1972-02-28

PRIVILEGE


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question of privilege affecting the rights of all hon. members. It concerns the contempt for parliament of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) as indicated by his refusal to provide information on the so-called two-price system for wheat while continuing to provide the media with information which, if it so suited the minister, could be denied as not factual.
On February 21 in reply to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) the Minister of Justice who is in charge of the Wheat Board, stated that various methods of payment and timing were being considered by the government. I followed through with a question on that day and the minister replied as follows:
All these questions are really linked together and require an announcement of policy in connection with timing and the technique of making payments. Such an announcement will deal with all these matters at the same time.
I find that the minister has since made an announcement on the method of payment. It is found in Canadian Press and Southam Press reports in various Saturday papers. I suggest that this is contempt of Parliament. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That the matter of the growing disregard by the government for the right of this House to information on public business through the channels provided by the procedures of this House be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mackenzie has supplied the Chair with the required notice of his intention to raise this matter by way of a question of privilege.
The hon. member suggests that the matter to which he has alluded in his statement ought to be considered by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I have to rule that this cannot be done under the terms of our Standing Orders.
As the hon. member knows, and as I am sure all members appreciate, from time to time there have been grievances brought to the attention of the House along the same lines, suggestions that statements not made in the House were made outside the House, or that information not given to members in reply to questions was supplied to the media or in some other way given outside the House. There is a long line of learned rulings, going back many years, indicating that this is more a grievance than a breach of privilege, that it could be the subject of
debate, that it might be the subject of a censure motion, that it could be the subject of a grievance, but that it could not be considered as suggested in the motion proposed by the hon. member for Mackenzie.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 59 I move, seconded by Mr. Sharp:
That the estimates of the sums required for the service of Canada for the year ending March 31, 1973, be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House, as follows:
What follows, Mr. Speaker, is a list of the committees and the votes to be referred to them. Perhaps the House would agree to dispense with my reading this.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The balance of the motion follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 relating to the Department of Agriculture
Vote 30 relating to the Canadian Dairy Commission Votes 35 and 40 relating to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board Vote 45 relating to the Farm Credit Corporation To the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts:
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 relating to the Department of the Secretary of State Vote 45 relating to the Canada Council
Votes 50 and L55 relating to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Vote 60 relating to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission
Vote 65 relating to the Company of Young Canadians
Vote 70 relating to the National Arts Centre Corporation
Votes 75 and L80 relating to the National Film Board
Vote 85 relating to the National Library
Vote 90 relating to the National Museums of Canada
Votes 95 and L100 relating to the Public Archives
Vote 25 relating to Information Canada
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence:
Votes 1, 5, 10, L15 and 20 relating to the Department of External Affairs
Votes 25, 30, L35, and L45 relating to the Canadian International Development Agency
Vote 50 relating to the International Joint Commission

February 28, 1972
Estimates 1972-73
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 relating to the Department of National Defence
Vote 35 relating to Defence Construction (1951) Limited To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs:
Vote 1 relating to the Department of Justice Vote 5 relating to the Law Reform Commission of Canada Vote 10 relating to the Tax Review Board Vote 1 relating to the Department of the Solicitor General Votes 5, 10 and 15 relating to Correctional Services Votes 20 and 25 relating to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration:
Vote 1 relating to the Department of Labour Vote 5 relating to the Unemployment Insurance Commission Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 relating to the Department of Manpower and Immigration
Vote 25 relating to the Immigration Appeal Board To the Standing Committee on Regional Development:
Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, L25 and L30 relating to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion Votes 35, 40 and 45 relating to the Cape Breton Development Corporation
To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications: Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Department of Communications Vote L10 relating to the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Post Office
Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, 20, 25, 30, L35, 40, 45, 50, 55 and 60 relating to the Department of Transport Vote 65 relating to the Atlantic Pilotage Authority Vote 70 relating to the Canadian National Railways Votes 75 and 80 relating to the Canadian Transport Commission Vote 85 relating to the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Vote 90 relating to the Laurentian Pilotage Authority Votes 95,100 and L105 relating to the National Harbours Board Vote L110 relating to Northern Transportation Company Limited
Vote 115 relating to the Pacific Pilotage Authority Votes 120, L125 and 130 relating to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority
To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs:
Votes 1, 5, and 10 relating to the Department of Finance Vote 20 relating to the Department of Insurance Vote 25 relating to the Tariff Board
Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, 20, 25, 30 and L35 relating to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Vote 40 relating to the Standards Council of Canada Vote 45 relating to Statistics Canada Vote 20 relating to the Economic Council of Canada Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Department of National Revenue To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry:
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 relating to the Department of the Environment
To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs: Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 relating to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
Vote 25 relating to the Prices and Incomes Commission Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 relating to the Department of National Health and Welfare Votes 50 and 55 relating to the Medical Research Council Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs 
Votes 10 and L15 relating to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Votes 20, 25 and L30 relating to the National Capital Commission
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development:
Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L16, 20, 25, 30, L35, L40, L45, L50, L55, L60, 65, 70 and 75 relating to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Vote L80 relating to the Northern Canada Power Commission To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works:
Votes 1, 5, L10 and 15 relating to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources
Votes 20 and 25 relating to the Atomic Energy Control Board Votes 30, 35, L40, L45, and L50 relating to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Vote L55 relating to Eldorado Nuclear Limited Vote 60 relating to the National Energy Board Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, L30, 35 and 40 relating to the Department of Public Works
To the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections:
Vote 10 relating to the Chief Electoral Officer To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs:
Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, and 55 relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates:
Vote 15 relating to the Auditor General
Vote 1 relating to the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors
Votes 1 and 5 relating to the Privy Council Office Vote 15 relating to the Commissioner of Official Languages Vote 25 relating to the Public Service Staff Relations Board Vote 1 relating to the Ministry of State for Science and Technology
Vote 5 relating to the Science Council of Canada Vote 105 relating to the Public Service Commission Votes 1, 5 and 10 relating to the Department of Supply and Services
Vote 15 relating to Canadian Arsenals Limited Vote 20 relating to the Canadian Commercial Corporation Votes 1, 5, 10,15 and 20 relating to the Treasury Board Votes 25, 30 and 35 relating to the National Research Council of Canada
To the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization:
Vote 1 relating to the Senate
Vote 5 relating to the House of Commons
Vote 10 relating to the Library of Parliament


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table copies in both official languages of a report to the House of Commons on the sale of Canadian wheat to the U.S.S.R.
February 28, 1972



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I refer to the concern of Canadians from coast to coast over changing one of the few Canadian content institutions in Canada, namely, the continentalization of the Mounties by changing "RCMP" to "Police". Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That (1) in view of the expressed concern of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast,
(2)	and the confused and incredible explanations from the Solicitor General, and
(3)	in the light of the provocative remarks of the Prime Minister over the weekend, that this House refer this matter immediately to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that the facts may be defined with clarity, and responsibility for this surreptitious act assessed accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the Chair might have procedural reservations as to the form of the motion proposed by the hon. member. I have indicated to hon. members on a number of occasions that the explanations given in support of motions under Standing Order 43 should be limited to the question of urgency and should not include argument. But I will ask hon. members whether there is unanimous consent under Standing Order 43?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



NATIONAL ANTHEM BILL


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-158, respecting the national anthem of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: I might mention, before asking the House when the bill is to be read the second time, that this bill includes a schedule which carries not only the words but the music of the proposed national anthem.


Some hon. Members:: Sing it.


Mr. Speaker:: It is suggested that the Chair should sing it, but this might appear to be an unusual precedent. Basically, I see nothing wrong, not about the Chair singing the schedule but that the schedule should include not only words but also music. In any event, I will inquire from the House when the said bill should be read the second time, at the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister which arises out of the satisfaction he expressed over the weekend about the performance of the Canadian economy. Is the persistence of seasonally adjusted unemployment at 6 per cent or more for the last two years regarded by his government as an example of good and progressive government, and can we now take it that this rate of unemployment is considered to be a satisfactory performance?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The answer to both questions is no, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps I might then ask the Prime Minister whether, in the course of his visit to Sudbury, he was able to discover the existence of many more jobs, in particular whether he was able to place in new employment any of the 3,695 persons registered as unemployed in the Sudbury manpower office?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate that this kind of question may be good debate but it is certainly not procedurally in order. I would think that that comment might have applied to the first question also.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say, with every respect for you-and of course I will comply with your ruling-that the Prime Minister has been telling us about how many jobs are vacant in this country, and I thought it might be a matter of intense interest to the House to know whether he discovered any more vacant jobs when he was in Sudbury over the weekend.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the same point of order, I should remind the hon. member that I was saying that last fall, at which time INCO was hiring 700 new workers. So at the time I was saying it they were obviously looking for 700 new workers. I do not see any contradiction with the reality at the time I said it.


An hon. Member:: Where were you, Bob?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The right hon. gentleman has been saying it much more recently than that, Mr. Speaker. I should like-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Much more recently than last fall.


An hon. Member:: Be specific.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I shall be happy to do the research myself, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that what I pointed out a moment ago is verified by the subsequent exchange

February 28, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
between the right hon. gentleman and the hon. Leader of the Opposition. This is obviously debate and has very little to do with what should be the question period.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but sometimes it is necessary to keep everybody honest. In view of the questions that have been raised in the House since the opening of the new session of Parliament about the performance of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, will the Prime Minister tell us whether he has taken any steps himself to intervene to clear up the delays and the suffering that has resulted to the unemployed as a result of those delays? As the minister is in hospital, has the Prime Minister himself taken any action?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I discussed this with the minister before he went into hospital and I considered the action he was taking at that time which has been pursued since in the department under the direction of the very able parliamentary secretary.



TAXATION


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance who appears to think he is still Minister of Justice. Some days ago I inquired of the President of the Treasury Board about the remission of $6 million to Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited by Order in Council pursuant, it was said in the order, to section 17 of the Financial Administration Act. The last time I asked the question the President of the Treasury Board said that the Minister of Finance would inform the House of the basis on which that generous remission of money to a company was made.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that my predecessor has already made a statement on this matter outside the House. However, to answer formally in the House the question put to the President of the Treasury Board by the hon. member for York South, may I say I have looked into the matter and have to report that feasibility studies, planning and preparation for this major project of building and equipment by Great Canadian Oil Sands to extract oil from the Alberta tar sands, were completed before the sales tax was first imposed on June 14, 1963. Construction of the plant was not completed and production did not commence until after June 2, 1967, when production equipment was again exempted from the sales tax. The company has incurred serious financial losses since the outset of production and therefore sought remission of sales tax which had not applied when their plans were being drawn up and was later withdrawn across the country after the plant was finished. Although the company sought remission of all federal sales tax on buildings, plant and equipment, remission was granted only in respect of production equipment.


David Lewis: As I understand it, the Financial Administration Act provides that the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board, whenever he

considers it in the public interest may remit any tax, fee or penalty. Would the Minister of Finance indicate briefly to the House what public interest, aside from the interest of a corporation that had some argument, was served to justify the government taking steps under the Financial Administration Act to remit $6 million to a single company, and would that be available to an individual taxpayer who suffered the same kind of hardship?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that remission is given under the Financial Administration Act from time to time and that it is not unusual. He has asked what special circumstances existed here. I said that the sales tax had not originally applied when the plans and feasibility studies for the plant were drawn up and construction commenced, and by the time the plant had been completed and production had begun the sales tax was off. I think that probably in the mind of the government at the time the public interest involved a major pioneer project for extracting oil from the Alberta tar sands, something which may be invaluable to this country in the years ahead.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the minister what special circumstances there were, because the act does not talk about special circumstances. It says that the government has the right to do this only when the public interest is involved. Is that kind of remission of tax given to any corporation that happens to be dealing with something which may be valuable to the country, for example, in the field of mining, steel, oil or any other activity that is of value to the country? Is that the way the government interprets the public interest, the remission of public money to a single corporation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the rules are wide enough for us to debate at present the interpretation of the Financial Administration Act. I am suggesting to the hon. member that the minister at the time and the government felt that in this particular case it was in the public interest to allow the remission.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are there other, similar applications for remissions now pending?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look into that.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While the minister is explaining the $6 million remission, would he also take it upon himself to explain to the House the write-off given to the Montreal Expos baseball team?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena.


Donald MacInnis: That involves $9 million.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the public interest, would the Minister of Finance mind taking steps to ensure that rebates of sales tax are made to all municipalities, school districts and regional districts? That is something the minister could
February 28, 1972

Inquiries of the Ministry
really do in the public interest. Would he also mind telling us whether the group to which he belongs in a political sense anticipates any income from this rebate of $6 million?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



MANPOWER


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I shall address my question to his parliamentary secretary. Here it is.
May I ask why officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration in charge of the Local Initiatives Program give no reason for their rejection when a municipality presents a reasonable project which has previously been approved by the province of Quebec?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it may be possible at some later date to obtain and make available evaluation of the various projects. I think the hon. member should be aware however, that there has been an overwhelming number of application and the first order must be to get people to work and to get projects approved.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I understand that the main objective is getting people to work. That is why I am concerned. Several municipalities submitted really reasonable projects, for work which will not melt away with the snow-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member want to put his supplementary question?

I have the impression that a number of the questions asked earlier today, as well as the one just asked by the hon. member for Bellechasse, are more in the form of debate. I sometimes wonder whether the kind of question in which an hon. member asks why such a decision was taken, or for an explanation of a certain action on the part of the government, is in order because it usually gives rise to debate. In any event-



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-AVAILABILITY OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS

Mr. Speaker:: In any event, the hon. member could perhaps put his supplementary.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, does the Department of Manpower and Immigration still have funds available to justify the approval of certain municipal projects?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, when we talk in terms of credits being available, we should remind ourselves that there is not enough money left in the winter works program to satisfy all of the applicants. As I said on Friday, to this date almost 90,000 new jobs have been provided in Canada, exceeding all estimates.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-SUGGESTED ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS- -FUTURE PRIORITY TO PROJECTS DISALLOWED

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer given by the parliamentary secretary and the question asked by the hon. member, can the parliamentary secretary indicate whether any consideration has been given to replenishing the funds available under that program and, in the event there has not, will the projects that have be disallowed been given any priority in future government programs?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is that no further funds are contemplated in terms of extending the LIP program. Second, there are a number of magnificent projects which unfortunately could not be approved because of a lack of funds, but I cannot say whether they would be accorded priority in any following program.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Since the release and escape of Yves Geoffroy from St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary, has anyone, any person in any capacity, approached you as Minister of Justice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should address his question to the Chair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Through you, Mr. Speaker, has any person approached you as Minister of Justice-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -or any other minister of the Crown to your knowledge to apply either Section 617 of the Criminal Code of Canada or any other section of the code which entitles the Minister of Justice under certain conditions and according to a certain legal formula set out therein to direct a new trial or a new hearing before any court of the Geoffroy murder conviction?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as far as the question refers to anyone approaching the minister directly, I can answer that in the negative. As far

February 28, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
as the question goes beyond that, I would have to take the question as notice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I direct a question to the Solicitor General. Since the release and escape of Yves Geoffroy from St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary, has anyone, any person in any capacity, approached you as Solicitor General that you should ask and request-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I know it may be just a detail, but it is embarrassing for the Chair to remind hon. members that questions have to be addressed to the Chair and not directly to ministers.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much. Has anyone approached you as minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Excuse me. Has anyone approached the minister to apply either Section 617 of the Criminal Code of Canada or any other section of the code which authorizes the Minister of Justice under certain conditions and according to a certain legal formula set out therein to direct a new trial or order a new; hearing in relation to this murder conviction?


Hon. lean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, someone who claimed to know where Mr. Geoffroy is suggested it to me. My reply was very simple: the laws of the country apply to every citizen. If Mr. Geoffroy wants to ask for a new trial, all he has to do is go directly to the Minister of Justice, and not through intermediaries, and give him the reasons why he should be granted a new trial.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question. Maybe I will be better off without notes. Did the Solicitor General approach the Minister of Justice in relation to this matter and did they have a telephone conversation with a person along the lines of asking for a new trial in accordance with the terms and conditions of the code?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister can reply to whatever part of the question he chooses, but the hon. member knows it is somewhat difficult and irregular to ask whether conversations have taken place between ministers. The minister may reply to whatever part of the question he thinks he can or should reply.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I think that my answer has been very clearly to the effect that if Mr. Geoffroy felt that a new trial was required, it was up to him rather than his intermediaries to communicate directly with the Department of Justice. But I have had no discussion in this regard with anyone, and as for senseless suggestions, even the opposition is providing me with some.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact that people have apparently approached the Solicitor General and in light of the fact that the hon. gentleman said at one stage, not

only here but on television, I believe, that if there were any irregularities or illegalities he would be very pleased, as far as he was concerned, to initiate a judicial inquiry into this matter, is the minister prepared to do this now, particularly in light of the fact that a passport was obtained through forgery?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is floundering about with his information but, anyway, there is nothing illegal or irregular. Someone asked whether there might be a new trial, and I have simply answered that the laws of this country applied to all individuals. I do not think that there is anything illegal in this. Perhaps the hon. member has something illegal in mind, however.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Did the minister set out any terms and conditions to the person who made that inquiry and suggestion as to what should happen with reference to the power of the Minister of Justice to grant a new trial in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Criminal Code?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Never, Mr. Speaker, in any way.



RELEASE OF YVES GEOFFROY FROM ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY-DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ON PASSPORT IN RELATION TO PUBLIC INTEREST

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the" Prime Minister arising out of the charge that the opposition has been interfering with the search for Yves Geoffroy and the suggestion that somehow the Opposition learned that Mr. Geoffroy was travelling on a false passport. In view of the fact that this information was disclosed in the House by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he considers this to be contrary to the public interest and whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs conferred with the right hon. gentleman as Prime Minister before disclosing that information in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker,
I did discuss the question with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and with the Solicitor General, and when it became obvious that the opposition knew something about a false passport we asked ourselves-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not see what all the groans are about. The Secretary of State for External Affairs did not stand up in the House and volunteer the statement that there was a false passport. He was asked whether there was one, and he was then in the position of having either to deny it and thereby tell an untruth or to admit it and harm the investigation by the police. He had this hard choice to make, and he decided to tell the truth.


An hon. Member:: It is not hard to tell the truth.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: An hon. member says it is not hard to tell the truth. Of course it is not. But it would have been better
February 28, 1972

from the point of view of the police had it not been broadcast throughout Canada and the world that Mr. Geoffroy was travelling on a false passport.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the right hon. gentleman when it became obvious that the opposition knew a false passport had been issued in connection with Mr. Geoffroy prior to the Secretary of State disclosing this information in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not have the date at hand but I will check it. When the hon. member for Calgary North asked the question about the issuance of a false passport the matter had already been discussed between the minister and myself. I shall check the date and in what way it became apparent that the opposition knew there was such a false passport.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the question asked by my hon. friend from Calgary North was directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on February 23. The relevant part of the question reads: Can the minister tell us, first, whether Geoffroy possessed a passport and, second, whether it was issued prior to his release from the penitentiary or later.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs then replied:
Our records show that no passport has been issued to Geoffroy in his own name. A search of the files in the passport office conducted by the RCMP subsequent to Geoffroy's escape from custody indicated that a passport was acquired for him earlier under an assumed name-
My point is that the information was disclosed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think it was proper that it should have been disclosed. I think it is absurd for the Prime Minister to impute wrongful motives to the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of statements recently made by the Prime Minister in North Bay that no effort should be made to "buy back Canada" because, in his words, we would have no money left for the future of Canada, and that "we must have an industrial policy to buy into the future," may I ask the right hon. gentleman to tell the House whether or not these statements are indicative of the content of the, hopefully, forthcoming government policy on foreign ownership and the government's decision to elaborate a Canadian industrial policy?


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


Mark Willson Rose: I thank the Prime Minister for being revealing, as usual. Is he aware of the fact that yet another Canadian company, the Jelinek skate manufacturing firm in Oakville, has been obliged to sell to United States interests because of its failure to secure needed capital from government sources or from Canadian chartered banks? Would the Prime Minister indicate whether the intended legislation concerning domestic control of the national economic environment will be retroactive to redress takeovers of Canadian companies by foreign interests in the interim?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the first part of the question, the answer is no. As to the second part, the hon. member will have to await a statement.



MANPOWER


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
As regards those municipalities which have not received to this date any reply in respect of projects already submitted some time ago, would the parliamentary secretary tell us if there are enough funds still to be allocated by the department for these municipalities to expect a favourable reply in the near future?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, it can only be said that as of Friday afternoon $4 million remained to be allocated. This does not mean to say there are not many more applications for that money than there is money available.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister explain to the House why it is that the government, on the one hand, is taking steps to preserve the bricks and mortar of our history by introducing a bill entitled Heritage Canada while at the same time it is eroding the symbols of our history by removing such things as the historical symbol "RCMP" from the buildings and cars of that force?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is the kind of question to which I was taking objection a few moments ago. It is an argument. When an hon. member asks a member of the government to explain why this or that has taken place, it amounts to debate. It is not a question which is acceptable as to form during the question period.

February 28, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: May I phrase it in another way? Has the Prime Minister taken into consideration the fact that English-speaking Canadians are just as proud of the symbols connected with their history as French-speaking Canadians are of theirs? We respect their symbols. Stop eroding ours.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Prime Minister might be allowed to answer that question, but again I have to take objection as Speaker to that type of question. It is really a speech. It is not a question at all. If hon. members take advantage of the question period to put forward arguments, that is certainly not in conformity with the spirit of the question period or what it ought to be.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Does the government intend to reconstitute the special committee on the constitution so that the committee's report may be presented and discussed during the session?
Bight Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): The committee will, we hope, be reconstituted so that it will be able to table its report in the House.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In light of the gradual disbanding of the secretariat that has handled the federal-provincial constitutional conferences, has the government decided not to undertake another effort to develop a new constitution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member knows the circumstances in which the secretariat was reduced in size. Something happened at Victoria, British Columbia, last June which brought this particular phase of the constitutional debate to a dead end until the province of Quebec indicates that it can advance the discussion in some way. There has been no indication from Quebec that it is prepared to do so.



SUGGESTED PROVISION FOR SENATORS FROM YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the favour with which the suggestion was viewed by the joint committee, would the government consider taking under its own sponsorship the private member's bill I have on the order paper which would create a senatorship for the Yukon and one for the Northwest Territories, and bringing this bill before the House as soon as possible?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker,
I will look at the bill; I was unaware of its existence.
[Mr. Speaker.)



CONTINUATION OF ACREAGE PAYMENT SUBSIDY ON WHEAT-PERMANENT TWO-PRICE SYSTEM

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the minister's statement last Friday that a subsidy payment is to be made to western farmers on an acreage basis, can he inform the House whether this is to be a continuing subsidy in future years, and is action planned during this session to bring in legislation to make it a permanent feature of government policy?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the announcement I made indicated that the payment for this year would be on a basis related to acreage in order to avoid distortions in production. At the same time I announced that discussions would be held with the producers about ways of making payments in future, payments which are intended to be made. This matter will come before the House, of course, but for this session likely in the form of an estimate.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Can the minister tell the House whether the government has under consideration a two-price system for wheat in western Canada that can be set up on a permanent basis?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the objectives of the further discussions with producer organizations, several of whom have made suggestions to the effect that the money involved should be used for such things as a stabilization plan. Certainly government policy is clear. The policy has been announced for time to come, not just for one year, but the exact formula for handling the system remains to be developed with the producers.



TWO-PRICE SYSTEM FOR WHEAT-METHOD OF CALCULATING PAYMENTS

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's refusal the other day to provide the information, may I ask him whether the calculation is going to be made on the basis of the closing of the pool accounts of the Wheat Board or will it be calculated as at the end of the crop year?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the calculation for the first payment is planned to be made on the basis of an estimate of the amount of wheat consumed by Canadians in the course of the year. The figures for the 1971 year are likely to be used as the basis for that estimate, with adjustments on the basis of later figures to be calculated when a subsequent payment is made a year later.



USE OF INLAND TERMINALS TO ACCUMULATE AND CLEAN GRAIN TO FACILITATE LOADING ON SHIPS AT VANCOUVER

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, in view of the question posed to him last week on the tie-up of grain on the west coast, what steps are being taken to utilize more fully the inland grain terminals on the Prairies for
February 28, 1972

accumulating and cleaning grain to be shipped ultimately to the west coast?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that there are fewer ships waiting at the moment, quite significantly fewer than when the question was first asked. The Wheat Board, as I indicated, is examining a whole variety of techniques for improving the throughput at Vancouver with the existing system. As the hon. member may know, the other day I was looking at some new cleaning equipment which appears as though it may be pretty exciting in terms of making the inland terminals more effective.


Jack Burnett Murta: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Lisgar for a last supplementary before going to the next question, since we will be running out of time in less than ten minutes.


Jack Burnett Murta: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister what plans are being made, if any, to allow the producers to deliver grain directly to these terminals; and would the minister also give the House the total amount of unloadings per day at Vancouver, which I believe are down considerably from 800 carloads?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of direct unloadings by farmers into the terminals is one that is being examined by the Wheat Board in order to try to use the terminals more effectively. The Canada Grain Commissioners have in hand information regarding the unloading capacity of the various terminals on the Prairies, from a technical point of view and if other problems can be solved this unloading could be resorted to fairly quickly.
The number of unloadings has varied significantly during the last four or five days; but it is difficult to judge, taking this alone, because unless the size of the car involved is known this may be a little misleading. However, I will get a further, more comprehensive report for the hon. member.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the announcement on Friday last by Belanger-Tappan Limited that they propose to close their Carleton Place plant known as Findlay's Limited in the very near future and to concentrate their production at the Montmagny plant in the province of Quebec, has this company received any federal assistance from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to create, improve or enlarge this company's facilities at Montmagny?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, and there is no
Inquiries of the Ministry
relationship between what is going on at Montmagny and the closing of the Findlay plant at Carleton Place.


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Are we to take it that no application for a grant is at present before the department, as well as no grant having already been provided?


Jean Marchand: At present there is no application from the company, Mr. Speaker.



NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED STILL IN EXISTENCE-PLANT RELOCATIONS

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. In light of that question, would he now undertake to make an analysis of the applications and grants that have been made under the Regional Development Incentives Act in order to determine how many of the estimated jobs to be created are still in existence, and what plants have been relocated, thus causing closedowns in other areas?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this information appears in the document that is tabled in this House every month. If the hon. member knows how to read he will be able to stop citing figures that are wrong.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is not right and you know it. That document contains nothing except a couple of pious hopes.


Jean Marchand: If you cannot understand it, ask someone to explain it to you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



RELATIONSHIP OF LINGUISTIC POLICY TO PROVISION OF AID TO POORER REGIONS

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Does the government subscribe to the statement made by the Secretary of State at Laurier over the weekend that acceptance of the linguistic policy of the government and aid to the poorer regions are a package deal, and that if Moncton did not get in line with its linguistic policies the federal government might sulk at them?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he can ask about a statement made outside the House only in relation to statements made by ministers. He may inquire of the Prime Minister whether a statement made by one of his ministers outside the House represents government policy, but I did not understand that that was the way the question was asked in this case.


Thomas Miller Bell: I thought the word "subscribe" meant the same thing, Mr. Speaker, but may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. When the minister made this speech did he know whether the federal government would be

February 28, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
treating Moncton less favourably than others because of its linguistic policy?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I think I was just stating the obvious. I was saying that no one could, in a federal system such as ours, take the advantages and refuse the obligations.



BROADCASTING


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State and concerns the federal system. In view of continuing discussions on the subject of jurisdiction over cablevision and educational television, does the minister intend to call in the very near future a federal-provincial conference of responsible ministers across the land to discuss this problem, or is the minister going to continue to have unilateral correspondence with just a few of the ministers?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I find that the accusation implied in the hon. member's question is unjustified. I have travelled all across Canada from Newfoundland to Vancouver, in order to ascertain that discussions are not restricted to one or two ministers concerned, and to meet all the provincial ministers with regard to these problems. All I can say in reply to the hon. member is to repeat my statement that the premise on which his question is based is inaccurate.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If there was any imputation, I do apologize, but in view of what the Prime Minister said over the weekend about malicious intent and phony baloney I suppose I got carried away with my question. I will direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. In view of the discussions he says he has had with all responsible ministers across the country, is he now prepared and ready to define federal policy vis-a-vis cablevision and also with regard to educational television?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member should be more conversant with the facts. The federal government has unequivocally and repeatedly clarified its position.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may ask a last supplementary question. There are two minutes left before the end of the question period.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: This is an important question and I know you appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the Secretary of State does. Can we assume from his last answer

that there has been agreement with the provinces of Quebec, Alberta and Ontario on the federal authority over cablevision and that that is a definitive policy about which we have not yet heard but which has been defined?


Gérard Pelletier: This question is further proof that the hon. member is ill-informed.



PROPOSED PAYMENT BY GOVERNMENT OF HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CARE PREMIUMS FOR ALL INDIANS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the government considering the problems created as a result of differences in the way hospital and medical care premiums are paid on behalf of the Indian people in various provinces, and is the government considering taking steps to pay the health taxes on behalf of all Indians as is the case in Alberta?
Apparently the Prime Minister did not hear my question which was addressed to him in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I will repeat it since apparently he did not hear it the first time. Is the government considering the problems created as a result of differences in the way that hospital and medicare premiums are paid on behalf of Indian people in various provinces, and is the government considering taking steps to pay the health taxes on behalf of all Indians as is the case in Alberta?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be glad to take notice of the question on behalf of the minister.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the statement he made at the Costi Italian Educational Centre in Toronto on January 21, 1972, not last autumn, still represents the view of the government, namely:
In most parts of Canada there are many, many jobs offered which are not being taken.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is there any mention of Sudbury in that question?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Sudbury?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That was your God-damned question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: You said you had not said it.
February 28, 1972


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


John Howard Lundrigan: I rise on a point of order. In view of the controversy several months ago regarding a similar incident in the House of Commons as the one which has just occurred and the fact that it was not officially recorded in Hansard, is there any procedure by which we may inquire whether the remark of the Prime Minister in an official response by him to the Leader of the Opposition has in fact been recorded in the official record of the proceedings of the House of Commons?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have to wait until tomorrow and read Hansard.



ELECTIONS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a question to the Prime Minister arising out of a report that he stated in Sturgeon Falls he was in favour of reform of election expenses but that there were practical obstacles to getting that reform through parliament. Would the Prime Minister inform the House what were the practical obstacles which prevented him from introducing legislation since June, 1968, on this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the government has introduced many items which have died on the order paper and have not been passed because of lack of time and obstruction from the opposition, and this is one of them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The chair will allow the hon. member a last supplementary question and then call orders of the day because we have run out of time.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact he stated back in 1968 that to him the matter of election expenses was, and I use his words, "a top priority", in view of the fact that reference to it was made in three successive throne speeches, and in view of the fact that his statement about opposition obstruction is typical misrepresentation of the facts, he will tell the House what prevented him from introducing such legislation except the fact that he was not prepared to carry through his promise?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is obviously argument and not a supplementary question. The Chair has to call orders of the day.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a point of order at this time because of an urgent and important question which I must ask of the minister with respect to Devco. I feel that time to ask that question has been denied me because of the profanity used by the Prime Minister which caused a loss of time to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.
Speech from the Throne



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, February 25, 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).
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]ean-L. Rochon (Ahuntsic): Mr. Speaker, I have listened very attentively to the remarks made since the opening of this session by all those who contributed to the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
According to their political affiliation, some have approved it without any reservation whatsoever; others found it incomplete and many, without disapproving it completely, would have liked to see in it a clearer expression of the feelings they have toward those they represent in the House. If you look more closely, however, you realize-for this is very obvious-that all members, whether of the opposition or the government party, are animated with the same feeling: the same clear and unfailing desire, the same unequivocal determination to contribute to the well-being of Canadians.
Last December, addressing the whole world at Christmas, Pope Paul VI spoke in a way which must have made many people think in the days we live in, when our world is shaken by all kinds of crises, by civil and religious strife-a world which struggles with hardly any hope for the future because of hunger and the diseases which it causes and which turn people into human wrecks who can be freed by death only.
Those words of the Holy Father have given this world a glimmer of hope. We used to say-in my generation at least-when we were studying classics: "If you want peace, prepare war". But in our day of social unrest, of bloody strife, a voice rose to say to the world: "If you want peace, prepare justice".
Mr. Speaker, I will not be accused of exaggerating if I maintain that the action of this government, which I am proud to support, is to a large extent aimed in that direction. To be convinced of this-and in spite of what our opponents may say-one only has to look at both this government's past efforts and accomplishments and the plans for the future which it announces in the Speech from the Throne.
As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, we do not have a complete record of all the speeches made since 1867. Such a compilation would be interesting for various reasons, if only to provide a summary, so to speak, of the preoccupations of the various governments which have been in office over slightly more than a century.
Surely one thing would be obvious. One hundred years ago, those in power did not seem excessively social-minded. The way of thinking that prevailed in those days made them more trade-oriented than anything else. Their concern was more directed toward ensuring the wealth of the country in general or of the propertied class than that of the other sectors of society.
[Stage Direction]
February 28, 1972
Speech from the Throne
Our fathers did not take exception to differences in fortune which were much more shocking than presently. The government did not think of establishing a just society as this would have been considered if not strange at least unattainable.
However, it must be recognized that a century ago the poor adjusted themselves to their condition more readily than currently. Times have changed and the political history of the last 50 years is that of a slow emergence of what we might call the social concept.
More and more all our governments have given priority to these questions and legislation passed within the last few years bears witness to that. But this is a complex area and the search for justice, by its very nature, is an ever-recurring and never-completed operation.
Of course we can see actual progress but this will never correspond, whatever we do, to total and final success. But in this field, as in many others, you need not hope to undertake and need not succeed to persevere. Allow me to refer to the Speech from the Throne which we are currently debating, and I quote:
In a period dominated by bigness, in an increasingly impersonal social system, one of the major challenges facing government is to remove the impression of isolation which so often surrounds men and women, depriving them of their sense of worth, of accomplishment, of fulfilment, and removing from them their identity as individuals.
This feeling of isolation, or to quote a fashionable expression widely used nowadays, of alienation is probably a new phenomenon. If we go back to the post-war years, when another liberal government laid the foundations of the social security program-one of the most comprehensive in the world-we enjoy today, we have the impression that our predecessors were sincerely convinced that a better distribution of wealth, while insuring that the underprivileged would be, as far as practicable, shielded from misery, would have simultaneously eradicated the deep root causes of social unrest.
But what is happening? We have noted that more than 25 years of relative peace and a quarter century of almost uninterrupted economic progress have not solved a great deal. We did not find it enough for us to guarantee to the economically weak the social benefits that would, at the same time, solve the problem of poverty. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the word "poor" is almost new in our political jargon. When I was first elected to this House in 1962, it was hardly uttered. Now almost everyone mentions it, which is an indication, I think, that we are now conscious of the fact that it is not enough for a country to tackle the problems of its poors, but that it should strive to redeem their human dignity.
This is the political trend of the present government. Urgent economic necessities related, for instance, to defending, in the public interest, the integrity of our currency and the comprehensive review of our fiscal policy, should not be construed as a sign, even temporary, of negligence toward our social calling but, on the contrary, as the implementation of measures to reach that goal. In this regard, long excerpts from the Speech from the Throne could be quoted.
New national parks, the fight against unemployment, a better economic climate, the maintenance of stable prices,

there are measures in which we must see as many aspects of a social policy, in its widest but also in its truest sense.
Mr. Speaker, the government was accused of encouraging unemployment in its fight against inflation. That accusation dishonours those who cast it. We may perhaps have achieved more success in the first instance than in the second. Price increases, in Canada, rank among the lowest recorded in the industrial countries of the world. This remarkable feat, for which the government should be congratulated, was of benefit to all citizens.
Inflation, Mr. Speaker, is a deeply rooted and demoralizing evil whose spreading effects spare no one. Unemployment is a more apparent scourge, more easily definable but surely terrible for its victims. However, experience has shown us that it is of a more temporary nature and that its effects are less protracted. We have already noted some improvement in that respect this winter in comparison with last winter and no doubt that through the economic incentive program which we have undertaken, it will be possible to lessen those effects, thanks especially to the new provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I have spoken about the tax reform, the fight against inflation and unemployment but I could deal at length with many other aspects of the government's administration. It is not exaggerated to say that Canada has led the way by taking various steps to protect the environment. Ours is one of the few countries with a Department of the Environment specially vested with this responsibility. However, even before the department was set up, we had already taken a great many measures to protect the purity of air, water and soil, such as the Clean Air Act, the ban on DDT and phosphates, the Canada Water Act, all measures introduced by this government and reflecting this vitally social concern.
We implemented the Opportunities for Youth program. We instituted studies on drugs, the results of which are now taking concrete legislative form. We created Manpower Centres specially geared to students, etc. Although this aspect of the government's activities may have given rise to criticisms, on the whole we can claim real achievements. We have also taken many steps to protect farmers, to defend the interests of the consumer and to broaden Canadian international action.
In almost every case, I will point out, we have had to do without the support of the opposition, for adoption of legislation on the marketing of farm products, for fiscal reform and many other measures which were required in Canada.
I shall now stop my enumeration of the various beneficial measures passed and implemented by a government which has demonstrated more concern with serving the best interests of the nation than with ensuring its popularity. It is true that, the more courage we have shown, the more hostility we have incurred from both labour and business circles. The fact that so many private interests have felt aggrieved confirms our feeling that we have protected the public interest.
Apart from all such matters, the Speech from the Throne announces truly new legislation. One measure, for instance, concerning up-to-date and flexible competition will not please everybody, but will be of benefit to our
February 28, 1972
[Stage Direction]
country. New provisions with regard to income security may appear too generous to some, insufficient to others, but no matter, it is the general good that is sought.
Even though Canada may have more quality housing starts than almost all other countries in the world, it will always be said that it is not enough. This government has chosen to do its duty, all of its duty. Accordingly, it deserves to be encouraged and congratulated. Things cannot always be perfect. The government accepts criticism, but this criticism must be constructive. It will have been noted, doubtless, that since the beginning of this session, for lack of more serious subjects, the opposition refers only to issues such as the Geoffroy case or the alleged intention of removing the term "Royal" from the designation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), toward the end of last week, ansered these accusations as he was touring northern Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, I would rather not linger too long on this subject, but I can asy that the government's achievements arouse little enthusiasm on our opponents' part. This is understandable. It is even understandable that a certain part of the press, confusing the right to criticize with the duty to criticize, did not aspare it its reproaches. Fortunately, Canada has more objective and detached observers.
Reviewing, much as I have just done, the action of the government for the past few years, the Journal de Montreal on February 14 last published an article which stated in part:
In these particularly difficult times, the government remains vigilant and active. It was able to solve problems overcome crises and it works more than ever to improve the living conditions of all Canadians.
It could not be stated better. But if the value of this evidence is suspected, perhaps one will be more impressed by that of Le Devoir, a paper which is not very sympathetic to the government, as is well known. In an article by its Ottawa correspondent who also reviewed the legislative action of the government, it was stated in conclusion:
The government ensured the passing of many reformist acts of great importance, including the monumental tax reform bill and it succeeded as never before in keeping the attention of Canadians focussed on the central parliamentary institution.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that some measure of parliamentary reform, vehemently opposed by the opposition, will ensure that Parliament will now be able to act faster and better in the numerous fields in which it has to take action.
Nevertheless there is some contradiction in the fact that the very people who never stop asking that the government interfere in everything are not very competent themselves. Indeed, they spend their time reproaching the government with its slowness, its mismanagement and its idleness. But those are the very people who resist the most vehemently all attempts made by Parliament to facilitate sensible discussion of measures that often are vital for the public interest. The Canadian people are not taken in by that ambiguity and they will not believe that the government has trampled down the rights of Parliament, if I may use an expression often used by hon. members of the opposition. On the contrary, they are grateful to it for
Speech from the Throne
having taken measures to allow the representatives of the people to express themselves in an absolutely democratic way, that is in giving them the opportunity to take a vote on the proposals submitted to them.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not, like previous speakers, pay tribute to the hon. member who moved the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, as well as to the seconder. Both deserve much from their country. They have shown themselves worthy of the confidence which their electors had put in them, and I am convinced that both realize that a brilliant future lies afead of them.
To end these few remarks, may I, Mr. Speaker, call on all members of the opposition or the government to work together hand in hand. Let us work for the increased well-being of this country, and instead of condemning everything, sowing hatred, as some are trying to do, let us co-operate. As for those who would criticize us and try to get ahead by destroying reputations, may I remind them that "He who sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind".
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, as I participate in a Throne Speech debate for the first time, even though I have sat here as a member for six years and would like to think that I may sit here longer although that will be left to the electorate in the not too distant future, I suppose, I enter the debate with two basic thoughts that I want to present to the House. I believe they underline part of the problem in Canada, and in a philosophical way I have entitled them "The Paradoxes of the Prime Minister".
After listening to the last speaker refer to criticism and then immediately talk about hate, and accepting the sincerity of the views he expressed, I hope that no one after listening to what I have to say will suggest that one can equate criticism, either constructive or negative, if one can divide criticism in that semantic form, with any hint of hate, prejudice or bigotry.
As I sit as a Member of Parliament and hear questions concerning Canada discussed, our constitution, the monarchy and our parliamentary form of government, and then on television see the problems which exist to the south of us, I believe that those to the south of us at times have more to be thankful for than we in this country. Although they have problems and divisions I personally believe there is more frank discussion of those problems. Sides are taken passionately in an effort to solve their dilemma. We in Canada have a character blended from the two founding races with an infusion of the blood of many other peoples. We always seem to opt for compromise, for the easy way out, and avoid the basic issues confronting the land.
When the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) ascended the throne, so to speak, assumed the mantle of leadership of his party and fought an election, he appeared to speak frankly and realistically about the problems that face Canada. His frankness was stimulating. I believe there was hope in all parties and certainly among many of the younger people of Canada. People felt that at last,

February 28, 1972
Speech from the Throne
although the fundamental problems of this land would not be solved overnight-after all, no one party has a monopoly on solving our basic dilemmas-we were beginning to talk frankly and freely about our problems and we might attempt to resolve those problems in that spirit while recognizing at the same time the fundamental differences that have permeated the Canadian fabric for the past 100 years. Change is possible. Consider what has happened recently. President Nixon, a former communist baiter, has been honoured in Peking. He has been eating pheasant, duck and all those other delicacies available there.
Our forefathers, among whom I include Sir John A. Macdonald, were men of fundamentally diverse views but they got together and settled their differences. Those differences were based on philosophy, religion and origin and aroused greater discord than they might today when we have been emancipated by so-called education and technology. I wonder if there has ever been a political leader in this land who has evoked such an image as a young man who was adventurous and ready to experiment with new ways. If the President of the United States can change his anti-red posture and take the sort of trip he has taken to China, why should the people of this country not be able to sink their differences. However, we in Canada, I am afraid, are not prepared to sit down together frankly and discuss points of difference in the hope of bridging those differences and arriving at a consensus on what is best for Canada.
If there is anything that disenchants me about the four years that the present Prime Minister has been in office it is, if we forget for the moment unemployment and inflation, that during those four years that frankness and realism in approaching our difficulties which we had expected was never apparent. To me, Mr. Speaker, this involves a paradox. I doubt whether any man in recent times has come up so suddenly and so soon, stimulated such warmth, such excitement and radiated such charisma and yet, after attaining office, has become so cool, aloof and distant. In place of the former charisma we now see coolness and distance. In attempting to deal with today's problems the Prime Minister did not seem to be merely in an intellectual ivory tower; he seemed to be almost in an intellectual igloo. He has not cared about the plight of thousands of Canadians confronted with the reality of unemployment and caught in the squeeze of ever-spiralling inflation.
I will be the first to admit that no government will solve these difficulties overnight. Nevertheless, we must face the paradox of a Prime Minister who, having shown warmth and compassion before election, seemed at times to lose the capacity to feel compassion after his election. I believe that a Prime Minister of this country cannot solve the country's problems involving confederation unless he brings to the study of those problems a great degree of care and compassion. In approaching solutions he must not deal with the problem as though it is like a tangent of a circle in a geometric plane; neither should he imagine that you can feed figures into a computer and obtain a programmed result. Problems involving people cannot be solved by computers or braintrusts alone, although these can help in providing the options available. You need the human element. Human beings must make the ultimate

decisions if we are to produce results which, although they may not satisfy everyone, will at least meet the approval of most.
Apart from the contrast displayed by the Prime Minister's attitude of warmth and concern on the one hand and coolness, detachment and an "I don't care" attitude on the other, we must also consider some of the things the Prime Minister has said, and especially the names he has called the premiers of certain provinces. Your Honour is well aware that, if we are to judge from the heat engendered in this chamber when some hon. members have called others names, name-calling on a national scale can bring about the breakdown of our system of government. The whole thing could break down. Think of what happens in this chamber when there is name-calling and imputation of motives. I say, why does the man who sits in the most responsible chair of the land, the Prime Minister's chair, not exercise greater responsibility in describing his feelings with regard to some of the leaders of this land? This is another example of the "I care and I don't care" attitude, of this warm-cool paradox I have spoken about.
Four years ago the Prime Minister was elected under a one-Canada banner, and a very attractive banner it was, too, pulling at the heart-strings of the nation. It is ironic that four years later there should be more discontent, disillusionment and disenchantment between the peoples of the various regions of this country than there has been for some time.
One reason for this breakdown in the common will, for this deterioration in our national fibre and fabric, and for the polarization between the various regions of this country, a polarization which is just beginning, is that for the first time there is in cabinet a group which, ironically, is not involved in national participation. I will not go into name-calling and say that there is in cabinet a Montreal Mafia and that there are three of four men who wield power while others, even cabinet ministers, must knock on the door. That has been said many times, and there is a good deal of truth to it. You need only look at the estimates for this year-I will go into those in greater detail soon-to realize who are the Midas twins and where the money is going. Much money is going to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Much is going to the department headed by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) and those agencies for which he is responsible. As for the Secretary of State, and I am glad to see him in the House because I intend to say more about his department, there has been an attraction of agencies and a compounding of dollars under his administration that make other ministries seem rather small indeed. These ministers are the Midas twins. It must be a compliment to their competence and aggressive nature, let alone any other factors, that they administer the two most active, sometimes imaginative and certainly the largest departments in the sense of new programs, not statutory matters which are built into the budget such as health and welfare. However, they are not voices for Canada as a whole in helping to develop a consensus in the cabinet. In fact, the development of a consensus springs too much from the basic center of this land-some might suggest only from Montreal or Quebec.
February 28, 1972

If we review the ministries we see that, starting with Sir John A. Macdonald, we had a Cartier and a Tupper from Atlantic Canada. Omitting some ministries and coming down to the days of real Liberalism, the man who indelibly stamped his imprint on the Canadian context more than any other one man, certainly in the twentieth century, through some of the programs he initiated and his avoidance of some of the fundamental problems with which we are still grappling-I mention bilingualism as one-was Mackenzie King. Mackenzie King, the Presbyterian and Protestant, had Lapointe, Jimmy Gardiner, Stuart Garson, C. D. Howe and Jimmy Ilsley in his cabinet. These were fine Canadians from various regions of Canada. They brought to the cabinet points of view which were not just confined to the television centres of Toronto and Montreal and did not just come from the geographical context of Ottawa. Whether they liked it or not, they represented a group. They did not come here initially as voices from Saskatchewan or Port Arthur or the voice of business. They brought to cabinet a balance of varying points of view from important ministers, something which is not found in the present cabinet.
The present cabinet, regardless of fuzzy-wuzzy tinkers as a colleague of mine suggested not too long ago, has in terms of actual power a very narrow base that has not been exposed to some of the realities of Canada from coast to coast. There are fine men from British Columbia and Toronto and a very interesting gentleman from Nova Scotia, but under Mackenzie King the President of the Privy Council was closer to the seat of power than under the present Prime Minister. These things come and go. Ministries have men who are close to the Prime Minister and men who are somewhat removed by distance and philosophy and thus the door does not open quite so readily.


Thomas Miller Bell: You mean like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner)?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) mentions the Minister of Finance. This is the reality of cabinet-making. It will continue under any administration, but the flaw in the present administration is that there is not the dilution of different points of view coming into the common stream.
Mr. Pearson had Jimmy Sinclair who has now attained fame in another way. He brought a responsible point of view from British Columbia. At one time George Mcll-raith used to bring a very definite point of view to cabinet council. He was not only heard but listened to, and there is a big difference between the two. Mr. Pickersgill brought to cabinet a very historical past and a very political present. He certainly added his point of view to cabinet council. There was Mr. Chevrier, an honoured representative of a riding about which Your Honour knows quite a bit. Regardless of political background, these men were of sterling character and brought their points of view to cabinet council. The results of cabinet deliberations were not dictated just because a man happened to be infused with the culture of Toronto or Montreal. There was a balance.
Speech from the Throne
I need only go back to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). He brought a balanced point of view from coast to coast. The lesson of history is remote but, ironically, there was more of a Canadian spark, be it a Canadian vision, Arctic plans or northern development. There was a one-Canadian approach. In his cabinet were Howard Green, Davie Fulton, Gordon Churchill, Hugh John Flemming and many others.


Mr. Osier:: What about-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) wants to ask me an illegitimate question, I will give him an illegitimate answer.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I would like to ask the hon. member a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor and cannot be interrupted unless he is prepared to reply to a question at this time. I remind the hon. member that he has limited time.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I would like to continue, Mr. Speaker. My whip has informed me that I have only ten more minutes.
I would like to conclude in that time. I have the problem of speaking too long rather than otherwise because I have so much of substance to say, not because I am prolix. I would like to complete my remarks.
We have the one paradox of the man with the warm charisma while campaigning who, following election, becomes the cool inhabitant of an intellectural igloo, a man without compassion who does not care. I suggest in all seriousness that the administration is going to have to combat in the next election the fact that the Prime Minister does not really care about a single problem. The other paradox is that under this ministry-I am not saying there is not regional representation, but that is not what I am talking about-the ministers who have the ear of the Prime Minister and his administration have a very narrow background. I do not mean narrow personally but because of geographic and other interests.
Before I try to dissect some of the estimates of the Secretary of State, I must say there is one thing that appalled me and caught me by surprise, although I should have been aware of it. When we look at this handy book put out by the President of the Treasury Board, which confuses rather than clarifies and hides more than it shows, we see it is shown in clear form that in the six short years since I came here the estimates have more than doubled from $7.2 billion in 1965 to $15.7 billion for 1972-73. We all know this is not the end. In six short years the estimates have more than doubled. Four years ago the present Prime Minister came on the scene with frugality and thrift. Later I will deal with how much his administration has cost. In a cumulative way the four Trudeau years will cost the Canadian taxpayer more than the first 85 years of Canadian federal government in total expenditure. This is the man who is so frugal and thrifty. The figures are clear. I have them here.
Let us talk about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and see what it has done. The time has come for Canadians to take a hard look at the CBC. Personally, I am in favour of a national broadcasting service. However, the proposed expenditures on current account are $207

February 28, 1972
Speech from the Throne
million, not counting the $31 million in loans. Compare this with total federal expenditures of $184.9 million in 1914. Indeed, federal government revenues did not reach the present level of the CBC for this year until the wartime year of 1917.
Look at the Department of Secretary of State. Proposed expenditures amount to more than $1 billion when one counts post-secondary transfer payments of $28 million. Mr. Speaker, total federal government expenditure did not exceed that amount in any year until Canada had been at war with Hitler for two years. To put it in another way, it took the first ten years of confederation for the Canadian Federal government to spend more than the CBC proposes to spend in the next financial year. It took the first 30 years since Confederation for the federal government to spend as much as the Secretary of State proposes to be responsible for spending in the next financial year. It took 49 years of confederation to spend as much as the Secretary of State has spent in four years, that is, $3.2 billion. It took the federal government the first 74 years of confederation to spend as much as the present administration proposes to spend next year. The four Trudeau years will cost Canadian taxpayers more than the first 85 years of federal government.
I ask, without trying to stimulate culture at all, is it any wonder that we should not be surprised, with estimates growing at this rate, with such large amounts set aside for culture at the expense, it would seem, of allocations, to certain practical programs, that the Canadian taxpayer is beginning to wonder where we are heading? If time were available I would go into more detail, though I could not hope to discuss fully the mythology of the hasty handbook for confused Canadians prepared by the President of the Treasury Board.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is the title. I was not referring personally to any minister. In this publication, purporting to show taxpayers how their dollar is spent, the President of the Treasury Board suggest we are each of us contributing in taxes 2 cents for culture and recreation. This is almost worthy of a question of privilege. One has only to look at the other pages, at the sections in which expenditures on which other programs are buried, to find that instead of two cents being spent on culture the amount is easily between four and five cents. It would be ridiculous if it were not so serious.
We find the estimates relating to The Company of Young Canadians under Health and Welfare. I do not know whose health these people have helped or to whose welfare they have contributed. More interesting to me is the fact that the allocation in respect of translation and bilingual programs, to the tune of $50 million, is to be found under the heading "Internal Overhead Expenditures". I would have thought that if anything were basic to culture it would be expenditure on bilingual programs. Similarly, $90 million proposed for education assistance in the year 1972-73 is found separately listed. Of course, when the work of 29 departments is broken down to 11 functions, expenditures have to be shifted around-there has to be a little shell game-but let us not put all these

items which are related to culture under different headings. The additional expenditures to which I have referred could easily add a further $318 million to the figure of $365 million given us in the little handbook, and I believe I can say this without provoking any debate with the Secretary of State who is responsible for all these programs.
Before closing I should like to deal with one further item here. It concerns translation costs. I believe there is a lot of hocus-pocus in connection with the translation of French into English and English into French. Translation services are, of course, important having regard to the bilingual character of this nation, but I think we have gone overboard. Look at the figures. Between 1961 and 1965, translation cost us $7.7 million. Between 1965 and 1969 the cost was $14.9 million. Four years of this administration, based on the 1969-1973 figures will give rise to translation costs amounting to no less than $41 million, more than is to be expended on northern economic development this year, or even next year, for which the estimate is $38.7 million. The proposed expenditure on translation next year is $15 million compared with $2.7 million for the Economic Council of Canada. I suggest this represents a sad degree of imbalance in the determination of priorities. We are spending $15 million in one year and $15.7 next year on translation while providing $2.7 million in the same period for the functions of the Economic Council, five times as much for translation as a specific subject than for economic planning, and this is at a time when the country badly needs economic planning.
My time has almost expired but there are many more things I could say. I hope to have the opportunity to say them at another time. I believe that as we head down the back stretch-I am referring to the days when I used to run races-on the last lap of this parliament, the government will have to show that it cares. It will have to demonstrate that there is a measure of balance in its decisions. I am not talking now of the Liberal party. The Liberal party is a great and famous institution of the land-too strong as far as I am concerned. On this note I suggest that a government which was capable of approaching decisions in a balanced way would never have involved itself in the little problem which has arisen with respect to the RCMP. It may seem only a small matter but it is large in the eyes of many people. Members opposite can sniff and sneer, but I would point out to them that this difficulty has never risen before. It did not arise during the administration of the previous Solicitor General who was a wise old fox around the corridors of this Hill. This is another thorn which I hope will prick some sensibility, some sensitivity, into the cabinet in order that we may avoid in this land the backlash which could be witnessed unless better judgment is shown.


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one or two comments at this time. Some of them will relate to my constituency. But before getting into those subjects I wish to commend the two hon. members who moved and seconded the address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and join with others who have paid sincere tributes to them. I should like to say how refreshing it was to hear the unabashed, unashamed and enthusiastic views of the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) in a Chamber
February 28, 1972

which is all too often characterized by predictions of disaster, gloom and doom, particularly from the Casan-dras opposite. It was quite refreshing that at least one member of the House could state that government had done something over the past years to justify his saying something positive and enthusiastic about our performance. I only wish that some of this enthusiasm would rub off on members opposite. It is not a question of being smug but simply of recognizing a few facts. During 100 years, this country has achieved certain accomplishments. Perhaps these can be put into some kind of perspective, rather than members dwelling upon some of our shortcomings.
I was intrigued by the contribution made by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan). I too have read "How Your Tax Dollar Is Spent". I did not find it confusing, but I must admit that, after listening to him telling the House that he had read it, I am prepared to believe that it must have been a confusing document to him. I say that because no member of this House, having read that document, could have come forward with such a jumble of ideas so confusedly presented without giving some credence to the claim that the document itself is confusing. I shall re-read it myself and perhaps I shall become as confused as he; but certainly on first reading it did not seem to me confusing but, rather, quite helpful.
The hon. member for Annapolis Valley started to talk about what he called the "two Midases from Quebec". He was, of course, referring to two ministers, one being the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) and the other the minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). He went on to say that somehow their budgets had been increased. But why did the hon. member devote such a great portion of his speech to talking about increases in budgets? Was he as concerned about the increase in the budget of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion? No, he simply avoided that. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley could not justify, nor could any other member from the Maritimes justify, coming to this House to complain about the increase in the budget of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. So in that selective way that is the trademark of hon. members opposite, the hon. member dealt with but one budget that he felt he could legitimately make some point about, coming from Annapolis Valley.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind taking innuendo from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) but I am not going to take it from my hon. friend across the way. My time ran out and I had only started to talk about the estimates. We on this side have been complaining about the policies adopted by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) ever since this Parliament opened, and my hon. friend knows it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Speech from the Throne


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If the hon. member would only sit in this House more frequently and listen to members of the opposition, he would know that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peterborough has the floor and he should be allowed to make his speech.


James Hugh Faulkner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly did not intend to make any innuendo; I was stating facts. I do not have to resort to innuendo; I need only tell the hon. member what are the facts.
Then the hon. member went on to complain about the expenditures. He may have some legitimate criticisms of the program-I do not dispute that for a moment-but he seemed to think that the bulk of the money was being spent in central Canada and in Quebec in particular. He went on to say that this money was spent not by DREE but rather by the Secretary of State's Department. I do not think the rather lame excuse that the hon. member had only 30 minutes should account for the selective criticism that we have listened to today.
I am not going to get into a defence of the estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State. This will be our pleasure when the estimates of the department come before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. I only hope that between now and then the hon. member, who was so critical of the increased budgets and so concerned about them, will have more to say than simply that he objects to the increased expenditure on translation facilities.
I must say I find it particularly ironic that the hon. member can stand in his place and profess his complete confidence and faith in the concept of a bilingual country and then come to this House and express his objection to expenditure on translation services. If he has anything more to say about this department I should love to hear him, and I am sure that the minister will also be interested to hear him. However, I suggest that blanket criticism of increased expenditures which, when one gets to the pith and substance of the criticism, is simply a complaint about the increased amount of money spent on translation services, is a rather hollow and, I suggest, inadequate critique. As I say, I hope that between now and the time the estimates go to committee the hon. member will have something more substantive to contribute to the debate.
I was also intrigued about his inside information on the subject of cabinet discussions. He feels that he has some sort of access to those who are making a contribution to cabinet discussions.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You know who, Hugh.


James Hugh Faulkner: I have no idea who. What I do know is that, having looked at the DREE program, I cannot see where central Canada benefits at all. Where does Peterborough or Toronto benefit under DREE? I am not complaining about that because I think DREE reflects the true priorities. It does not reflect any priority in regions in central Canada but rather other priorities that are long overdue. So I suggest that to say that the priorities he referred to emerge from a cabinet that is dominated by ministers from central Canada is palpable nonsense. I suspect it is merely serving as campaign ammunition for

February 28, 1972
Speech from the Throne
the election that lies ahead. However, let us not confuse what is election fodder and what is fact.
Coming as I do from central Canada, I would be the first to state that the government has demonstrated an approach to the priorities of this country that is at least as intelligent and as sensitive as any previous government within my time. However, as I say, since we are in an election year we will have to put up with the sort of nonsense we have been hearing.
I am going to get into some other topics, Mr. Speaker, so may I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members that the Chair call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair. The House will resume consideration of this item of business at two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took refcess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
James Hugh Faulkner: I want to continue from the point at which I left off at one o'clock and get into the substance of what I want to say. First of all I want to deal with the contribution of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). I will make some comments about what I feel our strategy should be. First of all, I would like to wish him well in what is obviously a difficult portfolio. He has demonstrated an extraordinarily high level of talent in his previous undertakings for this government, and I am sure he will bring these considerable talents to bear successfully in the portfolio he presently holds. In his first speech to the House he wisely warned us, and the public at large, against any false hopes for uninterrupted smooth sailing. Although the economy is strong, despite the gloomy predictions of the Cassandras opposite, there are serious and unresolved problem areas. In his remarks the minister pointed out some of these.
First, there is the highly imperfect and incomplete state of the so called science of economics, where theorists are more noted for their disagreements than for what they agree upon. Second, there is the lack of solid understanding about the phenomenon of cost-push inflation, and the understandable but frustrating lack of consensus on how to deal with this matter. The minister, in his remarks, stated:
Cost-push inflation has frequently occurred to some extent in the past, but more recently it has taken a far more virulent form.
The remedy for the problem most often proposed by Canadians generally is, of course, wage and price controls. The Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission, Dr. John Young, has indicated that the Commission has studied this matter and has a formula which could be used if there is not successful voluntary restraint. I, for one, would like to see some of the findings of the Commis-

sion made public so that we could examine this matter dispassionately. I note in passing, though, that the Senate Committee on Prices and Incomes reviewed the matter of wage and price controls, invited a series of the most distinguished economists in this country and abroad to advise the committee on the matter and, after their exhaustive study, came out against wage and price controls.
Third, there are the dangers inherent to a trading country like Canada in the formation of trading blocs all around us, particularly trading blocs which have a tendency to be protectionist. Fourth, there is the threat posed to Canadian secondary manufacturers by the brazen plan of export subsidy that the U.S. Congress is allowing through the formation of the Domestic International Sales Corporation, creating a substantial threat to employment in Canada. Fifth, the minister pointed out something which we all too often forget, namely, the pure vagaries of a relatively free market economy operating on the basis of decisions by millions of individuals.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is a further threat to employment levels and to the economy of Canada which was not mentioned by the minister. It is the new, potentially troubling threat to Canadian jobs looming on the U.S. horizon in the form of the Hartke-Burke bill. This bill is supported by the AFL-CIO, and is designed to cut back on imports from abroad. Canada would be the country most affected if this bill, which has been referred to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, ever became law. This bill would establish a new agency with strong powers to regulate imports. The bill would force Canada to put quotas on its exports to the United States, rolling them back to the average level of exports for the period 1965-69. This bill is being supported by the heads of international unions in the United States. It is a short-sighted, selfish, protectionist measure.
But the irony is that Canadian workers who are members of the same international unions in question will be thrown out of work by the lobbying of the leaders of the unions of which they are members. I think it is important to know what the Canadian heads of the international affiliates of these unions are doing, what pressures they are applying to their counterparts in the United States to stop the progress of this bill. I would also like to know what that political party the NDP, which is nothing more or less than the handmaiden of organized labour in Canada is doing to bring pressure to bear in order to stop this bill.
These are some of the realities with which the Minister of Finance has to contend. His task will not be easy. Recognizing this, perhaps he will forgive me if I chide him gently for what appears to have been somewhat rosy statements about the employment prospects for Canadian workers. I share his view that our first priority must be to provide good jobs for Canadians who are seeking work. That is fair and commendable. I completely endorse that priority. But really, Mr. Speaker, what are the prospects of that priority ever being anything more than a priority?
I don't believe that this government, or in fact any other government can accomplish that goal, and I do not believe that we should leave the impression in the minds of Canadians that it is something that can be done, or done easily.
February 28, 1972

I was disturbed to receive today the first mailing of a document which apparently is the result of an organized campaign in support of "a full employment program."


Mr. Gilbert:: Are you against full employment?


James Hugh Faulkner: If the hon. member will wait for a second or two he will hear my misgivings about this. What is the program proposed? I quote from the document:
I urge your support demanding this government pass full employment legislation now guaranteeing all Canadians, able and willing to work, jobs at fair wages-
Whatever that means.
-commensurate with their ability or training.
If any political party in this House has such a program, Mr. Speaker, it should produce it. But certainly neither the NDP nor the Conservatives, nor indeed this party, has such a program. I think we should stop trying to leave the impression in the minds of Canadians that somehow there is a simple, miraculous solution, that if this or that group were in power everybody in the country would be fully employed and working at fair wages. I may say that a decision on the last statement would be a rather subjective judgment. Is it to be left to the individual to decide what he is worth? In fact, some people doing our work, Mr. Speaker, think that our wages are too low. We cannot possibly reach that goal.


John Gilbert: Why not?


James Hugh Faulkner: If the hon. member is so naive that he does not understand this, then I will talk to him privately later. If anyone can point out to me a year when there was full employment in this country, or if the hon. member's colleagues opposite, whose political party was in power for 17 years in Saskatchewan, can point out one year there, or even a full 24 hours when there was full employment at fair wages, then I will retract my statement. But they know perfectly well that they cannot do that. It is pure hypocrisy on their part to suggest that it can be done.
I certainly think that our goal should be to maximize employment, and we can confess to this frankly, but we should also be examining ways in which unemployed and unemployable people can still be active and occupied, alternating between jobs. Our traditional ways of looking at this question have been superseded by events. The high technology industrial state raises new problems and new possibilities. Obviously, there will be less work and more leisure.
Obviously, things like overtime will have to be eliminated. Obviously the 40 hour work-week is becoming redundant in terms of present technology. All these are things that will have to be reviewed, and until they are reviewed we should stop promising full employment. We should begin to think of how we can make periods of unemployment as creative and active as possible. We must start thinking of alternatives to "the job" as it is narrowly defined and traditionally understood. We should start thinking in terms of a society of alternatives, of hope, not relief and handouts.
I want to turn now to the question of strategy in dealing with the economic prospects that face our country. I want to emphasize certain points which I see as central to our strategy. Dealing first with the phrase "an industrial
Speech from the Throne
strategy," this is a rather glib and popular expression which no one is ready to define with any precision. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has promised something more definite in his further statements. He contends, and I think rightly, that there has been over the years a developed form of industrial strategy. Programs like PAIT and IRDIA, and policies like the textile policy all constitute a form of industrial strategy. The principal component of the future strategy, and probably the most difficult, will be the steps taken by the department to aid the process of rationalization.
Branch plant fragmentation has demonstrably weakened our domestic economic base. Admittedly the needs of the Canadian consumer have been met, and so have the interests of the U.S. shareholders. But beyond that, the shortcomings of this pattern are clear and have been fully documented by a number of studies. Both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce have referred to this problem and I will await their more precise outline of their plans. I simply want to affirm that in my judgment this has to be a component of our industrial strategy.
Dealing secondly with tax reform, I wish to say that despite the significant and major overhaul of our tax system, it is still apparent that more reforms are necessary. I, for one, am convinced that instead of the extraordinary tax privileges enjoyed by the resource industries to cover their alleged risks, any concessions or privileges available to those industries should be granted on the basis of processing done in Canada. Most resources are in short supply and this situation is likely to continue for some time. It makes no sense to encourage companies to sell our raw materials in basically a sellers' market and give them special subsidies in the process. Tax support, if any in fact is justified, should be geared to support efforts the resource industry makes to process in Canada.
Secondly, consideration will have to be given to tax changes to support venture capital operations in Canada. Even a most cursory examination of the industrial scene will show that a number of small companies with young entrepreneurs and usually some technologically innovative idea, are trying to get off the ground. Their principal problem is trying to find the risk capital necessary. If there are venture capital operations prepared to get into this field, I think the government should share some of the burden. We might examine the methods used in the United States. That could be a formula that would work in Canada; the principle, though, is important and that is that we get into a support position for the venture capital operation. These small businesses funded by venture capital operations often are the kernel out of which much larger, viable and important businesses grow.
Finally, there is national strategy, something I have talked about in this House before. The Minister of Finance, in his speech, expresses the hope that the business community and labour unions, farmers and consumer groups, will make representations and offer advice. This has been, I remind you, Mr. Speaker, to some degree, the pattern of the past. In my view, this process of seeking or offering advice on an ad hoc basis when a situation becomes critical or even the present practice of an annual

February 28, 1972
Speech from the Throne
meeting between the Cabinet and representatives of business and labour-meeting separately, of course-is not adequate to meet the challenges of the present situation. Consultations between labour, management and government have got to be carried on in a far more systematic and continuing basis than heretofore. We have had the good sense to recognize the advantages of continuous consultation in the industrial relations field. The principle applies with equal force on a broader economic front.
Consultations and strategy sessions at the national level will only work if government is prepared to be completely open with the information it has at its disposal. It should also be prepared to consult, in some systematic way, on policy options that are being discussed in Cabinet. I feel very strongly that if labour and business have a clear and continually updated idea of what the government's intentions are, of some of the problems we anticipate, and the leaders of both labour and management are consulted on these matters, we can expect a higher level of co-operation and understanding than has been evinced in our direction heretofore.
Mr. Speaker, I simply say that we face competition in the world from highly developed, sophisticated industrial countries. We face tougher and somewhat protectionist policies from our greatest trading partner and largest market to the south of us. Even all these, and the other problems which I have outlined above, make the closest possible and continuing consultation between government management and labour indispensable. Annual meetings of the kind we have seen in the past will not serve this purpose. They will not produce either the understanding or the co-operation we will need. I appeal to the Minister of Finance, at the start of his new responsibilities, to explore this area of co-operation in a way that, in my view, has not been explored in the past.
I am afraid I am running out of time, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to touch upon an industry which is important in my area, and in relation to which the following statement appeared in the Speech from the Throne:
Policies designed to promote a related, yet distinct, sector of the economy-tourism, will be revealed in coming weeks.
I strongly and enthusiastically endorse this promise, and I will be watching with interest to see what is forthcoming. As you know, Mr. Speaker, representing as I do an area where the tourist industry is very important, I have to say that it faces serious problems in the less developed or advantaged areas. One of the principal problems is that the industry is fragmented and decentralized and does not have the financial base upon which to grow and to rationalize. I think it is important to note the efforts of the IDB in this regard. I point out to the House that last year there was a 56 per cent increase in lending to hotels and motels, from $17 million to $27 million, So, there is movement. It is in the area of financing that the tourist industry, particularly in the less developed areas, requires support.
I would also point out that in less developed areas it is often the tourist industry that holds out the greatest possibility of jobs. Plants are not going to locate in these areas because of the difficulties of transportation and the expense of setting up business, but the tourist industry and the natural resources of the area, lakes, water, hunting and fishing, could provide year round employment.

Any strategy, and this is what I am appealing for, to help less advantaged areas should embrace the following four elements: first, financing on special terms for viable tourist operations whose intention is to grow to meet the sort of criteria we are talking about; second, support for training facilities in our community colleges for people who wish to engage in hotel management or the food service business. Much more sophistication has to be introduced into this area; third, access to tourist areas. Even the most cursory examination of the Kawartha Lakes will demonstrate that access to this area is plagued by inadequate road systems, and most of us are becoming increasingly impatient with the provincial government's performance in support of proper access to the Kawartha area; finally, promotion, particularly within Canada, of possible holidays in other parts. This type of promotion encourages Canadians to move within their country, something that is long overdue.
A coherent, properly financed strategy in this area could do more to meet the inequities faced by the people in the slow growth areas of Ontario and other parts of the country than probably any other strategy. In so far as the government has committed itself to doing something in this field, I support it and any measures it brings forth to achieve that goal I will endorse.
In conclusion, may I just make a point that I made elsewhere in support of the decision to transfer canals from the Department of Transport to the conservation program of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This is something that you, Mr. Speaker, myself and others have been working on for at least two years. I think it is important to take this key phrase from the minister's statement in the House, which reads:
It is our intention, working closely with the provinces, to develop the recreation potential of these waterways and to protect their park, wildlife habitat and historical values.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all agree that although this move is only a beginning, it marks a radically important victory for those of us who have been saying that these waterways should not be arteries for transportation but should provide the backbone of recreational facilities available to all citizens. What is happening is that the lakes in Ontario and other parts of the country are becoming the closed preserve of a lot of cottage owners. With this program of new priorities there is the possibility that recreation will be available to all citizens, whatever their income and a wide variety of recreational possibilities will be available such as hiking trails, canoe routes, conservation areas, etc. which are a much more exciting prospect than anything held out before.
I strongly commend the minister and the government for making this move. Of all the things that have to be done, the first priority must be to secure land for parks. This is particularly true of the Trent-Severn canal system where land is at a premium and under constant encroachment from private development. If that system is to have land area available to all citizens it is imperative that the federal or the provincial government or the two combined get into a land purchasing program in order to protect it from private development. Of course, private development will continue but in the interests of all a balance must be maintained. The move by this government introduces the hope that such a balance will be estab-
February 28, 1972

Speech from the Throne
lished and I think that all the citizens of Peterborough and the areas of Northumberland and Durham will endorse this.
I am sorry that I have spoken so quickly, Mr. Speaker, but there were several things that I wanted to get on the record and I appreciate your indulgence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack).


Mr. Thomson:: A question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. parliamentary secretary would receive the question the Chair would have to ask the unanimous consent of the House to extend his time which had just expired as he finished. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Thomas Miller Bell: No. We are on schedule, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack).


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by congratulating the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. It must have been a source of great comfort to those backbenchers when they were given permission to speak in this House. We all know, of course, that the role of the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) is that of official heckler or court jester; so, it must have surprised the hon. member as much as it surprised us when he was given permission to make a bona fide speech.


An hon. Member:: Come off it.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: My colleagues have been eminently successful in rebutting the hon. member's attempts to shore up this government's sagging image, and I will now dwell on that. However, I feel compelled to make a couple of observations about the hon. member's verbosity. In the first instance, the Throne Speech itself must have been written by the same team that has been drafting the government's legislation over the past four years. The document was calculated to confuse rather than to enlighten the people of this country and members of this House. It lent itself to as many interpretations as there were listeners and, Mr. Speaker, it failed utterly to provide any solutions to the serious problems which plagued Canada since the present government assumed such extensive powers.
The hon. member for Bruce was like Mark Antony; however, he has something in common with that other Mark Antony. We are not sure whether he came to praise or bury his Caesar. If I may borrow a phrase from the Bard, I think the hon. member protested too much. In the process, he failed to add to the lustre of his Caesar's tarnished image. Apparently he was instructed to deliver his speech in the manner that the government administers its affairs of state, because he rambled and rambled, and in the end was compelled to ask for more time to attempt to make his point. We gladly gave him more time.
I will leave the hon. member for Bruce and turn to the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride). I say to that hon. gentleman that he is much justified in his concern about the probable outcome of the next federal election. When his constituents realize the inconsistencies in the speech he delivered in the House last Monday, his concern will be greatly amplified. In common with my colleagues, I was greatly amazed at the hon. member's statement that he fancies himself as something of an ombudsman. I am anxiously awaiting the day when he will qualify that statement, both by word and deed, and especially by deed.
I should like to make one thing clear before I continue my speech, Mr. Speaker. I am not attacking the two hon. members I have mentioned so far. I am not attacking them personally, anymore than I would launch a personal attack on any member. They are both personal friends of mine. It should be clear to everyone that the subservient backbenchers on the other side of the House relinquished all claims to individuality long ago. They are now reduced to serving the power elite that governs them just as it governs Canada. I am attacking their failure to stand up to the power elite and serve their constituents. I am attacking their subservience and their obvious willingness to put the welfare of their constituents below the welfare of that power elite. The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton subordinates himself to the will of the elite group which is manipulating this country and then fancies himself an ombudsman. Mr. Speaker, this is a contradiction that, surely, is without equal in the annals of this or any other parliament.
To make my point, may I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that I am not in favour of legislation which would establish an ombudsman in our administrative organization. We are all private members in the House, even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who represents the riding that elected him; and each of us is the ombudsman for the people he represents.
I am going to answer some of the charges that the hon. member levelled in his speech, some of which deal with the position that some of my colleagues and I have taken against abuses under the Official Languages Act and the Public Service Employment Act. May I say in passing that in my hand I hold a file of complaints of abuses arising under the Public Service Employment Act. The file weighs almost as much as Bill C-259, the taxation bill, and contains well over 200 documented complaints.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: When I have finished, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: After the next federal election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I will answer questions after I have finished my speech, Mr. Speaker. I think it is common knowledge by now that I am considered by some on the other side of the House to be a bigot because I have spoken out against these abuses, of which documentation has been sent to me. I was well aware of that possibility, the possibility of being called a bigot, before I began to speak out and, no doubt, I will be called a bigot again and
318

February 28, 1972
Speech from the Throne
again in future. However, I should like to make one thing clear to the people on the other side of the chamber and to all others who might be inclined to call me a bigot. I am committed to my stand and I will not waver. I will continue to attack this government and its minions on the issue of imposed bilingualism and the attempts on the part of this government to subvert the traditional and honoured rights of the Canadian individual, especially the individual in the public service. I will not stand idly by while Canadians of any race, creed, colour or language preference are given an advantage that is not available to all Canadians; nor will I stand idly by while Canadians are disadvantaged for the same reasons.
It is interesting to note that some members on the other side of the House are quite ready and willing to use the government's bilingualism policies for political purposes, but that they are also ready to jump back into the fold as soon as their leader orders them to. On May 20, 1971, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) told a meeting of his constituency association that he challenged the government's policy on bilingualism in the public service. Well done, I say. He said he was reinforced in his views by the views of his constituents and would continue to oppose the policy. I have here a copy of his statement, as carried in the Ottawa Journal. It will be remembered in this House that the hon. member, armed with evidence of abuses under the Official Languages Act, moved a motion in the Commons committee investigating civil service bilingualism. The hon. member's motion was defeated, largely by his own colleagues. He has been warned, in the interim, to desist from such tactics.


Edmund Boyd Osler: And who is supporting him on your side?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Nobody.


Mr. Paproski:: Don't you worry about it, Osier.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I just want to know who supported him.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: After the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Code) and I moved a motion in this House for the removal of the chairman of the Public Service Commission from office, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton abandoned those principles and came out publicly against me and my colleagues. I have a far more extensive file of documented abuses than the hon. member has, or he would not have dared to abandon his constituents in favour of his government. I wonder if the hon. member will make another flip-flop after his leader calls the next election. I suggest to the hon. member that it may be too late by then; his credibility has suffered too much for him to be able to regain it simply by opening his complaint file and attempting at this late date to get justice for those constituents of his who have suffered needlessly.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, may I get back to what the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton said. He began his speech in a way that fooled me into thinking he was going to be credible. Early in his speech he dealt with economics, agriculture and ecology, areas in which he appears to have an amazing amount of expertise. We are all surprised that he is not a cabinet minister. Then, as recorded in Hansard, page 74, he said:

In the first place, the Liberal government, under the leadership of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said that because most Canadians will always speak only one language, it is necessary for them to be able to do business with their government in either of those official languages.
That is very credible as far as it goes. The hon. member should have stopped right there. He was on a winning kick. It is too bad he could not see it. We are all in favour of ensuring that all Canadians are able to get service from their government in either English or French. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) initiated that policy many years ago by establishing simultaneous translation in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: The hon. member then proceeded to refer to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). He even referred to the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan). He expressed surprise that the Leader of the Opposition did not make his speech in this chamber the other day on the same topic I have chosen. I fail to see the logic in the member's arguments. I fail to see what that has to do with the stand I have taken on this particular issue. The hon. member will no doubt be surprised to learn that Progressive Conservatives are not required to hang their individuality and responsibility to their constituents in the cloakroom before they enter this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: We are a strong party for many reasons. That is one of the main reasons. We are individuals, not puppets on a string. My leader speaks French and I speak French. However, I fail to see how this should influence my decision to speak out in this House against the abuses perpetrated under the sole excuse that French Canadians should be able to get service from their federal government in the French language.
The hon. member would do well to examine my remarks more closely. He would be well advised to read and reread the complaints he is getting from public servants whose careers have been stopped short because they are not bilingual. He had better heed the warnings being sounded today about the dangers inherent in pitting race against race in this country, as is being done by the federal government. That is being done through the abuses of the powerful who are running the various departments. He and his colleagues in the backbenches will do well to examine the extent to which the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), the chairmen of the Public Service Commission and the Official Languages Act are destroying the morale and efficiency of the public service, the armed forces and other areas of federal government activity in their zeal to undo a supposed wrong suffered in our past. I have many complaints here, more than a dozen, from personnel in the armed service which are all along the same line. Even if we accept the view that French Canadians have been kept out of the mainstream of Canadian life, and I do not accept it, then two wrongs do not make a right. I am surprised and shocked that that truism has escaped the attention of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton.
February 28, 1972

Then, there is the matter of the hon. member for Gan-der-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) who was received so well in the Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton riding when he spoke there a few weeks ago. I can understand the concern of the member opposite. I assure him that the Conservative party organization in his riding is very much a part of the national party. That should give the hon. member more cause for concern. He compared the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate with Ian Paisley and George Wallace. While I feel that comparisons are odious, I cannot help but suggest to the member that he should be concerned about who he will be compared with by his constituents.
It will probably come as a surprise to some members opposite that through 1972 the official languages program will have cost Canadians the sum of-I think the minister-


Steve Eugene Paproski: He wants to know what you think of Paisley.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I think the minister should listen to this figure I am quoting. It will probably come as a surprise to some members opposite that through 1972 the official languages program will have cost Canadians the sum of $223 million. This figure only represents the amount appropriated for the program by the office of the Secretary of State.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about the poor Ukrainians and Polish people?


James Aloysius McGrath: And the "Newfies."


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: It is only the tip of the iceberg. It does not take into account the sums appropriated by other departments that are camouflaged by misleading titles. There are millions of lost man-hours in all government services as a result of the bilingualism program. There is the incalculable loss of efficiency as evidenced by the total breakdown in some agencies, such as the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
Added to all those is the tragic effect the program has had on public servants. Thousands of careers have been affected, many of them cut short by layoffs, demotions and loss of promotions.


Gérard Pelletier: Name them.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I have them here, Mr. Speaker.


Gérard Pelletier: Name them.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: The minister is asking me to name them so he can fire them.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Working conditions have suffered to the extent that some employees would rather seek new careers outside the government service. I know of one prominent medical doctor who did so on February 11.


Gérard Pelletier: Name him.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: They would rather do that than endure the atmosphere of resentment and hostility introduced into the public service by the heavy handed tactics of the
25020-21:
Speech from the Throne
government's hatchet men. There are a good many of those in every department.
The official languages program has already been corrupted and has become outright French Canadianism. To assist the government in furthering this new concept, many departments have already packed their personnel departments with French Canadians. I know there is no such thing as a French Canadian. For want of a better adjective, that is the way we refer to them. We also refer to English Canadians. In actual fact, there is no such person. We are all Canadians.
There is a bilingualism consulting section in each department which is also staffed largely by French Canadians. I have reports of promotion boards that are staffed entirely by French Canadians. In some departments, such as Statistics Canada, this results in the promotion of French Canadians-


Gérard Pelletier: They are just Canadians.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: -over many equally deserving Canadians of other ethnic origins. I have a well documented case which verifies that such conditions exist in the statistical branch of Statistics Canada. There is a supervisor in a certain branch who has carried on a campaign to discourage English Canadians from remaining in his section. He promotes French Canadians over more deserving English Canadians, with one exception. He is in the process of promoting one English speaking girl as fast as he can arrange it, although that girl has the worst work record in the section in both production and accuracy. He is known in both the import and export sections because of this attitude.
There is another device being employed in Statistics Canada that bears looking into. At least two people have been promoted to the level of CR-6, despite the fact that there is no authorization for such a level. Department heads shift these people from one section to another in order to camouflage this illegal procedure. Here again, the effect has been to destroy morale in the branch still further-I refer particularly to those who are English unilin-guals and who now see no opportunity for promotion ahead of them. The practice of delegating authority to promote people in the departments has gotten so far out of hand that I cannot believe the Chairman of the Public Service Commission is aware of all the abuses which are taking place. In fact, I cannot believe he cares about what is going on as long as he is protected by his minister.


James Hugh Faulkner: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: After I am finished, if there is time.
Needless, to say, morale in that section could not be worse. In the last couple of weeks resentment has reached a point at which there is real danger of fistfights in that section.


James Hugh Faulkner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I am prepared to listen to so much of this stuff but when the hon. member alludes to people in a number of government departments, people whose names he is not prepared to disclose, I feel I should protest. Unless he is

February 28, 1972
Speech from the Throne
prepared to give his evidence before a standing committee of the House, then in my opinion he should not pursue that line of innuendo which is in consistent with the practice of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary may not agree with what the hon. member who has the floor is saying. Very obviously, he does not. But it appears to the Chair that unless he can cite some authority of which I am not aware, no point of order arises on that particular score.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: We thank the hon. member for Peterborough for his interjection. He called my remarks innuendo. This is not innuendo. This is only a complaint laid at your feet, Mr. Speaker. I am dealing with a series of legitimate complaints for which there is documentation.
The people who have talked with me about this situation would not dare to file a legitimate grievance with either the Public Service Commission or the Public Service Alliance. I have been told repeatedly that the Public Service Alliance is a dead letter as far as grievances are concerned. This has been the case, I understand, ever since the arrangement was instituted whereby the fees for PSAC are deducted from the wages of employees whether or not they are members. This arrangement does away with the necessity of the PSAC to pursue grievances as it might have done in the past, since there is no need to serve members in order to induce them to remain in the alliance.
I should like to mention another area of serious contention. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has two networks, one French and the other English. The French network is French. That is fine. That is what we want it to be, so as to reach French-speaking Canadians. There is no way in which any unilingual or even bilingual Anglophone would be able to pursue a career within the French network. Now, Mr. Speaker, the English network has been made bilingual and careers in that network are already being denied in some areas to English Canadians. Even programming is affected in this way. I have complaints in this file from taxpayers in various parts of the country objecting to the use of French on an English network. They have a legitimate complaint. As far as I am personally concerned I like to see and hear a French program on the English network, when it is culturally advisable, but there are many people who do not. This works both ways. There are probably many French-speaking individuals who do not care to see and hear English programs on the French network. It may be they would not understand English, just as there are many English speaking people who do not understand French. It has already been announced that in future careers on the English network will be pretty well out of reach of English Canadians if they are not bilingual. I am sure hon. members can appreciate the point that is being made.
I have received several letters attesting to the fact that the NABET union local at the English network station in Ottawa now has a majority of French Canadians in its membership, while only a few years ago the proportion of French members was about 10 per cent. I have received complaints that Canadian performers such as Pierre Nadeau and Charlotte Gobeil are given preference over

other English-speaking broadcasters. I have nothing against them. Miss Gobeil gave me a good reception and good guidance when I appeared on her program. I am just laying at your feet, Mr. Speaker, the complaints I have received along those lines; they might not be complaints I would personally make. But preferences are shown, it is said, in spite of the fact that the network receives letters objecting to shattered English being used.
Scores of people have written asking me whether the new language of Canada is to be Franglais, a mixture of poorly spoken French and poorly spoken English, which debases both. On the basis of documented cases of transfers, demotions and releases from the English network in Ottawa, I am concerned about the activities of a Mr. Martel in the administrative branch of the station. Mr. Martel has been characterized in the complaints I have received as a hatchet man for the Secretary of State's office and he has been responsible, I am told, for a number of personnel changes motivated entirely by the bilingualism policy.


Edmund Boyd Osler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I think it is absolutely unfair of the hon. member to get up and name people who are employed in a Crown corporation, people he could confront quite easily when the Broadcasting Committee studies the estimates of the CBC.


James Aloysius McGrath: I hope the time spent on these spurious points of order is not taken out of the time allowed to my hon. friend.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Some time has already been allowed with respect to the previous point of order. It may be I should rule at this time on the point which has just been raised. I know that it is a practice in the House that public servants should not be mentioned by name in the course of debate, and attacked in circumstances in which they are not able to reply. I am sure the hon. member was not directly attacking the integrity of this civil servant. This is the position of the Chair.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, I trust you are not taking this time out of my speech. I should just like Your Honour to rule whether or not, the hon. member has a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair has made its ruling. It was not the impression of the Chair that the hon. member was reflecting on the integrity or qualities of civil servants, although he may have referred to them in general. I do not think he was attacking them specifically.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It seems to me that one particular man's name was mentioned several times in connection with the CBC. That is the point of order I was raising. The hon. member referred specifically to a certain person.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why don't you specifically sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I have made a decision and the hon. member who has the floor should be allowed to complete his remarks.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I object strongly to such tactics in the Public Service as I have outlined. They smell to high
February 28, 1972

heaven. I would remind hon. members that what we are dealing with now is not bilingualism but a more sinister move, a move to promote the use of one language in every area of federal activity. And this is being done with tax money provided by all Canadians. I have been accused of using scare tactics to force this House to initiate a serious examination of this whole question, without offering any proof of my claims that the situation is approaching the crisis stage. I am not using scare tactis. If the revelations scare some people, so much the better, because I am afraid for the future of Canada. I do not want backlash from English Canada to cancel out the progress made over the past 100 years in furthering French-English relations in our country.
Many, many conscientious people in our country are being duped by this government into supporting a program that is operating under false colours. There is no resemblance between what is being done now and what was proposed to this Parliament in 1966 in the way of bilingualism. It was never the intention of the majority of members of this House to downgrade the English language and English institutions in Canada in order to give prominence to all things French. Since the present Prime Minister has held power the use of the word "Royal" has all but disappeared from our institutions. We are told that the French find the use of the word objectionable. So we have departmental names that reflect the French idion, and we are warned by Mr. Keith Spicer, the government's languages commissioner, that when he is finished making governments across the country bilingual, he is going after industry and other areas of activity.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the languages commissioner-and I hope those who have interjected take note of this-has vindicated my stand, although I am sure he did not intend to do anything for me, nor did I ask him to do so, either. In spite of the fact that Mr. Spicer has been insisting that no one was suffering as a result of the languages policy, he announced on Thursday last that he favours moderation in the government's approach to bilingualism, and that efforts must be made to assist the casualties of the lingualistic revolution. I, too, feel that those people must be vindicated, and also compensated. However, I cannot understand how anyone can say that there have not been any casualties, and then suggest publicly that those casualties should be compensated.
I note that the Ottawa Citizen for last Thursday carried a report which stated that Mr. Spicer said he favoured a little moderation in implementing the Official Languages Act. The report continued:
In a panel discussion at Seneca College, he said a recommendation in his second annual report will be for such moderation.
It will oppose over-zealous enforcement of the legislation, particularly as it affects civil servants caught in mid-career by the bilingualism drive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must tell him that although the Chair has allowed him an extra four minutes the time allotted to him has expired. Unless he can get unanimous consent, he will be unable to continue his remarks. Does the House agree, that the hon. member should continue his remarks?
Speech from the Throne


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and may I thank hon. members for the privilege. May I just complete what Mr. Spicer said.
Mr. Spicer said efforts must be made "to assist the casualties of the linguistic revolution."
That is what I have been pointing out to this House since December 30.
He added that the anguish of civil servants caught up in it is "perfectly legitimate."
"We should be looking to exploit all the mechanisms of the language act to relieve the pressure," he said.
For example, he suggested holders of posts designated as needing bilingual expertise should be given six months' advance notice, to allow them to prepare for it.
The bilingual qualifications for a post also should be suspended for "anybody who has a legitimate claim to a job on the basis of technical competence."
That is the end of the quote from Mr. Spicer, and I thank him for vindicating my stand. The operations of the Public Service Employment Act are a further example of the fuzzy-headedness that has characterized the language policies and all other policies of the present power-oriented government. I serve notice on the government that I shall continue my fight against abuses of the languages act and the corruption of the Public Service Employment Act.
To those who work in the public service and to all of those who aspire to a public service career, I say that I will not abandon them, that I will fight civil service discrimination in the House of Commons and elsewhere, whether it be discrimination against English unilingual-ists or French unilingualists. My reason for that is fundamental, as it was at the beginning of my fight and always will be, namely to see that the youth of Frontenac-Lennox and Addington whom I have the honour to represent in this House have the same opportunity for employment in the public service as those from Levis or Trois-Rivieres.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: What will it be now?


Eymard G. Corbin: If you stay in the House you will hear. It is evident, Mr. Speaker, that the mood of the House today has turned sour, but the loyal opposition will have to answer for that. I am very reticent to speak under these circumstances, of which I am rather inclined to be ashamed as a Canadian. I hope that the Tory opposition will come to its senses, or show some form of responsible and constructive leadership soon in this House.


James Aloysius McGrath: We will; right after the next election.


Eymard G. Corbin: The sooner we get to an election the better, so the citizens of this country can deal with the promoters of this carnival that we have been witnessing from the other side of the House since this session commenced.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Look who's talking.


Eymard G. Corbin: That is right. I have the floor, so you keep quiet.

February 28, 1972
Speech from the Throne

Mr. Speaker, for a few days now, like some other members, I have had a feeling that I am wasting my time listening to the political speeches of the members of the opposition. I have always felt a certain amount of respect for the House of Commons but, since I have come here, I have much less respect for some of the members, who whine and whimper, complain for nothing and about everything, refuse to see the other side of the coin, ridicule, destroy and try to undermine the confidence of the Canadian people in the government and its ability to rule, in spite of failures which, very often, are none of its doing.
Obviously, the members of the opposition are making speeches these days that pertain neither to the Speech from the Throne nor to the routine proceedings in this House, but indeed to the coming election campaign. Yet, their constituents elected them to co-operate with the government when the time comes to pass good legislation such as that contained in the Speech from the Throne. In fact, the opposition has systematically tried to obstruct the passage of many bills since the beginning of the current Parliament. Their constituents will have the right to ask them to give an account of the quality of their so-called obstruction; frankly, I would hate to be in the shoes of a wavering Progressive Conservative, a foiled New Democrat or a swaggering "Caouettiste". I am firmly convinced that Canadians will renew the present government's term of office and strengthen it both as to quality and quantity.
I have had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of serving for nearly four years now the riding of Madawaska-Victoria. I have served it loyally, honestly and with great dedication. In spite of the distance separating me from my riding, I have still been able to remain in contact with most of my constituents, mainly thanks to the co-operation of the regional weeklies and radio station and also to the indispensable communications tool of modern civilization, the telephone.
Before I go any further, I want to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I can tell the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), whom we all respect here because of his dedication to the area he represents, I want to say that his continued energy and courage in the face of the repeated but futile attacks of the opposition are two of his major qualities, and we, government members, appreciate him for what he is, a man of integrity, a conscientious and energetic representative of citizens and interests of the riding of Bruce which I had the pleasure of visiting last spring, and of which I have excellent memories.
I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I am a little less acquainted with the new hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie). I am, however, aware that he came to us following a by-election, determined to grapple with the problems of his region with the same determination as his lamented predecessor. I wish the hon. member for Trois-Riviere a long political career and great satisfaction in serving his constituents.
I can now speak, Mr. Speaker, of my own riding, of my province, and at the same time of the Atlantic region. I wonder where my riding would be now, without the millions of dollars the government has poured into it over the

past four years. Quite recently, I was still meeting people who asked me to explain why so much money has been allocated to northwestern New Brunswick in recent years.
They are right, Mr. Speaker. For example, and this is far from being a complete account, in the field of education, the federal government has paid to the New Brunswick government $6 million for the construction of composite and trade schools in the Madawaska-Victoria constituency and in the field of culture, the Secretary of State has given to various groups grants amounting to $60,000.
Under the Opportunities for Youth program of 1971, the young people of my area have received $90,000.
Under the Local Initiative Program of 1972, my area has now been awarded by the federal government a total amount of $1,150,000 to create 800 jobs.
Under the regional economic program, many industries have obtained from the department concerned grants totalling over $6 million.
The Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation has granted loans for some $3 million, thus encouraging the construction of low-rent housing and older citizens' dwellings, a thing which had never been done previously.
In agriculture, because of a very desperate situation, especially for potato growers, the federal government twice came to the help of the industry, by paying millions of dollars for price support.
The government has also helped to finance improvements to the regional airport at Edmundston, and the fight against pollution in the St. John River, by spending $3 million. It has provided several millions to improve the educational level of a large number of our fellow-citizens.
I do not want to run through the whole list, Mr. Speaker, and weary hon. members, but, apart from ordinary, administrative and current expenses for the numerous services offered by the Canadian government, the subsidies paid in the last four years have exceeded those of the 25 preceding years to reach a total of approximately $25 million.
I am being told that there is only one Progressive-Conservative member in the House. I do not believe that he is listening to me, that one. But there is nothing new in that.
The people of New Brunswick Mr. Speaker-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am listening to every word.


Eymard G. Corbin: You are very kind; I thank you and I congratulate you.

-are presently under a Progressive Conservative government and I wish you would find time to make a short visit in my poor province to see what is going on. I wonder how long still this government could survive without the substantial financial contributions it gets from the federal government.
Since the beginning of this session, as in previous sessions, we have heard numerous criticisms directed against the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) as to the true effect of his subsidies on industrial
February 28, 1972

development in the various areas of this country, and especially in the Atlantic region.
I for one have news for the members of the opposition, if they will bother to listen a minute. I shall quote an article which appeared on January 13, 1972 in The Cataract Weekly which, by the way, is a bilingual paper. The heading is as follows:

536 New Jobs Created in Grand Falls [Translation]
This is my native village.

The town of Grand Falls and Victoria County have received as of September 30. 1971 from the Regional Development Incentives Act $3,139,900 which created 536 new jobs in this area. This places Grand Falls second only to Saint John, (the province's largest city) in the creation of new jobs during the past two years. Saint John has obtained the greatest number of new jobs, (1,197), followed by Grand Falls (536), and then by Moncton (311).
This fact was reported in the quarterly publication, "New Brunswick Economic Statistics", issued by the office of the Economic Advisor. The statistics are compiled since the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (DREE) announced its first approvals in October 1969 up to and including September 30,1971.

So, Mr. Speaker, let not the members of the opposition come and try to make us believe that the programs for regional development are not successful. I invite them to visit my area.
Unfortunately, we have heard a lot about bilingualism today, although these questions also concern me enormously since I am bilingual myself and since I represent a bilingual area where the bilingual character of the citizens is respected.
However, I think that I am right in being concerned about the $4 million or so granted by the federal government for the benefit of the schools of the French minority in New Brunswick. I now quote an article published in the paper Le Madawaska on March 31, 1971.
The Societe Nationale des Acadiens is concerned about knowing what will become of the $4 million granted by the federal government for the schools of the official language minority in New Brunswick and for the teaching of second languages.
The association takes advantage of a letter to the New Brunswick Education Minister to question him on that issue and to ask other questions concerning the training of teachers in the field of vocational education, the absence of Francophones in the vocational education division of the New Brunswick Education Department, the almost complete absence of French-speaking specialists in the curriculum and research division and what will become of the pupils attending the bilingual school in Fredericton now that the Health Department has condemned it.
I am glad to say that the matter of the bilingual school at Fredericton has been settled. A decent building has been provided for the young students and I congratulate the population of Fredericton for making that decision.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government granted $4 million to the province of New Brunswick, and I have learned from a reliable source, within the last few days, that those $4 million had been allocated to the General Income Fund of that province, so that absolutely nothing is done to promote bilingualism, certaindy not to the advantage of the New Brunswick minority. During the last few days, I got in touch with the
Speech from the Throne
Secretary of State and I asked for a report on that unfortunate situation.
The funny thing about all this is that the government which has to administer those $4 million is a conservative government which came to power in October 1969. And I quote now an article from a first-rate newspaper, Le Madawaska-


An hon. Member:: A first-rate newspaper, indeed.


Eymard G. Corbin: Of course, as I was its editor during four years. But since I left it got even better.
And here I quote from that article published on March 6, 1969.
The Madawaska Progressive Conservative Association urges the government to act immediately:
At a general meeting of the members of the Madawaska Progressive Conservative Association that took place last Sunday under the chairmanship of Mr. Jim Morin at the New Royal Hotel in Edmundston, the following motion was unanimously carried:
Members of the Madawaska Progressive Conservative Association reaffirm their agreement on the principle of equality of linguistic chances in New Brunswick, regret the slowness of the provincial government in indicating its position and the steps which it intends to take, urge the government to act without further delay-i.e., in the next session-to make real the establishment in New Brunswick of a language system suitable for an officially bilingual province, and wish for complete support of those measures from both sides of the House.
The shameful thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the Conservatives who themselves wrote that resolution are now in power in New Brunswick and have done nothing to promote bilingualism. On the contrary, the population was able to realize the lamentable state of bilingualism following the film "L'Acadie" and the regrettable incidents which took place in Moncton.
How can you explain the lack of confidence of the French-speaking population of New Brunswick in the present government? How can you explain all the events which are taking place on the eastern and northern shores of New Brunswick? Can you blame those people for establishing their own political party, the Parti acadien? I would be ashamed to be a Progressive Conservative today! I would be ashamed to be in power in New Brunswick and be unable to serve the interests of the two founding groups of this country equitably, in a province which officially calls itself bilingual.
Fortunately, while receding in many areas, we have also made some progress. For instance, on August 25, 1971, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) announced the establishment within the New Brunswick public service of two French-speaking units, one in Edmundston and the other in Bathurst. Those are two federal manpower centres designated by the federal government under its program for introduction of French-speaking units in the public service.
Contrary to the stupid criticisms expressed by many members of the opposition, I think that there is cause for_ congratulating the chairman of the Public Service Commission, Mr. John Carson, for his realistic approach in administering the laws and instructions of the Parliament of Canada, with regard to official languages. There is, of course, room for additional French-speaking units both at home in New Brunswick and elsewhere in Canada, and I
324

February 28, 1972
Speech from the Throne
hope the present experience in this direction will prove fruitful and encouraging.
I note the absence from the House-and I hope it is a temporary one-of the hon. member for Carleton-Char-lotte (Mr. Flemming), former premier of New Brunswick. These Progressive Conservatives do strange things.
As a matter of fact, the former premier of New Brunswick recently visited my riding for the first time since he was put out of office as provincial premier in 1960. He subsequently apologized because he had not met my fellow-citizens earlier and said a lot of rubbish in the same vein.
I would like now to quote and comment on an article which appeared in The Cataract Weekly of January 20, 1972. It is about a meeting attended by my hon. colleague from the South.
The Hon. Hugh John Flemming, former premier of New Brunswick-

-big fanfare and whatever you like-

-and member of parliament for Carleton-Charlotte, said Monday night that the federal government has never given proper explanation for the deterioration of the relations between Canada and the United States.

He was thus echoing some equally rambling and tenuous statements made earlier by his leader, the distinguished Leader of the Official Opposition, (Mr. Stanfield) in Edmundston, last fall. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte then proceeded with his speech declaring that it was impossible to imagine-

-two neighbours who live so close together and who have so many exchanges and things in common, to have bad relations with each other.

For my part, I have only one thing to say to the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte and to his leader: if they see a problem in our friendly relations-and the relations between Canada and the United States are friendly-well then let them go to the U.S. and ask Mr. Connally for an explanation, and let them stop frightening themselves. And then-

He recalled that former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker didn't always get along well with the Americans,-

Yes, he was honest enough to admit it-

-"but he has never passed any ._feislatLii which was detrimental to us."
He never passed any worthwhile legislation, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eymard G. Corbin: If you can exaggerate, so can I, just to show how ridiculous your statements are, and that they do not stand up to criticism.

Those comments, Mr. Speaker, are unworthy of a greyhaired politician who was once the Premier of New Brunswick and who is considering my electros as bunch of ignoramuses. A man who used to be the Premier of New Brunswick should surely be in a position to contribute more constructively to such an important debate as that dealing with relations between Canada and the United States.
Mr. Speaker, my time is quickly expiring, I think that I still have a minute. I would have liked to discuss many other topics but I do not have enough time.
Before concluding, I would like to say that there is no greater honour for a member of any area whatever than to be in a position to rise in the House of Commons and defend the interests of his fellow citizens. As for myself, there is nothing I find more painful than seeing members from other areas rise in this House to disparage my area and my constituents. In my view, such an attitude should be condemned and the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte, among others, will have to answer for such uncalled for assertations at the next election, and I certainly wish him a good one.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on the Speech from the Throne, I would like to deal with two or three things that I think are important to us as Canadians and as a country. In the main, I would like to point out to the government that what we need is a real opportunity for Canadians to build a better country, to control that country, and to play a real part in creating opportunities for those who live in it. The government has been pretty good on the creation of slogans but not too good on performance. We have been bombarded during the last two or three years with slogans such as "Opportunities for Youth". However, there has not been a real opportunity for our young people to get a job, to take part in the real, every day activities of this country so we set out a make work program and call it "Opportunities for Youth". If it had been called the "Make Work Program for Youth", it would have been more properly labelled.
The same thing happened to the farmers in western Canada. The government established the "Lower Inventory for Tomorrow" program and called it Lift. It was not expansion the government sought, but rather a combination of bribery and pressure to force the farmers to cut down the production of grain upon which their livelihood depended. The result was a serious loss of production and of farm income.
The "Local Initiatives Program" also has a very nice title, but from my experience the decisions are not made at the local level but in Ottawa or Winnipeg. A lot of work has gone into this program at the local level. My figures are probably not accurate, but in my constituency there would have been something in the neighbourhood of 56 applications. Of these, two were withdrawn, 11 approved and 15 rejected. I am only able to put these figures togeth-

er by reason of seeking information from the Department of Manpower and Immigration, from the provincial government and by writing letters to those who initiated programs to ask if they were rejected or approved. Those who initiated the two that were withdrawn got tired of waiting. One person wrote to say that the young people had picked up stakes and gone somewhere else to look for work because they could not afford to wait any longer. I am happy to say that some of the projects were approved, principally in the city of Saskatoon, and resulted in some employment. I make this point because if the government adopts this program as an alternative to an economy that would provide jobs, then I fear for the future of this country.
Just a few minutes ago one parliamentary secretary made some remarks about what the Canadian unions should do because a leader of the American unions said they would support the DISC program. Surely, he is aware that it does not matter very much what the Canadian unions do; the Americans will continue with whatever program they decide upon. The power and the responsibility to meet the American policies rests with the Canadian government and there is no use trying to slough it off on the Canadian unions. There is no use either trying to slough it off on the industrialists in Canada who are involved in manufacturing automobiles. They are probably trying to work out some deal with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). It is the government's responsibility to meet the situation as it exists. This means that they have to control the Canadian economy by one means or another and not simply delay the day of reckoning.
Charles Lynch, who is not very anti-government-


Mark Willson Rose: Is that called an understatement?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: You could call it that. In a recent issue of the Ottawa Citizen, when describing some of the programs I have mentioned such as Opportunities for Youth and others under the heading "The New Pork Barrel" wrote:
Culture in particular, has become the new pork barrel in terms of jobs provided together with the new department of the environment and the department of regional economic expansion. They don't call it a pork barrel any more, of course-it's called improving the quality of life.
While these programs are draining the energies of Canadians and making short-term attempts to meet longterm problems, the real needs of Canadians and the real flavour of life in Canada is being neglected, and in some cases is rotting away. The just society that we heard about in 1968 is further off than it was when this government came to power. I was intrigued to hear the hon. member who seconded the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne declare, like Horatio on the bridge, that the just society had arrived. I do not know how he could tell; somebody must have sent him a telegram.
I want to go on now to one of the important matters concerning western Canadians at the moment, the transportation of our grain to the west coast and the movement of that grain into vessels. The situation is so serious that in a pamphlet issued by the Canadian Wheat Board it is stated that we are in danger of abdicating our role as an exporter of grain, and that we face a real crisis in the
Speech from the Throne
movement of grain. As far as I know, there is no program to meet this situation. An article by John Clark in the Globe and Mail was headed "Is the Vancouver Port Strangling?" As western Canadians, we have been aware for a long time-but I do not think the message has reached the east yet-that a heavier and heavier volume of grain was going to the port at Vancouver and that something should be done to meet that situation.
The other day a spokesman for the Canadian Wheat Board, a Mr. Hope, pointed out that there was only a single track railroad from the Prairies to Vancouver. This has been known ever since the days of Sir John A. Macdonald, when the first track was laid there. That is not news. We have known for a long time that there is inadequate storage on the west coast. That is not news. We know that almost every year there is a crisis in supplies of grain available for loading on board ships at Vancouver. We know that, and the government has not developed any plan to meet that situation. The last new storage facility was built by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool at a cost of about $25 million and it has been estimated that we could use over $50 million vyorth of additional storage facilities.
Instead of pouring money into odds and ends of programs across Canada as though we were pouring sand down a rat hole, because many of these programs will be forgotten after next spring, would it not make more sense if we were to spend our time and money improving transportation to the west coast, building storage facilities at the west coast and creating harbour facilities there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The government has failed to undertake such a program, and I do not know why. When an American company decided to move coal from Alberta and British Columbia to Japan, we built a whole new facility for them on the west coast. Yet we cannot seem to organize ourselves in order to build the kind of transportation and storage facilities we need to serve an industry that has been viable in Canada since the turn of the century- since confederation, in fact. We have not been able to do that, partly because there are ministers on the government side who insist on regarding the grain growing industry as a declining industry instead of an expanding one, and who much too often have displayed a negative instead of positive attitude toward the industry as a whole. They put too little muscle in moving our products where we want them.
According to a recent press release, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) announced a policy for accelerated storage for corn, and the establishment of grain dryers in eastern Canada. He suggested that the government is not at this time going to do anything about primary elevators in western Canada because we have to await policy development. In view of the situation existing on the west coast, can anyone tell us why provision was not made for accelerated depreciation, so that any grain company which built storage facilities on the west coast could write off the value for depreciation purposes in four years? If an emergency exists in Canada today in any area, it exists on the west coast in the field of grain storage. Perhaps failure to provide for this accelerated depreciation '-'as a:i
326

February 28, 1972
Speech from the Throne
oversight. Accelerated depreciation would certainly encourage either a co-operative or private grain company to build storage where we need it. Could the railroads not have been given accelerated depreciation allowances for building a couple of thousand additional hopper cars for moving grain to the west and so ease pressure on the railroads. The reports of men who run the railroads-and I am not talking about the fellows in the executive offices but about the boys who run the locomotives-indicate that the railroads could use these extra cars. Mr. Speaker, I am not out to condemn the railroads. Actually, I believe the railroads rented or leased additional motive power to try and meet the situation. Nevertheless, the problem exists, and it has been met time after time and year after year on an ad hoc basis. The government has been operating the transportation end of the grain business on a do-it-today and forget-it-tomorrow basis. That is the situation we have faced. Unless these tactics are changed, we shall be in increasing trouble.
May I now refer to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board? I think the same minister still has responsibility for the Wheat Board.


An hon. Member:: He is caretaker until the next election.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The hon. member is right. The grain rationalization study has been released to grain companies, provincial governments and railroads. Actually, I do not know who has it. Yet he will not release it to the members of this House, and he will not release it to the public. While that study is sitting there, its contents unknown to us, decisions are being taken which affect the very heart and life blood of our industry. Should we consolidate ownership of elevators on the prairie? I do not know what the report says about that. Should we expand the use of interior elevators? I do not know what the report says about that. Of course, if the report contains no more than did the one on oil seeds, it does not matter very much whether it is made public or not. The report on oil seeds was a study which was strong on philosophy but short on recommending action. It has been lying in its pigeon hole and nothing has been done.


Mark Willson Rose: It has gone rancid.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: It has gone rancid; the hon. member is dead right. We need a positive and expanding approach to this particular problem, Mr. Speaker.
Finally, I should like to ask the government to tell us what its policy is for agricultural in total, not just for grain, but for the total agricultural picture. I notice that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced in Quebec the subsidy which was to be paid on hogs, his statement attracted a great deal of attention throughout the country. Parts of it were published in an editorial of the Western Producer. The Prime Minister is reported as having said:
Agriculture will not be able to meet the challenge of the future if it does not become economically independent.
Like any other industrial sector, it has to operate and will have to operate without subsidies, without outside aid, as a mature organism that has developed its full potential.
That statement, especially the last part of it, must take the prize for gobbledygook so far in 1972. I wonder what the Prime Minister meant when he said that agriculture

must become a mature organism. Along with fishing and a few other occupations, agriculture is one of the oldest occupations known to settled man.


Mark Willson Rose: It is not the oldest profession.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I was speaking of man.


Mark Willson Rose: Oh, I see.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Since I know the hon. member and know how his mind works, I know how to take what he says. How in the world will the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, know when agriculture has become a mature organism? Will it be when we have farms of thousands of acres each or while we have farms consisting of 500 acres each? Will it be when 50 men operate a farm, or two? Will it be when a farm is capitalized at $50,000 or $200,000? There is no mention of the benchmark which the Prime Minister has used.
He said that, like any other industry, it will have to operate without subsidy and without outside aid. What nonsense it is for a government which has been handing out money in great gobs to sectors of industry all over Canada to maintain that the industrial sector operates without subsidies. I remember the premier of Saskatchewan saying that if you apply that yardstick to industries, you will see a lot of them disappear, particularly those east of the Great Lakes. Let us not have this kind of economic nonsense expressed to people in the expectation they will believe it.
Shortly after, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) found it necessary to write a letter to the Ottawa Citizen because his department's policy had been attacked by Mr. MacEachern. In fact, he said the Department of Agriculture had no desire to control the size or number of farms. He said that the department believes this decision should rest with the individual farmer. He contradicted Mr. MacEachern who said that the Department of Agriculture is a dying organization. It is a long way from dead, Mr. Speaker. It is half starved, but it is still running. People are still keeping watch at the old stand.
At the same time the minister is protesting about the construction that is being put on the actions of his department, he is doing two or three things which will probably have different results. He has introduced the farm credit corporation bill which will increase to $100 million the amount the corporation can lend. This of course, will encourage much larger farms. At the same time, he says he is in favour of the family farm, and denies that he in any way wishes to accelerate the trend towards larger farms. When you hear these contradictory statements, you wonder what the objectives of the Canadian farmer should be and where he can go.
One of the biggest problems facing any adjustment in agriculture is the lack of employment opportunities in Canada. Even those people who wish to seek a job outside of agriculture have a great deal of difficulty doing so. I am sure other members have had the same experience as I, that people have written or telephoned from the constituency asking if any jobs are available. It is now almost a
February 28, 1972

privilege for young or old people in Canada to have a job and some security. This is the one thing that is necessary.
I think I have covered the main points I wish to put before the House. The government of Canada, not only in relation to the grains industry but to other sectors as well, should be spending our money and using our talents to develop this country. If we insist on leaving this to international finance and international industry, our country will be exploited. In all probability, they will not build the kind of Canada that we want. It will be tailored to their needs, objectives and desires. Canadians will then have to do what they can with what remains. They will be left to clean up the mess that has been left behind. We will be ravaging the garbage dumps that these people leave behind for us.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate this afternoon. It is an opportunity to deal with certain measures raised in the Speech from the Throne. I will deal with those shortly.
First, may I say I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) as he set forth some of the problems from his vantage point today. His is a vigorous voice, one we have listened to with considerable interest during this Parliament.
I would like to trace the development and emergence of a science policy in Canada. I would like to go back to the sixties for a moment, and take Your Honour and hon. members back with me. The sixties was a decade of quickening change, a decade of tension. For some, it was a decade of fear. These were the years that followed immediately upon Sputnik. These were the years when the young president of the United States said, we will put a man on the moon in ten years. These were the years of nuclear threats and fallout, deterrents and confrontation over Cuba. Yes, they were years of fear of war in Vietnam, of new technologies, napalm and new instruments of death.
They were also years of computers and more automatic ways of doing things, programming and depersonalization as far as the human dimension is concerned. It was a period of rapidly rising consumption, so rapid that our oil consumption doubled in the space of that 10 years. It was a period when our consumption of electrical energy doubled again. It doubled in the 10 years during the fifties and doubled again during the sixties. It was a decade when people started to ask themselves where population growth is taking us. They asked if the resources of this world could support the rapidly growing populations of the world.
These were the years when people talked about pollution, when new words became by-words. I refer to such words as environment and ecology. These are not words that we saw or heard in the fifties. If you read the speeches of hon. members and look at the press reports of the fifties, you only rarely find the kind of preoccupation that we now have as we start the seventies with words and processes like pollution, environment and ecology. This was a period when the drive of man shifted slightly from economic growth at all costs to economic growth and quality of life considerations. These were the sorts of pressures which gave rise to the emergence of science
25020-22 *
Speech from the Throne
policy questions. It was these things that the OECD Committee on Science Policy was formed to look at.
I wish to read a paragraph from the last Speech from the Throne. This is reported in Hansard for October 8, 1970. This government, recognizing the need for instruments to deal with science policy questions, said:
There exists in Canada a great wealth of untapped and uncoordinated scientific talent and experience not now adequately utilized in the quest for solutions to our modern problems. In order to serve better the industrial and technological sectors of our economy, as well as Canada at large, a programme will be introduced to gather and focus these sometimes divergent and competitive scientific resources. In this respect the government will consider with care measures recommended by the Senate Committee on Science Policy and the Science Council of Canada.
That is an extract from the previous Speech from the Throne. Out of it sprung, as we now know, the government reorganization bill, the bill which created the ministry of state concept. My ministry, the ministry of State for Science and Technology, was the second to be proclaimed following the passage of that reorganization bill. I want to talk about the follow-up of that Speech from the Throne in the time available to me this afternoon. Let me go back to the debate on the organization bill and in particular to the remarks of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) when he introduced the proclamation giving effect to the Ministry of State of Science and Technology. He said, and I quote from his speech as reported at page 7166 of Hansard for June 21 1971:
It was only in the last decade-the sixties-that countries first began to consider science as a significant factor in national policy and to seek organizational structures to recognize this fact. As members are aware, it was the Royal Commission on Government Organization, the Glassco Commission appointed in 1960, which first made a comprehensive study of this subject in Canada and reported on it in January, 1963. As a consequence, as early as 1964 the government of the day established a science secretariat within the Privy Council Office to provide a focus for policy co-ordination of those matters which had a significant content of science and technology.
About the same time, a major study was made on behalf of OECD by a distinguished group of international consultants headed by Pierre Piganiol, formerly Delegue General de la Recherche Scientifique of France. The report of this group had a major influence on the creation of science policy bodies in many countries and was consistent with what had already been proposed in Canada.
He went on to say:
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to a number of important observations in this report of experts. I quote:
A nation needs a comprehensive and consistent policy for the support and advancement of science, because there are more opportunities to advance science and technology than there are resources available to exploit them all. The term "science policy" is ambiguous. It too often connotes only a policy limited to the needs of science per se, and excludes the effects of science and technology on the full spectrum of national policies. Maximum exploitation of scientific opportunities requires programs that combine concern for the growth of science itself and provision for the rapid, deliberate application of its fruits to human welfare. That is the substance of science policy in the full sense, as denoting consideration of the interactions of science with policy in all fields.
Those paragraphs summarize in a few words the essential thrust of science policy and of this government's

February_28, 1972
Speech from the Throne
direction of science policy matters. The Order in Council which gave effect to my ministry spelled out a number of activities which it expected the ministry to perform. I should like to place them before hon. members because I believe it is relevant to the development and emergence of science policy in this, the first ministry of science and technology in Canada, under its first minister. The Order in Council stated:
The Minister of State for Science and Technology shall formulate and develop policies with respect to:
(a)	the most appropriate means by which the government of Canada may, through measures within its fields of jurisdiction, have a beneficial influence on the application and development of science and technology in Canada.
(b)	the co-ordination of programs and activities regarding science and technology with other policies and programs of the government of Canada, and
(c)	fostering of co-operative relationships with respect to science and technology with the provinces, with public and private organizations, and with other nations.
There is another paragraph I should like to quote.
The Minister of State for Science and Technology shall in relation to the formulation and development of the aforementioned policies assist departments and agencies of the government of Canada in the formulation and development of advice to the Governor in Council with regard to:
(a) the optimum investment in, and application of, science and technology in pursuit of national objectives.
I hope in the time available to me this afternoon to comment on some aspects of the responsibilities which have been assigned to the ministry and to the new minister. In particular, I shall be dealing with the statements made in the Speech from the Throne this year which the House is now considering. Before doing so, however, I should like to deal for a moment with the question of science policy itself. What is a science policy? Science policy is becoming an "in" phrase. The more one mentions it, the better it sounds, and the better it sounds, the more often it is used to support a particular point of view or is offered as a solution to a series of problems. It might be helpful if I were to tell the House what I think science policy is not. For instance, I do not think science policy is a document or a constitution for science. Many people have asked: Will the government produce a science policy?-implying perhaps that the government might produce a white paper or some new framework within which all measures of public policy which relate to science and technology can be fitted.
This is not my conception of a science policy. It is not a neat, compact matrix in which inputs on one side are matched by outputs on the other. It is not a simple set of priorities, either. If it were, it would be easy and we would have had a science policy in those terms long ago. No, Mr. Speaker, science policy is none of these easily defined things. A science policy is a living and evolving thing. It is essentially interactive, something that interacts between social and economic policy, on the one hand, and scientific resources, on the other hand. It is supportive. It is a practical thing, not a theoretical concept.
I think it is important here to note that the ultimate test of any policy is whether it will work. A science policy is no different from any other policy. This is why the test that 
the new Minister of State for Science and Technology has adopted is toward the practical, toward the pragmatic. The direction of the new ministry will be that of answering and meeting the test of whether something will work.
There have been a number of recent reports published. We have report No. 15 from the Science Council "Innovation in a Cold Climate", and since then a second report by the Senate Committee on Science, sometimes referred to as "Lamontagne No. 2", both of which refer to the need for an industrial strategy.
The Speech from the Throne anticipates this particular question in this passage, as reported at page 2 of Hansard:
Our economy is dependent, as are the economies of all industrialized countries, on the imagination of entrepreneurs and their use of research and innovation, as well as upon a rational industrial strategy. You will be informed in months to come of government proposals for improved policies in these areas which will be of immense importance to the long term development of our country: of policies for the use of science and technology designed to contribute not only to industry but to the qualitative improvement of the life of Canadians, of an industrial strategy prepared for the peculiar character of the Canadian economy. The basis of each will be spelled out as the session proceeds.
That particular paragraph emphasizes such things as innovation, entrepreneurship, policies for the future, long-run benefits, policies that are not peculiarly devoted to industrial growth; peculiarly Canadian, yes, but policies devoted to the quality of life of Canadians as well as policies that are devoted to industrial growth.
The next page of the Speech from the Throne contains another reference I should like to cite regarding my ministry:	"
Closer scientific and technological co-operation with other countries can be expected.
This is the second item with which I should like to deal in my remarks this afternoon, but firstly may I go to the question of innovation and some of the questions that are being raised by the report of the Science Council, No. 15, entitled "Innovation in a Cold Climate". This report sets forth a number of impediments to innovation. It lists, for example, these sort of things on page 28 of the report: an inadequate technology base; limited market size and market access-and those who are close to the chemical industry of Canada will, I think, recognize the serious problem of market access and market size.
The third main area the report lists is the poor climate for investment. Here, I think the report is primarily concerned with the lack of maturity in our underwriting institutions when it comes to innovation. The United States banking system in many instances seems to be better able to support innovation because there are more units and more specialists on innovation.
The report also speaks of inadequate management skills. I have on previous occasions drawn the attention of hon. members of the House to the fact that management skills in Canada are not up to the level of management skills in the United States. I have also cited figures relating to the number of graduates and the need for more support-which, let it be known, is a provincial responsibility for the most part-for the business education type of course in our universities.
The report also refers to multinational corporations and to a more recent and separate study, a green report, from

the Science Council dealing with direct investments and multinational corporations.
I do not propose to list all of the difficulties or the peculiar problems facing innovation in Canada, but I should like to refer to one of the recommendations made in the report to the effect that the federal government should use its purchasing power to support innovation in Canada. At page 40 the report indicates that wherever possible the government's purchasing powers should be used increasingly as a tool for implementing national industrial strategy.
The Lamontagne committee report "Targets and Strategies for the Seventies", the second report of the committee, goes into rather more detail with respect to the contracting-out principle. I should like to tell the House that the government of Canada supports the contracting-out principle so far as research and development is concerned, and will seek to advance it wherever possible.
At the present time my ministry is involved in working out criteria with respect to the contracting-out principle. I should like to say that I have appealed, through an open letter in a publication called "Canadian Research and Development" to those in industry and elsewhere to assist me with some suggestions as to how the contracting-out principle might be made more effective. The essential question so far as the contracting-out principle is concerned is, I think, that of spin-off benefits. When research is done in industry it is more likely to generate spin-off benefits which the industry or firm concerned may be able to design or to innovate as a commercial product or process.
This open letter addressed to the research community in Canada posed four questions. One, what are the special areas in which Canada could profitably concentrate with a hope of establishing a competitive position? Two, is there a role for the industrial research association in industries other than pulp and paper? Three, how can the support of research in academic institutions be turned to industrial benefit? What is the place of full-time research institutes? Four, do you know of any work done in government laboratories which could be done more effectively and more cheaply in industry? I am happy to say there has been a response to that letter and that I have received a number of suggestions on these points from private industry.
I should also like to talk about some of the other thrusts of my new ministry this afternoon. I have indicated that we will be concerned and we will give priority attention to industrial innovation and to research and development in Canadian industry. But there are other important areas where we have taken initiatives as well. The first one has to do with the supply and demand of highly qualified manpower. Some of you may have read the Science Council's study which was published within the last six months which indicated that there may well be serious problems in the coming year from the point of view of the balance between the supply and demand, the number of PhD's graduating from Canadian universities and the number of positions available to them in their own specialty. We have initiated a program aimed at establishing, measuring the stock of highly qualified manpower in Canada. We can update this stock by adding to it university graduates and immigrants as immigration takes place, and of course
Speech from the Throne
adjusting it by deaths and emigration. Part and parcel of this particular study is working with Statistics Canada in developing a program to measure the demand side of highly qualified manpower.
Basic research is yet another element in the whole area of science policy, and I think you will judge from my remarks this afternoon that when I spoke about science policy I was indicating elements of science policy rather than the conceptual framework sometimes used to describe science policy.
Now, I would like to say a few words about basic research. The Lamontagne committee has made a number of recommendations with respect to basic research. There are 45 recommendations in the second volume, a significant number of which touch upon the question of basic research in Canada. The Science Council also published a green report, that is to say a special background study, on the question of basic research in Canada. At the same time, I am delighted to say that the universities have recognized the special questions in this area and the Association of Universities and Colleges in Canada, under the joint chairmanship of Dr. Bonneau and Dr. Corry, is examining the whole matter of the rationalization of university research in Canada. We will be very much involved in developing criteria for federal support of basic research, and we intend to stress quality rather than quantity. The idea of centres of excellence has considerable appeal for me and my ministry. The concept of centres of excellence will be given a high priority.
I have referred to other areas where you can expect initiatives from the new ministry in the future. Let me go back to the areas of high technology for a moment. These areas affect both the industrial growth of the country and the quality of life in Canada, perhaps in its broadest sense. I refer to such areas as the computer industry, and high energy transmission. At Varennes, Quebec, there is a research enterprise, without question a world leader in high energy transmission. Nuclear power, space questions and transportation-these might all be described as national infrastructure areas of high technology. They will affect the quality of Canadian life and, I hope, they will represent important industrial opportunities in the future as well. We will be looking at the rather special questions of the. north on a multi-disciplinary basis and we will be looking at the oceans as something of peculiar and major significance to Canada.
I referred in my opening remarks to another aspect of our responsibilities and I quoted from the Speech from the Throne referring to greater co-operation in international science and technology. I am delighted to report that in the few months of the ministry's existence-it is just about six months-we have been also able to organize a major mission to Japan. This mission will be 40 members strong. It will be drawn, roughly, one third from industry, one third from universities and one third from government service. I think there is a rather special reason to go to Japan. The percentage of the research and development activity in the two countries is comparable. Many people have criticized the Canadian research effort in that it is too basic research oriented, that 23 per cent of our research goes into basic research. The situation is

February 28, 1972
Speech from the Throne
similar in Japan, and orders of magnitude are comparable as well in development and innovation. It seems to me that the significant difference appears in the performance sector.
In Japan, roughly 60 per cent of research is done in industry, whereas in Canada less than 40 per cent is done in industry. Secondly, in Japan roughly 55 per cent of the research and development expenditures are paid for by industry while in Canada about 30 per cent of research and development expenditures are paid for by industry. So from the point of view of the proportionate emphasis on activities, the support for and the performance sectors, these are all of particular interest to Canada at this time, and we would hope, with our Japanese opposite numbers, to identify areas where, through mutual exchange, we can both profit. There will be eleven Canadian groups in eleven different specialties meeting the Japanese groups. I do not think I have time to list them all.
In the one minute left to me I should like to state that the Lamontagne Committee report to which I have referred several times this afternoon will be given very careful attention by my ministry.
In conclusion, let me ask: how do we find the right place for science in politics, and put it there? I should like to quote to you from the "New Statesman" of September 10, 1971 as follows:
Science is too important to be left to the scientists: if there is one message to emerge from the annual meeting of the venerable British Association for the Advancement of Science, this is it. Scientists are unfitted to the task of shepherding the creature they serve ... Who is to control it? During the past week eminent members of the scientific establishment have expressed wildly divergent views on the relevance of science and technology to society. But in the end the decisions-or some of them at any rate-have to be taken by politicians. They, in the name of the public, must therefore learn that the position of science in our society has changed-that it now occupies the centre of the stage. How do we find the right place for science in politics, and put it there?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I know the minister is about to complete his remarks but his time has expired. Is there unanimous consent to allow the minister to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their co-operation and I will not take advantage of their good nature. I will bring my statement to a rapid close. It seems to me that the central question is: how do we find the right place for science in politics, and put it there? That is the central question that I and my ministry are concerned with; that is the reason the government created the Ministry of State for Science and Technology. That is why the words in the Speech from the Throne that I have quoted are so important.
It is this perspective which distinguishes this government from other Canadian governments and, in my view, it is this perspective which distinguishes this government from the opposition parties.


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to be the normal thing around about this time, with a federal election imminent,

for a member either to take a trip up one side of his riding and down the other, mentioning all the place names and so on, or to try to catalogue in the half hour available all the deficiencies and shortcomings of the government.


James Aloysius McGrath: That would take days.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: There isn't enough time, because if I started now to name all the place names in my sprawling riding I would go well over the time allotted, and if I tried to enunciate and enumerate the deficiencies of the government I am afraid this would take several hours. I am sure the House would not give me that courtesy.
I have already personally congratulated the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) on his loyalty to his floundering party, and on his valorous attempt, in moving the Address in Reply, to make the government appear credible and responsible, and deserving of further support from the Canadian people. Despite the hon. member's effort, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but feel that he was fighting the old axiom that you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
The type of Throne Speech that we heard recently is the type you would expect in a country that has all its other problems solved and could afford the luxury of preoccupation with the aesthetic things. In the speech there is mention of Heritage Canada, vast spaces, rugged coasts, babbling brooks, throbbing vitality and serene tranquility. It is a typical Trudeau presentation, the presentation of a Prime Minister who is very affluent in his own right, a man who has never experienced the pangs of poverty or the torture of unemployment.


An hon. Member:: Like Frank Moores.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Maybe like Frank Moores, but I am not talking about Frank Moores. I am talking about a man who has never known the responsibility of having to support a family, always faced with the problem of trying to spread too little too far. This is the type of speech we have had, the presentation of a Prime Minister who can never understand or appreciate such things. He never experienced them, he has never been exposed to them, and I suppose in sweet charity we have to understand that.
I regard the Speech from the Throne as largely the impractical prattlings of a poet, of a romantic who becomes positively ecstatic at the smell of a rose or some other flower, and obviously becomes nauseated at the smell of such things as a barnyard, cod fish, or the other things we have in Canada.


Mr. Foster:: Tories?


Edmund Boyd Osler: What do cod fish have to do with barnyards?


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to make a point, and obviously I made it or we would not have had these interruptions from hon. members opposite.
I note with interest the so-called cabinet shuffle. I suppose, as in any other endeavour, we have the shuffler and the shufflees. The Prime Minister was the shuffler, and the people who were shuffled were the shufflees. A number of them are going around saying they were promoted. The former minister of finance says he was pro-
February 28, 1972

moted to National Defence. In my opinion he was not promoted; he was rescued. And we have the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) saying he was promoted. Mr. Speaker, he wasn't promoted; he was sacrificed. The same applies to the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs, who made so many bad friends with the competition bill. He, too, in a sense was rescued, and his successor was sacrificed. I think the shufflees recognize the real positions in which they find themselves.
The government stands by its record of tax reform. Members of the government say that it meets with the approval of the majority of the Canadian people. If the tax reform was so good and so well accepted by the Canadian people, why was the minister who introduced it not left in his post for the final test? Why was he rescued and spirited away to the non-controversial position of National Defence? This is the real meaning of a cabinet shuffle. While it may be presented to the Canadian people as something in their interest, it is nothing more or less than political strategy to save some ministers and sacrifice others. Is it real concern? No! But there is no question about the political strategy.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Did somebody say "Burgess"?


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Burgess doesn't enter into this situation, Mr. Speaker. He is being properly dealt with.
Today we have the worst unemployment situation that the country has ever known. Unemployment is rampant. Upwards of 8 per cent of the Canadian work force is unemployed. But what is the pet subject of the government? Despite the tragic unemployment situation, members of the government feel they have to have an issue to divert the minds of the people from unemployment. So what do they come up with? Where is their emphasis now? It is on Canadian nationalism.
They have to have something to stir the Canadian people up, and so they say we have got to redeem ourselves from United States economic domination. Why don't they realize that we have 8 per cent unemployment, and that that type of an issue, in all common sense, must wait until we have taken care of some of the real priorities? They talk about economic domination and the jobs created in Canada as a result of American investment. Do they want the unemployment rate to double to 14 per cent or even 20 per cent? The people who are unemployed and those who recognize the terrible unemployment situation will not appreciate that very much.
When I heard the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, I was embarrassed for His Excellency who had to read it. The speech confirms my suspicion that the Prime Minister is totally out of touch with the needs of the people. There is no question about that in my mind. The speech indicates that unemployment is of great concern. Bully for the government-what an admission! With a federal election imminent hon. members opposite are trying to justify what has happened in this country over the last four years. I cannot say that I blame them for trying, politics being what it is.


An hon. Member:: It has been a disaster.
Speech from the Throne


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: But I blame the Canadian people if they are duped in the coming election as they were duped in 1968.
Now, I should like to touch on another subject and perhaps it will not be too long before I hear cries of "bigot" from the other side. The moment one raises the question of bilingualism and biculturalism, the long finger points and there is the cry of "bigot". I am not a bigot and I do not want to be called one, but I reserve the right to raise the question.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: You are a Canadian.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: A week or two ago a question was raised by the Premier of British Columbia, and the reaction of the Prime Minister was so great that his finger almost stretched from here to British Columbia as he cried "bigot". I do not think, the comment was necessarily bigoted and I do not think that what I have said is bigoted. There is no bigotry in me. In my 12 years or so in public life I have always been subjected to majorities-religious majorities, political majorities, racial and every other kind of majority. When I was running in municipal and provincial politics, if someone had suggested to my opponent that he stress that he could get a better deal for them because he was one of them, there would not have been anything wrong with that. I would not say those people were bigots. What is wrong with people exercising their majority?
At the risk of being labelled a bigot, I cannot help feeling that for the past number of years the tail has been wagging the dog in this country and that is not a good situation. People who know more about this than I do know that minorities are inclined to be prejudiced. If the English speaking people of Canada were in the minority today, and I was one of that minority, I honestly feel I would be prejudiced because that is the way with minorities. But that is no good reason for the majority being afraid of somebody pointing the finger at them and calling them bigots. The big weakness of the majority in this country is that they have this fear. They know whether they are bigots and I know whether I am, but I defy anybody to say that I am.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a great danger of the majority in this country or any other becoming too magnanimous. This is the situation in the United States where the majority has become afraid of the minority pointing its finger and saying "Be careful you don't become a bigot". They should not feel that way. Personally, I have no bigotry. If I order a hamburger in a restaurant I do not care whether I order in English or French. If it were a Chinese restaurant and I knew Chinese I would order it in Chinese-just as long as I got the hamburger. But a lot of people think that if you go to a Chinese restaurant you should order in Chinese and if you go to a French restaurant you should order in French, whether the staff speaks the language or not. I believe that is nonsense.
I agree that there is a difference in the temperament of people, but I think this aspect is being exploited. I really believe that the temperament of the different racial origins of Canada is being exploited by irresponsible politi-

February 28, 1972
Speech from the Throne
cians. I believe that our friends in the province of Quebec are interested in the same things as the people of any other province in Canada. That is not B and B, bilingualism and biculturalism, but B and B meaning bread and butter, or meat and potatoes if you like. That is the basic need of all people, and it is the basic need of the people of Quebec as it is of the people of Newfoundland or any other province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: The other thing that has been foisted upon us is the view of the long-haired intellectuals that nobody can figure out what it is the people of Quebec want. There is no mystery. They want the same as any other Canadian, not a living passed to them on a platter but the right to earn a living. This is a very careful distinction. They want the opportunity to earn a living. I say, Mr. Speaker, if that opportunity were given to the people of Quebec it would minimize what are known as the problems of national unity. I should like to see that tested. I do not really mind these so-called intellectuals who write articles and get on television and radio and say that the people in Quebec want something that nobody can put his finger on, that it is something mysterious. But I have known a lot of people from Quebec and I cannot see that their basic needs are different from those of other people. However, I cannot understand why irresponsible political people want to make something different out of this and present issues to the people which are not true. I think that is what is happening today.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shameful!


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: We had in Newfoundland what was known as the Salt subsidy program for fishermen, but when this government came in it decided to abolish it. They chose the minister from Newfoundland, the then minister of transport, to enunciate their views. What he said was, "Look, this is a bandaid program." That was back in 1968. He suggested that this government had finished with ban-daids and said, "We will not have any more bandaids; we will bring in lasting programs which will benefit fishermen in Newfoundland." We do not know what happened, and we do not know what replaced the promised program, because since then we have seen any number of different programs that have been bandaids in the true sense of the word. The unemployment situation in the country became so drastic that Opportunities for Youth was born. Mr. Speaker, it was born on an impulse and is the product of a government that governs by brainstorm, by impulse. Today, a program does not exist, but tomorrow you have the Opportunities for Youth program, and away we go.


James Aloysius McGrath: Now you see it, now you don't.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: The same can be said of the so-called local initiatives program which, by itself, I suppose is good. It is providing some jobs. Obviously, little thought went into it; obviously, control is lacking. Do not let anyone tell you that these programs are under any measure of control, because they are not. They are programs that were born out of political panic. The government said to itself, "The

people of this country are berating us about the lack of jobs; let us try to fill up the holes." So, it introduced Opportunities for Youth, the Lift program and several others, the names of which escape me at the moment. Yet, early, near the beginning of this parliament in 1968, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) said, "Look, we will take away these bandaids." Ever since, we have seen a series of bandaids. The government has introduced some programs, in the process no doubt creating some jobs but not making a dent in the total unemployment problem of this country.
While we face this terrible problem, this government will face the electorate again. The issue the election will be fought on-and, obviously, this will be the issue in the next election-will be the issue of American or foreign domination of our country. If that is not the height of complete stupidity or utter callousness, I don't know what is. As I say, if the government is not stupid, it must be utterly callous. Trying to hook the people of this country with that kind of issue right now, when some 8 per cent of our work force is unemployed, is either stupid or callous. I just cannot figure out who is going to buy that nonsense. I can only express the sincere wish that the Canadian people do not. Of course, I do not know if they will, but I hope they do not.
As I said, there are not many problems that I can deal with specifically in half an hour, except to note that the election campaign is on. We remember the campaign of 1968.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Regretfully.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Not regretfully; this has been an education for us and the Canadian people. They have been shown that they made a mistake which they will not repeat.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hearl


James Aloysius McGrath: The people on the government side will be the ones to regret it.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I do not blame the hon. member on the other side for trying to defend his indefensible position. If I were over there, I would be doing the same thing.


James Aloysius McGrath: One cannot blame him, especially since he is the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: If he were not loyal, and his loyalty certainly is one of his redeeming features, he would have left the government side long ago and be sitting on this side. So, I appreciate his loyalty.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He can go back to his dogs and cats.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Yes. His loyalty is fine, of course.


James Aloysius McGrath: But misplaced.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: There is no question that in 1968 the Prime Minister strongly appealed to the people of this country. He came zooming down into shopping plazas all over the place, kissing the girls and listening to people, and thousands of people lined up to touch his garments.


James Aloysius McGrath: As if he were the Jolly Green Giant.
February 28, 1972


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I concede that, from a political point of view, he took this country by storm. Yet, almost immediately after the election, the transition was fantastic. He settled in and became a different character altogether. He was not nearly as accessible to people as before. He made all sorts of statements across this country; on Parliament Hill he suggested a menu to the Lapalme drivers that I would not care to repeat.


James Aloysius McGrath: Shame.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Down in Toronto only a couple of weeks ago he told the people that this unemployment is a lot of nonsense. He said, "Just look at the want ads in the paper; you will see that there are lots of jobs available."


James Aloysius McGrath: Let them eat cake.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: It is almost like telling hungry people to look at all the food advertisements in newspapers and suggesting that they cannot be hungry. What nonsense, Mr. Speaker. And here we are, sitting in a parliament that is three years and 45 weeks old, and we wonder about what is to happen in the next several weeks. We had a preview on television. The Prime Minister was wearing coonskin caps; he went down a mine and came up with mud on his face. He has gone around touching people and they are touching him. I do not know if the old trick will work again; I fervently hope it will not, for the good of this country.


James Aloysius McGrath: For the good of us all.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I say right now that although I have no particular desire to see an NDP government in Canada, if there is to be a choice between the Liberals and the NDP-I say to the people for goodness sake let it be an NDP government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I say that because I do not want to see another four years of this type of government inflicted on the Canadian people.


James Aloysius McGrath: God spare us from that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I will finish now. I doubt if anything I say will have any appreciable impact on the Canadian people. I will say this, however. I wish it were possible for every voter in Canada to be here today, because my message to them would be this: if they repeat the mistake they made in 1968, despite the work of various organizations designed to save this, to save that and to save the other thing in this country, and if this country has inflicted on it a government like the one of the past four years, there will be nothing left to save.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are right on.


Mr. Douglas Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, I received in the mail a copy of a letter that the Shuswap Rural Ratepayers Association had written to my colleague, the new-appointed Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford). The letter, signed and sent under the signature of the pro-tem secretary, Mrs.
Speech from the Throne
Lillian Smiley of Enderby, British Columbia, reads as follows:
The Shuswap Rural Ratepayers have taken exception to the unfairness of the fact that at present NHA loans cannot be obtained for the building of a new house, unless it is going to be built on a sewer line. We feel that where it is admissible under local health regulations, the people building new homes under NHA be allowed to use a septic tank and outfield system.
I could not, Mr. Speaker, agree more with the position as set out by this particular association, and presumably by others of similar structure established throughout the nation. And you know, Mr. Speaker, I find it rather sad upon reflection to note that apparently little has been done on this problem since I made the very same point and voiced exactly the same objection in this House over two years ago.
At this juncture, I think it relevant to quote portions of just what I did say on May 30, 1969.1 quote from Hansard'.
Firstly, it is my contention that the government should give top priority to the problems of rural area residents and in particular, make more NHA funds available to those who reside in the relatively small communities therein.
I submit that all people in rural areas should be afforded the opportunity of participating in federal housing loans, be they residents of municipalities or unorganized territories. Their lot should not be discounted in the light of the problems inherent in the larger urban centres. I suggest that present government policy and support regulations are directed in the main to the benefit of major population centres and to the detriment of the many thousands of our citizens situated in rural areas.
For too long, too large a proportion of available mortgage funds has been allocated to the large cities of Canada for the propagation of multi-million dollar apartment buildings and like projects. This imbalance should be rectified and the government should cultivate a willingness on the part of private financial institutions to place funds in more remote regions by itself overcoming an apparent reluctance to invest needed capital in places of rural habitation.
Contrary to lingering government thinking, a home to those living in Lumby, Vernon, Armstrong, Enderby, Sicamous, Revel-stoke, Golden, Invermere, Kimberley, Cranbrook, Jaffray, Elko, Fernie, Sparwood-and so many other smaller centres in my constituency, is no less important than is the necessity of accommodation for the folk of Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal.
May I suggest that the principal ogre perpetuating this inequality in lending policy is CMHC's present regulation requiring the construction of piped services to housing. In a phrase: no water or sanitary sewer-therefore no eligibility for NHA financed loans.
Although there are stated exceptions to this rule, in my experience, leniency in their interpretation has never been the federal corporation's watchword. And there are many areas in this country, and Okanagan-Kootenay is representative, that will never be serviced with piped sewer and water. So, at the moment, hundreds of people living in unorganized portions of my riding and several thousand more who reside within municipal boundaries are effectively shut out from public assistance because they are on wells and/or septic tanks. And, for those who intend to locate and build, to join their fellow primary producers or take their employment in the extractive industries, the same fate awaits them.
Facilities which are entirely satisfactory to many of my people, and have been for years, are still effectively quite unacceptable to the Crown corporation. Moreover, even though modern technology has provided us with a number of more sophisticated and proven sewage disposal systems, CMHC has steadfastly refused to accept them. And, as a result, of these overly restrictive regulations, it is impossible for many and too tough for most to comply.
I therefore say this, even though I share the concern of all levels of government for the pollution of ground and water, which concern undoubtedly has given birth to these constrictions, and even

February 28, 1972
Speech from the Throne
though I am quite aware that the use of septic tanks in concentration will create difficulties in curbing pollution, surely a workable set of regulations, which would supplant those that have outlived their usefulness, can be formulated which would then permit the use of certain lands, presently exempt from mortgage financing, and a goodly portion of which will never be equipped with piped services, on a septic disposal and water-well basis. Such a solution would inject a new and needy borrower into the program and would raise the generally low standard of housing prevalent in sections of our country, certainly in several of the more depressed portions of my riding.
I hope it will not be necessary for me to rise again at some future date and remake the same point. I trust the new minister responsible for housing will see to it that this is not necessary; that is, I hope he will sit down with senior officials of the corporation very shortly and formulate a realistic and workable policy that will accommodate the needs of residents wishing to construct accommodation in Okanagan-Kootenay and other, like rural areas of Canada. I invite him to do so.
A second matter I would like to touch on this afternoon is one which I have raised from time to time and in various places. It deals with the movement of non-board feed grains from Alberta into British Columbia. I appreciate what the minister responsible for the Wheat Board had to say in this connection, namely:
"The Canadian Wheat Board regulations concerning the movement of feed grains are designed to ensure the orderly marketing of wheat, oats and barley produced in western Canada", and that it is "the objective of the board's marketing system to allocate delivery opportunities fairly among all producers to ensure that producers receive a fair market price for their product-by agreeing to sell their grain destined for interprovincial or international markets, through the Canadian Wheat Board."
I say I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, because in theory it sounds great, which it would be in fact if it were to work that way. We all know that there is great difficulty with control or with policing the system. Surely the Canadian Wheat Board does have the power to control the movement of grains between provinces, and it exerts it by placing inspectors at weight scales near border crossings. Just as surely, however, the board does not have the power to control, nor does it exercise effective measures which restrict the movement of grains intraprovincially. Therein lies the rub as the situation affects the ranchers and farmers in my riding.
Economically and geographically, the livestock producers in Okanagan-Kootenay, certainly those in the Columbia valley and south country, are attached to Alberta because that province is not only their source of supply of feed grains but also the market outlet for their livestock. Thus, the producer in my riding must attempt to be competitive with his brethren, the livestock producers in Alberta. However, how can he realistically hope to compete when the Alberta operator does not have to buy feed grains through the Wheat Board, while the grower in my riding is obliged to pay about double the price to that which can be had from non-board sources within Alberta?
Add to that other costs of operation, such as truck hauling of both grains to site and livestock to market, and it is little wonder that the grower in my riding is heard to exclaim, "A law you cannot enforce is worse than no law at all." May I draw but one example from a letter I

received some time ago from a Grasmere constituent, who said in part:
I should like to make the point to you that the Hutterites in southewestern Alberta, who can purchase non-quota feeds, sell eggs, poultry, ducks, geese, etc. in the Fernie, Sparwood, Natal area. A British Columbia operator, who would have to purchase feeds through the Wheat Board, and be competitive in the same area, could in no way do it. This is just an example, it can be applied to any business requiring the use of Alberta feed grains.
As the British Columbia Farmers Institute, District "I", put it in one of their recent briefs:
This situation becomes no ludicrous at times that livestock men are tempted to move grain illegally, because we know that these impractical policies are virtually unenforceable.
I know that solutions to problems such as the one I am raising now are not easily found because the over-all implications are many and varied. I am confident, however, that the minister responsible for the Wheat Board will, after duly considering the many recommendations he has received on this subject, come up with an alternate which is more plausible than the policy now in question. I understand that he and his departmental officials are presently studying this whole question of interprovincial movements of grain. Hopefully, this in depth review will be completed in the near future and the intentions on a new approach will shortly be made known.
Before I resume my seat I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) and the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie) who moved and seconded the Address in Reply. Their speeches were in my view excellent, as is the quality of their continued contribution to this country and to the House.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the 1972 Speech from the Throne is, more than any other I have had the opportunity of listening to, an election straw man, built of words and rhetoric, empty of any economic notions or solutions.
Even after one reads it or rereads it, what does it mean? Absolutely nothing. But it will give the Liberals a chance to say or promise anything they want, depending upon the needs of their propaganda. It is brain-washing by the Liberal party as a prelude to June elections. The Liberal party feels the need to purloin power, once again and immediately, for another four years. This Speech from the Throne will allow it to say anything at all without compromising itself.
Mr. Speaker, as far as purloining power is concerned, I take my hat off to the Liberal party, it is the best tool of finance which supplies it with all the resources needed to win elections as in the past, and thus continue to exploit Canadians through an archaic, unjust, antisocial and barbaric economic system.
Social and economic problems will never be solved by those who belong to that system, who cause all our problems. In Canada, the traditional parties are political twin brothers, begotten to ensure the survival of the present system that created and nourished them. They are part of that system and will disappear with it.
February 28, 1972

Mr. Speaker, the faults of the system are known to those Canadians who suffer from them; only a few need be identified: unemployment, poverty in the midst of abundance, taxes, deficits, bankruptcies, debts, inflation, deflation, economic depressions, strikes, insecurity, social upheavals, juvenile delinquency, robberies, the decadence of moral values, the loss of initiative, social welfare, class stuggles, etc.
This unhealthy economic system, Mr. Speaker, leads also to centralization of the means of production, that is to production trusts, to centralization of wealth in the hands of a few. The loss of property constitutes also another one of its consequences, as well as migration from farms, economic rule by a few, excessive interest rates.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office in 1968, thanks to the false slogan of "the just society", instead of correcting the present system to achieve a just society and thus get rid of the evils that I have just enumerated, he did this incredible thing through the Department of Finance or the then Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson): he increased the rate of interest for banks, for finance, that is for the mistress this government goes to bed with every day.
Interest and these ever-growing increases, since 1968, are the prime cause of the ever increasing debts which have become impossible to pay under the present system. Spiraling debts and salary boosts are reflected in rising taxes at all levels, and taxes and spiraling increases cause spiraling prices, or the inflation we are experiencing.
I should now like to refer to an editorial on Channel 7, on February 16, by Rev. Emile Bouvier of Sherbrooke who expressed the following views:
The burden of land taxes in Quebec.
Quebecers pay in one way or another at least 50 per cent of their income in taxes. A family of four, with an annual income of $5,200 was paying, in January 1, 1969, $1,686 in all types of taxes in Quebec.
At the municipal level, the Montreal taxpayer, with an annual income of $5,200 and a family of four, paid $375 in land taxes; with an annual income of $10,400, a family of four in Montreal paid $750.
On a $15,000 one-family dwelling total taxes in Montreal are $478.
Taxes are increasing to the extent that small property owners are being crushed. What is the use of encouraging people on the one hand to build a house, to develop a healthy home while on the other hand crushing them by municipal and school taxes, denying them stability in their own homes? All kinds of social action are being resorted to against unemployment, but none to encourage the small house owner to keep his home.
Mr. Speaker, spiraling prices-or inflation-cause an intrinsic loss of bonds, securities or property. Loss of bonds, securities or property saps private initiative and its disappearance spells the end of free enterprise. The elimination of free enterprise, Mr. Speaker, is the pet child of socialists.
Our economic system is called "economic liberalism" and, almost everywhere in the world, things are going badly because of this system. In fact, the same effects and troubles, which I mentioned a moment ago, are felt there. Similar causes produce similar effects and, everywhere in the world, economic liberalism leads people in the same direction, that is toward socialism, toward control by the state, while the state remains under the control of high
Speech from the Throne
finance, as is the case under present economic liberalism, because the old parties are the political servants of the economic liberalism under which we are living.
The old parties are the bedfellows of financial monopolies. That system of political and economic concubinage with finance, namely banks and their branches, and monopolies, is called economic liberalism, namely the law of the jungle.
The present economic liberalism leads to economic "barbarism." Then the state asserts itself as a socialist umpire and governs everything except finance which continues to maintain a socialist state, exactly as it was leading the state previously through the electoral funds which finance the old political traditions or economic liberalism by means of monopolies which are the offshoot of banks.
In the socialist state, finance is still protected from everything. It is supreme, for world socialist government are finance's bedfellows, in exactly the same way as under economic liberalism, political parties are the bedfellows of monopolies which are again bank subsidiaries.
This explains the economic history of nations which have turned to socialism, where banks, through the power to extend the line of credit which they obtained from government, control the latter through electoral funds. In turn, they can lead economic liberalism to its end which is to cause all the above-mentioned social evils and disorders, as well as socialism. And banks keep on controlling governments through financing, just as they were doing under economic liberalism.
The credit monopoly is the worst of all, because it creates and maintains all others. The monopoly of issuing money is never disturbed by socialists. The only known change introduced so far by socialists in the field of banking is that they centralize banks, but still leave them the power to issue money to one gank or to banks. Monopoly over the creation of credit has never been disturbed by socialists since all they do is to socialize means of production in the hands of government by eliminating monopolies, which are the "children lost in their tender years" of the banks' power to create credit.
The present economic liberalism creates and engenders the causes which lead to the effects of socialism- the system dear to the heart of our prime minister. The power to create money, legalized by, governments and left in the hands of a few individuals called "banks", leads to complete control over the economic system by monopolies supported by banks. Through their monopoly over the creation of money, banks create the other monopolies of production and the like, and only naive people would believe that monopolies are not the creation or the tool of banks; for if the latter decided to stop financing monopolies through credit, those same monopolies-whether they be called E. P. Taylor, Western Empire, Bronfman, or Steinberg-would crumble overnight like so many houses of cards, in the same way as the commercial empires of 1929 crumbled when the banks decided overnight to demand that their loans be repaid. Every production empire or monopoly, no matter how powerful, is at the mercy of the bank system which gave it birth. This is why Judge Brandies of the United States Supreme Court said, following an inquiry by a committee of the U.S. Senate

February 28, 1972
Speech from the Throne
which for two years investigated American trusts and monopolies-I quote:
There is only one monopoly, which is monopoly over the creation of credit.
Or, in other words, monopoly over the bank system.
The bank system creates monopolies; monopolies create the economic consequences already mentioned, which in turn lead to socialism, which leaves the bank system alone.
The newspaper Le Droit of January 14, 1972 wrote:
For many years the Liberal party has been operating thanks to the support of 95 major Canadian companies.
However, some innocents are still convinced that the old parties are the people's parties. They are two balls of different colours on a string which are made to swing according to the whims of finance which controls them.
Some other innocents think that the Canadian socialist party, the New Democratic party, is the party of the poor. Come on!
Recently, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said that there was $2 million in the kitty for the next federal election. Where does that money come from? Certainly not from the old age pensioners.
There are a number of monopolies and particularly union monopolies. I was struck by another fact which is that about 60 years ago, at the time of the foundations of the London School'of Economics, sir Ernest Cassell, one of the Bank of England's directors, made a $7 million contribution for the establishment of this school and said that its purpose was to educate and train future socialist statesmen.
No wonder that our Prime Minister who attended the London School of Economics, this socialist oriented school, did not have the same ideology when he completed his studies in London as he had a few years before when he left the Jesuits of the Jean de Brebeuf college in Montreal.
This is what made our Prime Minister state, when interviewed by Mr. Norman DePoe, as reported in issue No. 13 of the Weekend Magazine of 1966, that the internationally famous Marxist professor of the London School of Economics, Mr. Harold Laski, was, and I quote:

-was the most stimulating and positive influence he has encountered.

Mr. Speaker, how are we to believe today all these socialist economists of the London School of Economics who have taught and still teach socialism in our universities or in the textbooks of economics, and who have tried to make us believe that the 1929-1939 economic crisis was due to sunspots, while the only and real explanation was that it had been provoked by financiers who had resolved, through the banking system, to cut credits generally in order to induce a stock crash and increase the economic power of banking institutions and their monopolies, which, as if by magic, thus received a windfall of securities.
Mr. Speaker, another economist of the London School of Economics, Mr. Louis Rasminsky, is the present head of the Bank of Canada. It is not surprising to note that

this bank operates not in the interest of the people, but as a white elephant aimed at keeping back our Canadian banking system for the benefit of the few and to the disadvantage of the many.
Economists who have graduated from the London School of Economics could not and still cannot point to their masters, and the credit controllers as being responsible for the social uneasiness and malaise referred to earlier, because they are the offsprings of the banking system. They have been nursed by the banks' university. They are part and parcel of the system and have to guarantee its continuance and survival.
The present banking system, the only real monopoly, has created its own university, its own students, and its own creatures. I have only pointed out two examples: our Prime Minister and the Governor of the Bank of Canada, but I could mention many others. The banking system has established its university with a view to securing its world control, and the banks maintain their economic supremacy and power in three different ways.
First, by training teachers in economics who will carry on their teaching in universities.
Second, by protecting, supervising and maintaining their power through the application of their theories by their economists who pollute both officialdom and the public service.
Third, by political control over governments by way of election funds they supply directly or indirectly through their monopolies which are their own extension, which they generated and which they continue to supply through the financial credit they create with the permission of the governments serving them.
This banking system, Mr. Speaker, breaks the economic backs of all nations. The Creditistes who advocate monetary reform are still fighting against the banking system the same war already waged by several presidents of the United States such as Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and also former members of Parliament, Mr. McGeer, a Liberal member for Vancouver and Mr. Slaght, for Parry Sound-Muskoka, who advocated the same monetary reform as we do.
Following in their footsteps, as many others did, Mr. Speaker, the Creditistes recognize that the physical power to produce rests in the hands of the people and in the resources to be developed. Those resources must be developed through the physical power of individuals, that is to say through work. This results in the immense production that we now have, and that production in accounting terms is defined by the word "debit". But for the debit side, that is to say production, to reach consumption you need a means of exchange between production and consumption. This means of exchange in modern terms of economic accounting is called money or credit and for the economic accounting of a nation to work properly, the credit side-money or means of exchange-must be at the service of the debit side-production-so that the credit side-money-will be an instrument of exchange and not an instrument of control as we have it today. Since production, or debit side, comes from the people, the money, or credit side, must also come from the people. But as
February 28, 1972

each person cannot and must not develop its own monetary system, the power to create credit or to issue money must also be wholly exercised by a central institution called the Bank of Canada, the governement bank or the people's bank.
Until now, the people's government has assigned control of money and credit to some private organizations that we call banks, and the banks, which have control over the country's credit side, are pursuing profits for their advantage, which is the reason for all the economic disturbances that we have been and are still experiencing. The list of these ills I gave at the beginning of my remarks.
As long as the government does not create its own credit through the Bank of Canada, it will remain dependent on the credit being granted by the private banks and, consequently, the barbaric system that we know will only become worse, with all the economic ills that follow, because its ultimate goal is complete dispossession of every citizen, concentration of all material means under the control of the state, as well as the latter's submission to the banking powers.
The members of the Ralliement creditiste favour private enterprise and, accordingly, they consider that the banks, as business concerns dealing with financial matters, are entitled to a reasonable profit, regulated by competition between the banks, with financial organizations and with the savings of the individuals.
The money invested by the banks' shareholders, or borrowed by the banks, or the money accrued through profits must be loaned at a profit, and in this connection, the Creditistes are committed to the defence and protection of the banks against all forms of State intrusion in their services, their assets or their transactions. Bankers have the right to live and the banks' shareholders are entitled to a return on their savings just as any other individual or company which provides services to the community. However, they are not entitled as commercial entreprises to create money in the way shoes are manufactured.
The right to create money and to circulate it does not belong to any individual, company or bank. It is a sover eign right, and only the people is sovereign.
That right is entrusted to the government by Canadians and it is through its bank, the Bank of Canada-not through private institutions-that it must create the money or the credit which is the means of exchange of the nation and which must be based on production.
It is for the' government to see constantly to it that the Bank of Canada circulates as much money as there are items to be exchanged; otherwise, the social problems which we have had and which will face us have no solution, and traditional political parties will continue to promote democracy according to the extent of freedom which they are given by financiers.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to join those who have preceded me in praising the mover of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) who has so brilliantly appraised the economic, social and political situation in our country. He has all the qualities, wisdom and courage of the "with it" Canadians. I am proud to be associated with him through the Liberal party.
Speech from, the Throne
He and his fellow members from the great province of Ontario, the province which has sent so many brilliant Liberal members to the House of Commons, the great majority of them with ministerial capabilities, are devoted to the Canadian adventure deeply rooted in their province but nevertheless accepting the Canadian challenge with open mind and generosity. His contribution, like a great number from this side of the House, strives toward the unity of Canada. They are not seeking a few votes through petty politics. They have respect for the intelligence of the people of their constituencies and will not indulge in excesses of language to make political hay.


Mr. Skoberg:: Oh, come on now.


Maurice Dupras: That is so, Mr. Speaker. These devoted men, along with all real Canadians, are going to make this country great and powerful. They are unlike the opposition party members, who are saying out of one side of their mouths that they support the Official Languages Act and out of the other side have launched a campaign in parts of Ontario and attacked the government on the issues of the economy and bilingualism, using, as my colleague the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) reported, the "some of my best friends are" routine. Do these members belong to a new branch of the Conservative party? If so, will this branch be represented in my province, and will it have candidates in other parts of the country?

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to congratulate my neighbour and colleague from Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie) for the superb fashion in which he discharged his heavy responsibility, that of seconding the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
His first contribution to this House proved just how fond he is of our magnificent country. Through his eloquence, he managed to have us share in the pride which stirs him in his pursuit of the Canadian adventure. He and his charming wife, who have a large family set an example for all Canadians. I too take this opportunity to pay tribute to him, to express my admiration for him and to assure him of my support and co-operation. To the voters of the riding of Trois-Rivieres, I extend my congratulations for their shrewdness in electing a man of his stamp.
Mr. Speaker, those two men enhance the value of our institution, and reassure all Canadians about the worthiness of the majority of the men it includes.
Mr. Speaker, as a government member I am pleased when I consider the various bills which were enacted during the last session. I am more especially referring to the steps taken to assure increased security to our old people. We have passed in favour of our Canadian pensioners the highest old age benefits in the world and if there is a generation which is worthy of our encouragement, it is indeed the precedent one. Acknowledging their needs is only a step toward greater balance in the redistribution of our national resources.
This pursuit of equity and justice can also be noted in the new legislation voted in favour of veterans. Having served in the armed forces during four years, I am quite

Speech from the Throne
pleased that those of my comrades who have shown courage and energy and offered their life to defend their country may enjoy the highest pension in the world. They were the best. The Canadian people surely appreciate the rightful token of gratefulness.
These various pieces of social legislation, Mr. Speaker, are the mark of a government whose total efforts make possible fair distribution of the country's resources to everyone.
In the economic field, we have seen the acumen, the common sense and the prudence the government displayed, enabling us to weather the period during which our neighbours were imposing a surcharge on their imports, of course for the purpose of protecting their industry. What country in the world was in such a critical position as ours, as a result of our proximity and of a certain degree of economic dependency. The outcome of the negotiations which followed these measures, skillfully conducted by our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), will restore to Canadian industry a competitive position on the vast American market and make a positive contribution to sustaining the economic revival which could already be felt in the spring of 1971.
During the past 12 months, Mr. Speaker, in spite of that setback, we achieved new records in development and the rate of growth of our gross national product exceeded that of all industrialized countries. Other equally meaningful results were obtained as a result of the confidence the government placed in Canadians. Thus the Local Initiatives and Opportunities for Youth programs are instances of new, bold ventures of which we can be proud.
The new parks to be developed to the north of the 60th parallel and which will soon acquire an enviable renown will bring to 28 the total number of our national parks. These parks are not meant only for the inhabitants of the surrounding areas. They are national lands the government of Canada is reserving for the whole population and future generations. Under the act, they are dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, their education and their enjoyment. Recognizing the increasing importance of maintaining contact with nature and indeed drawing closer to it, the people of my constituency are viewing with great interest and patience the efforts being made to turn a part of the country into a national park.
Thanks also to such outstanding talents, Canadians are in the forefront in the field of satellite communications whereby every citizen will be integrated into the great Canadian family.
As we mention the judgment, the energy and the wisdom of the Canadian people, we may notice that those are the qualities of the Prime Minister who was able to carry out the projects that are useful to us and who continually takes up new challenges.
Mr. Speaker, we are now in a transition stage which will eventually open onto a new world, a world that will have been created by our own hands and our own will.
We will have to maintain the tradition and bring it into harmony with the vanguard performances that will allow us to go forward without interruption. And it is also thanks to the inventive and industrious spirit of Canadians that we shall succeed in creating a country in which all citizens without exception will be happy to live. By the

same token, we shall be able to help in a more tangible way the less developed countries.
It is by striving to provide equal opportunities to every citizen that we shall succeed in building a hospitable country. We can only endorse the conviction of the Prime Minister that there is room in Canada for any person and any region. This spirit of tolerance should be the essential feature of the Canadian people. The twentieth century will be ours only if our economic success and our social measures are achieved with an openness of mind which would once and for all enable every citizen to be accepted and to participate and not merely to express their wish for participation.
It is in that context that the French language units, both in the Armed Forces and in the Public Service, appear as a project that could give concrete form to what was only a pious wish. With those French language units, Mr. Speaker, French will become a working language in the Public Service and the Armed Forces. This original measure shows that our government is able to take up challenges in an original manner. Thanks to this project, Frenchspeaking civil servants will better be able to show their professional qualifications in carrying out their duties and will thus increase their chances of promotion within the Canadian Public Service.
Our ancestors were faced with many challenges. They succeeded in finding original solutions in each case. We must face the challenges of today in the same spirit. So we shall have to devise new methods to protect the quality of the environment. The situation is critical in many cases. We must find original methods to protect our rivers and our lakes threatened by pollution, and others, so as to clean the water which already is thoroughly polluted. Also, we shall have to devise measures to save certain species of our wildlife which are threatened with extinction. Only through dynamic action shall we be able to meet these challenges. In this country which we are building for ourselves and for the future generations, the time is for action and not nostalgia.
The most important challenge lies indeed in the field of job creation. We are now facing new circumstances which no one could have foreseen. Technology has totally disrupted our approach to work. Not only must we consider developing new work methods, but it is our very concept of work which we shall have to alter. We must adjust without delay. Those who will have neither the strength nor the courage to do so will be left logging behind their own times. But our spirit of innovation will enable us to develop a society in which life will be well worth living. The initiative, creativeness and ability of our workers and of those who are seeking employment must be put to better use if we are to reach this goal. The present situation is but another challenge to our will to fight.
To show as much wisdom as justice sometimes represents a difficult dilemma. Still in that field, we must make suggestions, provide all the tools needed and intervene judiciously. Only thus shall we bring about ingenious and fruitful initiatives.
Gloomy thoughts and set ideas are out. People who are always afraid to take initiatives and who lack imagination are not with it. Canadians want to go ahead; the government will give them the opportunity to do so.
February 28, 1972


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) and in particular to his high praise of the efforts of the mover and the seconder of the motion in connection with the Speech from the Throne. I was interested, in particular, in his use of the phrase, with reference to the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), that his was a great, statesmanlike utterance.
Those of us who have become familiar with the tactics and the oratorical style of the hon. member for Bruce would not quite describe his talents in the same terms as the hon. member for Labelle with respect to statesmanlike utterances. I would say that the hon. member delivered a great, partisan, tub-thumping speech, and I suppose that is what we should expect in the Parliament of Canada. It did suggest what I feel is the main defect of the Speech from the Throne; it is more noteworthy for its style rather than its substance.
We had all expected that the Speech, as is usual with these state of the nation presentations, would be full of substance, full of firm plans and policies to deal with the fundamental economic issues facing us. The more I examine the Speech, the more I conclude that it is better examined for its style than for its substance. It is an empty Speech from the Throne and, as a result, most of the speeches presented by spokesmen for the government have lacked the substance that should prevail in a debate of this kind.
The present administration which has been in office since 1968-


An hon. Member:: Too long!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -had little to offer the people of Canada when it came to power but the slogan "the just society". It had no policies for the latter part of the sixties but rode in on the economic and financial momentum generated in the early part of the decade. As we move into the decade of the seventies and are faced with mounting economic problems reflecting the growing complexity of national and international relations, and so on, it is disappointing to find a Speech from the Throne which has no policies for this important decade.
In an election year it would seem to me that the government would have something to offer more than style to the people of Canada. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) moves about the hustings, testing the atmosphere and mood of the nation, I notice that he does not -quite know whether to go for broke with elaborate promises or attempt to repeat the tour de force of 1968 when he was able to get by without promising anything, creating the impression that his was a new style, a new era, the dawn of the age of Aquarius.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment placed before Parliament by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) is right on target and I trust it will have support from all members of the House. The amendment would add the following words to the motion:
but we find intolerable the utter failure of this government to bring forward a decisive policy to achieve full employment and
Speech from the Throne
the continuing uncertainty and hesitancy in the economy because of the chronic indecisiveness of this government.
I am sure that when we use the phrase "we find intolerable," we are speaking for the people of Canada. But I shall deal with that later in my remarks.
It is true that economic issues are the mainspring of any government policy. As the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) said in his speech this afternoon, the B and B issues are fundamental-the "bread and butter" issues. As I move around the Canadian body politic, I realize this is where the buck is lying at the present time. There are the issues of great concern to the majority of the people of Canada.
When we say in the motion that the government is indecisive and lacks a sense of leadership, it is because the record of the past four years has indicated that the government's approach to economic problems is an ad hoc, unplanned approach. This ad hoc, unplanned approach reflects the personality of the Prime Minister who, after all, is the leader of this House and the leader of the government.
His whole life style and his excursion into politics has been that of an individual uncertain of his personal commitment in terms of party, in terms of policy and in terms of program as he now exercises the supreme responsibility of leader of this nation. He came to this House in 1965, recently converted from the New Democratic Party. He is not the only one in the present Cabinet to have that pedigree. There should be a fundamental difference between the philosophy of the NDP and that of the Liberal party which he presently supports. If there is not, I am sure that explains why there is lack of dynamic and sure-footed leadership at this time.


Mr. Muir:: The NDP were glad to get rid of him.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Some of the main initiatives of the present government, Mr. Speaker, have reflected this unplanned, ad hoc approach to the major issues before us. We are a northern nation beset every year by winter unemployment. This applies in western Canada, particularly the prairie west, perhaps more than in the other areas because of the severity of winter conditions there.
I well remember the Prime Minister indicating that he was no longer going to use the excellent winter works program that had been developed by the Conservative administration which occupied the treasury benches between 1957 and 1963 because there was not going to be any fundamental problem of unemployment. So the "Do it now, why wait for spring?" program was set aside. In its place, for the last two years, because of the chronic problem of unemployment we have had the ad hoc Local Initiatives Program, the Opportunites for Youth program, and so forth, instead of deliberate planning to meet a severe problem.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

February 28, 1972
Speech from the Throne AFTER RECESS
The House resume at 8 p.m.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, when the House recessed at six o'clock I was pointing out to hon. members that the basic criticism we direct at the present government led by the Prime Minister is that it has failed to deal realistically with economic and financial matters. Instead of being presented with a co-ordinated, national economic policy in which the priorities would have been set by the people and the people's representatives, we have been led through an incomprehensible maze plotted by this super group surrounding the Prime Minister's office and involved in all the activities of the government generally. The result is, Mr. Speaker, that the private sector of the economy has been stifled because of the smothering effect of the super group.
I recall the words of a distinguished Senator who put on record in the other place precisely what has happened. I read from a report in the Globe and Mail written under the heading, "Liberal Senator attacks policies of government":
Senator Daniel Lang, . . . Toronto lawyer and business executive, charged that the Trudeau government is alienating businessmen by its tax legislation, its proposed changes in competition and labour laws and its promotion of friendship with the Soviet Union.
He argued that the future of Canadian confederation itself depends on good relations between business and government and called for a rapid return to that condition of mutual respect-'
Senator Lang, former treasurer and campaign chairman for the Liberal party in Ontario, was speaking in a Senate debate on the Canadian economy.
He raised issues that have been the subject of growing complaints by businessmen lately.
He said private business was uncertain and fearful of administrative powers given to the public service.
I am afraid that many in the private sector regard this bureaucracy as aloof, intransigent, doctrinaire and oftimes hostile,' he said.
It is obvious that some hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches have become concerned by the present economic course of the administration. I was interested in a speech that crossed my desk not long ago. It was delivered to the Canadian Club in the Hotel Vancouver on Friday February 4, by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), who is the hon. member for Capilano, if I may refer to him by naming his constituency. The title of the speech was, "Canada's economic Oscar".
According to the speech, which continued for 21 pages, the Minister of the Environment was obviously more concerned about the political environment than about the physical environment, because he was at great pains to point out that all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds. I read from page 18 of that speech the following remarks:
I know you're worried about our new Competition Act. But this legislation is being withdrawn. It's being rewritten. The emphasis is being put, increasingly, on competition. I'm sure that you agree, at least in principle, that competition is a good thing. More competition rather than less will be a good thing for Canada just as it has been a good thing elsewhere-
Confidence and competition; the two go hand in hand. I personally believe in an open economy. I believe, wholeheartedly, in individual initiative. I believe in private enterprise. I believe, also, that Canadians can be enterprising.

I agree that Canadians can be enterprising if they are given a chance and not smothered under the overwhelming influence of the present bureaucratic structure of government particularly in the office of the Prime Minister. I have a recent comment on the attitude of business toward government policy as reported in the Globe and Mail "Report on business" of February 23. Hon. members can read this report for themselves. The article is headlined, "Economic Council predicts slowdown in capital spending", and I quote:
The veil of gloom that permeated business circles last October, and has only recently been partly lifted, has yielded the most pessimistic forecast of capital spending plans ever made by the 1 Economic Council of Canada.
The president of DuPont found fault with industrial and tariff policies. I quote the following excerpt of his words:
Current government policy is for an open economy and industry that is world-competitive. But this is not consistent with a proposed new Competition Act that would fragment industry, with regional-development policies that have philosophical merit but are economically disastrous, with a technical innovation system that is different from and more restrictive than those of other areas.
The former minister of consumer and corporate affairs is a neighbour of the hon. member for Capilano, the Minister of the Environment. I am sure that the transition in ministerial responsibility is further proof of the growing disease that exists among the business community and the Canadian body politic. It is not only in big business; it also affects small business, farmers and wage earners. We were recently in our constituencies for a particularly long recess. If hon. members will speak the truth on the matter,
I am sure they will admit they were beset and besieged by farmers, businessmen and indeed all Canadians with regard to the uncertainties arising from the impact of the so-called tax reform measure that was forced through the House under closure just before the Christmas recess.
Last week a member of the House, a former deputy prime minister, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), summed it up in these words, "The government's economic policies are stupid and even subversive." That sums up the situation as seen by someone who obviously had inside information as a key member of the Trudeau administration.
I want to speak briefly on a matter that I know something about personally, and refer to comments made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) in his speech in the House on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. He gave forth, under the title "The quality of Canadian life":
We want to safeguard those diversities, to give them full play in the shaping of a proud Canadianism which reflects all the elements of our society.
The hon. gentleman was reading from a printed text that was distributed to the press and members of the House concerning in general terms the quality of Canadian life. He was not necessarily dealing with economic matters. I want to give the hon. gentleman credit; since he assumed his portfolio he has grown in stature in office. From the quotation I have just read to hon. members, obviously he has gained wide understanding of the new dimensions in Canadian confederation.
February 28, 1972

I shall not go into detail on some of the economic matters he dealt with in connection with northern affairs, because we welcome him to the family circle of those who in the past decade or more have regarded the great undeveloped part of northern Canada in the Yukon and Northwest Territories as the last great frontier of Canadian development. News of oil discoveries, news of a boom in mineral development and national parks in the north were subjects being discussed and planned when the vision of northern development was regarded with scepticism by members on the opposite side of the House. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has now become the chief exponent of this enthusiasm.
I want to link the quotation with regard to the proud Canadianism which reflects all elements of society to another major responsibility of the hon. gentleman; that is, developing policies and programs for our native Canadians. The real resources of Canada are human resources. The area of development of human resources, particularly our native population in the territories as well as in other parts of Canada, is where the government has been sadly negligent. If we are to achieve a quality of Canadian life adequate for our first Canadians, be they Indians, Eskimos or Metis, we must recognize the basic rights of all elements of Canadian society. In particular, we must recognize land claims and aboriginal rights which thus far have been short-circuited by this administration.
When the Prime Minister was specifically confronted with these matters he told these people, who are an important element of the great Canadian mosaic, to forget their traditions and become good Canadians. I suppose the proper response to that statement by the Prime Minister would be, "Physician, heal thyself."
It is true that human resources is the main ingredient in the development of this nation. In the few moments that remain at my disposal I wish to point out that this is another area of serious neglect on the part of the administration, particularly as it applies to western Canada. It has been said that mankind is one, the human family is one, but cultures are many. There is a new dimension of Canadianism that has emerged outside of upper and lower Canada, that has not yet been fully grasped by this administration. There is no dominant cultural group in western Canada. The compact theory of Confederation does not necessarily apply there, nor is it readily accepted. Rather, we are faced with a mosaic which is as colourful as the Canadian maple leaf.
Western Canada is not willing to become lumped material to be shaped in the image of the Prime Minister of Canada. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) used a word which is loaded with emotion-several other hon. members have mentioned it-in describing the Premier of a western province as a bigot, he was not contributing much to the dialogue respecting national unity. The premier of British Columbia was pointing out that if bilingual qualifications were to become a major requirement among those seeking job opportunities in the capital of the nation, then people from western Canada would clearly be discriminated against. This point was raised repeat-
Speech from the Throne
edly by spokesmen from western Canada during the debate on the official languages issue.
The situation, has of course, been aggravated by other measures taken by the government such as the changing of names which are an integral part of the heritage of western Canada. It is easy for the Prime Minister to make a joke about changing the historical and traditional description of what used to be the Northwest Mounted Police, and later became the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to the simple word "police", but it is not being accepted in western Canada. I was in the west last week and I am aware of the strong feeling on this issue in all the western provinces. I am sure the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) is aware of it too.
The time has come, it seems, for two provinces in Canada, or one province for that matter, to refrain from imposing its image on the rest of Canada. A multicultural society is emerging which expresses the real spirit of Canadianism in this second half of the twentieth century. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) will be in Vancouver within the next couple of weeks. Obviously, he recognizes this problem because he will be participating in an important conference promoted by the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews concerning the implications of the policy of multiculturalism in this country. I say again that the situation is not being resolved when the Queen's first minister describes the Premier of one of the western provinces, in the course of a public statement, as a bigot. In other words, if you do not agree with the Prime Minister you are a bigot. It is an expletive which will not be accepted in the west.
There are two further matters I should like to bring to the attention of the House, if I have time. They concern government efficiency. If you have no policies which are going anywhere in terms of economic development, I suppose it is impossible for there to be administrative efficiency. We are faced with a breakdown of administrative efficiency at the senior level of government. I refer, of course, to the unemployment insurance fiasco which has been causing severe headaches to all members of the House of Commons, the immigration situation, the strikes which have been dislocating the public service in the past few weeks, and particularly the strike which has been tying up Canada's air service to such a degree that it is bound to have a profound adverse effect on the economic well-being of the nation.
I refer also to discontent which has been rampant among the staff of the Post Office. As critic for the official opposition in this field, I have spent much of my time receiving and replying to complaints in this area. People are seeking improvement in the quality of the basic service which is supposed to be provided by the Post Office Department, and I do not think that the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) or the government as a whole pay the slightest attention to these complaints. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read one or two of these complaints into the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: That could be done by unanimous consent; otherwise it could not, because the hon. member's time has expired. Does the House agree to allow the hon. member to continue his remarks?


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

February 28, 1972


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This letter was addressed to the Prime Minister himself, by a Mr. Evans in Ashburn, Ontario:
Have you heard that your mail service stinks? That is a good old-fashioned work, like fuddle-duddle. And God help us if your government intrudes into any other functions or enterprises until it masters the mail service.
That is one letter which has come to my attention. Here is one from the United States. Perhaps this is why there is lack of communication between Canada and the United States.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: May I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Would the hon. member allow the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) to ask a question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: When I have concluded my remarks, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I rise on a point of order that relates to what the hon. member was saying. I ask the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) if he can quote a letter received from his constituency instead of quoting letters from the United States and Ontario.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I want to be fair to the hon. member, but he should not take advantage of a point of order for the purpose of asking a question.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: To reply briefly, I have been overwhelmed by complaints from my constituency concerning the closing of rural post offices, as the hon. member knows. But in this debate I am trying not to be parochial; I am trying to show that the problem is one of national, even international significance. The following letter was written by a lady doctor in Denver, Colorado. Strong language is used, which I shall not put on the record. She writes:
Since October 21, 1971, no communication written by me has ever been received in St. Catharines. In addition to this, since that date, none of the communications from St. Catharines has been received by me .. . Would you please send someone to find where all of those sacks of mail have been for all of these months and could you please get them delivered? I would be eternally grateful.
That letter, too, was directed to the Prime Minister, among others. I could read many more, similar complaints but my time has expired. I shall conclude by saying that in 1963 the Prime Minister wrote of the Liberal government of that day:
There is not one man in this party to whom principles mean more than power.
The same men, the men of whom he wrote so bitterly, sit beside him on the government front benches today. Nothing has changed except the title of the jobs they hold, and their grim determination to hang on to office at any cost is as evident today as it was ten years ago.
I would urge hon. gentlemen opposite, if they really want to understand what is going on in Canada, to get out and listen to the people. The old slogan, "Power, patronage and perpetuity", which has long been a slogan adhered to by successive Liberal governments, will not be realized following the next election.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for St. Boniface wishes to ask the hon. member for Brandon-Souris a question.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the hon. member for Brandon-Souris whether the policy of his party, the loyal opposition, regarding recognition of all land claims, aboriginal rights and obligations to the Indians, is as he mentioned a while ago in his speech.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer the hon. gentleman's question. If he would look at the records at the time the previous Conservative government was in office-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I asked whether it was present policy.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Let me answer the question-there was an item of government business on the order paper to set up a land claims commission at that time. Then in 1963 the government changed, and no action has been taken by two successive Liberal governments since they assumed office.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join my colleagues in this House in congratulating the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne for a job well done.
I am rising today to speak about the government's plans to improve the fabric of Canadian social justice. I hope to back up these plans by establishing the bona fides of the government in this area over the past few months, and certainly during its term of office. In doing so, I bear in mind what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) stated in his address to the House last week. He said that statistics are no substitute for the individual citizen's well-being. We can talk all we like about participatory democracy, we can mention the millions of dollars that we have spent or intend to spend on items like old age security, family income security, medicare, hospital insurance, rehabilitative welfare services and the like, but in the end a satisfactory participation level depends upon the individual.
When we talk about the individual in the context of social justice, we come down to the individual's alienation from the society in which he lives and from his fellow Canadians, all of whom contribute to the cause of this feeling of alienation. We are familiar with many of these causes: the bigness of our institutions-the "bigness" syndrome of industrially-developed countries like Canada. This tends to make the individual feel small, to make him feel that his role is sometimes meaningless and lost.
All this has resulted from rapid technological change and great innovations in the area of automation and cybernation. This alienation is also contributed to by the rising expectations which our consumer-oriented society all too often is geared to create but unable to fulfil. Once these rising expectations are created, individuals feel alienated by poverty, by feeling uncertain in an era of rapid social change. They are fearful because the old values on which they base their pattern of life and look to for certain security for the future no longer seem to be there.
February 28, 1972

Therefore, when we talk about alienation of the individual and the participation level of the individual in society, we must concern ourselves with policies designed to cope with the situation. The three components of this policy seem to me, depending of course on the nature and quality of the service to the individual, to break down, firstly, to that of economic security, secondly, access to services and, thirdly, the individual's involvement in decision-making.
First let me talk about the individual's economic security as a way of combating his alienation from society and his fellow man. By "economic security" we are really talking about finding jobs for the individual. To a large extent this is what economic security means to him.
What has the government done to establish its bona fides in regard to future plans? May I talk about those who are already employed-the employables, if you like. I am talking not only of those who are employed but of those who are employable and are waiting to get into the labour force. What are some of the government's policies for them? Under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce we have the PAIT program which is designed to encourage industry to make breakthroughs in areas of new technology: we award them grants to carry on and develop that new technology. That is one example. Export development grants is another program of the government. Accelerated rates of depreciation is another. Setting up boards, such as the textile review board, to encourage industry in their particular area and to keep that sector of our industry alive is yet another policy of the government.
The second area of stimulation of the private sector in terms of job creation is the attention we have paid to slow-growth areas through our regional development programs. Thirdly in the area of providing stimulation to the private sector to provide jobs, I think we should mention our manpower training program and our encouragement to industry to provide training within industry itself through direct government grants. In this connection I refer also to direct grants under the Local Initiatives Program and the winter employment municipal loans fund. It seems to me that all these programs are designed to encourage the private sector to provide jobs.
There is also the Opportunities for Youth program. In terms of our youth, this program is designed to encourage the private sector to provide jobs for youth. These are some of the many policies that have been implemented by this government over recent months and years to provide a degree of economic security for Canadians.
As I mentioned at the beginning, these policies were designed for those Canadians who are employable. Within that category, of course, there are Canadians who are employable but who have special problems which for one reason or another are inhibitors in terms of their finding ready access to the labour market. There are three areas here about which I wish to speak. Firstly, there are the physically handicapped. What have we done for these people? We have the vocational rehabilitation program, and we have very recently increased veterans disability pensions.
Secondly, we have the socially and emotionally handicapped, those who unfortunately have a minimum of
Speech from the Throne
education, who are often below manpower retraining standards and have suffered from long-term unemployment. What are some of our policies to help these people? We have the work activity projects under the Canada Assistance Plan which are covered by a cost-sharing arrangement with the provinces. Lately we have very much encouraged the provinces to take greater advantage of this provision under the Canada Assistance Plan and to submit work activity projects that carry with them personal counselling and professional help to the long-term unemployed in order to help them acquire work habits which would enable them to re-enter the labour market.
Another group of employables who have special problems is mothers who are alone, or spouses without partners who have children they must support and who are considered employable. It would enrich their lives as well as their children's lives if they could enter the labour market. What have we done in this area? Under the Canada Assistance Plan we provide financial assistance, under a cost-sharing arrangement with the provinces, to provide day-care centres. In the fiscal year 1971-72 the federal government spent approximately $4 million for this purpose which, counting the provincial share, represents over $8 million in the last fiscal year to commence, in combination with the private sector, a network of daycare centres to allow mothers who are alone to go into the labour market to pick up either full-time or part-time work.
Also, in discussing the provision of economic security for individuals we must also take into account those people in our work force who are unemployable, who are permanently out of the work force and who could not re-enter it even if they wanted to do so. What have we done for this group of people? Of course, a very large segment of the Canadian population which is permanently out of the work force is our senior citizens, many of whom, because of infirmity or advanced age, could not work even if they were desirous of doing so and even if the government wished them to do so.
Recently we raised the level of the guaranteed income supplement. No matter what criticism it may be subject to, the government has raised the basic income floor for over one million Canadians who now obtain the guaranteed income supplement either in whole or in part to levels which are now nearly approaching the level of adequacy and which are far more generous than anything we have known before.
I spoke about policies designed to help senior citizens who are permanently out of the work force. The next group of individuals with whom we must concern ourselves, who are permanently out of the work force, is the disabled. As indicated in the white paper on income security, the government has shown that this is a group of people we must next take into consideration. The white paper spoke about applying the same technique as is applied in the guaranteed income supplement to the disabled, so as to provide them with a basic guaranteed minimum income upon which they can rely. It can be subject to an income test and does not carry with it the humiliation of a means or a needs test.
We spoke about what we have done for the employables in terms of stimulating the private sector; we spoke about employables with special problems and about some of the

February 28, 1972
Speech from the Throne
programs we have devised to assist these people. We spoke about the unemployed who are permanently out of the work force. There is another group of Canadians who are suffering from low incomes, that is people who are in the work force but who are earning marginal incomes. What has the government done for them, and what does it plan to do to assist them?
In terms of the federal government's capacity to do so, and in terms of our jurisdiction under the constitution, we have provided increases in the minimum wage levels for all working in industries falling within federal jurisdiction, during the life of this Parliament, to the degree that those levels are well in advance of most of the minimum wage laws of the provinces. I do not say this with any degree of exultation, but I think all hon. members are aware of it.
What else have we done for many Canadians in the work force earning marginal incomes? Many of them are veterans for whom we have provided increases during the life of this Parliament under war veterans allowances. This does provide income supplementation for them. I would refer in this regard to the recent tax bill of the former minister of finance, which provided assistance to people earning marginal incomes whereby upward of one million persons were taken off the tax rolls entirely.
I might speak here about all the people who fall in this category and who have benefited from the greatly enriched benefit structure of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Of course, I should refer also to a policy we have discussed in this Parliament, one on which I have spoken, on behalf of the government, with the provinces. I refer to the Family Income Security Plan which I hope to bring before this House very soon. This will afford meaningful income supplementation to hundreds of thousands of families the heads of which are in the labour force and are working but are working at marginal incomes.
This plan provides for that inevitable deficiency which occurs in the private sector where private industry rewards a man on the basis of his ability and his value to that particular industry, but without any regard to his dependants. The Family Income Security Plan takes this increased dependency into account and provides income supplementation.
I have spoken of some of the policies already adopted and some we intend to adopt in terms of assistance to that group of individuals who are already in the work force but are earning too little in many cases. Now I would like to move on to the second major area which I identified in my opening remarks in terms of a basic policy designed to cope with the alienation of the individual and to enhance social justice in Canada, that is, access to services.
This area is very important indeed but is one about which we do not talk very much in Parliament. We all know that the health of the individual is basic to his person and to his family. In the area of personal health, we know that Canada, in relation to many of the countries in the free world, has one of the lowest ratios of doctors to population and one of the lowest ratios of hospital beds to population. At the same time, we know that in relative terms we have a well developed health delivery system. But we know there are deficiencies in terms of the distribution of these services, in terms of the distribution

throughout Canada of our doctors, of our medical health and health personnel and especially in terms of lack of adequate distribution in low-income areas and in rural areas.
What has the government endeavoured to do in this area? We have suggested a new policy to the provinces, the new health cost-sharing arrangements. They are designed to keep costs to a reasonable level. This is essential if we are not to price these services beyond the public's ability to pay and perhaps risk total public disapproval of schemes such as medicare and hospitalization, which I think a majority of the members of this House endorse.
What else have these policies been designed to do? They have been designed to sponsor new health delivery systems in order to bring them closer to the public. I have talked about the new cost-sharing formula and in particular the Thrust fund provision that will give greater flexibility to the provinces to develop community health centres and services which will relieve the burden on active treatment facilities that are so costly, and in many cases are utilized by people who do not really need them. Among other things that the policies are designed to do is bring about improved redistribution of resources. Here I refer to the special incentives to doctors to move into rural areas and thus improve our distribution of health personnel.
The Thrust fund will also help provinces to undertake new schemes in this area. It will allow them to develop new paramedical personnel, which will relieve the burdensome task on many of our doctors who are now providing a service that, because of their high qualifications, in effect is a waste. Many doctors admit that all too many of their man-hours are spent on tasks which other trained personnel could perform just as adequately.
Of course, one of the basic fundamental philosophies in the whole health cost proposals is the great emphasis we are placing on preventive techniques, which will mean greater improvement in health services for Canadians. In recent years we have put too much emphasis on curative medicine as distinct from preventive medicine. The Thrust fund and the new health cost-sharing proposals will also encourage such programs as mass screening that will detect illnesses which have not yet come to the surface, thus allowing a quicker response to them and allowing us to save many lives that might otherwise be lost. Here I am talking about mass immunization programs and much greater emphasis on public health programs, including improvement of the diet of all Canadians.
In talking about access to services, I might also mention what we have also done in the health area but we often do not think of in terms of health programs, but which nevertheless forms part of them. I am talking about the program to enhance the physical fitness of Canadians. Here I would refer briefly to the creation of Sport Canada and Recreation Canada. Over the course of the last three years the financial resources put into these areas have been more than doubled.
Dealing with this subject, I refer to the agency specifically set up to increase participation in physical recreation which enjoys the co-operation of both government and industry and which can call on the private sector,
February 28, 1972

especially the media, that is, television, newspapers and radio, to combine with us in packaging programs which can have a much greater impact upon Canadians. Here, in terms of past bona fides, I talk of our Cross-Canada Sports Demonstration, and our Sports Caravan which is now going around many parts of this country, bringing the message of physical fitness and sports involvement directly to the mass of the public and schoolchildren.
I also talk about government programs designed to increase local facilities through grants under DREE, and the winter employment municipal grants. I also refer to our department's facility survey conducted last summer- will be conducted again this coming summer-to help rural areas develop greater use of facilities already in existence. Of course, I also refer to the Opportunities for Youth program and the Local Initiatives Program which have assisted work in the recreational area, with people at the grass-roots level. I also refer to grants to groups such as Indian bodies to permit them to develop recreational and physical fitness programs.
Here, too, I talk about our sports administration centre which has brought together on a more adequate basis the administrative people in our sports bodies, thus assisting them in the technical area in terms of coaching so that they in turn can stimulate greater use of facilities in Canada and a greater degree of mass participation in sports. I also refer to our Canadian Games which now are almost a national event in Canada, in addition to the Canadian Olympics. Under both programs we give grants to municipalities to develop sports and recreational facilities for the long term.
I refer also the Canadian fitness awards scheme which we have introduced to all primary and secondary schools in Canada, which is designed to provide incentive to our young people to acquire awards in accordance with the standards set out in the scheme. I also refer to our scholarship program which is encouraging many of our young people to be an example to the rest of the Canadian public. These are some of the positive programs we are undertaking in this area on the health side.
But, Mr. Speaker, some negative influences have been at work in our community on the health side, of which hon. members are aware. Here I refer to the misuse of drugs by an all too alarming number of Canadians. In this area we have commissioned the LeDain report. That commission has already brought in a preliminary report, and more recently the first instalment of its final report on treatment. I would point out that we had acted on many of the recommendations even before the final report on treatment came out. Here I refer in particular to our recent action which received the general approbation of hon. members, placing greater restrictive use on amphetamines and methadone.
Under our drug abuse program we have taken steps to get into the area of street-level analysis and into the area of research into illicit drugs. There are also the innovative service grants that we established during the last two years which give grants to local agencies to help people with drug problems as well as related problems connected with food, clothing and shelter, and diseases that all too often go with drug abuse, such as VD. We have funded drop-in centres and crisis centres to help people who are
Speech from the Throne
having so-called bad trips or are suffering very serious illness because of drug abuse.
I also refer to funds provided for public education programs designed to establish a basis of credibility so that we can motivate Canadians, especially young people who have not yet resorted to drugs, not to do so and to persuade those committing drug abuse to discontinue their habit.
Another area, in terms of access to services, is that of the impact of the law on the individual. In the Speech from the Throne we heard of the intention of the Minister of Justice to provide a legal aid, in combination with the provinces, to those who have been charged with criminal offences.
I think the House may be well aware of what we have done on the civil side, and particularly at the lower income level, through our national welfare grants. Here we have been prepared to fund at the local level organizations which are prepared to emphasize, first the curative side and then the preventive side in terms of legal services. On the curative side I refer, in terms of assistance, to people who have, for example, landlord and tenant problems or debtor and creditor problems. On the preventive side, with the aid of our grants people can receive counselling on their rights, especially in the consumer area in which many low-income people suffer discrimination. With respect to welfare appeal rights, our grants can assist them to better learn what their rights are.
I would refer to the advocative side where we would talk in terms of funding some groups to bring group action in pollution cases, urban redevelopment cases and tenants' rights organizations; this would allow them to better organize in order to present their point of view. There are techniques here, such as those the government has, which can be used to assist individuals to have access to services.
On the legislative side there is, of course, a role for government, Mr. Speaker, both before and after any confrontation with the law which may be necessary. First, I should like to deal with the preventative side where legislation is designed to assist the individual before any involvement with the courts and the adversary system. There are the government programs for consumer protection. One which I am sure stands out in our minds was brought into this House by the previous minister of consumer and corporate affairs and was passed. This was part X of the Bankruptcy Act, where a person in the low-income category, a debtor, can now have greater access to public trustees to advance a declaration of his bankruptcy in order to become devoid of his debts. Another is the Bills of Exchange Act. At one time, upon a third party assumption of a promissory note, the third party did not have to accept any of the obligations of the person with whom the debtor originally made the contract. This situation has been corrected.
Legislation has been implemented on the rehabilitation side. I refer to the Criminal Code amendments announced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) a few days ago. The highlights are conditional and absolute discharge, intermittent sentences and matters that the Solicitor General

February 28, 1972
Speech from the Throne
(Mr. Goyer) and the Minister of Justice have talked about in terms of penal reform.
Having talked about the individual in terms of our health legislation and policies and in relation to our law, I should now like to speak about families and how we have assisted them in terms of access to services. One area is housing. I would point out that in 1971 we had the highest record in dwelling houses built in Canada, with a record number of homes for low-income families. In the Speech from the Throne the government has referred to fresh new concepts in neighbourhood improvement and new emphasis on low-cost housing.
I refer, as well, to our policies in the Department of National Health and Welfare relative to family planning where this information is made available to everybody. Too often only the higher income groups have had access to this information, but our program is designed to provide it to all regardless of income.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret to interrupt, but the time of the hon. Minister has expired. If the minister wishes to continue, I must have the consent of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five minutes; agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McCleave:: He is not hurting us.


John Carr Munro: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members. I think I can finish in five minutes. I should like to mention some of the policies of the government which have general application in terms of access to services. There are the initiatives we have taken in regard to nutritional upgrading. I have written to many hon. members about the Nutrition Canada survey which is going on now and which will permit us to ascertain the diets of Canadians, their eating habits, so that we can design policies to improve or correct these. The findings of this survey will be available soon.
I have spoken of improved health services for our native peoples. In the last three years we have increased the budget to the point where the native people themselves are prepared to admit that the program has improved. I think it is safe to predict that the infant mortality rate amongst our native peoples will decrease. I have spoken also about the action taken to reduce the high cost of prescription drugs. We have enclosed with the old age pension cheques and family allowance cheques a list of the comparative prices of drugs. A quality inspection system has been established within the Food and Drug Directorate, and in the course of the next year and a half we will be able to send information to physicians showing them that on the basis of our tests they can depend, where it is so, on generic drugs and brand name drugs being of equal quality.
Many physicians have indicated that they are not prepared to prescribe a generic drug because they are not confident that its quality is equivalent to the brand name drug. We are prepared to increase funding in order to give them that assurance. This program will bring down the cost of drugs. I refer, also, to action taken in this area by the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs in 
terms of the Patent Act which has had the effect of bringing down the cost of drugs.
Mr. Speaker, I have talked about two main areas, the economic security proposals of the government and access to services. We have brought in meaningful prroposals designed to combat poverty and to increase the participation level of the individual and thus bring about a greater degree of social justice. The third area, one in which I cannot enlarge to any degree due to time constraint, is access to decision-making. I would point out the many programs we have designed such as the Opportunities for Youth program, innovative service grants in the drug abuse area and welfare grants to enable low-income people to organize and express their views. Then there are the minority group citizenship grants under the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), which allow people to organize and present their views and preserve their very distinct qualities as Canadians, and the multicultural grants recently announced by the Secretary of State. All these are designed to enhance the accessibility of the decision-making process to Canadians.
We have used as a government the participation role in the design of policies. This technique was used in the white paper on tax reform and I have used it in my department on income security programs where we have received input from people knowledgeable in that field. There is our recent action in terms of providing greater equality to women. We have received the royal commission report and many departments, including my own, are providing a greater role for women who are being appointed to more national boards and, within my department, to advisory boards where they have equality in designing social policies. There are also policies designed to involve our retired citizens. I refer of course, to the Canadian Executive Service Overseas program under the Department of External Affairs. Also under our welfare grants programs we are providing funds to enable senior citizens to come together in meaningful endeavours.
In conclusion, from the Speech from the Throne we learn that we can look forward to new policies in terms of access to services, such as new policies in housing, new policies in terms of more humane treatment of offenders and in the area of drugs. In terms of economic security we can expect policies in the family income security area and policies designed to provide compensation for victims of crime. There is a rich record of governmental accomplishment in terms of social justice in these three main areas. These are three main, necessary areas involving social justice for Canadians. Certainly, the proposals in the Speech from the Throne will enhance these policies and bring social justice, as a reality, closer to Canadians.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I was most interested to hear the minister's speech. There is no doubt that his department and other departments of government have brought forward many programs over the past four years. I was interested to hear him say that to a great extent one of our big problems today is that of human alienation. It would be funny, if it were not so tragic, to suggest that despite the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent today by this government, in my opinion people today are more isolated than ever before. They feel
February 28, 1972

more alienated than ever before from a computer-oriented, de-personalized government. It makes little difference if you talk about new programs in terms of quantity: it is quality and closeness to the individual in society that counts, so far as I am concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, even though it is not the first speech I have made in the House, I should like to take this opportunity to tell hon. members something about my constituency. This will not be the usual, flowery description of the greatest little corner of Canada, for surely this is too serious an occasion for that; but it will be, rather, an analysis of many of the ill effects the present regime has had on that constituency.
One of the main reasons, Mr. Speaker, why many people in Brant did not vote for the Liberal candidate in the by-election last spring was that they had become disillusioned with Liberal party policies. Today, if you go west, that disillusionment is even greater. If you go east, the disillusionment is greater, too. This government is a government whose major strength came from central Canada in 1968-and my riding, Brant, is in central Canada. So the disillusionment today is not only widespread but intensive in central Canada, where the party in power had its strength four years ago.
As far as population is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the federal riding of Brant consists mainly of the city of Brantford, the town of Paris and the villages of Burford and St. George, with a combined population of some
75,000	people. Rural Brant is populated mainly by good, progressive farmers specializing in dairying, beef, hogs and cash cropping. Both urban and rural Brant have suffered as a result of government policies-or lack of them.
To begin, I should like to discuss the single, most pressing problem in urban, and to some extent rural, Brant. I am, of course, referring to unemployment. Since 1970 the official rate of unemployment has hovered around the 8 per cent mark. The unofficial rate has gone to between 12 and 15 per cent, thanks to the former minister of finance's bungling of the economy. His name has become a pretty miserable household word in my riding. The unofficial rate of between 12 and 15 per cent was given to me by an employee of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Hamilton.
The present government has become famous for its almost zealous devotion to statistics. But, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the flesh and blood behind the statistics. Let us look at the misery and social dislocation caused by severe unemployment in just one riding, where unemployment insurance claimants are being forced to go on the welfare rolls because of the ineptitude and utter chaos that now reigns in the Unemployment Insurance Commission throughout this country. I receive 25 to 30 phone calls a day and 20 letters a week. The vast majority of these cases concern unemployment and unemployment insurance.
Mr. Speaker, I was elected to represent all the interests of Brant. I was elected to be a parliamentarian. Considering the salary I receive, I do not think that 75 per cent of my time should be devoted to acting as a troubleshooter for the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
Speech from the Throne


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Since I was elected I have never shunned my responsibility as a member whose primary concern has always been the best interests of his riding. People, out of desperation, phone me to see if I can get them a job or an unemployment insurance cheque. Contrary to popular opinion, the vast majority of unemployed persons in my riding and elsewhere in Canada in fact wants to work. For a man to sit around home all day is both degrading and depressing. He loses his sense of worth as head of a family and eventually begins to lose his self-respect. Yet our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who has never had to go through the agony of hustling for a job in his life, has the unmitigated gall to tell the jobless of this country, most of whom are out of work as a direct result of his stupid and irrational economic policies, that there are all kinds of jobs across the country if only the unemployed would get up off their behinds and go to where the jobs are.
The Prime Minister reminds me of some of the Paraohs of ancient Egypt summoning the masses to come and chip stone and build a pyramid. He also says, outside the House, in his heartless way that the jobless will not work because they will not accept a wage of $1.75 an hour. Who can raise a family today with dignity and hope, in this "just society", on $1.75 an hour?
What the Prime Minister has failed to tell the jobless is that there are approximately 40,000 jobs chasing nearly
700,000	unemployed, and that most of those 40,000 job vacancies require highly skilled persons, not the kind presently going through manpower retraining. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, manpower retraining has become just another Liberal gimmick to reduce unemployment figures. Most of the trainees, who have been trained at tremendous expense to the taxpayer, find it virtually impossible to obtain gainful employment after finishing their courses. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is virtually no relationship between manpower retraining courses and present job vacancies. I think this illustrates once again the almost total lack of economic planning on the part of the mod-squad government with which this country is presently faced.
As for moving around the country in search of work, I am reminded of John Steinbeck's epic novel "The Grapes of Wrath". At least at the height of the great depression there was some excuse for this kind of tragedy. It seems to me that our Prime Minister is still thinking in terms of the Okies' search for employment in southern California. The Prime Minister has once again evaded the truth. I have personally attempted to get jobs for men in my riding in the north and western parts of Canada, but I have found it virtually impossible to get a local Manpower officer to advise a man whose savings have already been wiped out by a grossly inefficient Unemployment Insurance Commission to head north or west, or anywhere for that matter. The answer I always get is, "He'll likely end up on welfare if he gets stuck out there."
So you see, Mr. Speaker, not only has this government created misery* and hardship for hundreds of thousands of Canadians, but the Prime Minister has attempted to mislead the people on his jaunts across the country. Just last weekend he told an audience in Sturgeon Falls that he

February 28, 1972
Speech from the Throne
was glad he could get out to the people and tell them the truth. Apparently this time around we are to have yet another truth squad. I say to you, some squad; some truth!
I come now, Mr. Speaker, to the horrendous and demoralizing problem hundreds of people in my riding are having with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. First, it is the consensus of people I have talked to that unemployment insurance advertising is misleading on two major points. It is claimed, first, that the waiting period is only two weeks, whereas it can be between three and four weeks after the claimant has applied. Actually, the minimum time that elapses between when the claim is established and the day the claimant's first cheque arrives is five weeks, making a waiting period in some cases of eight or nine weeks.
Let us bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the savings of most people today are exhausted after one month without income. No wonder the tension, no wonder the frustration, no wonder the bitterness engendered by such an inexcusable mess within the Unemployment Insurance Commission! There is only one man responsible for this mess, the man who was given the mandate to establish a "just society"-the Prime Minister.
The other misleading factor is that most people have been led to believe that they will receive increased benefits under the new Unemployment Insurance Act. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that is not entirely accurate. To begin with virtually no claimants qualify for the $100 per week maximum. Secondly, now that benefits are taxable, the average net cheque is virtually no greater than it was under the old act. Moreover, because many claimants fail to qualify for the major attachment requiring a minimum 20-week work period due to the on again-off again employment picture brought about by the government's inane economic policies, their benefits are still very low, averaging $50 per week after taxes. Yet unemployment insurance claimants are being told that the new act provides the greatest unemployment insurance program in the world. Some program!
I would now like to illustrate my condemnation of the de-personalized, computer-oriented Liberal regime by citing specific cases relating to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I received a letter from a constituent, dated February 19, 1972; I will not mention his name. I quote from the letter:
Dear Mr. Blackburn:
I am another of those having trouble with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I was laid off December 3, 1971; all I have received so far is a card every two weeks to send back in and a notice to Claimant stating, "A decision on your claim has not yet been made". The only thing I know is that my claim is dated from December 5, 1971. Also, I was told two weeks ago to expect a cheque within two weeks. As yet none has come. At the moment I have another card to mail back the weekend of the 27th of February. The only people who seem to get any results are those who go to their MPs. It seems that once UIC puts you on the delay circuit they are not able to get you off without help.
Mr. Speaker, I cite another example. A man got in touch with me on February 17, 1972. He applied for benefit and received report cards from last September. He received his first cheque on February 14. I will cite another case. I received a telephone call from a man on January 21, 1972.

He had been laid off the second week of November, 1971. He received a letter saying that all benefits were refused. He received a second letter stating that his claim was established for the 32 weeks at $70 a week. As of January 21, 1972, he had received no benefits. However, in a letter dated January 26, 1972, from the chief of Insurance Operations, Hamilton Unemployment Insurance Commission, I was informed as follows:
The reason for the delay in Mr.-
I will not mention his name.
-claim is that the decision of the insurance officer did not get matched with his payment register in Belleville.
Remember, he had been laid off in November. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is very simple to present this kind of excuse but it is not easy to be the victim of such gross incompetence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: This government must realize that it is dealing with human beings, not punch-cards in a computer. In concluding this section of my remarks let me cite one more example. I do not wish to overdramatize or emotionalize, but a man came to my home one day in tears: for the previous week he, his wife and young daughter had been living on potatoes and rice, and if it had not been for his $6 baby bonus he would have been forced to go on welfare. It is absolutely repugnant to me that any person who is forced by law to contribute to the unemployment insurance fund should be forced to go to welfare, begging.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Yet the minister responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission had the audacity a few weeks ago to imply that happy days were here again when he said that unemployment insurance claimants could assign their cheques to local welfare agencies. To me, this is simply another example of gross and heartless mismanagement on the part of the government.
I have one more point to make with regard to unemployment insurance. It relates to the shutdown last August of Canadian Westinghouse in the city of Brantford. Severance pay was given to employees at the termination of their employment. This severance pay was given to them in lieu of the pension they would ordinarily have received had they been able to work to the date of their retirement.
Under the present terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act severance pay is, in my opinion, unfairly calculated as earnings. The workers were told that they could not apply for unemployment insurance until the severance pay period had run out. However, several persons I know personally were energetic and aggressive enough to apply for and get a new job within that severance pay period. Two persons in particular were subsequently laid off still within the severance pay period. Deeming their last employer not to be Canadian Westing-house, they applied for unemployment insurance. They began receiving benefits and then subsequently were charged with an overpayment. One lady in particular has been charged with an overpayment of some $340.1 consider this to be a great injustice to that person who had the gumption to go out and find herself a new job, only to be
February 28, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member. It being 9.30 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to special order made Wednesday, February 23 last, to interrupt these proceedings-more particularly, the hon. member-and put every question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House.
The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
At 9.55 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
Aiken
Alkenbrack
Asselin
Barnett
Bell
Benjamin
Bigg
Blackburn
Brewin
Burton
Crouse
Danforth
Dinsdale
Dionne
Flemming
Forrestall
Gilbert
G leave
Godin
Grills
Hales
Harding
Harkness
Hees
Howe
Knight
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Korchinski Laprise La Salle Lundrigan
Leblanc (Laurier) LeBlanc (Rimouski) Lefebvre Legault
Lessard (LaSalle) Lessard
(Lac-Saint-Jean) L'Heureux Lind Loiselle MacEachen MacGuigan McBride Mcllraith McNulty Mahoney Marceau Marchand (Langelier)
Marchand
(Kamloops-Cariboo)
Munro
Murphy
Noel
O'Connell
Osier
Ouellet
Pelletier
Perrault
Portelance
Pringle
Reid
Richardson
Rochon
Rock
Roy (Laval)
Serre
Sharp
Smith
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Smith (Saint-Jean)
Stafford
Stewart
(Okanagan-Kootenay) St. Pierre Sulatycky Thomas
(Maisonneuve-
Rosemont)
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner (London East)
Wahn
Walker
Watson
Weatherhead
Whelan
Whicher
Yanakis-111.

Tuesday. February 29. 1972