1972-02-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. lohn N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 60 I wish to table notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act providing for the 1972 corporate and personal income tax cuts announced during the last session.



AIRPORTS


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity. I refer to the situation created by the many speculative rumours in regard to the location of the second international airport in Ontario. In view of the importance of a final decision in this respect I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Noble):
That a special order of the House be made setting up the Committee on Transport and Communications immediately and that this matter be referred to that committee for study and report in order that the final decision may be in the best interests of all concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgency. In view of the fact that the terms of reference of the Woods Committee precluded consideration of the basic rate of pension and consideration of the National Prisoners of War Association I move, seconded by the member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae):
That the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs be convened to consider these and other matters relating to progress of the Department of Veterans arising out of the Canadian Pension Act, War Veterans Allowance Act and other legislation pertaining thereto.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion has been proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. J. G. Dieienbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a question of the Prime Minister. It deals with two matters and originated as a result of action taken by the government of the province of Saskatchewan with the assistance of various municipal representatives. It has to do with an order that has been handed down by the Canadian Transport Commission whereby, on the application of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, 56 agents, nine caretakers and four caretaker agents at stations in the province of Saskatchewan and four agents and three caretakers at stations in the province of Alberta are being removed. The decision was made, reconsideration was given by the commission and the commission has now upheld the original order. In view of the fact this decision will actually bring about in Saskatchewan a death blow to many large towns and villages, I ask the Prime Minister whether the cabinet, in the exercise of its authority, will review this order to the end that justice will be done? Unless it is reviewed and altered in whole or in

Inquiries of the Ministry
part, many of our towns and villages will become ghost towns.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the right hon. member will realize that I have not had any previous notice of this question and I cannot possibly answer without looking into the matter. I will look into the matter and see if an answer can be provided.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that representations were made at the commission hearings in Saskatchewan by a score or more communities through their representatives, by the government of Saskatchewan, by four members of Parliament and by one hon. gentleman from the other place, all in opposition to the closure of these agencies, and since these representations were ignored by the Canadian Transport Commission, will the minister consider asking his colleagues in the cabinet to rescind the order handed down by the commission?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister oi Transport):: Without looking at the actual details I am not sure whether the cabinet has in fact the authority to overrule the Canadian Transport Commission, but I will be glad to look into the whole issue to see exactly what authority we may have and discuss the matter with the appropriate persons.



REMOVAL OF STATION AGENTS, SASKATCHEWAN AND ALBERTA-CONSIDERATION OF NATURE OF UNDERTAKINGS BY COMPANY IN REVIEW

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether as part of his review of this matter he would take special note of the justification given for the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission which is based in part on certain undertakings by the Canadian Pacific that are of greater or lesser significance to many people depending on how they are regarded. For example, there is the undertaking that stations will be kept open where passenger service is provided, but there is not a single bit of passenger service available at any of the locations involved. Will the minister review the whole matter in light of the innocuous undertakings given by Canadian Pacific and the meaningless gestures made by the company?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: To the
extent that the question contains a request that I review, yes, I will be glad to do so.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the innumerable undertakings given by the right hon. gentleman, beginning some months ago, and the inexplicable delays which have taken place, can the Prime Minister

inform us now when the promised statement on government policy with regard to foreign investment or, to use the government's fancy title, domestic control of the national economic environment, will be made to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. Precisely because there have been innumerable delays and because the government has not been able to come forward with this statement as quickly as it had hoped, I would prefer not to go on record now as setting any date. Past experience has taught me that this is an unwise thing to do in this particular connection.


David Lewis: It may be unwise to name a particular date, but in view of the fact the policy of the government was supposed to have been arrived at last November and to have been contained in a cabinet minute dated November 15, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the government is still standing by that policy or whether the policy is being reconsidered or has been changed in any respect, and what events, pressures or considerations have been responsible for the delay?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this question is based on hypotheses as to things that might or might not have happened to a policy statement of which the hon. member knows nothing. I do not think I could answer in a way that would enlighten him except to remind him that both he and his party know the difficulty of arriving at a coherent, broad policy on foreign ownership.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that Justin could do better than that. The Prime Minister knows that we have given-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has been recognized for the purpose of asking a supplementary, so perhaps he would ask it.


David Lewis: I should like to ask the Prime Minister this question. In view of the fact that the Canadian Forum version of the government's policy has been available publicly for a long time, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the subject matter of Canada's policy on foreign investment has been raised in an informal or a formal way during any discussions with ministers or officers of the United States administration, or in the current trade discussions or in any other discussions that have taken place; and has the government's policy, or the broad outlines of that policy, been communicated to ministers or officers of the United States government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know of no way in which that policy could have been communicated to the United States government. The subject may have been mentioned as a subject in various exchanges, but there is no way in which the policy could have been communicated in any substantive form to anyone for the simple reason that when it is ready in substantive and final form it will be communicated to the House of Commons first.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, do I take it from the Prime Minister's replies that the decision which the Prime Minister said had been
February 22, 1972

taken before Christmas on this subject has been subject to review since that time and is still subject to review?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should not take that to be the case. I explained a couple of days ago that the broad decision had been taken in December and that we are now working out the conditions under which that decision would apply and the various aspects of implementing that decision, which I reminded the House was a further matter for consideration and which we hope will lead us close to the period when we can introduce legislation dealing with the whole question.



FOREIGN INVESTMENT-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON POLICY

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: My supplementary is to the Prime Minister. As the elaboration of policy or the decision on such a policy will have such wide ramifications for the country and in view of the obvious interest and concern of members of provincial governments, has the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance had an opportunity to confer directly with the premiers or their provincial counterparts to consider the implications of any national policy in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I informed the House before Christmas that the matter had been discussed in general terms at the federal-provincial conference of first ministers. We did not, of course, supply to them the details of our policy or even, for that matter, the broad details because, I repeat, we wanted to inform the House of Commons of it first. However, we did discuss the matter with them in general terms and got whatever information we could from them. As the hon. member knows, some provinces are pursuing their work on foreign ownership and they are doing that parallel to the federal government. We hope the end result will dovetail in a way which is satisfactory to all Canadians.



FOREIGN INVESTMENT-ALLEGED REJECTION OF DATE SUGGESTED BY MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE FOR POLICY STATEMENT

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to ask the
right hon. Prime Minister if he could explain to the House the reasons why he and his government rejected the very valid recommendations that the policy statement on foreign ownership be made toward the end of the throne speech debate, which recommendations were contained in a memorandum from the Minister of National Revenue dated February 14?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that a question asked in those terms is not in order. In this way the hon. member is inviting the Prime Minister to make a statement which normally ought to be made on motions.


Frank Howard: Could I rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Frank Howard: May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he would be prepared to table that memorandum from the Minister of National Revenue on this subject so that everybody may see what those valid suggestions were and in order that the Minister of National Revenue, who knows more about this obviously than the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that for the past two years the prices of hogs in eastern Canada have been too low to permit survival of producers and that since October 1969 the government has cut down the transport grant for grains by $1.40 per ton for practically all constituencies in the Montreal area, including the county of Richmond, could the minister state whether his department intends to reinstate grain transport subsidies in these ridings in order to assist hog producers?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already announced that there will be some adjustments in the rates of feed freight assistance paid. The zones in eastern Canada where the rate will be raised are those where there has been an actual increase in cost of transportation. What we are attempting to do is to adjust these rates into the various zones so that the amount paid by producers or users of feed grains will be balanced a little more equitably than has been the case to date, as a result of changes in transportation costs.



DATE OF FEED GRAIN FREIGHT SUBSIDY ADJUSTMENT

Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Can the minister give us some indication as to approximately when his department intends to implement these adjustments?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In fact I can make it very precise-on April 1, 1972. That has already been announced.

February 22, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



DISPUTE BETWEEN TREASURY BOARD AND ELECTRICAL WORKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION-PROSPECTS FOR SETTLEMENT

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the uncertainty about the progress, if any, toward settlement of the air technicians dispute and the uncertainty surrounding the situation, can the President of the Treasury Board tell the House briefly what the government's position is, what progress is being made and what the prospects are for early settlement?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman obviously does not want to know the whole story and, indeed, this is not the occasion. I do not think it is appropriate to discuss in the House what the course of negotiations, which according to past practice have always been private, should be. I can say, however, that the parties are meeting again with the mediator in an endeavour to make progress.



DISPUTE BETWEEN TREASURY BOARD AND ELECTRICAL WORKERS-EXTENT OF AIR SERVICE DISRUPTION

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Transport could indicate to the House specifically the extent to which regular air services are being disrupted by the dispute between the air technicians and Treasury Board?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That varies, Mr. Speaker, across the country. Some of the designated employees have returned to their positions in various locations. We have yesterday's report, as of about an hour ago, indicating that at some airports the number of employees was 100 per cent of normal and this declined to about 50 per cent at the lowest point, the two most difficult areas being within the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. I would be very glad to indicate the separate airports to the Leader of the Opposition if he wished.



DISPUTE BETWEEN TREASURY BOARD AND ELECTRICAL WORKERS-CONTINGENCY PLAN TO RESTORE AIR SERVICE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a further supplementary question directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the obvious serious effect the dispute is having upon air traffic and also the concern about air safety, has the Prime Minister given any consideration to changing the method by which it is being handled? Has he given any consideration to taking it out of the hands of the Treasury Board and, specifically, has the Prime Minister any contingency plans for getting the technicians back to work and the airplanes flying again satisfactorily?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we always have contingency plans but we are not about to put them into operation at this time.



DISPUTE BETWEEN TREASURY BOARD AND ELECTRICAL WORKERS-NATURE OF GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS

Mr. David Orlilcow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Without asking for the details of the discussions, can he say whether the discussions are now being conducted on the basis of the recommendations of the conciliation board or whether the Treasury Board has made any new proposals to the air technicians?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of proposals and counter-proposals made and there will continue to be further proposals and counter-proposals made. One thing that is abundantly clear is that the demands of the electronic technicians are considerably in excess of what appears to be reasonable to grant.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in order to clear the air I should like to ask a supplementary. I understand the Treasury Board has offered some 15.5 per cent and that the union is asking for some 23.7 per cent. Can the President of the Treasury Board advise, without revealing any particular figures, whether this is the situation as it now stands and whether in fact there is an impasse? As I understand it, the government is not prepared to offer any more money. Is this the situation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman will recognize that for either party to publicly declare its final position is not the most effective way to proceed to negotiate an agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize a supplementary by the right hon. member for Prince Albert and then one last supplementary on this subject by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


John George Diefenbaker: In respect of the minister's answer in which he said that when we are negotiating we cannot let anyone know what stand we are taking. Did the minister, on behalf of the Treasury Board, not say that the stand of the government of Canada was inexorable and that there would be no increase over and above the amount originally recommended by the Conciliation Board for these people?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that.


John George Diefenbaker: A representative of the Treasury Board?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, nor did a representative of the Treasury Board.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes, you did.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: What the government has said is that it continues to be prepared to accept the unanimous report of the conciliation board, the judgment of the government being carried by its representative in that unanimous report.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there was no denial at any time or explanation of the statement by the Treasury Board that this is what they would get and beyond that
February 22, 1972

the Board is not going. Did not the minister take that stand?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly what he has done.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair, as I indicated a minute ago, will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North on a last question on this subject and I suggest that from then on we try to move a little faster because we will soon be running short of time.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board says he thinks it would be improper to indicate publicly what the position of the government is in relation to these discussions. Has the government indicated to the striking employees, since the government feels their requests are exorbitant, what the government feels would be a fair offer on the part of the government?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I could answer that. There has been a public declaration of what the government feels would be a fair offer, subscribed to by the union representative some time ago. This resulted in the unanimous report of the conciliation board. Since then it is quite clear the representatives of the electronic technicians have asked for more and are continuing to press the government for more. As the hon. gentleman knows, this procedure of negotiation through a mediator is a step by step process. Frequently it is rather slower than we would like, but still progress is made. Bargaining is being engaged in and one cannot bargain if it is being done in public.

1976 OLYMPIC GAMES-REQUEST BY MONTREAL FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Can he tell us whether his government or the cabinet has taken a decision concerning the request for financial assistance from Montreal in connection with the 1976 Olympic Games?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there has been no request for financial assistance from Montreal for the 1976 Olympic Games. On the contrary, the City of Montreal has always assured us that the games would not cost a cent to the federal government and we have always thought that the city would keep its word.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-POSSIBLE FURTHER CANADIAN CONCESSIONS

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minis-
Inquiries of the Ministry
ter. Would he take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House why the government feels it has any obligation to make further contributions toward assisting the United States to correct its temporary imbalance of trade with Canada in view of the fact that in 18 out of the last 20 years Canada has been in a deficit position in its balance of payments with the United States and at the present rate of deterioration of our balance of payments with that country we will be again in a deficit position in 3 or 4 months.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is obviously making a speech. I suggest to him that the first part of his question is in order. He is inviting the Prime Minister to indicate whether a statement might be made on motions, but the hon. member should try to limit his question to that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I were to make a statement on motions I would merely be repeating the very valid arguments that the hon. member has just enunciated and which are borrowed from the arguments the government is making to the Americans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: As any contributions which the government will make will cause serious lay-offs to take place in Canada and result in unemployment rising seriously, will the government give consideration to cancelling the assurance it has given the United States that it will make these further contributions which will ensure more lay-offs and more unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the premises were valid I might agree with the conclusions, but they are not.


George Harris Hees: The premises are valid.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Chair might be allowed a few moments to give an opportunity to members in the back rows to take part in the question period.



CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT'S POSITION

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Thank you for your charitable consideration, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to my good friend, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the widespread and accurate belief that the government of Canada shifted its negotiating position between the months of December and January on the Canada-United States automotive agreement, which led to a breakdown in the talks, and in view of the minister's own commitment to the House last December that he would take the House into his confidence before a final agreement with the United States is reached in this matter, would the minister assure the House now that some time later this week he will make a statement on motions outlining the government's position on the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement?


Hon. Iean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as no final agreement has been
no

February 22, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
reached I cannot honour the promise I made, but the promise still holds. On the subject itself, we are very careful in attempting to maintain the right balance. As my hon. friend does not know what the first offer was, he cannot say that we shifted from the first offer. I am surprised to hear the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings being so tough, as his House leader said the other day that we have to be very careful-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are getting into debate at this point.


John Edward Broadbent: Since the minister is not prepared to say what was in the proposal, and this repeats the point made by the Prime Minister yesterday, would he at least tell us what is not in the government's bargaining position? Specifically, I ask the minister to assure the House now, once and for all, that the government has no intention of giving up temporarily or permanently in any form the production safeguards in the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker, this is still being negotiated. My son, Nicholas, who is six years of age, and even the Prime Minister's son Justin, who is just a few weeks old, know that in negotiations like these you do not give your hand away.


An hon. Member:: You are prepared to sell us out.
 * *



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):: May I direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Does the government plan to make a public statement in reply to the very serious charges by the Canadian Labour Congress to the effect that the Unemployment Insurance Commission is overzealous and not neutral but, indeed, anti-claimant in enforcing the regulations, thus further delaying claims?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I want to assure the hon. member that useful conversations have been held with officials of the Canadian Labour Congress over the past few days just as we welcome conversations and meetings with other groups in this country in regard to the fine work-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I was afraid of something like that. I wonder if I might direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In light of the unprecedented delays in administration and now this accusation of bias, will the government consider an independent inquiry into the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not having heard the accusation of bias, I would refer the hon. member to the answer of the parliamentary secretary. If the conversations were useful I am sure they established that there was no bias or that if there was we would look into it.



FISHERIES


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the continuing dissatisfaction and the many representations made by fishermen in the area, will the minister make a public declaration as to his intentions in regard to varying the lobster season in district No. 5 in Nova Scotia. I thank the minister for his correspondence but I think it might be useful if he would say something publicly about the situation.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: I am glad to report that the inshore lobster fishery has recorded an all-time record catch both in volume and value and that the offshore fishery which we have recently instituted is an overwhelming success.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



LICENSING REGULATIONS FOR SALMON FISHING

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Can the Minister of Fisheries give some indication when we can expect the new 1972 salmon licensing regulations in view of the alarming response from the Newfoundland fishermen last year? If he cannot give an answer now, would he mind answering the letters which have been pouring into his office on this important question?


John (Jack) Davis: The new regulations were announced last year and will again be enforced this year in the same form.


John Howard Lundrigan: My question is for the Minister of Fisheries. We are aware of the regulations announced last year. The question I am asking the minister is whether he will give consideration to amending last year's regulations in view of the unanimous response of the fishermen of the province of Newfoundland? If he is not prepared to do so, would he be prepared to pick up the legal tab for fishermen who plan to violate these regulations on the advice given by certain elected officials?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, substantially those who have full-time, year-round jobs no longer can catch salmon commercially. This is the only exception that was announced last year. I do not think that the fishermen generally are against our new regulations.

February 22, 1972



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has he had an opportunity yet since he has taken over the portfolio to examine the briefs or propositions put forward on behalf of the prisoners of war who have made various representations to his predecessors? Would he and his officials look at their position with a more enlightened approach so that we can get some action in regard to these claims?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The
answer is yes, and in addition I have had certain additional representations from a number of groups. I hope to be able to deal with them with the same degree of enlightenment as my predecessor.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I was hoping that the minister would not give us that answer because in the past these claims have had a very dim reception.


Jack Marshall: My
question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact that the minister is willing to co-operate, would he allow the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to meet with the National Prisoners of War Association?


Arthur Laing: I think that I would be agreeable to that.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact the Unemployment Insurance Act is not a plan designed to serve the interests of the public treasury to the detriment of claimants, and in view of the fact that in some cases severance pay has been granted in lieu of pension benefits when a plant shuts down, can the parliamentary secretary give the House some indication that the entire matter of severance pay will be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, the question of severance pay is under active study by the minister at the present time. When we speak about the public interest, let us remember that in January alone $130 million in purchasing power was poured into the spending stream by the U.I.C.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will have noticed that there are only a few minutes left before the end of the question period. We must move on to other
Inquiries of the Ministry
questions. Questions should not be argumentative and replies should not be argumentative if we want to make any headway.



SHIPPING


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister confirm that an investigation has been initiated into the disaster that befell the fishing craft Gulf Gull which sank with the tragic loss of six lives? In view of the fact there is some question whether navigational aids were in effect at that time, could he also assure the House that navigational aids are in operation at the present time in order to prevent a recurrence of such a disaster?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, an investigation has been under way since immediately following this unfortunate and tragic incident. On the second point, I would not normally say anything of this sort except that it has been said already by the captain of the vessel, that in fact the existence or non-existence of navigational aids did not have a bearing on the unfortunate wrecking of the vessel. As to the current state of these navigational aids, I cannot give a specific answer at the moment but that would normally be published to the shipping trade. I will be glad to try to find out the information for the hon. member.



SUGGESTED WIDER DISPERSAL OF SEARCH AND RESCUE AIRCRAFT ON ATLANTIC COAST

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of Transport is now prepared to recommend to his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, in accordance with the recommendations of the commission of investigation into the sinking of the Patrick Morris, the wider dispersal on the Atlantic coast of search and rescue aircraft? I am thinking particularly of the east coast of Newfoundland which, in most instances, is 500 miles away from the nearest search and rescue aircraft.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have provided the Minister of National Defence with a copy of the report of Judge Soper and we will be having discussions on that particular recommendation.


James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

Inquiries of the Ministry



POSSIBLE POSTHUMOUS CITATION FOR CAPTAIN OF &quot;PATRICK MORRIS&quot;

James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is in connection with the report of the commission into the sinking of the Patrick Morris. Is the minister now prepared to consider recommending a posthumous citation for the captain of the Patrick Morris who, in the commission's opinion, was responsible for the saving of 47 survivors?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his letter in this regard. The suggestion is one which certainly appeals to me. I have already initiated inquiries on whether there is some route through which I can make such a recommendation.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent airplane crash at Gore Bay airport in which four people were killed and two people injured, can the minister say whether an investigation is under way by his department and what progress has been made in determining the causes of this disaster?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know specifically about this accident. I can only say it is normal and universal for an investigation to begin immediately after a crash. Therefore I assume that such is the case in this particular instance. As to the progress that has been made, I would have to investigate.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and arises out of the statement he made yesterday. In his statement he referred to several letters, one written by Geoffroy, one written by Miss Cornellier, and one written by the Reverend Nickels. In light of his undertaking that if there was any irregularity or illegality he would be prepared to call a judicial inquiry to investigate this matter, would he now be prepared to table these public documents in accordance with the rules?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, those letters are not of public interest. Among other things, there is the report of a social worker which deals with the private life of an individual, and I know the hon. member attaches great importance to per-

sonal privacy. Be that as it may, seeing he is curious to know whether or not those letters contain some scandal or other, I should be pleased to show them to him.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further supplementary.


Frank Howard: Most things in that department are scandalous.


Mr. Peters:: They are too secretive most of the time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister now be prepared, after his investigation into the matter, to advise us whether Geoffroy obtained a passport after his release from penitentiary and who was the guarantor of his application?


John George Diefenbaker: Surely the minister knows that. [Translation]


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I feel the question should be directed to the minister in charge, that is the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to take up the balance of the question period, but may I serve notice that at the end of the question period I will raise a point of order. According to the rules, documents of the type I have mentioned this morning are public documents. They were referred to by the minister and should be filed, and I should like to have the privilege of speaking to the matter.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS BRITISH COLUMBIA-SUGGESTION RESPECTING EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question.
Recently, the Premier of British Columbia suggested replacing equalization payments to the provinces with direct payments to individuals. I should like to know why this suggestion was dismissed as bigotry by the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was probably not in Ottawa at that time, or else he would have realized that the sequence of events was not such as he described it. I simply wonder how the hon. member would describe a person who claims that there are too many French Canadians in Ottawa. I do not know which word the hon. member would use to describe this attitude.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a
supplementary.
I did not hear that statement, but I would ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that some of our fellow Quebecers say that there are too many English Canadians in the Province of Quebec.



BRIDGES


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the government prepared to make its promised contribution of some $123 million to assist the city of Vancouver with its transportation difficulties and for whatever form of transport the city council decides is most desirable?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall any such commitment. I would need more details.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, would the minister refresh his memory on the details of the matter? Also, since the Minister of the Environment and the minister responsible for urban affairs have recently made contradictory statements on the matter, would the Minister of Transport set the public mind at rest with a policy statement on government policy on the proposed third crossing?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think everything that we can say on the subject has already been said.


David Lewis: On both sides.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: After all, a bridge that does not have both sides is not much of a bridge, is it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



IMMIGRATION ACT


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration in the hope that the answer may be more informative and less voluble. In view of the fact that amendments to the Immigration Act, which was supposed to be amended last session, do not appear on the new list of legislation for this session, has the government abandoned any intention of amending the Immigration Act to clean up the existing mess and, if so, will the government do what it can to have the matter referred to a committee for attention?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, in the course of reviewing his new ministerial responsibilities, my minister is studying the Immigration Act and any suggestions that it be amended.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before we call orders of the day, I believe the hon. member for Calgary North wishes to raise a point of order.
Release of Yves Geoffroy from Penitentiary ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



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

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to refer briefly to page 51 of Hansard for February 21, yesterday, where the minister said:
On June 28, 1971, Mr. Geoffroy sought permission to marry Miss Carmen Parent with whom Mr. Geoffroy apparently had had a continuing liaison. The reason he cited to support his request was that marriage would provide a mother who would look after the needs of his three children-
The minister quoted from a letter written by Mr. Geoffroy. He may have taken the quotation out of context. We do not know what the rest of it contains. The minister quoted this part:
At present they are being looked after by my family. However, no one is legally authorized to look out for their education or to request social assistance on their behalf.
At the bottom of page 51 of Hansard the minister quoted from a letter written by Miss Cornellier:
Miss Cornellier wrote that both brothers, and I quote:
"suffer from fairly serious cardiac pathology and therefore in the event of death, the children would be destitute. In this event, Miss Parent could support and take responsibility for the children, the marriage giving her the right to be their guardian."
We then come to the question of a public document. The minister referred to a letter from the Reverend J. A. Nickels, Chief of Chaplaincy Services, in which he said:
In view of the positive nature of the reports, approval is given for the marriage.
I do not want to prolong this point, but in light of these and other statements surely the minister, having given his undertaking yesterday that if there was any irregularity or illegality he would agree to an inquiry, should now be prepared to file these documents. I refer to page 134 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, 1958, citation 159:
A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the table.
That is what I am asking the minister to do, to lay these documents upon the table. The situation is similar to the rules of evidence in a court of law which prevent counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence. For example, if a lawyer refers to a letter and reads one paragraph, then in the normal course of events the judge says that the whole letter must go in as evidence. The whole document has to be produced.
There is a reason behind this idea of jurisprudence. By taking a couple of lines out of context you may leave the wrong impression. If the whole document is tabled it will be before the House of Commons. If the minister refuses to disclose these letters, I ask that an order go forth that the documents connected with this affair shall be produced and be tabled now in accordance with the rules. I ask for such an order. I believe Your Honour has this right under the rules. At the top of page 135 of Beau-chesne it is set forth that Your Honour has the right to make such an order, if necessary.

February 22, 1972
Release of Yves Geoffroy from Penitentiary
I might also refer to Standing Order 41(2):
A Minister of the Crown, or a Parliamentary Secretary acting on behalf of a Minister, may, in his place in the House, state that he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House, any report or other paper-
That, of course, simply states that he can do it. In this case the minister has set out a case, has said that everything is fine and nothing is wrong, has used these public documents to back up something that in my opinion smells to high heaven, and I say that members of the House, the people's representatives, are entitled to see what is behind the statement the minister made yesterday. That is what I am asking. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, if the minister was sincere in saying that if there was any irregularity or illegality he would agree to an inquiry, he should rise in his place and agree to the application I am now making. If he will not agree, let him forever hold his peace because we will have to draw our own inferences. The minister says he does not like innuendos. It is he who is guilty of innuendos.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that Your Honour was rising to make a ruling, but I wish to say a few words in support of the point raised by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).
I recognize the fact that many times members have risen and asked that certain documents be tabled and have cited the rule quoted by the hon. member. Nine times out of 10, or 99 times out of 100, the request is refused. We are always told that the test of this rule is whether it is analogous to what would happen in a court of law. My familiarity with courts of law is pretty thin, but my familiarity with things in the House is fairly wide. It seems that this is a case that meets the requirements or certainly comes very close to meeting them.
Yesterday the minister referred to a certain report and quoted part of that report in support of his argument. Indeed, he referred to a number of documents. It seems to me that this puts the minister's action within the four corners of the rule. The minister, having cited a document and having used it as part of his argument, should be called upon to table the entire document in the House. At least there is the benefit of the doubt in favour of the hon. member for Calgary North. If Your Honour does not agree with him right away, I urge that you take the matter under consideration.
Hon. Allan ]. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council): As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has referred to papers from which the minister read excerpts yesterday.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Three.


Mr. MacEachen:: One is a letter written by Mr. Geoffroy. Another is part of a report by Miss Cornellier in which she refers to the physical condition of two brothers in whose care the children might be placed. The hon. member says there is a third reference, but I missed that. At any rate, with respect to these two there is no dispute.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The third is Reverend Nickels' letter which appears about two-thirds of the way down page 51.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, and a reply from the Rev. J. A. Nickels, Chief of the Chaplaincy Services, noting that in view of the positive nature of the reports approval was given for the marriage.
No one is disputing, no one would wish to dispute, the fact that the minister has quoted from these papers. What is of interest, and what probably needs clarification from the Chair, is whether the papers quoted by the minister fall into the category of dispatches or state papers.


David Lewis: Read paragraph four as well. It speaks of official papers.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Official papers quoted during a debate should be laid on the table of the House. It says that. That is quite all right. It might be a state paper, a dispatch or an official paper, and it seems to me that if Your Honour discovers upon consideration, now or later, that these are indeed state papers or dispatches or official papers there will be no objection on the part of the government to laying them on the table. But it is not our purpose to seek to expand the application of this particular practice beyond what has been traditional in the House.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in order to understand why the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) seemed so anxious to keep the House from getting all the facts one should keep in mind what he said yesterday when he stated, as reported in Hansard on page 51:
With the consent of the House I could table the remainder of the statement to be recorded in the proceedings of the House of Commons.
That was an unusual suggestion, but understandable. The minister read a portion of the letters. He expurgates the documents from which he is reading in order to support the argument he is advancing. In other words, he provides a selection of what he intends to present to support his case. This cannot be justified, Mr. Speaker, regardless of any consideration. Otherwise, what one could do in this House would be to select favourable matters and expurgate those which are unfavourable.
I can understand why the minister does not want the letters produced. After all, the excuses offered by Geoffroy were false, transparently so, and should have been investigated. Indeed, I am told that as part of this letter or statement Geoffroy gave as the reason he wished to go through a marriage with this lady of estimable record, was that there would be a good mother for his children. Furthermore, that his father and mother were getting too old to look after them. In fact, the father died 25 years ago and the mother died two years ago. If the minister had revealed the whole communication he would then have convinced anyone reasonably desirous of being convinced that somebody was negligent. That is the point which is to be emphasized, Mr. Speaker. Surely parliament will not consent to be paralysed by the action of a minister who, trying to conceal and cover up, refuses to table the entire document in question.
February 22, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This debate on the procedural point could go on for a long time. It seems to me the question is a very simple one, and I was prepared to rule on it a while ago.
I think the argument put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North is valid. The rule is clear enough. If a document is quoted in debate it has to be tabled. It was suggested by the President of the Privy Council that perhaps we are not dealing here with what is termed a state document. This has always been the difficulty in the past-to determine what is a public document and what is a private document. My thought is that if a letter, even though it might have been written originally as a private letter, becomes part of the records of a department it becomes at that point a public document and a state paper. It seems to me that the documents to which the minister has referred are part of the official penitentiary papers or are documents within the possession of the penitentiary officials of the department, and I would be inclined to think that any document of this kind which is cited in the way it was by the minister ought to be tabled in the House.
Again, in support of this ruling is the fact that if a member of the House proposed a motion for the production of these documents the documents would, in my view, have to be considered by the Chair as a type of document which ought to be tabled. I suggest that from a procedural standpoint the government cannot say that the document is a private document which ought not to be tabled. Of course, the government would not be obliged to table it at that point; there might be a debate on the subject. But when documents or letters are actually quoted in debate the rule applies clearly. I refer hon. members not only to citation 159 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition but also to Erskine May, page 438 of the 17th edition, on which the citation is based.
In view of the long-established precedents referred to by both May and Beauchesne I have to rule that any document which is cited in this way and which can be considered to be a public document ought to be tabled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the originals are not in my possession, but I shall certainly, with leave of the House, table them sometime today. Anyhow, I was prepared to make them available to the hon. member, but I quite understand that he does not wish to rely merely on his own judgment.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General must have become a little upset. I am sure he does not mean it when he says I do not want to look at the documents. That was the very purpose of my asking for them.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might act as interpreter at this point and say that was not my understanding of what the minister said in French. Orders of the day.
Speech from the Throne SPEECH FROM THE THRONE



CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, February 21, 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. Stanfield (p. 34).
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as the other hon. members I listened carefully to the Speech from the Throne but before going directly to the heart of the matter I want to discuss this morning I would like to recall that when earlier I asked the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question about the premier of British Columbia who advocates payments to individuals of this country instead of equalization payments to the provinces, the premier of British Columbia was accused of being a bigot. Furthermore, the Prime Minister told me that the premier of British Columbia had stated that there were too many French Canadians in Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows perfectly that in 1961, for example, when the Social Credit convention was held in Ottawa the premier of British Columbia supported your humble servant who was then a French Canadian. To state that the premier of British Columbia is against French Canadians in Ottawa is to distort the facts somewhat.
There is another point I would like to bring to the attention of the House. In 1962, provincial elections were held in Quebec and during the election campaign, the Liberals of the Hon. Jean Lesage told whoever cared to listen, that British Columbia, under a Social Credit administration, was bankrupt. However, a few months after these elections, the same Jean Lesage went to British Columbia to borrow $100 million at 5.05 per cent interest to finance hydroelectric projects in the province of Quebec. Had the premier of British Columbia felt badly towards French Canadians, as the right hon. Prime Minister seemed to imply earlier today, he would not have approved that $100 million loan to Quebec.
This is an instance without parallel either in Ottawa or in other provinces. Nobody has ever done that except the Social Credit administration of British Columbia.
And when the right hon. Prime Minister tries to stir up linguistic or ethnic quarrels, as he did this morning, I feel that he is going to far to say the least.
At all events, Mr. Speaker, I think that the premier of British Columbia has every right as a Canadian to express his opinion in the economic field and when he states that the problem in Canada is not one of language but of economics, he is right.
Besides, the Speech from the Throne is almost a verbatim repetition of the opinions Social Credit members have been voicing for the last 35 years. The Liberals have just discovered that. This is what the Speech from the Throne had to say and I quote:
We have witnessed as well a period of economic uncertainty,
Speech from the Throne

-as if that period was already behind us-
-of international economic uncertainty which affected all of the industrialized nations of the world and which has made us increasingly aware of our dependence on a strong economic base in the pursuit of our social goals.
Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what Social Credit says in British Columbia, in Alberta, and everywhere else in Canada.
I returned yesterday from Saskatchewan, where I met people from Regina and Saskatoon-both Liberal and Progressive Conservative supporters. I even met a provincial member of the NDP, which is in power in Saskatchewan, who said to me: Economy foundations and the structure of the economy have to be improved and altered if we are to reach our social goals.
Our social goals are simple: We are merely asking for a peaceful life in a country as rich as ours. Allow me to quote here Pius XI who in 1931, in the encyclical letter entitled "Quadragesimo Anno", clearly defined the goals of a properly organized economy.
This was exactly 41 years ago. I am sure the Prime Minister remembers that time, like everyone else now over fifty. Pius XI said:
The economy will be healthily constituted and will fully reach its goal only when it gives each and every individual a share of the goods which nature and industry can provide. And this share will have to be sufficient to give each and everyone at least honest affluence.
This does not mean taking from the "haves" to give to the "have-nots", but all will at least be entitled to honest affluence. This is the aim which Creditistes have set for themselves in their task of education of the masses.
Mr. Speaker, it also says in the Speech from the Throne:
Every one of us is enriched through involvement in this stimulating process we call Canada.
We are all a bit poorer than we were but the Speech from the Throne tells us that we are enriched by it.
Our goals and hopes are bound up in the restlessness and vitality of this rich land.
Restlessness! Go anywhere in Canada and you will find restlessness! Perhaps on the treasury benches, but surely everywhere else in Canada. Businessmen are faced with huge problems. The unemployed do not know where to turn to. Our families are weighed down by a feeling of hopelessness. Our young people are rebelling against a society in which they feel they cannot be integrated. So they are ready to do anything to "break" a society which will not allow them to become part of it. In short, restlessness prevails.
The Speech from the Throne then goes on to mention the vitality of this rich land. Mr. Speaker, the land is rich, but insofar as vitality is concerned, it is quite paralyzed. During the weekend, I met people from Saskatchewan who were asking me what the federal government intends to do to prevent our industries from closing. I told them that I would inquire. The government is being asked the same thing about the plants which are closing in Quebec, in the Maritimes, in Alberta and even in northern Ontario.
While the Prime Minister praises the prosperity in Canada over radio and television, the Canadian International Paper announces that it will close its Temis-camingue plant next May 30 and lay off 875 workers

directly involved in its operation. At the same time, at Sudbury, we hear about an increase in the rate of employment while the International Nickel announces the layoff of 2,000 workers. SOMA, which does the assembly of Renault cars, announces the layoff of its workers and the temporary closure of its plants.
Some ten days ago, I was in Kapuskasing, where the Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co. Ltd. will, within a few weeks, substantially curtail its production to perhaps only two or three days a week. Yet the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) recently stated in Bathurst while addressing 5,000 people: Paper does not sell. Forget about a mill, you will not get one. What alternative solution is there? I do not know. We have been told to seek one. Let us go on searching and in the meantime the number of recorded unemployed has reached over 700,000. Those are the ones with a tag on their ear. The figures do not include the unrecorded ones as we now actually have over a million unemployed in Canada. Yet the Prime Minister mentions "the vitality of this rich land". We could indeed have that vitality if we had an economic system wherein it would be possible to create it so that each Canadian citizen might participate in the development of the vast resources of our country, of our rich land.
The Speech from the Throne goes on to say, and I quote:
We in this place have a special responsibility to help bring these goals and those hopes within reach, to make real the Canada of which our forefathers dreamed:


An hon. Member:: We have here the required writing ability-


David Réal Caouette: That is right. We have a writer skilled in rhetoric, in phraseology such as we have been reading and hearing over a number of years.
The common inheritance has almost been completely dilapidated. That is so true that if we go back to the early days of the colony, we find people who have just settled on the shores of the majestic St. Lawrence River. But has anyone realized that today, after eight or ten generations, the land handed down from father to son is now in the hands of farmers who depend on provincial or federal farm credit programs? The land was inherited from our forefathers, yes, but the governments, through a barbaric financial system, have dilapidated the heritage bequeathed to us by our ancestors.
Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, once again the theme of economic security is mentioned, and I quote: Economic security is one of the most effective forces with which to counter social isolation.
Here again is an expression that was launched years ago when we were told that the economic system should be improved. There is talk of reform, of possible achievements in Canada. Yet, nothing is suggested, no means whereby to give the Canadian people the administration, the economic system that would allow them to feel completely at home.
Mr. Speaker, here is something else we can read in the Speech from the Throne:
February 22, 1972

February 22, 1972
Speech from the Throne
Shades of Social Credit, Mr. Speaker, somewhat akin to what we have long been advocating and suggesting. In fact, the Bank of Canada is empowered by law to make loans to the provinces. It has this power, but no province is taking advantage of this. I have before me the Canada Yearbook for 1970-71. Some sentences have been changed to please those who draft this report.
Mr. Speaker, mention is made of the Bank of Canada, and on page 1224 we read the following:
The Bank of Canada may make loans or advances for periods not exceeding six months to chartered banks, or to banks to which the Quebec Savings Bank Act applies, on the pledge of certain classes of securities. Loans or advances may be made under certain conditions and for limited periods to the Government of Canada or of any province.
To any province! Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada has the right to do it. It is said "for limited periods". It is not stated for how long. For instance, "six months" was mentioned previously; it was written in full. The words "six months" were deleted. I am eager to see mentioned the same time limit as is granted to India, to South American countries, to Africa, to all the countries of the world, namely 50 years plus 10 years' grace, a total of 60 years. If the Bank of Canada were authorized to make loans to provinces, municipalities, school boards and to the federal government no nationalization whatever would have to take place. Chartered banks would not be nationalized. The public sector of our economy would be financed without interest by the Bank of Canada.
Forty-eight million dollars were recently lent without interest and for 60 years by Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie, the federal representative. Sixty years from now, the Prime Minister will be 113, he will no longer be here but India will start repaying us.
Mr. Speaker, while Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie was granting India a loan of $48 million for 60 years on behalf of Canada-and it should be noted that we have already lent India nearly $1 billion, free of interest-the Premier of the Province of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, was in the United States to borrow $75 million, at 9.2 per cent interest over 25 years: Twenty-five years from now, we shall have paid more than $200 million in interest only and we shall still owe all the principal, or $75 million.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bourassa does not come back from the United States with a wheelbarrow full of US dollars, but with a small slip of paper that is known as a promissory note and which has the figure $75 million written on it. The note is signed by Robert Bourassa and endorsed by the Province of Quebec. If Mr. Bourassa had decided to come and meet our good friend Mr. Louis Rasminsky in Ottawa, the Governor of the bank of Canada, and ask him to write $75 million in his ledgers, would this not have had as much value as 75 million US dollars?
Mr. Speaker, the United states do not base their $75 million on their own assets, on their own wealth, but on the development of Hydro-Quebec, those $75 million are guaranteed by our natural resources. They just put the figures down there. Not one quarter, not one nickel comes across the border. Those are figures. But why do we not put down ourselves our own figures, in Canada? That would be a way to get control over the Canadian economy. We would then have control over our credit to develop Canada, to develop our natural resources.

Often I hear the NDP members speak about "American control" and it seems to me that they are right. However we must find something to replace it. We will not become "masters in our own house" by emptying Canada in order to pay back loans but by using our financial resources. If the Americans can make our Canadian credit, why are we not able to make our own credit? And it happens often enough that the Americans-they are not stupid, you know; they are rather clever-are financing our own development with our own credit and afterwards they get the interest from our credit. One develops something with Canadian credit that belongs to the Americans! That is the fantastic blunder of the present time and of the present economic system.
Mr. Speaker, the Creditistes still maintain that private industry is an important part of our economy. Our economy is made up of three sectors: private enterprise, personal initiative and the public sector. Private enterprise will keep on developing under Social Credit as it is now doing thanks to bank credits and to credit unions, finance companies, etc. But the public sector needs to be financed by the Bank of Canada, and this without interest.
The Speech from the Throne, which is almost a word for word repetition of all the Speeches from the Throne I have heard since I came to this House 15 years ago, deals also with economic security.
Mr. Speaker, in order to attain economic security, all factors, namely those of production and of distribution, must be considered. We have everything; production is not a problem any more in Canada. To tell the truth, legislative measures are being put forward or passed at the present time to prevent producers from producing such or such a commodity, in an effort to control production, because there are too many products of all kinds in the fields of clothing, automobile and farm machinery. To give you an example, when I was in Brantford, last fall, the Massey Ferguson yards were overflowing with pieces of farm machinery piled one on top of the other five or six high. We have too much of everything not because people do not need those goods but because they have no money to buy them.
As for economic security, we will have it only when the monetary system is made to serve the people, considering the existing products. The government tries to reform anything and everything. In fact, it tries to reform agriculture, industry and commerce, all departments, all economic activities in Canada, except financial activities.
As to the Bank of Canada's monetary activities, they are not to be discussed. That matter is not to be brought up. I was reading yesterday the speech delivered by my good friend, the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) who was quoting the ex-Postmaster General, the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans), who stated and I quote:
-we must stop believing that it is essential for Canada to sell its natural resources.
He was not saying the same thing ten years ago, but he realizes today that the philosophy that is being explained and presented to us by the government, namely that if we want to live decently in Canada, we must export as much as possible, goes against common sense.
February 22, 1972

For our part, we say: Let us use our credit to develop Canada to the utmost and, in so doing, we shall find it must easier, after taking care of our people, to provide assistance to needy or underdeveloped countries in the world. Then, we could logically help them as much as possible.
But let us start by providing the Canadian people with an economic system that will guarantee them economic security. This is the reason why, over the weekend, in Regina, we put forward a well-considered, realistic program, not made up of promises. We suggested to replace the present social welfare system, which fosters laziness and fraud, with a social and economic security system that will stimulate personal initiative and prevent no one from working or producing more.
If someone earning $5,000 received a yearly supplement of $2,000 or $3,000 this would mean an incentive instead of a penalty. At the present time, many things are taking place. Saturday night, on television, I dealt with the problem of a family on welfare. A mother of seven children is the recipient of social welfare allowances of some $235 per month. The federal government pays half the amount, that is $117.50. That mother calls at the social welfare office and asks for additional aid. She is told that according to government standards and criteria, she cannot be given more than $235 per month. True, she has no rent to pay, but, for instance, she has to meet the needs of her seven children for clothing and food and also to care for herself.
Now, she can no longer make it. Someone tells her: Madam, find a home for your children with strangers, and then, you could work and earn a living. In fact, that is what she does. She finds homes for her children here and there in Abitibi. As soon as this is done she starts getting $60 per child each month from the social welfare office. She gets $420 for her seven children and $20 each month as pocket money for each of them-$140 more. Therefore she receives $540 in addition to the clothes supplied by the social welfare people. This mother would have lived like a queen with $420 per month, not $540. She would have kept her children and would have lived like everybody but social welfare officials cannot do anything for her unless her family is divided, separated, disseminated. Then and only then can they enter the picture.
With the economic and social security system we are advocating this mother could have stayed home with her children to see to their education, their well-being, etc. This is the ever recurring question. We are always wondering: Where will the money come from?
Mr. Speaker, we seldom wonder: Is Canada in a position to guarantee economic security along with individual freedom to all Canadians? Do we have enough natural resources to meet the needs of the whole population? No one doubts that, we are sure of it.
If Canada enjoys great resources, if it is true that we have a "rich land" where only vitality is lacking, we Credi-tistes are offering this vitality so that we may live in peace and harmony on this "rich land".


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, philosophical perspective is the exception rather than the rule in politics, and members of the House will
Speech from the Throne
therefore feel a sense of gratitude that the Throne Speech this year not only engenders reflection on some of the basic philosophical problems of our age but also clearly indicates that the government has a profound understanding of these problems and a coherent plan for meeting them. The key passage in this philosophically perceptive and beautifully integrated speech is to be found at pages 1 and 2 of Hansard of last Thursday. It reads as follows:
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.
Isolation takes many forms in Canada-physical distance, social stigma, economic deprival. In each of those forms it represents a degree of rejection, of exclusion, of estrangement. This country fails in its essential purpose if it does not ensure that its most precious resource, human talent, is not wasted away. Our challenge is to remove the barriers that create isolation, to permit each Canadian to detect-even if not always able to fulfil-his own potential, to ensure that his image of Canada is one of promise and compassion.
Every one of us is enriched through involvement in this stimulating process we call Canada. Our goals and hopes are bound up in the restlessness and vitality of this rich land. We in this place have a special responsibility to help bring these goals and those hopes within reach, to make real the Canada of which our forefathers dreamed: a land so large that some of it will remain always serene and unspoiled; a society which believes in the dignity of every single individual; a community which husbands its resources and shares them justly among this generation and those to follow; an enterprise which permits and provokes each Canadian to contribute his skills and his talents.
As the Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution travelled across Canada we found the isolation of which this passage speaks as well as a powerful desire to participate in the mainstream of Canadian life.
Sometimes the feeling of isolation springs from a general concern about the magnitude of today's problems. I have just received a letter from a constituent, Mrs. R. M. Langs, writing on behalf of the United Church Women of Chalmers Church in which she says:
We are concerned with the fact of the apparent helplessness of individual persons against the problems the world faces.
She lists several of these problems, the problem of industrialization, the problem of energy resources and the problem of Colonial Africa. Then she asks "what can the individual do?"
Sometimes the feeling of isolation comes from a sense of frustration in dealing with problems of a more local nature. Always it involves an apparent condition of powerlessness. The solution, as the throne speech suggests, has to be found, negatively, through removing the barriers which create isolation and, positively, through encouraging and even creating involvement in the public processes in Canada and in decision-making processes of all kinds.
What I want to do this afternoon is to relate two problems which concern my part of Canada, the Windsor area, to the general theme of the throne speech. The first of these problems is economic, the second cultural.
First is the economic problem. Windsor is situated at the tip of a thumb of land surrounded on two sides by water and on a third side by the United States, with the nearest large Canadian city more than 100 miles away. There we

February 22, 1972
Speech from the Throne
live and work, some 250,000 of us in the greater Windsor area, facing some four and a half million people in the greater Detroit area. Our feeling of isolation from the geographical and population points of view is thus readily understandable.
Our situation makes us highly sensitive to changes in our economic relationships with the United States. Since Windsor contains substantially the whole manufacturing operation of Chrysler Canada as well as large parts of the manufacturing operations of Ford and General Motors, plus many automotive plants and automotive-related businesses, Windsor residents are understandably worried about the future of the auto pact.
There is no reason for their fears-certainly not from the words or actions of the government-other than the necessary secrecy in the continuing negotiations. I myself have publicly stated that there is no danger that Canadian jobs or interests will be bartered away by the government for the advantage of other sectors of our economy. This is my firm belief and it is the firm commitment of the government. I believe it is worth underlining here the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), made in the Speech from the Throne debate last Friday, that Canada will be as firm in the defence of our trading interests vis-a-vis the United States as it was in the currency revaluation controversy several months ago, and that Canada's trading posture with the United States will be varied only to the mutual advantage of both countries and not to the unilateral advantage of the United States. Those were welcome words to my constituents, Mr. Speaker.
The second problem has to do with culture, and particularly with television. Windsor has a single VHF television station, CKLW-TV Channel 9, and no UHF station.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Certainly.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member aware that the government of Canada actually changed its negotiating position on the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement between last December and January of this year? Is he not also aware that the original intent of the Canadian government was to give up the production safeguards in the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement? Further, is he not aware that the government has not yet commited itself to maintaining the production safeguards in the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement? If all the implied answers to my questions are in the affirmative, on what does the hon. member base his assurance that Canadian jobs, not necessarily immediately but six months from now or even two or three years from now, will not be lost as a result of current negotiations?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) had made it his hobby in the last few months to predict what the government will or will not do in the secret negotiations proceeding with the United States. So far, all his predictions, including the timetables which he has advanced several times, have proven wrong.
(Mr. MacGuigan.]


John Edward Broadbent: That is absolute and utter hogwash. Why not answer the question?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Therefore it seems to me that the most important thing for us to know with respect to these secret negotiations is the position that the government of Canada has enunciated in this House and publicly across Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: It has not done that.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The second problem I wish to deal with has to do with culture and, as I mentioned, particularly with television.


John Edward Broadbent: I hope the Windsor Star picks up the hon. member's answer. It was shameful.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Windsor is within receiving distance of some ten United States VHF and UHF television stations. As I said, there is only one VHF television station in Windsor and there is no UHF station. In such a situation it is obviously important for a strong Canadian presence to make itself felt on the one Canadian channel available in Windsor.
In June, 1970, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission approved a change of ownership in CKLW-TV. The station was purchased from its previous American owners by Baton Broadcasting Limited, which became 75 per cent owner of the station; the CBC, through its subsidiary, St. Clair River Broadcasting Limited, became the owner of 25 per cent of the stock of the television station. An undertaking was given by the CBC that it would take over the entire ownership of the station within five years. In all these negotiations the CBC appeared in the position of a reluctant bridegroom. It was a shotgun marriage, with the CRTC holding the gun to the head of the CBC. Of course, we in Windsor are very pleased that the CBC has acquired a one-quarter interest in the station and has undertaken to take over ownership of the station completely three and a half years from now.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree to call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair. The House will resume at two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, in the 10 minutes or so I had before the break at one o'clock, I talked about the philosophical orientation of this year's Speech from the Throne. I also dealt with the first of the two issues which I had raised from the local Windsor point of view as fitting in with this orientation. That was the economic problem. I had just begun talking about the cultural problem. I had
February 22, 1972

set out the basic situation, with 10 or l2 television stations in the Windsor area, of which only one is a Canadian station. That station is 75 per cent owned by a private broadcaster and 25 per cent owned by the CBC, with the CBC under obligation to take full ownership of the station approximately three and one half years from now.
The matter about which I most particularly want to speak is the decision by the CBC in mid January not to allow the "Whiteoaks of Jalna" series to be shown over the Windsor television station until some nine months after it is seen in the rest of Canada.


An hon. Member:: They are not missing anything.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The hon. member suggests that the people of Windsor are not missing anything. He may be right. I have not had the opportunity of seeing the programs. However, I would like the people of Windsor to make the decision. It is the people of Windsor who are being denied this opportunity.
I had occasion to raise a similar subject in the House last April 5. My remarks can be found at pages 4937 and 4938 of Hansard. At that time the problem was that channel 9 in Windsor had been forced to withdraw the program "Rainbow Country" after 22 of 26 episodes had been shown, because the CBC, which was the Canadian distributor and co-producer, had entered into an agreement with American producers which banned the series from being shown in Windsor. This was to enable the CBC to sell it at a higher price for showing in Detroit. There had been an earlier incident in which the program "Audubon Theatre" had to be withdrawn for the same reason after four episodes had been shown.
As I mentioned at that time, there were certain ironic aspects of this decision. For example, after entering into a formal agreement not to allow that series to be shown in Windsor, the CBC was not sufficiently alert to prevent most of the episodes from being shown before they realized what was happening. Similarly in the Jalna case, I understand the CBC nationally advertised that Jalna would be shown the following Sunday. The advertisement actually appeared in large part on channel 9 before it was realized this was a mistake, and it was cut out.
These are minor aspects of the problem. The real issue is that the decision by the CBC management not to allow the "Whiteoaks of Jalna" series to be shown over CKLW-TV Windsor until nine months after it has been shown elsewhere in Canada is a most reprehensible one. It does, admittedly, represent a small advance over previous CBC decisions in accordance with which series produced by the corporation were permanently denied to Windsor viewers. In this case the delay was for a nine-month period.
However, there are many reasons for insisting that any difference at all in treatment is unacceptable to the people of Windsor. First, as Canadian taxpayers they are entitled to the same service from Crown corporations as are people elsewhere in the country. In the present context, this means they are entitled to have the same programs made available to CBC-affiliated television stations which serve them as are other taxpayers across the country. The
Speech from the Throne
series to which I have drawn attention is a totally Canadian series based on books by a Canadian author about a Canadian family, and was produced at a cost of $2 million to the taxpayers of Canada. Yet the taxpayers of Windsor are being discriminated against inasmuch as they do not have the right to see this program at the same time as other Canadians.
There is a second reason for saying that the CBC has a special duty toward channel nine and the residents of Windsor. It is based on the fact that the CBC is itself the owner of the T.V. station to the extent of 25 per cent, and is to become the full owner in three and one half years time. Thus, channel nine is not in the position of being simply a regional affiliate as stations elsewhere in the country may be; it is an affiliate which is already partly owned by the corporation, one which the corporation has undertaken to purchase completely.
A further reason is this-and it is a somewhat ironical one: the policy being followed is not even good business for the CBC. The fact is that Detroit itself accounts for only 2.4 per cent of the total United States market in terms of T.V. households, and of this fraction the Windsor station is able to attract only a small percentage of viewers. During prime time only 3 per cent of all the T.V. households in the Detroit area are attracted to watch the Windsor station. This means that less than one-tenth of one per cent of the total United States market is affected by the showing of any series on CKLW-TV.
This was strikingly shown by the fact that when the BBC program on Henry VIII was shown by channel nine in Windsor it was able to attract only some 4 per cent of the television households in the area, whereas when the same program was shown over the United States network some months later in July, at a time which is not normally considered to be the best viewing time of the year, it attracted 13 per cent of the T.V. households. So even when the same program is shown by a United States station in the area it is able to attract something like three times the number of viewers; the U.S. station has three times the drawing power.
Again, the fact that the BBC was able to sell its series on Henry VIII to a major United States network despite the fact that it had previously been shown by the Windsor station is evidence that the argument used by the CBC, that they cannot make a profitable sale to the United States if programs have already been shown in Windsor, is not a sound one.
Apart from this, the CBC has a cultural duty to discharge. I wish to approach this point by referring to an answer which the CBC gave on April 5 last through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State as reported at page 4938 at the time I raised the question concerning the other series which was denied. The CBC reported through the parliamentary secretary;
In general, full network programs produced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation using its own facilities are released to all stations of the English television network, including affiliated stations such as CKLW-TV Windsor. However, the CBC has accepted the practice for over ten years of not including its Windsor affiliate in the initial scheduling of some of its programs for the following reasons-
The first situation mentioned relates to television series produced in the United States and acquired by the CBC

Speech from the Throne
from a Canadian distributor for full English television network release. This is not applicable to the case we are considering. The excuse of the CBC in that case is that the rights are controlled in the United States.
The second situation mentioned relates to television series produced in Canada and acquired by the CBC from a Canadian distributor for full English television network release. Again, the CBC puts the blame on someone else. The Corporation says that the Canadian producer normally tries to insist on arrangements being made to eliminate Windsor and thus to maximize profits from a United States sale. The third situation the CBC mentions concerns television series produced in Canada and cofinanced or co-produced by the CBC. The Corporation says that in this case the CBC acquires Canadian television rights but usually defers its Windsor rights. The report added:
In order to attract production capital it is essential that United States market possibilities be enhanced. In the view of the CBC the encouragement of private production companies is an important consideration in the development of Canadian content.
The implication of this recital seems to be that these are the only situations in which the Windsor station would be denied CBC programs. But this is not so, because in the instance I am raising, the series represents a wholly CBC production costing $2 million of the taxpayers' money. This is not one of the cases which the Corporation mentioned. It is much more extreme than any they have attempted to defend in the past. Yet the same policy has been followed as was followed before. The explanation given is completely untenable-the encouragement of private production companies. No private production company is involved in this case.
In any event, the priorities and responsibilities of the CBC cannot be justified in commercial terms alone. The Corporation's charter, established by this parliament, assigned to that body certain broad objectives; one thinks in general terms of the promotion of Canadian culture. The Corporation is certainly not living up to its obligation to support Canadian culture in the Windsor area.
I have sponsored a private member's notice of motion requesting that this policy of denying or delaying the showing in Windsor of television programs in order that they may be sold more profitably to networks in the United States be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. I hope I shall have an early opportunity to discuss this matter in the House and that the subject will be referred to the standing committee in order that an investigation of the situation can be made.
In particular, the people of Windsor ought to know whether the CBC intends to change its policy when it becomes the full owner of the station. President Davidson made a statement to the effect that at such a time the CBC would treat the Windsor station in the same way as all other stations. This is something I should like to have on the public record.
I think the citizens of Windsor would also be interested to know whether the border protection clause normally attached to hockey programs in Canada is to be discontinued. As a result of such a clause Windsor is presently being denied the opportunity to watch most games because of the refusal of the NHL to allow these programs

to be shown within a certain radius of Detroit. The people of Windsor will be interested to learn whether or not at this point the CBC will take a firm line with the NHL and say that if this organization will not allow such programs to be shown in Windsor they will not be shown anywhere else in Canada.
I believe the people of Windsor and the Canadian public generally would also wish to know why the CBC has decided to wait another three and one half years before fulfilling its obligations to the Windsor area. Why does the Corporation not want to change its policy right now?
Another thing we want to know is this: For how many pieces of silver are the rights of the citizens of Windsor being sold to the United States? In the past the Corporation has tried to conceal this information, but I think the people have a right to know just what profit has been forthcoming in consequence of this decision to deprive Windsor of its share of Canadian cultural opportunity.
I think this whole question is one not only for the CBC but also for the CRTC and the government. There is a passage in the Speech from the Throne, reported on page 3 of Hansard, which reads as follows:
Still another form of isolation springs from indifferent communications services. It is a matter of concern to the Government that at this moment many communities do not receive the national broadcasting service-
I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that the Windsor area was not in mind at the time that this passage was written, but it seems to me to apply very much to the citizens of Windsor. The service the CBC is giving the citizens of Windsor is indifferent in every sense. It is indifferent because the CBC appears to be indifferent to the interests of the people of Windsor.
In conclusion, I merely wish to say that the Speech from the Throne has effectively analysed the problem of isolation and the right remedies to correct that problem. May I express the hope that the television isolation in Windsor will soon be seen as part of the total Canadian problem.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, may I say initially what a pleasure it is to be able to participate in the Throne Speech debate. I have always found such debates very interesting because they give one the chance to listen to the problems that arise in the different ridings across the country, an opportunity that many of the other debates held in the House do not afford.
I should like to congratulate the mover and seconder. I know the mover rather well. There have been many times when I have admired what he said and certainly we all appreciate his remarks, just as we appreciate the remarks of a lot of other government members. However, it is unfortunate that when the occasion presents itself these hon. members do not vote in accordance with their stated principles, and I am afraid this is to the detriment of democracy.
The prime areas of concern in my part of the country I do not think are that much different from those of any other area of Canada. Inflation is one of the major causes of serious concern. The agriculture industry across the country has not kept pace with the rising prices that have been so common both in industry and in labour in gener-
February 22, 1972

al. Agriculture has been in the unfortunate position of being unable to price its products. In many cases, the general cost of services has been a prime difficulty in the past few years. Although the price of agricultural produce has not risen, the cost of services on the farming scene has risen very greatly.
During the debates we have had on agriculture and on bills presented to the House during the last session-I have in mind in particular the stabilization bill which died on the order paper-no indication was given that the price of the farmers' products would rise. There was talk about stabilizing incomes, but the stabilization of income during an inflationary cycle can be of very little use. To adopt the expression so often used by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), all you are doing is stabilizing poverty.
We have gone nearly four years as a parliament so that we know an election is not far away. In view of this, I think it is useful to see just what may lie ahead of us and to note the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on legislation he may bring forward for the agriculture industry.
I should just like to quote a statement from the Western Producer concerning a speech the Prime Minister made not too long ago. It reads as follows:
Agriculture would not be able to meet the challenge of the future if it did not become economically independent, he added.
"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."
It was becoming less and less acceptable that consumers bear the cost of farmers' deficiencies, he said.
When the Prime Minister speaks in those terms it seems he regards the agriculture industry as a vast, subsidized segment of our society, as though agriculture were the only recipient of the largesse of government. May I draw to the attention of hon. members the passage of the textiles bill which afforded certain protection to that industry. Then, there was the write-off of $70 million back taxes owed by the Ford Motor Company, as well as the $6 million given to Proctor and Gamble to establish an industry which was already in over-production across the country. The government subsidizes one plant here and closes down a similar plant in another part of Canada.
This kind of action costs taxpayers' dollars. The agriculture industry receives only a very small percentage of the money the government spends on subsidies and to say otherwise is to create a false impression. It misleads the taxpayers and voters, and the use of this tactic is a continual disappointment to us. It is this sort of thing that has led to the west sometimes feeling it has only a colonial status vis-a-vis the east. Certainly, the western provinces have definite cause for some concern in this respect.
For the future, I think we need to examine programs that parallel to a certain extent United States programs to assist marketing of grain. Under these programs a floor price is put on grain, particularly feed grains, and the producer is given the option whether to sell to the government at the floor price or to put his product on the open market. Certainly, I think some drastic changes need to be made in the present marketing system, particularly in regard to the domestic feed grain marketing arrangements in Canada today.
Speech from the Throne
Grain handling is a problem that is ever with us and is of particular concern to the western provinces. In answer to a question I asked during the question period yesterday, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board indicated, when I questioned him about difficulties that were arising in the port of Vancouver, that things were going well. However, this is not the impression received by neutral observers. I am not talking about political observers but neutral observers at this port facility. Now, nobody blames the minister for the fact that it snowed and the railway lines were blocked. The fact that strikes intervened on many occasions was not his fault and nobody blames him for that. The major cause of concern is the fact that he is not willing to admit having tried a no-storage policy at our terminal port positions and that it is not working. We must have the assurance that when strikes occur at these port facilities or when the weather is bad, as it always is during some part of the Canadian winter, this grain will move.
I should like to read a few excerpts from a report issued by the Palliser Wheat Growers Association. Last week a group of members went to investigate the tie-up at the Vancouver port facility and here is an excerpt from their report:
With nearly 20 ships sitting idle in Vancouver Harbor, the Palliser members were told by an export company official that the estimated present backlog of 20 million bushels of wheat will not be caught up with until July.
The National Harbors Board gave the farmers a tour of the waterfront where the Palliser members saw idle ships and nearly idle grain terminals.
The lone ship at the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool terminal was fittingly named the Heroic. It has been in the port a full month, trying to scrape together a full load of grain from the half dozen grain terminals.
About 1.8 million bushels of exportable wheat is now in terminals (as of Friday) compared to the almost 20 million needed to fill waiting ships.
Meanwhile, the farmers were told by the export official that Canada is not making new sales, because it is going to be too busy trying to catch up on the old sales.
Yesterday in the House the minister in charge of the Wheat Board told us at great length how well sales were going, that everything was moving normally and how many boxcars reached port in the last two days. But the Palliser Wheat Growers Association is a neutral observer with no political axe to grind. Perhaps I could be accused of that or even the members to my left, but certainly the Palliser Wheat Growers Association could not be accused of having a biased opinion of what is going on at the port facility. Referring to comments of Palliser president Walter Nelson, the report continues:
He said discussions with a representative of the exporting firm, Cargill of Canada Ltd., supporting Palliser's contention that the Canadian Wheat Board grain transportation policies are wrong.
And later:
The Cargill official confirmed Palliser's claim that idle ships are having a harmful, two fold effect on Canada's grain industry-first, shipping companies protect themselves from long delays by charging higher freight rates, and second the port, with a poor reputation in the matter already, is getting a blacker international name and may force Canada to sell wheat even cheaper than the present low prices to attract buyers and shippers.

February 22, 1972
Speech from the Throne
That is the situation as it is now. The report continues:
Mr. Nelson said another point coming to light on the Vancouver visit is that wheat board grain transportation mismanagement is leading to rail shipments of rye, flax and rapeseed being cut while the backlog of wheat is being made up.
That is the situation with regard to transportation as it was last week at the Vancouver port terminal. Yesterday, the minister told us how well things were going and last night the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) spoke in the same vein in this debate-everything is fine but we have had a little snow trouble. However, that does not excuse the fact that the grain was not in storage to take care of this situation. I suggest to the minister that having found the discrepancies in the present policy, we now need to ensure that the terminal facilities are full. If anything we should increase the storage facility at the terminal positions.
There are indications across the country that we have actually over-sold our transportation capability in regard to grain. It would not matter if Canadian farmers produced and sold a billion and a half bushels, the transportation facilities could not move it to salt water. The rad-roads need more locomotives and a better servicing plan for them in order to keep them moving. An improved braking system is also needed. The best brains in the country should be looking into this and perhaps some of this so-called subsidy money should be used.
We are told that one hopper car costs in the neighbourhood of $20,000. If the railroads cannot provide enough of this type of transportation, then maybe we should build them ourselves and rent them to the railroads. If we are to keep pace in the area of transportation we must look at our bulk port facilities and bulk carriers. Today, we are using the same type of boxcars and grain handling facilities that were used 50 years ago. The equipment must be able to cope with the situation today if it is to bring prosperity to Canada by enabling us to get the grain to market in greater quantities. We need such a system if we are to improve our economic position and our balance of payments position.
This government has indicated that it is emphasizing marketing, but some of us doubt whether this is actually being pursued and a priority placed upon it. There is a feeling that some of our embassies and trade commissions are not staffed by people well qualified as salesmen. I think that the day of the pleasant discussion at the cocktail hour has gone, and that every individual in our embassies and trade commissions should be assessed in regard to their understanding of the total Canadian trade picture and their capabilities as salesmen. This is our bread and butter in Canada but we seldom see any proof of their salesmanship or of what they are doing in regard to the marketing of grain. I should like to read into the record a letter which I have here. The name on the letterhead is Spanish, Central de Contractiones Commerciales, S.A. This is an agency which trades in grain on an international basis. The letter reads:
We have been in contact with the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, XCAN, and various other organizations in your country, and have never been able to get so much as a firm offer from anyone. We have written over a dozen letters to

XCAN since January and they never have answered any of them. We have spent much on phone calls to them but to no avail.
In order to do business in Mexico, as well as in Canada, you must have a local agent. We were more or less promised the agency for XCAN but nothing ever came of it.
The main buyer for the Mexican Government is CONASUPO, who has bought over 220,000 MT of wheat since September. The prices have been in the range of $63 to $72 per MT. All has been sold by U.S. private companies principally Continental Grain and Cargill.
We have met personally with at least two of your country's trade missions, one from the Canadian Grain Council and another from the Rapeseed Association. From our point of view their visit was not useful because they have not taken advantage of the knowledge and contacts gained.
If you decide to come to Mexico, please plan to stay long enough to really study our market and learn the intricacies of doing business with a strongly centralized government.
Then, the letter continues. This is an indication, as we have long suspected, that our trade organizations in Canada are not going all out in an effort to see that Canadian grain is marketed. Surely, it is nothing short of disgusting that some of these organizations do not answer their mail, especially when it deals with a prime commodity in this country such as grain. While many of the organizations are private groups, I firmly believe it is up to the government to give some direction. Certainly, I am sure there must be people in this army of civil servants in this country who are very well aware of the situation which exists. I do not believe this is the first time they have heard of this situation.
There is another area into which I believe the government should be looking. I realize it involves a difficult problem and I know there are no easy answers. Also I do not wish to be critical. However, I believe, as Mr. Meany said a short time ago, that strikes have outlived their usefulness. Certainly this country has become strikebound. One can hardly pick up a newspaper without reading about another strike. The prime objective of the government should be in this area. I believe there are indications that we would be better off if the unions in this country were exclusively Canadian. I believe the minister must be very well aware of the net outflow of funds in the form of union dues, over benefits accruing to union members, from this country every year. Certainly, directives come from the head offices of these unions which cannot be in the Canadian or national interest. I think this whole area should be reviewed.


Mr. Gilbert:: What about exclusive Canadian corporations?


Cliff Downey: I think we should discuss both. International unions and international companies are part of the same problem. There is some indication certainly that permanent compulsory negotiating machinery should be set up. If this is not the case, I suggest laws should be enacted in this country to place a financial responsibility on unions when they strike against the general public interest. Financial responsibility should be placed on unions so that they would think twice before they struck against the public.
Yesterday I had occasion to bring forward a private bill on Canadian citizenship. There has been a good deal of divisive legislation passed and there have been many divisive comments made in this country in the past four years.
February 22, 1972

I believe it is time we took full cognizance of the fact it is necessary that we are all recognized as Canadians and nothing else. My private member's bill would eliminate all reference to nationality on the records of Canada and henceforth any man who could obtain Canadian citizenship-and this would refer also to our native peoples- would be referred to as Canadian and nothing else. If we are to become a great nation, we must recognize the fact that it is important that we be known as Canadians. We simply cannot continue being hyphenated Canadians. Certainly, there is far more of this today than there was four years ago. Every racial origin group in this country is starting to come forward with its form of hyphenated Canadianism. This is impractical. No nation on this earth which has ever been great has pursued such a concept for very long.
I suggest we should take a real look at this area in the days ahead. It seems ridiculous that such a designation should be on any government document. Those who take over in the next four years should give this matter a thorough review. Also, it is not good in relation to the Canadian identity to take away certain things which are a part of our heritage as is being done in respect of the letters RCMP. They are part of the Canadian heritage and Canadian history. These letters represent a body that is honourable and good, and which is one of the most respected police forces in the world. One could consider how many boys have been made men because they had the RCMP crest placed on their chests. They were not all little Christs when they joined the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but the fact that that heritage and tradition was behind them made many men great and gave us a police force of which we could be proud. If we are to assume and carry on any further Canadian identity we must not do anything to destroy this heritage. We must all be Canadians. It is difficult for us to imagine how a sense of purpose can be developed among Canadians if we are not to be known as Canadians and we do not maintain these historic traditions.
I think there are other areas which we should be exploring in the Throne Speech debate in the days ahead. It is difficult for me to imagine that the whole business of welfare and unemployment insurance should not be reviewed, as well as what the priorities that are apparently being placed in these areas are doing to people. I think we have developed an attitude in Canada of wanting something for nothing. All of us who have come this far in life know that you get nothing for nothing. Even in a just society you get nothing for nothing. I think there are many jobs in this country which could be performed for the public good, various public works which could improve the life, appearance and the whole fact of being Canadian. I suggest that many of our unemployed are purposely unemployed and that there are many people on welfare who need not be. I think that some directives should be given in regard to training and the allocation of jobs in the public interest to people who are willing to receive money from the public purse. This is an area which should be reviewed in the session ahead.
_____________________________________125
Speech from the Throne


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: First let me congratulate the movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne (Mr. Whicher and Mr. Lajoie).
The hon. member for Bruce has made, in my opinion, an outstanding speech in the best tradition of this House. He has put a lot of life-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -in his speech and this is obvious judging from the hon. members' reaction when I congratulate him.
In my opinion, it is necessary in this House to have animated speeches from time to time. This House should keep this spirit of debate which has been prevailing for many years and even though certain hon. members did not appreciate the true facts mentioned by the member for Bruce I think it was quite appropriate for him to state them. Hon. members should extend him their most sincere congratulations.
Of course, I was most pleased to find that the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne was the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres. He committed himself to politics only a few months ago out of his sense of duty and I think he has demonstrated that all hon. members and particularly those from the province of Quebec want to participate in the business of the House and show that we are all Canadians, that we all hope to contribute to our country's life and protect our culture.
As the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres said, he has proved himself by bringing his wife from British Columbia-as did the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-and I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to follow suit and also have eight young Canadians during his married life.
In any event, as a citizen of la Mauricie, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres and I can assure other hon. members that he will have a long and fruitful career as representative of this beautiful and ancient city, full of traditions, located in the heart of la Mauricie.

In the course of this debate, my colleagues will tell the House of the gains Canadians have made in the last four years in their standard of living and in the increased number of jobs and real income. My topic today is not so easily measured, not assessed in statistics, but, perhaps what is even more important, it is a field to which this government has given great attention. We have accomplished a great deal. I speak of the quality of Canadian life. I speak of those intangibles which make life more enjoyable, more rewarding and more gratifying-the world of nature, the world of our environment and the world of our heritage. The government and parliament have been giving more and more of their attention to conditions and policies affecting the quality of living-in our cities, our towns, our rural areas, in the north-in all of Canada. The quality of life varies throughout our land. In part, this reflects the differences and the diversities from which we draw our strength and our distinctiveness as a nation. We want to safeguard those diversities, to give
126
Speech from the Throne

February 22, 1972
them full play in the shaping of a proud Canadianism which reflects all the elements of our society. I believe that this government has shown deternination and imagination in this.
While protecting these diversities, the government is helping Canadians to overcome economic obstacles and cultural barriers-barriers that tend to isolate Canadians from one another, from their land, from their history and from individual fulfilment.
In seeking to overcome these forces of isolation, we must protect our human environment and conserve our natural resources. We must remove the constraints, some of which are long standing, that weaken and hamper elements in Canadian society. We must pierce language barriers and nourish cultural aspirations deeply rooted in the past. We must provide a full range of opportunities for all Canadians. We must give meaning to their freedom of choice in their economic, social or cultural aspirations and efforts. There is a fundamental need, of which we are all becoming increasingly aware, to enrich the quality of life for all Canadians, to give it meaning and fulfilment. In a very real sense the need is to inject concern for humanity into a social environment largely dominated by materialism. This need has been clearly recognized by this government.
Look at what we have been doing in the last four years! The Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act was unanimously passed by this House. The Northern Inland Waters Act protects the freshwater resources of the north. Land use regulations are now in effect throughout the north. Guidelines have been announced for the construction of northern pipelines. The Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act was amended to provide for more comprehensive control over oil and gas operations. Parliament has passed the Canadian Water Act setting national standards and controls. The Canadian Clean Air Act provides national standards for air.

However, Mr. Speaker, this only represents part of the accomplishments of the government. By creating the Department of the Environment we have opened the way to decisive action and co-ordination in that important area. This new group of governmental agencies puts us in a better position to solve current problems. They co-ordinate the undertakings of all departments in the field and work in close co-operation with the provinces, universities, industry, in short all those who are interested by this field.
Over one million chemical products are being used today. So we need to determine their hazardous or other characteristics. Pollution, whether it be created by industry or the masses of people living in urban areas, has raised new problems for the government. Canada now has a central agency to deal with those difficulties. No country can overcome pollution on its own. It is an undertaking with international dimensions. A first step has been made toward an international agreement on the control over the quality of water which will be part of a program to rejuvenate the Great Lakes between the United States and Canada.
The next international conference on the Law of the Sea will help us further to make known to the world our concern to protect Canada at any cost against pollution whatever may be the source. Canada deserves to be protected. It is a country of great scenic beauty. Most enchanting sites have been preserved through our national parks.
In the last four years, Mr. Speaker, seven new parks have been added to those already in existence. For the first time we have national parks in Quebec-La Mauricie amd Forillon. We also have a large national park in Ontario, Pukaskwa. We have Gros Morne park in Newfoundland, Kouchibouguac park in New Brunswick and Pacific Rim park in British Columbia. In Nova Scotia Kejimkujik park has now been opened.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce the location of the three new parks that are being established north of the sixtieth parallel. The first of these parks is an immense 8,500 square miles in the Kluane area, in the southwest corner of Yukon Territory. Its outstanding features include Mount Logan, the highest peak in Canada; one of the world's largest non-polar icefields systems; outstanding glaciers and the St. Elias Mountains. The second is 1,840 square miles along the South Nahanni River, Canada's most spectacular wild river. In April, 1971, 870 square miles were withdrawn from exploitation. The new park more than doubles that area and includes Virginia Falls, twice as high as Niagara, three major canyons reaching 4,000 feet in height and a vast number of caves and sulphur hot springs. The third will be the first national park above the Arctic Circle. It is an 8,200 square mile area on the Cumberland Peninsula of Baffin Island. The area is noted for its spectacular fjords and deeply carved mountains dominated by the massive Penny Icecap. Mountains reach 7,000 feet. The Pangnirtung Pass is 60 miles long and often a mile deep.
These three northern parks, Canada's first national parks north of the sixtieth parallel, will increase total national parks lands by more than 50 per cent-from some 31,300 square miles to 49,800 square miles. I know all of these areas very well. They are unique and fantastic. They will rank among the world's most spectacular national parks. Members of this House are invited to view models, photographs and maps of these three areas which are on exhibit today in the Railway Committee Room. I thought it was important to give hon. members an opportunity to appreciate visually what we are doing. Although we try to be eloquent, there is nothing to beat a visual appreciation of the highest mountains in Canada, the biggest fjords, and so on. I think hon. members will probably appreciate the opportunity of seeing that documentation.
The addition of these northern parks means that ten new parks have been created since 1968. Only two parks were opened in the preceding 30 years. There has never been an expansion comparable to that of the last four years. The ten most recent additions up to 1968 took 50 years to establish. We now have 28 national parks in a comprehensive network extending from sea to sea; for the first time outstanding natural areas in every province and both northern territories are represented in Canada's national parks system.

February 22, 1972

Creation of these northern parks will not be permitted to affect in any way the traditional use of wildlife and fish resources by the native people of the north. We will discuss with northern residents who live near the parks ways to make sure that they get their share of the jobs created and every other possible economic advantage the parks can provide. Canadians now have the framework of an outstanding national parks system, but we must not stop here. There is much more to be done if we are to protect our natural heritage. The government is presently looking for opportunities to develop new kinds of parks and recreation areas extending along river valleys, geographical features, scenic routes, underwater parks, historic canals and walking trails.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to announce today that the responsibility for eight canals has been transferred from the Department of Transport to the conservation program of my department. All those canals are linked with significant historic events: the Rideau, Trent-Severn and Murray canals in Ontario; the Carillon and Sainte-Anne canals on the Ottawa River, the Saint-Ours and Chambly canals in Quebec and St. Peter's canal in Nova Scotia.
All those canals are readily accessible from large urban centres in eastern Canada. We intend, in close co-operation with the provinces, to develop their historic value, the recreational aspect of those waterways and to protect their parks and wildlife habitats. The conservation of natural wonders is consistent with the preservation and protection of historic and architectural monuments in Canada. The Louisbourg fortress, the small Fort Garry, Dawson and the trail of the Klondike gold rush are some factors which add colour and variety to the national system of historic parks and sites. All were carefully chosen to commemorate the important events in our history and to inspire Canadians of today and tomorrow with feelings of satisfaction and national pride.
During this session, I will be introducing legislation to establish a national trust which will be known as Heritage Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would like at this point to mention the interest in that project of many members of this House, especially the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Roberts) who sponsored a bill that, to some extent, was the inspiration for this new legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Its main objective will be the preservation of our historical, architectural and natural heritage. Heritage Canada will acquire property by purchase, donations and bequests. It will be a broadly based corporation with the same degree of independence as the Canada Council. Heritage Canada will be launched with the aid of a generous federal endowment grant to give it a start. The private sector will have a major role to play. The aim is to enable anyone anywhere in Canada interested in preserving our
Speech from the Throne
historic and natural heritage to play a part in discharging a national responsibility.

Our cultural heritage, Mr. Speaker, makes up an essential part of the quality of our life. Not only must we preserve it, but we must make it available to all Canadians.
The government, through the Secretary of State Department, intends to increase the responsibility of the National Museums of Canada. A system of associated museums will be set up in order to allow the Canadian people across the country to enjoy the National Museums collections.
At the same time, the Canada Council will be given more funds and its responsibilities will be extended in order to insure the protection and use of museum collections that do not belong to the national system. This will lead to the establishment of the first elements in a network of national exhibition centres and to the management of a collection of art objects which will be loaned in order to attract the public to the museums.

Ignorance about the culture and history of the various groups that make up our population has had much more to do with dividing us than any other single factor. National parks, historic sites and museums enrich the quality of Canadian life and strengthen visibly the fibre of national unity. They tell us much about the world around us, ourselves and each other.
Communication and understanding are essential in a diverse society. We must seek to deepen our understanding, to enlarge our appreciation of all others. This is the foundation of the government policy on bilingualism and the raison d'etre of its multicultural programs, the basis for a better Canadianism. There is no threat in this. There is a promise, a promise of a land in which the dignity of everyone, the heritage of every one of us will be respected and understood by all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I wish to mention a subject that is very close to the members of this House, especially myself as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I am happy to refer to the fact that in the past four years we decided to work very hard on one of the cultural problems about which we all feel very strongly. I refer to the cultural heritage of the first citizens of our land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have started on programs to try to help the Eskimos and Indians of this land to preserve their culture. During the past session, it was announced that the government in the next year will spend $10 million to help establish cultural centres and other activities that will permit our native population to go back through their history. We have a diverse cultural society. One of our responsibilities is to permit our first citizens to find in their background, history and tradition a new strength in order that they may find the place in society they want. In the past 100 years we may have tried too hard to impose our values on these people.

February 22, 1972
128______________________________________
Speech from the Throne
The greatest contribution that this House can make is to support the efforts of the government and the people of Canada to help the first citizens of this land keep their cultural identity. It is very important for every citizen to understand what he is, accept his differences, and from there build a place in society that suits him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is this that has permitted Canada to become what it is now. We believe it is possible for all Canadians to share in the economic and social advantages and at the same time maintain their cultural diversity. I think these and other programs that have been announced today are designed to permit Canadians to find in their history, different backgrounds and cultures existing in this country the strength that will permit the building in Canada of a diversified society that will pull us all together and ensure that this country will continue to be an example to the world of understanding, broad views and, at the same time, social and economic progress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their attention. I am sure that Canadians will welcome the general program we have announced which is intended to promote the conservation of green spaces for generations to come. It is our responsibility, as members, not only to develop short term programs but to take steps to conserve for future generations areas such as the national parks which may not be visited by a large number of Canadians in the near future, in order that the children of our children may say that during this Parliament we tried to save those areas for them, and to set up, in the fields of culture and history, the required mechanisms to allow our descendants to keep their diversity while building a country of which we can all be proud.


Frank Howard: I wonder whether the minister would permit a question before he formally concludes his remarks.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: With pleasure; I always like the questions the hon. member puts to me.


Frank Howard: I am really interested in the answers. May I say that we listened to the minister's speech with a great deal of interest. We were pleased to hear his comments about canals, parks, architectural buildings and so on as well as his later, unrehearsed remarks about the Indian people. But if he really wishes to do something worthwhile, can he tell us when he intends to make some formal announcement about recognizing the aboriginal rights of the Indian people, and tell us, also, when he intends to remove those iniquitous sections from the Indian Act, sections which have, unfortunately, been with us for donkeys years.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is not a debate on Indian affairs but I am always glad to express the views of the government on that subject. As to the first part of the question, this matter was dealt with by the House a few years ago when two commissions of inquiry into

Indian rights and treaties were established. The Indians have their own committee. They are studying their treaties and rights. Facilities for this inquiry have been provided by the federal government and responsibility has been assigned by the Indians to a chief whom they themselves have apppointed. At this time, I do not wish to interfere. The government has appointed Commissioner Barber to look into the question for us-


Frank Howard: You have not.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He is talking with the Indians now. I believe he has begun to make some recommendations, for example, on the question of the ammunition moneys of the Indians of Alberta. I think this is the start of a co-operative approach between the Indians and the government to find a solution.
As far as the Indian Act is concerned, I recognize that it is not perfect legislation. I said from the first day I was here that I wanted a new Indian Act. But before I propose this unilaterally, I naturally wish to hold consultations all over Canada.


Frank Howard: Your predecessor started it, not you.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have been engaged in consultation with the Indians since 1968.1 recognize, of course, that my predecessor had moved in that direction, because, after all, we are all Liberals and we are acting like Liberals all the time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Gilbert: That's the trouble.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. In all fairness, I must point out to hon. members that the minister's time has now expired. The question itself was long and the answer has been very long. Therefore, so as to continue in order, I shall need unanimous consent if the minister is to finish his reply.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I said I wanted to amend the Indian Act, and I have asked the Indians to come to me with suggestions. So far, three different Indian associations have presented their views and I am sure the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) would really be shocked if I proceeded in the absence of advice from the Indians of British Columbia.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the hon. member rise for the purpose of asking a question? If he is, I shall need unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Yewchuk: Thank you. I shall be brief. I was interested to hear the minister's remarks and his enthusiastic conclusion, during which he spoke about preserving the culture of our first people and of making available a $10 million fund for establishing cultural centres. In the circumstances, could the minister explain why it should have
February 22, 1972

been necessary for the Alberta Indian Association to dismantle the staff which had been assembled and the plans which had been drawn up for such a cultural centre?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This is a new program, Mr. Speaker, and we are now developing this program. The question of the Indian associations in Alberta was discussed at length in this chamber a few months ago. I have expressed my view. I have nothing to withdraw. I felt the associations were not at that time serving the best interests of the Indians. Some of them were merely interested in raising political hell. We have established good relations with the new administration, and I think we shall certainly help them to establish cultural centres. But one must recognize that there are three different groups in Alberta, each of which wanted grants. It is not because there is pressure on me that I would give preference to one group rather than to another. However, I need a national program in order to be just to everyone. I have been Minister of Indian Affairs for more than three years, now, and I know what pressure is. I am used to it. I keep my cool in order to make good decisions even if it takes a few more weeks.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In his response to the question I posed to him the minister let his imagination over-ride the facts of the situation and made three deliberate and distinct misstatements.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Frank Howard: With respect, I do not think he should be permitted to do that. The first mistake was in saying that Dr. Barber had been appointed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may rise on a point of order, but he is required to take into serious consideration one of the long-established rules of the House. Even if he feels aggrieved, he has no right to suggest that another hon. member has made a deliberate misrepresentation of facts. He has no right to say that.


Frank Howard: He made it accidentally, then, out of ignorance of the true facts. The minister said the government had appointed Dr. Barber to look into the question of aboriginal rights. That is not true. Aboriginal rights were specifically excepted from the relevant order in council. When we inquired about this before Christmas the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) substantiated this assertion.
The second misstatement of fact related to the recognition of aboriginal rights themselves. In September, 1969, the Prime Minister admitted that he and his government had no time for the aboriginal rights of the Indian people, did not intend to recognize them and disregarded them completely. That statement by the Prime Minister has never been put to one side by the right hon. gentleman or by the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is obviously debate between the minister and the hon. member. I suppose a debate as to who is right and who is wrong could go on for a long time, but if the Chair were to allow these statements to go on for a long time it would be doing so at the expense of other members who have indicated that they are anxious to take part in this debate. My understanding is that this is
Speech from the Throne
not a debate on the affairs of the minister's department. I would hope we could give the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) an opportunity to make the speech he has been waiting to make for some time.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member has shown to the House that he has been a member of the opposition for a long time, and he will have to stay there for a long time because he is quite thin-skinned.


Frank Howard: But accurate.


Mr. Gibson:: Mr. Speaker, it seems the House has been misled by the remarks of the last speaker.


An hon. Member:: You mean the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Colin David Gibson: I mean the last speaker on the opposition side. He completely overlooked the inquiries within the constitutional committee. The committee heard representatives of Indians from coast to coast.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question of privilege amounts, again, to a dispute concerning facts and at this time a debate cannot go on under the guise of a question of privilege. I suggest to the hon. member that we might go to the next speaker. I am prepared to recognize at this time the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wish the state of the Canadian economy was such that I would be able to take more time to comment on the minister's generally pleasing announcement this afternoon, but unfortunately that is not the case.
The only distinguished aspect of the speech the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made in this House last Friday was that it made very clear that a lousy Conservative economic policy was not an adequate substitute for a lousy Liberal one. In this respect, the right hon. gentleman was very cogent. However, in the process his own record as an incompetent, callous, bumbling, glib, smug Prime Minister was not alluded to at all. Acting on the old maxim-and the Prime Minister always acts on old maxims-that when your position is defenceless it is best to attack, he did precisely that.
On listening to and reading his speech, one would have thought that the next best experience to an "after life" in heaven was to be a Canadian living anywhere north of the 49th parallel in the winter of 1972. Our land, he said, is one in which men and women can "live and work and play and think in either the English or the French language". Well, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it is also one in which almost 700,000 men and women are walking the streets in sub-zero weather looking for a job. It matters not whether whether they do it in English or French, or indeed whether they do it in German, Hungarian or Italian.
Rarely has a distinguished mind, such as that of the Prime Minister, so laboured not to elucidate or make clear reality but to obscure it. Rarely has so much cool rhetoric been employed to disguise the harshness of the complete truth. A mind once given to an analysis of the Cite Libre

February 22, 1972
130__________________________________
Speech from the Throne
has succumbed to the Pollyanna mush of Walt Disney. Such, perhaps, are the fruits of power.
What is the untold reality? Beyond the avowals of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), who assert that Canada has an economic policy, a strategy for development, which will lead to full employment, is the unpleasant fact that the only economic approach that could in any sense be described as a policy or plan of this government has been the Trudeau government's commitment to price stability. This policy was begun in 1968 right after the Prime Minister was elected, and has continued unabated right to the present day. Indeed, last Friday the Prime Minister himself once again took great pride in reminding us that the stability of our prices compared with other countries was a wonder to behold. Our price performance, he said-and the former Minister of Finance used to tell us this ad nauseum-is the wonder of the world.
The question, however, that is never openly asked, and certainly never openly answered by this incompetent and unconcerned government, is: Who benefits from price stability? That, Mr. Speaker, is the question. Who really benefits from such a policy? The fact is that apart from those on pensions, who could be protected by mandatory escalator clauses in all pension plans, seme at the provincial level and some at the federal, and apart from unorganized workers, who again could be protected by more unions not fewer, the only category of person who wants absolute price stability in this country, or indeed in any other country, is the investor. That is the economic class that benefits from price stability. These people want to be able to clip their coupons at the same dollar value at which they invested. That, Mr. Speaker, is really what lies behind the preoccupation of this government and preceding Conservative governments with price stability.


Mr. Osier:: What about the farmers? Your own members are always talking about prices going up.


John Edward Broadbent: I should like to complete my remarks, and then I should be only too pleased to deal with the withering nonsense coming from the other side of the House.
However, as all western European governments know and take into account, an economy geared to price stability is also one inevitably geared to significant levels of unemployment. This in turn leads to a reduction in the growth rate, an increase in welfare costs, and, most important of all, severe human misery for those men and women and their families who are the flesh and blood behind the unemployment statistics.
In his tough minded, Chamber of Commerce, ill-informed speeches of recent weeks, the Prime Minister has always been quick to point to what he regards as the dangerous rates of inflation in countries like Sweden, West Germany, Norway and Japan. The first three, I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, are governed by social democratic parties like the New Democratic Party. The Prime Minister neglects to mention, however, the relevant human statistics and facts in these countries. He does not tell us, for example, that all these countries have virtually full employment at the present time; that while Canada has almost 7 per cent unemployed, West Germany has 0.5

per cent and has, indeed, two million foreign workers employed within her borders.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What is the growth rate of their labour force?


John Edward Broadbent: I shall be coming to that in a moment, thank you. Sweden has an unemployment rate of 2.7 per cent and the Swedes are now talking about a recession! Norway, I point out to the Prime Minister, has an unemployment rate of 1.4 per cent. The figures for Japan are not readily available.
Let me at this point correct the highly misleading impression that the Prime Minister attempted to convey last Friday. The hon. member who raised the question is now beating a retreat, just as I wanted to deal with the issue he had raised.


John Gilbert: He has gone out to clip his coupons.


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister correctly said that the number of new jobs in the Canadian economy exceeded that of Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, France and Italy. May I point out, in parenthesis, that the period of comparison is for the last quarter of 1971. However, the Prime Minister left a completely erroneous impression by this playful and misleading use of statistics. He failed to mention that the same countries, excluding Italy because of the lack of available statistics on this point, had 1,502,000 unemployed yet had, please note, 1,163,000 job vacancies. What this means is that for each job available in those countries alluded to by the Prime Minister there were 1.3 persons in need of it. In other words, there was almost one job for every man available. The comparative ratio for Canada in the same period is that for every job there were 11 men and women in need of it! Let us forget all about the great growth in employment that the Prime Minister refers to and the creation of new jobs; the real test is how many jobs are available for those looking for work, and for the period alluded to by the Prime Minister the fact is that for each job available there were 11 men and women in Canada in need of it.
If the Prime Minister had noted this fact, he would have given an honest picture of what is happening in this country. If the Prime Minister and his government are unable to deal with unemployment, then at least let them admit their incompetence instead of hiding their failure behind deceptive statistics.
The Prime Minister also failed to point out that behind our own 1971 average rate of unemployment of over 6 per cent lies a larger and more depressing picture. It has been estimated that in 1971 over two million different Canadians were unemployed at different times in the year and that when you take into account the families of the unemployed, approximately 30 per cent of our population, or over six million Canadians, were directly affected by unemployment.
It seems that such reality does not bother the Prime Minister. Why else would he have pursued an anti-inflationary policy which he himself admitted would lead to unemployment in the past three years? A policy which could only benefit certain coupon clippers in the world of business. I have here a list of 13 companies that have
February 22, 1972

experienced lay-offs in the past 12 months, Mr. Speaker. The total of jobs lost is in the thousands. Here is the list: Sheet Harbour, Nova Scotia, 200 jobs lost; Cornwall Domtar Fine Paper Ltd, 170 jobs lost; Bathurst Consolidated, 80 jobs lost; Frazer Companies, Campbellton, New Brunswick, shutdown six times in 1971; Bowaters, Corner Brook, massive lay-offs started in 1971-to be extended, hundreds of workers affected; Inco, Sudbury, lay-off some 600 workers with about 1400 more to come; Northern Machine Works at Bathurst; In Temiscaming, the announcement of the shutdown of the pulp and paper plant, some 800 jobs lost; British Newfoundland Exploration Ltd.; Spruce Falls Power and Paper and Coulter Manufacturing.
In the midst of this disastrous situation for unemployed men and women, however, the Trudeau government has not forgotten to reward its corporate supporters. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to note who is committed to certain myths in this country and who is not. It is our view in the New Democratic Party that it is both the old parties, the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals, who are hung-up on old myths, particularly the myth of private enterprise.
In this country we have private enterprise, free enterprise, call it what you will, a system only for those who are seeking work. For example the Prime Minister recently told a black-tie Liberal dinner group in Toronto that the want ad columns in the Toronto newspapers were filled with jobs. If Canadians were not so lazy, he suggested, they would get out there and get them. He failed to note that for every job available there were 11 Canadians and that many of those jobs existed in the Arctic while a number of others required a Ph.D. degree. These facts occasionally elude the Prime Minister.
Yes, it is a free enterprise system for the workers of Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, I say this in all seriousness, in this country it is really a welfare state for our corporations. Right now the Liberal government is providing for our corporations funds at the rate of $400 million annually, most of it in the form of outright non-repayable grants. We also know, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal party, perhaps coincidentally and perhaps not, relies on the same sector for its campaign funds every four years.
The chairman of the Liberal election campaign for the election that we are all expecting, revealed a week or so ago that there are 95 corporations who are the principal backers of the Liberal party. This is the first time they have told us the number. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada have a right to know the names of the corporations. We have a right to know how many of them have received non-repayable grants, and how many have received government contracts from any department. I challenge this government, which talks so glibly about democracy and participation, to present a list of those 95 corporations so that we can check the record. I think we will have to wait a long time.
Let me comment on three programs that the government has embarked upon to extricate itself from the economic mess it has created. First, there is the Department of Regional and Economic Expansion. The Department of Regional and Economic Expansion is supposed to be helping the poorer regions of the country. However, its work in terms of the economy as a whole can be best described
Speech from the Throne
as next to useless. In fact, it has been so lacking in effective planning that it has been an instrument, on the one hand, of increasing the amount of foreign ownership in Canada and, on the other hand, has resulted in unemployment being created elsewhere in the country.
The list of corporations receiving DREE grants reads like a Who's Who of the multinational corporation world- Procter & Gamble, IBM, Parson and Whitmore, Michelin Tire, etc. And with what foolish, inconsiderate haste have they been given funds! Consider the following examples: First, ITT one of the largest U.S. corporations, received about $15 million for a new pulp mill at Port Cartier. Was this grant based on the real need of the Canadian economy for a new pulp mill? Of course not. I say this because we have just learned that Canadian International Paper is closing down in Temiscamingue with a loss of 700 jobs. This firm was doing exactly the same work as ITT.
Second, Duplate of Canada Ltd. was given almost $1 million to build a new plant at Hawkesbury so that it could close down part of its operations in Oshawa, simultaneously creating new jobs in Hawkesbury and unemployment in Oshawa. Brilliant planning! Third, the Michelin Tire Corp., a French-owned firm, is being granted millions of dollars to produce tires in Nova Scotia for a Canadian market already characterized by too many tire firms. Meanwhile, Dunlop Tire close down in Toronto, and Dunlop, B. F. Goodrich, Firestone, etc., located elsewhere in Ontario, operate at reduced capacity and some of them may be forced to cease operations completely. Fourth, last November, Aerovox Canada Ltd., moved part of its operations from Hamilton, Ontario, to Amherst, N.S. after receiving a $235,000 DREE grant. Fifth, a week following the Aerovox decision, just to show that the government is consistent in its stupidity, it was announced that Union Carbide was moving part of its operations from Welland, Ontario to Beauharnois, Quebec because DREE had given them a 1.3 million grant.
The point is, Mr. Speaker, that DREE in too many cases simply constitutes a great waste of public funds which serve to line corporate pockets, create no new jobs, but merely transfer unemployment from one part of Canada to another. This is what Liberal economic planning is all about, it seems.
In his speech on Friday, the Prime Minister referred to the government's Manpower programs with his characteristic modest pride. Once again, we must look at the reality behind his statistics. In the third quarter of 1971 Manpower had between 60,000 and 80,000 trainees on courses. However, during the same quarter about 470,000 were unemployed and there were only 44,000 jobs listed as being available. A number of questions, surely, must occur to us and surely must occur to the Prime Minister. For what specific jobs were these people being trained? Would there be any work for them when they finished their courses? Has there been any serious attempt to correlate the courses with the anticipated job vacancies in the market?
The answers to all these questions, Mr. Speaker, are all negative in their implications, as every Member of Parliament on both sides of the House knows. Manpower courses at present are simply an expensive means of keeping men and women temporarily out of the unemployment statistics. Instead of pouring millions of dollars

February 22, 1972
132______________________________________
Speech from the Throne
thoughtlessly into this kind of manpower program the government would be much wiser to invest it in new enterprises that would create real and durable jobs in the Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker, quite apart from other reasons for failure, the DREE and manpower programs simply cannot succeed in the present economic environment. Both programs were recommended to the federal government a few years ago by the Economic Council of Canada and both were seen to be viable-and this is important-only in conditions of an economy performing close to its full potential. I will return to that point in a moment. I want to say something about the winter works program.
In 1968, the Prime Minister dismissed and then cancelled the winter works program. It was, he said, wasteful of public funds and non-productive in terms of creating a significant number of jobs. That was Trudeau wisdom in 1968. However, he came back this winter with his own hastily drawn up, essentially stop-gap winter works program. Once again, men and women are only very temporarily taken off the unemployment statistics list for a few months. I ask the Prime Minister what will happen to these people when the first of June arrives?
I want to conclude my criticisms with some final, and I hope some positive, observations. We have come full circle. This government after it was elected in 1968 decided to fight inflation. It has done so ever since. After the first two years it began gradually to sense that something was going wrong and that thousands of people were being thrown out of work. The government then resorted to hasty, unplanned cash expenditures in its DREE, manpower and winter works programs, which work and can only work in an economy operating near its full potential. In other words, the very programs the government seeks to invoke and wants to apply to the Canadian economy require for their efficacy a fully employed efficient economy in the first place, but this government systematically set out to destroy such an economy with its anti-inflation policy.
It would be childish and intellectually dishonest to suggest that there is a simple solution to the problem of creating full employment in Canada. There are, however, certain approaches which, if begun now, would have positive effects before long. I might add that if they are not begun soon, Canada will continue to experience the ruinous high levels of unemployment we are now living through.
I wish to make five suggestions. First, the government must abandon its preoccupation with price stability and commit itself completely to full employment rather than being unnecessarily preoccupied with inflation. It must make clear to the people of Canada, first, that most of our inflation is inherited from the United States and of course there is very little we can do about it as every economist in this country knows. The government must say to the Canadian people that some inflation is not a bad thing. Second, it must set up an economic planning department which will assess the potential of the Canadian economy in relation to emerging world markets for certain products. Then, it must concentrate our energies in these directions. This is exactly what the Japanese did following

World War II in the electronics and automotive industries, and we all know how successful they have been. Third, the government must make clear to our trading partners that we are not merely to be regarded as a source of raw materials. To the Japanese and Americans, we must make it conditional upon receiving a certain percentage of raw materials that they must also buy a certain growing per, centage of our manufactured articles.
Fourth, a major change in corporate taxation policy is required to shift the incentives away from the export of raw materials to the development of the much more labour-intensive manufacturing sector. I would like to take a minute on that point. A Liberal government in 1955 began the ruinous policy of giving special tax concessions to the exploitation of non-renewable natural resources. They did this at a time when other countries were planning to develop their manufacturing sector. For short-run economic gains, the Liberals began the sell-out of our natural resources and simultaneously and inevitably discouraged the development of the manufacturing sector of the economy. They began in 1955 the tax policy which was continued by the Conservative government and still remains in the recent legislation of the present government. Tax write-offs and concessions in the resource sector have led, for example, to the oil and gas industry paying taxes on only 6 per cent of its profits. The mining industry, in its metal mining operations, pays taxes on only 13 per cent of its profits.
What are the consequences? The foreign manufacturing countries, in particular in the western world, like Canada's policy because it helps them in two important ways. First, it provides their investors and manufacturers with a very cheap source of raw materials. Second, the very fact of this foreign investment in our resource sector, now in the billions of dollars, drives up the value of the Canadian dollar. This, in turn, makes it very difficult for our still just emerging manufacturing industry to compete both at home and abroad with the manufacturing countries which do the investing in our resource sector in the first place. The truth is that the Liberal government's tax policy in this respect will continually undermine the efforts of even a hundred trade missions which it might send throughout the world trying to sell our manufactured goods. What is needed now is a change in tax policy, a change which removes the ruinous concessions to the resource sector and puts it in a tax position which at most must be no better than the labour-intensive manufacturing sector.
Fifth and finally, this government must begin to act to regain control of certain key sectors of the Canadian economy. As recently as today in the House of Commons the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) revealed their ad hoc, vacillating, non-policy on foreign ownership, and particularly on the question of the economic relationship between ourselves and our American neighbours. The Prime Minister could not tell us when his policy on foreign control would be forthcoming. On numerous occasions in recent days the leader of the New Democratic Party has asked without success for this policy. Similarly, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce today refused to explain our policy on the multi-million dollar auto industry.
February 22, 1972

Mr. Speaker, what is required is a clear commitment to implement measures now which would result in regaining control of certain sectors that have a clear potential for growth in the world economy. Two years ago I proposed floating our dollar and using our dollar reserves currently sitting in the United States to obtain controlling interest in our petroleum industry. Recently, the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) made a similar argument. He pointed out that our current reserve levels of $5 billion would be sufficient to obtain control of both Chrysler and Dupont. It matters not which important industries we get control of now. Surely, a number of possible labour intensive alternatives are available after a serious assessment is made. However, it does matter that we start now. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians walking our bitter, cold streets in search of work have already waited too long.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Like so many other members who have contributed to this debate, I would like to start by congratulating the mover and seconder of the motion that we are now debating. Unlike some of the other speeches we have heard today they were both, in my opinion, optimistic speeches. The speakers did not duck some of the problems that confront the country but, on the other hand they did not paint a uniformly black picture of this country as some others are inclined to do.
If I had an hour or an hour and a half, I would be strongly tempted to take a long look at some of the statements that were made by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and elaborate on them. Some of the things he spoke about made quite a lot of sense but others did not make much sense. A Liberal is not a doctrinaire person, so he is able to accept things that sound sensible and discard the nonsense. He does not have to judge a person's performance by a beatific vision he has seen.
I wonder whether the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby would ask Mr. Schreyer, loudly and clearly so that the people of Manitoba could understand, whether the premier does or does not want any DREE money to help private enterprise or any other enterprise to develop in Manitoba. If he does not want DREE money, my question to him would be whether he would rather have plain, ordinary Manitoba money because he would certainly wish to use any money he can find in Manitoba to encourage industry to develop so that the people in Manitoba can have jobs. I wonder whether he would really, seriously go to Saskatchewan and tell the farmers there that a little inflation or a great deal of inflation does not matter a hell of a lot, and whether he would go to his constituents and say to them: dear constituents, you can always sell cars; they are so damn good and so intrinsically great that you have the right to a job making cars. It does not matter how expensive they are, they will be bought all over the world. That is one of the things about price stability.
Before the hon. member finished, he said that it would be a dreadful thing to do certain things that would drive up our dollar. I cannot see why it would be more dreadful to drive up the value of our dollar than it would be to drive up the price of the goods that that dollar represents by inflation. On the one hand, you have inflation which is 25020-10
Speech from the Throne
perfectly good and hurts no one other than the men who clip coupons and, on the other hand, you have this high dollar which is a terrible thing. So there are inconsistencies in the hon. member's speech. I could go on for a long time on that subject and I intend to do so, but it is time to talk about something else today.
I would like to say that since 1867 there have been periods of provincial ascendancy in this land and other periods during which the central government has dominated the scene. But I submit that it has consistently been the federal power alone that has been able to take effective steps to remove the barriers that create isolation, to permit each Canadian to detect his own potential, to ensure that his image of Canada is one of promise and compassion.
Let us recall a few of the big decisions made by the federal power that have made a nation out of this country. Macdonald's insistence that there be a railway from sea to sea, which policy he carried through this House after a bitter and long debate lasting a full two months, was one of them. The then leader of the opposition-there were no third and fourth parties then, but if there had been they would have put in their two bits worth-said that a trans-Canada railroad could not be completed in ten years, which is what the contract called for, "with all the power of men and all the money in the Empire". Yet, at Craigel-lachi in 1885 the job was completed and the Canada we know began to become a possibility. Doubtless, the leader of the opposition and many of the leading columnists of the day considered Macdonald to be arrogant, technocratic and even dictatorial for persisting in getting this program through parliament, for defying the opposition. But the insults have been forgotten and the railway line survives.
Then, there was Laurier's settlement of the west, which added muscle and sinew to the long cross-continental backbone that this railway had produced.
There was also, parliament's decision to create a Canadian navy rather than to contribute money and men to the British fleet. Again, there was a lot of flak over that one.


An hon. Member:: Where is the merchant navy now?


Edmund Boyd Osler: There is a lot of flak still, but by and large it is to be ignored because if attention had been paid to the flak then there would have been no Canadian nation. We would have been true imperialists, donating our money to the Royal Navy and we would have remained colonialists whom everyone decries today. So, the opposition establishes the traditional routine of being against everything and says that it is arrogant to get things done. There would have been no Canadian navy and Canada would have been tied to the apron strings of its imperial mother for ever and ever. Now, there is no imperial mother and there is no empire to be tied to, so I suppose Canada would be holding the knot up in the air.
Then there have been other things, such as the establishment of the CBC, the conception of which was very fine, along with the enforcement of federal control over broadcasting. There has been a wide range of social assistance programs, too. Everybody will agree perhaps with this. They might say that perhaps there has not been

February 22, 1972
134_____________________________________
Speech from the Throne
as much as people would like, but a lot more than some other people would have given to us, bankrupting the nation in the process. The Canadian Bill of Rights was a praiseworthy attempt by the federal power to provide a standard by which the rights of all Canadians might be measured and enforced. But you will find many of the provinces were too small minded to accept it. Then, there was the Canadian flag. There is nobody today who does not take our flag for granted. They would feel like idiots if we did not have the Canadian flag, but the move to adopt it had to be started by federal initiative.
Our peacekeeping role with the United Nations has been a useful one. Our insistence at the federal level on the principle of regional equality of opportunity is another example of federal initiative. I agree that it has not been reached, but the principle is there and we stand by the principle. We are attempting more and more to carry through that principle. So, without a strong federal power, who can imagine the existence of a meaningful Canada still rising to the challenge of removing the barriers that inhibit people from coming close to their full potential?
The federal government, by encouraging the flowering of cultures other than English and French, has turned our country's back once and for all on the insidious and deadly concept of the melting pot. It has held firmly to the position that no province or region of Canada can have, or is entitled to, special powers. In the early spring of 1972 our nation has at last caught up with a number of issues that seemed to be key issues for debate in the 1960's. I suggest that now is the time to turn our sights in some other directions. The post war era is passed. All over the world it is dead and gone. Quite suddenly we find ourselves in a new worldwide ball game in which not all of the rules have been defined. The current move of the United States to reach a detente with the Republic of China and its frantic activities on the trading and monetary fronts, combined with Britain's imminent entry into the European Common Market, can leave no doubt of this. Canada, if it wishes to remain independent and as sovereign as any nation can be today, must understand and acknowledge the cardinal fact that she is on her own.
I suppose we could side with the forces of protectionism in the United States and strive to become an insignificant appendage within a sort of fortress western hemisphere. If we did so, the instrument for achieving that would be the party which is wagged by the tail of the dog of protectionism of the big unions in the United States which are the prime force behind the protectionist movement there, as I understand it. But I do not think that will come to pass, even though it would ensure that we would not have to agonize over every decision for long. The decisions would be made for us in Washington. Surely, it would both deny our own heritage as a trading nation and renege on our own raison d'etre, while guaranteeing our own decline and fall. Such a move would not only guarantee our own decline and fall, but also the decline and fall of the incipient Caribbean nations as well as the decline and fall of the South American nations.
A hundred and forty years ago Charles Darwin began to think out his theory of evolution when, as a young

naturalist, he went ashore from H.M.S. Beagle to make a trip into the interior of Brazil. During that trip he observed that, in nature, nothing was safe; to prey and to be preyed upon was the condition of existence. Each species had to adapt itself or face extinction. I submit that this lesson is urgently relevant for mankind today. Just as Canada cannot survive without the deliberate encouragement of prosperity and cultural diversity in its various regions, so the world cannot survive without deliberate and continuous attempts to achieve prosperity and wellbeing wherever men may live. The United Nations may some day evolve into a federation of co-operating world powers. I think we can safely say that we have passed the dangerous stage when it could have become the ultimate nightmare, the world-wide universal state. Indeed, tolerance and trade are the key elements required for the continued survival of both federal Canada and the world. Anybody who suggests that Canada does not need to trade should just look at the figures relating to per capita trade and the percentage of our gross national product that is generated by trade. We are vitally interested in freeing trade wherever it can be freed. We cannot solve the problems of trade in the world alone.
On the domestic scene, no single province or provincial government can solve the problem even of its own region without doing so in a federal context with the federal power providing the necessary initiative. That is why it is so important that this House, composed of men and women elected from all the regions of Canada, should persist in its efforts and not allow itself to be overshadowed at any time by any provincial legislature.
It is important for us today to answer one question: upon what industries should we concentrate? What development goals should we have, either to raise incomes or create jobs? Where will our trade markets be and what should our trade policy be? Should we move toward a common continental market or search for new, overseas markets? Where do we want growth to occur? Do we want it only within our three largest cities, which is what is now happening, or do we want growth to be spread across the entire land? At first glance, some may think that discussing such matters as industrial development means that we are ignoring our social problems. I submit that you cannot separate the two. We have a pie, and if you talk solely about special programs you are only talking about how that pie is to be divided. Today, the time has come for us to examine the machine that actually makes the pie, because we have more and more people and we need a larger pie to distribute. We sense, today, a need to co-ordinate all our policies in order to be certain that we are charting a clear and consistent course for our future.
The growth of western Canada is probably one of the most significant changes that has occurred within Canada since the Fathers of Confederation brought unity to our eastern provinces. The time has now come, and I am talking as a westerner, to go beyond talking only about western identity and western rights. We must talk about our new west, and examine how our new west is actually providing real opportunities for the new national policies demanded in our era. You see, this country was built and modelled on the fur trade. The building of the CPR followed that model, and our trade and transport system shifted from west to the east, to France, England and
February 22, 1972

Europe. In recent times we have seen our trade shift from Europe to the United States. We have seen the very conti-nentalism emerge that Sir John A. Macdonald and the early Fathers of Confederation tried to prevent.
In the late 1950's, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) tried to reverse this trend, to shift trade away from the United States and take it to the United Kingdom. His basic aim was identical to that of the Fathers of Confederation; but times had changed, and trade could not be switched back in that manner. I submit that the settlement and development of western Canada should point out to us that we are actually looking at new options; the options, for instance, of developing the Fraser River Valley at least as thoroughly as we developed the St. Lawrence River Valley. That development would give Canada access to the Pacific rim.
Current projections suggest that Japan will become our second most important trading partner during the next decade. However, Japan is not the only country in the Pacific; China, Malaysia, South America, Australia and New Zealand will present immense trade opportunities. These countries are all potentially very great customers.
This opportunity alone provides ample modern ground for resisting the idea of a North American common market, which has been suggested by one dignitary in this country. I will not say any more about that dignitary. Perhaps too much has been said about him recently in another context by members of this House. However, I think that the concept of a common North American market, as it was suggested to some people in B.C., really means a common fence. And, because we are such a small country relative to the United States, it would be the Americans who would decide who would come in or out of the gate in that fence. They would decide what would come in and go out through that fence. Without being any way anti-American, may I say that there is no way the Canadian mouse can lie down with the American elephant in a North American common market and still keep its options relatively open. We do not want to be prevented from trading with the Pacific area or any area by any power. We must be free to make arrangements with other countries, wherever they may be.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert, when he was prime minister, stressed our right to develop and maintain an independent trading policy with China, Russia and Cuba. Our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has travelled personally to Russia, Japan, Australia and Malaysia, and has established formal diplomatic relations with China, although he has not travelled there, and has done all this with a view to expanding Canada's trade options beyond North America. Canada's recent large wheat sale to China is only one indication of the fruits of this approach. I submit it is a fact that the development of western Canada is allowing us to look west across the Pacific and at the Pacific rim. In that context we ought to note the warning contained in the recent report of the Science Council of Canada. Paraphrasing Darwin, the Council said that a country which loses the power to innovate in a changing environment gives control of its future to those who retain that power. Future trade pacts should therefore not only examine our balance of payments, but also strive to develop more balanced employment opportunities for Canadians, opportunities particu-
Speech from the Throne
larly in the fields of industrial research and development, design, marketing and engineering.
One hundred years ago the west provided Canada with the opportunity for development. That was a challenge indeed. Today, the west provides Canada with renewed opportunity for development. I refer to the challenge of meeting and trading with the peoples of the Pacific rim, as I have said. If we are to meet this challenge, all of us must break out of our present mould of Orthodox thinking patterns which have been established for 100 years, just as earlier builders of Canada also broke loose from their traditional views and ways of living in that settled part of the country that first became Canada.
A consensus is emerging in Canada that we should learn to specialize in industry. The problem is to decide where to specialize. If I may get back to the Science Council of Canada, Mr. Speaker, it has been pointed out that Canada's two fundamental strengths are her increasingly skilled population and her wealth of natural resources. The Science Council recommends that any strategy to develop our manufacturing should be built on these two strengths and should specifically stress technologically advanced manufacturing in fields related to our production of resources. I think that this is a strategy which is available to Canada largely as a result of our resource rich west. We must build our strengths, and our strengths are our resources plus our skilled citizens. It is not enough to just create jobs. We must build industries which can survive in the modern world, which can compete in export markets and which can provide the type of productivity and high wages that modern Canadians demand. Our high wage-high productivity industries are largely related to our resources.
It is sometimes hinted that western Canadians are short sighted, that we want only to export our raw resources without developing any manufacturing; that we worship foreign ownership and foreign capital. I submit this view is wrong. Western Canadians are concerned vitally with resource conservation because resources are the basis of our existence. We are equally mindful of the problems of pollution. We are constantly in search of ways to develop manufacturing for our people. However, we are aware that outside ownership and capital, whether from the United States or eastern Canada, does little to help develop our manufacturing when outsiders seek only to export our raw resources. The argument of foreign ownership is completely and utterly beyond any interest to us. We want the terms of ownership defined and to ascertain how much we can get out of that ownership. It really does not matter whether it is American, German, Canadian or anything else. There has to be a means by which we have an opportunity to share in the decision making process.
The Economic Council also said that free trade rather than tariffs is in the interest of all Canadians. Western Canadians, who always had to live with free trade markets, would not have been able to do so if we went ahead and glad-handedly built up inflation the way some people say we should. We would not be able to live at all. We want free trade markets. We say amen to this recommendation of the Economic Council.
25020-10;

February 22, 1972
Speech from the Throne
The constitution of Canada gives ownership and control of resources to the provinces. In the last resort, this simple legal fact gives immense power to western Canadian provinces in this time of rising demand for resources. I am confident that the people of western Canada are willing to join with other Canadians in a united, federally-led industrial policy on foreign ownership, resource and manufacturing development as long as this policy meets the legitimate needs of the modern west. Without such guarantees, why should we westerners permit the insensitivity of United States capital to the nature of Canada to be replaced by equally, if not more, insensitive eastern Canadian capital?
Modern Canadian industrial policy must, in short, provide a means of investing Canadian money and technology in western Canada to help us develop employment opportunities for people who live on the Prairies and want to stay on the Prairies, people who live in British Columbia and want to stay there, as well as people who live in the north. Canada must develop transport facilities and assist with freight rates so that western industries can develop our north and sell into foreign markets.
This policy, of course, must not stop at mineral and energy resources. The western farm economy also offers manufacturing opportunities for machinery, meat processing, feed products and fertilizer. We must adjust to the reality of the great distances in this country. Skilled federal civil servants should not all be confined to Ottawa. They should be spread around a bit so that the goods and services can help the prosperity of people all across Canada, the people who are paying for them. National Crown corporations should be headquartered outside of Ottawa. We should start with that. We have had a good indication of the attitude of this government. I say that the pressure should be maintained, not to rob Ottawa of any of its glory, but to see that it does not get any more glory than that to which it is entitled. The rest of us should get a little piece of the action to which we are entitled because we pay for it.
Today the opportunities for a new industrial strategy offer a chance to refute the old point of view that the rest of Canada is a futile backwater for Toronto and Montreal. Needless to say, in this field as in others, the relevance of the Canadian experiment is clear far beyond our borders. In our era, it is indeed timely to demonstrate that different regions as well as different cultures can live united and free, without stifling uniformity and centralized industrial control from head offices located only in the world's largest metropolitan centres.
A national policy for rural Canada appears to be developing that clearly acknowledges the rights of rural citizens to certain guarantees during this period of change that is sweeping the world; the right to participate in determining their future; the right to security in an era of change; the right in the case of older families to continue living with dignity and honour in their traditional communities if they so desire.
The present government, led by the Prime Minister has begun to move in almost all the areas I have examined today. Starting with his first-hand experience of the legitimate aspirations of Quebec, the Prime Minister has learned very quickly that parallels to these same aspirations are to be found in other regions of Canada. I believe

he has seen, too, that industrial and service employment must be provided outside our large metropolitan centres if our quality of life is to be improved.
We must all grasp the implications of the new ballgame the world is playing now. The United Kingdom is engrossed with Europe. The United States is trying desperately to adjust to the facts of life that have crowded in on her during the past few years. Canada is on her own in a sense that she has never experienced before. These are challenging and exciting times. If we hold on to our nerve and use wisely all the assets we possess, surely we can enter successfully the contest offered to us by His Excellency in his Speech from the Throne. Let us move forward. He said our challenge is to remove the barriers that create isolation in Canada and the world, to help each Canadian to fulfil his own potential and to ensure that the image of Canada becomes more and more one of compassion and promise.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the Speech from the Throne would indicate that the government at last is prepared to come to grips with the Canadian economy. Unfortunately, that was not the case. It merely included some pious platitudes given to His Excellency to advise us that we have had to deal with some unusually difficult economic problems in the past year. That we already knew, Mr. Speaker. What the Speech from the Throne did not say was that most of the economic problems were directly or indirectly a result of government policy. Also, we were not told that by any objective standard we failed miserably in coping with the situation. If the government's performance were graded with the same objectivity that is expected in the academic world, its grade would be F minus.
Unemployment is now at 7.7 per cent. As hon. members know, in some parts of the country it is much worse than that. In the province of Quebec and in some parts of the Atlantic provinces, the rate is exceptionally and unusually high. It is too high for the economic and human wellbeing of those parts of our great country. It is too high to build the kind of bridge of unity that we want to see in Canada.
At the same time, the rate of inflation is back on a year to year basis at 4.9 per cent. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the inflation level is now higher than when this whole inhumane exercise was begun in 1969. It is not unfair to blame the present mess on the government and its policies. I say policies rather than policy because it is a series of legislative and other policy changes which has brought us to the present sad and chaotic situation.
One of the first and at the same time disastrous errors in judgment was the tight money policy of 1969-70. What did it accomplish? It put a few hundred thousand people out of work unnecessarily. These people have been denied the right which should be theirs in an industrialized and supposedly civilized society to contribute to that society in a meaningful way. They are deprived of one of the most important human needs, the necessity to be useful, to be part of the show. This is an intolerable situation for everyone who is denied the right to participate, but particularly for the young people. They are highly educated, very idealistic and determined to build a better, more just society. They are denied the chance to become involved.
February 22, 1972

Many of them drop out, no longer convinced of the value of education.
To increase unemployment to its present totally unacceptable level at a time when it was known that the number of young people who would be looking for work would reach record proportions was either gross stupidity or subversion. While the human consequences of a tight money policy are of the highest importance there are economic consequences which are of real significance as well. Canada is losing production at a rate of $3 billion or $4 billion a year. If we multiply that figure by three or four, the sum is staggering. In the life of a normal parliament our loss would be somewhere between $12 billion and $16 billion in real terms. This represents almost $2,000 for every working Canadian.
Another consequence of the tight money policy has been additional take-overs of Canadian companies by Americans. The small independent Canadian operator is no credit match for his wealthy American cousin. When the squeeze comes it is the small independent Canadian businessman who is forced to sell, often on terms which are less than just.
But the tight money policy is not the only contributor to the present uncertainty. We are witnessing the effects of a federal-government-supported welfare policy which in its application provides a higher cash income than minimum wages in many parts of Canada. In addition, our unemployment insurance policy contains within it some grotesque anomalies. It was designed to help unemployed persons who could not get work, not to subsidize a few months off for people who have worked for a while and then wish to take a few months off. When welfare and unemployment insurance pay more than jobs there is no incentive to work. This, unfortunately, is the situation in Canada today. Many of the jobs which are available are offered at wages which are well below the cash income available from either unemployment insurance or welfare. Consequently, many jobs go unfilled. This is ludicrous, of course.
The uncertainty with respect to tax legislation also took its toll. Many businesses were sold to foreigners. Canadian entrepreneurs are losing heart. They are discouraged, and consequently no longer willing to take the risks associated with expansion. They are distrustful of changes in labour laws, in the Unemployment Insurance Act, in the proposed competition legislation and in the tendency they see toward the concentration of arbitrary decision-making in Ottawa. Consequently, investment which would otherwise have involved hundreds of millions of dollars will not take place and thousands of job opportunities will be lost.
In summation, the Canadian economy is in big trouble. We are cursed with high unemployment and high inflation at the same time. A marginal improvement in one has greatly exacerbated the other. In fact, by objective standards the Canadian economy is the worst managed of any major nation in the western world. Our increase in productivity per person is the lowest. Our unemployment is the highest and even the price performance, which was quite good in the long term, is now pretty well out of control.
Speech from the Throne
To those who think the system is at fault, let me say it is not; it is the management of the system. What is required is a commonsense approach. The situation today is far from satisfactory. At a time when there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians drawing unemployment insurance and tens of thousands living on welfare, when it snows one cannot get the snow shovelled, when one needs to travel one cannot be sure that planes will be operating, when one sends a letter one cannot be sure it will be delivered within a reasonable length of time, when one goes shopping one often has to wait interminably in line for a check-out. If a person moves to a small town or a new subdivision he may have to go without mail altogether. If a man writes a letter to the government it may not be answered, and in the summertime, if he lasts that long and if he wants to go swimming, he may find the water polluted. All this frustration, inconvenience and lack of service at a time when hundreds of thousands of people are living on unemployment insurance and welfare! Something is desperately wrong.
It is time we took off the band-aids and began treating the disease. To do this a whole series of fundamental changes in direction is required. In the limited time available this afternoon I shall mention just a few. First, we have to get minimum wages increased until they are higher than unemployment insurance or welfare. I realize there are some technical problems involved in doing this but in the end there is no alternative. It must be done. We must provide an incentive to work for the average Canadian. He must not be placed in a position where his cash income after taxes is greater when he does not work than it is when he is following useful employment. Second, we must change the Unemployment Insurance Act so as to eliminate many of the existing practices. Some years ago a commission called the Gill Commission drew attention to a number of abuses. Its recommendations were largely ignored. Unfortunately, the new act passed by parliament last session is worse than the old one. Unemployment insurance was brought in to provide insurance for people who could not get work and who lacked sufficient income to live on. It was not intended to supplement the incomes of people who had enjoyed an income above the average during months of seasonal employment.
I understand that one of the officers of the fishermen's union in British Columbia is upset because of an example I gave recently. The example was that of a young fisherman who owns a boat and who fished last year for 70 days. His gross take was valued at $54,000, of which he gave 15 per cent to his mate in accordance with a contract. The cost of his expendable stores, gasoline, food, and other items including depreciation on his boat was $5,000. The rest of the money was put in the bank. During the winter he took a course under the Department of Manpower and drew unemployment insurance for the balance of the winter when he and his wife were not vacationing in the south. This may not be a typical case, but it is true. It is not illegal, but a law which permits a practice of this kind is a stupid law and one which should be changed.
Then again, there must be rates of taxation which encourage people to work. This is just as true in the case of an old age pensioner living on an income supplement as it is in the case of professionals and managerial people.
Speech from the Throne

February 22, 1972
There has to be an incentive to work, to perform. We must provide incentives for business to expand. Businessmen must be able to plan ahead in the certainty that the rules will not be changed too abruptly or unnecessarily. Finally, and most important, monopoly power must be effectively controlled. I suggest this because there is no way in which full employment can be financed otherwise without inflation. I pause at this point to define full employment. In the context in which I am using it, the expression means about 97 per cent employment; in other words, about 3 per cent unemployment, as experienced in the period of the early post-war years. The government's present approach is unworkable. Big, powerful unions must limit their demands and big, powerful companies must pass the consequent savings on to the consuming public.
I was interested to hear the speech of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). Although he applauded some of my earlier statements, I am afraid that the economics he described for us this afternoon came from the London School of Economics at a time when it was less than up to date in its outlook. It is the kind of economics that is really not relevant in the world in which we live. I think it is possible to finance full employment without inflation today, but first of all we have to look at the real world in which we live, not at the world of a few decades ago.
In doing research for my book "Agenda: A Plan for Action", I found in only three of the 15 countries surveyed an unemployment figure that was higher than 3 per cent on average. Those three countries were Canada, the United States and Italy. The average rate for the 15 was about 2 per cent, and of course many of them had a much better performance than that. Canada had the worst rate of the 15. So I think it is fair to say that we do know how to finance full employment.
When I say we know how to finance full employment, I am speaking of orthodox economics. The average orthodox economist knows how to work demand management in such a way that the full utilization of resources can be maintained. This has been proven in many parts of the world. It has been proven in Japan, Switzerland, Germany the Nordic countries, in Australia, in New Zealand and many other countries. What we do not know how to do is to finance full employment without at the same time breeding inflation. However, contrary to the widely held view that this is impossible, I believe it can be done.
First of all, we have to recognize the nature of our economy. We have to recognize that it is a split economy. It is not a total market economy: it is an economy in which part is market and part is rigid. We have to recognize that some wages are set by individual arrangement and some wages are set by union contract. We have to recognize that some businesses operate on the basis of price competition and that some of the giant industries are big enough to control market prices and conditions.
In our economy the big, powerful unions use their monopolistic power to push up costs. Then, the big powerful industries push prices up to compensate. Some people insist that it works the other way round, but it does not matter really for the sake of our argument here: it is a vicious spiral that has to be stopped. As costs and pricses

rise in the monopolistic, or, if you prefer, the oligopolistic sectors, the Bank of Canada is faced with a dilemma, and that dilemma is this. It can either finance full employment with high inflation, or it can finance less than full employment with slightly less inflation. The compromise is the famous and classic trade-off of the economist.
This is not the time nor the place to comment on the usefulness of Senate studies, but I was very disappointed in the recent report issued by the Senate committee on economics in which it perpetuated what I believe to be a myth. In referring so strongly to the Phillips curve and the trade-off theory, I think it has helped to give credence to the idea that there is no better way of doing things, that in fact for all time we are plagued with this anomaly of either having too much inflation or too much unemployment, or some combination of the two. Of course, socially as well as economically neither alternative is satisfactory. If we were to have 6 per cent unemployment for an extended period of time, it would be socially disastrous. It would create a situation in this country where a whole generation would lose hope, would give up, and almost anything might happen.
If, on the other hand, we were to permit inflation at the annual rate of, say, 6 per cent-which on the basis of the present wage settlements in Canada is likely to be the case-then at the end of the century, after about 30 years, a person who today is earning $10,000 would need $57,000 just to stay even. Today's $20 bag of groceries would cost nearly $115. A home now selling for $25,600 would jump to more than $147,000. So I think the consequences of such a rate are really tremendously important, and therefore we have to project any thinking into the future now in order to adopt policies that will prevent this from happening. As I said earlier, I do not think it needs to happen, but we must act now.
If where union power exists increases in wages, including fringe benefits, are limited to the average increase in productivity for the whole society, and if the profits of the big oligopolies are limited to the long term experience in that industry to ensure that the benefits of lower wage costs are passed on to the consumer, then it is possible to pursue the twin goals of full employment and zero inflation at the same time. Unless monopoly power is limited by the public interest, there is no way this can be done. But if it is done, then what happens, of course, is that prices in the big industries will decline slowly but consistently. The price of cars, farm machinery, refrigerators, washing machines, vacuum sweepers, glass and cement will all decline over the long period at a steady rate, whereas prices in the service industries, such as cost of hair cuts, medical and dental services, police and fire protection will continue to rise. But when you take an average of all these things, the prices that are declining through use of technology and capital and the prices that are rising in the service industries will average out at zero. This means that to all intents and purposes you will have zero change in the composite price index.
If we are to follow policies along these lines it means we will open up a whole new horizon for this country. It will present a situation where we can have the full utilization of resources with maximum freedom of choice. We can then have a decentralized system where power is decentralized from this level of government to lower levels of
February 22, 1972

government, and then from lower levels of government to the people themselves. The ordinary people will be given more control over their own lives and will be given a greater say in their own destinies. And that, Mr. Speaker, I think is what mogt of them are looking for today.
It is a recognized fact that as government gets bigger it becomes not only more inefficient but also more remote, more impersonal and more insensitive. This trend must be reversed. It is not good enough just to change direction in two or three areas; the trend has to be reversed completely. We must go in the opposite direction to the direction we have been taking for the last 10 to 15 years.
If we do reverse this trend and use just a few simple macrocontrols to maintain an economic climate of expansion and opportunity, we will be in a position to do many of the other things we want to do and to solve many of the problems that concern us most. On the negative side, we will be able to abolish the bureaucracy that is now involved in the welfare system for employables. Since that will not be required it will be eliminated. Of course, some income will be required for the unemployables, but as far as the employables are concerned it will not be necessary to perpetuate the present welfare system because jobs will be available for them. Similarly, the Unemployment Insurance Act can be revised in such a way as to eliminate the present anomalies which I think are unacceptable to so many Canadians.
Then, on the positive side we would have the resources to do those things we want to do. With the extra $3 billion to $4 billion a year available to us in real terms we would be able to get on with the job. We would have the necessary resources really to attack poverty, to do something in a determined way about poverty. It is a matter of regret that we have more relative poverty in Canada today than we had a few years ago when the anti-poverty campaign was begun.
In addition we could do something tangible about the slums that exist today. Over a period of a few years we could eliminate every slum in Canada and make this a realizable goal in this country. There is no reason why we should have people living in shacks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was one of the most profound experiences of my life when travelling with the task force on urban development to see Canadians living in buildings which most of my farmer friends would think unfit for animals. This is the kind of degradation which should not be allowed in a country like ours where we have the resources to provide decent housing. If we were to go to the zero inflation solution, then interest rates for the National Housing Act would drop by about one-third and it would once again be possible for ordinary people in Canada to aspire to ownership of their own home. It would not be a dream beyond them. Once again we could give the ordinary people a range of choice. We would also have the resources to attack pollution control in a determined way, to organize it and get on with the job of cleaning up our lakes and rivers and our environment, protecting it and saving it. It is the only one we have and we should treat it with great care.
Speech from the Throne
Finally, we should move in the direction of a strikeless society. We should substitute the rule of law for the rule of the jungle. We should end the organized blackmail and put people first. I think this is what most Canadians want to do. I think this is the way to significant, positive Canadianism. I do not think we will ever achieve greatness in this country by anti-Americanism or anti anything else. I think we can be proud to be Canadian by doing great things here and by pursuing excellence in areas within our capability. There is no better place to start than within the economy by bringing it from the position of the worst managed economy in the world to the best. Then, people would come from other countries to see how we do it.
Having laid the foundation, having put down the cornerstone, we would be in a position to get on with the job of building a better society. We could enlist the resources of our young people and give them an opportunity to use their idealism and creativity to build the kind of society where human values are put first. To do that, the foundation must be well and truly laid. That is the reason I make the suggestion that we should change completely the totally inadequate policies of the last few years, reverse them and get on with building a more dynamic society in Canada, the kind of which all of us, especially our young people, can be proud.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 40 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Bridges-Vancouver Harbour-Government financial contribution to construction of proposed third structure; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. McKay)-Fisheries-Possible variation in lobster season, District No. 5, Nova Scotia; the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)-Canadian Pacific Railway-Removal of station agents, Saskatchewan and Alberta-Consideration of nature of undertakings by company in review.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ross Whicher for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 34), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Caouette.
Mr. H. E. Stafford (Elgin):: People who say they stand for an independent Canada are repeating a threadbare platitude mouthed by politicians from the first day of confederation. The quickening tempo of the debate on economic

February 22, 1972
Speech from the Throne
nationalism in the last two years is a matter of great concern to me. Many of the economic nationalists present the same myopic outlook as did Great Britain in the 1770's when she was willing to trade all British North America for the Island of Guadaloupe. This is hardly the time to support economic nationalism in the face of the grim realities of an interdependent world.


Some hon. Members:: Slower.


An hon. Member:: Translation.


Harold Edwin Stafford: Everything has its price, and we must measure the price. We could not have obtained the second highest standard of living in the world without American investment, technological know-how and markets. We have obtained these with a full measure of independence. Travel all over the world and compare the benefits we enjoy as Canadians; you will not see them matched outside the United States. Irving Beecher found it difficult to escape the conclusion that economic investment was enormously on Canada's side and A. E. Safarin found the net result overwhelmingly in Canada's favour. John Kenneth Galbraith concluded that a corporation will make the same kind of decisions and create the same kind of political climate whether the corporation is American or Canadian controlled. It is obvious that the multinational corporation is in no better position to dictate political policy in this country than large Canadian companies.


Some hon. Members:: Slow down.


Harold Edwin Stafford: Canadians will invariably purchase the most modern appliance at the most reasonable price. Foreign buyers are equally demanding. To compete in world markets we must manufacture products that are in demand and to do this we need the benefit of American research and development. Much of the world's technology is generated solely from American ingenuity. The answer is simple; for every dollar we spend on research and development the Americans spend approximately forty. At this time in our history, no amount of Canadian initiative, no intensive concentration on our own research and development will match that which the American is making available to us. Surely the wildest Canadian dreamer could not imagine we can do it on our own, at least for many years to come.
The economic nationalists never tell us what Canadians would have done in the absence of United States investment. Their conclusions on the economic effect of foreign investment are based on generalization, conjecture and assumption and do not come to grips with the complex situation in this country. They rest their case on purely hypothetical arguments. They blindly conclude that our country is being governed in the boardrooms of the head offices of the giant American multinational corporations and not by our three levels of government.


An hon. Member:: Faster.


Harold Edwin Stafford: Many members opposite are obsessed with the question of our survival as a nation. In question period and debate they cry out that American control of our industry has now reached the stage of economic domination, that we are tied up in the American straitjacket and, above all, we must seek new trading partners, that

the American multinational corporations are buying with our own money and are not doing their share of research and development in our country, that we have lost our political, economic and cultural independence or at the very least, it is in a serious and precarious state, that we have already lost the power to make decisions, that the Americans have even stolen our national game.
It seems to be the "in" thing to criticize American investment today. The media has given so much attention to the advocates of restrictions on foreign investment that many politicians and groups from the Watkins task force to the Senate have concluded that there is a sudden wave of concern about American domination in this country. The average Canadian does not feel he has lost his independence. Millions of Canadians are only too willing to turn on American television stations. In 1968, the report of the Watkins task force calculated that foreigners owned $33 billion worth of Canadian assets in 1964. The report recommended the creation of a special agency to co-ordinate policies with respect to multi-national corporations.
Since then the Watkins manifesto has asserted that the major threat to Canadian survival today is American control of the Canadian economy. It is amazing that Mr. Watkins has not informed us how he would finance his massive program of nationalization.
In 1970 the report of the Commons Committee on External Affairs and National Defence calculated that foreigners owned $50 billion worth of Canadian assets. The committee apparently sensed a rising tide of nationalism and produced a report on foreign ownership recommending that all foreign owned subsidiaries operating in Canada should be required to make at least 51 per cent of their shares available to Canadians. The committee also recommended the establishment of a Canadian ownership and control bureau to supervise foreign investment in Canadian industry with powers so massive, far-fetched and bureaucratic that it startles the imagination.
But of all of them, the Committee for an Independent Canada has to be the most farcical conglomerate of publicity seekers in Canada. These enthusiastic evangelists are trying to win independence by stirring up a national fervor that Canadians today share a surging mood of awareness and a deep sense of national purpose. The committee's seven point statement was designed to catch the imagination of Canadians but unfortunately for the dreamers there is such a thing as reality.
It is one thing to set down broad policies, it is another to generalize as did Professor Rotstein at the conference at Thunder Bay last December, that it is a myth that economic independence will lower the standard of living. The learned professor should unveil his formula so that the underdeveloped nations of the world could attain our standard of living. If natural resources will do it, many of the underdeveloped countries are the richest in natural resources and have the lowest standard of living in the world. Jack McClelland set the tone at Thunder Bay in his oft-quoted generalization that time is short and if we do not achieve a real measure of economic independence our nation is going to die and Canadians, in an intellectural sense, will die with it. Perhaps such a morbid and gloomy forecast of Canada's future could only be matched by the Pied Piper's second trip. If I might be allowed to remind

Mr. McClelland, for a nation that is falling so fast, we still enjoy the second highest standard of living in the world.
It takes little intellectual sense to realize that Canadians prefer jobs to nationalization. I am convinced that those who would restrict foreign investment and the jobs it brings do not represent the feeling of Canadians across the country. The committee would turn the clock back and withdraw from international enterprise. Arguments like theirs may win the emotional battle of the moment, but they will not win the war of logic.
Last year the Ontario government set up a Conference on Economic and Cultural Nationalism. The select committee of the Ontario Legislature was named to inquire into this matter. Most of the witnesses who have appeared have been about as objective as Peter Newman's grandstand approach before the committee of calling on Canadians to assert their independence even if they have to infuriate Americans. This is certainly a novel approach to the technique of selling.
It is interesting to note that all five major candidates in the Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership campaign asserted the question of economic autonomy as being one of the key problems in Canada. At the start of the leadership campaign hon. William Davis said that Canadian control of the economy was high on his list of priorities and called for a conference on foreign investment. In the Speech from the Throne on March 30, 1971, the Ontario government expressed the following belief:
The people of Ontario should have at hand the means whereby our own economic, cultural and social objectives and priorities are determined in Canada by Canadians.
In January, 1972, Premier Davis said at Windsor that he would establish a solid position in favour of greater control of the Canadian economy by Canadians and that we must have made ourselves highly vulnerable to American economic policies. On January 25, 1972, the premier said in New York that Ontario is firmly committed to the principle of Canadians gaining control of their economy and that foreign ownership has sparked a national sense of urgency in Canada.
On the same day, in Vancouver, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) called on the federal government to set guidelines on foreign policy, particularly in its relations with the United States, to ensure our survival beside a giant. Last December the Science Council stressed that the government should have an over-all industrial strategy. The Senate report on science policy, issued in January, urged that by 1980, 2.5 per cent of the gross national product be spent on research and development. Such added expenditures will raise the cost of the product, jeopardize Canadian enterprise and add little to the total North American technological development. This total expenditure will amount to less than 5 per cent of the American expenditure on research and development. At the most, we will be following the beaten paths and discovering things that already have been discovered.
It makes little sense to plow fields that have already been tilled. The rate of change is so great that even the total resources of the Canadian government could not meet the American contribution and keep abreast of the times. It is time we realized that the American multi-
Speech from the Throne
national corporation has succeeded in making technology international in conception and international in distribution. Von Braun was the father of the V rockets and the landing on the moon, and Einstein was the father of atomic energy, but this does not make these achievements less useful to the Americans.
Before we build a wall around ourselves we must first catch up with the Americans and then spend over $30 billion per year on research and development, just to keep pace. We will also have to do something to attract the best brains in the world, as our friends to the south did. We accuse American subsidiaries of failing to carry out their fair share of research and development. Of the total business research and development spending filed under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act in 1967, 44 per cent was performed by American companies and 35 per cent by Canadian-owned companies.
The economic nationalists have developed a statistical hysteria in pointing to American ownership in industries such as petroleum, motor vehicles and aircraft which necessitate huge amounts of investment capital, but they seldom refer to the fact that under the 1967 returns the Americans owned 19 per cent of Canadian corporate assets. Canadians did not choose to spend risk capital in the development of the oil industry in this country. Before Leduc was discovered on February 13, 1947, an American subsidiary, Imperial Oil, drilled 133 dry holes at a cost of $23 million. Since Leduc, the Alberta treasury has collected $3 billion in oil and gas revenue and oil, gas and related industries have expanded to the benefit of Canadians.
We have not been without our chaotic experiences in research, development and innovation. The heavy water plant in Nova Scotia is an example of a monumental economic and engineering blunder resulting in heavy financial loss. The Avro Arrow program was a complete disaster. By the time it was scrapped in 1958 it had cost the government $400 million and would have cost as much or even more to put it into production. There were no buyers except for the RCAF who agreed to buy 100. Not a single NATO country was interested in Canada's pride and joy. The CF-105 was scrapped and 14,000 workers were laid off.
The problem, of course, is money. Research and development cost money and there are risks to be taken which few Canadian companies can afford. When the Edsel failed as a commercial venture, the Ford Motor Company carried on. When RCA Victor spent $140 million on an experiment that failed it, too, carried on. Canadian companies are not yet in a position to meet such challenges. The gloomy hypothesis of many economic nationalists is that so much of our independence has been bartered away that it is almost too late to save Canada.
Time does not permit me to review the rantings of all those who feel they are on a bandwagon. These nationalists are moving to a new style of patriotism, a new mood of economic and cultural nationalism. They are trying to make their concept the new fashion in a bid to influence public opinion. In their minds foreign investment has become almost synonymous with American investment. This is difficult to understand in view of the fact that we emulate the Americans in so many ways. The public has accepted their styles in everything from music to motor cars. We have followed their lead in everything from a

February 22, 1972
Speech from the Throne
ban on phosphates to a proposed ban on advertising of tobacco.
When Canadian nationalism has reached the point where a member of the staff of Queen's University can seriously conclude that Mrs. Levitt's book "Silent Surrender" presents the most scholarly and convincing analysis of American ownership and control of our economy, emotion has indeed succumbed to logic. I am not against dissent. In most cases dissent is healthy. In any society there are wrongs to be righted, and out of the whole mass of dissent there emerges a stream of new ideas. But there is a great tendency for nationalist feelings to obscure the issue. The emotion it arouses causes the economic nationalist to close his mind to the real needs of a changing world.
The answer is simple: we need American technology. The United States has such a head start in technology that they are forging ahead in astronomical proportions while other countries are vainly trying to catch up. They will not mark time in technological development in order to give us the time to match their technology, and if we do not match their technology there will be little demand for our manufactured goods. This would present a critical situation, as Canada must export to survive and the Canadian consumer would hardly be content with inferior products.
At the beginning of the century, when United States' technology was in its infancy, we might have gone our separate ways. It is hardly feasible now. To do so would be like trying to run a mill with water that has already passed downstream. Technology has not been spread evenly over the ages of history. When the industrial revolution started in England, the steam engine made the first powered means of production possible. This resulted in new factories producing goods at a fraction of the cost of the old, traditional methods. A group of people called Luddites considered the machines a threat to their livelihood and their answer was to smash them. This was a wholly negative approach and one that brought disaster on the Luddites.
But it did not stop the march of progress and there has been a low, steady and progressive climb to the affluence of today. The United States has carried on and has created a technology which is staggering to the human imagination. In the next ten years scientific knowledge is expected to double, and if it is to double in Canada the majority of it will have to be imported from the United States. At the present annual growth rate of 4 per cent per annum, the standard of living in the United States will reach staggering proportions by the second half of the twenty-first century. Canada, more than any other nation, will share in this enormous economic and technological advance.
This affluence will gradually spread to the underdeveloped nations of the world, provided left-wing activists and economic nationalists do not influence nearsighted governments to build walls around their countries. There will be no shortage of resources because increasing technology will develop the capacity to produce substitutes and even basic materials. We are being drugged by the economic nationalists. These self-styled economic saviours of Canada would have us believe we should save our resources.

Our natural resources are of no use to the people of Canada, or anyone else, as long as they are sitting idly in the confines of mother nature. They must be extracted and incorporated into goods. In essence, our real wealth is our ability to produce. Our competitive position depends on our technological and scientific achievements, which in turn depends on brains and money. Napoleon once said that God is on the side of the big battalions. In the war of world markets, the advantage is going to be with the country with first-class brains and investment capital.
Obviously, the United States occupies the paramount position and we are fortunate to share a common border with that country. We can be associated with it and maintain our dignity and independence. There are no two countries in the world who share so much in common on the basis of culture, economics, politics and ethnic origins. To those who keep raising the bogey of American ownership, we have our fiscal and budgetary policies that can deal with any inequities or adverse effects of American investment. The economic nationalists speak of American investment in terms of dollars, instead of the importation of American research and development which is really the major part of the American investment and the source of employment for hundreds of thousands of Canadians.
We are living in a world of ever-increasing competition and this competition is coming from countries which have the benefit of American capital and scientific knowledge. The most costly thing in the world is scientific research and development, and the fact is that there is no other place where we can get it. The economic nationalists never tell us of the cost of buying and licensing of American patents which are now coming into this country through U.S. subsidiaries.
Some hon. members opposite say that we have the money and technology. To some extent it is true, but it is mainly because of the American presence. If we develop policies whereby Canada and the United States diverge in two separate courses, the technology gap will become greater every year. Anyone who suggests that there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are willing to see this happen and give up their standard of living to buy Canada back is living in a dream world.
It has been said that politically and economically the motive of self-interest is the mainspring of human conduct. This is the motivating factor behind our technological development. The stout hearts and sharp swords of today are those who make the sacrifice to forge ahead in a continuous surge to open the door to new knowledge. Neither management nor labour is prepared to accept a decline in its standard of living for purely sentimental reasons. Where are these thousands of Canadians? I can tell you: they are sitting down earning fat, academic salaries out of the public purse, arrogating to themselves a unique understanding of the Canadian heart.
The average Canadian does not live in fear of the culture of or domination by the United States. The economic nationalists are misreading the temper of the Canadian people. It is absurd to say that this House is under American domination. I saw no American domination in our decision to pass the Arctic Seas Pollution Prevention Act. There were was no American interference in our decision
February 22, 1972

to cut our NATO forces in half; no American domination in our decision to devalue and later unpeg the Canadian dollar. I did see a very tangible assistance in 1967 to sustain the Canadian dollar.
I saw no domination but I did see American consideration for our economy in July, 1963, when we were the only country in the world to be granted an exemption from President Kennedy's interest equalization tax. I saw no domination when the United States enacted a defencesharing agreement with us in 1959 which helped us in our balance of payments. I saw no domination when the United States approved the auto pact agreement with us in 1965 although it affected the American blance of payments. The reverse has usually been the rule. In cases where the United States has imposed any restriction which threatened to hurt our economy, we have pleaded our special relationship as a reason for exemption.
For over 18 months we have been awaiting a study known as the Gray report. Press information indicates that the report will recommend that the government set up a screening agency to pass on foreign investment proposals with power to block foreign investments, takeovers and licensing agreements. There are obvious popular advantages to the formation of such a screening agency, but there are many practical disadvantages. The decisions of such an agency or board will consume time which is usually of vital importance in making effective corporate decisions. The natural bureaucratic meddling will create uncertainty and confusion. The number of purchasers will be reduced and the sale price of the industries involved will suffer. It will present a built-in sounding board for the economic nationalists and other pressure groups to keep competition out of Canada. But most dangerous of all, such a board could be used as a tool to promote regional expansion. All of this is in marked contrast to the conclusion of the Royal Commission on Banking and Finance, the report of which was published in 1964 and said that we must be alert to development which would lessen competition and threaten its vigour.
All that economic nationalism does is feed the people's spirit, not their stomachs. The wealth of a country is really in its productivity. If American capital coming here is diverted elsewhere, it simply means it is being put to work to produce goods in competition with our own.
We are misplacing our priorities. If we would spend more time providing incentives for industry which will attract both foreign and Canadian investment than we do on planning new laws for the creation of such a regulatory bureaucracy as a screening agency, we would be pursuing a more favourable economic policy.
It seems to be a fact of life that the most rampant economic nationalism comes when we can least afford it. The Economic Council has forecast that 300,000 jobs will have to be created for each of the next five years if we are to reduce our unemployment to 4 per cent. This will require new investment equal to our gross national product of 1968 of over $70 billion. This amount far exceeds the total assets of our whole Canadian banking system.
There are many improvements we can make. We can study the American presence in Canada and copy their managerial, financial and entrepreneurial skills, or we can heed the economic nationalists and witness the ero-
Speech from the Throne
sion of our entrepreneurial drive and the decline of our self-confidence. We must study the best methods to ensure our access to American and other markets on the best possible terms. We must continue to ensure that we have a climate for investment capital.
One year ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in a television interview in Regina that foreign ownership is a means of giving this country access to sophisticated technology that would not otherwise be available. For years we had a deficit in our balance of trade with the United States. Now our industrial capacity has increased to the point that in 1970 we had a surplus in our balance of trade with the United States of over $2 billion. In that year, it is equally important that over 65 per cent of our exports to the United States were manufactured goods.
In the last 25 years our working force has doubled. In the last 40 years our gross national product has increased 20 times. Our productivity and our living standards have been raised substantially by the development of technology and trade with the United States. The economic implications have been great: they are larger markets, greater output and higher wages for Canadians.
In face of all this, it is with a sense of frustration that we hear the economic nationalists cry out the passionate plea that we must protect our national identity. One of the great symbols of our national identity is, surely, our growing and increasing standard of living in this country. We may have our grievances with the United States, and I suppose we always will, but I have never known of a President of the United States who wanted a poor and destitute neighbour to the north. It is to their advantage to have us rich and prosperous. They could not trade with a poor neighbour. We share in common the two highest wage areas in the world, and trade will flow more naturally between us than with other nations of the world.
For years we have welcomed American subsidiaries to Canada. Many came here to avoid tariff barriers and some were given incentives to locate in Canada. They brought investment capital and technology which in turn provided jobs for Canadians. We have been able to keep them in check with our tax, labour and pollution laws. The head offices of these giants create no votes for us and we would be the first to shout if they were not obeying our laws. I welcome the multinational corporations to Canada as long as they invest to build and not to exploit. If they build, we are the beneficiaries.
The Japanese have been successful in creating joint venture ownership by attracting foreign venture capital and matching it with their own. They get half the American capital and all the American technology and match the American capital with their own to retain control. We can create the same situation in Canada if we want to pay for it. There is, however, the added incentive for American corporations to move to Japan. Why? To keep down production costs. The Japanese worker does not enjoy the standard of living of the Canadian worker. He works in a low wage area and lags behind the Canadian worker in everything from plumbing facilities to cars per capita.
As for the American government, all this combined with defence spending which has amounted to $1,200 billion since the war, and foreign aid which has amounted to $134 billion since the war, has economically put the ox in the

February 22, 1972
Speech from the Throne
ditch. It has created the highest rate of unemployment in 10 years, devalued the dollar, created a deficit in the balance of trade in the amount of $3.6 billion, and created an astronomical deficit in the balance of payments in the amount of $29.6 billion for 1971. It has put their national defence in jeopardy, wrecked their domestic program and increased their national debt. In the four years of the present administration there will be $100 billion added to the United States national debt.
The multinational corporations are injurious to American policies as they are responsible for a great flow of both American dollars and technology out of the country. If the United States kept their technology in their own country there would be more jobs in the United States and perhaps a balanced budget. The multinational corporation creates jobs in Canada.
The only meaningful theory is the one that works in practice. The multinational corporation is successful because it combines skilled management with technology and gives Canada access to world markets and capital. Any corporation, be it Canadian or foreign, which outperforms its competition by sound competitive practices and business principles is operating in the national interest.
After January 1, 1973, there will be ten members of the European Common Market wherein 257 million people will be united in the world's most powerful trading bloc. Just as the French were fearful of integration 15 years ago and that their industry would be overwhelmed by the Germans, there was British opposition that their industry would be smothered by continental competition. France has prospered in the community, and British entry speaks for itself.
The application of the common agricultural policy in the community has restricted Canadian exports of grain and other products covered by the variable levy system. British entry will undoubtedly hurt Canadian exports because Britain will obtain a much greater share of her food requirements from other community countries. The enlarged common market will make trade easier among its members, but it will raise barriers against outside suppliers.
Whether we like it or not, the multinational corporation is becoming a way of life. In the European community there were 820 mergers of continental firms with outsiders between 1961 and 1969. By the end of the century, it has been suggested that between 300 and 500 giant corporations will control one half to two-thirds of the free world's industrial production. We are not only competing with industrial giants whose technology and productivity is steadily increasing, but also with the trading blocs.
American corporations are setting up subsidiaries in Europe and are proving highly successful, chiefly because of their experience in high technology production. We are not self-sufficient, as is the United States. We are extremely dependent on foreign trade, especially with the United States. The Canadian manufacturing economy is, in general, less efficient than the United States manufacturing economy, partly because of the economies of scale. Our domestic market is small and we must export in order to take advantage of the economies which large-scale production will give us.

We export $750 worth of goods and services for every person in Canada, over three times the per capita figure for the United States or Japan. About 9 per cent of our exports go to Britain, and we stand to lose part of this when Britain joins the Common Market. The new European Economic Community will develop into an even higher degree of economic self-sufficiency and we will be facing a tough and sophisticated trading bloc with which to compete.
President Nixon's visit to China may well be the forerunner of even more new trading agreements which could siphon off a substantial part of the investment capital presently coming to Canada. The future prosperity of Canada may well depend on the willingness of the United States to share her wealth and knowledge with us.
Ten years from now, if someone should ask us what is the best thing we have done since 1972, let us hope we can answer that we kept pace with the Americans and did not fall behind. President Roosevelt once talked of the border that united us. Let us keep it that way. Instead of moving in the direction of economic isolation, we should be studying the possibility of developing a North American economic community, later leading to a community encompassing the western hemisphere, which could help set us on the road to a full world economic community. This must be our ultimate goal-peace and prosperity for the whole world. Peace and prosperity are indivisible.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and to bring to the attention of the House and the Canadian people some of the problems of my riding and of my province. I congratulate the two hon. members who moved and seconded the Address in Reply, not for what they said but for having had the gall to stand up and say it.
Canadians are all grateful to the striking CBC technicians because the strike- spared them the drudgery of hearing the Speech from the Throne. I think the Governor General must have been relieved because he did not have to read that document of literary mush into the living rooms of people across this country. The strike certainly spared him that embarrassment. To me, standing just outside the Senate chamber, it sounded as if he were singing the government's swan-song.	.
The Throne Speech certainly did not stand this country on its ear. Just like the last three Throne Speeches from this government, this speech was a melange of things proposed previously but not carried out. Of course, this being an election year, there were a few new tidbits: election teasers were thrown in. However, there was nothing in the Throne Speech to inspire Canadians. Actually, this Throne Speech contained more innocuous nonsense than usual.
I was interested to note the new "in" word of the inner circle- "isolation". It was mentioned so often in the Throne Speech that I felt like someone who had gone down with a bad case of measles. If hon. members recall, in the last Throne Speech Information Canada was mentioned and it was to break all this isolation. What happened to Isolation Canada-I mean, Information Canada?


Mr. Crouse:: The hon. member was right the first time.
February 22, 1972


Walter C. Carter: About the only thing specific in the Throne Speech was the promise of three new national parks in the north, but apparently they will be so far away that it is unlikely they will cause any traffic congestion or be trampled down by the public.
I do not expect to see the Competition Act before us in the present session. The Speech from the Throne indicates that the government is going to water it down, if that bill is to be introduced at all. Obviously, the government is looking for ways to stall it. I think they have finally realized that they have bitten off more than they can chew.
I am not sure, either, whether the government this year will bring in its policy on foreign ownership. From the glossy reference to it in the Throne Speech it would appear that whatever policy is eventually evolved, it will be rather modest and probably not very effective. May I point out to you, Sir, and to hon. members that we of the Atlantic region are just as concerned about this so-called foreign investment policy as are the people in the industrial heartland of this country. We in Atlantic Canada require great amounts of investment if we are to shake off our have-not status. We want to make sure that this policy will reflect the regional need for investment and that investment, from whatever source it may come, will find Atlantic Canada attractive.
The people of Atlantic Canada, and especially of Newfoundland, do not enjoy their have-not status, this second-class Canadianism. To me it suggests that the entire concept of confederation is not working and has fallen far short of its original objective, because seven of the ten provinces are declared have-not provinces. Certainly, there are reasons for this. Yet in our particular case, Mr. Speaker, there is no legitimate reason for the snail's pace at which Newfoundland has been moving in reversing this have-not status. On second thought, when one realizes that there has been a Liberal government in Newfoundland for the past 22 years, perhaps there is good reason for it.


Mr. Whicher:: What did you have before you had a Liberal government?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I still remember the hon. member's speech.


Walter C. Carter: Newfoundland does not intend forever being an economically have-not province. We have resources and we have the people; also, we have determination. Yet what we require, the present government has not given us. The people of Atlantic Canada, and especially of Newfoundland, foresee the day when they will be providing equalization payments to their sister provinces. But that day can come only when the central government in Ottawa has recognized the need for a new deal for Newfoundland in confederation. We do not want handouts, Mr. Speaker. We do not want inflation when we do not contribute to it. We do not want unemployment imposed on us for the inflationary sins of the more wealthy regions of Canada. All we want, Sir, is proper recognition in Ottawa of the unique situation of our province, a situation which can in a few years, transform our province into one of the most productive areas in the Dominion. Sir, the people of Atlantic Canada, those of the
___________________________________145
Speech from the Throne
have-not provinces and especially of Newfoundland, must be given a chance.
How can the residents of the riding of St. John's West read the Speech from the Throne and conjure up any great aspirations? How do you think the people of the Placentia area feel when they read a 3,500-word speech and find that the only thought that this government has given to unemployment reads:
Unemployment continues to be a matter of immense concern to the government.
What a profound statement for a government that has been in office for almost four years! That sentence follows a description in the most flowery of terms of an economy in Canada about which this government can find no wrong. It is a charade, Mr. Speaker, a shameless one put forward by a dishonourable government. I am sure the people in the Placentia, Jersey, Freshwater and Dunville areas of my riding, where more than 60 per cent of the work force is unemployed, will recognize it as just being just that.
What does the government say it is going to do about this tragic unemployment? It does not say anything. It has not done anything since it was elected in 1968. It will not do anything except create more unemployment. The people in parts of St. John's West, where unemployment is higher than even the province's 18 per cent, will remember the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his New Year's interview on CTV when he said that if he had it to do again, he would do it the same way. I contend, and I am sure the majority of Canadians agree with me, that Canada cannot afford to have in the highest office of this land a man who will not hesitate to take such vicious and cruel steps to deliberately create unemployment. We certainly cannot afford that luxury in my province.
This government's only answer to unemployment seems to be makeshift, band-aid policies and the provision of more welfare. The average Canadian living in eastern Canada, certainly the average Newfoundlander, does not want welfare. He wants a chance to work, to earn a living for himself and his family with pride and dignity, not welfare and humiliation. There is a brief sentence in the Speech from the Throne where the government says it wants to deal more compassionately with the Canadian people. I understand that is the accusation about which the Prime Minister is most sensitive. He should be. If there is one thing in which this government has excelled, it is in not having compassion. There is another reference, an almost underlying theme, of love and understanding among Canadians. As far as the people in my area are concerned, that applies only to the Prime Minister: he loves himself and only he understands himself.
There is an old saying that when "poverty comes in the door, love goes out the window." How can a child living in St. Mary's Bay understand or get any real appreciation of this government's commitment to a better way of life, the resolution, of differences by reason, the practice ot tolerance and the acceptance of love and understanding? How can he appreciate that when he can only look forward to the status of a second-class citizen and realizes that his only hope for survival will be to leave the land of his birth,
Speecn from the Throne

February 22, 1972
the environment that has been his and that of his forefathers for generations, and lose himself in the concrete assembly-line jungle to which he is completely unsuited?
Would you want to take on the task, Mr. Speaker, of convincing the fishermen of St. Mary's Bay, Placentia Bay and the Ferryland area that this government is really serious when it talks about the resolution of differences by reason, the practice of tolerance, the acceptance of love and understanding? To our fishermen, who today cannot even put their nets into the water without running the risk of having them destroyed by marauding foreign fishing ships who show neither respect or concern for their lives and property, these are just empty words. How tolerant must our fishermen be? How much longer must they be expected to be reasonable? How much love and understanding must they show? Do you blame our fishermen, Mr. Speaker, if they translate the government's commitment of love and understanding to mean only that Mr. Trudeau loves their taxes and they must try to understand how he uses them?
The fishery, Mr. Speaker, is one of this government's greatest failings as far as we from Newfoundland are concerned. For years we have been promised a 12-mile limit. Our fishermen do not even have this minimum protection, because this government has refused to stand up for our rights. For 3 years, since my Newfoundland colleagues and I were elected by the people of Newfoundland to represent them here in Parliament, we have been almost daily stressing the need for management and conservation of our fish resources and of the desperate need for protection of our inshore fishermen.
The government has pretended to listen. They have taken some steps, but these have been mere windowdressing compared to what is really needed. We can come to only one conclusion. Those of us from Atlantic Canada, where the fishing industry is important and where we see foreign fishing ships move in and destroy our basic resources, can only conclude that the present government is gutless when it comes to standing up to foreign nations who rape our resources and recklessly destroy the gear of our fishermen. It is no secret: for the past three years we have been saying that our fishermen expect more than a 12-mile limit, although the hardy fishermen in Branch, St. Bride's, Admiral's Beach or Southern Harbour would be happy if they could get even that. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is at least a 100-mile fisheries protection zone around our coast, just as Iceland has.
I am at a loss to understand the attitude of this government, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) in particular. They recognize our rights with respect to the airspace above the waters off our coast. They lay claim to the oil deposits on the shelf below the water. But why in the name of God can they not recognize the fact that we own the resources in those waters, the fish? Why are they allowing every other marine nation in the world to come in and take away this resource which, if properly managed and encouraged by the government, could be a valuable input to the gross national product of this nation?
As one of my constituents in Bay Bulls said, "Feed some fish to those Liberals; it might give them some brains." I am inclined to agree.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter C. Carter: In the Speech from the Throne, the government has taken credit for what they describe as "substantially improved prices to fishermen, upwards of 50 per cent in some cases." I would like the Prime Minister to go to places in my riding such as Ferryland, Cape Broyle, Petty Harbour, Little Harbour East, Portugal Cove South or St. Shotts and show the fishermen how they received 50 per cent more for their fish last year. I dare him to, Mr. Speaker. I have no doubt they would remind him of the promise in the Throne Speech 18 months ago of catch failure insurance, of his promise in 1968 of a just society and an end to regional disparity. What has happened to that? There is no mention of it in this Throne Speech. I hope it is not so, Mr. Speaker, but the absence of such things as catch failure insurance in the Throne Speech leads me to be suspicious that the fisheries branch in the new department is being downgraded, just as we expressed fears that it would.
Of course, catch failure insurance in itself is not enough. Fishermen in my riding require some form of inexpensive insurance to insure their fishing property and gear against storms and other acts over which they have no control. Not only has this government been reluctant to help fishermen who in a great many cases have been wiped out by losses resulting from storms, and so on; they have even refused to repair and replace, where necessary, public property such as wharves and breakwaters which have been destroyed by storms, despite the fact they are vital to the fishermen. I can think of several communities in my riding-Tors Cove, Kingman's, Calvert, St. Vincent's and St. Mary's, to name just a few-where public works have been allowed to deteriorate to the point at which they have become a public nuisance.
The riding of St. John's West is about evenly divided as between urban and rural areas. Before I move on to discuss some of the difficulties being experienced in the city, allow me to mention a couple of other items. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion has not been as successful as many of us hoped when it was originally conceived. One of the reasons the department has not been beneficial to my riding is the failure of the government to accept primary industries, such as fishing and forestry, for eligibility under development incentives plans.
Another reason DREE programs have not benefited areas like Placentia, Dunville, Jerseyside and Freshwater is that the government is too readily influenced by political considerations. These areas required designation as special areas perhaps as much, if not more, than any others in Canada. They were not designated because certain politicians, including the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), decided there was more political benefit in designating other areas.
In connection with another topic, Mr. Speaker, we are all very optimistic that in the not too distant future the extensive explorations for oil off our east coast will result in major finds. While we are waiting for this to happen the Department of Manpower should, I think, in co-operation with the province, assess the skills and trades required
February 22, 1972

and take the manpower pool available in the province into training programs to prepare them. We must ensure that the manpower in the province of Newfoundland gets top priority for the jobs which will be created on these oil drilling projects. Instead of allowing over 18 per cent of the Newfoundland work force to lay idle, would it not be better to train them and provide them with skills for the manpower market which will open up when these oil finds are being worked?
Since some of my colleagues have developed their own theses on the problems of unemployment insurance, I will offer just one thought. It is time the government came clean with regard to the incredible mess that has developed within the UIC offices during the last few months. I challenge the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) or his parliamentary secretary to go to Southern Harbour, or to Arnold's Cove or to places on the Cape Shore and try to tell the people there this poppycock that only a few benefits were held up because of bureaucratic error. This is obviously not the case. An interdepartmental bulletin signed by the chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission has made this quite clear. If I may, I will quote rule No. 5 as dictated by the chairman of the UIC and circulated to all UIC employees. This is a directive issued to employees of the commission by their chairman:
No one shall declare to claimants and/or their representatives that files have been lost, that documents cannot be traced, that the system is complex, that the computer is at fault, that there has been clerical error, or any other similar excuses, which, no matter how valid they may be, do not in any way help the claimant and perpetuate an atmosphere of doubt in the minds of claimants and. employees.
The Prime Minister and some of his ministers have been boasting of the record number of housing starts in 1971. Well, we laud that accomplishment, Mr. Speaker; but let the government not rest on its laurels. There is still a crying need in this country for housing. We are barely scratching the surface. It is about time the government started recognizing the problems of our average and low-income families, those people who have been caught in the economic squeeze. In the city of St. John's a large number of our people are in this category. They are too well off to qualify for direct government assistance, but not sufficiently well off to avail themselves of mortgage financing under the National Housing Act. Many of these people live in houses which could be rehabilitated, with government assistance, thereby ensuring that the character of our downtown area would be preserved, while at the same time providing decent places in which to live and raise families.
More than three years ago the minister then responsible for housing, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) imposed a freeze on urban renewal, recognizing that the bulldozer approach was not the right one. Since then the downtown cores of our cities have been allowed to continue their downward spiral of rot and decay, until many of them have gone beyond the point of no return.
The time has come for an end to the multiplicity of studies. The time has come to make decisions and take action. I hope this action will reflect the studies and correct previous mistakes. Urban renewal has in too many cases resulted in chaos. The Blackhead Road urban renewal scheme is a very good example of this. Frustra-
___________________________________H7
Speech from the Throne
tion, confusion and chaos were the results of that scheme. Families were uprooted, lives were endangered, the people's rights were ignored by strong-arm bureaucrats who showed little willingness to recognize the human factors involved.
The federal government in co-operation with the other two levels of government, provincial and municipal, should undertake a long-range study of land needs in St. John's and establish a land bank to ensure that an adequate supply of serviced building lots is available to accommodate the natural growth of our city and the future needs of prospective new home builders. Such a land bank would also have the effect of stabilizing land prices, would discourage speculation and resultant exorbitant prices for serviced land.
The Speech from the Throne was not the only forlorn document to come out last week,Mr. Speaker;on the same day Statistics Canada issued the cost of living figures for the major metropolitan areas in Canada. My city, St. John's, had the dubious distinction of having shown the largest increase in the cost of living in January, a hike of just under 1 per cent. That was not simply a monthly fluctuation, as the former Minister of Finance used to say: unfortunately, this has been a trend for consumers in St. John's. The cost of living went up 4.6 per cent in the last 12 months in St. John's.
How do we expect our senior citizens, who in their declining years have to pinch pennies and live on a budget that is barely able to keep body and soul together today, to live with a 4.6 per cent increase in the cost of living on a pension that allows them only a 2 per cent increase to compensate? That is a harsh indictment of a government that almost gloats that it has no compassion.
I spoke earlier of the need for a new deal for Newfoundland in confederation. Nowhere is this more evident than in our dealings with Canadian National Railways. Canadian National pulled its railway passenger service out of the province in 1969 despite the objections of almost all the people of the province. The Canadian transport Commission agreed to allow CNR to abandon the service because it was losing almost $1 million a year.
Yet two weeks ago this same Transport Commission refused to allow Canadian National and Canadian Pacific to abandon their rail passenger service between Montreal and the Maritimes, thus creating a situation where the Canadian taxpayer will be called upon to subsidize it to the tune of $1 million a month. I am not arguing that this decision is a wrong one; as a matter of fact I think it is correct. But every argument that is used to retain rail passenger service in the Maritimes is also valid in Newfoundland.
My time, Mr. Speaker, is almost up, so I say this in conclusion. I make no apology for perhaps being a little too partisan in my address today. There is no member of this House of Commons who wants confederation to succeed more than I, who wants this great nation of ours to prosper and to grow and to provide for its people a standard of living that is unrivalled by any other.
As a Newfoundlander born and bred in the hardship and strife of a country that refused to lay down and die,

February 22, 1972
Speech from the Throne
even though the logics of economics were against our survival, I stand here representing 80,000 Canadians who still have the same grit, the same determination and the same strong will. We in Newfoundland desire from our very depths to make our full contribution to the development of this great nation. Our province is endowed with boundless resources, not the least of which are our human resources. We have the will, we have the drive. We ask only for your help to help us help ourselves. Wisdom and integrity, understanding and desire on your part can help us erase the hollowness of the Throne Speech's dictate to us as parliamentarians to make this country serene and unspoiled, believing in the dignity of every individual, sharing resources and permitting every Canadian to contribute his skills and talent.


Mr.   Gaetan-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to join my colleagues in congratulating the mover of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. and most able member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher).

I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie) who had the signal honour of seconding the motion. Both have acquitted themselves brilliantly of their task and their fellow citizens must certainly be happy to have elected them to this House. [English]
Unlike members of the opposition, I was quite pleased with the contents of the Speech from the Throne. Since I have been in this House I have never heard a favourable comment by the opposition on any Speech from the Throne, or for that matter on any piece of legislation brought forward by the government. Canadians are getting more and more concerned about the negative, cynical and destructive approach being taken by the opposition, especially by the representatives of the NDP who have yet to produce some constructive criticism or alternatives during this Parliament on any of the major issues before us. It seems all they think about is to downgrade and give a completely distorted image of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the cabinet and this government.
This type of concerted effort to mislead the Canadian public no longer works in our present society. This is old-time politics. The leaders of the opposition parties have tried unsuccessfully to picture our Prime Minister as a petty tyrant, an arrogant and callous man who tramples on the rights of Parliament, who has no feeling for the unemployed and imprisons his opponents in Quebec. This is not only a serious distortion of the record but also poor politics, because the voters usually favour, rather than fear, a high-handed leader.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Where have you been?


Mr. Serre:: I have been here all along, the same as you. And far from concentrating power in his own hands and in those of his so-called supergroup of advisers, he has diffused it so widely that the whole process of decisionmaking has changed tremendously. Policy decisions filter up through the system of cabinet committees and have to be checked out with the caucus and with the Liberal party. It all takes time, and the Prime Minister is unwill-

ing to hurry business through the process he has established to ensure detailed discussion and co-ordination. In both the Commons and the Senate there are more committees doing more work than ever before, and the government is more willing to accept their advice than were its predecessors. The whole technique of publishing white papers and submitting draft legislation before it becomes government policy invites parliamentary participation in decision-making.
The criticism of the Prime Minister as being coolly aloof from public opinion is equally at odds with the facts. The truth is that through town hall meetings, appearances on radio and T.V., open-line programs and question and answer sessions with students and others, the Prime Minister has more public contact than any previous Prime Minister has had. A good example of this is that he is coming to northern Ontario and my riding this coming Friday.

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne inaugurating this fourth session is well within the framework of this government's efforts to develop and strengthen our country and make it a better place to live in.
Sovereignty and independence, peace and security, social justice, a healthy natural environment, a prosperous economy, those are the objectives to which the government has always given priority.
And these objectives have not remained vain words. The leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) do travel around the country proclaiming everywhere that the government is doing nothing, but they seem to forget three years of concrete achievements.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume proceedings at eight p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Gaetan-Joseph Serré: Mr. Speaker, when the House recessed at six o'clock I was saying that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) travel around the country proclaiming everywhere that the government does nothing. I should like to point out to them that they seem to forget three years of really concrete achievements. For instance, since 1968, the government has taken many steps to protect a healthy environment by way of legislation such as the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Canada Water Act, by the cleaning up of the Great Lakes, the banning of phosphates, the development of six new national parks, the creation of the Department of the Environment, and I could go on enumerating. However, the government is concerned not only with a healthy natural environment, but also with a social environment
February 22, 1972

to ensure opportunities for all Canadian and discriminate against none. Progress in the direction of social justice has been assured for three years by such legislation as the new Unemployment Insurance Act, tax reform, the Bail Reform Act, increased pensions for veterans, the Opportunities for Youth Program, housing programs geared to low-income families, the Local Initiatives Program, and I could enumerate many more.
And the government has been most lavish with these benefits. Indeed, for the fiscal year 1970-71 alone, the government paid out $557,877,821 under the Family Allowance Plan, $1,627,219,132 under the Old Age Pension Plan, and to these amounts are added contributions to the Guaranteed Income Supplement. The government has contributed $99,039,772 to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. What else can I add to show the government's concern and efficiency in the field of social policy?
With regard to the economy, in the midst of international financial crises, the government keeps struggling toward a prosperous economy and the elimination of regional disparities.
Over 200,000 jobs were created last year. Of course, this is not enough to keep up with the tremendous increase in the labour force, but it does represent an achievement proportionately superior to that of any other country in the western world. In addition, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Ministry of State for Science and Technology were created. The Prince Edward Island development program, the act on farm products marketing agencies, the act on grain, the program to promote small farms, the two-price system for wheat are many achievements to be credited to the record of the present government. And the Speech from the Throne is no exception in the long list of concrete achievements, ingenious programs, which introduced innovations in the strategy aimed at the complex problems of a swiftly changing society.
On reading the Speech from the Throne, one notes that the fight against unemployment is at the very heart of the government's concern, and that it will multiply its efforts with a view to remedying it. A rational policy of national control over foreign investments will also be applied, which policy is really very timely in view of the fact that a large sector of our economy is in the hands of foreign companies and investors who, in applying their expansionist policy, care more about their own interests than the well-being of Canadians.
In my riding alone, Mr. Speaker, the International Nickel Company controls the life of most of my electors. For instance, they can do nothing about the recent layoffs decreed by the company.
I feel that the governments, federal as well as provincial, should exercise greater control over these foreign companies.
During this fourth session we will witness the enforcement of new social measures, such as the promotion of a new program for low-cost housing and the increase in funds for student loans. Criminal code reforms to ensure the protection of private life belong in this context aimed at improving the life of Canadians.
Speech from the Throne
I am particularly thankful for a measure ensuring the extension of CBC services and I take this opportunity to request once again a French television station for Sudbury, a local programming station to meet the needs of French Canadians in this area who represent more than 40 per cent of the total population.
Finally, I welcome the measures recommending the creation of three new national parks north of the 60th parallel and those relating to wildlife and their habitats. They reflect the constant interest of the government in the conservation of a healthy natural environment, in short our country's wealth.
The new Labour Code, Family Income Security legislation, a bill to amend the Farm Credit Act, National Anthem legislation-a listing of all important measures would take too long-but such is the legislative program of a government that is not afraid to be daring and imaginative in coming face to face with the 70's.
Thanks to the representations made by my electors and to my numerous interventions in the House and in committee, this government has lately given greater consideration to my region in the Nickel Belt.
in fact, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has just given approval to the building of a new airport in Sudbury at a cost of $1.5 million. Our region has been included in the designated area in order to be eligible for grants to secondary industries. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion is striving hard to find some means of ensuring the survival of the industries and factories of our region and many subsidies have already been granted.
Under the Local Initiative program, the Department of Manpower and Immigration has already granted some $200,000 to municipalities and organizations in the Nickel Belt constituency thus creating over 100 jobs during winter.
Under the Opportunities for Youth program, I have already been assured that special attention will be granted to the requests from my area as a result of the decision of the Inco company not to hire some 2,000 students, as previously.
For several months now, the citizens of Northern Ontario have been enjoying better television service following the establishment of a second station in Sudbury.
Several modern post-offices have been constructed in various locations of my constituency.
The services of the various governmental agencies and offices in my area have been greatly improved. I especially refer to a more competent staff hired at the Unemployment Insurance Commission at the Manpower Centre and several other departments.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) has given several grants to cultural organizations and I hope that this assistance will be increased to enable the various ethnic groups to flourish even more in their own culture.
I could enumerate a great number of concrete achievements which give clear indication of the increased attention that the federal government has given to my region over these past years, but time is running short.
Thanks to a sound economic policy and a great climate of confidence, my region has had these past years an

February 22, 1972
Speech from the Throne
unprecedented restart. I am pleased, for instance, to see that several citizens from la belle province, the Mari-times-Newfoundland in particular-and the west have joined us to seek their fortune and are now quite happy there.
The riding of Nickel Belt has progressed at a fantastic rate recently and I am sure that it will continue along that line.
However, we must tackle many problems that we still have to face. I refer more particularly to air and water pollution, the high cost of living, which is higher in my area than in most other parts of the country, to the lack of community and cultural centres, the lack of secondary industries or small manufactures that could hire women and older workers who cannot work in mines.
I refer also to the lack of adequate transportation between the main centres in Northern Ontario. Speaking of transportation, Mr. Speaker, the Trans-Canada Highway, in the Sudbury area, is in a lamentable condition. As traffic increases in the area, the building of a four-lane highway is badly needed on the approaches of the town of Sudbury. When one considers that the contribution of the federal government to the province of Ontario for the construction of the Trans-Canada Highway was $142,029, 786 for the past few years, I cannot understand why the government of Ontario could not find the means of improving this highway in my area. I hope that the federal government will exert pressures to that end.
Mr. Speaker, I am really looking forward to a very progressive fourth session of this Parliament and I hope that the opposition parties will change their pessimistic and negative approach and will finally come forward with new, more progressive and constructive criticism so that together we can move forward and build a better Canada for all Canadians.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, one of the
interesting things that has come up recently has been a small package of goodies from Information Canada to the various private radio stations across the country. Information Canada has been requesting private radio stations to accept canned bits of information on how well things are going in Canada. These are 30 or 60 seconds long and private radio stations are asked to promote them in their spare time.
I suppose it is always very good to have these bits of information going around, such as information on how to get unemployment insurance paid in less than 2 months and other such useful information. But a great many of the private radio stations have been rather concerned about these small pieces of information that were being given to them, and they are beginning to wonder whether perhaps pressure is being applied indirectly to them inasmuch as they have to obtain their licence from the federal government. They are worried that if they do not use this useful, canned, non-political information, as it is described, they might have problems with obtaining their licence. This is a concern that worries a number of private stations.
Then, some of the private station's representatives are somewhat concerned that perhaps these canned bits of
[Mr. Serre.J
information on how to get your unemployment insurance in less than two months, or whatever it is, or on how to get your old age pension early, might possibly wander into the realm of propaganda. These are just the thoughts and concerns that arise. Also, private station operators seem to be more and more concerned that the government is placing more and more restrictions on private broadcasters but on the other hand does not seem to give anything back to them.
One of the questions that arises in the minds of many private broadcasters is whether the other branches of the media, such as the press, are having the same opportunity to publish these goodies on how the government is operating, and whether the government is paying the press for publishing these things, because they are certainly not offering the private broadcasters anything: the broadcasters find that the government tells them, "We will not pay you, but you can publish it in your spare time. It increases your Canadian content".
Private radio stations have been having a tough time as it is. A lot of pressure has been put on them by the government restricting what they can and what they cannot do, and now the implication is that they must publish these pieces of information. It is not said that they have to do so, but it is suggested that it might be advisable. It seems to me that if the government wants to try to advertise what it is doing in other branches of the media such as the press, and is paying them a fee for this, certainly the private broadcasters, who have been having a pretty rough time, might at least be offered a nominal payment for publishing the history of all the great things which the government is doing in all the branches of the public service.
Having said that, there is a matter that I would like to deal with for a moment in some depth, that is, the problems of the Unemployment Insurance Commission which have developed into nothing less than a national scandal. The trouble started a couple of years ago when legislation was introduced in the House closing the local offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in the smaller and middle-sized industrial cities throughout Ontario and, I presume, elsewhere. A number of members of the House who are still here, myself included-and I can think of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) and, as I recall, some government members-objected at the time and said that if the local offices were closed, people could not go in and inquire about their unemployment insurance claims and there would be trouble.
All hon. members who have had some practical experience in this regard were treated with superior and pitying smiles by members of the commission who were sitting in the gallery at the time and the minister did not say anything, as if he did not know anything. Then the trouble started, because when people cannot go to the local offices and inquire about their claims trouble starts. The next thing that happened was the commission got a computer. It is a marvellous thing. It absorbs the information, but when the information does not prove to be accurate because of bad programming or lack of programming, I understand that the computer swallows the information, does not regurgitate it and it is just lost. Someone who ought to know said privately that the commission had
February 22, 1972

Speech from the Throne
been sold a bad computer which did not really supply the proper information.
This computer was located in, of all places, Belleville, Ontario, which is quite removed from the industrial heart of Canada. I have been trying to find out for some time why Belleville was chosen. Obviously, it was not for political reasons because that area is not represented by a member of the government party. The explanation which I have been able to obtain is that it is the only place where houses were available for the people who run the computer. That is a great business!
Then a new act was brought in last year. It looked pretty good and most of us supported it. The only thing was that before the act was brought into effect it seems that not much thought was given to the regulations or as to how the act would be administered. I could spend the next half hour reciting some of the blunders that have been made in putting the regulations into effect. Just to cite one, people who own a small business such as a furniture store, and who happen to be three brothers or three cousins, have to pay unemployment insurance for themselves. At present this matter is still under review because not much thought had been given to it.
There are many other things that one could mention. There is the matter of shifting from the old act to the new act, and there is the new waiting period. Then there are the tax problems. If you were entitled to unemployment insurance from September or October, 1971, and because of the present delays and incompetence you did not get it until January or February, 1972, you would have to pay income tax on it because, as I understand it, the computer is set up that way. If you receive it in 1972, you pay tax on it even though in the period for which you received it, it was not taxable. Then there is the longer waiting period.
There are many other problems that one could mention. The net result of this monkey business is virtually a national calamity, particularly so far as people who have families, who are unemployed and who have to put the groceries on the table are concerned. That is an expression which we have heard so often from the parliamentary secretary in the last couple of days.
Having been a Member of Parliament for a number of years, nearly 19, I know that we used to have two or three complaints a year concerning unemployment insurance payments. Certainly, in days gone by the act and the administration of the act worked very well; there were no problems. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am receiving between 35 and 40 complaints a day.


An hon. Member:: From farmers?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: For the information of the hon. member who has just spoken, my riding happens to be a heavy industry riding. He should better inform himself on these matters. As I said, I am getting between 35 and 40 complaints per day and have had to employ a special person to help in dealing with these complaints. I am not complaining; I am glad to do this. Perhaps people on the government side of the House are not aware of these things, do not pay attention to what is going on and do not know that that is taking place. I am quite prepared to substantiate anything I have said.
The minister and the parliamentary secretary, during the last few weeks when questioned about this have stood like a pair of ostriches-you can imagine a pair of portly ostriches standing on one leg and sticking their heads in the sand-and said, "Ninety-eight per cent of all claims are paid on time." As I say, when questioned they have gone burbling away about 98 per cent of the claims being paid on time. Of course, the phrase "on time" may mean different things to different people. Anybody in my area who wants to collect unemployment insurance knows that it takes a long time. Even if every detail were put through in the proper way, it takes a minimum of eight weeks before anybody can get a cent.
What the people are supposed to do in the meantime I do not know, but this is happening: you have to rely on welfare, and it is pretty degrading for people to rely on welfare when they have a perfectly good claim. Yet this is the kind of thing that is going on. Meanwhile, the minister and the parliamentary secretary say we have the best Unemployment Insurance Act in the world. It does not work, of course. Nevertheless, they stand there and bury their heads in the sand while the deluge of claims comes up behind them and engulfs them.
I am reminded, when the government tells us how well the Unemployment Insurance Act works, of a famous case in law that all law students and lawyers are familiar with, known as Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills. In that case a man had bought a set of underwear which burned the hide off him. It was proved that there were too many sulphites in the underwear. In court, Australian Knitting Mills produced scientist after scientist and engineer after engineer to say how perfect was the process of the company, and proving that this could not have happened. The only trouble was that it did happen. As the judge said, "Gentlemen, you have proved yourself out of court. You have proved that your process was so perfect that it must work. But the fact is it did not work." That is exactly the case with the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The question is, who is at fault? I do not think that matters particularly. The point is that something has gone wrong. The minister has promised that a committee will be appointed to listen to problems and try to find out where the fault lies. Nobody intended to do this, I am sure. Nobody suggests that people maliciously went out of their way to cause trouble by paying claims slowly-of course not. Yet the fact is that this has happened. What we want to see in this House, promptly and immediately, is action to get this mess cleaned up and to get these payments made on time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Where the mistake may have been made, I do not know. It certainly was not made by the junior members of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Some of these people are in my area, and they have been working very hard. Some of them work every night and some have become ill and exhausted trying to clean up this mess. They are certainly trying to give the members of this House, regardless of party, a great deal of service and are doing their best.
If you want to allocate blame, it must lie at the higher levels. I am afraid the minister and his staff must accept some responsibility for this because certainly it is not the

February 22, 1972
Speech from the Throne
junior people who are at fault. It is the senior people in the Unemployment Insurance Commission and those at the ministerial level. As far as I am concerned, they are the ones to blame. We must also blame it on the purchase of this computer as well as some other things. It will be fine if the minister wants to establish a committee; I am all for it. I will not object to sitting on the committee, hearing evidence and trying to find out how this mess developed. I do not suppose there is any simple answer; I suppose there is a multiplicity of reasons. The point is that we want to get payments out on time.
The first thing the government should do is reopen the local unemployment insurance offices which were closed, and I do not mean they should be reopened in the way the parliamentary secretary suggested the other day when he hastened to say, "We have opened a lot of them." In my city they are opening these offices for four or five days a week part-time, for half an hour or two or three hours a day, something like that, and someone is in them listening to complaints. That will not settle the matter and will not do much to improve things. The offices should be reopened.
Another thing the government should consider is shortening the waiting period from two weeks to one week. I do not see how it is possible to shorten the waiting period for payment of claims to anything less than five weeks unless the waiting period is shortened as I suggest. If something cannot be done in this regard, I think the minister-I am sorry to have to say this-should consider looking into the competence of the senior people who are administering this program, because if it cannot be cleaned up in two or three weeks, somebody higher up is to blame. It is the old story; if the ship does not operate too well, the captain or senior officers usually are responsible. And if something cannot be done to get these claims paid to people more quickly, somebody should go: it is as simple as that.
The final matter I want to make observations about is the question of foreign investment in Canada and the utilization of our raw materials. This is probably the number one issue in Canada today. We were all surprised at something the government has not done. The members of my party and the members of the NDP have been very curious as to why the government's policy with respect to foreign investment in Canada has not been announced. We were told that we would hear about this when Parliament reassembled. Today the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tells us that he does not know when he is going to tell us about this. Presumably it will be after the next election, whenever that is.
There are many viewpoints on the matter of foreign investment. Some people are for it and some are agin it, and all for different reasons. Opinions may be influenced by geography. The people in Ontario, and in Toronto particularly, where a great deal of capital is available, are opposed to foreign investment. The other parts of the country, western Canada, Quebec and the Maritimes, take a different view because capital is not so readily available there. As some people pointed out in western Canada recently, "We would just as soon get our capital from the United States or West Germany as be slaves of Toronto." Of course, we see that viewpoint expressed here. I do not necessarily agree with it; I am merely expressing views that one hears.

You get different views expressed on foreign investment by people of different ages and various occupations. You get young students who are very chauvinistic and enthusiastic about the question of foreign investment, and sometimes for the wrong reasons. Then you get certain groups in Toronto, and wealthy people like Walter Gordon and others who are not much concerned about capital and they take a different view. Of course, there are some very good reasons why we should worry about heavy foreign investment in our country. There are long-term balance of payment problems and questions of economic policies involving an owner country like the United States which has a DISC program that may close our factories in Canada and export unemployment from that country to ours.
Questions involving foreign investment are serious matters. Unfortunately, you do not always hear them aired. However, the principal problem which seems to be facing Canada at present is that of the degree of control that is to be exercised over foreign companies in Canada. It is not ownership alone, Mr. Speaker, that worries us. I have a friend from Poland who owns real estate in Warsaw. He might as well own it on the planet Mars for all the good it does him. The important thing is the question of control. That is the area in which there is much disagreement in this country, even among friends, even among members of the same political party. They disagree about the degree of control that should be exercised by the federal government or by provincial governments, because this question of foreign investment is a joint matter.
I suppose there are as many opinions on the matter as there are persons who look into it. I think it is sufficient to say most Canadians agree that greater Canadian ownership in our corporations and companies is advisable for many reasons. I do not think there is any argument about that.
What has the present government done to help in this regard? Almost nothing. At the present time, under the new Income Tax Act it is better for a Canadian to invest in Canadian bonds or senior securities, non-equity securities or United States equity securities rather than in Canadian equity securities. This is a fine situation! I wish to quote the following passage from a memorandum given to me by a number of people who are pretty familiar with investments and investment matters:
Should funds be invested in senior securities or foreign equities, an additional one-sixth will have to be paid in income tax but, with the much higher return available on senior securities-
Those are bonds, of course.
-and, if capital gains are being sought and, with the greater expectation of profit in American stocks, there is little incentive ... to concentrate on Canadian equities.
If we are going to try to get Canadians to invest more in our stocks and securities and give greater ownership to Canadians, we need to do something better than actively discouraging Canadians from investing in our own country. What the government should do is fairly simple: it should make proper tax adjustments to encourage Canadian ownership in Canadian equity stocks. It could lower the capital gains tax for those who invest in Canadian equity securities if held for a period of three years or
February 22, 1972

longer. This is one more problem for the Department of Finance, the inhabitants of which department are thoroughly imbued with the philosophy of tax neutrality and a number of other dinosaur philosophies inherited from the 1930s, and the Keynesian and London schools of economics. It is time there was a little fresh thought in that department. If we are to get Canadian ownership of Canadian industries and companies, there has to be some encouragement. There certainly cannot be the discouragement as there is now because of our present tax policies.
Another great concern at the moment is the outright, wholesale selling of our raw materials to be processed in the United States, West Germany, Japan and other countries. This problem has arisen time and again in Canadian history. It arose after World War II in Ontario when our pulp and paper was being processed in the United States and being sold back to us. The thing that elected a Conservative government at that time under Hon. George Drew was his policy of assisting companies in Ontario to process pulp and paper in Canada so that we would not need to have it processed elsewhere and sold back to us. In my view, the government should immediately assess what raw materials can be economically processed in Canada at this time. It should determine whether they can be semi-processed or completely processed, with the finished product being competitive in foreign and home markets.
Appropriate tax incentives must be provided to get these new industries under way and provide working capital. The Industrial Development Bank has been a mess as far as helping people in Canada is concerned. The Industrial Development Bank should provide adequate working capital. Perhaps the government might go so far as guaranteeing loans to commercial banks to provide working capital for these new industries. These things are essential.
We must take immediate steps to have our raw materials processed in Canada. I am not advocating that we process products that are not economically feasible. We must look into this question. Something must be done to process raw materials which can be processed economically and be able to compete in world markets, rather than have them processed in some other country and sold back to us. That is the first point. In order to encourage investment in Canadian industries and businesses, the government should provide some kind of tax incentive and tax concession in this regard. I merely suggest that one of the ways this can be done is by a reduction of the capital gains tax if the money is invested in Canadian industries for a period of more than three years.
These are positive suggestions. I think most people in Canada are sick to death of hearing the carping of members of political parties without hearing any suggestions. These things can be done. They are feasible. I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) or his assistants will have an opportunity to examine these suggestions and do something about them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I want to devote the time available to me this evening to the discussion of the phenomenon of western alienation. Over the past two or three years western alienation has become a favourite topic of eastern newspaper columnists. It has
Speech from the Throne
been credited with being one of the major factors in the outcome of by-elections for this House held in the west of Canada in which opposition members have been returned. There have been manifestations of western discontent in this House during the course of the consideration of legislation relating to agriculture especially. However, the phenomenon as such has not received any great attention from the House, a fact which does little to diminish feelings of alienation in the west, and I think the time is long past when some such attempt should be made.
I hope that hon. members from other parts of the country will not think of me as being parochial because I intend to dwell on this subject. I consider the phenomenon of western alienation to be of sufficient magnitude to have the potential of profoundly affecting the course of this nation and, therefore, to be fully deserving of the close attention of each and every member of this House, no matter what his point of origin. At this point I should interject that, while my remarks are focused generally on the three prairie provinces, I make no claim to their being a homogeneous western region. If anything, with the development of more mature and diversified economies it is more difficult to decide where the west now commences and where it ends. Some of my remarks, for example, may well apply to British Columbia or other provinces.
I embark upon this project with some trepidation because while in some areas, such as tariff policies, transportation policies and agricultural policies, westerners have succeeded in defining in a reasonably clear and concise manner their aims and objectives, in many other areas westerners' searches for solutions to their problems are characterized by uncertainty and ambivalence. Indeed, in many ways the major unifying factor in the statements of the many westerners who have attempted to define the reason for western alienation is the sense of frustration and anger at what is perceived to be lack of concern and understanding for the west and its problems by central Canada.
In some respects westerners find themselves in a position similar to that occupied by Quebeckers in the first two or three years of the sixties. May I say here that I use this analogy deliberately and that I will be drawing further parallels to the Quebec situation as I progress. I say "similar to the position of Quebeckers in the sixties" because western society has undergone an immense change just as Quebeckers did in the sixties. We may have been slower in coming to the realization that that change had taken place, but it is a change of similar magnitude.
While old problems affecting tariffs and transportation and agriculture remain, there is a new west, an industrial west, and westerners are still in the process of adapting themselves to the changes inherent in industrialization and are still seeking to define the new relationship with the rest of the country that these changes necessitate. Thus, I suspect that westerners for the next year or so will find themselves in the same exasperating and frustrating position as that in which Quebeckers found themselves in the early sixties when everyone was asking, "What does Quebec want?" Undoubtedly, many confused easterners are now asking themselves, "What does the west want?" It is only a question of time before that cry, sometimes

February 22, 1972
Speech from the Throne
peevish, sometimes a product of genuine concern, will be heard in public.
We can expect increasing amounts of the energy of western Canadians to be devoted to the task of answering that question for themselves and for the rest of the country in terms of public policy and in terms of constitutional arrangements over the next several months. It is my concern, as a Canadian and as a westerner, to attempt to ensure that this process takes place within the context of attempting to strengthen this nation rather than attempting to tear it apart.
I want to remind the House that the same process in Quebec began within the context of attempting to rebuild our nation on firmer foundations and eventually, in part, but obviously not entirely, because of the insensitivity on the part of successive governments in Ottawa, a major portion of that effort became channelled off into the attempt to destroy confederation rather than rebuild it.
I begin my analysis by attempting to define the political reality in Canada for the west. The rhetoric has always been that the west is an equal partner in confederation. It now appears to westerners that this statement has little foundation in fact.
A year after Manitoba had been dubbed the first daughter of confederation it had become apparent that she was only to be an ignored stepchild. Similarly, when the Northwest Territories were dragged into confederation and later divided into provinces, their duties, rights and responsibilities were dictated to them by the imperial power of Canada, represented by eastern politicians. Western Canada took no part in the negotiations leading to its assimilation into confederation. Western Canada was developed to provide markets for eastern industrialists who were being shut out of world markets by Britain's decrease in imperial preferences and by the United States' unwillingness to maintain low tariff areas. From its birth, western Canada has been forced to accept a second-class colonial status within a political system which was never designed to give real regional security or effective power to areas of lower population.
There are 45 prairie Members of Parliament, compared with 88 Ontario members and 74 Quebec members. It is this lack of political clout in Ottawa and a total lack of understanding or even of attention on the part of the federal government which has led to present western alienation. The west has reached a stage both economically and culturally at which it can now devote itself to matters other than simple survival. It can no longer accept an inferior colonial status, particularly one which is camouflaged by the rhetoric of equality. Having seen through the rhetoric, the west is demanding to be partners on an equal footing.
Western discontent is not a new phenomenon. Many of the demands being expressed today bear a close resemblance to those expressed over half a century ago: lowering of tariffs, establishment of an equitable freight rate policy, the development of a national agricultural policy, and so on. The list of problems has simply become longer: oil, the cost-price squeeze, the need to share equally in the industrialization of the nation, bilingualism, rural depopulation, vertical integration.

Until recently the frustration which resulted from the failure of successive Liberal and Conservative governments to deal adequately with the problems of the west was channelled into various new western political parties and movements whose aims were to find a political voice for the west within Canadian confederation. But for several years now, western discontent has taken a new tack and has begun to adopt, if not the aims then at least some of the slogans and terminology of the separatist movement in Quebec. There is an increasing tendency for many westerners to view Ottawa as an enemy, as an alien force, rather than as their government. Increasing numbers of western Canadians would prefer going it alone to continuing a subservient or backwoods type of "cousin Clem" relationship with the rest of Canada.
The west has always provided fertile ground for new political concepts. Interestingly enough, in the past the political movements which have resulted from western ferment have placed great emphasis upon the role of the federal government. The west was the home of the Progressives, the United Farmers of Alberta, the CCF and Social Credit. Today, new movements attempting to provide solutions to the problems of the west, and existing institutions examining the same set of problems, are becoming more inward looking and are becoming characterized by regional particularism.
It would be edifying for members of this House to look at the expressed objectives of such organizations as the new west task force, the western parliament advocates, the western Canada movement, the Dominion of Canada party, the Mid-Can Businessmen's Association, and at the strongly worded motions by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Alberta Federation of Agriculture and the Western Union of Municipalities, to study the feasibility of secession.
Perhaps I can best illustrate the current temper of the west by giving a personal example. A few years ago, like, I suspect, most westerners, I considered myself to be a Canadian first and a westerner second. I happened to live in Winnipeg or Regina but I could just as easily have lived in Halifax or Toronto. More recently, however, to my great regret I find myself increasingly forced into a position of considering myself to be a westerner first and a Canadian second. Certainly, all members of this House will be able to see the dangers to the continued unity of this country inherent in such changes of attitude.
Let me make it very clear that I reject the concept of separatism, whether for the west or for any other region of Canada. To me, continued western Canadian participation in Canadian federalism is unquestionable. Certainly, separation or even political union of the west within confederation would not lead to the elimination of the frustrations westerners are experiencing in the present political system. It is crucial, both from the point of view of the well-being of westerners and from the point of view of the welfare of the country as a whole, that we do not allow westerners' frustration to allow them to become trapped into the attempt to find a nationalist or regionalist solution to their problems. My stand in this regard is firm, but this does not mean that in the next months and years the nationalist option will not be closely examined by westerners unless very rapidly there is evidence forthcoming from Ottawa of a genuine change of heart and attitude.
February 22, 1972

Why does this discontent exist? When this country was developing, the tariff policy, the national policy, decreed: We must protect our new industrial heartland and make it grow. To the west, the Maritimes and the north was given the task of agricultural and mineral and resource development. Maybe that made sense 100 or even 70 years ago. However, for too long now the sacrifices of the people beyond the major centres of central Canada have been disproportionate. The national policy of 100 years ago is out of date. Yet tariff policies, transportation policies and agricultural policies, or the lack of them, remain basically the same.
To those of us from the Prairies and, I suspect, equally to those from the Maritimes, the continuation of these policies appears as an outdated attempt to preserve special advantage, an attempt to hinder the development of the areas which need it most. All too often when there is a major economic adjustment it seems to benefit those parts of the country which already enjoy abundant growth, and injure the parts where significant growth is still to come.
The western farmer is confused, frustrated, and angry. Until recently the federal government was telling him to grow all the wheat he could, promising a high price for it. Then he was told to turn his wheat land into summer fallow. On paper, his farm equipment may be worth up to $100,000 or more, but he is forced to barter, borrow or bootleg grain for lack of ready cash. This frustration and anger is not limited to wheat producers. Our dairy farmers, too, are paying the price of an unfair quota system which militates against the western Canadian dairy industry.
Moreover, the western consumer pays higher prices for many manufactured goods than does his eastern counterpart, and higher prices than his American counterpart below the border. He looks at the auto trade pact, for instance, and wonders why no new plants came to western Canada, why new car prices were not reduced for the western car buyer, why no new jobs sprang up in the west as this rationalization of our auto markets and factories took place. He becomes even more aggrieved when he notes that just south of the border there was such an improvement in Minneapolis, that new plants were built in St. Louis and Kansas City to assemble Canadian-made auto units, and that new plants were also built in central Canada.
The small western Canadian businessman finds it virtually impossible to raise capital through private or public sources to expand his businesses and industries when at the same time well established eastern corporations and multinational corporations wishing to locate in the west and central Canada have little or no difficulty in obtaining the requisite amount of capital. The westerner becomes frustrated at the sure knowledge that despite his efforts there is going to be no change in the current situation where 19 out of 20 major Canadian corporations locate their head offices along the Montreal-Toronto axis in the golden horseshoe of eastern Canada.
Western Canadians are most anxious to maintain the standard of services available to their people at a level comparable to that attained in the rich province of
____________________________________155
Speech from the Throne
Ontario, but once again there is frustration because the ability of the west to finance socially required government services is severely curtailed by its narrow tax base.
When, for example, we raise our personal income tax by one percentage point in Manitoba, this produces about $1.89 per person. In Ontario, the same income tax rise worn produce $3.14. When we Manitobans raise our corporation tax one point, it produces $1.82 per capita; the same tax increase would produce $3.40 in Ontario. We have to almost double our tax increases to obtain the same per capita revenues that are achieved in Ontario with half the increase. Equalization grants compensate to some extent, but they have the inherent disadvantage of being based upon fiscal capacity rather than fiscal need. To oversimplify, equalization formulas are based upon equalizing the amount of revenue per capita raised rather than upon equalizing the kind of services provided.
Thus, the western Canadian farmer, small businessman and factory worker see taxes go higher to pay the costs of services which need new economic growth to support them, and this new economic growth is not there. Western Canadians see their children move out to the new industry which is growing up in Central Canada right beside the old industry that was there before, and towns and villages become ghost towns.
The westerner sees the lack of a national transportation policy, combined with the existing highly discriminatory freight rates, preventing western goods from competing in eastern markets. He sees the tariff system which shelters eastern manufacturers while forcing western Canada's wheat, forest products, potash, nickel, oil and gas, to be sold at competitive prices in a world market. And he sees the blatant discrimination inherent in the prevention of western oil and gas from being distributed east of the Ontario-Quebec border because of a commitment to purchase these products from American-dominated Venezuelan wells.
Would 1 cent per gallon more be too high a price to pay for the development of a valuable Canadian industry? If westerners are forced into paying higher prices for goods manufactured in the east, and effectively prevented from buying similar goods across the border by protective tariffs, surely the east can reciprocate in some form such as aiding the development of western economic potential by paying a bit more for their fuel.
I could go on indefinitely outlining areas where the federal government has mismanaged, less from incompetence than from a simple lack of interest, the western region. I have not yet mentioned the cost-price squeeze for westerners created by the anti-inflationary controls imposed by the federal government to cool the economy in the prosperous, free-spending parts of Canada. I have not spoken of the problems of rural depopulation and resettlement resulting from the encouragement of agribusiness by governments insensitive to the different cultural and social values of the west.
Even in the field of entertainment the western Canadian is confronted with evidence of an insensitive eastern Canadian attitude. The CBC, our public network, supposedly dedicated to the fostering of national unity, has so concentrated its production facilities in the east that west-

February 22, 1972
Speech from the Throne
ern Canadian entertainers must leave their homes to earn a living.
Each of these specific western complaints would be serious enough taken by itself. Each would, and does, cry out for action. But, taken together, the grievances which I have cited and the numerous others to which I have not made reference are in danger of turning into a mighty avalanche of discontent sweeping aside logic and reason in a tide of frustration and anger.
Western alienation is a fact. Western regional particularism is becoming one because the federal government, this government no less than its predecessors, have created no over-all plan for development for this nation, no national plan which would allow for natural and gradual reform rather than crisis management, long-range planning rather than patchwork policies. This government has not attempted to define the goals for Canadian society. This government and its predecessors have followed a policy of reacting rather than acting, of allowing the pot to simmer and boil until it overflows, at which point they have attempted to clamp on a jury-rigged lid. Instead of progressing in a well directed fashion down a well defined path, our governments have staggered erratically from near disaster to near disaster, patching here, repairing there, narrowly avoiding calamity.
In short, we have had, as I have said, government by crisis management, and in a crisis management situation it is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. In a crisis management situation, policy decisions are ultimately a product of counting noses in the House of Commons rather than a product of a rational decision based upon the good of the nation as a whole. This means 88 votes for Ontario, 74 for Quebec and only 45 votes for the Prairies. Even if British Columbia's votes are included in the latter count, the west is in a minority position and subject to control by central Canada.
It is for this reason that westerners are not participating in the direction of Canadian events even to the extent that would normally be dictated by their economic and social importance to the nation. It is for this reason that successive federal governments have shown themselves to be unsympathetic to, and generally ignorant of, western needs and aspirations. It is for this reason that policies of successive federal governments have demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the social and cultural idiosyn-cracies of the west where a strong social conservatism is coupled with increasing economic and political radicalism.
I have attempted to define the problem. What are the solutions? I deeply regret, although I am not at all sure that the House does, that time does not permit me to go into an examination of the solutions in the same detail as I have examined the problems. Let me just touch on some of the approaches which might be taken very briefly.
Some of the problems could be met through a new flexibility in constitutional arrangements which would permit each region of the country, not only the west, to establish a relationship with the federal government which accurately reflected the needs of the region and which was not based upon the puerile assumption adopted by the present government that all provinces and regions in this country are the same, that what is good for

one must be good for the others. In some cases this would mean centralization of powers, in others decentralization of powers, but in every case a constitutional arrangement tailored to fit the needs of the region instead of attempting to find some sort of non-existent over-all average.
Some of the problems can be met by an administrative arrangement; for example, the establishment of taxation arrangements designed to limit competition among provinces in key economic areas; the establishment of corporate income tax rates, a competition which only the strongest provinces can win. Administrative arrangements could also provide for the decentralization of government departments and agencies so as to give the west and the Maritimes a proportionate share of the benefits derived from governmental institutions.
Some of the answers to the problems I have mentioned can be found in government policy; for example, the creation of a national transportation policy worthy of the name, one that would have the effect of making transportation costs a neutral factor in finding the optimum location of an industry. This would mean that transportation costs would not dictate that an industry necessarily be located in an area of concentrated population.
Some of the answers must come from westerners themselves. Since we lack political clout in Ottawa, we must come here, as provinces and Members of Parliament, better informed and prepared than our counterparts from the rest of the country. That means a great deal more attention to that kind of preparation for federal-provincial conferences on the part of provincial governments in the west than has been the case heretofore. Some of our problems are outside the realm of government and require action on the part of westerners. For example, western agricultural organizations must get together and form a common front. They can no longer afford the luxury of internal squabbles.
In the final analysis, the only real solution to the problems of the west which have given rise to its current sense of frustration and alienation is the establishment of a national government with the commitment and the courage to govern in the interest of the nation as a whole, even if that national interest makes it take stands on behalf of minorities in terms of electoral strength at the expense of majorities in terms of electoral strength. We need a government with the courage to say to the golden horseshoe region of Central Canada; "Re-examine your goals. It is obvious that further unrestricted growth in your area, in terms of population or industrial capacity for the production of wealth, is against your interest and the interest of the nation. Not only is unrestricted growth in your area defiling your environment and making it more difficult to live with decent standards, but it is contributing to disunity in this country and to the continuation of unacceptable levels of regional economic disparity."
This country can no longer afford the kind of government which the Liberal government has given us for the last four years-government by crisis management. Government without planning, government without goals always results in a policy of "Them what has gits" and of setting one region against another, one province against another and neighbour against neighbour. It is no acci-
February 22, 1972

dent that perhaps the period of greatest harmony and greatest advance in this country was the period immediately following World War II when Canadians knew who they were and what they wanted, went after it and got it. We may today question the wisdom of the aims of that period, but the fact remains that they were aims and they were achieved.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I would first like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I found the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) most entertaining, especially when he described the beauties of his riding. However, the same cannot be said for the latter part of his speech. If he loses his seat in the next election, I believe he would be well advised to look for a spot on Rowan and Martin's "Laugh-in." The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie) who seconded the motion is to be congratulated for the sincerity with which he put forth his views on Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard two speeches in rapid succession, one closing the third session and one opening the fourth session of the twenty-eighth Parliament. When reading these speeches I could not help but be reminded of a Billy Sunday revival hour which opened with a hymn entitled "How Great Thou Art" and closed with the hymn entitled "Count Your Blessings". These speeches are obviously the work of a smug, self-satisfied government that is out of touch with the needs and desires of the people whom it is elected to serve, a government which keeps saying over and over, like the former world heavyweight champion, Mohammed Ali, "I am the greatest".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That is not a view that is shared by many Canadians who view with concern the policies of this government. It is all very well to promise in the Throne Speech, and I use these words from the speech-
-the fundamental reform of protective measures which commenced last year with the new Unemployment Insurance Act will continue-
I ask you, Sir, what about the thousands of unemployed who are now entitled to benefits and who have been denied those benefits by the bungling of this government? During the recent parliamentary recess all of us had an opportunity to meet with our constituents. I found that the people I represent are in agreement with the concept that financial aid should be provided to those who are unable to find work. Moreover, they were also in agreement that benefits paid should be enough to live on. However, they were not in agreement with the philosophy that benefits should be so high that it makes it more attractive to be unemployed than to work.
In their view, and it is a view that I share, the bills for all those unemployed must be paid by all working Canadians. Why, they ask, is there no longer any incentive for people to work? What happened to the old-fashioned philosophy that you work for what you get? This country was not developed to its present state without initiative, and its further growth will be slowed down in an atmosphere where initiative is stifled by the "happy hand-out" philosophy of this administration.
Speech from the Throne
A working man not only earns money, he also retains his self-respect. There is a dignity in working, a dignity in a job which cannot be secured by any other means. Any man worth his salt must feel that he is making a contribution, a contribution to himself, to his family, to his home and to his country, by being gainfully employed. Under this government, too many Canadians are being robbed of this basic right, too many Canadians are walking the streets. That is why they are saying, individually and collectively, and certainly in my riding, in three words their solution to the problem: the three words are, "Trudeau must go".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: They have an addendum to that and they say, "Surely there must be a better way to run this country". With that I agree. Our farmers, our fishermen, our businessmen large and small are calling out today for leadership, leadership at the federal level. They are asking for the right to participate in the development of this country, a right which has obviously been denied them by the socialistic policies of the present government. Our young people come to me and say, "Surely we have a right to be more than viewers on the scene. Surely we have a right to be doers on the scene." I say that is what must be done if we are to get this country back on the rails and go forward and progress in unity together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: At page 6, the Speech from the Throne states that a continuation and strengthening of government-industry relations is necessary in order that increasing demands for resources are met. That statement prompts the question: Who caused the deterioration between government and industry? Why has this government lost the confidence of Canadian businessmen? Why do Canadian businessmen no longer trust the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)? Why do they no longer trust his cabinet?
The answers to those questions are many and varied, but in my opinion the incomprehensible new tax reform legislation has gone a long way toward widening the chasm of frustration, discontent, unrest and uncertainty which exists today between the business community and the government. As long as this situation exists we will have unemployment running at the 7 per cent level or greater in Canada. As long as we operate under the capitalistic system-and there are many who question how long that will be-it is our business community and not the government which will provide the greatest employment opportunities for Canadians.
Our present high unemployment rate is causing unrest and distress across this nation. However, regionally depressed areas such as Atlantic Canada must still bear the greatest share of the burden. Last month the Atlantic provinces unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted-here I am quoting government figures-rose to 10.5 per cent from 9.7 per cent the previous month. This is just not good enough. These figures give a clear indication of the ineffectiveness of the Trudeau government's policies to end regional disparities.

February 22, 1972
Speech from the Throne
Is it any wonder businessmen in Atlantic Canada have called into question the federal government's stated dedication to the long-term development of the Atlantic economy on a planned and orderly basis? Is it any wonder we look with suspicion at the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the minister who runs this department, since DREE is obviously nothing more than a well financed give-away program to be extended or retracted according to the economic and political exigencies of this minister?
The sad truth is that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) has refused to subscribe to any specific long-term goals and targets for the Atlantic region. The minister was asked only last month by the chairman of the Atlantic Development Council if he would focus his department's policies on a long-range plan to reduce the unemployment rate in Atlantic Canada to 4 or 4.5 per cent by 1980. If he would not do this, he was asked to have his 140 or more planning department experts prepare statistics and arguments showing why such a goal was unattainable.
What was the minister's response? I regret he is unable to be present tonight, because I do not like to refer to him and his department in his absence, but such are the difficulties of being a Member of Parliament. He said the government could not commit itself to targets unless it was certain that both the international and national economies would operate at optimum levels during the next ten years. Obviously, the department of Regional Economic Expansion does not know where it is going or what it wants to do beyond the next election. This raises a number of serious questions. Has the minister seriously examined the Atlantic Development Council's goals and, if so, has he determined that they cannot be met? If this is true, does it follow that no significant improvement in the economy of the Atlantic region is to be expected?
Are we destined to forever suffer an unemployment rate of 10 per cent or more in Atlantic Canada, since Ottawa with all its bureaucrats is incapable of predicting with any accuracy the trend of our national and international economy over a ten-year period? Or does it simply mean that the Trudeau administration, in light of recent political events, has shrugged its shoulders about forming Atlantic provinces' regional goals and could not care less about formulating national goals?
Normally, we in Atlantic Canada would be inclined to applaud the proposed increase in DREE's budget to $500 million in 1972-73 compared with estimates of $450 million this year, but in view of the department's aimlessness, its lack of goals, targets and direction the question may well be asked whether further DREE spending is not just hastening the day of national disenchantment over the entire federal regional development effort. A ten-year goal of reducing Atlantic regional unemployment to 4.5 per cent should not be considered unattainable or utopian. In fact, the Economic Council of Canada, in its 1959 sixth annual review, said that its target of a 3 per cent unemployment rate nationally was still valid as a goal for the mid-1970s. Obviously, when writing this report the Economic Council had not taken into consideration the
numbing effects of this administration's socialistic policies upon the Canadian business community.
In my opinion, the federal government should commit itself to strengthening the Canadian economy over a reasonable and specified time period so that unemployment could be reduced to 4 or 4.5 per cent of the labour force. However, to do this the government must first put its own house in order. It must practice economies in its operation. It must realize that every dollar spent in the public sector must first be taken away from the private or producing sector of our economy. I say this because the 4 to 4.5 per cent unemployment rate is not an acceptable longterm figure. We must strive to do better than that. But the most annoying, most frustrating and galling fact of all is that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Trudeau government have refused to accept a longterm goal of 4.5 per cent unemployed as a possibility for Atlantic Canada.
I warn the cabinet and the Prime Minister that we in Atlantic Canada will be judging this government in the months ahead, not by its promises but by its performances in the past four years. Our present unemployment rate is a sad and tragic commentary on the inadequacy of the government's policies. To us in Atlantic Canada it seems strange that this government can plan a $30 million redevelopment across the Ottawa river by removing the E. B. Eddy plant over the next ten years, but cannot initiate a ten-year plan for the reduction of unemployment in Atlantic Canada. By their actions he shall know them, and we know now where their priorities lie.
The Speech from the Throne states that Canada's primary food producers, our farmers and our fishermen, form one of the traditional and still basic strenghts of our economy and that measures will be taken to improve prices to our fishermen and our farmers. In view of the economic plight of our primary producers, I sincerely hope the words in the Throne Speech are not an idle promise. Our farmers, for example, in Atlantic Canada are faced with increased costs for feed, seed, labour, machinery, gas, oil, fertilizer and insecticide while the prices they receive for some of their products are as low or lower than they were five years ago.
Then on February 14, 1972, for the ninth time in 24 months our farmers, our fishermen and our businessmen in the Maritimes faced another rise in freight rates. Because of these adverse freight rates our producers, especially our agricultural producers, are losing markets, even in our own province of Nova Scotia. I say this because volume, containerization and streamlining of shipping procedures have made it cheaper to ship goods from 1,000 miles away compared to 100 miles if the volume is small. For example, producers in Nova Scotia have learned that agricultural products can now be shipped from Ontario to London, England, at a lower cost than they could be shipped from points in Nova Scotia under the new, combined rail-ocean container service.
The entire inland freight shipment is absorbed by the consortium, a rail-Ocean container partnership, while the Nova Scotian shipper has to pay the same ocean rate as the combined rate and in addition must pay to get his shipment to Halifax. Obviously, we must resign ourselves to the fact that our maritime situation of being beside the ocean no longer assures us of any advantage in transpor-
(Mr. Crouse. 1
February 22, 1972

tation costs, either in exporting or importing goods by water. These facts are not helpful, especially to our farmers, and more must be done to aid them in their fight for survival.
Earlier this month the Prime Minister, speaking in Montreal, announced feed grains subsidies for eastern Canadian livestock farmers as well as payments for hog producers across the country. At that time he acknowledged that eastern livestock and poultry producers have had to pay more for the same Canadian Wheat Board grains than their western counterparts. Generally speaking, the assistance for our hog producers has been well received even though it lasts only for a short period. However, there is a segment of our agricultural economy, especially in Nova Scotia, which requires special consideration at the present time. Here I refer to our poultry farmers who are presently producing eggs at below cost.
This question was aired when the National Farmers Association held their meetings early in February in western Canada. There are obviously too many fowls in production, and if egg prices are to be brought in line with costs a subsidized fowl slaughter program will have to be initiated. The farmers in my constituency who have suggested this measure have indicated that almost every egg producer in Nova Scotia has suffered a loss of approximately $1 per bird per year for the last two years. They have therefore suggested that the fowl slaughter program should be subsidized to the amount of $1 per bird, which is in effect much less than the difference consumers should have been paying for eggs, in view of present day costs. The present situation is critical and unless action is taken to help our poultry producers, many of them who have borrowed money from the Farm Credit Corporation will be unable to meet their interest payments and nothing will be paid on the principal.
To face bankruptcy and the loss of your farm after working long hours for many years is not a welcome thought, yet this is the spectre that is facing the Nova Scotia poultry producers. Since the Throne Speech states that the cost of any program in aid of our primary food producers will be borne by the treasury rather than the consumer, I hope that immediate action will be taken to assist our poultry farmers.
I spoke a moment ago about freight rates in the Mari-times. These constant freight rate increases are literally a threat to our entire economy. Our fledgling manufacturing industry is being severely crippled in its efforts to remain competitive and the cost of bringing in much needed goods from other parts of Canada is constantly rising. In my opinion, the whole national transportation policy of 1967, which was supposed to put the railroads on a sound economic footing and improve the transportation industry for all Canadians, needs to be re-examined.
The railways, which are now free of the responsibility of securing approval from the regulatory board before imposing rate increases, have not become more efficient in handling either freight or passengers. Obviously, this situation cannot be permitted to continue, for transportation costs represent the key factor which spells out the success or failure of our Maritime industries. For example, each time a wage or salary increase is granted, our
Speech from the Throne
freight rates are advanced on a percentage basis. The fact that this is killing the goose that has been laying the golden egg is ignored. But each time industry closes its door due to increased costs which it cannot absorb, there is less freight for our railroads and more men go on the unemployment rolls.
Obviously, our present national transportation policy is not working to the advantage of maritime industry for it fails to take into consideration our limited manufacturing base, our lower than average income levels and the great distances which separate us from the central and far western markets in Canada and from those markets which we should enjoy in Canada. The aims of 1967 have not been realized and this is a problem that requires immediate consideration by the government since it affects every man, woman and child who resides in Atlantic Canada.
The Throne Speech speaks of our fishermen and states that their continued productivity and livelihood is of immense importance to the government and to the country. This is certainly true in Atlantic Canada where there is an ever increasing concern over the declining stocks of groundfish in the area under the control of the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries which extends from west Greenland to the coast of Rhode Island. In 1969, of the 3.5 million metric tons of fish taken in the ICNAF areas, 2.4 million tons were taken from waters bordering on the Atlantic provinces.
Canadian fishermen caught 1.2 million metric tons or 34 per cent of the total, while European fishermen caught 2 million metric tons or 57 per cent of the total. The U.S.A. and non-member nations of ICNAF caught the balance. Although Canadian fishermen harvested 34 per cent of the total catch, they caught only 20 per cent of the total amount of codfish taken in the ICNAF areas. This is very significant when we consider that codfish is the species taken in greatest quantity by European fishermen; and of the 20 per cent taken by Canadians, about half is taken by inshore fishermen chiefly from the province of Newfoundland. It therefore follows that Canadian offshore fishermen are not catching more than 10 per cent of the codfish.
With this fact before us it is quite apparent that overfishing of cod in eastern waters is due entirely to foreign efforts. In 1969, in the ICNAF convention areas a reported 1,428 metric tons of codfish were caught of which 1,188 metric tons were taken by European countries. I mention these figures to show the extent and magnitude of the problem we are facing, and the extent of our conservation problems. Two of the most prolific areas for codfishing are the Hamilton Inlet Bank and the Grand Banks off Newfoundland. Here overfishing has had a very serious effect on the Labrador fishery, causing it to decline by alarming proportions. In fact, the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, which 15 years ago gave large quantities of haddock to Atlantic Canada and the east coast fishery, are today practically devoid of this species.
This is understandable when we examine the fishing methods followed by the United Kingdom, the U.S.S.R., Poland, Portugal, Spain, Norway and East and West Germany. The Soviets and other Communist bloc countries at present favour the mother ship principle in which a number of catcher vessels operate in conjunction with a
25020-11?.

Speech from the Throne
large factory ship. One of the latest additions to the Soviet fleet is the giant 43,000 ton Vostok which carries on board 14 catcher vessels each of 66 tons. The ship also carries a helicopter for spotting schools of fish, and apart from the working and living accommodation has a club, a cinema, a concert hall, a library, shops, a medical centre and a swimming pool. It has a power generating station sufficient to provide power for a town of 10,000 people.
Obviously, the Soviets are not concerned about the cost of catching fish. They have a different motivation. They catch fish for food, while we in Canada, the people in our industry, must try to catch fish for profit, which is very difficult to do at present; in fact, it is becoming impossible. In addition to the Vostok, the Soviets have 600 factory and freezer stern trawlers, and Japan has built up a similar sized fleet which searches the world for fish.
You may well ask, what chance have the fish of escaping this onslaught; what are their chances of survival? The answer is that they are not surviving. Press releases by the Department of Fisheries show that the dollar values are high, reflecting, I would point out, higher prices due to the scarcity of the product. I regret the fact that the government, in the Throne Speech, takes credit for these higher prices. The higher prices are due to the decline and scarcity of the product, not to any action that has been taken by the Trudeau administration.
However, according to fisheries statistics the total pounds landed dropped from 1,233 million in 1969 to 1,121 million in 1971. In view of the decline in haddock catches, controls have been applied in some areas under ICNAF supervision, but it is too early to assess the results. However, I believe this type of fisheries management will have to be applied to other species if the stocks of fish are to recover in sufficient quantities to provide us with a viable fishing industry.
It cannot be said too often or too strongly that fishing is a major factor in the economy of Atlantic Canada, and every effort must be made to see that it is preserved. Where fishing quotas have been established by ICNAF there has been international acceptance of these restrictions. However, quotas, to be effective, must be set at a point somewhere below recent catches. This must be done if they are to achieve the desired effect of rehabilitating stocks of various species. I believe in setting up any management system for our fisheries and that the rights of the coastal state to manage our fish stocks must be recognized. Haddock, flounder and codfish are already being overfished and there is evidence that herring are now being fished close to their maximum sustainable yield. Quotas on haddock and flounder have already been set in some areas, but other species must be protected.
I mention these facts so that the government will be aware of the serious problems facing our fishing industry and will take a stand on them before it is too late. Certainly, we from Atlantic Canada are trying to do everything we can as members representing these areas to make the government aware of the serious problems facing our fishing industry. As the government is aware, Iceland has a conservation problem and it announced in July of 1971 that it will extend its fisheries jurisdiction by September, 1972, to the outer limits of its continental shelf.

When taking this stand, the Icelandic government stated that it is unrealistic that foreign nationals can be prevented from pumping oil or other resources from the seabed or the subsoil of the continental shelf but that they cannot in the same manner be prevented from destroying other resources which are based on the same seabed. I contend that is a good philosophy for Canada to adopt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: This is the type of positive stand that Canada should now be taking. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) had any backbone, our fisheries would not now be facing disaster. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis), in his speech to this House on October 14, 1971 as recorded at page 8678 of Hansard, said the following:
Our basic approach is to establish a managed fishery not only in our own exclusive limits but out over all our continental shelf- which in cases extends 400 miles into the Atlantic and all of the slope beyond it and to insist that in future it is by agreement a managed fishery.
Obviously, the Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries got the message from our fishing industry. Obviously, he is willing to take a stand on the matter, and I assure him, through you, Sir, of the support of the official opposition for his stand as put forward on October 14, 1971. However, I realize that he must also have the support of Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs, who has procrastinated ever since being appointed to that portfolio in introducing fisheries legislation designed to conserve our fisheries resources. This was the fault of his Liberal predecessor who faithfully promised our fishermen a 12-mile limit away back in 1964. I think it is regrettable that the present minister is following the same path.
Our fishermen, Mr. Speaker, want performance, not promises. I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to the Prime Minister and to the government, that they may be able to wait until the Law of the Sea Conference is called some time in 1973, or in 1974-we learned, in answer to a question this week, that the date, has not yet been set-but the foreign fishing fleets are not waiting; they are vacuum-cleaning our fishing grounds, and by the time a conference is called many of our important species will be depleted beyond the point of no return. The situation is crying out for action now. I hope this government acts before it is too late to save this important primary industry which is vital to the over-all economy of Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the honour to express my entire approval to the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
Mr. Speaker, tonight I should like to focus on the main points of the Speech from the Throne and bring the government to face what it has done.
How far have we got since this government has been in power? I shall review the highlights of the speech. I am not criticising the speech as a whole because it contains some points I approve of. I shall limit myself to asking the
February 22, 1972

government to implement the principles expressed in the speech, which would certainly bring about a change in our economy, since the speech advocates payment of a guaranteed annual income.
For years we have been fighting to get it. We want it and if the government does bring such legislation forward we can certainly help in having it adopted.
Mr. Speaker, so far the government has not done much toward the creation of the just society. It has been content with such half measures as setting up new departments, creating jobs for several hon. members and conducting inquiries into several sectors of the economy. I have in mind the Economic Council, the Inquiry on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, and all sorts of other inquiries.
This setting up of commissions, and those changes in the cabinet are mere shifts meant to stifle criticism and camouflage apparent inequities which might have come to light.
Changes effected within departments will prevent certain events taking place.
We are still facing the same paradox, Mr. Speaker. Particularly since 1966, we have seen many a Royal inquiry conducted, many commissions of learned specialists, or of the Senate and the House set up, many white papers published and many official reports of the Economic Council of Canada, all prepared by eminent economic authorities of Canada, some even with the assistance of foreign specialists. They painted a detailed picture of all aspects of economic life in Canada, and particularly of the alleged causes of inflation, unemployment and poverty, all of which are being discussed these days by hon. members, but no solutions to all these problems seem to be forthcoming.
Inflation, unemployment and poverty are the three separate results of the same economic sickness which can be described as the national economic imbalance. The more we use the present system, that is the tax system, and the present economic principles, the more we will witness the imbalances that will unfortunately lead our people to impractical solutions.
Mr. Speaker, why do all the great learned men thus brought together fail to better identify the causes of our economic lack of balance and suggest solutions that would lead once more to economic equilibrium? Why can they not manage to agree at least on specific points?
Mr. Speaker, all sorts of solutions are sought. The economists fail to agree in suggesting the principles of valid solutions; they disagree on practically every aspect of the economy. Attempts are made to promote production and capitalization while consumption is sadly lacking, in the case of over 60 per cent of the population. Efforts are made to train ordinary workers, professionals and technicians, once again to encourage production, while very often consumption lags behind.
No one seems to agree, here again, neither in the large universities of Europe, in the States and elsewhere, nor amongst the academics, on basic principles that might justify a practical solution to cure our economy.
Mr. Speaker, foreign investments keep us dependent upon foreigners. Everyone talks about it. I say we must make our own investments, based on the same resources, through Canadian institutions.
Speech from the Throne
Mr. Speaker, our Canadian institutions are surely capable of stepping in and supplying the capital required to allow the developments warranted by the economic possibilities we are all aware of in our country.
Mr. Speaker, Canada cannot continue to create employment while showing deficits. The increased deficit will be a cruel problem after the election, since the budget will have to be balanced and this will only be achieved through a general tax increase blamed on inflation or levied for the sake of economic rehabilitation through so-called social development taxes.
The Canadian people can live more or less satisfactorily if they get into debt. Our government has merely continued to carry out the disastrous policy of previous governments; it has continued to carry out the same policy of running into debt and making compromises. Uncertainty and the shifting of a policy of surrender going from inflation to deflation leads to a centralizing policy. Never in the history of our country have we experienced such centralization and such loss of freedom. Bill C-259, on tax reform will deprive the Canadian taxpayers of the few assets which they still own.
We have never seen so many bankruptcies and so many citizens assigning their property as at the present time. Farming is now being centralized. Private enterprise has never been so threatened. Industry is increasingly running into debt and is ill-affected due to the direct meddling of the State in its affairs. The economic health of Canadians is in danger. The solutions considered by the government are antieconomic, antisocial and immoral. While production is increasing, the purchasing power should also be increasing, but on the contrary it is falling. Canadians are thus subjected to constant inbalance. We now find only indifference among builders, dissatisfaction among labourers, uncertainty among professionals and anarchy in the industry.
Because of this policy, the cost of living has increased to such an extent that most Canadians are no longer able to meet their obligations. The increase in the cost of living has incited all salaried workers, all pensioners, all recipients of welfare payments, who live at the expense of others, to continually ask for salary increases; consequently, there will be new taxes and the same comedy will be played again.
Yet, we are told that all is well. Why adopt legislation the only effect of which is to annoy Canadians, to deprive them of their possessions and to prevent them from taking any action by punishing them? The day will come when the system will have to pay for its follies, beginning with unemployment of which it is the cause.
One must open one's eyes. Canadians no longer have any future in the present economic system. So, we must look for other solutions. Everything has been tried to make the economic system bearable, but imbalance is all we know. According to some experts, we needed education in order to become richer or in order to live, but unemployment continues and we remain as poor as before. Credit societies, of which much was expected, were created, but farms and industries continue to go bankrupt and to disappear. Savings and investment funds have been created, but most of our savings remain in the

February 22, 1972
Release of Yves Geoffroy from Penitentiary
hands of financial and foreign trusts. Everything has been tried, but no government control has succeeded in civilizing the present economic system. So, Mr. Speaker, as a solution, the government has increased the Unemployment Insurance Fund. That is the only solution, the only method that the government has tried so far. Social welfare through retraining courses has been invented and the already large number of welfare recipients is increasing. Social welfare is more and more popular and represents from 25 to 30 per cent of the federal and provincial budgets. Disguised social welfare and regional development companies have been created, but unemployment persists.
Such are the results of trying to adjust to the system instead of adjusting the system to the needs of the people. We need to open our eyes, Mr. Speaker, and look in another direction. The radical changes proposed by the Creditistes have not yet entered the hearts of the leaders of this country. Nobody can come up with any other answers. All sorts of solutions have been proposed and tried. All sorts of measures have been implemented but they always end up going round in circles, and those who sit on the opposition benches, like the Progressive Conservative members, for instance, claim that they are experts, but once they are in power they do exactly the same thing as their predecessors.
What we need is reforms in depth. The Speech from the Throne proposes a few, and I will be most eager to state tomorrow the things which I feel are valuable in this speech and to ask the government to implement the proposed reforms, and the opposition to support them.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is now ten o'clock?



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I recognize the Solicitor General.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I would like, following your ruling, to table three letters: the first one is the letter dated June 28 1971, addressed by Mr. Yves Geoffroy to the Commissioner of Penitentiaries; the second is a report dated August 19, 1971, from Miss Micheline Cornellier, a social worker, to the Commissioner of Penitentiaries; and the third one is a letter dated November 3, 1971, addressed by the Reverend J. A. Nickels, the Chief of the Chaplaincy Service of the Canadian Penitentiary Service, to the director of the Saint-Vincent-de-Paul penitentiary. There are two copies of each letter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree to the tabling of the three documents just mentioned by the Solicitor General?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) if the government is prepared to make its promised loan contribution of $123 million to assist the city of Vancouver with its transportation difficulties for whatever form of transport the city council decides is most desirable. Regrettably, the minister dodged my question by indicating in a jocular manner that he could not rightly recall any such promise. Evidently he was unable to recall that two of his cabinet colleagues from British Columbia had made differing pronouncements on the matter earlier this month. On one thing, however, they agreed, that the federal government was committed to lend money for a third crossing of Burrard Inlet.
During the first week of February, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), at a press conference in Mayor Tom Campbell's office, stated unequivocally that Ottawa was committed to making a loan, estimated in 1970 at $123 million. A week later, in the same office, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) acknowledged existence of the commitment, but declared as follows:
Any government decision is subject to change-
He added:
-but no government spends money unless there is a feeling-
That is, in a community.
-the money should be spent.
A third British Columbia cabinet minister had taken yet another contradictory position a little earlier. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) gave it as his opinion that there is-
-no heavy consensus in favour of the project. I have heard an engineering expert from the United States say here that the last thing we need is another crossing. We are considering here a tremendous amount of money. There is a rising view that premier attention should be given to rapid transit... The opposition, as I read it, is restricted to a fast bus service rather than accommodating everyone who wants to bring his own car downtown.
Yet another element was added by the chairman of the Vancouver Port Authority, Mr. Bill Rathie, a former mayor, who seems to be devoting most of his energies to pushing hard for a third crossing. He holds that the federal government would require a plebiscite before advancing the loan. Meanwhile, as a background, we have the on again-off again dithering of the City Fathers concerning the desirability of a public hearing and a plebiscite.
To top it all off, Mr. Speaker, we have the findings of Mayor Tom Campbell that those who oppose the third crossing are nothing but a rabble of Communists, Maoists and Hamburgers. He defines "Hamburgers" in his own
February 22, 1972

inimitable fashion as persons who do not possess a university degree.
Given this welter of confusion and comic opera, I think it will be agreed that it was not unreasonable of me to ask the Minister of Transport for an early statement of the government's policy on this matter. Perhaps one can understand his temptation to treat the situation with levity, but I feel that in doing so he is hardly living up to his responsibility as Minister of Transport. Vancouver is faced by serious problems of traffic congestion which must be dealt with at once if the city is not to become choked with cars and pollution. A great many concerned citizens are worried by all this flim-flam, delay and secrecy. They have in the past suffered bitter experiences which lead them to fear that under all the apparent indecision and confusion, far reaching moves are being made in response to the demands of a relatively small number of citizens at the expense of the well-being of the entire community.
I would urge the Minister of Transport to announce clearly that if and when the city council of Vancouver reaches a firm decision on how it intends to deal with its transportation problems, the loan of $123 million will be made available. Such an announcement would represent a great step in clarifying the situation. The people of Vancouver need to know the facts and I hope the minister will take the lead in making those facts available.


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the government has no wish to contribute to the construction of a third crossing against the will of the people. The "commitment" to which reference has been made is an offer rather than an irreversible decision. It is hoped that full discussion will lead to the establishment of a consensus. If the local and provincial governments will make commitments reflecting such a consensus, the offer can be taken as being validated and construction may begin.
It might be added that the proposal contemplates the provision of a rapid transit corridor which can be adapted to suit any form of transit that the local municipalities may decide to establish.



FISHERIES-POSSIBLE VARIATION IN LOBSTER SEASON, DISTRICT NO. 5, NOVA SCOTIA

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I addressed a question to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis ) about his intentions with regard to making a public statement concerning a possible variation in the length of the lobster fishing season in district No. 5, Nova scotia. With all respect, I found his answer to be evasive, glib and self-serving. It seems to me that if that is the basis upon which the minister wishes to deal with a problem which people in the area consider to be very serious, he should be asked certain questions.
The fishermen in this area are not at all happy, despite the minister's glib assurance that things were never better for the lobster fishermen. They want to know the answers to some general questions; for instance, what has happened to sick mariner's benefits, and what is the situation with respect to the fishing bounty? The bounty has gone, they know that. They know, also, that sick mariner's bene-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
fits have gone and that the replacement scheme is not satisfactory. They know that subsidies to assist in the building of small vessels have been reduced, and they resent very much the encroachment of foreign fishing vessels. It seems obvious to them that the fisheries branch of the Department of the Environment, and the external affairs department are not doing what they should be doing generally.
In particular, Mr. Speaker, what vexes them is the situation regarding the so-called poll taken in district No. 5 with which I have dealt and about which I have corresponded with the minister. I think it can be summed up best by reading into the record a letter received from the Goldboro-Bayview District Board of Trade, which is a prominent and concerned organization in this area. I think this letter will prove informative and, as I say, sums up the situation very well. It reads:
Dear Mr. MacKay:
Thank you very much for your assistance in our effort to determine the status of the lobster fishing season in district No. 5, Nova Scotia. The frustrating and conflicting replies you have received from the Minister of Fisheries again confirms his lack of understanding and regard for our inshore fishery.
The 20 day reduction imposed now leaves us with a ridiculously short season of only two months from April 10 to June 10. We are now cut back to a point that when Sunday's, average bad weather and drift ice are considered actual fishing time will amount to about 42 days a year which hardly makes the other 323 days of comparitive meagre existence worth the effort of maintaining expensive equipment.
We feel that our opinions are based on a sound and practical working knowledge of the situation with a backing of generations of experience. We are worthy of more consideration than that given by the minister when dealing with people who are neglected and ignored.
When asked for justification for his cruel decision the minister advised that a survey of class A fishermen showed that 85 per cent were in favour of a shorter season. When this was proven to be false he then advised that 230 fishermen were polled with 90 per cent being in favour of a shorter season. The fact that there are actually 689 class A lobster fishermen in this district and none of those contacted to date are aware of a survey makes the minister's figures and percentages even more confusing.
The minister suggests a variation order may be issued to change the dates after the season opens. This does not afford the security needed to ensure a viable industry. Action should immediately be taken to ensure the survival of our lobster fishery by the department obtaining the facts here not as dreamed at desks in Ottawa.
These are harsh words indeed, and I do not like to talk about this subject in such an acrimonous way. Had the minister answered my question in a courteous and informative manner, perhaps I would not have deemed it necessary to read this kind of letter into the public record. But I have had many such letters, Mr. Speaker. Petitions have been sent both to the minister and to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). By coincidence I received a letter today after I had asked the minister my question this morning. This particular writer suggests that the minister does not know a cohoe from a groundhog. I suggest, with deference and with as little offence as I can under the circumstances, that if some of the civil servants in the minister's department would go down to the district concerned, check with the fishermen and conduct straightforward polls, spend a little time with them and find out what is going on-in other words, exert a little guidance and direction instead of dictating to these

February 22, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion fishermen-then we would all be better off. Not only would there be better public relations between the minister and his department and the fishermen concerned, but I suggest some more constructive steps could be taken.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of any fishery in Canada that is conducted on a more democratic basis. The fishermen in question are polled as to their preference and the Department of Fisheries does its best to accommodate their preference as far as length of season is concerned. The hon. member may not be aware of this, but in the United States there is no season whatsoever. In Canada, we have different seasons in different areas, based primarily on the wishes of the lobster fishermen.
The present lobster season in district No. 5 in Nova Scotia was established on May 25, 1971, following a survey which indicated that the vast majority, 85 to 90 per cent, of the licensed lobster fishermen in that district favoured a 60-day season opening on April 10 and closing on June 10 of that year. The hon. member has suggested to me in previous correspondence that the lobster fishermen of district No. 5 would now prefer a return to the former 80-day fishing season opening on April 10 and closing on June 30.
I have been advised that this question could properly be resolved based on fishermen's preference. In a letter dated December 14 I told the hon. member that all fishermen would be requested to indicate their preference for the June 10 or June 30 closing date at the time they purchase their licences in the spring. I can now report to the hon. member that this instruction has been issued and that the question is being asked of all fishermen who are now purchasing licences in district No. 5. In this way we hope to obtain a valid survey of the opinion of licensed lobstermen in district No. 5 on this question.
In addition, I will now undertake to make public the results of this survey. I also undertake to change the closing date if the survey results in a clear indication that this measure is what most lobstermen want. Finally, if a change in the closing date is to take place, the order to this effect will be issued in time to implement the new closing date this year, 1972.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-REMOVAL OF STATION AGENTS, SASKATCHEWAN AND ALBERTA- CONSIDERATION OF NATURE OF UNDERTAKINGS BY COMPANY IN REVIEW

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, today questions were asked in the House about the decision rendered by the Canadian Transport Commission with respect to the application of Canadian Pacific Railway to remove some 56 station agents, nine caretakers and four caretaker agents from stations in Saskatchewan, four agents and three caretakers from stations in Alberta. As a substitute, Canadian Pacific Railway proposed a customer service centre at Saskatoon to serve all of the northern settled area of Saskatchewan and some parts of Alberta.

I was very happy that the minister undertook to look at the situation. My question drew special attention to the fact that the decision rendered by the Canadian Transport Commission was conditional upon certain undertakings and commitments given by the CPR and to which the commission seemed to attach considerable importance. In my view, these commitments and undertakings were fatuous and meaningless and I feel they impose a special obligation upon the government to review this matter. I was happy to note that the minister stated he would take note of this particular factor.
The background of the situation is that the CPR made application early in 1969 to abandon the stations as noted, and to substitute the customer service centre located in Saskatoon. The Canadian Transport Commission decision was rendered on January 5, 1971. On February 4, 1971, the government of Saskatchewan applied to the commission to review its decision. A review was ordered. I might say that the action of the Saskatchewan government was continued later in the year in spite of the fact that there had been a change of government in the interim. Mr. Speaker, hearings were ordered as a result of this review and these were held early in December, 1971, taking nine days and hearing 96 witnesses. This demonstrates the interest in this matter. Now the decision has been rendered by the Canadian Transport Commission to let its original decision stand.
My question arose in part as a result of reading the decision of the commission, which seemed to leave the impression that it rejected all those who in any way opposed or stood in the way of the CPR or its aims and objectives. It seemed to accept the CPR argument as being the final word.
I want to take note of the position of the province of Saskatchewan in this regard, which was noted in the report of the committee, where it is pointed out that Mr. Blair, speaking on behalf of the government of Saskatchewan, stated that it is not opposed to the aspects of the customer service centre concept which will provide equal or better service to its citizens and it recognizes the need for change where change is justified.
Mr. Speaker, I also note that there are other matters which should be reviewed by the cabinet. I note in particular that they draw on the experience in the Regina and Moose Jaw areas in the customer service centre operations that have been established there. They note that there no information was given to the committee which could be regarded as evidence of lack of satisfaction with the operation of this plan. Mr. Speaker, I submit that there has been no proper study of the operation of the customer service centre plan in this particular area of the province, and the committee should not reach the type of conclusion it did unless a proper study is carried out.
But the CTC overruled all objections that were made and gave the CPR authority to proceed with its new plan and made this conditional upon the conditions of the CPR. I want to take note of the conditions which were given by the CPR. First of all, CP rail will, with the Railway Transport Committee's permission, introduce the CSC system on the Saskatoon division. That is rather elementary. Second, CP rail will provide a Zenith telephone system with customer toll-free, 24-hour, 7-day operation. This totally ignores the many complaints which
February 22, 1972

have been made about lack of satisfactory telephone service. Third, CP rail will appoint 14 mobile supervisors to supervise the areas designated in exhibit No. CP 12.
The question arises whether these 14 supervisors will remain. Evidence was submitted that supervisors were taken out after being in certain areas for a short period of time. Fourth, CP Rail will appoint a competent and responsible contract representative at necessary locations. The CTC did not prescribe the locations. Then here is No. 11; I do not have time to refer to all of these. CP rail undertakes, at stations where agents are to be removed and where there is passenger service, to provide a suitable shelter, heated and lighted with access thereto, including snow removal. There is not one of these points or stations where there is any passenger service. What a fatuous commitment the CPR made!
In view of the many judgments which entered into the decision rendered by the Canadian Transport Commission, I would urge that the cabinet review the decision handed down. I want to make it clear that the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission may be proper within the terms of the law set out in the National Transport Act, but I suggest it is the National Transport Act
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
itself which is defective and only the cabinet can review the matter from the viewpoint of the public interest.
I suggest the future of many Saskatchewan communities is at stake in this particular decision. I suggest it is vital that all Saskatchewan communities be assured of adequate service. In my own brief to the CTC in these hearings I made the point that I feel it is necessary that in each community served by CPR there is a clear and adequate identification of the railway company to the people of the community. This must involve adequate facilities, adequate services and a capability granted to personnel enabling them satisfactorily to conduct business with the public. For these and many other reasons I urge the federal government to review the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission.


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, I should like to infdrm the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) that I have today consulted with the president of the Canadian Transport Commission, who has assured me that any and every specific complaint that the CPR is not carrying out any of the undertakings given the commission and set out in the decision will be investigated promptly and remedial action will be taken wherever warranted.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.21 p.m.
167

Wednesday, February 23, 1972