the economic activity in the povince of Quebec, but in the last few years-and everyone agrees-the pulp and paper producers have had a hard time because of stronger competition. Our costs are no longer competitive and some of our plants are no longer profitable.
In Gaspe, the Gaspesia Pulp and Paper Company Limited, from 1960 to 1971, invested $3.27 million for lumber operations, in order to improve its system, and $40.6 million in its Chandler plant, for the purchase of two news-

print machines, as well as for other capital outlays and also major repairs to its equipment, all this in order to produce newsprint instead of commercial pulp. The joint owners of the company, the New York Times, purchase 60 per cent of its annual production.
If some economists or politicians criticize the pulp and paper companies, holding them partly responsible for the present situation as a result of their lack of planning, such charges indeed do not apply to the directors of the Gaspesia Pulp and Paper Company Limited, in Chandler, since that company has streamlined its operation and its production in order to make its plant one of the best organized in the province. And I believe that those who achieved it should be commended.
Still under the same topic, that of regional development, I must say that two sawmills are presently under construction, one in Grande-Vallee and the other in Marsoui. The establishment of those two sawmills in my constituency would have been impossible without grants of about $956,000 from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
As concerns fisheries, the federal government contributed $2 million in 1967 for the organization of the fishing complex in Riviere-au-Renard, one of the most modern in eastern Canada.
For a fish-hatchery which is being built at Anse-Pleureuse, a $578,750 grant covering 75 per cent of its capital cost was allowed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under FRED.
Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne reference is made to a policy designed to promote the tourist industry in this country, as well as the expansion of our network of national parks, and the assurance that vast areas of Canada will be preserved in their natural state for the enjoyment of this and future generations.
In Gaspe, we started off several years ago. We already have our Forillon National Park, tourist areas at Perce, Carleton and Mont-Saint-Pierre, thanks to the co-operation of the federal government. And I am deeply grateful to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) as well for those developments.
Under FRED, $2 million have been granted to the province to share in the development of the tourist areas in my constituency, that is Mont-Saint-Pierre and Perce, in addition to a sum of $350,000 affected by the federal Department of Environment for the construction of a wildlife interpretation centre in Perce, the second one in Canada, and work will be undertaken on March 1.
The Gaspe peninsula will undergo considerable economic development, thanks to the creation of the Forillon national park. It is expected indeed that the number of tourists in the Gaspe peninsula, which has levelled at 225,000 persons these past few years, will have tripled in 1976 to reach 700,000 visitors. As a result, there will be an annual cash input of some $42 million. The work in that park began in 1969 and in five or seven years, over $10 million will have been invested.
Mr. Speaker, that co-operation of the federal government since 1965 must not come to an end. Indeed, it must continue, and my statement confirms what His Excellency
February 25, 1972

the Governor General said on February 17, 1972 in the Speech from the Throne and I quote:
-the government has worked to strengthen and promote the economies of the less developed regions of Canada.
I must congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet.
Without the financial assistance of the federal government to regional development and the excellent co-operation of Quebec, all these achievements and several others still would have been nothing but a dream.
He who cannot recognize that there is in Gaspe a new start, thanks to the efforts of both governments, is blind. We shall always have some frustrated people, some malcontents, even if we pay them a trip to the moon, because they cannot adjust to change.
To end this retrospective, I wish to pay a tribute to the people of Gaspe and, in particular, to the municipal administrations, Chambers of Commerce and citizens' committees for their co-operation in these social and economic changes which have occurred in my riding. They all worked together in harmony and always suggested concrete and realistic solutions. Everything went on in a peaceful instead of a fighting mood.
Gaspesians are grateful to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and to all federal and provincial public servants for the interest they show for this tremendous development in our area.
Mr. Speaker, on another occasion I will have the opportunity to draw to your attention the concern showed by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Davis) for the development of our fisheries and the conservation of our marine resources.
I would now like to inform the House and Canadians of the recent Canada-Quebec agreement for the economic and social development of Eastern Quebec.
In October 1971, after the Canada-Quebec agreement had been signed, two British Columbia ministers, that is the Hon. Dan Campbell, Minister of Municipal Affairs, and the Hon. Ray. Williston, Minister of Lands and Forests, sent a letter to the mayors of Vancouver Island, suggesting that Ottawa was spending an additional $400 million in the Gaspe, and criticizing the federal regional development policy in doing so.
In that circular letter to the mayors of that area, Mr. Campbell says, and I quote:
As you will remember, in part the case was made on the basis of activities carried on by this particular federal department in other areas of Canada and the case was made that British Columbia certainly deserved equal treatment. I now have on hand another example which makes the present federal policy equally discriminatory. Indeed, when one considers that this most recent program is over and above any equalization payments or special deals the fact that discrimination exists becomes overwhelmingly clear.
In addition, in terms of the area involved with this particular program, a strong case can be made that this recent agreement is another example of the mismanagement of capital on a colossal scale. If one examines a $400,000,000 expenditure over 5 years assigned to an area which has a population of 220,000 one cannot help but express amazement that such an expenditure could be contemplated.
Speech from the Throne

In his letter of October 5, 1971 to Mr. H. A. Moffat, mayor of Prince George, Mr. Williston said, and I quote:

Within the last couple of weeks a new program of assistance has been announced for the Gaspe region of Quebec. This marks a second attempt when a first program became bogged down after the spending of something more than one hundred million dollars on the paperwork without a development involving any physical accomplishment. The new five-year program commits the expenditure of four hundred eleven million dollars. The population to receive such assistance numbers about 240,000 people.
It is not my purpose to show that assistance should not be extended to the people in this section of Quebec. However, I do think that if there is this type of money available for help that the presentations made by both the province and the municipalities from British Columbia are worthy of some type of positive response. I am sure that if we do not protest the lack of fair treatment for our own people that we can be accused of poor representation on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, referring to this Canada-Quebec agreement, I should note that it is not exclusively for the benefit of the Gaspe Peninsula, but also for the benefit of eastern Quebec and Magdalene Islands. The financial contribution of the government of Canada to this agreement is of assistance to our region but not to the prejudice of other provinces.
As I pointed out, this agreement does not affect only the Gaspe Peninsula but covers a territory of 17,000 square miles with a population of 335,000 and comprises ten provincial constituencies and six federal ridings.
It should be noted that the combined area of Vancouver Island and Prince Edward Island-12,000 and 2,000 square miles, respectively-is smaller than that of the eastern Quebec territory covered by the agreement. Let us now see what the overall objective of this agreement is.
The main industries in the region are forestry, mines, fisheries, tourism and agriculture. The major objective in these fields of activity is to raise the income of the people and to increase productivity in primary industries, which are the regional economic mainstay, through a training programme for adult manpower.
Let us examine these programs at length: That agreement provides for the integration and co-ordination of routine activities within various federal and provincial departments. This explains the inclusion, in whole or in part, of the regular budgets of several departments in this $411 million vote to which the province of Quebec is contributing $113,588,000.
The agreement provides for planned assistance to industrial development, urban infrastructures and transportation, but all in terms of each department's regular programs, in addition to a supplement of $153 million from the department of Regional Economic Expansion for a period of five years, thus representing a yearly contribution of $36 millions in new votes or $108 a year per capita.
The first agreement was signed in May 1968 for a five-year period and for an amount of $258,790,000, including federal and provincial contributions.
286

February 25, 1972
Speech from the Throne
On March 31, 1971, only $71 million had been spent. This is why a new "agreement" was negotiated and signed on September 10, 1971.
As we can see most of the programs under this agreement are the same as those which profit the people of British Columbia in the regular estimates, and I would like to quote a few:
1 Department of Agriculture:
(a)	farm consolidation
(b)	research
(c)	production development, etc.	$1.6 million
2.	Department of Fisheries:
Premium for building fishing boats	$4.2 million
3.	Department of Indians Affairs and Northern Development:
(a)	Forillon National Park
(b)	Historical sites and monuments	$8.6 million
4.	Central mortgage and housing corporations:
(a)	assistance to housing
(b)	urban development	$2.51 million
5.	Department of public works:
(a)	warves
(b)	harbours
(c)	airports
(d)	ferryboats	$25,875,000
6.	Department of Manpower and Immigration:
(a)	to facilitate adaptation to changes inherent to modernisation of factories
(b)	adult occupational training
(c)	mobility of Manpower	$91,750,000
The agreement calls for the spending of $7 million in 5 year for the development of the first national park in the province of Quebec in 105 years and I suggest that this amount is not excessive. How much have British Columbia and the western provinces received from the federal government for parks and historical sites in 105 years?
According to a report supplied to me by the Department of Indian Affairs, British Columbia has three national parks. In capital investment to operate those parks, the National Parks Branch has spent $14,620,763 from 1961 to 1971, and the maintenance expenses amounted to $11,659,000 from 1966 to 1971.
In the province of Quebec, we are proceeding with the first national park at Forillon, and in British Columbia, they are proceeding at this time with the fourth national park, which will be named the Pacific Rim Park. If there is discrimination as far as parks are concerned, it is surely not in British Columbia.
As to fisheries, the agreement provides, as I said earlier, for $4,200,000 to be earmarked for the building of fishing boats, out of the program which calls for a grant of 35 per cent from this government.
Considering that British Columbia has the biggest fishing fleet in Canada, the fishermen of that province will

certainly receive greater subsidies than those of Quebec under that program.
This shows, Mr. Speaker, that all the regular programs of federal departments are included in that "Canada-Que-bec Agreement".
It is obvious from the table which I have quoted that the people of the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspe peninsula and Iles-de-la-Madeleine-and I see the hon. member from Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) is here- are no more favoured than those of other depressed areas in the country, such as Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
The statements made by the ministers of the British Columbia government on the "Canada-Quebec Agreement", as well as the recent attacks of the Attorney General of that province, the Hon. Leslie Patterson, who tries to question the constitutionality of equalization payments made to certain provinces, demonstrate the mentality of some politicians who seem to favor the creation of two classes of Canadians, by approving of poverty for some and accumulating wealth for others.
It is difficult to understand how ministers in a province like British Columbia can possibly send such mistaken letters to city councils. Had they only gone to the trouble of first asking for information from their devoted representatives, ministers or even backbenchers of the government party who come from that province, they would have obtained it and would thus have avoided another quarrel between eastern and western Canada. If this is the policy of the British Columbia Social Credit party, it is lamentable.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne states that the government is concerned about the fact that several communities are presently deprived of national broadcasting services and that about a million Canadians in some 260 localities have no television broadcasting service in their own language. The Government proposes, therefore, that the C.B.C. be authorized to extend its services in a comprehensive fashion and to utilize the capabilities of Canada's pioneer satellite communications system to assure within a five year period that at least 98 percent of Canadians are served.
I wish to congratulate the government for this initiative as a large percentage of the people in my riding do not have access to television programs.
Television has been in Canada for the past 20 years and it is a sad thing to realize that in certain areas, some families in order to get service in the first place have to buy from a group a $100 share in the cable television and afterwards they have to pay a monthly charge of up to $8.
On several occasions, I have met the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission directors. Last year the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) came to Gaspe to assess the situation. I am happy to see that the CRTC maintains its priority requirements for distant places such as the Gaspe peninsula.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is expired. With the unanimous consent of the House, he could continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Agreed.
February 25, 1972


Alexandre Cyr: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is the only one capable of remedying the situation. Therefore, this House should approve .the necessary estimates in order that the CBC may extend its services to the Gaspe Peninsula and other, areas which do not have television in their own tongue.
Today, Mr. Speaker, television is no longer a luxury but a necessity for the social, educational and cultural development of the individual.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech made yesterday by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), his first speech in the House since he was dragooned into accepting that post. As I listened, I could not help but feel sorry for the minister. Here he is, young, handsome and wealthy, a completely bilingual Member of Parliament who wants-and I cannot blame him-to be prime minister of Canada when that post becomes open. When he yvas minister of justice he was able to change the bail procedures and propose legislation to outlaw wiretapping, issues which are certainly important to people like myself who believe in civil liberties but which are not the tremendous concern of the bulk of the Canadian people. These issues permitted him to project the image of being progressive and small "1" liberal.
Now, unfortunately for the Minister of Finance, he has been asked to take on a position which requires him to give the lead, to give the direction in which our economy will move in the next couple of years. The voice we heard yesterday was the voice of the Minister of Finance, just as the voice we heard in the past three or four years was the voice of the former minister of finance, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Benson); but the words and thoughts expressed both in the speech yesterday and in the speeches of the former minister were the words and thoughts of the deputy minister of finance.
Over the years in which the former minister of finance held that position he made innumerable predictions, to which I will come back in a few moments, about how we were on the threshold of improving conditions so that unemployment would be reduced and the needs of the people met. Those predictions proved to be as false as the explanations of the minister were lengthy.
As I listened to the Minister of Finance speaking yesterday I found in his speech not a single new idea. There were some new words, and some new concerns were expressed which were good to hear, but there was not a single indication that the policies of the government have changed. So while the speech yesterday did not sound bad, and the speech in March will not sound bad, when we get to September, October, November and December of 1972 and the unemployment rates will not be much better than they are at present, the credibility of the Minister of Finance will disappear in the same way as the credibility of the former minister disappeared. When that happens, I am afraid that the opportunity of this Minister of Finance to become prime minister of Canada at some time in the future will disappear just as the snow in Ottawa and Winnipeg will disappear in the next couple of weeks or months.
Speech from, the Throne
Let me quote a couple of paragraphs from the speech made yesterday by the Minister of Finance. He said:
Despite substantial progress in developing policies and mechanisms for guiding the economy, it still remains difficult to determine with precision the state of the economy and its direction at any given time. It follows that there are always difficulties in determining what levers should be pulled, with what force, and at what exact time, in order to bring about a correction in the course of the economy.
I submit that the economic advisers of this government, the deputy minister of finance, the governor of the Bank of Canada, the chairman of the unlamented Prices and Incomes Commission, and the secretary of the Treasury Board knew what was going to happen in the last couple of years. They knew what was going to happen in the last couple of years, Mr. Speaker, because they had the same information as other economists across the country. If one looks at the record it can be seen that economists like Professor Weldon of McGill University, Professor Blauer of Brock University and Dian Cohen who writes a column in the Toronto Star, as well as some of the best economists in the province of Quebec, were predicting precisely what would happen and saying that the policies adopted by the government would lead to the situation which we are in at the present.
Mr. Speaker, the government advisers, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the then minister of finance knew what would happen. The events that took place were not an accident, not the result of ignorance but the result of deliberate choices made by the government and its advisers. The priorities set by the government showed that they believed that the problem which had to be faced in this country was inflation and they set out to deal with it, even if only temporarily. As a result, the economists I have mentioned predicted greater unemployment. Yesterday in the House the minister said:
Throughout most of the 1960s the Canadian economy experienced the greatest period of sustained expansion in its history.
He left the impression that most Canadians benefited from that expansion. I have here a document entitled "Our Tomorrows", prepared by the Indian tribes of Manitoba and published in October, 1971. I should like to give a couple of illustrations of the situation in Manitoba regarding Indians who do not live in my constituency. I am not putting their plight on the record because I am not making a plea for people whom I personally represent, but I should like to quote from this document a couple of illustrations of their situation. At page 47 it reads:
The infant mortality rate for Indian people is twice as high as that for the general population (including Indians) of Manitoba. Mortality among young adults is four times that of this general population. The Manitoba Indian population's morbidity rate from tuberculosis is appalling in itself, and ten times that of the general population (again including Indians).
Later, talking about the income of Indians, it reads at page 51:
To indicate the extent of this poverty of the 32 per cent of employables living on reserves, male and female, ages 15-64 who have an earned income, only 4 per cent earned in excess of $4,000 in 1969. The balance of the population must depend completely or in part on social allowances or other state support.
25020-19)

Speech from the Throne
Mr. Speaker, those facts ought to make every Member of Parliament and every Canadian citizen ashamed of the system which we have allowed to grow and exist in Canada. Later in his speech the Minister of Finance said:
Since the fall of 1970, the growth of our economy has been accelerating in response to the progressively stronger stimulus injected by the federal government-
Well, Mr. Speaker, those of us who oppose the government's economic policy of trying to deal with inflation as its number one priority were calling on the government to implement expansionary policies for at least 18 months before it adopted them. Later in his speech the Minister of Finance said something which sounded a little different from the views of his predecessor. He said:
Our most urgent and pressing task is to bring about a substantial reduction in the level of unemployment. Our goal, our objective, must be the provision of a job to every Canadian who is seeking work.
That sounds great, Mr. Speaker, but the record of this government should not give the people of Canada the right to feel that this government intends to take steps to achieve that end. I have said that the minister, I am sure on the advice of the deputy minister who certainly is not living in a state of poverty, goes back to the old argument put forward by the Prime Minister and the former minister of finance, and so we are back where we have been for the last three years. The minister then said:
This leads me to what in my judgment is the fundamental problem of economic management. This is the problem of maintaining maximum growth of employment and production in the economy, while at the same time preventing the development of inflationary pressures which eventually could undermine the very foundations of the economy if allowed to go unchecked.
It was that kind of thinking which led the government to adopt its policies of restraint which have resulted in unemployment in Canada in the four Trudeau years being twice as high as it was in the four Pearson years.


Barry Mather: As high as under the Conservatives.


David Orlikow: My colleague from Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) says "As high as under the Conservatives," but he is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It is much higher than it was under the Conservatives. I want to put on record again the fact that we have heard these promises and pledges from the representatives of government for the last couple of hears, to the effect that things would get better. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I have heard them ad nauseam. Let me put on the record a couple of examples of the promises and pledges. On November 12, 1970, the then minister of finance said:
Recently I suggested publicly that on a seasonal basis .. unemployment had about reached its peak and expressed confidence that we could look forward to continued improvement.
When he made that statement we had an unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted, of 6.5 per cent. Some 14 months later, in January, 1972, it was 6.2 per cent. But he was not alone, Mr. Speaker. On March 18, 1971, the Prime Minister said:
The government has taken a series of steps intended to alter the course of the economic policy ... Some time must elapse before these steps can be fully efficient.

Then he said:
I think that all the economic indicators show that the economy is moving.
When the Prime Minister said that in March, 1971, the rate of unemployment was 6.2 per cent, precisely what it was eight months later in January, 1972. Then in April, 1971, the then parliamentary secretary to the then minister of finance said:
The government is not prepared to accept an unemployment rate of 5 per cent to 6 per cent seasonally adjusted or otherwise, for the future.
That was in April of last year, Mr. Speaker, and here we are, not with an unemployment rate of 5.5 or 6 per cent but with one of 6.2 per cent. I say that there was not a single indication in the speech the Minister of Finance made yesterday to indicate that the government has realized that the policies it has followed for so long are wrong and doomed to failure. The government's policies will continue to fail so long as the government refuses to face the reasons leading to unemployment and to adopt policies which must be adopted if we are to get rid of unemployment and the suffering which results from unemployment.
A couple of weeks ago we saw the figures which are issued each month by Statistics Canada showing unemployment for the previous month. Like most newspapers across Canada, the Globe and Mail carried a sypnosis of the statistics issued by Statistics Canada; it appeared in an article on February 9. Let me put on record what the situation was at that time. I am referring to the figures for January, 1972. There were 665,000 Canadians out of work in January this year, 135,000 more than in December of 1971 but 3,000 less than in January, 1971.
The number of unemployed this past January represented 7.7 per cent of the labour force. In January, 1971, the actual rate of unemployment was 8 per cent. So there was a reduction of .3 per cent, in other words one-third of 1 per cent. The rate of unemployment, after adjustment for the usual seasonal causes, declined to 6.2 per cent in January, 1972, from 6.3 per cent in December, 1971, and 6.4 per cent in January, 1971. In other words, between January, 1972, and January one year earlier, unemployment declined by one-fifth of 1 per cent. The number of unemployed increased substantially in the Atlantic provinces which traditionally suffer the heaviest rate of unemployment. Unemployment remained almost constant in Quebec, a province which has too much unemployment, and remained quite heavy in the prairie provinces.
How did we get in this mess? The government and the Prime Minister of course deny that they are responsible for unemployment, that it was their deliberate policies which created the present substantial rate of unemployment. It sometimes seems to me that the government has adopted a basic principle which was adopted successfully in some totalitarian countries before and during World War II, the principle that if you tell a lie often enough it will become a truth and you can rewrite history.
Just before Christmas-in December, 1970-when interviewed and asked how serious he was about the government's policy of restraint designed to curb the rising cost of living, the Prime Minister said something like, "Just
February 25, 1972

watch me. I will not be deterred from this policy even if the result of this policy leads to an unemployment rate of 6 per cent." Well, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was successful and even more than successful. He succeeded, as he said he would and as his ministers have repeatedly reminded us, in bringing the increase in the cost of living in 1970 to a virtual standstill. In 1970 the cost of living increased by less than 2 per cent. Of course, what the Prime Minister did not tell us then and what he now tries to deny is that the policies the government adopted would inevitably lead to a sharp increase in the number of unemployed.
When the government announced these policies, not only opposition members but economists across the country predicted precisely what would happen and it has happened. Those economists who predicted that the measures taken by the government to control increases in living costs would mean much higher unemployment also said that no country, and certainly not a country like Canada which is so dependent on its sales to and purchases from the United States, could insulate itself from the effects of inflation in the United States. So although the government was successful in holding the line, in holding down living cost increases in 1970-a policy which, as I say, inevitably brought about sharply increased unemployment-the success of the government was temporary because what happened afterwards was precisely what economists had predicted.
In 1971 the cost of living rose by 5 per cent, the largest annual increase in our cost of living in a decade. That was the direct result of the Trudeau government's economic policies. In 1971 they brought about the sharpest increase in the cost of living and the highest unemployment to be seen in this country for more than a decade. And what of the future, Mr. Speaker? Yesterday the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) made the usual promises about prosperity being just around the corner. I almost expected to hear the famous prediction which Herbert Hoover made when he was President of the United States during the depression. He said it would not be long before everyone had two chickens in the pot.


Jean-Luc Pepin: He did not say disaster was just around the corner.


David Orlikow: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker; I did not hear that gem.


Jean-Luc Pepin: He did not say disaster was just around the corner.


David Orlikow: I do not say disaster is around the corner. I am not suggesting for a moment that we are going back to the thirties. Surely nobody, not even the most moss-backed Tory, can fail to recognize that we have built into the economy many stabilizing factors which will prevent our going back to the condition of the 1930s when one-third of the Canadian people were unemployed and perhaps even more were on welfare, or relief as it was then called.
Only a Prime Minister with a computer where his heart should be could think we are not doing badly when 6.2 per cent of the work force of this country is unemployed. Only
Speech from the Throne
a Prime Minister who has never had to work for a living could ignore the results that unemployment brings to the paper worker or the textile worker of Quebec, who has not been unemployed in the way that Indians on the reserves of Manitoba, who have never had a chance to work, have been unemployed. The workers I am talking about have had jobs for the last 10, 15 or 20 years. They expected their jobs to continue and based their expectations on continued employment. I am talking about workers in Sudbury who are being laid off.
Just a couple of months ago the Prime Minister was telling the people of Canada that there were all kinds of jobs. He said, if you do not have a job in Montreal or Toronto, go to Thompson, Manitoba, or Sudbury, Ontario, where there are all kinds of jobs in the mines and smelters for people who want to work. A couple of weeks after the Prime Minister made that ridiculous statement, International Nickel announced it was laying off between 2,000 and 2,500 workers. I want the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) to tell the people who have been laid off in Thompson, in Sudbury and in his constituency how they are going to meet the payments on the house, automobile and television set which they bought because they thought they had secure jobs. Only a cabinet of millionaires and technocrats can have this kind of contempt for people who are poor and unemployed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Millionaire? Me?


David Orlikow: I exempt the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce from the list of millionaires. However, he knows who they are. There are many such people in this government.
It is all very well for ministers such as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to make glowing predictions about what is going to happen and to say that things will become better and better. However, the Economic Council of Canada, as reported in the February 23 edition of the Globe and Mail, predicted a slowdown in capital spending. I suggest to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that if one wants to know what is likely to happen in the year ahead, he should not look at the propaganda speeches made by ministers or the gloom and doom speeches made by members of the opposition.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Nor by the Economic Council.


David Orlikow: The minister interjected, "Nor by the Economic Council". I say to the minister that the record speaks for itself. This country and this government would be a hell of a lot better off if the government had listened more to the Economic Council of Canada and less to the deputy minister of finance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister may ask a question if the hon. member who has the floor agrees to accept it.


David Orlikow: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speech from the Throne


Jean-Luc Pepin: If the hon. member wants to see me after he completes his remarks, I will show him all kinds of qualifications made by the Economic Council. They say the forecasting is not as good as the time framework expands. Their prognostication does not take into account housing, changes in the international economic conjuncture. The hon. member made the flat statement that the Economic Council of Canada said business investment will not be as good in 1976 as at the present time. The Economic Council of Canada qualified that and the hon. member has left out the qualifications. That is not fair.


David Orlikow: Of course, the Economic Council-which is a body of responsible, independent and, I presume, objective economists-has added caveats to its projection. I suggest that if the deputy minister of finance would stop being a politician and stop writing all kinds of nonsense which this government wants-


Jean-Luc Pepin: You are conveniently changing the subject.


David Orlikow: -and began to be the economist he once was, the government would receive some of the advice it needs rather than the advice it wants. The government's projections as to future employment have been consistently wrong. I challenge the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to sit down with me-


Jean-Luc Pepin: We are always wrong on the low side.


David Orlikow: I challenge the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to sit down with me, at his convenience, to look at the projections which the government has made which are based on information they received from the deputy minister of finance and his assistants.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, from business.


David Orlikow: I would like him to compare the predictions with those made by members of this party, predictions which we did not pull out of the air. We obtained these predictions from economists, the names of whom I would be more than willing to give to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps before I recognize the minister on a question I could determine whether there is consent to extend the time of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I take it the hon. member for Winnipeg North will accept a question from the minister.


David Orlikow: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Is the hon. member aware that my department carries out a forecasting of investment intentions every year which is based on information provided by

industry? Is he aware that they have been wrong nine times in the past 12 years, on the pessimistic side?


David Orlikow: I presume when the minister says "they have been wrong", he means that his department has been wrong.


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is done on the basis of information provided to my department. Forecasting is a difficult art and when forecasting, businessmen, unfortunately, tend to be more "PC" than "Lib."


David Orlikow: I am prepared to accept the minister's statement that his departmental officials have been wrong on the conservative side nine times out of 12. I ask the minister what this proves.
One statement made by the Minister of Finance gives me a small hope that maybe this Minister of Finance is adopting a new look at things. I want to point this out to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Yesterday the Minister of Finance said:
We can have a strong expansionary economy, a rising GNP, strong retail sales, strong consumer spending, together with intolerable rates of unemployment. It has become quite clear that optimistic statistics are no answer to human problems.
That is the kind of statement we on this side of the House have been making to the government for the past four years and which they have ignored. I want to put on record what the Economic Council said about capital spending, as reported in the Globe and Mail:
The survey-released yesterday-shows the real volume of capital spending on new buildings, machinery and equipment by 155 major business firms last year was 8.4 per cent below their year-earlier plans.
And-depending on which of two yardsticks, provided by the council, are used-it shows the firms are planning for 1972 at best a 3.6 per cent increase in real (constant dollar) volume of spending and at worst almost no change whatever from their depressed 1971 level of outlays.
"These capital investment intentions for 1972, followed by quite sharp declines, especially among business firms, in 1973 and for the balance of the survey period, represent a substantially weaker investment outlook than obtained in any previous capital investment survey conducted by the Economic Council of Canada"-
I hope, because I am concerned about the well being of the ordinary citizens of Canada, that the Economic Council is wrong. I hope there will be a great deal more capital spending.


Jean-Luc Pepin: They qualified everything you are saying.


David Orlikow: Of course they qualified their statements. I hope they are wrong.


David Lewis: They are not prophets; they are forecasters.


David Orlikow: I say that the indications for the future are not good. Because the government has not really changed its approach, the prospects for meeting the problems of poverty and unemployment in the next couple of years remain very dark.
What is the basic question? It is on this note that I am going to close. I said earlier that the government chose its priorities. The government decided that the number one problem facing Canada with which it had to deal was that
February 25, 1972

of inflation. It was the fear it had of inflation which led the government to adopt its policies of restraint which created the high level of unemployment that we have. Inflation in Canada cannot be eliminated until inflation is licked in the United States. The economy gives us what we want. If we want to deal with inflation, we are going to have unemployment. You cannot stop rising costs and not have increased unemployment.
What determines the well being of this country, Mr. Speaker? I suggest there are two basic factors: firstly, the amount of expansion that we have in Canada-about this the government has a great deal of say through the policies it adopts-secondly, the amount of inflation there is in the United States.
While it is obvious we cannot do much about inflation in the United States, we can do a great deal about expanding the Canadian economy. Unfortunately, there was nothing in the speech yesterday of the Minister of Finance, and not a single word in his answers to several questions at the conclusion of his speech, to indicate that in fact-not just in words, but in action-the minister has decided we must change the direction in which the government is leading the country.
I say that until the Minister of Finance changes his approach and adopts the attitude that the first requirement of the government, any government in this country, is to provide a job for every single person who wants to work, and adopts specific economic policies to bring about that objective, we shall continue to have unemployment at a level unmatched in any country in the western world except the United States. We shall continue to have poverty. We shall continue to move, not toward that just society about which the Prime Minister spoke so eloquently in 1968 but away from the just society that should be the objective of every Member of Parliament and every Canadian.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I, like others who have taken part in this debate, begin by congratulating the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) and the hon. member for Trois Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie). I was interested to note both these members, and several others who have spoken in this debate, expressed very favourable opinions of their home constituencies. I think this is welcome news because we all know that it is not everybody who can live in British Columbia, let alone that favoured portion, the riding of Coast-Chilcotin. While we welcome our fellows as visitors at all times, we know that our province is really not big enough to accommodate everybody.
In more serious vein, I think one of the better aspects of the life of a Member of Parliament is that most of us do from time to time get to see different areas in Canada and we realize, or we are reminded once again, that every one has its charm, its own traditions and its own pride. We see this exhibited in our travels and we see it exhibited in other ways in this House. And surely this is a good thing, because I believe that we as Members of Parliament are particularly aware that it is these little differences-like the little bit of difference that remains between the sexes-that makes life interesting.
Speech from the Throne
The fundamental things that Canadians hold in common with one another are stronger than any regional differences, even those differences that occasionally lead to family spats. I think the sense of identity as citizens of Canada becomes more apparent to Canadians when outside the borders of this country; the perspective is better from abroad. But I think there are very few, probably none, in this House who do not believe that the cement of the Canadian confederation's foundation is actually very strong.
These considerations lead me indirectly to the subject of my few remarks today. I am going to deal with one topic only. I do not intend to deal with the Throne Speech as a whole but to speak about one particular aspect of Canadian affairs with which I regret to say the Throne Speech did not deal. It is, I suggest, a thing that is badly needed. I refer to the reform of our immigration laws.
Canada must be one of the most hospitable nations of any, in terms of its immigration laws. There is nothing wrong with that sentiment, but I suggest that some people are abusing our hospitality. I refer in particular to some of those who enter this country as visitors, who then apply for citizenship while resident in Canada, who then appeal a negative decision and in many cases continue to live and work in this country with practically full rights while the overburdened Immigration Appeal Board attempts to deal with their case.
There are appeals that are legitimate, of course, and there are appeals that are not. But there can be no doubt that some of our visitors are treating us as patsies. Somewhere along the line our immigration law has perhaps lost sight of a fundamental principle, a very simple principle, namely, that no citizen of a foreign country can demand Canadian citizenship as an inherent right. Canadian citizenship is a privilege. Some of us are born with it; some of us acquired it. All of us who have it are equal. But however acquired, whether by birth or by naturalization, it is something valuable. It is something which, unless Canadians themselves treat it as something valuable, will diminish us in the eyes of others.
Before proceeding, Mr. Speaker, I should say that I regret that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) cannot be present today. As hon. members know, he is in hospital and I know that we all wish him a speedy return. My remarks, of course, are not directed toward him or his immediate predecessor: in my opinion it was some years ago that our immigration policy was altered in a way that proved to be at least a serious error of judgment if not a mistake in principle.
Some of the immigration law changes of some years ago were undoubtedly enlightened. In fact, most of them were. Certainly, I should not like it to be thought that I am suggesting we ever return to immigration laws that bar immigrants on the basis of skin colour or any other considerations of race. In this modern age, considerations of racial prejudice have no place in the laws of an enlightened state.
Nor do I think we should object to immigration laws permit the reuniting of close relatives. The points system, from my observation, is relatively fair. There might be debate as to whether too much weight is given to one or

February 25, 1972
Speech from the Throne
another aspect of an application in determining the number of points in accordance with the scale, but this is a matter of detail, not of principle. Humanitarian considerations must be a part of our immigration policy. Canadians would not want an immigration policy which was devoid of this principle. Again, I am in favour of the aspect of policy which requires that the number of immigrants who are job seekers should be scaled to the job situation in Canada at the time, category by category.
There are a few interesting figures which tell to some extent the story of immigration over recent years. Between 1967 and 1970, immigration into Canada dropped by 34 per cent, from 223,000 to 148,000. It is interesting, also, to take note of the general pattern of immigration in Canada as compared with that of similar developed countries. As a percentage per thousand of population, Canada admitted immigrants during the period of which I am speaking at a rate of 10.7. That was in 1967. The figure in 1969 was 6.9. The rate is higher than it is in the United States. In that country they had a fairly constant rate of 2 throughout the sixties. It was a little higher than the United Kingdom, where immigration rose from 4.1 in 1958 to 4.4 in 1968. However, it reverses the trend in Australia where in 1966 the rate amounted to 7.8 in 1966 and was up to 10.3 in 1969.
But why, I ask, Mr. Speaker, is Canada just about the only nation which allows visitors to apply for landed immigrant status without first returning to their country of origin and then coming back through the front door together with other immigrants? This practice of permitting appeals within Canada by people who have not gone through the standard procedure of applying outside our borders is unfair to other applicants abroad who accept the basic principles governing entry. Such appeals have swamped our Immigration Appeal Board. Their number has made the situation more difficult for legitimate applicants and it has begun to cause concern among citizens at home, some of whom are beginning to wonder whether Canadians are sufficiently masters in their own house.
I should like to quote a few further figures at this point. I regret they are not as up to date as one would wish; however, they cover the period to the end of July of last year and I have no reason to believe the situation has greatly altered since then. At that time the Immigration Appeal Board had a backlog of 6,771 cases. The board can hear approximately 90 or 100 cases a month. During the period in question they were receiving appeals at the rate of between 400 and 425 cases a month. The backlog, then, in July, 1971, amounted to seven year's worth of cases, each of which costs the taxpayer approximately $1,000.
About two-thirds of these appeals concern persons who entered as visitors and who then applied unsuccessfully for landed immigrant status. In the first three months of 1971, more than one-third of those who applied for landed immigrant status did so after having entered Canada as visitors. The figures are 11,514 out of 27,899. About a third of this 11,514-4,432-were Americans. I read an article by Mr. Nick Hills of Southam News Services in which he quoted one federal official as saying:
We thought at the time-1967-that it was pretty bureaucratic to make a qualified person go back home to pick up his visa, as the United States does. But we misjudged the number of people who

would want to take advantage of the new rule. We thought it would only be a few hundred.
The actual figures were far more than that: 26,000 in 1968, 42,000 in 1969 and 50,000 in 1970. The Sedgewick Report found that under the present system of appeal-if the present rate of appeals continues-the size of the staff of the Immigration Department and of the Immigration Appeal Board would need to be tripled, at least. This would, of course, represent an enormous cost increase. But apart from the question of cost, which I suppose we should bear if it were necessary in the name of justice, I suggest we are wrong here in principle and that we should alter our immigration laws except in exceptional cases, because surely the law ought always to be able to take care of the exception which can be justified on humanitarian principles.
But let the law follow the practice in other countries. Our immigration laws should not stray from the principle that Canada is our home. It is a home which, we hope, will always be friendly to visitors; we should not like to be thought of as an inhospitable nation any more than the average householder wishes to have the reputation of being inhospitable. But let us not be imposed upon. With all due consideration being given to humanitarianism, let us have laws which recognize that the rights of Canadian citizens extend far beyond any rights of citizens of nations abroad who find themselves in this country. I thank hon. members for their attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I am almost overcome as I address you in this crowded, expectant, hushed House on this Friday afternoon. First, I wish to congratulate both the mover and the seconder of the Address. I think they acquitted themselves well; their performance was fine. I congratulate, too, those of my colleagues who preceded me in this very important debate.
Those who seek to analyse our parliamentary institution, and especially those who delight in criticizing it, do not in my view pay sufficient regard to the opportunity afforded by such debates as the debate on the Address. Here the Members of Parliament are in their representational character and, as I have said before in this House, representative government precedes even responsible government. It is tremendously important that members from the various parts of this country address themselves to the various needs, interests and challenges which face the nation. This is a most important part of our proceedings and I congratulate those who have gone before me on Mr. Speaker's list.
I note that many members have been referring to their constituencies. I shall not do this but I shall refer, rather, to the province from which I come, a province which embraces four constituencies. Next year Prince Edward Island celebrates the one-hundredth anniversary of its entry into confederation. Although our province was host to the meeting at which confederation was really decided upon in 1864 in Charlottetown, we remained aloof for a further six years. I hope many Members of Parliament will avail themselves of the opportunity to go to Prince Edward Island in 1973 because it will be a gala celebration. Indeed I have suggested to the leader of my party
February 25, 1972

that he hold there a meeting of the Dominion cabinet on the 1st day of July, 1973, which is the exact anniversary.


Mr. Francis:: It would be April Fool's day.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: On this occasion as we come to our centenary, we are naturally, in Prince Edward Island, taking stock of the events which have followed the decision of our forefathers in 1873. We are appraising and judging the treatment we have received as a member of the Canadian family. While we rejoice in our Canadian-ism, proud of the fact that the cradle of confederation is in our province, we do see at the present time some serious problems and we do look to Ottawa and feel there are many areas in which we have not been given the treatment we deserve.
In the first place, the unemployment statistics for Prince Edward Island, released in the latest batch of statistics, indicate a rate of something like 19 per cent. Just because we have had a high unemployment rate for so long is no reason that we should begin to like it-and we do not like it. I have sat here for four years and have listened to the former minister of finance indulge in prophecies that everything would be all right in short order, that we would go around a corner and lick inflation and lick unemployment. Whatever else that man will be, he will not be respected as much of a prophet. When I think of his performance in the field of prophecy, I hope he will never indulge in it in his new portfolio because any time I hear that man stand up and say there will be peace in our time, I will head for the bunkers or the high hills!
Another aspect is the failure of the government to do its part in its own administration in our province. As the months go by I have been watching the closing of federal offices or portions thereof in Charlottetown. We find that the citizens of Prince Edward Island, to carry on their dealings with the government of Canada-which serves them as it does other provinces-must negotiate with officials located outside Prince Edward Island. I maintain that every citizen of Prince Edward Island should be able to deal with the government of Canada and its departments in the province of Prince Edward Island.
I do not welcome the closing down of the unemployment insurance office and the moving of it to Moncton. I would not have welcomed it even had it worked, which it did not. I do not like the dismantling of the Post Office Department and the ever-degrading of the structure which remains on Prince Edward Island. This is a negative and an unhelpful step and is not what was intended when we entered Confederation in 1873. This gradual erosion threatens to make one of the provinces of Canada a branch plant of some regional group.
Nor do I like to see the federal government eluding and evading its specific constitutional responsibility in our particular province and for our people. I have watched as the development planners have moved to a stage whereby the federal government has sloughed off its responsibility for many of the fishing ports of Prince Edward Island which, according to section 91 of the British North America Act, do belong to Ottawa. We have the plan that only certain designated ports are to be maintained and the rest are to be forgotten. That lack of responsibility on the part
Speech from the Throne
of the federal government is not at all creditable. I watch the manoeuvring which goes on to designate the ports. I see that the port which is probably seen by most Canadians, the port of Covehead in the heart of the national park-a great fishing centre; even I catch all sorts of mackerel there in the summer-is on the undesignated list. That port is being denied the kind of service, maintenance and improvement which all fishing ports should get from the federal Department of Public Works.
I say, too, that there has been lack of concern about public works projects which would help our people. For years and years the federal government has been failing to bridge Rustico Bay, a little bay on the northern shore of Prince Edward Island. In a day and age when the Soviet Union and the United States can both get to the moon, surely to heavens the government of Canada can get across Rustico harbour as it planned to do. We built a highway through the national park to link it together, but they cannot get across that bay.
I also say that in many of its responsibilities the government is failing to move with sufficient dispatch. I think the world of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson). He is a great orator, a great Burns scholar, and for that alone I would have high regard for him; but the snail's pace which marks the building of a good airport in Charlottetown distresses and pains me and troubles the people of Prince Edward Island. Eastern Provincial Airways is giving us the finest service we have ever had. Planes are flying to Montreal with good capacity. The people appreciate the service and they use it, but you can only find 65 seats in the Charlottetown airport. You get 125 parking spaces, but only 65 seats. So unless everybody comes out with 2 cars, it seems to me the thing does not jibe.
We are also concerned that not sufficient progress is being planned for ferry needs at Cape Tormentine and Borden. We need these ships under way now, because with the way the tourists are flocking to Prince Edward Island-showing their good judgment and their good taste in doing so-we will need new ships, especially now that the government has repudiated its commitment to build the causeway. I say in an even more serious way that the development plan, which is the umbrella apparently under which the government at Ottawa has embraced all its dealings with Prince Edward Island, is not measuring up to the expectations of the people who voted for the provincial party which endorsed it a couple of years ago. The development plan is in fact accelerating those negative forces which are presently marring and hurting our economy.
Long before there was a development plan we had the drift away from the farm and the heavy pressures upon the small farmer and the small fisherman. It seems to me that after many years of planning, discussion and study the Prince Edward Island development plan is in itself accelerating those forces and movements which have been injuring and marring our economy for many years. We do not need that kind of accentuation of negative forces.
Also, we find to this day that with the manner in which the federal government sits on top of all the planning there are delays creeping in and needs which are not
294

February 25, 1972
Speech from the Throne
being met. From the latest issue of the Eastern Graphic, one of Prince Edward Island's finest newspapers, I read:
It has often been suggested in the past that Ottawa now dictates almost everything that happens in this province. A recent example of just how far Ottawa is prepared to go to see that its own people get the jobs in this province . . . with the appointment of a management consultant for the Charlottetown development program.
The article goes on to say that seven or more firms submitted bids to the provincial minister but Ottawa wanted someone else to get it. So for many months there was delay and argument and the project is not yet under way. I say-I have said this more than once, as have my colleagues-that we need far more action, far more consideration and far more assistance in the very important industry of agriculture, especially in reference to the potato industry.
There are many things that we Prince Edward Islanders reflect upon. We are too much wedded to our Canadian association ever to think of fulfilling our destiny in any other way. We are Canadians to the core, but we ask that although we are the smallest among the provinces we still be regarded as a province and that the rights which appertain thereto never be neglected or forgotten by the powerful governmental machinery here in Ottawa.
There is much in the Speech from the Throne if one were looking for literary satisfaction. The purple passages are appealing. Whatever else it lacks, it has plenty of mellifluous prose. I do not mind that; that does not upset me; smooth writing is all right.
But I was surprised at the amount of gall which entered the purple prose. I refer to the reference in the Throne Speech to isolationism. There is a tendency to attack isolationism here, there and everywhere. Considering what has been attempted by this government in the realm of foreign policy, I would have thought that they would not be the group which would immediately come out attacking isolationism.
The effort to dilute our role in NATO was one of the first gestures which this government made before the world. It was not one of the noblest ones. There have been many indications that it might be shuffling off some responsibilities which once we used to bear. I thought of the isolationism syndrome when I noted that we are going to have a permanent observer in Washington accredited to the Organization of American States. We will join the ranks of Spain, Israel and Guyana in that regard. This is not, in my opinion, a tremendously courageous move.
In the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier discussions were held in Ottawa over Canada joining the Pan-American Union as it then was. In Mr. King's generation of leadership here, it was reflected upon, considered and studied, and in the governments which followed it was also thought about, reflected and considered. Now, if after 70 years we are actually going to appoint an observer I hardly believe that this is a courageous step.
Canada must play its part in the world. Of course, we could not adopt an isolationist role. It would not be our tradition. Our people, I believe, would not tolerate it. We had an inglorious period in the 1930s when that was the foolish role we did play. I hope that never again will we 
sink into that low mire of insensitivity, selfishness and inward-looking approach.
We must play our part, not as a super power but, I hope, as a great and decent country. Perhaps we have to realize from time to time that we do have limitations. I have often believed that we should sharpen up our external aid program. I never could believe that a country of our resources could have a meaningful program of aid to 67 countries in the world. I think we have to be more specific and selective. I have told this House that we may have some job in moving our priorities and I believe that our first priority should be the Commonwealth Caribbean, a place where because of our ties we could do something meaningful and useful for these neighbours of ours who should mean so much to us, whose political and economic institutions are so greatly challenged and whose viability is under threat every day of their existence.
I am ashamed today, as I was ashamed at the last Throne Speech, that the little country of Barbados can send to Ottawa three people to man a very efficient diplomatic mission while this country seemingly cannot- whether through austerity, obstinacy or lack of concern- open a mission in reciprocation in Bridgetown, Barbados. It is a disgrace.
Then, of course, there will be special problems to which we must apply ourselves as events move in the outer world, events which concern us and which will affect us greatly. We have been troubled in recent months over events on the other side of the world. My colleague, the vice-chairman of the External Affairs and National Defence Committee, mentioned yesterday the trip which he, I and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) made to India and Pakistan at a time of terrible travail for literally millions of people from East Pakistan.
We watched events and we came back with sorrowful hearts, and yet there was some satisfaction in that the people of Canada did take an interest in this. Of course, we did not do as much as we could or perhaps should have done, but Canadians from one end of the country to the other did assist and contribute in that terrible story of human suffering which went on in the refugee camps of Bengal.
Now, with a decisiveness which is unusual in events of this kind, we have a new situation and a new state, a new nation: the populous nation of Bangla Desh was created. But the problems that existed in what was East Pakistan and is now Bangla Desh are not at all over, and we have a great responsibility there. I think that the government was right in recognizing Bangla Desh; indeed, I called for recognition some time earlier. I did not want Canada to be entering a turtle race, to be the last one to do it. I do not like the idea that you merely detach someone who is accredited to a nearby country. I think that Bangla Desh deserves a separate mission and the thing to do is to send in a charge d'affaires immediately and then build your establishment on that.
I hope that we will welcome Bangla Desh into the Commonwealth, and I am troubled in this regard that the Commonwealth may not have been sufficiently used as an association and the machinery of that association in the problem which faced Bangla Desh in its creation. I do not believe that the Commonwealth machinery is useless.
February 25, 1972

It is a matter of profound regret that Pakistan thought it necessary to withdraw from the Commonwealth. There is no disposition on my part to see Pakistan cast into outer darkness and it would be to me a great satisfaction if that country should elect to return to the Commonwealth. I remember the many occasions in the five or six years in which I was honoured to serve at the General Assembly of the United Nations, when I recall the fine co-operation which existed on many matters between Pakistani delegates and Canadian delegates as we tried our best to cope with the multifarious and difficult problems which faced that universal body. But I believe we must turn our attention to Bangla Desh and I hope the government will move.
I think the minister was on the right track when he answered a question of mine yesterday. I hope we will move and try to inspire our people to believe that there is a great human problem there as that new country tries to pick itself up after terrible agony, and that the Commonwealth tie will really mean something and it will be not only government to government and state to state but people to people.
I notice a section in the Throne Speech referring to the seeking and strengthening of friendships with other nations both within and outside the councils and agencies of the United Nations. This, of course, refers to contacts with and visits to the leaders of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and so on. I do not think there is anyone who would not agree with that sentiment. We would be foolish and myopic if we did not want to see everything possible done to diminish tensions, strengthen detente and broaden understanding among nations.
We do not however, and did not believe that it was the course of statesmanship or diplomacy for the Prime Minister of this country to use the soil of the Soviet Union for his gratuitous insults and improper utterances in regard to the United States, and in this I do not demur or defer from the earlier statements made by myself and my colleagues. We do not want to castigate our long-standing allies as we go about the work of improving relations with other countries.
As far I know, nobody in this House has taken notice of the visit of the President of the United States to the People's Republic of China. This strikes me as being one of the great events of this decade. While I am never bemused by the notion that summitry by itself, a face-to-face conference of leaders can unravel all the problems, I believe that tremendous good in the international field may flow from this visit.
I know it is glib and clever of the wiseacres of the press to describe it as a political gesture by the President of the
Speech from the Throne
United States, but I think they do him less than justice. He is not one of my favourite American presidents, but he is the man who has made this contact and, as he said himself, has broken down the walls which have existed for far too long. Perhaps, in that strange irony that is sometimes worked out in history, he with his point of view would be the logical man to break ground in this field.
In our own history, I have often thought of Sir Robert Borden, the great loyalist from Halifax, as the man who could most successfully put the British imperialists in their place when it was necessary. Perhaps it is a man like President Nixon who can, without great misunderstanding at home, clear away some of the unfortunate and unnecessary hindrances to dialogue between these two important countries.
I am very proud that my own leader visited China some months ago and conducted himself there as a statesman and made a great impression on his hosts and others.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: We welcome this sort of development and I think we all should hope that the Nixon visit will bring about dividends for those who are trying to build up an equity of peace, understanding and good will.
There is just one more matter that I wish to deal with, Mr. Speaker. I began with a reference to the Prince Edward Island centennial and I shall close with a reference to the establishment of Heritage Canada. Naturally I approve of this, especially when it comes from a government which was deaf and uncaring to my pleas over several months to save the magnificent residence of Sir Robert Borden, "Glensmere". Nothing was done and it fell before the wrecker's crew and so a great piece of history disappeared. This government could not move, apparently, to set aside a holiday to commemorate Sir John A. Macdonald, the father of our country. Even at this late date we may see some preservation of our historic past and, if so, the government will find no more enthusiastic supporter than I to commend them-and I will even forget their past apostasy and former lack of concern.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there disposition and agreement among hon. members that we call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday, February 28, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(2).
At 4.57 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
25020-20.1

Monday, February 28, 1972