1972-02-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ron Basiord (Minister oi State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an important announcement that will be of interest to all members of this House, to residents of the National Capital Region and to visitors to this capital. For many years there have been recurring appeals to successive governments, from all sides of the House, to do something about the Eddy pulp and paper mill across the Ottawa River. These appeals have been based partly on a common desire to reduce air and water pollution and to develop a more scenic central area. They stem also from the fact that this industrial complex, which lies so close to Parliament Hill, constitutes a critical barrier between the cities of Ottawa and Hull.
I am glad, Mr. Speaker, to announce an agreement with the E. B. Eddy Company that will provide for the transfer of a substantial amount of Eddy land in Quebec to the National Capital Commission, and will involve the removal of some of the more unsightly parts of the Eddy complex, and the elimination of most of the pollution emanating from it. All of this will be accomplished within a framework of a commitment by the company that no one will be laid off as a consequence of the transaction.
The essential elements of the agreement are that the company will transfer roughly 44 acres of land to the National Capital Commission, including most of the waterfront land on the north bank of the river across from Parliament Hill, and close down the Eddy sulphite and groundwood mills and newsprint machine, which will take place over the next few weeks.
Approximately 450 of the company's 2,500 employees will be affected by this closing. As an integral and essential part of the arrangements, the company has undertaken to continue to provide employment in the remaining part of their operations for all displaced employees. For employees who because of age, physical handicap or other reasons decide against accepting other work with the company, generous early retirement and severance pay arrangements are being provided in the agreement. All these arrangements respecting the employees have been worked out in close consultation between the company, its unions, and the National Capital Commission. They have been endorsed by the unions involved, the International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill
Workers, the United Papermakers and Paperworkers, and the International Association of Machinists.
In exchange for the transfer of land, and the commitments by the company, National Capital Commission will pay the company $29,500,000.
The Eddy Company estimates that the closing of the pulp and newsprint operations will reduce the water pollution from the plant by close to 90 per cent and the air pollution by 100 per cent. Furthermore, the company's decision to buy its pulp rather than to make it is expected to lead to the ending of the log drive on the Ottawa River between Arnprior and the mouth of the Gatineau River, removing an additional source of pollution in the river.
The transaction being completed today is really the first stage of a ten-year plan to move the whole Eddy complex from its present riverbank location to a new site in the environs of Hull. The company has declared to us its firm intention to undertake such relocation, and it is now actively seeking land on which to construct new facilities. This will make possible the carrying out of future moves in such a manner as to minimize the impact on employment and on business operations. Important elements of the agreement are that the government is given the right of first refusal on all the remaining Eddy property, including the island between Hull and Ottawa, and that no expansion on the present site will be undertaken. The company has committed itself to work with the government to ensure that future phases of the move are carried out in the same manner and with the same co-operative spirit that has made the present agreement possible.
In recent years it has become increasingly clear that the Eddy complex is a serious obstacle to the planning of the national capital, walling off physically and visually the new government buildings now being constructed and proposed for Hull. This property, along with other nearby lands such as LeBreton Flats, are essential elements in the development of a national capital core area which links language groups, cultures, provinces and sister cities. The buildings, homes, parks, recreational facilities and other amenities that will occupy these lands on both sides of the river will greatly improve the appearance, the planning, the functioning and the economic base of the national capital region.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to pay tribute to my two predecessors who have worked on these arrangements, the present Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) and the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andras), and to express a particular word of appreciation to Mr. Fullerton, Chairman of the National Capital Commission, and his staff.
I am also very grateful to the leaders of the Eddy unions who have played such an important part in the achieve-

February 21, 1972
Acquisition of E.B. Eddy Company Land
ment of an agreement that meets our objectives. Throughout the discussions and negotiations one point was made clear by the government again and again, that no transaction with Eddys would be countenanced which would result in the lay-off of employees. I am particularly happy to say that in this agreement we have fully met this commitment and I pay tribute and give thanks to the officers of the company and the unions.
These arrangements will allow us to continue to work out together an industrial relocation that is essential to the building of a capital of which all Canadians can be proud.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, we have learned with a great deal of pleasure the news that some changes are to be made at the Eddy plant across the river from Parliament Hill. While great piles of logs and sulphur may have been signs of progress 75 and even 50 years ago, they have more recently become an eyesore to people on Parliament Hill and many others. Furthermore, during recent years the amount of pollutants which has been dumped into the river has been in inverseratio to the damage done. In other words, the increasing development of the Ottawa River Valley has added to the pollution problem. Even though from time to time there have been cutbacks in the effluent from the Eddy plant, a smaller amount of effluent does more damage now than was once the case. It is therefore good news that the more unsightly parts of the plant will be removed and that most of the pollutants will be eliminated. We look forward to completion of the ten-year plan announced in the statement just read under which the area across from Parliament Hill will become well-landscaped parkland.
We must accept the statement made today that proper and acceptable arrangements have been made for employees. We hope that no problems will develop in this regard. There will undoubtedly be relocation problems for a number of persons. The statement mentioned early retirement for those who are shortly to retire. I trust that these arrangements will be carried out in the spirit indicated in the statement.
We should not be complacent and think that this action will clean up the Ottawa River. It will help, but there is still a mighty task to be undertaken not only because of the many years of effluent discharge from the operation of the Eddy plant and other damage to the river bed but also because of the many years of logging and the many other sources of pollution that have arisen.
I conclude by urging the government to press ahead with joint federal-provincial efforts to clean up the whole Ottawa River Valley. This subject has been raised many times in the House, as well as the situation with regard to the Eddy plant. Nevertheless I do not want to take away from the fact that this move is very satisfying and must be for all members on the Hill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and myself I am pleased to congratulate the minister, the unions, the company and the National Capital Commission on this agreement. One of my col-

leagues says that he hopes all this means that the White Swan sign will come down. Another suggests it be retained because it is so colourful. I must say that when I read this announcement by the minister and looked at the amount of money E. B. Eddy would get I recalled a saying which was used at the time of the late and great R. B. Bennett in connection with E. B. Eddy: There is a tide in the time of men which, taken at the "Eddy", leads on to fortune.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: My first point is that the minister should have informed us on what basis the $29,500,000 is to be paid to Eddy. It is my understanding that several years ago discussions took place on this subject and Eddy was to get $30 million for the entire property. We are now paying almost $30 million for a little more than half of that property. I think the country is entitled to know whether there are arrangements for other parts of the Eddy property which the government might take over later, what is likely to be the final cost of this important and great improvement, and whether or not the company is getting a little more than it ought to, after the years in which it has exploited the resources and polluted the air and water around Canada's capital. I hope the minister will give us further information on that score.
I also hope the undertaking not to lay off employees will be carefully watched to see that it is observed. It is my understanding that there was a meeting this morning between the union leaders and the National Capital Commission. I am glad to note the minister's determination that the undertaking shall be observed, and I hope it will be. We are now rid of the pollution outside parliament. Perhaps we should go some steps further and rid ourselves of any that there might be inside.



JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, although considerable public interest has been shown in the escape from custody of Yves Geoffroy during a leave of absence from December 24 to December 26, 1971, this is the first opportunity to inform the hon. members of the circumstances leading to the granting of the leave of absence to this particular inmate for the purpose of marriage.
The temporary absence program has been in operation in Canadian penitentiaries for the last 4 years even though provision had been in the Penitentiary Act since 1961. It is an earned privilege which is granted by the Commissioner of Penitentiaries for periods exceeding three days and by the director of an institution for periods of three days or less.
There is little data to carry out a full evaluation of the temporary leave program over a long term. It will be some years before it will be possible to make any conclusions about its real effect on recidivism. Recent statistics encourage optimism about the program. Between Septem-
February 21, 1972

ber and December 1971, a total of 12,401 temporary absences were allowed. Out of this number of temporary absences there are only 90 reports of inmates failing to return. The number of crimes alleged to have been committed during these approximately 12,000 temporary absences is 15.
As a result of these statistics it might be said that the vast majority of inmates do not abuse the privilege and do behave responsibly, and that the procedures and decisions taken by officials of the Canadian Penitentiary Service are correct in over 99 per cent of cases.
The escape of Yves Geoffroy is one of the few failures of temporary absences from the penitentiaries. Its statistical significance has been overlooked in the attention it has received.
Let us however, review all the facts related to this incident.
According to the Commissioner's directives, after receipt of (a) a full report from the Institute Chaplain; (b) a report from the Institute Classification Officer; and (c) a report from a social agency; a special permission from the Commissioner or his delegate, the Chief of Chaplaincy Services of the Canadian Penitentiary Service, may be given for an inmate to marry.
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, 3, 6 and 8 years of age. Regarding his children Mr. Geoffroy wrote:
"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."
Following the receipt of Mr. Geoffroy's letter, Rev. J. A. Nickels, Chief of Chaplaincy Services of the Canadian Penitentiary Service, Ottawa wrote to the director of St. Vincent de Paul, attaching a copy of Mr. Geoffroy's letter and asking that the "institutional and community reports" required by the relevant Commissioner's directive be prepared and forwarded.
The report of the social worker was addressed to the Commissioner of Penitentiaries on August 19, 1971 and received by the director of the St. Vincent de Paul Institution. This report was prepared by Miss Micheline Cornel-lier of the Societe d'Orientation et de Rehabilitation Sociale, and was approved by Miss Cornellier's supervisor. Her report states that she found Miss Parent fully aware of the consequences of marriage with Geoffroy, including the possibility that he could lose his appeal and might not be granted parole on his first eligibility date.
The report notes also another aspect that heavily influenced the wish of Mr. Geoffroy and Miss Parent to marry, despite the fact that Mr. Geoffroy was serving a life sentence in penitentiary. This aspect was the Geoffroy children, being cared for by two of Mr. Geoffroy's brothers.
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."
Release of Yves Geoffroy from Penitentiary
Miss Parent also accepted the duty of reuniting the children with their father when he was released from penitentiary, Miss Cornellier stated, and appeared to have the characteristics that would make her a satisfactory mother and supervisor of the children's upbringing.
Mr. Speaker, 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-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister is suggesting a rather unusual way of proceeding. He suggests that he will not finish his statement but will table the last part of it so that it be recorded in the proceedings of the House. This would indeed require the consent of the House and this agreement does not seem to exist. In these circumstances, the minister would perhaps finish reading his statement.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Miss Cornellier's recommendation of the marriage between Mr. Geoffroy and Miss Parent was supported by Mr. Marc Gosselin, Classification officer at St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary, in an August report, the factor of Mr. Geoffroy's children being the strong argument in support of the marriage and citing the influence that a stepmother could have on the emotional development and the stability of the three children.
The third report supporting the proposal of marriage was made on October 7, 1971 by the penitentiary chaplain, Father L. Dupuis. Father Dupuis also stressed the importance of the marriage to the children and suggested, in the event a religious ceremony could not be performed, that the couple be married in a civil ceremony.
Notice, however, that the Chancellery of the Diocese of Montreal did approve of the marriage and the date and place of the ceremony was given by Abbe Dupuis on December 18, 1971.
Director of St. Vincent de Paul Gerald Brennan submitted the three reports with his recommendation for the marriage on October 20, 1971 and received a November 3 reply from Rev. J. A. Nickels, Chief of Chaplaincy Services, noting that:
"in view of the positive nature of the reports, approval is given for the marriage."
A copy of a letter dated November 24, 1971 from lawyer Raymond Denis-


Mr. Diefenbaker:: A name of blessed memory.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: -to Henri Prevost, Protonotary of the Superior Court, St. Jerome Courthouse, was sent to Mr. J. P. Levesque, Visits and Correspondence officer at St. Vincent de Paul. The letter requested the Protonotary to give public notice in Montreal and St. Jerome of Mr. Geoffroy's marriage on December 24. Public notice was given and the provincial authorities were made aware of the forthcoming marriage.
I would like to point out that, in this case, Mr. Denis acted as Mr. Geoffroy's lawyer, and from all the information that I have available, Mr. Denis never visited Mr. Geoffroy in the penitentiary.
_____________________________COMMONS DEBATES
Release of Yves Geoffroy from Penitentiary
February 21, 1972
The marriage was performed at St. Vincent de Paul parish church on December 24, 1971 by Father Ninkeri in the presence of Mrs. Laurence Geoffroy Amyot, sister of, and witness for, Mr. Geoffroy, and Mr. Raymond Denis, who was witness for Miss Parent.
I should add here that on January 11, 1972 the Court of Appeals of Quebec rejected Geoffroy's appeal. Hence, the question of Mr. Geoffroy's wife's inability to testify against him is unlikely to arise in the case for which Mr. Geoffroy was in penitentiary and concerning which he had lodged an appeal.
As for the question of temporary leave, according to the Commissioner's directives and to Section 26 of the Penitentiary Act, an act approved by Parliament, a temporary leave of three days or less is granted by the Director of the Institution after the request has been studied by the Inmate Classification Board of the Institution, following a recommendation by the inmate's classification officer.
On November 10, 1971 a recommendation that a temporary leave for marriage absence of three days be granted to Mr. Geoffroy was presented to the Inmate Classification Board of St. Vincent de Paul Institution, a board made up of 16 members. Eleven members studied this particular case and the unanimous decision of the board was that Mr. Geoffroy should be granted 50 hours leave to begin at 8 a.m. December 24 and to end at 10 a.m. December 26. This decision was finally approved by the director of the institution.
Mr. Geoffroy did not return to the penitentiary following the expiry of his leave period and was declared illegally at large on December 27, 1971.
The Quebec Provincial Police, the RCMP and international police forces were alerted and police investigations are underway.
A review of the known facts relating to the permission of marriage and the leave of absence granted to Mr. Geoffroy does not indicate that any employee of the Canadian Penitentiary Service violated the authority delegated to him by the Commissioner. There is no evidence of any wrongdoings by anyone to influence an employee of the Canadian Penitentiary Service in the decision to permit Mr. Geoffroy to marry Miss Parent or to give him leave of absence. I myself, or members of my staff or the Commissioner of Penitentiaries were never personally involved in this matter either directly or indirectly- [English]


Mr. Hees:: They were all just good friends.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: -and, contrary to reports appearing in the press, Mr. Geoffroy was never a friend, a classmate nor an acquaintance of mine.
It is regrettable that undue credence was placed on the statement that the two brothers of Mr. Geoffroy were in ill-health and that their conditions created an insecure future for the Geoffroy children. These reports were accepted in good faith by the authorities; unfortunately however, later inquiry revealed that this part of the social agency's report was based on hearsay.
In the light of the circumstances, it is clear that a more thorough and careful investigation ought to have been carried out.
I reviewed with the Commissioner and officials of the Penitentiary Service all the relevant information and on January 10, 1972 invited the media to my office to make a public statement and to answer questions.
In that statement, I said:
I have instructed my officials to refine the screening process for certain types of cases such as those serving life sentences and other inmates who may warrant special review. Furthermore, as to permission to marry, the procedures will be amended to include legal consideration along with the social, moral, and religious aspects of the question.
As a result, on January 28, 1972 Mr. Paul Faguy, Commissioner of Penitentiaries, announced changes in the guidelines pertaining to temporary leave of absence and permission to marry. The changes are as follows:
1.	Temporary Leave without escort will not be considered until at least six months of sentence have been served.
2.	Temporary Leave without escort will not be considered for those serving life sentences, habitual criminals, dangerous sexual offenders, and persons known by police to be connected with organized crime until three years of sentence have been served.
3.	No persons convicted as dangerous sexual offenders will be granted leave of absence until psychiatric consultation has taken place and special clearance given.
4.	The Regional Director must approve the first two leaves of absence granted to inmates in the four categories.
5.	Recommendation for the granting of temporary absence will have to state clearly the reasons for the recommendation and must be supported by fully documented community investigation reports prepared by either a private social agency or the National Parole Service.
6.	When any inmate presents a request for permission to marry, advice on legal implications of the marriage must be sought in advance from the provincial Attorney General.
However spectacular this single case may be viewed, it must be judged in perspective against the total leave program. A success rate of 99 percent should encourage the continuation of a program which is contributing to returning criminal offenders to society as better adjusted and more useful citizens.
I wish to conclude by giving hon. members the following assurances:
1.	The leave and the permission to marry were approved under the authority provided by the Canadian Penitentiary Act and the procedures and delegation of authority were in accord with established instructions.
We all realize that the decision was an error, but so far as can be ascertained, it was made bona fide.
2.	It has been suggested that there may have been some direct or indirect influence exerted on or through the Solicitor General on behalf of Mr. Geoffroy to grant him permission for special leave or an authorisation to marry. This suggestion or innuendo I reject categorically.
3.	I am informed by the Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. that all appropriate action has been undertaken by the police authorities to investigate all possible criminal
|Mr. Goyer.J
February 21, 1972

offences arising out of this matter and every effort is being made by police agencies on an international scale to apprehend the fugitive.
4.	Penitentiary procedures regarding temporary leave have been modified, as I have described, for certain classes of inmates in the penitentiaries and, as well, no further marriages by inmates will be considered until the legal effects of the marriages are taken into account and there has been consultation with the provincial Attorneys-General.
5.	As a result of the amended procedures, the temporary absence program, which plays an important part in the rehabilitation of inmates will continue to develop but additional safeguards will help to better protect society.
6.	Since it appears that there were no irregularities or illegalities committed by members of my Department, the Government sees no reason why a special inquiry should be undertaken in the Geoffroy case. However, if specific allegations of irregularities or illegalities can be substantiated, I can give the House the assurance that the Government will take immediate action.
7.	The principle of temporary absence approved by Parliament does imply some risks and some errors. In spite of some concern over the Geoffroy case, I have nevertheless received letters from the Elizabeth Fry Society, the John Howard Society, the St. Leonard's Society, the Law Students of the University of British Columbia, the Canadian Criminology and Corrections Association and the Junior League of Toronto giving their full support to the program, and it is my hope that the public in general will continue to cooperate with us.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I sought the approval of the House under Standing Order 43 for the setting up of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act. After listening to the lengthy and verbose nonsense which we heard from the minister today I am convinced that there must be a judicial inquiry into this matter; it is absolutely necessary. If the situation was not so tragic it would be a comedy. I want to read from one part of the minister's very lengthy statement:
On June 28, 1971 Mr. Geoffroy sought permission to marry Miss Carmen Parent with whom Mr. Geoffroy apparently had had a continuing liaison.
What utter nonsense! What are the real facts? Let us strip the matter down to the bare facts.


An hon. Member:: You would have to close your eyes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, you would have to close your eyes not to see them. Geoffroy was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary on the grounds that he had murdered his wife while this liaison was going on. Those are the facts. Then he was released for two or three days. Let me say at the outset that under the law the minister must take the responsibility. Either he had knowledge of this matter or he did not, and if he did not have knowledge his mismanagement is so grave that he should resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Release of Yves Geoffroy from Penitentiary


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Geoffroy was released for two or three days under section 26 of the Penitentiary Act, it is alleged, which reads as follows:
Where, in the opinion of the Commissioner or the officer in charge of a penitentiary, it. is necessary or desirable that an inmate should be absent .. . for an unlimited period for medical reasons . . . for humanitarian reasons-
There were certainly no medical reasons. What were the humanitarian reasons? Here is a man charged with the murder of his wife. After due process of law he is convicted by a judge and jury and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife. Then he is permitted by the minister to be released to marry a woman with whom he had a long liaison. If that is the kind of humanitarianism for which the minister stands, I think it would even shock the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: That is the just society.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to refer now to section 684(3) of the Criminal Code which in part says:
No person sentenced to life imprisonment shall be released during the life of such term-
Particularly on a charge of murder.
-without the approval of the Governor in Council.
Release means release. This man was released on the grounds of humanity, that the children had to be taken care of, to marry the woman with whom he had a liaison while he was living with another woman. Release means release. I want to be fair in dealing with this matter. There is a marginal note that talks about release and it might mean temporary release, but if you go to the Interpretation Act you will see it substantiates that release means release as used in section 684(3) of the Criminal Code.
When the Right Honourable Lester Pearson was Prime Minister he made a statement at the time of the abolition of capital punishment in which he said that when people are found guilty of this kind of crime and are given life imprisonment they would have to have the approval of cabinet before they would be released.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That statement can be checked. While the fairy story that the minister read today might be sold to True Story magazine, there is no way he can get around the fact that this man was wrongfully released.
Therefore I say that the Governor in Council-the cabinet-is responsible for the release of Geoffroy, responsible for having given prior approval to his temporary release, responsible to the public and to Parliament for the violation of section 684(3) of the Criminal Code. I say that by corruption or incredible incompetence he was allowed to escape.
The minister's advisers may endeavour to argue, as I have already said, that the marginal note to section 684(3) of the Criminal Code does not mean permanent release but any kind of release. Check section 13 of the Interpretation Act, chapter 1-23 of the Revised Statutes of Canada.
The plain grammatical meaning of the subsection is that no person, whether his sentence has been commuted from death to life imprisonment or to a term of years or wheth-
______________________________COMMONS DEBATES
Release of Yves Geoffroy from Penitentiary
February 21, 1972
er his sentence was life imprisonment in the first instance, shall be released from prison permanently or temporarily, under any law or by any authority, without the prior approval of the cabinet. The minister must have given that approval.
How silent he is on this point in this document. Nowhere does he say that he did not have prior knowledge. Why is he silent on this question? I should like to see the minister give evidence before a judicial inquiry. I should like to see men at the bar cross-examine this minister on his credibility in this matter. I should like to see him stand before an inquiry and hear its official report because his statement today will not stand up.
The minister said there was a lack of concrete evidence to justify an inquiry. I recall an incident in this House, in which the same man, Raymond Denis, was involved. At that time the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) made a certain statement in the House and the former minister of justice, the late Mr. Guy Favreau, said it was untrue that Denis had offered a bribe. When the inquiry took place and these people were examined under oath the judge found as a fact that a bribe had been offered and that there was wrongdoing. As a result of that inquiry Denis was charged and by due process of law was convicted. That is what I want to see happen here. Something is wrong-something is wrong. One has to think this way about the Geoffroy case.
I think the minister must be writing a new book, "A Lifer's Honeymoon" or "How to Murder Your Wife and Marry Your Mistress". Why wither in jail when you can go the Goyer way and inherit the murdered wife's children and be released from a dull life sentence?
Where is Geoffroy? Why was no reward offered for his capture? No steps have been taken. Naturally the RCMP cannot tell what they know unless they are brought before an inquiry. Does Raymond Denis know where Geoffroy is? I was surprised to see that he is still a member of the bar. He was the best man behind the scene. He said he never met Geoffroy in jail. Was that the reason he was released? Maybe they are meeting outside the jail.
We want to know the facts. This case smacks of absolute corruption and the worst kind of mismanagement. There is only one solution. I could read and read from this statement. The worst feature of it is that the minister is trying to destroy a deserving program, the temporary absence program, and wrap it up in this kind of alibi. As far as I am concerned the man who is destroying this kind of humanitarian program is the minister and he must take full responsibility.
I ask now that a judicial inquiry be set up because this case is so flagrant and if it were not so tragic it would be humorous.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement was very lengthy and at times almost comical. However, one thing that it reveals as being absolutely crystal clear is that there has been negligence and gullibility on the part of the penitentiary service. The minister said in his own statement:
In the light of the circumstances, it is clear that a more thorough and careful investigation ought to have been carried out.

It is early in the week, Mr. Speaker, but I venture to prophesy that this is the understatement of the week.


An hon. Member:: Of the year.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly clear that a concocted, hearsay story was accepted, the word of a convicted murderer who had prominent in his mind the purpose of escaping and fleeing along with his paramour. With all this before the officials this man was allowed out supposedly in order to enable him to marry. Surely if marriage was in mind there would be nothing to stop it within the penitentiary itself without sending him on a trip to Mexico or wherever he is. The minister has given us a great amount of detail but he has not given us any information as to the present whereabouts of this man. Countless misleading statements have been issued from time to time.
One thing I regret more than anything else is that this gross negligence endangers the operation of the temporary absence program under the Penitentiary Act. The minister's figures reveal that it has been a beneficial and useful program but its usefulness is clearly endangered by what has been allowed to happen in this case.
I am never happy when malfeasance is alleged in a department and the only investigation made is an internal one within the department itself. Investigations of that sort usually turn out to be a whitewash. If there is not to be a judicial inquiry, we have in this House of Commons a committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which has shown a sense of responsibility and non-partisanship and I suggest that this committee should hear firsthand, sworn evidence of what took place in this affair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: If nothing else, this might save a valuable program which has been helpful in so many cases.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion, a motion which, on the face of it, I feel should be accepted by all hon. members.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That in view of fresh reports made public over the weekend of political pressure in the Opportunities for Youth secretariat, problems related to the minimum wage with regard to high school students and others who might gain employment through the program and a serious problem related to morale within the operational secretariat,
That this House do constitute a special committee on youth in order that these problems and any others might be examined and dealt with in such a way so as to achieve both justice and equity for Canadian young people with regard to the programs for summer 1972.
February 21, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Egmont 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 and the motion cannot be put.



LACK OF WHEAT AT VANCOUVER TO LOAD SHIPS- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The immediacy of the motion arises as a result of a finding by the Palliser group of Saskatchewan that 20 ships have been sitting idle in Vancouver harbour, that it would take approximately 20 million bushels of wheat to fill the ships in question and that this wheat is not at the terminals. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey):
That the question of the empty wheat terminals at Vancouver harbour be referred to both standing committees, namely, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and that these said committees be immediately consummated and instructed to look into this mismanagement as alleged by the Palliser group and to travel to Vancouver if the committees so determine it necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent the motion cannot be put.



PROVISION OF MORE STORAGE SPACE AT VANCOUVER-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion of extreme importance, urgency and pressing necessity. Reports allegedly appearing in a United States grain publication and reported in Vancouver by the Palliser Wheat Growers Association indicate Canada has lost the sale of 150,000 tons of wheat to Japan because the Canadian Wheat Board could not ensure delivery through a west coast port. Because of the urgency of maintaining and increasing our reliability as a grain exporting nation I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight):
That the Minister of Justice, answerable for the Canadian Wheat Board, be called upon to make a statement on motions outlining what steps are being taken in providing additional grain storage
Requests to Move Motions
space at the west coast to handle the delivery of grain for overseas shipment.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



FISHERIES


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent importance for Canada as a whole, and especially for the fishermen of the Atlantic region. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) during the recess received the report on the sealing industry from Dr. Keith Ronald, the acceptance of which could spell the end of this vital part of our economy. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan):
That the sealing report be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry with a view to calling witnesses in order to properly present the real facts of this industry to the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's West?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ADDITION OF ANTIBIOTICS TO CATTLE FEED-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the fact that antibiotics are added to cattle food routinely. This constitutes a danger to the health of men since the practice promotes the development of organisms resistant to antibiotics and also capable of infecting people. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That an investigation into this matter be carried out by the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs and a report be made to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the motion proposed by the hon. member for Athabasca?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 21, 1972
Proposed Legislation


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT. 1972 AMENDMENTS TO CRIMINAL CODE, CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT, NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT, PAROLE ACT AND VISITING FORCES ACT

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to the Criminal Code 1967 Amendment Act, the Criminal Records Act, the National Defence Act, the Parole Act and the Visiting Forces Act.


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

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-3, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, with respect to the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons.


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


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-4, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1971, to the 30th day of June, 1972, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada.


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


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-5, to amend the Farm Credit Act.
(Mr. Speaker.]


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


Otto Emil Lang: for leave to introduce Bill C-6, to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act.


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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-7, to amend the Explosives Act.


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

John Napier Turner: for leave to introduce Bill C-8, to authorize the making of certain fiscal payments to provinces, to authorize the entry into tax collection agreements with provinces, and to amend the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act.


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


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. With regard to the conference between the federal and provincial finance ministers in Jasper earlier this month, will the minister advise whether it was his position on that occasion that there is enough stimulus in the economy at this time to deal with unemployment this year? In relation to that,
February 21, 1972

with that stimulus, what is the relationship of that balance he claims has to exist between unemployment and stability of prices? Also, does the minister approve of the government program that dealt with the crisis of inflation by means of creating unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: I trust the minister can reply briefly to the question asked by the hon. member. I recognize the importance of the question, of course, but it sounded to the Chair as though it was a rather general question. The minister might try to reply briefly.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I say my question was complex in order to avoid a number of supplementar-ies. I did not want to lose the chain of questions through the supplementaries.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister might give his reply and supplementary replies at the same time.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to supplement my reply when I intervene in the throne speech debate later in the week. I think we can deal at that time with the very profound questions raised by the hon. member.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Can the minister indicate when he is going to speak? Will it be on Thursday or Friday? We would like to have the information now because we would also like to speak on the position of the government.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will try to work that out with the House leader. I suggest to the hon. member that he stick around.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Minister of Finance is hardly the one to give a lesson on being present in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State, Can the minister advise the House whether he is being kept informed about developments at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, particularly with regard to the corporation demand that members of the Wire Services Guild, who are not on strike, sign an undertaking that they will do work which is in effect strikebreaking work before they will be admitted to their jobs every day and, if so, has the minister had discussions with the corporation to persuade them to change their unreasonable demand?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, there are different versions of exactly what the position of the workers is in this regard. Several of these have been reported in the press, but the total result is not very clear.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Some reports claim that the employees refuse to work under supervisors who do not belong to the union, while others claim that they are asked to perform duties other than their own.
I have asked for a report on the situation and I shall be in a position to advise the House in the near future.


David Lewis: Will the minister also ask the CBC whether they will agree to meet with NABET, the striking union, without the condition that NABET meet on the basis of the report? Also, will the minister undertake to make a statement on motions in the House when he finds out exactly what the situation is, because I think the CBC is acting in a medieval manner in this case?



DISPUTE WITH NABET-DIFFERENT POLICIES FOR FRENCH AND ENGLISH NETWORKS

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. It is supplementary to the earlier question asked about NABET and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. When the minister makes a statement about the resumption of collective bargaining, will he advise us why there are different policies relative to the strike in the Frenchspeaking and English-speaking parts of the network?


Gérard Pelletier: I doubt, Mr. Speaker, that I can answer that question because I believe the difference in policy mentioned by the hon. member is due far more to the unions than to the management of the CBC, at least according to the information I have.



LABOUR RELATIONS


David Lewis: May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, not with regard to the CBC but on another urgent matter, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board. I know that by the roster he is not supposed to be here today. Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether any steps are being taken to seek a new mediator to start negotiations again between Treasury Board and the electronic technicians so that this rather serious stoppage of work may soon come an end?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the President of the Treasury Board is going to meet a mediator in the middle of this afternoon. I take it, therefore, that a new mediator has been appointed.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In light of

February 21, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
the warning by a spokesman for the striking navigational-aid electronic technicians that there will be increasing disruptions on the west coast and a lack of radio safety on vessels and in light of the major disruptions in air travel, can the Prime Minister assure the House that a statement will be made tomorrow with regard to these matters in order that the country can be allayed of any fears related thereto?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it will depend on the results of the meeting with the mediator this afternoon and whether the union will want to meet the mediator later in the day.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will allow the hon. member for Hamilton West one last supplementary on this subject.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Can the Prime Minister advise whether prosecutions will be instituted against the electronic technicians who are not abiding by the law?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the President of the Treasury Board is considering that matter at this time. [Later:]
May I take this opportunity to add to the answer I gave to the leader of the New Democratic Party. When I talked about a mediator I said he might be a new one. I am told it is the same mediator as before-Professor Gordon Simmons.



FINANCE


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that a distribution of money is to be made under the two-price system for wheat, is the government prepared to have that payment made not only to the wheat farmers but also to all cereal grain producers? I ask that question in view of the fact that many farmers went out of wheat under the Lift program and therefore will not benefit as a result of the distribution. In addition, I ask the minister whether the three western Ministers of Agriculture gave him the advice that that is the way in which justice would be done and equity accorded to farmers in general?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I did receive comments and representations from many quarters including the Ministers of Agriculture of the three prairie provinces, farm organizations such as Unifarm and so on, suggesting a method of distribution which would avoid distorting production patterns in the short run and would also recognize production practices which have been adopted in the most recent past. I assure the right hon. member that we are giving very serious consideration to these representations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister whether the three Ministers of Agriculture did in fact recommend that to him? Also, when he is replying he might say when it is expected the distribution will be made.


Otto Emil Lang: The discussions I held with the Ministers of Agriculture were private and confidential in their nature and I cannot comment specifically upon them, although all those gentlemen have, I believe, made their personal views known to the press and those views are therefore available to the right hon. gentleman. The timing of the payment will be announced in due course.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Would he tell us whether it would not be advisable to study more thoroughly the problem of the Canadian dollar, since some observers have suggested that the present situation is prejudicial to the Canadian people?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I accept the hon. member's recommendation, especially to study from day to day the condition of the Canadian dollar.
*
*



TWO-PRICE SYSTEM FOR WHEAT-SUGGESTED EXTENSION TO ALL CEREAL GRAIN PRODUCERS

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It has to do with the two-price system for wheat. Before I ask my question, I want to congratulate him on his new portfolio, as do all from the province of Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Might we know the date of the distribution so that we would have some idea of when the election will take place?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



TWO-PRICE SYSTEM FOR WHEAT-METHOD OF PROVIDING MONEY AND MAKING PAYMENTS

Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask the minister whether legislation will be brought down to provide for the acreage payment to be made or whether this will be done by way of an item in the estimates? May I also ask whether payments will be made to correspond with the crop year or with the closing of the pool accounts?


Otto Emil Lang: All these questions are really linked together and require an announcement of policy in connection with timing and the technique of making payments. Such an announcement will deal with all these matters at the same time.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: May I ask the
minister whether he is now in a position to tell us when he will be announcing the acreage formula on which the two-price system will be based, and when the farmers can actually expect to receive some money?
February 21, 1972


Otto Emil Lang: I would expect to be able to make an announcement concerning the formula for payment at a very early date.



AIRPORTS


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Minister of National Defence. Would the minister agree to have Armed Forces radar technicians put the radars at our major international airports back into operation so that communications can resume and those who have to travel may be able to do so?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: The
Minister of National Defence is not here today-he is not on the roster-but I am sure he will be here tomorrow and will be delighted to answer the hon. member's question.


George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. I appreciate his co-operation. The purpose of interrupting the hon. member is to allow the hon. member for Trinity to ask a supplementary.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I direct my supplementary to the Prime Minister. Would he intervene and make sure that the radars are put back into operation so that communications can resume in the normal way?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will consider the suggestion of the right hon.-the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-STATEMENT BY EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER INDICATING POSSIBLE FURTHER CANADIAN CONCESSIONS-GOVERNMENT POLICY
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Was the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he was dealing with the subject of trade relations between Canada and the United States in Winnipeg on Saturday, expressing government policy when he said: "We have made contributions to the correction of some of these imbalances and we are prepared to go further." If so, can the Prime Minister outline to the House just what further contributions the government is prepared to make?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Perhaps I might be permitted to answer the question, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. minister will appreciate that there is a difficulty here. Perhaps the question might be rephrased by the hon. member who asked it in the first instance. It is well established procedurally that questions cannot be asked about statements made outside the House except in the way that the question was asked by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. With the consent of the House the minister might be allowed to reply, but in any event it would not be in conformity with the rules.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I may
answer, the minister was expressing government policy.


George Harris Hees: Is the government planning, as a possible further contribution, to cancel the two principal safeguards in the Canada-United States auto pact? If not, could we be advised what other industries will be affected by this possible contribution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It would be hardly proper to negotiate in public and to say right now, openly, what the government is prepared to do by way of further concessions unless we know what further concessions the Americans are prepared to make.


George Harris Hees: Does the Prime Minister not agree that industry has a right to know which parts of industry are to be sacrificed in the course of this cap-in-hand approach to the United States government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. That is argument. In those terms the question is not in order.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. May I ask the minister whether Panarctic Oils, in which the Canadian government is the largest single shareholder, has entered into an agreement by which certain United States utilities and transmission companies, in return for advancing $75 million over a five-year period, will be granted right of first refusal of Arctic gas supplies?


Hon. lean Chretien (Minister oi Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, according to the agreement signed last July, those companies may have first right to refuse should the Northern Canada Power Commission authorize gas exports. But, prior to making use of this right, they must have obtained an export permit from the Northern Canada Power Commission. [English]


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that Canadian taxpayers have a substantial investment in this company may I ask the minister whether he would be prepared to table the agreement which has been entered into between

February 21, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
Panarctic Oils and the consortium of United States utilities and transmission companies?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if any objections were made; for my part, I do not have any. I shall ask the president of the company for a copy of the agreement and, if possible, we shall table it.


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


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am rising on a point of order regarding whether or not the President of Panarctic Oils is going to make the decision or whether the minister is going to make the decision. The minister says he has no objection. I am saying that the Canadian taxpayers as the single largest investor in this company have the right to be supplied with this information and that the decision should be made by the minister, not by the president of the company.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. Can the hon. member say whether acceptable arrangements have been made with all the provinces for the reimbursement of welfare costs incurred as a result of delays in the payment of unemployment insurance claims, and whether the federal government has agreed to reimburse the provinces to the extent of 100 per cent in such cases?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the immediate task is to ensure that unemployment insurance benefits are paid on schedule to all qualified claimants. However, negotiations are under way with all the provinces and have been completed successfully with most of them to make certain that in certain cases interim payments can be expedited through welfare offices and reimbursement made later by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. We are concerned with getting "groceries" on the tables of those who are out of work and we shall make every effort to ensure that this is done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: Having heard that answer, perhaps I might put a simpler question to the parliamentary secretary, one he may be able to grapple with. Has the department accepted the recommendation which is now accepted unanimously in the Atlantic and western regions that procedures be decentralized from Moncton into the other provinces and from Winnipeg into the other provinces?


Raymond J. Perrault: The hon. member will be interested to know that I went to New Brunswick over the weekend and conferred with our officials there. He will be delighted to know that we have installed toll-free lines to Bathurst from several localities in north and northeastern New

Brunswick. A special unit has been established in Moncton to enable us to solve Bathurst claim problems quickly. The toll-free concept has been extended to other centres-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Raymond J. Perrault: As I have said, the object is to get groceries on the tables of these people with the least possible delay-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he might wish to return to motions for the purpose of making a statement. He should keep this in mind in replying to questions.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the lack of clarity in my original question. May I again ask the parliamentary secretary whether the department has accepted the recommendation to decentralize the pay offices from Moncton and Winnipeg and open offices in other provinces? This means establishing pay offices in all of the provinces in question, not just the two I have mentioned.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, there will be a marked improvement in service in northeastern New Brunswick. The hon. member may be interested to know that of the 134 alleged-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to call the parliamentary secretary to order. He should look from time to time in the direction of the Chair and when asked to resume his seat he should do so.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the actual and threatened depletion of our Atlantic coast fisheries resources by distant water factory fleets from overseas, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs undertake to meet at an early date with his United States counterpart in the hope that present differences between Canada and the United States over proper management of our marine resources may be worked out, so that hopefully both countries will present a united front at the proposed 1973 Law of the Sea Conference on this urgent and important matter? While he is replying-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: -will he also indicate when the conference will be held?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his suggestion and I will follow it up.
Feb ruary 21L 197 2



MARINE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT-CANADIAN POSITION-PUBLICATION BEFORE LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE

John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Iceland and several other countries have prepared a very firm and straightforward position to put before the Law of the Sea Conference to be held in 1973, may I ask the minister whether Canada has also formulated its position, and will it be made public in advance of the conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I missed part of the question. Could it be repeated?


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether the department has formulated a clear position to be presented by the Canadian government at the Law of the Sea Conference in 1973, and will it be made public in advance of the conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are still in the process of formulating the position that we will take at this conference. Whether our position will be made public in advance I am not certain yet since we are not yet in a position to say what this policy will be. However, it will be directed, as the hon. member would expect, toward the preservation of the fishing resources of the sea, particularly those off our coasts, and to the assertion of Canadian rights and responsibilities in relation thereto.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises to ask a further supplementary and I shall return to him in a moment. Let me again remind all hon. members that we will be running short of time. There are quite a few members who are anxious to ask questions, and if we spend too much time on each subject we will run out of time before an appreciable number of members have had an opportunity to ask their questions.



DATE OF LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE

Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs is a very brief one. In view of the importance of this matter would the minister indicate whether a date has yet been set for the next Law of the Sea Conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, it is still scheduled for 1973, though I am not quite sure of the dates yet. Whether we will realize this expectation-certainly that is our purpose-I am not certain, but as soon as we do have the dates I will let the House know.
Inquiries of the Ministry



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration based on a statement he made today which is similar to one he made on Friday. When the parliamentary secretary or his department says that an effort is being made to pay claims on schedule, what is meant by the phrase "on schedule"-six weeks, eight weeks or what period of time?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member is well versed in the operations of this plan. Indeed, he attended many of the committee meetings and will realize that benefit payments depend upon the length of time of the qualifying period, be it 20 weeks or 8 weeks. The long-term claimant with 20 weeks of contribution receives payment earlier than others. I hope that this question can be brought before the standing committee so that we can go into it in greater detail.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat? I see the hon. member for Hamilton West and others want to ask supplementaries on this subject, which I thought we had left behind a moment ago with the hope that we would get on to other subjects. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has a supplementary and I will then return, as I undertook a moment ago, to the hon. member for South Shore.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I put this to the parliamentary secretary. In view of his reference to knowledge that some members might have of the act, may I ask whether an effort is being made to get these claims paid within the first three weeks?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report to the House that there has been a measurable increase in efforts to speed payments. Indeed, the claims-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY POWER HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-DISCUSSION WITH QUEBEC RESPECTING INTEREST FREE LOANS

['Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is yes. We have tentatively set aside a sum of money for Bangla Desh that would otherwise have been available to the whole of Pakistan in order to assist in the reconstruction effort being made. We are now in the process of once more discussing with Pakistan the new projects that we would otherwise have been discussing with them had it not been for the war.']
Mr. Oza Tetrault (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Finance.
Has he had negotiations with the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec in connection with loans which might be interest-free or at a low interest rate for the development of James Bay?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry



Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since the government recognized the state of Bangla Desh during the parliamentary recess, would the Minister state whether the government intends to provide assistance to this new state to help them with their severe economic problems; and would the minister also state whether the government intends to renew economic assistance programs for Pakistan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is yes. We have tentatively set aside a sum of money for Bangla Desh that would otherwise have been available to the whole of Pakistan in order to assist in the reconstruction effort being made. We are now in the process of once more discussing with Pakistan the new projects that we would otherwise have been discussing with them had it not been for the war.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is it the intention of the government to reopen unemployment insurance offices in small and medium-sized industrial cities in Ontario and elsewhere which were closed about two years ago?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, a number of new offices have been opened depending on the need that exists in various parts of the country. As well, phone service has been very much increased in order to expedite telephone inquiries. If the hon. member has some specific suggestions along this line, I hope he will make them available to the department where they will be given due consideration.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. What steps or procedures does he intend to adopt to reduce the difference between the estimated number of jobs created under the Regional Development Incentives Act and the actual number of jobs created which, as he knows, now stands at an unacceptable 25 per cent?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence of a difference such as the hon. member mentions practically everywhere without foundation and when the plants are completed and jobs are created the number projected will probably turn out to be precisely the number achieved.



FAMILY INCOME SECURITY


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the government has announced as a priority item the family income security plan legislation, the former Bill C-264, and in view of the fact that in this House on Friday it was said there are still ongoing discussions being had with the province of Quebec, when will the minister announce to the House what progress has been made, why did he not introduce the bill today, and what is his plan to meet the May 1 deadline for the increase in benefits?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the fact that discussions with Quebec and other provinces are going on and will continue to go on should not prejudice the introduction of the bill. Changes can be made in the bill, as the hon. member knows, after it is introduced. Certainly the intention of the government at the first convenient opportunity is to bring this bill forward.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, would the minister answer the question concerning whether the government expects to meet the May 1 deadline for increases in the benefits as announced in the bill?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the hon. member during the last session that the mere fact that the bill had been delayed until this session made it impossible to meet the May 1 deadline in terms of payments to people.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Because of the anticipated closing of the pulp mill in the company town of Temiscamingue, where all the people are entirely dependent on this one industry for survival, will the minister agree to a meeting with representatives of the community of Temiscamingue, Quebec, and labour and management representatives to explore

Inquiries of the Ministry
the various possibilities that might be considered to prevent the death of the town and its only industry?

" Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion): Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received such a request, but if I do, of course I shall be happy to meet them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he cannot ask a question in those terms.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might rephrase it. In view of the fact that there is a problem in delivery of grain at the west coast for overseas shipment, can the minister say whether the government terminal elevator at Vancouver is now being renovated so that it can be used in the future?



ALLEGED LOSS OF SALES BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE TERMINAL FACILITIES AT VANCOUVER-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PLANS

Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. It arises from the fact that Canadian export officials have stated that Canada is making no new sales because of the inability to meet present commitments and the fact that there are 20 ships idle in Vancouver harbour because there is no grain in storage there. Would the minister be prepared as early as tomorrow to make a statement on motions concerning what he is doing in the short term to take care of this critical situation and on the long-term policy to prevent this situation happening again?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's indication of fact that there are no sales being made is simply not a fact. This is untrue. The Canadian Wheat Board is continuing to sell grain. They have, of course, for certain months and periods of months sold to an absolute physical maximum out of the port of Vancouver. It is one of the long-term challenges to develop additional facilities at that port for what now appears to be a clear additional sales possibility through the west. There are a significant number of boats waiting at the moment. The unloads of grain, however, have in the last couple of days reached the target which the Wheat Board has set for the railways to achieve a catch-up, with 817 unloads on Thursday and around 800 on Friday. It will still take some time to catch up. The delay was due in part to the selling of a very large quantity of grain and the late arrival of boats which would have resulted in delays in loading in any case. The very severe winter snowfall conditions also delayed grain in arriving at Vancouver. The Wheat Board has the situation in hand, however, and it will be improving shortly.


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to resort to facts again after he receives the salesman of the year award?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, no one considers that that would be an immediate practical solution. The Wheat Board is examining every possible solution to increase our capacity, including cleaning grain in the interior and putting it through the terminals without cleaning it there. But the use of that terminal is not practical in terms of the expense required to put it into operational shape.



SUGGESTED MEETING OF WHEAT BOARD AND RAILWAY OFFICIALS TO EXPEDITE MOVEMENT

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should also like to ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I notice the minister continually refers to grain and not to wheat. My question arises from the other questions, particularly in respect of the Palliser group which said that the terminals are empty at Vancouver and short 20 million bushels and that wheat sales have been lost. Would the minister consider getting together the export officials, the officials of the Wheat Board and the railways to see if this can be remedied now and not tomorrow?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that has been done. It has been done a long time ago and on a continuing basis. The increase of unloads to 800 to which I referred a moment ago has resulted from the railways co-operating with the new targets set by the Wheat Board above the 600 or 700 achieved earlier. I can also say that the terminals have now agreed to go on a seven-day work week basis, which previously they had not, in order to increase further the total unloads of wheat. There is co-operation on all sides, I am happy to say.



POSSIBLE PREFERENCE TO SHIPMENT OF WHEAT OVER RYE, FLAX AND RAPESEED

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether shipments of rye, flax and rapeseed from elevator points are being slowed down in order to give preference to wheat for delivery to the west coast?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Moose Jaw on a supplementary.



POSSIBLE RENOVATION OF GOVERNMENT TERMINAL ELEVATOR AT VANCOUVER TO EXPEDITE SHIPMENT

John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, can the minister say whether or not it is correct that Canada has lost a sale of 150,000 tons of wheat to Japan because the Canadian Wheat Board could not ensure delivery?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would have to investigate whether any changes in the shipping program were made. The objective of the Wheat Board and the block shipment system is in every case to arrange for the loading of grain which is most required for the ships that are expected to arrive or have arrived at Vancouver.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre on a supplementary.

64____________________________________
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, it is a related question, not a supplementary, but is directed to the same minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might be allowed to ask the question even though it is not a supplementary and then we will go on to the hon. member for Vegreville.



REPRESENTATIONS ON SHARING OF STORAGE COSTS ON ALL GRAINS BY GOVERNMENT-DISCUSSION WITH FARM ORGANIZATIONS

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice who is in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the representations by a number of farm organizations for several years calling for the revision of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act so that a share of the storage cost of all six grains can be borne by the federal government, can the minister advise if he and his officials have been holding discussions with these farm organizations with the objective of implementing such a revision? If not, is it his intention to hold such discussions with a view to revising the act in the manner which the farm organizations are seeking?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no. I have no intention of discussing the matter with them at the present time.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General arising out of statements made last Friday. Has the minister received any formal protest, internal, external or otherwise, concerning the removal of the initials "RCMP" from the building and vehicles of the Edmonton RCMP detachment? If so would he so indicate, and will he be making a statement on motions to clarify this issue as it has alarmed many people, particularly in western Canada?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, this is an administrative decision that was taken by the Commissioner himself on November 4, 1969, as to the principle, and on October 19, 1970, as to the details. In fact, this decision of the Commissioner is widely known, since the new sign has appeared on RCMP buildings for two years already, and more particularly in Saskatoon since June 1971. So, I cannot see why there is such an alarm all of a sudden.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary of the Solicitor General. What specific directions came from the Solicitor General with respect to this matter?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: None, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of the changes that are being made with regard to new automobiles and the new RCMP building in Edmonton, although similar changes are not being made in Calgary, will the Solicitor General tell me whether there have been any representations by members of the force, and is he aware of petitions with over 11,000 names from the city of Edmonton insisting on the continuation of the original designation and refusing to accept the new system of designation?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the commissioner informed me his decision was made on the basis of efficiency, that the sign is a more visual one, that the recommendation was made on that account and following consultation within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Now, I can make the whole series of signs used by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police available to hon. members, and I wish to emphasize that the words Royal Canadian Mounted Police appear twice and the words Gendarmerie royale du Canada once and I believe three times is sufficient.


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert and then try to go on to the next subject because we are running short of time.



REMOVAL OF NAME FROM BUILDING IN SASKATOON

John George Diefenbaker: I would like to ask the minister, because his memory was not very good the other day, whether or not on the building in Saskatoon the words "Royal Canadian Mounted Police" no longer appear?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the word "police" is very clearly written and everybody can see the RCMP shield which has shown, since 1873, the motto "Maintiens le droit" as well as the words Royal Canadian Mounted Police. All that is very clear. The answer is yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this verbose minister does not answer the question. I asked him simply whether the designation "RCMP" has or has not been removed. I have his letter here, in case he has forgotten it, indicating that the reason RCMP was removed was that it would not blend with contemporary buildings. What an explanation!


George Harris Hees: Answer yes or no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I indicated a moment ago we have gone beyond the question period. I was hoping we would take two or three minutes to allow other hon. members to ask questions who throughout the whole

February 21, 1972

question period have been waiting for an opportunity to do so. This matter might be pursued tomorrow.



PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that public service employment opportunities for Canadian youth were announced on January 13 and that the closing date for applications under this program was January 31, some 18 days later, would the minister approach the Public Service Commission to see if this date can be extended so as to afford more of our youth an opportunity to apply under this program?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to accept the hon. member's suggestion and to seek the advice of the Public Service Commission on the possibility of such a procedure.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-SUGGESTED INQUIRY INTO POLITICAL INFLUENCE AND MINIMUM   WAGE REGULATIONS-REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear the Secretary of State in an agreeable and accepting mood. In view of statements over the weekend with regard to possible political influence in the allocation of programs and the other charge that there may be some real difficulties between the minimum wage regulations of the federal government and the wage allocations under the Opportunities for Youth program, I wonder whether the minister has initiated an inquiry or whether one will be initiated? May I also ask the minister, in order to avoid putting a supplementary question to him, whether he would now be prepared, in view of the evaluation of last year's program and the other youth programs, to have a youth committee established by the House in order that it could look into all these questions with some thoroughness?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, there are three separate questions in the hon. member's question, and I will need some time to reply to all three. I therefore beg your patience in spite of the late hour.
My reply to the first part of the question is that in view of the extremely serious nature for a public servant of the statements reported by the press and, in many instances, of their glaring inaccuracy, the hon. member will no doubt understand our making an inquiry in order to ascertain whether the reports have any basis and whether the official concerned really made those statements.
Inquiries of the Ministry
With regard to the second part of the question, the matter is under study. The position we took last year, and which we will maintain unless the study indicates otherwise, is that the project sponsors, not the government or the Department of the Secretary of State, are the employers. Moreover, this work is comparable to voluntary work.
As for the establishment of a special committee on matters relating to youth, or referral to a parliamentary committee which would be responsible for dealing with such questions, I am quite prepared to accept the hon. member's suggestion. However, I do not know whether we should establish a special committee or whether it might be preferable for this matter to be referred to one of the standing committees of the House of Commons already in existence.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order not with respect to the answer of the Secretary of State but with respect to earlier questions put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the comments he made last week and again today. The importance of the questions being raised with regard to unemployment insurance affects so many people that I know all members of the House have also been affected. In view of the extended debate on the Speech from the Throne I am wondering whether the government House leader, because of the almost unanimous concern of all members concerning unemployment insurance and its operation, would give consideration-perhaps he might consult with the parliamentary secretary and others-to having an immediate reference without debate, which I am sure all members would support, to establish this committee at once in order that it could give immediate consideration to the matter because many thousands of Canadians have been affected.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has no objection to the minister replying briefly to this question. It is a question and hardly a point of order. In fairness to the hon. member and to the House, the minister might be allowed to reply briefly.
Hon. Allan ]. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council): I will examine the proposition to determine whether any substantial time would be gained by having a reference in that way rather than waiting for the sending of the estimates to the standing committees.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.

Speech from the Throne



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, February 18, 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. Lewis (p. 45).
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I feel I should extend my congratulations first of all to the people of the constituencies of Bruce and Trois-Rivieres for electing two outstanding members to the House of Commons. They can be proud of their members' performance in moving and seconding the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I hope I may be pardoned in that, notwithstanding the fine tribute paid to them by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I should like to extend my own personal congratulations to them.
The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) in a masterful way covered the extent of this government's achievements which the opposition for political reasons of their own have chosen to ignore. Because of their informative nature the hon. member's remarks deserve the widest possible distribution. He pointed out indisputable facts, some of which have not been grasped by many Canadians, concerning the basis of the government's performance led by a Prime Minister who has never hesitated to break new ground when the interests of the Canadian people are at stake. Whenever the election is called the voters of this country, I am confident, will overwhelmingly endorse this program.
With regard to the other issues contained in the Throne Speech we could have guessed what members of the opposition would say even before the speech was read by the Governor General. In the Throne Speech debates to which I have listened throughout the years that I have been a member I have not yet heard a member of the opposition praise the contents of the Throne Speech, and so far as this one is concerned it was no exception.
The gloom and doom tune of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) seems to have set the pace for his followers, with promises of a full employment budget, whatever that might be, while the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) advocated a new social and economic system, which reminds me of Lenin when he took control of Russia and made the famous statement "we will now proceed to establish a new social order". I think we are fortunate to have a government in Canada today dedicated to the equalization of opportunities in every area of Canada, one which has been eminently successful in lifting the low wage earners, the poor, the disabled, the war veterans and the retired to a higher state or dignity.
In this kind of debate it is customary to touch upon a few questions which may affect one's constituency or something of national interest. I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members the Committee for an

Independent Canada which held its first meeting in my constituency over the weekend of December 10.
I was astonished to read a report from that meeting during which a prominent member of the body made a statement to the effect that if it had not been for the late Right Honourable C. D. Howe there would have been no occasion for the committee to come into being and that Mr. Howe's policy was to encourage as many Americans as possible to come to Canada and that his whole philosophy was continentalism. If the man who made that incredible statement had reflected a little on the contributions made to the nation, toward the industrial development of Canada and the tremendous job of launching Canada's war effort and the colossal work of it reconstruction after the war by the late Right Honourable C. D. Howe, such a statement would never have been made. Indeed, I consider it an insult to the intelligence of the Canadian people and unworthy of the person who made it.
For the record, Mr. Speaker, and especially for the benefit of the younger generation which is too young to have known Canada's greatest architect of the postwar reconstruction of the nation, I wish to point out that when the Right Honourable C. D. Howe launched Canada's production toward the war effort, the output of Canadian industry in 1938 was $3.3 billion and the number of people employed in the manufacturing industry totalled 642,000. In 1957 industrial promotion under the wise guidance of the late Mr. C. D. Howe had reached ten times that amount and the number of Canadians employed in the manufacturing industry had risen 1,300,000.
Mr. Speaker, the outstanding achievement of Mr. Howe was the whole program of munitions supply which he conceived and directed during the war years. Whereas we went into the war with a fairly simple economy from an industrial standpoint, we emerged from the war with a highly diversified industrial machine.
Steel production is an outstanding case in point. Prior to the war we imported at least one-third of our requirements and at the end of the war we had a strong and fully integrated steel industry. I recall listening to the Fort William City Council of which I was a member. It was gravely concerned about how the new industrial capacity created in wartime could be kept busy, especially since we had a war industry in the city employing 6,000 persons. Where would they find a job in our community once war requirements were at an end? Mr. Howe immediately came to our rescue with a program for peacetime manufacturing including a flourishing trolley bus business. These were sold throughout Canada. A white paper on reconstruction which he submitted to parliament early in the postwar period contained a monetary and fiscal policy which made the transition from war to peace in such a manner as to win the admiration of other western nations that came out of the war.
The steel industry is an example of the wisdom of this postwar period. The industry continued to expand and prosper and I think it is generally regarded as the most efficient steel industry on the North American continent. Mr. C. D. Howe's critics usually concentrate their fire on what they claim to be his sellout of Canadian resources. More specifically they charge that he was responsible for the fact that we have such a large percentage of foreign ownership in the resource industries. Here I should like to

point out that the federal government does not own all our resources. In every instance relating to the large postwar expansion of the resource industries like the Alcan development in Kitimat, British Columbia, the oil and gas developments of Alberta and the Iron ore developments of Quebec and Labrador, ownership of the resources was vested in the provinces, and it is the provinces which have the responsibility of determining where ownership rests. I am amazed, Mr. Speaker, that those who charge C. D. Howe with giving away our resources choose to ignore this fact.
As an example the iron ore in Quebec and Labrador and the Steep Rock iron mines in northwestern Ontario are owned by the province of Quebec and Labrador and the province of Ontario, and the federal government had absolutely nothing to do with the arrangements for leasing the ore bodies. Of course it does have control of the export of these minerals. Through its fiscal policy the federal government probably did facilitate these developments once the provinces had granted mining leases and licences, but in almost every case the first initiative rested with the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the government of Quebec is in great need of economic expansion and is strongly opposed to any measure which will have the effect of discouraging foreign investment. Our Prime Minister, in an interview several weeks ago, made the following statement in reply to a question whether he was against economic nationalism in Canada. He said:
Yes, I am against economic nationalism, if its effect is to make a country poor. I don't think you can become more independent as I think Harry Johnson has put it "by becoming poorer".
As I see it, our problem is not foreign investment but more investment. Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair. The House will resume consideration of this item of business at 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, just before one o'clock I was pointing out what the Prime Minister had said about economic nationalism, namely, if it has the effect of making the country poor, he is against economic nationalism. And so am I, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce who said that any federal government move to restrict the influx of United States or other foreign investment capital into Quebec must provide for the replacement of jobs which might be lost because of it. Foreign investment is necessary not only for Quebec but also for my own constituency, Fort William, for the creation of jobs.
Referring to the committee for an independent Canada, I should say that for the life of me I cannot swallow the idea that Canada is not independent, contrary to the opi-
Speech from the Throne
nion expressed at this Thunder Bay meeting. The late Mr. Howe was more Canadian than those who were trying to impute to him an attitude of pro-Americanism for the purpose of serving their anti-Americanism. Mr. Howe was instrumental in urging great numbers of Canadians to get into production rather than have the country depend on importation of the numerous requirements for the war effort and for the reconstruction after the war.
In his great efforts, Mr. Howe was confronted with the same difficulties that have beset Canada from its very beginning, that is lack of venture capital and a conspicuous reluctance on the part of most Canadians with capital to get involved in projects entailing risks. This is the situation today. A shining example of this is the fact that American money came to save one of the oldest resorts in the province of Quebec, the Manor Richelieu at Murray Bay, noted as a convention centre. About a year ago its owner, owing to substantial losses in the operation of the great hotel, put it on the market. No Canadian bidders turned up. Canadian bankers were sceptical about the hotel's future. Then, a man from Cleveland stepped in. He rounded up some partners, formed a private company and kept the resort in operation. The new owners have ambitious plans for the old manor, including keeping the hotel open for a longer period each year. They deserve to make good, and good luck to them.
It will be a long time before we can achieve a position in which we will not need any foreign capital. Personally, I feel we will never be able to finance all the future industrial expansion we will require to maintain our standard of living without foreign investments. Our aim should be to retain the confidence of our foreign friends. Creation of a climate in this country that is hostile to the United States can only hurt us where we are vulnerable. Such an atmosphere could scare away investments, scare away tourists and create a resistance to Canadian goods.
Canadians are not stupid. I doubt whether they will allow themselves to be duped by the band that met in Thunder Bay, preaching more state intervention and socialism, without giving a clue as to how to replace foreign capital and foster continuous growth, without which there will be no hope of employing in Canada the expanding labour force which is increasing at a greater pace than in any other western nation. I am confident that this Parliament will continue to introduce measures which will have the effect of reducing unemployment in every region of Canada.
With regard to our relations with the United States, I wish to quote from an address Lord Thompson of Fleet delivered to the Empire Club of Toronto in which he referred to the various economies in the world. He said:
The Americans had been carrying vast international burdens, and in fact financing the world trade by their deficit.
He continued:
The monetary crisis could have been over sooner in my view, if the rest of us had shown more understanding. I would suggest that far from being hostile, or seeking retaliation, every Canadian should be eternally grateful and thankful for such a generous, friendly and enlightened neighbour as the United States.
Speaking of trade with the United States, about one quarter of the goods and services produced in Canada are exported, and almost 70 per cent of these exports go to the

February 21, 1972
68______________________________________
Speech from the Throne
United States. It would, therefore, be disastrous if the Canadian-U.S. trade talks should fail.
I should like to encourage our efficient Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) to be firm in one aspect of the negotiations. I refer to the 1965 auto pact which brought many benefits to Canada. I recall that when it was introduced the official opposition had reservations about its value and the NDP were lukewarm toward it. But now, having seen the beneficial results, they are clamoring for it. I would simply suggest that the United States should consider not only the present net advantage to Canada resulting from the auto pact but should bear in mind the advantages the United States has had over a long period of years. I am confident the government will not agree with the United States' point of view which requires a current Canadian deficit in the trade in motor vehicles.
Another area of national interest is our immigration policy, and the disturbing statement made by a Toronto lawyer at the Canadian Bar Association meeting. This man has twice examined certain aspects of immigration for the Canadian government, once five years ago when he inquired into the problem of deserting seamen and again two years ago when he was asked to report on the increasing number of non-immigrants applying for permanent residence. In his speech, he dismissed the traditional concept of Canada as a vast empty land. He said, and I quote:
Sure, we still have millions of acres with a negligible population, but many of those acres can never support more than a marginal population. Maybe, instead of blindly encouraging people to come to this land of opportunity, we should make a serious study to find out just how many people each region can reasonably support. It may be that natural increase would cause us to reach that desirable figure without any immigration.
The number of people which this country can support can never be reached by natural increase unless the women of Canada are bent on having no less than 10 children each, a preposterous proposition which no one takes seriously. At the time of Confederation, 105 years ago, Canada had a population of little more than three million. It has taken all that time to add 18 million to our present population of approximately 21 million. The second century is a good time, not to consider reducing the importance of the immigration department or reducing the number of immigrants, but to continue a reasonable policy of selection. By that I do not mean to let in only university graduates. I am referring to the artisan, the tradesman and laborer, of whom there is a definite shortage.
The development of a ribbon of civilization above the 49th parallel received the attention of our Canadian pioneers in the first century of our history. As this ribbon widened towards the north, unlocking vast treasures of timber and minerals, and settlements prospered on the Prairies, we experienced a period of great achievement, which the generous immigration policy at the beginning of the century made possible. Canada's history is enlaced with the story of people from many lands coming here in search of peace, freedom and prosperity. People from every country around the globe and from every walk of life came here to build a new life and to enrich Canada with character and tradition.
As to the criticisms which appear in the newspapers commenting adversely on the work of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, containing scathing remarks about the way in which immigration is being handled, I would point out that any deficiencies which may be apparent in the department do not extend to the immigration offices overseas. I have met some of the immigration officers and, believe me, I have never met people more dedicated, more industrious or more faithful to their trust than those in charge of our immigration services overseas. This is the case whether they serve in London, in Marseille, in Paris or in Glasgow, Scotland.
I hope the Prime Minister will consider, if not in the course of this session of Parliament then certainly in the next, adopting a new concept of the north based on a policy of encouraging and assisting suitable immigrants to settle in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. These regions cover approximately 1,400,000 square miles of land rich in minerals, gas, oil, iron, copper, gold, furs and fish, yet less than 40,000 people, counting all the Indians, the Eskimos and the whites, live north of the 60th parallel. The adoption of such a policy will take courage, but fortunately our Prime Minister is richly endowed with that quality.
Finally, may I say that my constituents in the City of Thunder Bay are very grateful to the government for its grant of $18,720 toward hiring a co-ordinator, a secretary and ten surveyors in connection with an initiative incentive program, the purpose of which is to evaluate the need of the community for an auditorium complex which would include a community cultural and sports centre. It appears to be the considered opinion of people in Thunder Bay, which is part of the constituency of my hon. friend from Port Arthur (Mr. Andras), that this is one of the city's most pressing needs. When a scheme has been approved, financial assistance from all levels of government will be required. I trust the federal government will favourably consider making a generous grant at that time.
The opposition characterized the Throne Speech as being without substance. Unbiased people will see in it a most inspiring legislative program, the like of which has not been often heard in this chamber.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the outstanding thing about the Speech from the Throne delivered on Thursday is that almost unbelievably it contains no proposals for dealing with the country's most important problem, that of unemployment involving no less than 665,000 people, amounting to 7.7 per cent of the work force, who cannot find jobs.
If Your Honour would search through that pyramid of platitudes piled one on top of another for a full hour last Thursday, and listen to the Prime Minister's hymn of self-praise delivered in the House on Friday you would not find a scrap of evidence of any plan designed to increase production through stimulating the economy thereby making jobs more readily available to Canadians. Members of this House and the public generally have a right to ask why this should be the case. Everyone admits that unemployment is the No. 1 problem facing the country today. Why is there no mention of any plan to overcome it?
[Mr. Badanai.}

Speech from the Throne
The answer is difficult to find because the government would obviously like to do something to cure unemployment if only to halt the deluge of criticism which has been poured upon it for the last couple of years as a result of its complete misunderstanding of the economy and complete inability to handle the unemployment situation. The reason the government has put forward no plan is that its members simply do not know what remedies to prescribe. No minister in charge of a senior economic portfolio, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) down, has ever had any experience in production or in the sale of products or services. Yet this is what the economy and employment are all about. These fuzzy-minded theorists simply do not understand what is needed to stimulate the economy, increase production and produce more jobs. They do not understand that employers will simply decline to expand their production unless they can be persuaded that by doing so they will stand a reasonable chance to make a reasonable profit. In order to provide encouragement and reassurance, the government must institute measures which will convince employers that they will be working in an atmosphere which will sufficiently assure them of a reasonable profit from their expanded operations. If they are not so convinced they will simply decline to expand their operations, production will not increase and employment opportunities will not expand.
Leaders of industry will not expand production while the competition bill and the amendment to the Labour Code remain hanging over their heads. Business has told the government this in no uncertain terms over the past few months. The government, on the other hand, thinks that the propaganda it has put out concerning these two bills will please a great many people who are expected to vote in the next election and it has therefore decided to proceed with these bills despite the fact that doing so will result in the slowing down of economic growth, and, consequently, the chance of increased employment opportunities for our work force.
Let us consider what the government has been doing in its attempt to increase employment. It has been making grants in cases where new industries are opening up. We would all agree that this is a good plan provided the industries concerned are experiencing a steady or a growing demand for the products they turn out. But if there is no such demand, if, by any chance, there is a declining demand for those products it is obviously foolish to subsidize the creation of new plants in that area of industry. Examining the whole picture we find, for example, that in the pulp and paper industry, which for the past year has been in a situation of over-supply both in Canada and throughout the world, the government has subsidized the creation of two new companies. One of them is in Grand Prairie, Alberta to the tune of $15.7 million and the other is in Rayonnier, Quebec to the tune of $13.7 million. This despite the fact that pulp and paper plants across the country during the past year have been cutting back operations and laying off people. In particular, the plant at Timiskaming is closing down and laying off 850 people simply because there is no demand for the pulp product it produces. This gives one an idea of the kind of fuzzy thinking this government indulges in, and is the reason the business community has no confidence in the government's ability to direct our economic affairs.
Let us take a look, Mr. Speaker, at what the government is proposing to do. There is no indication of this in the Speech from the Throne, but last Saturday we learned from a speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) in Winnipeg, something of what the government has in mind. In his speech last Saturday in Winnipeg the minister discussed Canadian-United States trade relations and the problems that exist between our two countries in this field. Then he said, to quote his words: "We have made contributions to the correction of some of these imbalances, and the government is prepared to go further".
I should like to know why Canada is responsible for any temporary imbalance in trade that we have with the United States at the present time. We have had a trade deficit with the United States for 18 of the last 20 years. At the moment we are in a temporary surplus position, but anyone who has read the financial pages recently will know perfectly well that this temporary surplus position is evaporating very, very rapidly and will cease to exist within a few months. Yet the United States government has been able to con this government into believing that we have some responsibility to right this imbalance.
The government's approach to the United States government is one that should not be condoned: it is one of going cap in hand to the United States and apologizing for something for which this country is not responsible. The result of these "further contributions" which the government has promised to make through the speech of the minister of external affairs last Saturday, and which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said this morning was government policy, will be that Canadian industry will have to make sacrifices that will cost jobs in this country.
The most likely industry to suffer is the Canadian automotive industry. It is very likely that this government has already indicated to the United States government that it will do away with the two principal safeguards in the Canada-U.S. automotive pact. This morning I asked the Prime Minister whether that was the case but he ducked the question. We have the right to know, and so does industry, whether the government is going to scrap these two safeguards which are of tremendous importance to the automobile industry in Canada. If not, then what other industry is going to be sacrificed at the whim of the United States government and in order to meet an argument advanced by the United States government which has no validity whatsoever? As I have said, for 18 of the last 20 years we have had a trade deficit with the United States. Simply because we are in a temporary surplus position is no reason to ask us to make further contributions to correcting the imbalance, just to please the United States government.
So we see this government doing foolish things, such as subsidizing new plants in an industry whose products are already over-produced in the world. Although Canadian plants are closing down or cutting back production, we put something between $25 million to $30 million of taxpayers' money into the subsidization of plants. This will simply make the economic life of existing pulp and paper plants in this country that much more difficult. The government is also going to make further contributions to

February 21, 1972
70______________________________________
Speech from the Throne
correcting the imbalance in trade, and this is going to cost Canadians very dearly in terms of employment.
If I may get away from this negative, do-nothing situation in which the government finds itself, let me look in a more constructive way at what can be done to create more production and thus more jobs. It is clear to everyone in this House-certainly it is clear to industry-that in order to employ more people we must first produce more. In order to produce more we must have orders for our production. In other words, we must first sell more goods.
How are we going to do this? There are two ways. The first is greatly to increase our sales of products in the export market, a market that absorbs one-third of Canada's production. The second way we can increase sales of Canadian products, both in the export and the domestic market, is to reduce costs, and thereby selling price, thus making our products more competitive both here and in the export market. We must also sell products in greater volume.
May I first deal with making greater selling efforts in export markets. To achieve this we must do three things. First of all, we must start now to send a minimum of 25 trade missions a year, composed of businessmen engaged in the production of specific products, to those areas of the world where our trade commissioners advise us that Canadian products can be sold but are not being sold or, if they are already being sold, can be sold in greater volume. I say missions of businessmen because this is the only kind of trade mission that is effective. These businessmen will make contact with those who either sell their products in their stores or use their products in manufacturing processes carried on in the country in question. These businessman meet with those who sell or use their products, and they should convince them-this is the only way they will get orders-they can make a bigger profit by using Canadian products than by using the products they are presently using.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has been travelling around the world claiming that he is doing a great job of increasing sales to foreign markets. For example, he visits a country and meets the minister of trade, assures him that Canada wants to do more trade with his country, and the minister jn turn assures our minister that his country wants to do more business with ours. They both are very happy with the whole thing. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce then goes to a large number of dinners and luncheons at which he meets the leading businessmen of the area and tells them that we want to do more business with their country. Then, their speakers one after the other assure the minister that their country wants to do more business with ours, and similarly everyone feels very happy at the whole thing. Then, they all go home and continue doing business exactly as they always have. This is because the vast majority of countries are not state trading nations. Business is placed by individual producers who sell to individual consumers because they can persuade them they can make more money by using their products than by using other products.
Although everyone in business is fully away of this situation, these fuzzy headed theorists have yet to learn it. They think that a ministerial visit of the kind our Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been making is

very successful and useful, whereas in actual fact it is absolutely worthless. The figures prove that.
In 1971, the first month of this year, Canadian trade with every country except the United States took a very severe drop. The only reason it went up with the United States is they used more and more of our raw materials to feed their factories to turn out products and provide employment for their people. We get very little employment from all this because it takes relatively little labour to take our raw materials out of the ground and ship them across the country in their raw state. The United States market is the one market on which we want desperately to become less dependent, and yet it is the only market in which we have increased our sales. In every market in the world there has been a very severe drop. Why? Because this government is not going after trade promotion in anything like an efficient and effective manner. So, I urge the minister for heaven's sake to adopt a practical approach and adopt it soon.
The second way we can increase sales in the export market is for this government to arrange a meeting between officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the businessmen of Canada in our industrial centers all across the country where the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce could meet with the businessmen concerned and show them how the department can assist them to get into the export market and make sales. This is particularly important to small businessmen who have no idea how they can possibly sell a good proportion of their products in the export market.
The third way we can increase sales in the export market is to bring buyers to Canada, the important buyers of the world who number between 600 and 700 in the big markets of the world. They could be flown to Canada, accommodated, wined and dined and entertained and shown Canada's products at giant trade shows in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Winnipeg. They could be shown all the heavy material we are so good at producing. They could be shown the factories across Canada where these machines are produced. This is the way to show the people around the world what we have and to take orders.
In addition to increasing sales in export markets, as I said we can increase sales both here in Canada and in the export market as well by lowering costs and selling prices and by making our product more competitive. How can we do this? We can do it by doing three things. First of all we must increase productivity. In this connection we should take note of what the Economic Council of Canada said a few months ago in its latest report when it said that if we, in Canada, are to be able to improve conditions in the work force every year Canadian industry must greatly increase its productivity.
This can be done by offering tax incentives for increased productivity in plants where it can be demonstrated that there is increased productivity and this can be demonstrated in any plant which wants to go after it. Such tax incentives would give industrial leaders some incentive to make a much higher expenditure in plant, machinery and the new production systems necessary to keep costs and selling prices down. These tax incentives

Speech from the Throne
will pay for themselves many times over in the months and years ahead because more products will be sold through their being more competitive and because more people will be employed instead of drawing unemployment insurance or direct relief. There would be more commodity taxes because more commodities would be sold. There would be more corporation taxes because lower costs reduce the overhead on individual products making available more profits to tax.
The second way we can keep prices down is to take steps to keep prices from rising at the very rapid rate at which they are rising at the present time. Prices should not be allowed to rise at a rate greater than 2.5 per cent a year which is the average yearly inflation for the past 17 years since the Dominion Bureau of Statistics started keeping a record of our yearly increase in inflation. Last year, as we know, inflation increased by 5 per cent or exactly twice the rate it should have increased. Inflation can be checked by introducing price and wage guidelines backed by the flat assertion by the government that if they are not observed the government is prepared to bring in price and wage controls. I have spoken to leaders of industry and labour about this matter. They have said privately to me that if the government should make it clear it would bring in mandatory price and wage controls; if guidelines are not observed they would have no alternative but to obey the guidelines the government sets to keep prices within the 2.5 per cent rise each year.
The third way to keep costs and prices down is to lower taxes. The way the government can lower taxes and certainly keep taxes from rising, which has been the case all along, is to stop wasting the taxpayer's money. A good example of how the government wastes the taxpayer's money was given a few days ago in an interview between the Director-General of Information Canada and a representative of the Globe and Mail. It turns out that although Information Canada was established several years ago at an initial cost of $7 million and has cost $7 million a year to operate since that time it has not achieved anything, but rather is doing what it was supposed to do far worse than it was being done before. Information Canada was supposed to collect reports from all the departments. They were supposed to be funnelled through Information Canada in order to be more easily available to the Canadian people. What has happened is that it takes about three weeks, for some reason or other which nobody knows, for information to come from the departments to Information Canada and be reprinted. So, if one wants to know what is going on in any department it takes exactly three weeks longer than was necessary before because previously all one had to do was call up the department and the public relations man would tell you exactly what you wanted to know. Now it is necessary to wait three weeks longer and this costs the Canadian taxpayer several millions of dollars a year to have far worse service than before.
What the Director-General of the department said is reported in the Globe and Mail of February 12 after an interview with a Globe and Mail reporter on February 11. Mr. Robert Phillips, deputy director-general of Information Canada was asked why there was such a great slowdown in information being made available. Here is what the reporter says:
Robert Phillips, deputy director-general of Information Canada, slaps his forehead, sighs a lot and rocks agitatedly on a genuine Canadian pine arrow-back chair that helps furnish his office on Shuter Street in Ottawa. Look,' he says, the situation is no better or worse than it was before we came on the scene. We deplore it as much as everyone else'.
Everybody knows the situation is a whole lot worse. Everybody knows this is the way the government wastes the taxpayer's money, that this is the reason taxes are going up and that costs of products are uncompetitive. I would simply say that the Prime Minister, in an interview last Friday after his speech in the House, was asked about what had been done or left undone regarding the unemployment situation in Canada. He said he would be glad to fight an election on the unemployment issue. Mr. Speaker, I simply say to him that if he is willing to fight the next election on the unemployment issue then he is a dead duck right now because all the polls which have been taken across the country on this government's handling or mishandling of the unemployment situation have shown that a steadily increasing majority of the Canadian people are thoroughly dissatisfied with what the government has been doing.
So I say in conclusion that when the Prime Minister finally does screw up his courage to go to the people, particularly if he decides to fight this election on the unemployment issue or on any other issue, the indication that I and most members of the House get is that the people of Canada will decide to elect a businesslike government in the future, a Conservative government, the only kind of government that demonstrates every day that it knows how to stimulate the economy, stimulate production and produce the kind of jobs that Canadian people not only need but deserve.


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: I begin today, Mr. Speaker, by congratulating the two respected and talented members of this House who were given the high honour of moving and seconding the motion that is now before us concerning the Speech from the Throne. I refer of course to the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Which-er) and the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie). Their speeches brought credit to them and to the people who sent them here.
Today I want to take advantage of the free range of the Throne Speech debate to deal with more than one issue. First, I want to talk about the needs of the far flung constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton and the people I have the honour to represent here. Second, I want to refer to the Official Languages Act which has assured Canadians that they can communicate with their government in English or in French. Third, I want to say that the ombudsman's role of putting flesh and blood to government is perhaps the primary responsibility of a private member like myself. For example, last week alone my office handled about 200 individual requests from the people I represent regarding a great variety of problems, and this is only possible when you have efficient and hardworking secretaries which I am privileged to have. I want to commend them and the work that they do which enables me to accomplish so much on behalf of the people whom I represent.
25020-6'

February 21, 1972
72_____________________________________
Speech from the Throne
The constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton stretches from the edge of Ottawa to almost the edge of Pembroke and goes south as far as the town of Perth. It has 18 townships in three counties and eight towns plus many villages. It includes such differing communities as the historic French speaking community of Lapasse, with all its pride and its history, and it also has towns like Lanark and Carleton Place where British immigrants put down their roots many decades ago. It has the impressive and spacious new homes of spanking new developments near Carp and the uniquely planned town of Kanata in March Township. I have therefore constituents whose work takes them frequently to all parts of this world and whose incomes are well over the $10,000 a year mark. At the same time I represent some of those Canadians who are very poor. Unfortunately, in the entire Ottawa valley we have many more whose incomes are low than we have whose living standard is high.
I recognize the arguments for ecological care. I, along with other members of the House, was very proud to share in the parliament which created a full Department of the Environment, that brought in and passed the Canada Water Act, the Canada Clean Air Act, the arctic pollution control legislation, and so on. I know of the dangers of industrial growth, but at the same time I know the bitterness of poverty and the deadening, explosive results of human dreams and hopes that are chronically deferred, perpetually postponed. It is for this reason that the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins) and myself were such avid supporters of the idea of a Department of Regional Economic Expansion in Canada when the bill was introduced soon after the 1968 election. It was a cause for real hope that an entire department of the government would be created, the sole purpose of which would be to generate growth in the more depressed or slow growth areas of Canada. As hon. members know, almost exactly two years ago the county of Renfrew was declared a special area under this act, an action for which I want to give the highest praise to the teamwork shared with me by my more senior colleague in the House the hon. member for Renfrew North.
In the eight townships of Renfrew county that I represent, and especially in the large town of Renfrew, this special designation has had a very positive impact. For Arnprior, Waba and Cobden, and throughout the entire area which falls within my constituency, some $2.5 million has been approved resulting in more than 600 possible jobs. I say possible jobs because all of the plans are not yet implemented and all of the jobs have not yet therefore been created. We needed this federal assistance because in the Ottawa valley, especially in the area that I represent, we had become, industrially speaking, too dependent on the over-tooled and over-equipped aircraft industry. For example, in my own constituency there is the one major magnesium mine in Canada formerly known as Dominion Magnesium Limited, now known as Chromasco at Haley Station. This mine, because of the situation in the aircraft industry and related problems, has cut down from 16 furnaces to eight, with the resulting lay-off of significant numbers of workers. Near the same location there is the last foundry of its type in our nation, the Haley Industries Ltd. which does very specialized light

alloy castings. This plant is also under significant pressure.
Within the town of Renfrew we had the very large Renfrew Engineering and Aircraft Company which was closed one year ago. This came about as the result of the pressure on the aircraft industry and especially the lack of work that United Aircraft Corporation of Montreal had and therefore the drop of orders in Renfrew. At the moment in Arnprior we have the Vertol-Boeing plant which is under similar pressures.
I recount all of this to point out simply that the designation of Renfrew county as a special area was not something that was done for no reason or through some whim but for very substantial reasons indeed because without this designation we would have been in a very bleak situation. In spite of the rather remarkable results that have come about as a result of Renfrew county being designated, it is my conviction that because of the significant pressures on the aircraft industry we are really not that much further ahead than we were before, and the designation which terminates on June 30, 1972 simply must be reinstated and must be prolonged. It is to achieve this end that the hon. member for Renfrew North and myself are now working very hard.
Growth in the county of Lanark has been steady. There the industrial base is more diversified and therefore the job opportunities far more substantial and far more secure than has been the case in Renfrew. Carleton County, of course, the third county of which I have the privilege to represent a portion, has some of the best farm land in Canada. This area, being closer to Ottawa and therefore to the national capital, has significant development coming its way, such as the recently announced large expansion to the Carp airport. These developments accrue to it automatically, but such is not now nor has it been the case for Renfrew County. I think I am in the rather awkward position, as a Member of Parliament with responsibilities for the three counties in my constituency, of always being vulnerable, as is any elected representative, to the charge of playing favourites. The fact remains however, that Renfrew County needed to be designated to a more significant degree than the other two because it had suffered far more loss of income through its very peculiar situation of being so heavily tied into the aircraft industry. So this special federal aid, more aid than has ever before been given to the County of Renfrew, must be continued and that is something that is of prime importance.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in case some critic, and in public life we get many critics, should rush to condemn me because I have not yet mentioned agriculture, I want to spend a few moments referring to the agriculture industry. The people in my constituency who produce manufacturing or industrial milk have been significantly assisted by the real improvement in milk prices, especially the improvement that occurred when our surpluses were reduced in Canada and we did not have to keep so much of the holdback from going into the pockets of the farmers.
Beef prices have been good and beef farmers have been doing relatively well, although higher prices for replacement cattle are beginning to squeeze the profit margin

significantly. The third product that is important in my constituency is hogs. We all recognize that hog prices were very low in recent months, and it is for that reason the federal government has just announced a $5 per hog special subsidy for up to 200 hogs. This will mean that many of my hog producers will receive outright cash assistance from the federal treasury totalling $1,000. It is a once only subsidy because many hog producers were anxious that we should not create a policy which would result in many people rushing into the industry, thereby further deflating hog prices. The government has taken action to improve the situation. To the average hog producer it has been very welcome and needed action.
Egg prices, like hog prices, have been unusually low but the future looks brighter for egg producers. One reason is that this House has passed Bill C-176. These are vitally important actions, especially the passage of Bill C-176, for such producers as egg producers and the federal assistance should be a real boon to hog producers who have been having a difficult time.
As I mentioned at the outset, I wish to turn to yet another topic. The people I represent have strong feelings about strikes and labour unrest. I would be less than responsible in representing them if I did not take advantage of the Throne Speech debate to point that out. At the moment, I am receiving some very intense pressure from all the different and conflicting sides of labour struggles, such as the present electronic technicians' strike. On the one hand, I hear from people who believe very firmly that the government should settle at once, meet the demands and settle. Others believe very firmly that we should outlaw strikes, while a third group insists that we should hold the payline and not set off another spiral of inflation such as that triggered by the seaway settlement of a few years ago. Like other members, I get it from all sides.
It seems to me that in this day and age we have to move away from the old style labour relations, namely confrontation. I am sure every Canadian has very real sympathy with what is happening in the United Kingdom where the Conservative government of Prime Minister Heath has seen the nation literally brought to its knees and faced with national bankruptcy while the people suffer incredible hardships because of the very difficult labour situation in the coal strike. We in Canada must work hard and do all we can to prevent a similar situation from ever occurring here. The truth is that the public suffers no matter in what area the strike is. I regret that I do not have any smart answers or simple solutions, because I do not think there are any. We need to rethink our labour relations so that we do not get into the position of having industry and the public at large chronically handicapped from strikes or slowdowns. We must move to stop this sort of action.
It is interesting to note that the United States, which has just settled a long standing strike on the west coast, estimates that the nation lost $23 million a day during that time. A strike of that proportion is a luxury that we cannot afford nor, I hasten to add, can we afford to diminish the right of workers to bargain collectively. This front and how to improve it is one of the real challenges of this decade which we must meet ere the 1980s are upon us.
Soon after the last election this government introduced the Official Languages Act. The prime purpose of that act
Speech from the Throne
was to give official status in the government of Canada and the agencies of the government, to English and to French. The basic assumption of the Official Languages Act was that most Canadians would never speak more than one language, so in order to enable Canadians who spoke only one language to deal with their government the government gave them the legal right to use either language. While that act was before this House, Mr. Speaker, every one of the four political parties supported it and suggested that this was a just and fair move. Every political party and every political party leader voted for the bill and supports it to this day. The Liberals supported it, the Progressive Conservatives supported it, the New Democratic Party supported it and the Ralliement Credi-tiste supported it. No political party opposed it. The House rarely shows such unanimity and agreement.
On Friday morning last the Leader of the Progressive Conservative party, who is also the Leader of the Official Opposition, (Mr. Stanfield) gave his party's official rebuttal to the government's program when he participated in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. It would seem to me that was the time when any flaw in the government's approach would have been pounced upon and, politics being the art of discrediting those in power, we might have expected any and every difficulty in our society to be attributed directly to the government's desire to destroy and diminish. It is traditional in the parliamentary process that the failure to meet any human need not yet fully met be made to appear a direct result of government callousness, any injustice turned to appear as though the government loved evil and hated good. That is the game; we all understand the rules. In parliamentary democracy we believe that good will does come by such exaggeration; that democracy is best served by the people being suspicious of every and all governments. It also means that if there is a real issue, or what might even appear to be an issue of real injustice being perpetrated, then it would be a very inept and bungling opposition that failed to trumpet it from the rooftops.
So, Mr. Speaker, it was with great care that I listened to the Conservative party leader's speech on Friday I even reread his remarks carefully in Hansard. What I expected to find and what I heard was there only in part. I emphasize, it was there only in part. The government was condemned by the official opposition because it is still negotiating with the United States on items on which there is still some outstanding difference. Secondly, the government was condemned because, as the Prime Minister has reminded us, there is a need for more job creation and because a number of our citizens are unemployed. We were told that even though more than 200,000 new jobs were created in 1971, that was not good enough. There must be more yet. We were, of course, reminded by the Prime Minister that this item has been given a very high priority.
The Leader of the Opposition attacked the government on several issues, some real and some imagined. However, to my utter amazement, one issue was not mentioned at all. There was no reference to the Official Languages Act, or to the government's implementation of that act, which every party supported when it was before the House. That

74_____________________________________
Speech from the Throne
act was not attacked by the Leader of the Progressive Conservative party. He did not even mention it. Nor was the government attacked by him on the language issue at all. Actually, the Leader of the Official Opposition went so far, and I say this with some amazement, as to make a large portion of his speech in very fine French. That seems very strange to me, because I just read in the Arnprior newspapers that the Progressive Conservative party in my constituency considered the issues of the economy and of bilingualism to be the two major issues on which this government was most vulnerable. That party proposed to attack the government on those issues, and to fight the next election on them. What happened? Why was there that change?
In the first place, the Liberal government, under the leadership of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said that because most Canadians will always speak only one language, it is necessary for them to be able to do business with their government in either of those official languages. In the second place, the Leader of the Official Opposition, who is the Leader of the Progressive Conservative party, stood up and made his speech in French and in English. If press reports are accurate, he has formed a 26-member committee to organize on behalf of his party in the province of Quebec. He has done that because the Leader of the Official Opposition believes that he leads a party that should be taken seriously as a national party bringing forward representatives in all parts of Canada, from one coast to the other. The New Democratic Party of course officially supported the Official Languages Act when it was before the House and I presume they still support it. The Creditistes support that legislation. So, since all four of our political parties support it, I am forced to but one conclusion, namely, that there is a new political party in eastern Ontario. Apparently the letters E.O.P.C. might mean, "Eastern Ontario Progressive Conservatives." Yet, apparently, they do not mean that at all. The letters E.O.P.C. apparently stand for a new and fifth political force in Canada, the party that might be called the "English Only Party of Canada".


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member is trying to be very clever. What is his point?


Murray Arndell McBride: I do not know who their leader is. Obviously, it is not the Leader of the Official Opposition, because he is not anti-French. He is not anti-Quebec. I would dare to say that he seeks to lead a national party, with support all across Canada in every province. He seeks the support of all, whether they speak French or English. He would hardly do as the leader of an "English Only Party of Canada".


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What is the point of this?


Murray Arndell McBride: Actually, he speaks French very well.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What is the point?


Murray Arndell McBride: I presume that the Leader of the Opposition wants to convey that any government that that hon. gentleman might form would be able to deal with Canadians in both official languages. So, it would appear that in this country we have the Liberal party, the Progressive Conservative party, the New Democratic Party, the Creditistes and the E.O.P.C. Do those letters stand for the

Eastern Ontario Progressive Conservative Party? No, not at all. They stand for the "English Only Party of Canada," whose platform consists primarily of two points, the economy and the Official Languages Act, or bilingualism.
This is a very strange situation and it becomes stranger yet, Mr. Speaker, when one realizes that last Wednesday evening a member of this House went to speak to this party in my constituency. He was the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Murray Arndell McBride: When he spoke there, he encouraged the faithful to pursue their attack on the government on the issues of the economy and bilingualism. He used the most remarkable argument when speaking on the subject of bilingualism. I am almost embarrassed to repeat what he said. He used the "some of my best friends are French" routine. That was rather startling, because he reminded me of people like the Reverend Ian Paisley, who would say that some of his best friends are Catholics, and of George Wallace, who would say that some of his best friends are negroes. Apparently some of the best friends of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, according to what he said in the Ottawa Valley, are French. Of course, when he speaks in the House he has a foot in both parties. Officially, he is a member of the official opposition, the party that is neither anti-French nor anti-Quebec and that is led by a man who is widely respected in this House as being fair.
To be perfectly fair, may I quote from an editorial that appeared in one of our local daily newspapers on January 18:
The opposition of Western Conservatives to the Official Languages Act is still recent enough to rankle.
The author was referring to Quebec. I continue:
Moreover, some Conservative politicians, in attacking the Trudeau government, have tried to make it appear that Quebec is getting too large a share of public investment to fight unemployment. These attacks also rankle, for payments to Quebec have merely been proportionate to the rest of the country's.
Such criticism of federal policy has helped give the Conservative party an anti-Quebec image. Mr. Stanfield will need more than an organizing committee, however competent, to overcome it.
So, we come tc this basic question: will this new party in eastern Ontario campaign against us on the grounds that the greatest amount of federal funds and assistance of all time have come into the Ottawa valley? That is hardly likely.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Think about B.C.


Murray Arndell McBride: Will they campaign against us because the government took action six months prior to the closing down of the Renfrew aircraft plant and designated Renfrew County? That is hardly likely. Will they campaign against us on the ground that we have had the largest and best trade growth in Canadian history? That is hardly likely. Will they condemn us for increasing veterans' pensions? Not at all. Will they condemn us for increasing old age security benefits? Not at all, no. Apparently the Achilles heel of this government as they see it will be that we have a Prime Minister who is partly of French Canadian descent, that six out of 26, or about one fifth of our cabinet ministers, are French speaking, and that we have

Speech from the Throne
introduced a law that says you can speak to your government either in French or in English. That is what we are to be attacked on, Mr. Speaker.
It was Reinhold Niebuhr, one of the great philosophical and forward looking minds of our continents who wrote:
A free society requires some confidence in the ability of men to reach tentative and tolerable adjustments between their competing interests and to arrive at some common notions of justice which transcend all partial interests. A consistent pessimism in regard to man's rational capacity for justice invariably leads to absolutistic political theories; for they prompt the conviction that only preponderant power can coerce the various vitalities of a community into a working harmony. But a too consistent optimism in regard to man's ability and inclination to grant justice to his fellows obscures the perils of chaos which perennially confront every society, including a free society. In one sense a democratic society is particularly exposed to the dangers of confusion. If these perils are not appreciated they may overtake a free society and invite the alternative evil of tyranny.
But modern democracy requires a more realistic philosophical and religious basis, not only in order to anticipate and understand the perils to which it is exposed; but also to give it a more persuasive justification. Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.
These words need repeating in the Ottawa Valley right now. "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." There may be times to encourage prejudices, but this is not one of them. I'm convinced that the Canadian people will respond to elementary fairness and are prepared to respond more positively. More people want to work at lighting candles than want to go on cursing the darkness. This is a time for standing together and understanding together. It is time to think Canadian from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It is a time to remember we have more things to be proud of than establishing new parties to fight against the elementary fairness that came into this House when the Official Languages Act was brought forth. I hope all Canadians will remember that this measure was supported by the leader of every political party and by the majority of members of every political party in this House. It leaves me rather distressed to note there are still political groups in Canada who feel there is political hay to be made by condemning this elementary fairness that has come to this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I am more familiar with the mover than the seconder who is one of the newer members. The mover has always expressed himself very eloquently in this House. I sat on the Standing Committee on Agriculture with him. I have noted that if he desires, he can outline the facts as they exist. However, I was somewhat surprised to note that we were both looking at the same problem with the same idea in mind.
His speech was very reminiscent of speeches of years gone by when Liberal spokesmen always stated that we never had it so good. I was somewhat amazed when he stated that the greatest problem facing our people was to get coloured television sets instead of black and white and to have two or three cars for every family instead of one. I
was a member of a committee that toured part of his constituency. I did not gain the impression that his constituency was throbbing with vitality. There is a lot that can be done in that area. Some Liberal members of that committee also visited my area. The committee toured all of Canada. We found that things are not as rosy as the government would have us believe.
We should bear in mind that this is an election year, or so we are led to believe. Of course, during an election year there is a transformation. The just society is beginning to appear in a different form than the one to which we have become accustomed during the past three years. It is as though a person were crawling through a desert in search of a drink of water to quench his thirst. If he makes it to the finish line, he will get his drink of water. If he managed to survive these three years, he will be rewarded. This is the turn the just society has taken.
I wonder why we do not hear very much about the just society any more. That slogan seems doomed to be phased out, as are many other things under this government. There is the strange phenomena of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suddenly coming to the rescue of the monarchy. At the same time he is making such an interesting defence, we have the behind the scenes spectacle of the removal of all the symbols. In fact, today's question period was indicative of that. No longer is the RCMP to be known as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is things such as this that are undermining our society and eroding what has been symbolic of Canada. No one can say that the uniform of the RCMP is not symbolic of what is truly Canadian. If one has any doubt about this, one need only stand in front of the Parliament Buildings and see the number of visitors wanting to have their pictures taken with members of that force. They feel that everyone knows the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Every child can see this, but apparently not the ministry. I do not want to dwell on this point.
What has happened to the just society as it applies to the Indian and Metis? Why are the Indians and Metis raising such problems with the minister in charge of that department? Why do they have to protest so viciously or suggest that perhaps violence is the answer to some of their problems? Recently the minister in charge of Indians and Metis in Saskatchewan, Mr. Bowerman, suggested it might be good enough for the Indians in the north to live in log houses. It irritates the Indians and Metis greatly to see the homes of the Indian agents, Hudson's Bay employees, the clergy and school teachers, which are all modern dwellings. For the Indian family, a log house is supposed to be sufficient. One can see how much the government has done for these people and why it is they speak out as they do. The just society has not yet reached them. They have heard about it. It has reached many Canadians.
In 1968 Canadians reached out for the man who was leading the Liberal party. They thought he had a terrific slogan. The just society was a real hope for them. This word travelled throughout the country. Like drowning people, they reached out in the hope he would give them a hand. He blew them a kiss. That is where the just society ended. Now, it is all over. They can no longer reach out for this man. In fact, they no longer want to reach out for him. Some people wonder why his popularity has
Speech from the Throne

decreased. It is because his credibility has decreased. He cannot fool all the people all the time.
I was a member of the same committee as the mover of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. We were concerned about some of the quotas that would be lost. He said that if you do not produce and ship enough cream, 420 pounds a year, you cannot get a subsidy. It is understandable that some people believe the Liberal policy is to drive the small farmer off the land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley James Korchinski: What has happened now? Just before the election, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has come forward and said "Look what we are going to do." We were previously told that there was no point in trying to pay a subsidy because it was administratively impossible. We were told that there would be so much bookwork the computer would be jammed. Now, as election time approaches, we find that the same computer has had this information all these years. Now, the information is being handed out. There are 30,000 producers affected in the three prairie provinces. Do you think these people will forget? No just society there, Mr. Speaker. But the Liberals think they can fool the people. In no way can you expect these people to accept such treatment. Do you think they want to live one year in four?
What about the hog situation? Lo and behold, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) comes along. He is going to make a big statement. Oh, he says, we are coming to the rescue of the hog producers. He indicated that the government was at least giving consideration to the question because of the depressed prices. Time and time again questions on this subject have been raised in the House. There are a lot of people in the west who sell to the auction market. Who will get the payment? The operator of the auction, because these people do not have the slips which indicate the type and grade of the hogs they ship. A man may have the best hogs, but he is not going to get anything. What happened? Prices went down. There are a lot of people in the weanling business. They sell to the people who finish off the hogs. Because prices were low, what kind of price did they get? They had to take a lower price because the man who finished them off said, look, I cannot pay you any more, you have to take less. It was reasonable that he should pay less. But now, come election time, they up the price to the one who finishes but leave the other guy sitting high and dry. They are not going to do anything for him. There is not much justice there. Yet it is the breeders who produce the weanlings and breed the sows who take the biggest risk. It is in the first six or eight weeks that the biggest losses occur. They would have received maybe two dollars more for their hogs, but, instead, they sold them for $5 or $6 a hog. There is not much justice there.
Then, of course, Mr. Speaker, you know, along comes the stabilization program, the stabilization program with regard to which the minister has said, oh well, it was the opposition who delayed it. Now, Mr. Speaker, you know that if the minister was so sure that it was the right type of program he would not have been in difficulty. Oh yes, the bill might have taken a little longer but, after all, Bill C-176 did go through. The government did have its

majority and they did ram it through whether it was acceptable or not to the opposition, whether it will damage total production in the end or not. They did ram it through, but in this case the minister said, oh well, we could not do anything because it meant putting up money. Now, in this case, it was a transitional payment which was involved. You know, Mr. Speaker, there is a definition of transitional payment. It is money that governments pay to voters prior to the change-over of the government. It is a transitional payment which was involved. In this case it was a bit too early, a bit too soon.
Of course, there is no mention of it in the Speech from the Throne, but as we know some things are mentioned in the Speech from the Throne which are never put into effect and others which are not mentioned are carried out. So you do not know where you are with this government. The minister has indicated in all his speeches in the west that he will be back. I hope he will. I hope he can understand that in the wintertime farmers do a lot of mathematics, a lot of book work. Their pencils are sharp and they are pretty sharp, too; they can figure out where they are getting the short end of the stick. They are not going to be fooled this time.
During the recess an announcement was made and, of course, every western paper got a little article submitted by none other that the Minister of Justice in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) similar to the announcement he made through a little slip from the Wheat Board recently that they were going to pay out so much money. But this was the greatest break-through in his entire career. He wanted the people to believe that he was the one who had the two-price system idea and sold it to the cabinet. I wonder what claim to fame the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has. It was while he was in charge of the Wheat Board that the announcement of $1.95 for domestic wheat was made. Apparently he had sold somebody on something. We thought then he was coming up with an acreage payment or a two-price system.
What did we find? It is a re-heated, warmed-up acreage payment. Lo and behold, after all this time, after all this fanfare, we find out in the Speech from the Throne that it is not to be a two-price system, it is to be an acreage payment. This is interesting. An acreage payment is not a break-through because since 1959 we have had an acreage payment. Payments went out, and farmers in those days were satisfied that they were in lieu of the two-price system. But let us watch this drama unfold. It is full of intrigue. The minister goes to Assiniboia in a by-election and says to the electors: If you elect a Liberal candidate you will get the two-price system because he will work for it. This is the first inkling we had that he was actually working on something and wanted to announce it. But come on boys, come on. That is how we used to call horses with a little pan of oats. That is how we lured them into a barn.


Otto Emil Lang: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I simply want to tell the hon. member that if he is referring to what I said he should be as accurate as possible. What I told the electors in Assiniboia was that if they sent a Liberal member to the House of Commons the two-price system would be a big step closer.

Speech from the Throne


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley James Korchinski: I will accept what the minister has said. But obviously we did not need a Liberal in the House, since, obviously, a step has been taken.


Otto Emil Lang: Some of us doubled our work, that is all.


Stanley James Korchinski: Act two! Everybody gets excited. The word goes out. The press publishes it. The minister goes on television to talk about the greatest break-through in a century. Everybody is wondering how are they going to pay it. Would it be in the form of acreage payments? No, too much like the Diefenbaker years. The debate is taken up by various commentators. Then act three comes along. The minister invites the ministers of agriculture from the three prairie provinces. They are meeting to discuss how this will be paid out. The ministers get together with their officials and begin working on the plan. Of course, there is much publicity. They are at work. There are consultations. Then, of course, we go on to act four. The farm organizations are asked how they would like to have this payment. Everybody is at work. Look at all the publicity we are getting. Everybody is busy at the pool committees. It is discussed at the country elevators. They submit representations and the delegates at the pool offices get their heads together. Farm unions are taking credit. So everybody is busy, and that is the end of act four.
We now come to act five. The Throne Speech announces some acreage payments. Do you think for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that that announcement was made at a time when the minister did not know how the payments were going to be made? He must think people are stupid and tries to let everyone run around in circles. The reason we have been losing what sales to Japan, according to some reports, is that we do not have sufficient ships available at Vancouver.
Then, to add to the drama the minister introduces act six, wherein he refuses to give the House information. When this question was raised in the House today the minister refused to give information, and as a result there is more waiting, more guessing. Are the payments going to be related to this or to that? Will they be paid directly to the farmers or be paid into the pool, now that the pool accounts have been closed off? Or will they be paid at the end of the crop year? All of these are possibilities. And so we add to the drama.
Having said that the pool accounts are closed off now reminds me that last year the payment had to wait until there was an election in the province of Saskatchewan. For some reason they could not close off the accounts; there was supposed to be too much work at the Wheat Board. Since the election last year was of no assistance to the government they are now trying a different strategy. Apparently, it is now not too much trouble to close the pool accounts early. Again, the government thinks we are stupid.
There seems to be a lot of election talk around here.


Otto Emil Lang: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley James Korchinski: I just have a few minutes and there are some other matters I want to remind the minister about.
For example, on January 22, 1969 I moved the adjournment of the House in order to discuss the shipping problem at Vancouver. Apparently in three years the minister has not learned very much. He does not apparently know that we have a winter or that we need to speed grain shipments. Although the minister talks about grain sales, how are we going to increase sales unless we can guarantee delivery? Knowing that we presently have a backlog of sales, no customer is going to consider purchasing more at the present time. The minister cannot tell me we are not losing sales simply because we cannot deliver.
During the past three years no plan has been formulated to deal with just such an emergency as this. We are getting into the same situation time and time again. In light of President Nixon's visit to China, I think we should go after all the sales we can since we do not know what will be the outcome of his visit. It may well be that the United States will cut into our sales to China, and it is possible we will have to go scrounging a lot harder for sales. Certainly, we derive no comfort from the minister's claims of increasing sales.
Under the minister's stabilization plan the farmers would have had to carry a deficit of $10 million on their own shoulders. The government has an obligation to pay that $10 million. After all, since we used to get $2.12 a bushel for our wheat, anyone who thinks that as a result of the recent announcement the public will leap for the Liberals is just dreaming.


Mr. Osier:: How much more wheat would you have sold, then?


Stanley James Korchinski: Just let me illustrate to the minister what this payment is going to mean to the farmers. In the year 1959-60 there were 225,000 permit book holders in Canada and their acreage payments worked out to about $190 each. Today those 225,000 producers would receive roughly $240 each, in other words, an increase of about $50 over a span of ten years.
Let me look at some comparisons. Our total budgetary expenditures in 1959 were $5.3 billion. In 1960 they were $5.7 billion. For this year they amount to $13.1 billion. In other words, since there has been a 2.3 times increase in ten years, we should be paying 2.3 times as much as we paid our producers in 1960, which means they should be receiving $440, not $240. In other words, they are being short changed. Yet the government is trying to lead them into believing that they are getting a better deal. Although we have had a final payment of $1.99 a bushel, last year we were down to $1.60 and predictions for this year are that it will go even lower.
Let us examine the net income received by farm operators in the three prairie provinces. In 1960 they received $640 million. In 1962 they received $910 million. Then, after almost ten years of Liberal rule, in 1971 they received $502 million, but there were 35,000 fewer farmers. Not much justice there, Mr. Speaker. With regard to total operating costs, from 1959 to 1963 the cost was $683 million average. In 1971 it was $1,147 million. Not much justice there, either.
In the few remaining minutes at my disposal I want to remind the House of a toast I once heard to justice. It went something like this: "Here's to justice in this fair
Speech from the Throne

land, I just got a divorce from the old man; I had to laugh at the judge's decision, he gave him the kids and they wasn't his'n"! That toast pretty well illustrates the type of justice we have in our society today.
I obtained certain information from the deputy minister's office regarding personal income taxes since the government has been telling us about the number of people who will pay less income tax. It appears that in 1970, 9,195,000 people paid income tax. The estimated number for 1971 is 9,498,000 and for 1972, 9,436,000. In other words, only 60,000 fewer people, it is estimated, will pay personal income tax in 1972 compared with 1971. So why all this talk about millions of people who will not have to pay income tax? These are the figures that were provided to me this afternoon. What has been done in the meantime? The propaganda machine has been hard at work illustrating justice Liberal style. I do not think the people of this country can be fooled very long.
I have illustrated the income position of our farmers. I have illustrated, by comparison, what this means in terms of dollars and cents. I have illustrated the intrigue which has been built up. All we have is Information Canada and a big bureaucracy hard at work trying to sell an idea which cannot be sold. In no way will the unemployed people in my area be satisfied when their payments are two months in arrears. This is all for the sake of what? A revamped plan. If one is unemployed how can one have sufficient money on which to get along? Figures were quoted in respect of an exemption of $1,500. What is there to be proud about in the fact that somebody has not earned $1,500 in this country. A person cannot live on bread and water and the roots in the ground. One still needs a few clothes and so on. Then, there is the matter of rent.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but I believe I have said enough to point out that there is no just society and to point out that there is a good deal of propagandizing. Everybody in the west is cynical about the situation. When there was frozen damp grain on the ground, the government should have come to their rescue. Then, the people might have believed the government. But the government left them alone to fight for themselves. Then, the rules in respect of cash advances were changed to make it impossible to get payments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure I have the opportunity to speak in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. I was quite interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) on the recent by-election in Assiniboia. I should like to remind the hon. member for Mackenzie that it was not the Conservative party which won the by-election in Assiniboia. I should like to remind the hon. member that it was not the Conservative party that, over the years has advocated the two-price system for wheat, but rather the New Democratic Party. I should like also to remind the hon. member that it was not the Conservative party which stood to the end against the

government's grain stabilization bill but rather the New Democratic Party.
I come from an area of the country which is one of the finest grain and cattle-producing areas in existence. The city of Weyburn and the many towns in the riding are an integral part of the agricultural areas surrounding them, The life style of people in this area is based on hard work, along with co-operation with one's fellow man. That is why the area's economy is very much based on the principles of the co-op and credit union movement.
I should like to deal with the references in the Speech from the Throne to agriculture in general. The last four years of Liberal government could very well be called the wasted years. During the Parliamentary recess, I spent my time travelling the 34,000 square miles of the Assiniboia constituency. In the many towns and rural communities, the farmers reminded me of the very difficult economic situation in which they find themselves under this present Liberal government. They find their way of life being threatened by the increasing difficulties faced by farm people. It is the record of this government in coming to grips with these problems I want to deal with today.
While travelling the riding I heard the announcement of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board of a two-price system for wheat. The establishment press immediately heralded the announcement as a great victory for the minister. We in the west have given up believing the establishment press a long time ago. The farmers I talked to in Assiniboia were not so quick to heap praise on the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, the very same man who initiated the erroneous Lift program.
How well farmers remember their battles with the old parties, be it Liberal or Conservative, to initiate a two-price system for wheat. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the farmers do not forget their friends, for it was the old CCF and NDP that stated the case for the two-price system here in the House of Commons. The Assiniboia by-election indicated the complete rejection of the government's record in the field of agriculture. Now, we see the government attempting to repent its wasted years. Last minute repentance on the part of this government will do it no good in the next federal election. The farmers I talked to in the Assiniboia area told me to point out a few facts to the government.
First of all, the grain producers are quite concerned about the method of paying out the additional moneys. We shall wait in anticipation for a detailed statement by the minister on the method of distribution. I suppose the government is going to use the two-price system as a cure-all for agricultural policies. I am sure in the next election the government will convey to the non-farmers in this country that all possible has been done to aid the farmer. May I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that prices on other grains in the last year have reached some all-time lows: For example, on September 22, 1971 the price of rye was 92 cents per bushel, the price for barley was 99 cents per bushel and the price of oats was 61 cents per bushel. Yet the cost of production continues to rise, catching the farmer in a cost-price squeeze. This government's phony war on inflation did not prevent the cost of farm machinery parts from going up. Why not any action on the Barber Royal Commission's recommendations on the
February 21, 1972________________
Speech from the Throne

price of farm machinery? The government should be aware of the need to bolster the price of all grain sold in the market. The government should concern itself with developing a guaranteed annual income for farmers as well as all Canadians.
If I may digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I see the member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) has given recognition to the fact that a certain group in Regina has named the minister in charge of the Wheat Board salesman of the year. Here in the eastern press that undoubtedly looks impressive. Well, we in Saskatchewan have seen Liberal politicians presented with this honour before. As a matter of fact, this award is usually a step along natural progression to political oblivion for Liberal politicians.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or to the Senate; the same thing.


William George Knight: Lately the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has been singing quite a tune about how. this government is really committed to the concept of the family farm. It seems the task force report on agriculture will not be easily accepted by the farmers, and it certainly should not be. As usual the government is announcing some rather doubtful programs under some fancy sounding titles. For example, there is the small farms development program. How strange it is that such a well-titled program cannot seem to get the agreement of the provincial governments. The minister claims the program is to benefit the small farmer. I suggest this program, without considerable revision is merely a subtle means of carrying out the recommendations of the task force report. I challenge the minister to show this House how there will be the same number of farmers in Canada as there is now once the small farms development program is in operation. The minister knows that farm depopulation will continue as long as the farmer is caught in the cost-price squeeze and the government encourages small farmers off the land by allowing the Farm Credit Corporation to sell their land to existing farmers. There is no provision to enable a young man who is not farming to get the land.
One question that could be asked is: is there any restriction on agrabusiness or land speculators obtaining the land? This is not small farm development, but small farm consolidation, nothing more. The Minister of Agriculture has recently announced a $5 subsidy on pigs to a maximum of 200, this is on pigs with a carcass quality of 100 or higher. The deficiency payment on hogs does not take into account some very important changes in the hog farming business since the Agricultural Stabilization Act was introduced in 1957-58. There have been a number of complaints from hog producers who have specialized in production of weanlings which they sell to feeders for finishing, but the deficiency payment is not related to them. Many small producers will not benefit because of the carcass quality of 100 ruling. In Saskatchewan the program does not take into account the many joint hog raising operations. How will the subsidy relate to an operation run by more than one farmer? I hope the minister will consider making some changes for the farmers who face these particular difficulties.
In the last year, the government introduced the grain income stabilization bill. The principle of stabilizing the grain income of farmers met with no barriers from anyone involved with agricultural policy. However, the program outlined by the government was totally unsatisfactory. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) totally mishandled the bill in the House of Commons. The government, being committed by law to pay moneys under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, went ahead with a new plan and broke the law by withholding the payments to which they were committed. Now, that same minister is in charge of administering justice for all Canadians. What irony, Mr. Speaker. It seems that imposing injustice on western farmers is a prerequisite to being put in charge of administering justice on behalf of this government.
Let us examine what is wrong with the minister's grain stabilization policy. First of all, it is a disaster plan, not a stabilization plan. Pay-outs only come when the entire industry faces a disaster. The farmers in Assiniboia often suffer from drought while others in the prairie region do not. This plan was of no benefit to their particular circumstances. The plan begins in years when receipts were unusually low, thus making the possibility of a pay-out in the near future very limited. Furthermore, the farmers would no longer receive the dried-out bonus, as inadequate as it was and, secondly, the government was no longer committed to payment on the storage of wheat under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. The cost of storage would fall upon the farmers when prices for farm commodities were already too low. The most important drawback in the plan was the use of the gross income basis instead of net income or net cash receipts basis. Every farmer knows that you can have a high gross income, but it is how much you have left after you pay the bills that counts.


Paul Yewchuk: Whose warmed over speech is that?


William George Knight: It is my own speech, my friend. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board may reintroduce the stabilization bill without revision, but I can assure him that the farmers of the prairie region will find it as unacceptable as before. Any grain income stabilization plan must consider rising costs of production and regional differences within the western provinces. There should also be provision for payment of storage costs of all grains under the Wheat Board jurisdiction.
The farmers in Assiniboia expressed grave concern over the transportation system which moves their products as well as handles their machinery from the east. It has been noted that the Canadian Freight Association has filed tariff No. 1003 to take effect on February 11, 1972. Freight rates are to be increased by 3 per cent to 8 per cent on about one third of the goods carried by the railways. In general, grain and grain product rates are subject to the increase, except statutory rates and traffic moving under agreed charges. Here is an example of what happens to a farmer's product when shipped. This is a letter from a farmer in the Riceton area which I received several months ago explaining what happened to a shipment of his malting barley. I should like to read it into the record.

__________________February 21, 1972
Speech from the Throne
I am a comparatively small farmer by today's standards on a section and a half, 25 miles from Regina, Saskatchewan on the Regina Plains, which is supposedly the best grain farming land in the world. Like many farmers, I must grow a number of different kinds of grain in order to be in a position to market something for revenue.
This past summer I grew some barley and made preparations in my permit book to market one carload of barley for malting purposes. A sample was sent to Winnipeg for analysis immediately after I threshed this grain. The report from Winnipeg stated it would grade Dry, 3. C. W.-6 row-Malting.
In early November I received permission from the Wheat Board to deliver to the elevator in Riceton one carload of malting barley. This was unloaded in Winnipeg on November 14, 1971 as malting barley. I would now like to relate exactly what happened to my barley before I received any remuneration whatsoever.
I asked that payment for this carload be deferred until January 3, 1972. Payment was based as follows-91 cents per bushel plus 5 cents premium for a total of 96 cents gross weight, 2749.2 bushels, less 4 per cent dockage, 110 bushels, with a net grain shipped, 2639 bushels at 96 cents a bushel, which comes to $2,533.63.
The charges against that shipment are as follows: freight on a carload to Winnipeg, 20 cents per 100 pounds, for a total of $263.92; government weighing and inspection, $4.50; terminal cleaning charges on 2749 bushels, $13.75; country elevator handling charges, $103.10; service charge at 1 cent per bushel, $39.59; storage charge, $43.98; interest on freight, $3.64-amounting to a net loss of $472.48.
The farmer points out in the letter attached to this shipment that he lost one fifth of the shipment to the grain trade, or 20 per cent. Not only that, but he asks why interest was charged on the freight? What became of the screenings from the cleaning process? Do they go into the manufacture of expensive prepared feeds? Did the company not need the barley, and why is the farmer paying the freight charges? He asks what the service charge is for.
These are the kinds of things that catch farmers in a cost price squeeze, but' I, and I am sure most of the citizens in Assiniboia, find it totally unreasonable. Not only are such increases in freight rates of concern to the farmer but the future of the delivery points are of concern as well. Whey did the government withhold its new transportation policy from public scrutiny? Could it be the political repercussions of the proposals in the policy statement? Will the government be adhering to a policy of decreasing the number of delivery points? Where will the Liberal party stand on the issue of rail line abandonment when it comes before the Canadian Transport Commission by 1974? How many lines will be up for abandonment in the Assiniboia constituency? Will the lines running west of Radville to Willow Bunch be abandoned? Will the lines running west of Estevan be abandoned? Which of the two old line parties will be the first to jump to the defence of their old friends, the railway companies, when rail line abandonment is again a possibility?
Mr. Speaker, the issue of the retention of the family farm as the basic unit of production in agriculture has not come to an end. The question of price for their commodities is still with us. The question of delivery points abandonment is still with us; the question of an adequate transportation system is still with us; the question of rail line abandonment is still with us; the memory of the Lift program is still with us; the memory of the inadequate grain income stabilization policy is still with us and,

unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the oldline parties are still with us until the next federal election.


Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne outlines the interest of the government in stimulating industry, developing the north, extending CBC services, giving equal rights to women, low cost housing and in taking action in many other areas.
Being a member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I was happy that the Speech from the Throne contained an announcement of the creation of three new parks north of the sixtieth parallel, each as large and as spectacular as any in the world. This is a subject matter which we studied in our committee. Another important announcement was that the Canada Manpower programs would be enforced and additional steps taken to make the training and placement service adequate to the needs of specially disadvantaged people whose particular problems pose challenges which cannot be met with the use of regular program resources or techniques.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, I brought to the attention of the then Minister of Manpower and Immigration the fact that many skilled English speaking people who are unemployed cannot obtain jobs in the Montreal area because they do not speak French. At the same time many skilled French speaking people, because they cannot speak English and industry is now demanding bilingualism, have a difficulty in finding positions. I hope that in this session the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) will provide language training in English and in French in order that these people will have the opportunity, through manpower training, to learn these languages.
As a member of the Standing Committee of Transport and Communications, I have been vitally interested in the research and development of the communication satellite. I am delighted that the government is prepared to extend national broadcasting service to one million Canadians in 260 communities who receive no television service in their own language. This will mean that within a five-year period 98 per cent of Canadians will be served. I hope that in the future we can build satellites that will broadcast direct to homes. This would mean that our three TV networks, and the three American networks, would broadcast direct to homes over the whole of North America.
The paragraph in the Speech from the Throne which interests me greatly is the following:
While taking care to preserve for the future, we should wherever possible, preserve and restore those achievements of the past which are an essential element in our self-understanding as a people. You will be asked to consider, therefore, a bill creating and endowing a corporation to be known as Heritage Canada which will go far to ensure the preservation of items and collections from Canada's past and to make these accessible for the enjoyment and understanding of Canadians in all parts of the country. Heritage Canada, complemented by a broadened national museums policy, will demonstrate the achievements of our forefathers and their successes in overcoming physical isolation and in converting dreams into reality.
We seem to readily forget the achievements of past explorers. Are you aware that the historic centennial train did not show Cavalier De LaSalle, the first settler of Lachine, the greatest explorer of North America, the man

Speech from the Throne
who discovered the Great Lakes, the Mississippi Valley and founded New Orleans? Because his discoveries are now divided between Canada and the United States, he is being forgotten by Canadians and Americans and was forgotten by the planners of the centennial train.
I hope that those who will direct Heritage Canada will look into the possibility of reprinting a book entitled "Lake St. Louis, New and Old", a book containing early history of the west island of Montreal, a book that is very rare. In fact, I know only of two copies in existence, one in the parliamentary library and one in the city hall of Lachine. The author of this book was Mr. D. Girouard a Member of Parliament for the House of Commons for 13 years from 1878 to 1891.1 made a request that this book be reprinted for centennial year, but that was refused by the Honourable Judy LaMarsh. Many libraries, schools and citizens of the west island were hoping to obtain copies at that time. I hope that Heritage Canada will make this possible.
As a member of the Standing Committee of Transport and Communications, I hope that Heritage Canada will include in its program the preservation of the Lachine Canal as an historic site and as a viable waterway for pleasure craft. The first inhabitants of Lachine came in the year 1666, over 300 years ago. Robert Cavalier Sieur De LaSalle was granted a seigniory west of Ville Marie, and the area was called Lachine because of LaSalle's pretentions that he would discover the route to China. As early as 1670, a missionary, Monsieur De Fenelon, made the suggestion to link Lachine with Ville Marie by a canal through Lake St. Pierre, thus avoiding the portage at Sault St. Louis. In 1700, Dollier De Casson, Superior of the Seminary of St. Sulpice, undertook the cutting of a canal. In 1714, Gedeon De Catalogne, a marine lieutenant and engineer, attempted to complete the canal without success. By 1733, the Lachine Canal was constructed for a mile in length to a depth of two feet, six inches of water and provided a practicable waterway for the canoes bound for the Ottawa and the far west. It was not until nearly a century later from 1821 to 1824 that the canal was reconstructed; it was enlarged in 1843 to 1848 and again in the years 1877 to 1880, with complete reconstruction between 1896 and 1904. Transit navigation on the Lachine Canal ended in 1959 with the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway. Without any proper consultation, the seaway authority in 1965 backfilled the east end of the canal and took no initiative to look into the future use of the canal. Their foremost thought was to get rid of the old Lachine Canal.
I made two speeches in the House of Commons demanding that the Lachine Canal be used for pleasure craft back in January, 1967 and October, 1970. Through Heritage Canada, it is hoped that the Lachine Canal, which played a vital role in our early Canadian life, will continue to be part of our lives as a living historical monument, a viable recreational haven and a gateway for pleasure craft from the heart of Montreal to Lake St. Louis, west to the Lake of Two Mountains and the Ottawa River or the St. Lawrence to Lake St. Francis, the Great Lakes, and possibly east to Lake St. Pierre, the Richelieu, Lake Champlain and the Hudson. I believe that the citizens of St. Henri, Ville Emard and Point St. Charles, who have for so many years been deprived of water rights on the St. Lawrence
River because of the Montreal harbour, should be given the opportunity to own pleasure craft and the proper facilities such as a Lachine canal waterway with marinas, and the right of access to Lake St. Louis and Lake St. Peter.
Altnough the government has been silent in regard to the Lachine canal, they hired planning consultants, Jean-Claude Lahaye et Associes, who studied the canal's future role and recommended that it be used for pleasure craft and even that the east end be reopened. Although the government is silent in this regard, it seems the Rideau and Trent system, and even the Richelieu canal system, will be retained and developed for tourists. What is wrong with these tourists having the facilities to enter their pleasure craft into the heart of Montreal? I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is time this government took action through Heritage Canada and created a historic parkway along the Lachine canal amd made this area look as beautiful as the Rideau Canal Parkway.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity of participating in this debate. May I first congratulate both the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne upon their participation in this debate. They must have taken some pleasure from being singled out by their government to lead off this debate. I was also pleased last Thursday, as one who believes in the constitutional monarchy form of government, that the government reverted back to old practice and that the Governor General mentioned the name of the Queen on more occasions than has been usual in the recent past.
May I now turn to some of the questions that I am sure are in the minds of all Canadians, because they have been asked almost continuously since 1968. There were some in Canada who questioned the direction of this government when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) became leader in 1968. Today, there is no doubt in anybody's mind as to this government's direction. It has been Liberal. The extent of that liberalism probably exceeds that of any government's in Canada's history.
Let us look at some examples of this liberalism. Let us look at the government's liberalism in the proliferation of misery and suffering in Canada. There has never been more in the memory of most. The degree of that misery would exceed even that of the 1930's if it were not for the social justice system that has been established in this country by governments, both Liberal and Conservative, since that time.
The government has been liberal with unemployment. It has spread like a cancer among Canadians who, in 1968, could not have anticipated or imagined themselves in such a position in 1972. The government even went so far as to manufacture its own unemployment with ill-fated policies that were supposed to defeat inflation. We managed to get the worst of both worlds by this action.
It has been liberal in sowing the seeds that destroy incentive and promote the welfare method of living in the nation. One now has to make an assessment as to whether money will be lost if one goes to work, if a job can be found. The government has done everything in its power to sap the strength and optimism of the business com-
Speech from the Throne

February 21, 1972
munity. It has frightened off investment with its so-called tax reform legislation. If that were not enough, it has kept a competition act in the wings that would be the delight of any totalitarian dictator. No businessman in his right mind could anticipate additional risks and investments with a bill like the competition act threatening his very existence.
The government has been very, very liberal in its actions in downgrading our parliamentary institutions, our Queen and anything British in our traditions. It has manufactured a new strata of bureaucratic red tape, with "Trudeaucrats" now numbering close to 300 and with a taxpayer tab in excess of $3 million annually. It has tried to muzzle Parliament, the Auditor General and anyone else who might try to stand in its way.
It has been Liberal in its abuse. Here is where the Prime Minister has really provided leadership. He started with the press of the nation; but it was not long before Canadians in every walk of life learned he would not discriminate. He has abused the youth, the worker, the business community, Members of Parliament and, now, as his crowning achievement, the Premier of British Columbia. Of course, Premier Bennett should feel flattered, for the Prime Minister has now allowed him to join an exclusive group with the Premiers of Manitoba and Ontario. Yes, the Trudeau government has been very liberal, but in areas where liberalism was neither required nor desired.
Last week in the House the Prime Minister took great pride in passing out insults to the leader of my party. He was especially critical about the degree of his pessimism. What man, with the knowledge gained from watching this Prime Minister and this government perform for four years, could develop anything but depression when considering their future performance. I noted that the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) was the recipient of the same dose of venom. Maybe it was not quite so large a dose, yet it was in direct proportion to the extent of the threat of that party to the government in the coming election.
Let me tell the Prime Minister that the only pessimism and gloom in the mind and heart of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) relates to the fact that he knows there is still some time to wait before a general election, and that the people of this nation must suffer during those days while this incompetent government is trying to run the country. There will be only sweetness and light after the day the ballots are counted, for once again the people of Canada will have a government with a heart and soul. Canada will have a government with a program, with a direction and with feelings for its fellow men and women.


Edmund Boyd Osler: You are right.


Robert Carman Coates: The hon. gentleman across the way says, I am right. I am sure I am right, because the party in power will be the Progressive Conservative party.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Now, you are wrong. Don't bet on being right.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I would not wish to suggest that the hon. gentleman should not bet on it. I hope he does bet on it. I hope he bets a lot, because not only will he

not be back and not receiving his indemnity, but he will have to pay off his election bets.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Does the hon. gentleman want to bet? If he does, will he put his money where his mouth is?


Robert Carman Coates: The hon. member is very affluent, and I would bet with him anytime.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The people where I come from have common sense.


Robert Carman Coates: Well, they didn't show it in 1968.
There was no gloom in Nova Scotia when the Leader of the Opposition was premier of that province. Every year of his leadership was a better year than the one before for the residents of that province. There was enlightened leadership in the province and, for most of those years, enlightened leadership in Ottawa. During those years we had the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). That government produced policies, not pious platitudes, that resulted in a better way of life for our people.


An hon. Member:: Like more unemployment.


Robert Carman Coates: Compare that partnership with the Tru-deau-Regan axis that has resulted in the illegal collection of taxes, a multi-million dollar deficit and more misery and suffering than has been experienced in Nova Scotia in many a decade.
Let us now examine the attitude of the Leader of the Official Opposition who, after the next election is called, will be prime minister of Canada. Let us look at the words of that hon. gentleman and determine what kind of Canada he can foresee. I am going to read a few words spoken recently by my leader in Hamilton, Ontario. I will let hon. members compare them with the cold, calculating callousness of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). This is how my leader described Canada when speaking in Hamilton:
Let me tell you about the Canada I would like to live in, the Canada I would like my children to inherit and their children after them.
It would be a country in which the accident of birth will not mark a child for life, where the fact of life will be sanctified and celebrated.
It will be a country where every child will bring with him into the world the right to acceptance and love: the right to grow at his own pace: the right and the opportunity to satisfy his curiosity about the things around him, the right to live up to his full capacity for understanding and learning.
It will be a country in which freedom of thought and of movement, of expression and determination will be available to all its citizens.
It will be a country whose people are governed gently and responsively by men and women who truly wish to serve the common good; a country in which to fulfill man's most profound aspirations and to live his finest dreams; a country where men and women can grow old without fear.
Those are not the words of a man who cannot see a bright, new tomorrow. As we approach the start of the general election campaign, we listen to a government that must turn to itself for false praise and undoubtedly the false courage that it needs to face the electorate. The pace
February 21, 1972

Speech from the Throne
was set by the mover of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and emulated by the Prime Minister. They can find no one to praise them but themselves.
The Prime Minister told us how tough he and his ministers were. Yes, the Prime Minister was tough when he threatened to kick a young lad in the seat. He was tough when he hurled insults from a warm and cozy car at picketing workers who marched in the cold. This government has been tough with the old age pensioners, the veterans and the unemployed, who cannot secure the benefits to which they are entitled. Yes, it has been a tough government; tough to reach, tough to make realize its policies are not working, tough to get money out of whether you be a farmer in western Canada or a government, either provincial or municipal. Yes, it has been a tough government, tough on Canada and Canadians, but it has not been tough where it should be tough. It has not been tough in settling strikes in essential services which have tied up the nation and produced additional misery and suffering. In an area where toughness is required and desired, where the nation cries for action, there has been none.
The day of the strike in essential services has passed. A more humane approach has to be found. In the government service, these strikes just have not worked. They have turned out postal service into a shadow of a once effective and efficient operation. They were neither useful nor helpful to the air traffic controllers, who finally had to revert to binding arbitration. They are showing their ineffectiveness in the present strike of technicians. Today, as we have learned from the coal miners strike in Great Britain, they can destroy the vitality of a nation. There are no longer any by-standers in strikes in the national sector. There are no winners in such strikes.
No doubt this is the reason George Meany, probably the most powerful and knowledgeable person in North America on the effect of strikes, has said there has to be another way. In order to hasten the day when the strike in essential services will be abolished, it is my intention to introduce a bill in this House to abolish the right to strike among members of the Public Service of Canada whose work is considered to be vital to the common good of the nation. It is my hope it will receive the support of all members of this House. One would have thought this government would have gotten the clue from George Meany when he stated the day of the strike in essential services has passed. But no, this government's brain is so deadened to anything different that might be of value to the nation that it probably will not get the message for another six months, and by that time, God willing, they will not be in a position to do anything about it.
I should like now to turn to the new Unemployment Insurance legislation. It is good legislation. It has its imperfections, but those can be remedied through amendment. There is only one reason for the inefficiency that now exists in the payment of claims, and that is the government's incompetence. The government was so anxious to pat itself on the back that it could not find time to prepare either the employees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission or those who would be seeking benefits as to how the new act would work. No one can tell me that members of the Unemployment Insurance Commission could not have done the work both effectively and efficiently if they had been given the proper opportunity to prepare themselves. Instead, the government imposed the new system on the nation while the old system was still in operation and is in operation at this time.
This government also committed the Unemployment Insurance Commission to complete computerization of both the old and new system without establishing a cross reference system that would have given warning of improperly completed data cards. As a result, they have brought an army of unemployed to the doors of welfare offices across this nation because they are without funds and cannot secure them, although they are entitled to them. They have forced members of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to work untold hours trying to sort out the mess, probably to the verge of nervous exhaustion. And what are we told? We have described for us the great compassion of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) for his fellowman. This apparently is what the unemployed breadwinner is to put on his table in place of food. It is almost as tragic as the thousands who have been forced off the labour market by direct government action. Only if you watch the television advertising of the wonders of this new Unemployment Insurance legislation will you realize what a bonanza it is for the workingman of the nation. It is part of the dreamworld of Messrs. Trudeau and Mackasey that has no relationship to reality, except in their minds.
What of regional economical disparity? Like the just society, it should not be discussed. After all, it was only a slogan for the last campaign. There will be new ones for the one this year. In Atlantic Canada we have one consolation. It is a sad consolation, but it is the only one. There is more economic disparity today than was the case in 1968 all across Canada. Therefore, there are more people in exactly the same position in which people in the Atlantic provinces have been for a long time. Indeed, this condition has spread, like a plague, right across the nation. It is hard to imagine unemployment rates of 18 per cent, but that is the sad fact of the case in both Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland today.
If this government really wanted to solve the ills of the Maritimes, they could have done it with Fundy power. I know that President Roosevelt had lots of economists of the type that are now present in Ottawa who would throw their hands up in fright and quote interest rates when he brought in his new deal and established the Tennessee Valley Authority. He ignored them and this government should have also. Instead, we cannot even get this government to appoint those persons to the committee that has been delegated to re-examine the report of the programming board that carried out the initial examination of Fundy. It is very obvious this government has no time for Fundy because the mandarins have said it should not be undertaken.
We hoped we would have a viable transportation policy for our area by now. The former Minister of Transport asked the four premiers of the Atlantic provinces to produce for him their recommendations on what a viable policy would include. They presented a package to him. It was an all-inclusive package. It was inter-related. Let me quote some of the recommendations which it contained:
Speech from the Throne

1.	The provinces will accept modifications in the blanket subsidization of intro-regional traffic subject to the strict qualification that a federal-provincial agency be empowered to administer transportation assistance from federal funds to selected industries within the Atlantic provinces.
2.	Its initial step will be to extend the subsidy of 30 per cent to traffic moved by all modes and to pay it to the shipper.
3.	The appointees to the agency must be residents of the Atlantic provinces.
4.	The administrative offices of the agency must be located in the region.
5.	The Atlantic Provinces recommend that the federal government maintain the freeze on Atlantic provinces rail rates until such time as the new regional transportation policy is effected.
6.	The recommendations are important and essential. They are inter-related and designed to be implemented in their entirety. They must be implemented as soon as possible if transportation is to become a tool rather than an obstacle for regional economic development.
Mr. Speaker, the government did pay attention to part of what was proposed by the Atlantic premiers. It reduced the subsidy which was available within the selected territory from 20 per cent to 17 per cent and intends to reduce it by a further 2 per cent on April 1 of this year unless the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) makes some pronouncement to the contrary. It did not set up a funded agency of the type the premiers had requested. Instead, it set up an advisory agency with no funds of its own. It made no difference where the agency was located; there was no reason for it to have any office since it did not have any money to spend.
The premiers also suggested that the people appointed to this agency should be businessmen involved in the industry of the area. Instead, we got six civil servants. I am sure that in the course of their lifetime they have learned a great deal about the way in which a businessman faces the problem of transportation in the Atlantic region. One thing the government certainly failed to do was maintain the freeze of freight rates as requested in the submission. We know they did not do that, because since the freight rate freeze was lifted in September, 1969, we have been subject to eight freight rate increases in the Atlantic region. These have resulted in increases which have forced shippers in the region to bear increases of between 32 and 62 per cent. If, as presently anticipated, the intra-regional subsidy is reduced on April 1 from 17 per cent to 15 per cent, the shippers in Atlantic Canada will face their ninth freight rate increase, an increase of 3.4 per cent.
Nothing has worked because nothing of value has been tried. Yes, we are given DREE grants for the establishment of new industries, just as they are provided to about every other area in the country. But there has been nothing new, nothing suggesting the type of policy which was the hallmark of the Diefenbaker administration.


An hon. Member:: Thank goodness for that.


Robert Carman Coates: An hon. member over there says "Thank goodness for that." Let me tell him through you, Mr. Speaker, that there has never been a government in Canada's history which was as good a friend to the Atlantic provinces as the Diefenbaker administration.


An hon. Member:: Only some dumbbell from Ontario would make a statement like that.


Mr. Gibson:: Speak for yourself. Use your own whistle.


Robert Carman Coates: I don't know where he came from but you can have him. People in Atlantic Canada are well able to compare the efforts of the Diefenbaker administration with those of Lester Pearson or of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). They know that in the person of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), with his background of achievement, there will soon be a prime minister in Ottawa who is familiar with the area and its people and who will apply the policies necessary to do the job. They now wait only for the opportunity to give him the job.


Paul Yewchuk: I want to say at the
outset, Mr. Speaker, that everybody in the country knows that we have a terrible government governing us at the present time.


Colin David Gibson: Except the people.


Paul Yewchuk: I shall, therefore, not spend too much time telling you how terrible they really are. I am sure you already know that, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: More gloom and doom.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Tell us what you would do.


Paul Yewchuk: I am invited by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) to tell him what we would do. That is exactly what I want to do. I want to speak in a strictly positive way. I want to speak on the subject of Senate reform.


An hon. Member:: Have them elected.


Paul Yewchuk: I think we all agree that Senate reform is necessary. As a matter of fact we have hard statements to this effect from members of all parties in the House from time to time in the four years during which I have been here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We do not advocate Senate reform. We advocate its abolition.


Paul Yewchuk: Abolition is really a kind of reform, if you look at it in the true sense of the word. I should like to remind some of the members to my left that they do have representation in the other place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no.


An hon. Member:: What about Hazen Argue?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is not one of
us.


Paul Yewchuk: Although they do not publicly acknowledge it, a lot of them have a secret desire to go there. I want to suggest a formula which will make it easier for them to get into the Senate without losing face, since they have taken an extreme position from time to time on this subject.
February 21, 1972

Speech from the Throne
I believe we would all agree that when the tax reform bill went through the Senate in December the image of that body seemed to hit an all-time low in the eyes of many people. I was upset by that, because I think the Senate is, in fact, a useful body; with appropriate reform it could be reconstituted as a much more reputable and acceptable portion of our parliamentary system. I believe token efforts have been made by the government to do something which they would like to call reform inasmuch as they appointed a Social Creditor, on one occasion, and others, who are reputed to be Socialists, on a further occasion. But this does not amount to real reform. An attempt was also made to involve the Senate in make-work projects. I do not think this is reform, either.
Why has the other place fallen into some disrepute, or fallen out of favour with many Canadians? One reason might be the method of appointment of members of that body. As we all know, it is entirely the prerogative of the Prime Minister of the day to choose whoever he wants to fill vacancies, and usually he chooses old friends'either of himself or of his party. I do not have any objection to old friends; I have old friends myself and I respect and admire them. However, if the old friends are not the friends of the opposition party, then that party may consider they were not really a good choice for these appointments.
I do not want to imply that party workers and supporters of the Prime Minister's party are a bad choice as such, because I know most of the Senators personally and many of them are very fine people. However, I do think that the method of their appointment does put them in a position where they must often be on the defensive about their appointment with members of the public, and I think that this is something they should not have to face.
Another argument we often hear raised is that Senators are responsible to no one, that they do not have any constituents to worry about, and as a result after being in the other place for many years they might lose touch with the realities of Canadian life. Again that may or may not be a valid criticism, but it is a criticism we hear made from time to time. I am not suggesting that Senators should have constituencies as such. Perhaps members of the other place who are supposed to take a sober second look at legislation put before them should not be placed in a position where they are sensitive to certain pressures, as members of the House of Commons may be vis-a-vis their constituents. Therefore, in order for the Senators to have an unbiased view of any legislation that comes before them it is reasonable to argue that they should not be directly responsible to any constituency.
Within the past few months I have had the opportunity of speaking to members of legislatures from various countries. I had the privilege of attending a conference in Germany on the subject of pollution at which were present representatives from about 28 other countries. I talked to most of them about the structures of their Senates, their house of representatives, or whatever the case was, and with this kind of review I came up with some suggestions that I thought might be worth at least placing on the record so that perhaps some day action may be taken on them.
For example, let me take the case of the two extremes first. The members of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom are appointed in large numbers, most of whom are not active. At the present time I think there are something like 800 to 900 members of the House of Lords, of whom only 100 or less are active in the parliamentary system. They do not receive a salary of any sort but simply play their role on a voluntary basis, strictly out of interest for the system of parliamentary democracy.
The second extreme is the system used in the United States, our neighbours to the south, where Senators are elected for a six year term and carry a fairly large amount of prestige with their election. As a matter of fact, they also possess what appears to be a large amount of power.
I think there is a very definite drawback to that situation.
I may be wrong, but my impression is that the Senate of the United States or the upper house, if you like, has developed into a body which really overshadows the House of Representatives. Certainly, I should not like to see this happen to the House of Commons of Canada, since we are all members of the House and do not want to be overshadowed.
Therefore, we have to take a look at some system that falls between these two extremes. One of the complaints we have heard made about our parliament is that the House of Commons, as a natural result of the population distribution of this country, is in reality controlled by the two largest provinces, the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Therefore, some of us who come from provinces other than these two feel at times that legislation is put forward in such a way as to give the two largest provinces more advantage than the western or Maritime provinces. As a result of this, there is legislation on the books that is in fact detrimental to the west and to the Maritimes. Let me give an example of what I mean. The freight rates in western Canada are very much discriminatory against the western provinces. The tariff structures that protect the industries of central Canada do no good to the resource-export industries of the western provinces.
So then, the question is: What is it that we want to achieve in Senate reform? I should like to suggest that we should develop some kind of system of electing members to the upper house, but not by direct vote of the kind that elects members to the House of Commons. Further, I suggest that the authority that is now vested in the Prime Minister to appoint Senators should be withdrawn. I also suggest that in order to balance off the criticism, that the House of Commons is controlled by the two largest provinces there be a redistribution of the number of members of the Senate who represent the different provinces. It should also be possible to replace members of the upper house from time to time prior to their becoming 75 years of age or so, though I realize there are some sitting members who are beyond that age yet are still extremely active and valued members of the upper house.
How do we achieve the aims that I have outlined? Firstly, I think it is possible to elect Senators indirectly; in other words, let elected people elect the Senators. In my view, the best elected body to elect members of the upper house is the legislature of each of the provinces. I think that an equal number of Senators should be elected from each province, and they should be elected by the legislature of the province. They should be elected for a term
Speech from the Throne

February 21, 1972
similar to that of a member of the House of Commons, say for a five-year term, and they could all stand for re-election if they so desired.
The reason I suggest an equal number of Senators from the various provinces has already been outlined, and this is that since the House of Commons is dominated by the two largest provinces, the upper house, with an equal number of voices from each of the provinces, would counter the imbalance that now exists. I further suggest that in order to round the figure off to an even 100, nine Senators from each province and five from each of the Yukon and Northwest Territories be elected. When the Yukon and Northwest Territories become provinces, the figures could be readjusted to bring about equal representation in the upper House for them too. I think, briefly, that lays out the formula I have developed in my assessment of Senates around the world. I think the idea of fresh blood in the Senate, on a regular basis, would reinforce that body, would give it the opportunity to take more pride in itself and be less on the defensive about its existence. It would certainly lead to a far better parliamentary system than we have today.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the mover of the address, the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), and the seconder, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie), mon voisin a la chambre. The hon. member for Bruce, in his strong and competent manner gave balance to the debate, for he accurately put before the House some of the accomplishments of the government and heaped well deserved criticism on the stagnant opposition for spreading doom and gloom in every direction in this great nation at a time when our country has survived two major crises, one the security crisis when our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), through his bold, imaginative and courageous leadership, restored order out of chaos in this nation, and the other an economic crisis in which all the opposition hawks were shouting for a cap-in-hand visit to Washington on the one hand and restraint on the other, and which ended in a great economic victory for Canada in the financial crisis which existed. Not a word of praise was given by any opposition spokesmen for these great achievements.
Hamilton-Wentworth is a large, partly urban and partly rural area. It is the heart of the county of Wentworth. We have many hardworking industrial workers who have played a great part in the development of a strong and dynamic industrial Canada. To name two great companies, there is the Steel Company of Canada, a pioneer in steel development on this continent, and Dominion Foundries and Steel, a company with the best industrial relations system of profit-sharing in the world.
When I look around this great country and see the air strike and the radio-television strike, I wonder whether the government of Canada should not be trying to work along the lines of the great Dominion Foundries and Steel company's profit-sharing scheme in which the employees fund a certain percentage of their earnings and the company out of its profits funds several times that amount. This money is placed into a fund so that the workers when they retire may share in the profits of this great company.
It seems to me this should be the trend in industrial
(Mr. Yewchuk.]
relations today. The blight of strike must end, in all sge-ments-the federal scene, the provincial scene and the municipal scene.
Even that experienced labour leader, George Meany, last week revealed to a large audience in the United States that he is opposed to strikes. When we have a strong and outstanding labour leader such as George Meany coming to that conclusion, it would appear to me that the reason he has reached this conclusion is that it is not in the best interests of the labour force of the United States. I believe it is not in the best interests of the labour force in Canada in essential employment such as the airlines, national defence, the police services and communications services where the interests of the citizens must be paramount.
We cannot afford to continue these strikes and we must search to find a mechanism for compulsory arbitration in labour disputes. We must find a mechanism whereby labour will be more satisfied with the system by which disputes are settled. We must give labour a strong voice in the settlement of wage disputes. We must find a forum whereby this can be developed. I believe it will be done very shortly in this country, and I believe Canada should be encouraged to lead the way to a more dynamic, progressive and fair settlement of industrial disputes.
In the field of external affairs and defence, I wish to to say I had the honour of visiting the Canadian force in Cyprus in January this year as a member of our House committee. I am proud of the fine service being rendered by the Canadian force in Cyprus. It is composed of the finest troops in the world. The force is a model of diplomacy and leadership. The members of the force are loved by the people of Cyprus be they Greek or Turkish. They are serving in Nicosia which is partially divided into some areas human as enclaves in which the Turks predominate. They are performing a difficult and arduous task without much publicity. I wish to give publicity to their fine work and the imaginative and forceful service they are giving.
I believe this country has a role to play in peacekeeping, which will be established as time goes on, through the United Nations. Through the United Nations we and other countries can help prevent war by having observer corps go out early, supplemented by the parties to the dispute who will be glad to have the atmosphere cooled under imaginative, forceful and dynamic United Nations' leadership. I hope and pray that the new Secretary-General of the United Nations will receive throughout the world the support that is necessary to achieve those ends.
I urge that this government make a more forceful effort to reduce armaments throughout the world. I hope and pray that we will stop arming of any kind other than that which is absolutely necessary for continental and NATO self-defence. I say, with the greatest sincerity, that I believe we should try as backbenchers, with great persistence, to work toward this goal. The traffic in arms in Cyprus, where Archbishop Makarios has received arms, is an example. I hope the Canadian government will do everything it can to cool that down and put a stop to it. The trafficking of arms is a disgrace to the world. It is a threat to civilization, to mankind and to the very existence of this world.
February 21, 1972

Speech from the Throne
I hope when I am at the United Nations again-and I trust I shall return there some day-we will see greater leadership by that World Council and greater determination by the two big powers to come to grips with the permanent setting up of the council's peacekeeping machinery to end the bickering and chaos which goes on in respect of whether one man or another man will be the leader. There should be more dynamic trust placed in the Security Council's deliberations to help those who are trying to form a United Nations peacekeeping code second to none in history. This must be done, and we must take more active interest in this type of activity.
In the field of taxation, it was obvious to me that although the trite comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) fell on plauditory ears on his side, they brought forth no new ideas on tax reform. This must be capitulation. Surely the opposition can see that the removal of six million Canadians from the tax rolls has helped those six million people who have suffered from low income.
We have reformed our unemployment insurance program. I admit we are having difficulties with the administration of the new plan due to the installation of computers, and new forms, and difficulties with the new mechanism of implementing this act, but we are granting more money to those who really need it. We are faced with the economic problems of unemployment. This has been the most progressive and finest step which has been taken to deal with these problems.
The opposition heaps scorn and derision on our alleged failure to cure unemployment, despite the fact that in Canada we have created more jobs than have all the western European countries put together. Despite the fact that we have struggled with an increasingly growing work force, we have imaginatively created local incentives programs which certainly in my riding are working well in the Saltfleet area and in the city of Hamilton area. These are progressive reforms. They deal with a situation which must be dealt with rapidly. They are imaginative and successful.
The Opportunities for Youth program had great success last year despite a few bad grants, and we all know about them. But what about the thousands of good grants that were made, where young people were given a tangible method of contributing and working for Canada? These were very successful. They will be expanded this year and we will go on to a more imaginative and constructively practical plan than ever before in our history. The opposition did not criticize any of these plans. They cannot, because they know they are good. I suppose they cannot be expected to praise us where we have done well.
The opposition have not suggested any alternatives. Do they have ideas for the retraining of old people? Do they have ideas for constructively employing people who are aging, who cannot manage a full eight-hour day but who can do part time work? I notice that the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) came up with a constructive suggestion along these lines, but it was not taken up by the other members in his party. I suggest that his was a constructive idea and he should be praised for thinking along these lines.
However, the Leader of the Opposition is bereft of such ideas. He has nothing but gloom and doom, nothing but words about the election coming, and all he relies on is figures which he says will help him. That is what he is resting his campaign on, and I submit that it is falling flatter than a pancake.
With regard to the reform of our rules, I am pleased that we have brought about many changes which have made Parliament more realistic. However, I submit that during the debate on most bills a time limit of ten minutes per speaker should be imposed, for two reasons; first, that most speeches longer than ten minutes are repetitive and irrelevant and, second, that limiting speeches to ten minutes will create more dynamic interest in this chamber. More people will be on their feet and there will be a chance to hear expressed more views than those of a few who have to labour a long time speaking in debate after debate. This will get more people into the act, into the game. I think it would add to the interest and the imaginative function of this Parliament and would make it more realistic.
With regard to the Indians, the Eskimos and the Metis, I wish to reply to something that was said by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) who said sarcastically that the Prime Minister and the government were negative in the Throne Speech about Indians and Eskimos. Nothing could be further from the truth. Much was said forcibly, succinctly and rationally, not only in the Throne Speech but also by the Prime Minister who has set as one of our national goals the conquering of the isolation of the individual.
As a member of the Joint Committee on the Constitution I was deeply moved and impressed by the recognition of the urgent and compelling necessity for our government to create better communications with the Indians, Eskimos and Metis in our far north, particularly the Metis who have been left in a no man's land in the sense that they are not treated as either Indians or white people. We must somehow try to bring the Eskimo people into our great society in Canada and encourage social workers to assist them, to understand the plight of these people, as well as to give them equal treatment with the Indians. I submit that we should work hard toward the day when we have an Eskimo senator, because it is time we did. Also, I believe that the Metis should be given equal rights with the Indians.
I believe in a multicultural Canada, in a Canada that accords recognition, respect and love to every Canadian no matter where he comes from, be he a Croatian or a Serbian. Let us pray and hope that they will become Canadians in the full sense that is evidenced by many Croatians and Serbians in the great city of Hamilton. They are hardworking, industrious people who have a love of their own culture and who practice at picnics and social gatherings their folklore, dances, customs, traditions and language. This is part of being Canadian and it enriches Canada by according to the past respect and love. We must look forward, as we do as Canadians, to making this country the greatest in the world.
I am pleased that, as is mentioned in the Throne Speech, we will make "O Canada" our national anthem. I cannot refrain, at the same time, from urging the government to make July 1 Canada Day-le jour Canada-crowning our
Speech from the Throne

February 21, 1972
efforts to create greater symbols for Canada. If they will not go for Canada Day, perhaps they will go for Maple Leaf Day; but let us have something more imaginative, constructive and Canadian than Dominion Day which, in one of our official languages, in many areas is considered to be subservient.
I believe in a multicultural Canada with two official languages, in a nation which consists of our native peoples, the Indians, Eskimos and Metis, and has many cultural roots in the Italians, Germans, Ukrainians and Poles. I also hope that we will find it possible to bring to Canada more Chinese. Has any man in this chamber ever met a Chinese he did not like? I submit that they enrich our humour, culture and dignity, and I hope we have more of them here.
I am proud of the multicultural policy of Canada. I am proud that the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), despite many sly innuendos aimed in his direction, has advanced this Canadian society by advocating and initiating an imaginative and worth-while outlook for Canada. It means that we welcome the development and maintenance of all the cultural ties and languages in our great Canadian nation; we encourage the growth of greater understanding among Canadians from coast to coast.
I hope you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, when I prod a little deeper into a problem of individuality which is an important theme in the Throne Speech. When we look at the individual we realize that many of us are lucky, successful and wealthy in comparison with many other Canadians. I wonder if we could not find a means of pairing a Canadian of wealth with one in poverty, if we could not have a dynamic policy whereby every person with an income of, say, $10,000 or $15,000 tries to pair himself with someone who has suffered. One cannot get a perfect solution by doing that, but let us not scorn it. I feel that we should do this also in the school system so that every lad from a good, happy home is encouraged to find in the city block or area an unfortunate child and become a friend, a big brother of that child. I do not see any government plan as such to encourage this kind of operation.
Throughout Canada we have Big Brother groups, the YMCA, the Roman Catholic Church Aid, the Protestant Church Aid and all kinds of aid groups, but there does not yet seem to be a comprehensive plan, which will be part of everyone's life, to help individuals in poor circumstances.
I really believe this could be done and I believe that this government could do it. I see no reason why it would not work. I would go even a step further and say that I hope and pray that every schoolchild in Canada will eventually have a pen pal in some other part of the world. We should try to build bridges between individuals of the world, because until we are strong enough to bind ourselves together with trust and confidence as individuals we shall not solve the problems of armaments and the arms race.
Mr. Speaker, I praise the Prime Minister for the bold initiative he took in recognizing the People's Republic of China. It is apparent that this recognition was a very important consideration in the changed attitude of the United States toward China and in the fact that the heads of those two countries are meeting today. I think it is

another example of the initiative, daring and brilliance of the Prime Minister that he should bring this about. I have no hesitation in praising the Prime Minister for taking these courageous, interesting and innovative steps which have not only recognized China but brought about wheat sales to China and put us on the map in Asia in a way we have not seen before.
I mentioned that I have been to Cyprus. When I was in a restaurant there, a friendly man turned to me and asked where I was from. When I said Canada, he shrugged his shoulders and said "Trudeau" with a big smile, and we shook hands. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it was a moment of great pride for me. Our Prime Minister has the imagination, the daring, the physical strength and moral courage to put Canada on the map in Asia and throughout the world, and he will go down in history as one of Canada's greatest prime ministers.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to participate in the Speech from the Throne debate is welcome because it is one of the few debates in this House where members are given almost complete and free rein. While I have not studied the precedents in this regard, I imagine there are very few instances when Your Honour or your predecessors were able to demand that a member speak in relation to the issue currently before the House. The Speech from the Throne tradition is very old and is important in the sense that it gives the 264 members of this House, or those who participate in the debate, an opportunity to reflect on matters of national and immediate concern from their own particular vantage point.
I think it is particularly important for this country that we have this debate, and it is unfortunate that in the changes made in the rules during the last couple of years the debate on estimates was removed from this chamber and replaced by opposition days. This has to a degree removed the opportunity for the individual to express an opinion on matters of a specific nature relating to his representation in this chamber. To a degree we have perhaps diluted the importance of this kind of activity in the House of Commons.
We must realize that in attempting to provide a national framework of government for this country we are dealing with one of the most difficult and perhaps one of the most distinctly different countries to govern anywhere in the world. This is partly a matter of our geography but it is also a matter of our history which has exerted various pressures upon us both from outside this continent and from within it.
I think the Speech from the Throne debate may be of particular importance this year. Canadians who take the time and trouble to read Hansard or newspaper reports of it may wish to make for themselves some appraisal of the state of the nation. I think, too, it is appropriate that members be given an opportunity to respond after the recent Speech from the Throne and remarks by the party leaders. It is important because these remarks have helped to set the scene for a federal election which all members are aware will take place shortly.
I think that, in a way, the Speech from the Throne was an accurate rendering of the state of mind of this government. It rose to a new high. The kind of high-blown language, the kind of atmospheric phrases to which this
February 21, 1972__________________COMMONS
government has been inclined, give some impression and impact of its style, but when examined in some detail, as it has been by the press and members of this House, they are found to be hollow.
Marshall McLuhan, the communications guru of our time, has coined a phrase in regard to television, but I think it could appropriately be used with regard to the Speech from the Throne. He said, "The medium is the message". In other words, Mr. Speaker, it does not really matter what is in the Speech from the Throne-I think that has become pretty clear-but it is how you say it that is all important. There may be some who derive satisfaction from this; those who have been cloistered for years in an arid, academic community or those who like to play with words so much that the meaning behind them or the issues or the people or the circumstances related to them are almost completely unimportant.
Some time ago a documentary film on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), entitled "The Style is the Man", was shown, I think that sums up what we have seen in the Speech from the Throne, and perhaps in some measure the Prime Minister's remarks in this chamber last week. This was all very attractive and enticing in the years of his accession to leadership and in the election of 1968, but it strikes me, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians who have been buffeted by the winds of economic uncertainty, by the unpredictable and rapid increase in prices and the difficulty of relating their own incomes to them, and those who have become unemployed, have found small comfort in the substance of the style that was being presented to them month by month and year by year. I think we have come to the point, and certaintly many Canadians have long passed it, of realizing that style alone, that efficacy in itself, is not sufficient to meet chronic, long-term economic and social problems.
We have seen very clearly in this kind of ad hoc, patchwork-quilt suggestion contained in the Speech from the Throne or list of bills tabled, that this government which has been in office for four years, and the party for nine, has yet to present to this country a consistent, over-all national economic and social policy. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it has even been reluctant to grapple with these problems in any kind of honest, straightforward way. If there is anything that Members of Parliament should be concerned about in this debate, it is lack of national economic policy. I think that underlies the fears and anxieties felt by all Canadians. The discussion should centre upon possible trade negotiations between Canada and the United States, the actions that might be taken by federal or provincial government with respect to economic policies in regard to foreign investment and foreign control and the Canadian economic enterprise.
Underlying that kind of concern is the open awareness that there is in this country at this time no over-all guiding policy, and that in the discussions initiated by this government with the provinces there has been a less than candid discussion of the basic strategy underlying a national economic policy. It is because there is an absolute and complete lack of national economic policy on the part of the federal government that the party I support and many Canadians ultimately condemn this government.
DEBATES___________________________________________89
Speech from the Throne
The Speech from the Throne made last week indicates no new effort or initiative in developing a national policy. In the last few years this government has engaged in ad hoc planning. It has given ad hoc promises and governed by crisis. It has always struck me as strange that this government, which speaks so eloquently on how it has survived crisis after crisis as if it has done something wonderful, should fail to point out something that any clear-minded or reasonably objective examination would reveal, namely, that the government was often the reason and cause for a crisis and that it had created a crisis over issues that in most cases deserved cool and rational consideration. The government simply was not capable of giving such issues cool, open, honest and rational consideration.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance or other members of this administration would point out how successfully they have coped with crises that were self-induced. They are engaging in the height of self-illusion. I hope that this delusion extends only to the members of the cabinet and not to the country at large. Whether the crisis was one of inflation, unemployment, or unrest in Quebec, to a greater extent than most of us realized at the time the crisis was government-induced and blame could not be attributed to any other source.
In the economic sphere, and particularly in our relations with the United States, the crisis mentality has been central and must be taken into account in understanding why this government has been so ineffective. Last week the Prime Minister said how effective the cabinet was in dealing with the recent trade and economic crisis involving this country and the United States. Yet it was that very same Prime Minister who felt no sense of responsibility when making the kind of stupid remark that he made in a foreign country. It was the same Prime Minister who, at a university campus several months prior to that, talked about violence and retaliation in the United States and, in general, gave the impression that he was somehow or other not terribly keen to understand the problems of that country or to work in a constructive way with those who had responsibility within the administration of that country.
The Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, cannot have it both ways. He cannot expect, on the one hand, to fan the flames of misunderstanding and antipathy and, on the other, at the same time take credit for being cool and for dealing with difficulties which have arisen between our country and our southern neighbour. His remarks constitute an elaborate-perhaps they are not so elaborate- cover-up of the basic incompetence and irresponsibility of the government. There is no national plan, national strategy or elaboration of goals. There is no overview of what this country should be doing, where this country should be going and in which areas the government of this country should be providing leadership.
It is incredible to consider that with the large staff of the Prime Minister and the formal and informal think-tanks which have been attached to the Prime Minister's office, there has been so little articulation of what is the long-term direction of the leadership that ought to be and is being provided by this government. One can only assume at this late time that this government is not capa-

Speech from the Throne
ble of providing and is not prepared to provide leadership.
The government wonders why it has not had a good relationship with the business community of this country. It wonders why it has had so many conflicts with the trade union movement-more, perhaps, than any government preceding it. It wonders why it is experiencing difficulty in getting along with the provinces. It need not look far for the answers, for we are being led by a man who believes, not in consultation and negotiation but in confrontation, who believes that the only effective way to deal with other sources of powers, whether they are in unions, in business or in the provinces, is to confront them, perhaps even ultimately in some kind of insulting fashion. Is that the way to exercise constructive national leadership in a country with so many different regional and provincial variations and distinctions?
In the 100 years or so that this land has been a nation, prime ministers and others have discovered that Canada is not an easy land to govern. They have discovered that only by conciliation, compromise, only by listening as well as by talking, only by building rather than tearing down, can the fabric of this nation be continued. The example of the last four years is not one that will hearten historians and show them how this country can be most effectively led.
Putting faith in a government that shows clearly it does know where it is going, that it is hardly aware where it has been, that it is not aware at present of what it is doing and really has no plan for the future, is putting faith in a government that governs by drifting. I believe Canadians are too intelligent, too well informed and too sophisticated to have faith any longer in that kind of government. The time has long gone when Canadians, for the sake of style, for the sake of novelty and because of titillations in the afternoon press, will support this kind of government as being one that is best in the national interest.
Perhaps nothing is more important to this country than our relations with the United States. Obviously, the cliches already uttered in this debate about our proximity to the United States and the intimacy of the relations between our two countries will continue to be uttered. It would take, not a volume but a whole library to catalogue effectively the indirect and complex relationships existing between us. It is altogether obvious that we cannot continue fostering this ongoing relationship in a crude and offhanded manner, or with simplistic statements, without doing great harm to the fabric of our relationship.
It was regrettable that the Prime Minister of this country, having decided that he should talk face to face with President Nixon, should have spoken on returning from that visit in glowing terms of the fantastic new breakthrough in understanding. How naive must a Canadian be who can believe that because of a comment or a spontaneous reaction, a multitude of questions, issues and problems have been resolved effectively. Now, a few weeks later, we seem to be at the other end of the spectrum completely. The suggestion is that in fact the relationship between our two countries has reached a new low and trade talks have come to an almost total impasse.

In its kind of stop-and-go policy, the government suggests in one instance that it is preparing, as it says it has been for months if not for years, policies with regard to domestic control of the Canadian economic environment, or some such term as that, while at the same time the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) says that we will not do anything to prejudice or offend our relationship with the United States and, indeed, in terms of trade concessions we are prepared to make many more than we have already made.
What kind of games are being played with our economic situation, both in the present and future sense? What kind of childsplay is this, where we can have this kind of suggestion in one quarter that nothing or less than nothing is going to be done, while in another quarter all kinds of things may be done with respect to national economic control? What is even more disturbing is that we do not know who is making the decision. Is it the same people who decided that in order to deal with inflation we could have a little slack and have a few hundred thousand people thrown out of work? Are these the people who are preparing some new kind of national economic policy, or are they the people who agreed with the Prime Minister's assessment in December that there had been a fantastic, new breakthrough?
Questions about the establishment of a framework for domestic control of the economy are just too important to be left in the hands of a small group of advisers, either in the Prime Minister's office or anywhere else. There are too many issues at stake, some of them much too important for the people of this country to believe that they can be developed in isolation.
It is rather interesting, and perhaps it is more than a little revealing of the true nature of this government that they referred in the Speech from the Throne to the isolation that Canadians feel. I cannot help but think it is some kind of Freudian slip, that in a sense it was not so much Canadians out there that this government was thinking of, but perhaps those who have laboured long hours in the east block, locked away from the reality of this country, manufacturing to suit their own purposes. They have indeed become increasingly frustrated about the isolation they have felt from this country.
Surely, those who for months and years have attempted to convey to this government their concern about rising unemployment, rising effective costs, those living on fixed incomes and those who have tried to communicate on the great social issues of our age have learned something about the isolation of this government. It is perhaps a paradox that never has there been such a large number of advisers and reflectors, and presumably some who have been listeners to the Prime Minister, and never has there been so little heard of what is actually happening in this country. At times the sense of isolation has appeared almost overwhelming. Frankly, it becomes terrifying when one thinks of this isolation in relation to basic decisions that will be made vis-a-vis our relationship with the United States and our decisions with regard to the domestic control of the economic environment.
If, indeed, that spirit of isolation exists, as it very much seems to exist at the present time, what follies are about
February 21, 1972

Speech from the Throne
to be perpetrated upon us in the name of some kind of national economic policy? What kind of misguided direction are we going to receive? When, if the government finally tells us it has made up its mind, will we hear about the whole question of foreign ownership? I shudder to think about that. I can visualize ten provincial premiers, assorted business and labour leaders and many others shuddering in this same regard.
We know only too well that this country is just too complex and too varied in its needs and possibilities to believe that one or even a few people in their isolated place in the east block are capable of producing the sort of policies to give vital and viable direction to the economic life of this country. We just do not believe it is possible. In fact, we know that kind of leadership can do very grave damage to the delicate economic fabric of this country. We know how delicate the economic life of this country is because of very high unemployment at the present time and the recurrence of inflation.
It is our belief that important and basic economic policies of this kind require open and frank consultation in many areas. Obviously, there has to be consultation with the provinces. We have the almost ludicrous situation where the province of Ontario, the largest and the wealthiest of the provinces, published its own document with regard to its concern about the heavy inroads of foreign investment. When questions are raised in the House- and I raised such questions with the Prime Minister before Christmas-as to which way this material is to be utilized or whether there is any action being taken with those in the province of Ontario, there is really no response.
What about the provinces in western Canada which have a tremendous interest at stake in the development, in various aspects, of the basic resources of this country? It is important for them to participate directly in the elaboration of any policy. In my own area, the Atlantic provinces, which for almost three-quarters of a century have languished in a situation of chronic underutilization of the economy, it is important for them to believe that any national policy must be sufficiently varied and tailored so as to deal realistically with the problem of regional disparity in that area. However, there seems to be almost no awareness or concern about these kinds of basic questions.
Beyond the provinces, there are those who have responsibility in management, labour and major municipalities in respect of decisive action that could be taken which would very much prejudice their own health and viability. Again, there is no openness or consultation, only a process of confrontation leading finally to isolation. That kind of style or method of dealing with these basic problems can only lead this country into a deeper morass of economic and social difficulty. It will do little good for the government to tell us a year or six months from now that they have been able effectively to deal with the latest crisis that has in effect been directly manufactured by them.
The time has come for Canadians to say to this government that we must put an end to government that seeks to rule, not by participation as was so grandly talked about three or four years ago, but by the lights of its own desires and failure to recognize the importance that Canadians, those represented in other groups and at other political
levels, have a right to be represented in decision-making that makes all Canadians accountable and responsible or effective government in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, join my colleagues in all parts of the House in congratulating the hon. members who proposed and seconded the motion for acceptance of the Speech from the Throne which is under debate at the present time. I realize that this debate gives us an opportunity to discuss some of our parochial problems as well as to make suggestions with regard to what some members of the House of Commons, especially those on the opposite side, have said and with which we do not entirely agree.
I was rather shocked this afternoon to hear the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) discuss the bills relating to agriculture. I have been associated with this industry for many years. I honestly feel we have made more headway in developing governmental legislative assistance to Canadian agriculture than any other Parliament. We have finally succeeded in passing one of the most essential bills to assist farmers, Bill C-176, the National Marketing Act.
Unquestionably, the farming community has developed a great deal of efficiency. Through technological advancement, hard work and training we have been able to take advantage of the well educated young people who have worked in the farming industry, both in production and in secondary industry. They have been able to produce in great volume-as a matter of fact, in excess volume-but the problem that has been hounding the agricultural industry for years, more so now than ever before, is that of marketing the product.
The marketing of food has been based on the quantity available, rather than on a reasonable price related to the cost of production. As a result of the passage of Bill C-176, enabling legislation is now available to the farming community. They can now establish marketing agencies to act in conjunction with advisory committees and with the co-operation of secondary industry, known as "the trade", consumer associations and distributors, they will be able to provide food for Canadians as cheaply as ever before, I am convinced-food at lower cost as a result of stability in the farming industry.
I was personally delighted to hear the announcement by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) that there is to be a two-price system for wheat in Canada. This has been recommended from time to time; it has been discussed fully and I am convinced that when the program has been established and the regulations respecting the method of payment have been worked out, it will prove of great assistance to the prairie grain farmer. I might add that the Prairie grain farmer was fortunate enough to sell more grain last year than in any other year in our history.
Here, I should like to refer to the price, and to the criticism which is often directed to the level of the price received for Canadian grain. Canada exports 75 per cent of its grain and sells about 25 per cent domestically.
Speech from the Throne

February 21, 1972
Surely no one would suggest that we are in a position to set a world grain price. Surely we know more about merchandising than that. After all, we are competing with countries which have greater access to markets by virtue of the tremendous volume and diversity of their total production-I have in mind our good friends to the south-as well as with countries such as France and developing areas whose technology we have assisted. In fact we have turned some of our customers into competitors.
I agree, though, that the price is low and I am hopeful we shall find means of persuading our grain trading partners to return to a world grain price arrangement. This subject was touched upon during our meetings with United States legislators this past weekend. I am convinced our views were received with a good deal of sympathy. It was stated on more than one occasion that such a move would be of assistance to the grain industry throughout the world. So there is hope that we shall be able to bring this about.
We shall not, I hope, get back into a heavy surplus position. On the other hand, I trust that, especially upon the advent of the two-price wheat system, we shall not neglect to establish inventories which will enable us to carry our share of the load when it comes to the distribution of grain on a world wide basis.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, when the House recessed at six o'clock I was discussing problems relating to the sale of grain and was suggesting that we eohtrol our inventory in Canada to the point that, while we would be able to export grain in similar fashion to sales in the current crop year, we would not expect wheat suddently to become a product in excessive demand by virtue of our two-price system.
If I may, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) for the attention he has paid many aspects of the agricultural industry. For example, the Farm Credit Corporation has expanded its loan ceiling and we can expect further amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation Act this year.
I believe, as most members on this side of the House believe, that planned production along with market research is of utmost importance. In order to plan our production and establish realistic inventories we must make sure that we know what the demand for our products is likely to be. A lot is said about production in this country. People say we should not export our resource materials but export only secondary products, products that have been processed in Canada. But very little do I hear about market availability. Industry or business must not only be able to produce but must be able to market that which it produces.
It is true that we have been dependent to a degree on industrialists from south of the border with their 220 million domestic customers. Although Canada adds
another 20 million customers, when you take into consideration the unit cost of production, 20 million people do not really amount to much when it comes to establishing plants in Canada simply to serve the domestic market. We know these people are experienced in business and that they invested their high-risk capital in Canada. This high-risk capital is within the jurisdiction of Canadian law, but at the corporate level business can be influenced to a degree by other legislation, such as the Trading with the Enemy Act, the provisions of which I understand are practically non-operable at the present time.
I suggest that in light of the travelling being undertaken of late by the President of the United States, the missions that are being sent to Communist countries which up to now have been considered enemies, and when we realize the large sale of agricultural products to Russia amounting to $130 million or so in return for a rather large plant, Canadians must scrutinize capital investment rather carefully and discerningly. There is nothing in the world to stop my hon. friends in the New Democratic Party setting up secondary manufacturing plants in Canada tomorrow. Certainly there is no law against it. If they can find the markets and can exploit them to the point where they can compete with those who already have those markets and have established subsidiaries in Canada, then that is fine.
A few years ago we tried to establish in the beautiful Fraser Valley of British Columbia a plant for convenience foods. We could not find enough money locally because of the fact that it was really a risk proposition, although there were offers made from large food corporations in the United States. Here, again, we have been discussing these problems with our United States friends over the weekend. We have been discussing with them their inflow of capital. We have suggested that their balance of trade must be balanced out with a consideration relating to capital, and that if we are to be required to send our dividends and interest across the border then we must have consideration in trade. But we have to take into consideration what one of the senators said, that it is very difficult to have it both ways. As another senator said in the deliberations, if we do not want their plants, do not want jobs for our workers or do not want to take advantage of the markets they have for our products, then we should simply say so and they would be glad to expand their own.
In relation to these enterprises I would say we seem to consider profit in some areas as a kind of dirty word. It was suggested by the previous leader of the NDP that profits are not the answer and that all they do is pay for automation. But profits represent risk capital, and I submit that any profits as surplus funds represent risk capital and that jobs come from people willing to risk this capital. Unless we are prepared to risk it and to be certain that our industry has sufficient profit to risk, then we will not have the jobs that are required. I believe the employment picture is one of the most important aspects we must consider at the present time.
I should also like to thank the many cabinet ministers who have gone into the riding of Fraser Valley East as requested by the Chambers of Commerce, the various service clubs, the agricultural organizations, the brokers and other people interested in finance. I have been very fortunate in receiving great assistance from at least seven cabinet ministers. Not long ago we were fortunate to have the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs spend
[Mr. Pringle.J

two hours of radio time to discuss the Competition Act with the people of Fraser Valley East. The response was excellent.
I have considered, rightly or wrongly, that my purpose in this House of Commons is not only to rise on a night when the Speech from the Throne is under debate to speak politics to my constituents; I believe I represent them in this arena, that I represent them in Ottawa in the House of Commons and in the government. I should also like to pay tribute to people in the public service who have assisted us with problems, who have explained situations and who have helped very much in respect of some of the problems relating to the constituents of Fraser Valley East.
But this is a two-way street. While I firmly believe I represent my constituents here in the House of Commons, I also believe I have a duty to represent the government of Canada in my constituency. I believe this is what we should do, and it certainly is what I would like to do. We are now facing the possibility of another election. I firmly believe the people of Fraser Valley East are able to search through the information given to them. The information they receive from the media, I am sorry to say, has not always been that which I would consider to be enough. I would consider the priority, perhaps, has been on views rather than news. As a matter of fact-I know it is a risky statement to make, but I am prepared to make it-I believe we should endeavour, if we can, to supply more information to the members of the press gallery so they might understand the entire workings of the House of Commons and would not state that the number of times a member rises from his seat in the House of Commons is the important thing. Perhaps they should attend some of the committee meetings day after day.
I would be happy to invite someone to come to my office at nine o'clock in the morning, stay with me until eleven o'clock at night and come back on Saturday. I would like them to hear the telephone conversations I have with people in my constituency. I would like them to know the number of telephone calls I have had today about railroad tracks in Hope, B.C., about the harbour bill and all the other problems. I do not want to be known in my constituency and in the House of Commons simply because I made the "spoonerism" of the year. I would like them to know, through the media, those things I do in an effort to help the constituency because we do spend about 60 or 70 hours a week in these buildings; we spend the time here doing our job.
We speak on subjects on which we want to speak and on which we feel we might supply some input. It should be taken into consideration that we have already spoken many times in caucus and committees and have done our best to influence various pieces of legislation according to what we deem to be the desires of the majority of our constituents. So I have never been able to quite understand the view held by some people, although I admit this is my first term of office here.
In closing, I should like again to thank the members of the House of Commons for the association I have had with them over the years. I feel our committees, regardless of what has been said, are highly successful. In committee, members have an opportunity to go into a matter in much greater depth than in the House of Commons. I
Speech from the Throne
believe when we look at all the bills which we have passed, and look at what has been done for the good of Canadians, the Canadian people will realize that our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is probably one of the greatest prime ministers we have ever had. He has been courageous in his statements and there is no doubt that we mean business, for the benefit of the Canadian people, and I am sure we will receive their support.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, commentators on the Speech from the Throne have described it in various ways. Some have declared it to be half froth and the rest pink lemonade and purple platitudes. Certainly, it is a speech which can give satisfaction only to the affluent, to those comfortable enough not to have to worry about government help; and their number is diminishing daily. For any real indication of government policy in this election year we had to await the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It proved to be a really clever production.
Ever since the dawn of history, kings and presidents, unwilling to face up to difficult situations at home, have sought to divert people's attention elsewhere. Our local emperor is no exception. Realizing that his government has failed to deal with the serious problems of people in sector after sector in this country, the Prime Minister soared above all domestic matters and assumed the heroic posture of Horatius on the International Bridge, prepared to defend Canada against the whole might of the United States, not crudely, mind you, but without-to use his own words-"fantasies of either frightened timidity or false bravado". We shall see. The posture is heroic but it is no substitude for legislation to prevent further foreign takeovers of our resources and our industries.
While we admire the dramatic ability of our modern Horatius, we shall have to await solid legislation from this government. The Prime Minister in his speech indulged in another diversionary exercise, one which we may expect to see employed over and over again during the coming months. Against the uncertain and perplexing background of our time he indicated, with a few masterly strokes, the unrest, disturbances and dire emergencies faced by other countries. Turning quickly to Canada, he found our solutions in most cases "very satisfactory". He mentioned the free access of exporters to world markets, the favourable investment picture in foreign securities, the close ties of our two North American economies. In short, God is in his North American heaven and all is right with Canada.
All this was a build-up for his approach to unemployment. Indeed, he prefers to deal with employment rather than to have to deal with the distasteful issue of joblessness. He informs us that between 1965 and 1970 over one million new jobs were created in Canada; this figure was greater than the combined number of new jobs created in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. What this has to do with his government's record in Canada, I fail to see, but I can see that it is an attempt to draw attention away to far off fields rather than to leave it on the bleak record at home.
He says that more than 200,000 new jobs were created in Canada in 1971. What he fails to say is that 665,000 Canadians were out of work in January, 1972, and that the
94

Speech from the Throne
seasonally adjusted rate for January, 1972, was the same as that for January, 1971, and that almost 30 per cent- 28.8 per cent, to be exact-of the total population of Canada belongs to a family in which at least one member could not find a job in 1971 or lost it in that year. And he fails to say that the Economic Council has warned that nearly 1 million new jobs must be found by 1975 if unemployment is to be brought below 4 per cent. In face of this situation, 200,000 jobs in 1971 looks like a very small number, very small potatoes, and certainly nothing to get complacent about.
What unemployment means in human terms cannot be fully understood, of course, except by those who have undergone the shock, fear and indignity of unemployment. Of the many tragic cases brought to my attention during the recent parliamentary recess, one stands out most clearly in my mind. It is that of a young man of 28 whom I have known for some years and who has tried persistently and unavailingly to get work. He has had to accept social assistance, with the stigma that it entails, particularly for the single, able bodied young person. He telephoned me one February morning to say that he had now been classified as an employable unemployed person. This meant that his clothing allowance was cut off, he no longer had access to medical help or prescription drugs, his teeth would not be given the attention they badly needed, and he was now receiving a straight $90 a month in social assistance, the great bulk of which must go for rent. What was he to do? He just could not get work. With food and clothing prices going up all the time, how could he live? In quiet despair he added, "It's pretty tough to have this happen when you are doing all you can to lead a decent life."
Mr. Speaker, we run into the despair of this young man in the large cities, the small villages as well as the rural homes across Canada.
When young people do not have the opportunity to work, their whole future suffers. When they have to sit around, day after day, month after month, year after year, not doing anything to use their talents, to earn their bread and participate in the life of their country, can anyone wonder that they end up despairing, taking drugs or revolting.

Instead of boasting of all the new jobs his government has created, the Prime Minister would do well to consider the deep desperation of the 30 per cent of Canadians belonging to families afflicted by the cancer of unemployment during this past year. If this government knew or cared about this suffering, they would realize the absolute necessity of creating an income floor, a guaranteed income below which no Canadian would be allowed to fall, and it would not be a measure of doubletalk where a means test is dignified by the title of "guaranteed income." What we need is a genuine guaranteed income coupled with a genuine guaranteed opportunity for useful work.
Guaranteed income, guaranteed work, these are the Siamese twins that should be separated only when people are 
too old, too ill or too handicapped for useful activity. The overwhelming majority of people want to pull their own weight, to stand on their own feet as long as they are able to do so. You have only to refer to the recent statements of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro), or of the Senate Committee on Poverty in order to confirm this statement. Let the government give them this opportunity, and let the government not say that it is impossible to provide a guaranteed income.
Realizing, at least in some measure, the danger of allowing a whole generation of young folk to rust and rot in enforced idleness, the government last summer-and now I will give the government a bouquet-created something useful, the Opportunities for Youth program. Of course there were mistakes, of course there were foolish projects funded, but for the first time of which I am aware the government deliberately decided to fund people who needed funding as a group to enable them to carry out imaginative projects which would help the community and develop them at the same time. Instead of giving all the funding to conventional business enterprises, this government took a chance and gave a relatively modest share to help young people develop themselves.
I am glad to say that I think this experiment has paid off, and I believe that the local initiatives program will be even more successful. So far so good. However, these programs are far too hit-and-miss in their character. They need to be accompanied by long-range planning to ensure that they mesh into the needs and the other activities of the community. For example, there is not too much use in funding people to carry out renovations when the percentage of money for materials with which to do it is so low. To my knowledge, only the government of Saskatchewan has sought to overcome this deficiency on Ottawa's part. It has provided and is providing grants for materials for the local initiatives programs as a means of making sure that they can be carried through to fruition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Winona Grace MacInnis: This is not the first time that Saskatchewan has pioneered something which the federal government later has taken up as being something which at least should be adopted, although in nearly all cases it is too little and too late when it does adopt them. Long-range planning cannot be carried out exclusively by the mandarins of Ottawa but most involve all levels of government and all levels of voluntary groups concerned.
The planning from Ottawa results in a Procrustean situation, with the computer in the role of Procrustes. When the traveller is too long for the bed of Procrustes, a suitable length of his legs is chopped off, and if he is too short, his limbs are stretched to fit the bed, without any warning about folding, stapling or mutilating! In other words, people are made to conform to the demands of the computer rather than the other way around. If anything were necessary to prove that to the hilt, it is the delays, the mistakes and the fouling-up of the unemployment insurance payments that have been made with Ottawa in control of so much of the machinery. Gobd planning must take the particular needs of the people concerned into
February 21, 1972

consideration, and the only way to learn of those needs is to consult the people concerned.
It seems to me to be far more useful to get down to cases in this manner than trying to make the most of a bad job by diverting attention away from it as the Prime Minister did or by trumpeting as the mover of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne did when he declared:
Without any doubt I can say here this afternoon that the senior citizens of Canada have the benefit of the just society promised by our government-
The senior citizens do not believe it and I fail to see how the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) could take himself seriously at that point, anxious as he was to protect the government even to the extent of leaning over backward and losing his balance.
Long-range planning is needed in many directions after these years of allowing and encouraging private business to produce anything that will sell for a profit and leaving all the other needs of the community so badly neglected. For example, owing to the fact that in my own city of Vancouver real estate interests have always been so heavily over-represented on the city council-indeed, I am tempted to believe we have a real estate lobby where the city council should be-we have got into a bad mess with our transportation needs. I was glad to note that the new Minister for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) had stated that the federal government had decided to kill present plans for the Four Seasons complex which menaces the entrance to Stanley Park and which would cause 40 per cent more traffic congestion at a spot already badly overcrowded and overpolluted. I certainly hope this complex stays dead. I have seen too many resurrections, where property owners are concerned, to be sure of it until the minister can show us that a proper burial has taken place, with a proper ceremony over the remains.
At the moment, another menace to the well-being of the community is apparently receiving the blessing of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis). I hope it is only apparent. I refer to the proposed third crossing to the North Shore. Concerned citizens are just becoming aroused to the fact that, whether bridge or tunnel, this crossing would be just the first link in a new chain of freeways which would segment many neighbourhoods in our city, result in multiplying pollution, noise, traffic congestion and all the other disamenities and dangers we have noticed in big cities.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Is he a hamburger?


Winona Grace MacInnis: It doesn't necessarily take a hamburger to recognize that danger. Larger numbers of people are becoming convinced that our problem today is one of moving people rather than cars. We would like to see that sum of $123 million, which we understand has been promised by the federal government, go to helping establish a system of rapid transit which would get people around more quickly and efficiently than the proposed tunnel and bridge which would provide transit for too many cars with a single occupant. As a car owner, I would be happy to see parking facilities provided around the rim of the city and rapid transit operating in the core. Only in this way could rapid transit pay its way. If private vehicles insisted on circulating downtown, there are many ways in which they could be made to pay extra for this special
Speech from the Throne
privilege. In any case, I would hope that Ottawa would be willing to make the promised money available for whatever mode of transport the city council decided was the best. And I would hope that, after its long spell of dithering, the city council would soon take a long-range look at the real transportation needs of the Vancouver of the future.
I was glad to see that the Speech from the Throne included two sentences, the first as to the desirability of policies to ensure the long overdue equality of women in Canadian society, and the second stating that these policies would be announced this session. As I say, I was glad to note these two sentences. However, I feel sure that along with myself, other Canadian women would have been happier with the definite announcement of proposed legislation such as an amendment to the Adult Occupational Training Act to include women who had for three years been engaged in the work of their own homes, an amendment to the Canada Pension Act to include the spouse of a contributor, legislation to further child-care centres, or any one of the many other definite measures essential to secure the equality of women and hence the greater liberation of both sexes.
A definite measure announced in the Speech from the Throne was the raising of loan limits under the Canada Student Loans Act, permitting students to borrow more within a given year. This is a good provision. But an even more necessary one would have been an amendment permitting students who have finished their courses to defer repayment of their loans until they can find employment. The present exercise of trying to squeeze blood from a stone is exceedingly painful to the unemployed person, as I trust it will be to the sensibilities of the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). I might say that some of the most pathetic cases brought to my attention were those of people who had borrowed in order to get this university training, and at the end of the period had looked in vain for work and were now faced with the repayment of loans and no means whatsoever with which to make the repayment.
We now have also a new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andras). Because the Prices and Incomes Commission, set up in 1969, has cost about $4 million to date and is the second most expensive commission we have had, I would suggest that an early priority for the minister would be to determine its role for the four months of its life that remain. It was set up to fight inflation. Instead, it used its resources to fight the labour unions. Meanwhile, the November-December price index went higher than in any November-December period for the last ten years. The consumer price index for December, 1971, stood 5 per cent higher than for December, 1970. It is still going up.
I would also suggest to the new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that he pick up an early piece of the unfinished business of his predecessor and try to get his Prices and Incomes Commission to study and report on methods of helping low-income consumers cope with the rising cost of living. And he might embark on a study of how to devise price controls that would include all sectors of the community and not merely endeavour to make a scapegoat of one-the labour unions in this case.
25020-7}

Speech from the Throne
There are many useful things to which the new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs could turn his attention. One is to find ways of helping people on low fixed incomes and pensions to get enough food in order to keep themselves at a decent standard of nutrition. This is a real problem. I am by no means opposed to sending food to people in depressed and underdeveloped countries or to famine-ravaged countries, but I would put in a plea that the minister find some way of dealing with the undernourished, elderly people who fill the garrets and basements of our cities and have to exist on tea, toast and catfood in far too many cases.
[DOT]	(2040)


An hon. Member:: Come on!


Winona Grace MacInnis: I am coming on, and I will not be turned off by that sort of remark. Our elderly people are existing on far, far less than is necessary for keeping body and soul together in a modern way, with a modern standard. Because they are elderly and defenceless, they are suffering.
[DOT]	(2040)

Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out some of the most serious problems our citizens are now facing. There are many others, I assure you, such as housing, manpower, day-care centres for the children of mothers working outside the home, the problems of pollution, of protection of the environment, of birth control. The complete list would be endless.
Those who have an adequate income can perhaps solve such problems or evade them. But individuals and families with low incomes or even medium incomes are trapped in poverty they cannot escape without this government's assistance.
I therefore suggest that neither the Prime Minister nor his government are entitled to look the other way or turn a deaf ear to the plight of those who are soliciting their support. It is all very well to speak of the deplorable conditions that exist in all the other countries of the world, but it is no excuse for not taking steps to improve the lot of the Canadian people. This government requested the right to formulate a policy for the well-being of all Canadian citizens. It was given that right. It must not now shirk its responsibility.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I have been outspoken in my criticism of the government's sins of omission. I can assure you that every bit of this criticism is based on the many personal interviews, telephone calls and letters that I have had with my constituents and many others across Canada during recent weeks and months. To me, there is something completely irrational and shameful about complacently boasting of our natural resources, our technology and our increasing gross national product, as well as our great exploits of the past few months, while at the same time we allow one Canadian in five to remain below the poverty level where he, and she, must watch his children caught in the same trap of poverty and be condemned, in turn, to rust and rot in idleness while the affluent con-

demn them as bums and loafers. It is all wrong and completely unnecessary.
But the price of changing it is one which this government is not prepared to pay. The price of change is to refuse resolutely to yield to pressures from the big business community, and legislate in the interests of the whole population. The government must give top priority to that part of the population which needs help most. This government refused to do that and still refuses to. Indeed, it goes out of its way to mention that it wants more co-operative and fruitful relations with the industrial community, as though that were the place where the need is greatest. For that reason, this government has forfeited its right to govern a democracy, no matter what fine phrases it uses to disguise the fact of its failure. I feel sure, and I hope I am correct, that the Canadian people have just about got to the end of their patience and their gullibility when it comes to being taken in by any combination of fine phrases, beautiful slogans, charisma, or any of those means used for diverting attention away from the fact that the government has not been meeting the people's needs through legislation and has no intention of doing so.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I say that the Canadian people have come slowly but surely to the opinion, held with certainty, that this government has forfeited its right to govern this democracy which we still have, thank goodness, in Canada.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join the many members who have expressed congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If I were to explain why, Mr. Speaker, it would probably take me most of my 40 minutes. They were both excellent speeches.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought the minister had only 30 minutes.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I suppose that the debate on the Speech from the Throne should be the time for us to review and outline the major thrusts for the future in the particular subject area we want to deal with. Of course, I want to talk about agriculture. Only a few days ago we finally put into effect the marketing legislation that the majority of the farmers of this country, through their representatives, have been asking for ever since I have been a member of this House, and even before that. That legislation is exactly what I said it would be and what the members on this side said it would be when we introduced Bill C-176. It is enabling legislation. It is on the statute books now, and the majority of producers of any farm commodity may use it if they wish. Neither this government nor, indeed, anyone associated with this party, intends to try to move this matter at a more rapid pace than the producers wish.
I know that farm organizations, and particularly commodity groups, have been anxious for some time to avail themselves of the provisions of this bill, and they are now in the position where they can set up modern marketing structures by using the legal structure that legislation provides. I wish to advise those members of the House

who do not already know, that that bill was proclaimed a few days ago.
I also want to say a few words about the small farms development program. As I said at the outset, this is the time for us to deal briefly with what has happened during the past 12 months with respect to a number of agricultural commodities, to outline what the future holds, as one can see it today, and to outline our major thrust in developing and progressing with the programs that are now under way.
Let me say a few words briefly about grain, in the first place, because grain is certainly one of the largest, if not the largest, commodities in Canadian agriculture today. I will not review statistics because members of this House and, of course, farmers in western Canada generally know that in the last crop year we established an all-time record, with sales of 700 million bushels of grain. To date this year our sales have been even greater than that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But the farmers are still poor.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I find it rather strange that those who criticize the government and those who participated in today's question period do not understand that when you have an extraordinarily large snowfall day after day and week after week in the mountains, grain deliveries going through that part of the transport system will obviously be slowed down.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Where was the minister last fall?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is what happened. Some members of the opposition tried to find some way of showing that this was the government's fault. They tried to suggest that the government was to blame because five feet of snow per week fell for some weeks in the highest reaches of the Rocky Mountains.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Nobody is blaming the government for that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) must know, because of his background, that with that kind of snowfall as much as 50 per cent of rail traffic is curtailed. There were several days when no trains were running at all. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but after the snowfalls and the tracks have been cleared it is weeks before you get back to full efficiency. Even after a small storm, snowfall or wind, there are tremendous snowdrifts. That slows everything down tremendously. In the past few days I have been very pleased with the full co-operation of the people involved in that sector of the transportation industry. They have been able to move as much as 800, and sometimes over 800 carloads in a day. We should commend those people in that part of the transportation industry for a great effort.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: They are certainly working under a great handicap at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order or for the purpose of asking a question?
Speech from the Throne


Cliff Downey: I was wondering if the minister would allow a question at this point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member knows he can ask a question only if the minister is willing to answer.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I would be very happy to answer a question.


Cliff Downey: Can the minister state whether the government's policy has changed in any respect as to the matter of keeping permanent storage facilities full of grain? What is happening to those? Has there been any change in the government's attitude with regard to this situation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are some other matters involved, Mr. Speaker. Cost factors get into this situation. There is also the question of the maximum beneficial use of the transportation equipment that is available. Surely the hon. member would not suggest that we change the policy and keep any grain in terminals on the west coast when we have an opportunity to load it on ships. As far as the inland terminals are concerned, when there is a maximum requirement we must have as much equipment as possible to move that grain into export position. What is the purpose of holding it in the inland terminals if there is a limitation of facilities, including equipment?
If the time comes, and I am pretty sure it is not going to come until the end of this crop year, when we have additional equipment and transportation facilities with which we can take grain into the inland terminals, clean it to export standards so it will be available, that is one consideration. Even that is not the most beneficial use of all that equipment at this time. As has been pointed out, we need all the grain that we can get to the west coast immediately, because the stocks there are very, very seriously depleted. When we take this into account, we have to remember there is an additional cost of bringing grain into the inland terminals, unloading it and then loading it again. When you have room, both in so far as storage is concerned and capacity for cleaning at the elevators that are in export position, you first use that to the maximum. If there is any capacity left, that is when you bring it into the inland terminals.
There is one point that could be made with respect to farm deliveries at terminals. There is also an opportunity for farmers to deliver to a grain company account at some of the inland terminals if they choose to do so.


An hon. Member:: Peanuts.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It might be peanuts, but the grain that comes from that distance also involves some additional cost to the farmer if it gets past 25, 30 miles or up to 50 miles. I certainly would not advocate diverting carloads of grain to inland terminals that can be used immediately on the west coast. That is not the most beneficial use of that equipment and grain at this time.
I certainly hope that the kind of climatic conditions we need to maximize the movement of grain over the mountains and into and through those terminals will be with us. If so, from the performance we have seen in the past few days, it will not be very long, probably in the next three to four weeks, before we catch up with all the commitments we have made. If the weather improves from now on, this

Speech from, the Throne
can be done in spite of the bad weather we have had. I do not think there is anything the government or anyone involved in the grain trade can do about that situation. We are satisfied that a maximum effort is being made by everyone involved. If the weather conditions do turn reasonably favourable, based on the projected sales that have been made we are again going to break the record for the six major grains that are sold out of the Prairies, the farmers of western Canada can look forward to with some satisfaction and optimism.
One point that ought to be made at this time is that while we have been moving very much larger volumes for somewhat over a year now, there has not been a satisfactory upward movement in the price of these grains in the international market. Everyone acknowledges that is so. People also realize that when you are trying to sell against a very large inventory, it is very difficult to get the price up. That has been with us for as long as men have been trading. That is not something over which we have complete control in Canada. We have to compete with other nations in the international market.
I hope we have now relieved the pressure of these huge inventories or surpluses, whichever you choose to call them, to the point where we can now start to discuss with our customers and, more particularly, our competitors from exporting countries, that prices ought to start moving up a little. It is not fair to say they have not moved up at all, because they have moved up some. I am the first to agree they have not kept pace with increased costs. Indeed, prices have not moved up as high as they were during the last period when we had sales opportunities far in excess of our ability to supply them, because of the situation in the international market. I am sure hon. members will agree there is a degree of optimism with these inventories having been run down somewhat.
I think it is also fair to say that they can look forward, at least to the end of this crop year and perhaps quite a long way beyond that, to very strong markets as far as volume is concerned. It is also reasonable to recall that in spite of all the criticism directed at the government with respect to the Lift program, this program has proved to be a major factor responsible for the more satisfactory situation evident today. Had we continued to produce without providing farmers with some relief against surpluses, this substantially improved situation could not have been expected.


An hon. Member:: Have you read the Globe and Mail?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Those hon. members who are interrupting will have to speak loud enough for me to hear them, or they might as well not interrupt at all.
I wish to deal now with another major commodity in the agricultural sector, dairy products. I believe it is fair to say that almost every dairy farmer in Canada will agree that in no time in the last 20 years has there been such an improvement in the industry as took place in 1971. In retrospect, we have to ask ourselves why. The reason is that the government had the courage to take certain steps, notwithstanding their unpopularity at the moment, which it was necessary to take in order to produce a situation of the kind we are experiencing today.

Canada did not do all this by herself. Other countries were concerned, including such large producers of dairy products as the countries within the European Economic Community, New Zealand and Australia. They, too, were faced with enormous surpluses of dairy products on hand. We took action to place that part of the dairy industry which sells through the industrial milk marketing sector in a position where it could call upon the kind of legal structures and administration, at least in Ontario and Quebec, to get this situation under control. There were some cutbacks. They were not large. The fact of the matter is that there was not a very large overproduction month by month; the difficulty was the presence of these enormous supplies of skimmed milk powder and cheese on hand. As long as we were going along adding even 3 per cent or 4 per cent to these inventories year by year, there was no way in which prices could advance from their disastrously low levels.
As I mentioned, there were other nations involved beside ourselves. We entered into an international agreement. It was not a formal agreement under whose terms every nation undertook to adhere strictly to a certain volume and price range, but there was an understanding among the western nations who were interested in this market that we were really not doing any service to the farmers of any of our countries by continuing the practices which had been followed in the past. Basically, the support price was completely out of line with the international price and no attempt was being made to equate supply with demand.
The second major improvement involved the initiation of programs for moving these high quality food products into the diets of people who had not been accustomed to using them. It is worth while to recall that had it not been for programs of this kind there would have been a far smaller market for dairy products today than existed before these high quality foods were introduced to certain nations. I am thinking of some of the central American nations, countries in the Caribbean and in certain parts of Africa.
In the first instance, we made some of these products available-I am speaking now of skimmed milk powder- on the international market at very low prices, sometimes for as little as six or seven cents a pound, though our support price in Canada was 20 cents. The interesting thing is that today we are moving a volume which is just as high, yet we are selling it for 27 cents or 28 cents, as high as 3 cents a pound above the new and increased support price. Some of the countries which were buying it at 6 cents a couple of years ago are now buying it at these more satisfactory price levels.
So there is a new kind of optimism. They can see a breath of fresh air in the dairy industry for the first time in 20 years. No longer do surpluses overwhelm the market, and volume is moving out at reasonable prices. Skimmed milk powder is now selling on the international market at prices above our support level, one which, by the way, has been raised twice, from 20 cents to 24 cents and from 24 cents to 26 cents. The floor price for cheese was also moved up twice in 1971 and today cheese, too, is selling well above this higher support level.
There are no stocks or inventories of these products building up in Canada today. This is a more satisfactory
February 21, 1972

position, because producers who have been struggling under the burden of these surpluses are able to produce, confident that no new inventories are building up. Products are moving out at about the same rate as they are produced and this is a much more satisfactory way in which to be running the dairy industry in this country.


Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Members over there do not like to hear these things.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Oh, I know. It is terribly hard on those hon. members opposite. They think there is an election coming on. When they get on the hustings, I know one thing: none of them will mention the dairy industry if they can help it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: And none of them will mention the grain industry if they can help it. When I get through talking about hogs and beef and vegetables, and so on, I do not know what hon. members opposite will find to say in relation to agriculture.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I should like to ask the minister a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member may do so if the minister agrees.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I appreciate the minister's courtesy. He made some comments earlier in his speech and I chose not to interfere until he was through. I agree with him that it is not his fault or the fault pf the Liberal government if there are five-foot snowdrifts in British Columbia. But if we can move 800 boxcars today, after the snow has drifted, why could we not move 800 boxcars a day before there were any snowdrifts around Vancouver?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am surprised the hon. gentleman should ask such an elementary question. He ought to know enough about the transportation industry, having been in it for a while, to understand that there is not much purpose hauling more boxcars to Vancouver per day than can be unloaded in that port. Today this number can be unloaded because of the tremendous improvement the government has made possible through the use of the block system which allows much more efficient use of our transportation facilities.
It was not very long ago that most people thought it would be absolutely impossible to get more than 550 or 575 carloads per day unloaded at the west coast terminals. This was the absolute upper limit, and even this was sustainable only for a day or two. But with the block system the operators know what is contained in every car before it gets there. They know the kind of grain the Wheat Board has ordered and they know which cars it will be in. Difficulties were overcome by having the grain companies exchange paper rather than cars.
These are some of the reasons we can now put 800 carloads a day in there and get them unloaded. In the past, under the system which was then in effect it was, of course, impossible to get 800 cars unloaded in Vancouver. But because of the progressive steps taken by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and those concerned in the industry itself we have been able to increase the capacity
Speech from the Throne
to unload cars in Vancouver by as much as 50 pgr cent in the past two years.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Would the minister permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member can ask a question only if the minister agrees to answer.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to answer any more questions. Hon. members also know that two and a half or three years ago the maximum number of carloads that could be unloaded at the head of the lakes was slightly over 1,000 a day, though on some days it was as much as 1,100. During certain weeks from December through January at Thunder Bay day after day 1,700 carloads a day were unloaded. I repeat that we should commend those people at the elevators, who work on the railways and in the grain industry, for this very significant improvement. What is more, this improvement was made without adding hardly any additional capital facilities but simply by making better use of what was available already.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. Is the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) rising on a point of order, or does he wish to put a question to the minister?


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I have a question, if the minister will permit it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member may ask a question only if the minister wishes to answer it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer questions, but I must say a few words about other commodities and I am afraid I shall run out of time.


John Leroy Skoberg: Then let us get back to cheese.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I shall have something more to say about cheese. There was some significant improvement as well in 1971 in the beef industry.


An hon. Member:: Another marketing bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There has been no need for a marketing bill for the beef industry because beef is one of those commodities that takes time to reach the stage of overproduction. I sincerely hope that the beef industry will never have the serious problems encountered by the dairy and hog industries during the past year and a half or so. I say that very sincerely, even though there were some improvements in the beef industry in 1971.
The question of price is important, of course, but so is the fact that we have made some progress in changing the grading system so that beef production in Canada will now be geared more to what the housewife wants to buy. While the immediate impact of this kind of change will probably not be felt for some time, there is nevertheless a good market for beef. Indeed, as we move into the future we should be more concerned-if that is the right word- about the profit margin of the beef producers, both producers of feeders as well as feed lot operators.

Speech from the Throne
Not only I but the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association have long felt that there is a finish being put on a lot of these animals, that is, first of all, very expensive and, secondly, almost completely wasted once they get to the packing houses. It is clear to those people who understand packing of beef that the last extra pound of fat that is put on at the end of the feeding season, in terms of conversion rates and cost per pound, is probably the most expensive pound of fat so far as the feeder is concerned. If this is cut off when the cattle goes to the packing house-and there are far too many fat heifers and steers that have to have a lot of fat cut off-surely we should use our intelligence and ingenuity to find a way of bringing these cattle to market so that the whole product is more acceptable to the consumer, with a resultant lower cost to the feeder. As far as one can see down the road through 1972 and beyond, the beef industry can look with some confidence and optimism to a market that will remain in a healthy economic condition.
I turn now to the subject of hogs and to say something about 1971 which was a very difficult year for the hog producers. Hogs were in overproduction in relation to market demand both in Canada and the United States, to the point where through most of 1971 many hog producers were selling their hogs at below their cost, not a desirable situation. A few days ago we announced that we would be paying a deficiency payment in 1971 of $5 per hog up to 200 hogs with grade index 100 or higher.


Mr. Harkness:: Would the minister permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. Is the hon. member rising to ask the minister a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister why the legal requirements of the Agricultural Stabilization Act in regard to obligatory payments are not being met on hogs that are below index 100.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know-because he was, I think, in the government at the time the original Agricultural Stabilization Act was written-the level of payment we are making is not 80 per cent but 88.5 per cent. He will also know that under the act and regulations it is not specifically stated that this payment shall be made on every hog regardless of quality. The reason for this is very simple. We know, and the hon. member certainly will agree-


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is not what the act said when it was put through.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sure the hon. member will agree that what we are really talking about here is hog quality, when once you go below 100 you can go down quite a way, but 60.9 per cent of the hogs are grade 100 or better. When you go down below that you are really talking about a product that is not attractive to the market.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret to inform the minister that his time has expired. Since I have already taken account of a few extra minutes taken to answer questions, I shall need the unanimous consent of the House to permit the minister to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Mr. Olson.]


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to transgress the good will of the House to go on longer. Obviously, I shall have to make another speech later in the Throne Speech debate. I have a number of very important matters to deal with that will probably take a further 20 or 25 minutes. These relate to the U.S. surtax, sheep and lambs, potatoes, eggs, and two bills, the Farm Credit Corporation bill and the exhibition loans bill. So while I thank the House for its courtesy, I find I shall need more time than an additional four or five minutes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With your indulgence, and with extra time granted the minister by the House, I wonder whether he would answer one more question.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am perfectly willing, Mr. Speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Would the minister mind completing the answer to the question I asked him earlier? In view of the fact that he and I both agree that 800 carloads a day are now being unloaded in Vancouver with use of the same facilities that were available last November before the five-foot snowdrifts, would the minister explain how it is we could not unload 800 carloads a day last November and thus avoid the mess we got into in January?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The answer is very simple, Mr. Speaker. Eight hundred carloads a day on a sustainable basis is almost unheard of in Vancouver. We are improving day by day as a result of the changes made in the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board, the grain commissioners, and so on, and I could spend 30 minutes going into great detail about these improvements and the effect they have had. However, I think it is fair to point out to the hon. member that the figure continues to rise. I do not know why on certain days in November they were unable to unload 800 carloads, but I do know that in view of what happened 6, 8 or 12 months ago they could get nowhere near that figure previously.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, at the onset I should like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, although I myself was disappointed with the Speech from the Throne. I believe it was just windowdressing. I imagine most members of the House of Commons spent their Christmas recess as I did, trying to iron out the problems of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Therefore, at this time I propose to speak at some length on the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
When we returned here after the recess, members of the opposition repeatedly tried to have the House adjourned in order to deal with the deplorable situation in respect of the unemployed. However, this was to no avail. It is my opinion that the government did not want to face up to the situation regarding the issuance of cheques by the commission. As you would recall, Mr. Speaker, last June I asked the minister in charge of the Unemployment Insurance Commission if he would discontinue the use of the

computer system for issuing cheques and return to the manual operation. I even went so far as to suggest he could use the computer, if he had no other use for it, as a ship's anchor in the Bay of Quinte.
It turned out the other day that there were 300 cheques which had no names or addresses on them. The computer was supposed to handle 90 per cent of the unemployment insurance claims for the province of Ontario. What has it handled? It has handled 34 per cent. Last week in this House of Commons we were informed that the computer at Belleville was to handle 5,000 claims which could not be processed in the province of Quebec. When it cannot process the claims for the province of Ontario, I cannot understand why we should import business for it from another province.
I have a case involving a lady who applied for unemployment insurance on September 26 and who did not receive it until last week. When I inquired about her complaint I was informed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission at the computer centre in Belleville that they had lost the records and could not find them. The computer at Belleville broke down and it was necessary to employ 250 extra people. There was no other place in which to house them so they were housed in an old bowling alley with two washrooms and two exit doors.
One can understand some of the problems in respect of unemployment insurance claims when people work in such conditions and in some cases are inexperienced. I think the staff in the district offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission try their best. They work long hours in their efforts to sort out claims. This is the situation especially at Christmas time. I am not throwing the blame on the local area offices; it lies right here at the head office.
I believe the time is long overdue when something should be done about the situation. We might ask ourselves what we should expect when a computer is reprogrammed two or three times a month. This is what is going on. This is what happens in respect of the computer for Ontario which is located in Belleville. They are having difficulty in respect of the computer again. What are we to do now? I have correspondence from people, but time does not permit it to be placed on the record of the House. However, I would mention one or two cases.
One letter states that after 24 phone calls and a delay of two months the people concerned finally received their unemployment insurance. I have another case involving a very honest individual who tried unsuccessfully for weeks and weeks to receive his unemployment insurance benefit. He was unable to obtain any answers. Last Tuesday he received a cheque for eight weeks' benefits, in the amount of $450. Fortunately, he had returned to work. The unemployment insurance office had confirmed by telephone that he was working. On February 18 he also received four more cheques, which I have in my hand, for $574 for which he had made no claim and was not entitled to do so. In the first instance he had applied for unemployment insurance as a single man. However, according to the computer he was a married man and therefore he received $574 for the same period for which he had received $450. I assure the House that I intend to make sure that these four cheques are returned to the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
Speech from the Throne
We have asked the government to deal with this very deplorable situation which is plaguing the people of this fair country of ours from coast to coast. We have heard of demonstrations in every province, and yet the government has not seen fit to let us deal with the situation which has caused misery and suffering to many people, especially at Christmas time. In many cases these people probably do not have sufficient money to carry them over a period of three or four weeks. These are honest and sincere people. I venture to say that every member of this House in days to come will be plagued by constituents who say they are being asked to pay back unemployment insurance money which they received in the form of overpayments.
So much for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Now I shall move to the comments of the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) in his speech in respect of the old age pensioners. He stated-and I do not have any argument with this-that 600,000 of our senior citizens receive $135 a month as a single person, or $255 per month as married couples at age 65. Then he threw in his dig about the Tory party when it was in power not seeing fit to lower the age. I want to remind him that it was the Tory party which gave them more than the six-buck boys did in days gone by. I do not think he stopped to think about a single individual attempting to live on $135 a month and keep up a home. He may say no individual should be living alone in this day and age. However, I cannot go along with that. I realize it is much more expensive to keep up a house if a person is receiving only $135 a month, but I still respect that individual's right to live in a home which he has enjoyed for many years.
The hon. member also dealt with the medical coverage which our senior citizens over age 65 are receiving. I believe thanks should go to the province of Ontario for exempting from contribution people over age 65.1 venture to say the time is coming when we must consider bringing down the age to 60 instead of 65. He went on to describe at some length the situation of the war veteran. He stated that a single pensioner on a full pension now receives $292 per month, whereas a veteran with a wife and three children receives $460 per month. This may be very true, but I point out how difficult it is for a veteran to receive the full pension. I could mention a little later veterans who are disabled, who have been laid up with injuries and who are receiving amounts a long way below $460. I should like to quote from a magazine called Fragment. This magazine is published by War Amputations of Canada and it states in part:
Veterans across Canada must unite in their efforts to gain maximum benefits from the federal government, which too long has been making veterans dance to the tune of politicians.
I quote from an address given by Mr. Chadderton of War Amputations of Canada. He quoted the case of a paraplegic veteran whose spine was damaged by a German machine-gun bullet on D-Day and who receives only $1,600 out of a maximum of $2,400 under the exceptional incapacity allowance. The executive secretary of the War Amputees Association said that benefits in 1919 amounted to the same as wages received by basic civil servants. The basic pension is $3,500 a year, while the average civil service salary for the lower grades is $4,550.
102

February 21, 1972
Speech from the Throne
We are getting gypped out of $1,000. What we want is to be treated fairly. We want to ensure that the Pension Commission will get with it. We are tired of political games.
Now we hear from the hon. member who replied to the Speech from the Throne how well the veterans are treated. The system, in my opinion, is designed to discourage veterans from applying for benefits. The veteran is filled with the frustrations of meeting boards and is shuttled around while he settles for less than he is entitled to. I should like to deal with a war veteran whose disability allowance I tried my best to have increased. This veteran has his leg off below the knee. He has suffered from a spinal injury as a result of having part of his leg amputated. He is not able to work. He has a wife and one dependent child, and he is receiving $214 a month. He has been before the board for reboards and, as the executive of the War Amputees Association stated, he is shunted back and forth. Now he is suffering from a nervous disorder, and yet I can get no satisfaction from the doctors at the reboard. They say they cannot upgrade his allowance 6r anything else.
He is one of many such veterans. I kppw of anotner veteran who is trying to get into Sunnybrook Hospital where only 550 beds are left fop veterans. At one time this was supposed to be a veterans' hospital. This gentleman is confined to a nursing home. What he gets there is not what he deserves, yet he is being forced to spend his remaining years in what I would call very uncomfortable surroundings. Yet we hear how well this government has treated our war veterans. I cannot go along with this, and my efforts will be directed toward helping those who have served our country so well.
Now I would like to deal with another subject which I thought would have been dealt with in the Speech from the Throne. I am referring to what is known as the grand canal scheme. We hear so much about pollution and about the shortages of fresh water, and yet we have flowing into the Arctic and into the Atlantic Ocean 3,000 cubic feet of fresh water per second. In 1964, a consulting engineer named Thomas W. Kierans compiled the results of his extensive research into the possibility of diverting the waters of several northern rivers in Ontario and Quebec down to the Canadian heartland, the Great Lakes.
As I stated before, this project is known as the grand canal scheme. It is roughly 550 miles long. There are 18 pumping stations and electricity can be generated from the water going down the other side to pump the water up. The project envisioned by Kierans would provide endless quantities of water to flush out the Great Lakes and give them new vitality. In short, the scheme would give new life to those lakes and several rivers serving more than half the population of North America.
Mr. Kierans' proposal was to benefit the people of Canada, to the detriment of no one. In keeping with its policy of manipulating the people of Canada instead of trying to govern them, the present federal government has stood idly by and allowed the Quebec government to pre-empt the Kierans proposal and to watch while thousands of people are chased from their homes in
callous disregard and hundreds of thousands of square miles of watershed in. Ontario and Quebec are disoriented.
On the front cover of the report of his studies which Mr. Kierans published one can find the following legend after the title "Provincial-National-International- Multipurpose Benefits". Such a legend is in keeping with the spirit that made us a great nation. The narrow, self-seeking nature of one province to jump on this bandwagon and attempt to justify a premier's election promises to create jobs is the type of spirit that will put Canada at the bottom of the list of world nations. One would expect a province that receives $1.5 billion more than it pays in taxes, money that comes frbm other provinces' taxes, to at least go through the motions of consulting other provinces on a matter that will affect them. One would expect that province to take every opportunity to enter into co-operative ventures to advance the economic and social climate of the respective provinces. This "go it alone" attitude on the part of a province which demonstrates every day that it cannot go it alone is wearing thin, and I think it is incumbent on the federal government in such a case to step in and exercise leadership. This is why I expected some mention of this, from the progressive government it is supposed to be, in the Speech from the Throne.
This is not a plan which a provincial leader should be allowed to put into practice as an election gimmick. This is a serious matter which can have incalculable results in both benefits and damages. The James Bay water project envisioned by Kierans can benefit millions of Canadians. If entered into improperly, it could lead to untold and irreversible damage to our northern ecology. As it is being approached by Quebec, it will result in the almost immediate dispossession of thousands of native Indians in northern Quebec and Ontario and the removal of some species of wildlife from a vast area of the Canadian north.
The Quebec government says that it can do what it chooses to do with the waters because the affected rivers flow out of their province. I dispute that claim. The rivers do indeed flow out of Quebec, but so does the Peace River flow out of British Columbia and all of us know today the effect of the Bennett Dam on the ecology of northern Alberta and the effect on the lives of the native peoples of that area. We say now that we would not have allowed the Bennett Dam to be built if proper information had been available to us before it was built.
We still have time to get complete and proper information on the short-range and long-range results of allowing the Quebec government to proceed in the manner it plans to do and that in fact it has begun to do. It is not too late for the federal government to force a halt to this project until all possible information is made available to the government and to the provinces on the short-term and long-range impact that it can have on the ecology of a vast area of our country.
I am concerned, also, about the great possibility that the federal government will be drawn into this project in a way that will further strain the fiscal resources of
(Mr. Scott.]
February 21, 1972

the government. It is common knowledge that the Quebec government does not have the money that will be required to complete the project. In fact, the estimates of the cost of the project range from $5 billion to $10 billion, and that in itself proves that the planning has been less than adequate. I may state here that in 1964 the Kierans report estimated the cost at between $2J billion and $3 billion.
I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government will be required to bail out the project with tax money from other provinces to avert a possible or probable disaster. I do not want to wait until that happens. I should like to speak of some of the benefits of the grand canal suggested by the Kierans report-new waters to the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers; water for the power industry, navigation, ports, shore property protection, fisheries and recreation;* water for consumption, such as municipal water supplies, industrial uses and agriculture. New water from the grand canal system would offset withdrawals from the Great Lakes; new electric power could be fed into a national power grid to handle peak load periods; inland navigation, using ships for cargo and passenger service could extend from Montreal through the Great Lakes and into the Atlantic Ocean from Hudson Bay. In addition, the grand canal project, as a joint federal-provincial venture, would promote orderly development of a large and wealthy area of the Canadian north.
Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech contains a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that reads as follows:
Our goals and hopes are bound up in the restlessness and vitality of this rich land.
I am in agreement with the Prime Minister that we have a rich land, Mr. Speaker, but I add to that statement that our wealth is so badly managed by the present government that the restlessness he speaks of is not a good sign, as he implies, but a bad sign. It is a sign that people in this country are fed up with deprivation and lack of opportunity in a country that has the potential to be a great nation. People are restless because they have been deceived and misled. People are restless because they not only cannot find jobs but they cannot even get assurances from their government that it is even the least bit interested in their plight. People are required to leave the work force before they feel that they are through contributing, and are forced to exist on inadequate pensions for the remainder of their lives.
Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the Throne Speech would contain some indication that this government would consider abandoning a few of its costly and wasteful give-away programs and divert that money to the more humane and more practical purpose of increasing pensions and supplements to the elderly. I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that the Throne Speech would provide some ray of hope to those of our citizens who aspire to something more than a mere existence. I had hoped that the government would at long last abandon or at least
Division
modify its disastrous experiments with our economy and chart a course toward fiscal reality.
We need programs that will stimulate the economy and restore the confidence of Canadians in their own system. We need a revitalized economy, because that is the only way new jobs can be created and present jobs preserved. The Prime Minister stated in the Throne Speech that the government would double its past efforts in the fight against unemployment. Last year those efforts created 57,000 new unemployed. It would appear that the goal for 1972 is to be 114,000 new unemployed, if we are to go by the government's past record.
The future of Canada is in serious doubt, Mr. Speaker, and I say this knowing that the Prime Minister will call me a prophet of doom, as he has called my leader.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38(3), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith any amendment now before the House.
The House divided on the amendment to the amendment (M. Lewis) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 1)
Yeas
Messrs.
Aiken	Laprise
Alexander	La Salle
Asselin	Latuilippe
Baldwin	Lewis
Barnett	MacDonald (Egmont)
Beaudoin	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Bell	MacKay
Benjamin	McCleave
Burton	McCutcheon
Carter	McGrath
Coates	Moore
Crouse	Muir
Danforth	Nesbitt
Dinsdale	Noble
Douglas	Nowlan
Downey	Nystrom
Fairweather	Orlikow
Flemming	Peters
Gauthier	Ritchie
Gilbert	Rodrigue
Godin	Rowland
Harding	Scott
Hellyer	Simpson
Howard (Skeena)	Skoberg
Howe	Southam
Knight	Stanfield
Knowles (Winnipeg	Stewart (Marquette)
North Centre)	Thompson (Red Deer)
Korchinskf	Woolliams
Lambert (Edmonton West)	Yewchuk-59. Nays Messrs.
Allmand	Basford
Andras	Bechard
Badanai	Beer
25020-8 \

February 21, 1972
Division
Messrs:	Messrs:
Benson	Goode	Mahoney	SharpBlair	Goyer	Marceau	SmithBlouin	Gray	Marchand	(Northumberland-Boulanger	Groos	(Kamloops-Cariboo)	Miramichi)Breau	Guilbault	Munro	Smith (Saint-Jean)Buchanan	Haidasz	Murphy	StaffordCaccia	Hopkins	Noel	StanburyCafik	Howard	O'Connell	Stewart (Cochrane)Chappell	(Okanagan Boundary)	Olson	St. PierreChretien	Hymmen	Osier	SullivanClermont	Isabelle	Ouellet	ThomasComtois	Jamieson	Pelletier	(Maisonneuve-Corbin	Jerome	Penner	Rosemont)Crossman	Lachance	Pepin	TolmieCullen	Laflamme	Perrault	TrudeauCyr	Laing	Porte lance	TrudelDavis	(Vancouver South)	Pringle	Turner (London East)Deachman	Lajoie	Prud'homme	Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)Deakon	Lang (Saskatoon-	Reid	WahnDe Bane	Humboldt)	Roberts	WalkerDube	Langlois	Robinson	WatsonDupras	Laniel	Rochon	WeatherheadEmard	Leblanc (Laurier)	Rock	WhelanEthier	Lefebvre	Roy (Timmins)	WhicherFaulkner	Legault	Roy (Laval)	Yanakis-115.Forest	Lessard (LaSalle)	Serre	Forget Foster Francis	L'Heureux Loiselle Macdonald (Rosedale)	Mr. Speaker: I declare the subamendment defeated.	Gendron Gervais Gibson	MacEachen MacGuigan Mcllraith	At 10.10 p.m. the House	adjourned, without questionGillespie	McNulty	put, pursuant to Standing	Order.
Tuesday, February 22, 1972