1973-01-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the mounting energy crisis in the United States, with its wide-ranging implications for Canadians in terms of fuel prices and fuel supplies, and having in mind the negotiations being conducted at present regarding commitments of Canadian oil to the United States market, it is imperative to assure the people of Canada of the security of Canadian supplies of oil and natural gas. I therefore ask for unanimous consent undei Standing Order 43 to move the following motion:
That the matter of the security of Canadian oil and gas supplies be referred to a special committee of this House for investigation and report, and that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Chairman of the National Energy Board be required to appear and provide the committee with all relevant information.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43. It requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The hon. member's motion cannot be put.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code.


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


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions:
January 9, 1973-the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to inquire into and make recommendations upon the trends in food prices in Canada and factors domestic and foreign which account for these trends;
That 20 members of the House of Commons to be designated by the House at a later date be the members of the Special Joint Committee and that Standing Order 65(5) of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned; to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable; to delegate to subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report direct to the House; to engage the services of counsel, accountants and such other clerical and technical personnel as may be deemed necessary; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources what response the government plans to make to the suggestion by Mr. Rogers Morton that an integrated continental policy for North America is essential if fuel shortages are to be avoided in certain regions of the United States?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it has been the custom of successive governments of Canada to follow a policy of reserving supplies against the present and future needs of * Canada and then selling any surplus of either of the two commodities into the American or any other markets that
*

Oral Questions
might be interested. We have no intention of changing that policy. If Secretary Morton is suggesting in reference to a continental energy policy that we should enter into an arrangement whereby there would be not only a pooling of the assets of the continent but a pooling of the shortages as well, clearly that is a policy which this government would not intend to follow.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the government of Canada making any proposals to the United States at this time with regard to energy, and has the minister any comment to make on the remark of a senior U.S. official, as reported on CBC radio last evening, that some people in the Canadian government are saying one thing in private and quite a different thing in public?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I had not heard that comment but I do not consider it to be a just comment. The only discussion we have going at the present time in the energy field is with regard to the question of security of supply for the eastern Canadian market in the event of a crisis in the international oil market cutting off supplies to eastern Canadian refineries. Otherwise we have no discussions on a general energy policy going on with the United States at this time.


SECURITY OF SUPPLY FOR MONTREAL AND DISTRICT MARKET-CONSULTATION WITH QUEBEC ON RATIONING PLAN IN CASE OF EMERGENCY
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, on security of supply for Montreal and the surrounding marketing district. In view of the panic that has hit the United States in the last two days and the rationing of fuel in the northeastern United States, has the minister reached the conclusion that it would be a wise policy to warn the people of Montreal and the marketing district of Montreal that if there is any cut-off in the Portland pipeline to help the Americans out of their emergency the people would have only about 60 days supply?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the shortage in the United States is related to the mid-continental rather than the northeastern market. We see no prospect of the Portland to Montreal pipeline being cut off. We are confident that there will be adequate supplies not only in the Montreal refinery area but elsewhere in Canada for Canadian consumption.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In prefacing my next question I should like to say to the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot preface the question; he should ask the question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister seen fit to consult with the government of Quebec in order to arrange a rationing plan in case there is such an emergency?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with both the office of emergency preparedness in the United States and with other interested parties in this regard. Rationing is certainly one of the possibilities that could occur if, I might emphasize in this regard, that would be if the offshore feed stock was cut off because of an international oil crisis, not because of any crisis in the United States. As I say, at the moment we do not anticipate any difficulty in the Montreal refining area arising from this winter's problem in the United States.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Is the minister aware of the precedent that was set in 1942 when the Americans broke contracts under which they were supplying electrical energy to Ontario during the war when we needed it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting precedent but I do not see the relevance to the present situation.


OIL-NATURE AND PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES AND COMMITMENTS, IF ANY-REQUEST FOR SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement of Mr. George Lincoln, director of the White House office of emergency preparedness before a congressional committee that while the Canadian government was not prepared to discuss a continental energy policy at the moment it was discussing individual energy items, and particularly that discussions with respect to oil have been going on since last December, and in view of Mr. Lincoln's statement that these discussions to use his words, "have achieved significant progress" will the minister tell the House the nature of these negotiations, what stage these negotiations have reached and what commitments, if any, have been made by the Canadian government with respect to oil supplies from Canada to the United States?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the negotiation the hon. member is questioning is the one I have already referred to, namely, the problem of insecurity of supply for the eastern Canadian market arising from a cut-off, say, due to a mid-east crisis or economic action by the mid-eastern or other OPEC countries. No commitments of any kind have been made in this regard, but basically there have been these discussions related to a contingency plan in case there is an international shortage imposed either for political or economic reasons.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, that is not the context in which Mr. Lincoln made the statement to the congressional committee. Having in mind the experience of the past in regard to the Columbia River Treaty and other agreements which were signed by the government and only sent to parliament for ratification afterwards, is the minister prepared to give the House the assurance that no commitments will be made with respect to the energy resources of Canada and their export to the United States
January 11, 1973

or any other country until the matter has first been submitted to the House of Commons for consideration?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to point out, if the hon. member is referring to General Lincoln's remarks, that he said precisely what I have just said to the House. The discussion is with regard to security of supply. I would be quite prepared to discuss the security of supply question, as, indeed, I would all energy questions, in the House or, more appropriately, in the relevant committee as these questions arise.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for one last supplementary and then recognize the hon. member for Calgary North.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Having in mind that we have been waiting some four years for a statement on the government's national energy policy and having in mind that the crisis in the United States has now brought this matter to a head, may I ask the minister whether the government would be prepared to reconsider the motion I moved a few minutes ago, which the government vetoed, and set up a special committee of the House to look into this matter to which the minister and the chairman of the National Energy Board could give further information in order to assuage the fears and concerns of the people of Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to assuage those fears by repeating, as I have for the last several days, that we are of the opinion that there is no danger to Canadian energy supplies, either oil or natural gas, arising from either the short-run problem in the United States or on a longer term basis. Therefore I would make the point that I do not think it is helpful to the Canadian viewpoint to keep repeating that this is a danger to us. In our opinion there is no danger, and the actions of the National Energy Board in reserving against present and future needs have been effective.I would be quite prepared to discuss this matter in the standing committee that deals with it under the appropriate framework provided by the estimates.


ASSESSMENT OF RESERVES OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS BY NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the chairman of the National Energy Board came before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee in reference to the matter of energy he said there was no assessment as to reserves of crude petroleum and natural gas. Has there been any change in that data? Has there been any study in order to bring forward the reserves of the Arctic so that the facts may be made known to the people in charge of this matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman is quoting the chairman correctly. As he knows, in its decision of November, 1971 the board specifically made an assessment of natural gas reserves and arrived at the conclusion that there should be no
Oral Questions
further exports to the United States. I would think it would be fair to say with regard to both oil and natural gas that there is an informed and precise assessment by the board and the board has acted on this in dealing with natural gas. At the moment, of course it does not control exports of oil.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to argue with the minister but if he will check volume five or six of the committee reports I think he will find exactly what I have said. As this matter has been raised by other members today and as there is some question about the nation's reserves of crude petroleum and natural gas, will the minister now say to the House that he will get the committee together so that the officials and the chairman of the National Energy Board can be brought before that committee in order that we may see what data exists at present regarding reserves and be able to know what we are talking about?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat for the third time that I would be delighted to meet the committee and discuss this matter just as soon as it is established and the estimates are before it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before recognizing hon. members for additional supplementaries on this question the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Portneuf and then perhaps have three or four additional supplementaries on this subject.
* + *


TRANSPORT
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell us whether the leaders of the Quebec local of the Canadian Transportation Employees Union have made representations to avoid dismissals as a result of a burdened budget and if so, is he in a position to tell us whether steps have been taken so that workers who have been in the employment of the Department of Transport for three years will not be out of work?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is yes. The department is now considering the problem.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North on a supplementary to the previous question.

January 11, 1973
Oral Questions POWER


FUNDY TIDES-REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON RECONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF BOARD
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tell us where the re-examination of the report of the board on the Fundy tidal power project stands at present, and can he give some indication-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I am not sure that is really a supplementary. However, the question has been asked and as it may move us on to the next subject perhaps the minister might reply.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to get the hon. member a progress report on that re-examination.


OIL PRICE INCREASE-INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBILITY OF PIPELINE FROM WESTERN CANADA TO MONTREAL
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the oil price increase seems to be have been based on the fact that offshore oil producers have set their landed price at Montreal at a higher figure, and in order to get around the jacking up of oil prices in the rest of Canada, can the minister indicate whether the government has any plans to promote the building of a pipeline to Montreal for Canadian crude?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not at the present time, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY AS TO DECISION ON PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE
Max Saltsman: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What is the present status of the proposed Mackenzie pipeline and has the government reached any decision on the undesirability of building that pipeline?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to any pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley the initiative would have to rest, as is always the case in pipeline applications, with the private group, the consortium that has been formed for this purpose. I am advised that possibly there will be an application coming forward in September of this year for a natural gas pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley but, of course, that would go to the National Energy Board for public hearings and discussion. As I say, the initiative in such an application rests with the private group.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will notice there are quite a few members who are suggesting there

should be further supplementaries. We have spent close to 20 minutes on this subject. I realize at the same time that other members have questions to ask. There will be another two or three supplementaries and then I suggest we should go on to the next subject and, if there is time, return to this matter later.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. As a result of our concern and his concern for security of supplies in the oil industry and his concern for Canadian ownership, does he intend to introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act in his budget which would have the effect of encouraging Canadians and placing them on an equal footing with United States investors in the oil and gas industry in Canada?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the hon. gentleman's representation but he will appreciate it would be difficult for me to answer that question before budget night.


TIMING OF PRICE INCREASES-INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBILITY OF COLLUSION BY COMPANIES
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs if he can inform the House whether he has discussed with officials of the Canadian copper producing companies the unusual coincidence of copper price increases being announced by several companies within minutes of each other?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had such a discussion but I will see that the hon. gentleman's question is directed to the attention of the appropriate officials in my department.


William Arnold Peters: Will the minister direct this matter to the attention of the Director of Research and Investigation under the Combines Investigation Act to determine whether there was collusion and whether the copper price increases were unjustified?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I intended to imply in my previous answer that I would see that the matter was drawn to the attention of the Director of Investigation and Research.

*HHHHHHHHi
January 11, 1973


REDISTRIBUTION OF RIDINGS-SUGGESTED AMENDMENT OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT TO MAINTAIN PRESENT LEVEL OF MEMBERSHIP IN CERTAIN PROVINCES
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the redistribution that is now being considered by committees which I understand are meeting in the various provinces. In view of the fact that several provinces-Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan-will be losing membership unless there is an amendment to the British North America Act, has consideration been given by the government to bringing in an address to the end that membership in these various provinces will not fall below the present level and to achieve that either by a directive or by increasing the size of the membership in the House as I believe was done in the forties?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, some thought has been given within the government to such a matter. I would be prepared to pursue that thought. I feel that unless the legislation or the amendment were retroactive it would probably be impossible to do anything about the electoral reform action which is now in process. But I will look into that aspect of the matter, too. I do know that this is an important problem for many provinces in Canada. It does involve an amendment to the British North America Act, and that is no easy undertaking.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the Prime Minister. Now I should like, in a supplementary, to refer particularly to the position of Saskatchewan and Manitoba whose rural areas are being depopulated. Both provinces are to lose members. Knowing of the Prime Minister's interest in the west I wonder whether he would look into this question particularly to the end that depopulation will not result in members having to represent constituencies so large as to make it virtually impossible for them to do so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The right hon. gentleman must not forget that my interest in the west is paired with interest in other parts of the country and that redistribution does have an effect on other provinces than those in the west. Some provinces, as he will know, are protected by the provision relating to Senate seats, when a decline in population would otherwise affect them adversely.


An hon. Member:: Let the Senate deal with that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member may ask a supplementary if he wishes. The only solution which can be envisaged, therefore, is one of enlarging considerably the membership of the House. We would also have to consult the architects about that aspect.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister certainly realizes that the provision respecting Senate membership does not help us at all.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As Canadians or as Saskatchewans?
Oral Questions


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Can the Prime Minister tell us what the target date is for establishing the new electoral boundaries?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize he is now asking the Prime Minister to give an opinion on a matter of law. I do not think a question in those terms is in order.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Joe Hueglin (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister tell the House, as urged by the president of the Canadian Labour Congress yesterday, whether the government intends to introduce a substantial reduction in personal income taxes as a major means of creating more jobs at the present time?


John Napier Turner: I shall certainly take seriously the hon. gentleman's representation.


Joseph Fred Hueglin: Can the minister tell us whether he will be outlining a specific and comprehensive economic program at the meeting with the finance ministers of the provinces in order to stimulate the economy in co-ordination with them?


John Napier Turner: The discussion at those meetings next week will be very comprehensive.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Scarborough West.


Mr. Harney:: I defer to my hon. friend from Lakeshore.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that, according to statistics released by his department yesterday, as of the end of November 811 firms or only 37.5 per cent of those that have been offered and have accepted DREE grants since the inception of this program have actually received partial payment, will the minister undertake to make a statement on motions in the near future explaining why such a small number have actually received funds and begun projects compared with the very substantially larger number of firms his department has announced to the press and Members of Parliament would actually receive them?

Oral Questions


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to do so in the appropriate forum, either by a statement on motions or by discussion in detail with hon. members during an appearance before the committee. I am delighted to have heard the hon. member's comment that indeed there is this relatively small percentage because it indicates we are not handing out funds indiscriminately but are making sure that they are darn good programs before anybody gets anything.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF DISAPPEARANCE OF CERTAIN JOBS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of regional economic expansion. In light of the release of the monthly reports of DREE, dating back six months, which indicate that approximately 3,800 jobs have been lost for which the government previously claimed credit, is the minister going to table in the House a more detailed explanation of why these jobs suddenly disappeared?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is part of the reorganization I am hoping to undertake.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As the hon. member will know, Mr. Speaker, on a projection basis it is impossible to be precise as to the number of jobs, but I think we owe it to the House and to the public to explain what happened in cases such as this.


Mr. Baldwin:: Particularly to the public.


AIRPORTS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport but I would first like to congratulate him on assuming one of the two most important portfolios in the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: As police operations at our international airports come under the jurisdiction of the police forces of the municipalities in which the airports operate, which makes it very difficult to deal adequately with potential hijackers and hijacked planes, is the government giving consideration to transferring jurisdiction over these police operations from the Criminal Code to the Aeronautics Act so these matters can be handled by the RCMP?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for-what riding?


Gerald William Baldwin: Prince Edward-Hastings.


Jean Marchand: As hon. members have heard, there is a reference in the Speech from the Throne to the Aeronautics Act. We intend to amend this act so that we will have more power, and you will see, of course-


Gerald William Baldwin: More power to the minister.


Jean Marchand: Pardon me?


Gerald William Baldwin: More power to the minister.


Jean Marchand: Yes. We know that we have to reinforce security at airports. This is being done in the United States and we intend to do it here, but it is very difficult to give details at this moment.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. Is he doing everything possible to facilitate the transfer of this jurisdiction from the Criminal Code to the Aeronautics Act, and will he advise the House when he expects to have the special force being trained by the RCMP to operate at our airports ready?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think at least part of that question would be more properly directed to the Solicitor General. I can assure the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings that this matter is receiving high priority within the Department of Justice so far as the drafting of legislation is concerned.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question for the Solicitor General. Will he advise the House when he expects that the special force which is being trained will be in operation at our airports?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the force is being recruited right now and some of the men will be trained very shortly. I do not have an exact date when they will be ready for work.


MANPOWER
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Has he checked whether officials of his department do apply the major standards in the approval of local initiatives projects, including the one concerning the regional unemployment rate?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I did attempt to answer this question yesterday, but in a nutshell that certainly is the prime criteria which is being applied in the selection of projects for approval.
January 11, 1973


INQUIRY AS TO 1973 OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, because of the high unemployment figures among young Canadians as announced this week, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he will soon be announcing an amendment to the Opportunities for Youth program to take effect in the early spring months when there will be an even greater influx of younger people on the labour market?


Hon. lames Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I hope to be announcing early next week the summer 1973 program.


PROVISION OF SPECIAL COUNSELLING IN MANPOWER OFFICES FOR YOUNG CANADIANS SEEKING WORK
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to address to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It is also based on the unemployment figures in respect of young Canadians announced this week. Is the minister making special provision in the manpower offices to counsel young Canadians seeking employment and will this provision be made soon enough to deal with the anticipated influx of young Canadians on the labour market in the spring months?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ELIGIBILITY FOR GRANTS OF PERSONS ILLEGALLY IN CANADA
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. Will persons who are illegally in Canada be eligible for grants under the Opportunities for Youth program as proved to be the case last year?


James Hugh Faulkner: course not, Mr. Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in light of the very unique and interesting constitutional doctrine enunciated by the Prime Minister in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, would he be kind enough before debate on any item of government business commences in the House to indicate whether in the view of the government it involves a question of confidence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be glad to attempt to do that, Mr. Speaker, if the hon member can
Oral Questions
refer precisely to what novel constitutional doctrine I enunciated.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the right hon. gentleman that he read the speech of the right hon. member for Prince Albert who dealt with this matter. If the Prime Minister agrees to accept this very reasonable suggestion, would he indicate the source of his authority so we will know whether it is constitutional or celestial?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River will appreciate he is suggesting that we have a constitutional debate at this time. I do not think this is the place, the time or the occasion for that.


ALLEGED DUMPING IN CANADA OF UNITED STATES EDITIONS OF CANADIAN BOOKS IN VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether the government has investigated charges that United States publishers are dumping American editions of Canadian books in Canada in violation of Canadian copyright laws?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this situation but I will be pleased to make inquiries.


CHURCHILL-ACTION TO ACHIEVE GREATER UTILIZATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in view of representations made last summer by the governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan as well as by the Hudson Bay Route Association and farm groups for greater utilization of the port of Churchill, will the Minister of Transport tell us what action he is taking leading to the greater utilization of that port?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, that is a problem we are now considering and perhaps in a few weeks we will be in a position to find a solution.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this question has been under consideration for many years, can the Minister of Finance assure us that there will be an item in his budget to provide funds for the greater utilization of the port of Churchill?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that as a representation.
Oral Questions FLOODS

January 11, 1973


ASSISTANCE TO PEOPLE WITH PROPERTY ON NORTH SHORE OF LAKE ERIE DAMAGED BY HIGH WATER LEVEL
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the high level of water in the Great Lakes, particularly Lake Erie, which has resulted in considerable damage to farm land, cottages and marinas, would the Minister of Public Works have his engineers advise the people in the area of Long Point on the north shore of Lake Erie how they may get temporary relief in the form of either advice or financial assistance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a representation and the hon. member will have to assume that the minister has noted it.


William David Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate the fact that we are running short of time.


William David Knowles: I pass, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: That is much better.


POST OFFICE
Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the problems related to the recently concluded postal negotiations arising out of what appears to be deficiencies in the Public Service Staff Relations Act, does the minister propose to introduce amendments to that legislation and, specifically, what are these amendments which will cope with the problem?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think it was stated in the throne speech that amendments to that act would be introduced at a later stage.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the continuing problems in this department with regard to the recently concluded agreement and the indication that a very small majority of the postal workers accepted the conciliation report, may I ask the minister when the government proposes to introduce amendments to this legislation since this matter does have a great deal of urgency?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will consult with the House leader about the timing.


CONSIDERATION OF PAY SCALE FOR CODE OPERATORS IN FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNIONS
Hon. W. G- Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury

Board, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the arbitrary low pay scale laid down by the Treasury Board for the new job classification of code operator has been a major concern in the long drawn-out contract negotiations, will this item be given priority consideration in the renewed negotiations?


Mr. Speaker:: While this question is being pondered the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is really subsequent to several questions on this subject in recent days. It has to do with the double burden recently put on the millions of Canadian motorists by the increase in the price of certain major automobile company products and the recent increase in the price of gasoline. Are the minister and his department satisfied that these increases, which are a burden to millions of Canadians, are justified or is his office still investigating to find out whether action can be taken to protect this body of Canadian consumers?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to possible action under the Combines Investigation Act, I am advised that the practice followed by successive governments is not to allude to the possible existence of an inquiry under the act unless such an inquiry has been terminated, unless the matter goes to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission or unless there is some court proceeding.


AIRPORTS
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the representations he has received and those received by his predecessor, is he giving reconsideration to the existing plans for expansion at Mount Hope airport?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as the House was informed yesterday, we have just received the report following the hearings on expropriations. We had promised that when we would receive this report a commission would be formed, which would enable those who want to make representations to do so.
We shall therefore give this new opportunity to the people of the area who want to make representations
January 11, 1973

concerning the new airport, and we shall then reach a decision.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of the fact that there is a difference between the proposed expansion at Pickering and the proposed expansion at Mount Hope?


SHIPPING
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in reference to the Darling report. May I ask the minister whether the government has studied the report and is at present studying it, and how soon we may expect the implementation of the very important major recommendations of that report?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, such a report has been considered. As soon as time will permit me, I would like to meet the premiers of the Atlantic provinces who are or may be affected and immediately after I hope the cabinet will bring in a new policy.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Would he contact the Canadian Pacific Railway to find out as soon as possible and report back to the House the specific location where the railway intends to dump 400,000 tons of garbage annually from metropolitan Toronto, even though he may have no statutory authority to require that information?


Jean Marchand: As you
know, Mr. Speaker, I have no jurisdiction over garbage, but I will certainly put the question to the CPR as soon as I can.
Oral Questions
and locations idle for weeks at this time of high unemployment, can the minister give a firm date when a decision will be made on these projects?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am in a position to give a precise date other than the indication I gave yesterday that we will be issuing all approvals by approximately January 19. I might say that some of those particular projects are difficult to decide upon because this will be the second or third time that one or two of them have been financed. This raises the question of when such a project becomes viable to operate on its own or whether it should receive continued public financing if the general public does not support it.


Mr. Leggatt:: In view of the answer, can the minister explain why seven similar projects have already been approved in the Toronto area, and does he believe that Toronto-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that this is an argument.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. J. M. Forestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In light of the expiry date on the memorandum of agreement between the federal authority and the province of Nova Scotia with respect to a third national park and as the date is approaching very soon, may I ask the minister whether or not he has received any communication from that government with respect to its intention?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any
recent contact with the Nova Scotia government in this regard but I shall inquire and if there is any development I shall inform the hon. member accordingly.



AIRPORTS


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that seven LIP theatre projects in the Vancouver area have been recommended to him and are still in limbo, leaving personnel, material



REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT COMMISSIONAIRES WILL NOT LOSE JOBS WHEN SPECIAL SECURITY FORCE INTRODUCED

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to an earlier one to the Solicitor General. In view of the fact there are rumours- if I can get away with that term-that the commissionaires at the various airports are in danger of losing their jobs because of the special RCMP security force being appointed, can the minister give the assurance that no such action will be taken?

Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check into what might happen to the commissionaires who are at present doing the work. I know we are now recruiting special constables, but I will have to obtain a proper answer to this question.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact thousands of these dedicated people have been providing this service for years, and as the minister certainly should have made a decision by now, will he give an undertaking to report to the House tomorrow with the assurance that these people will not lose their jobs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for national parks. Will he release immediately the report on land rentals in the national parks, which was submitted to him almost two years ago by the rental review board under C. C. McLaurin?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall look into that matter and be pleased to inform the hon. member. If this report has not yet been tabled it is because it involves rulings regarding certain individuals and certain business undertakings. It might not be in the public interest to disclose these facts without getting the consent of the people concerned.

[English]	MANPOWER



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-REQUEST THAT LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS BE MADE ELIGIBLE FOR GRANTS

Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that local improvement districts in Saskatchewan apparently are not eligible for grants under the LIP program and yet they are in effect municipal bodies-they are governed locally and they already get provincial grants-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask a question and not present an argument?


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Has the minister given some consideration to changing this policy to include local improvement districts as entities eligible for these grants?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this question was asked by another hon. member yesterday and I have just sent him a note with the information that I received last night. I find

contrary to what I thought was the case yesterday, that local improvement districts are in fact not eligible because they are considered to be part of the provincial government. This criterion was discussed and approved by the provincial government before the terms were established for the making of LIP grants.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. As the issues are clearly related, will he or the Minister of Justice introduce legislation dealing with sentencing, commutation and parole which could be considered simultaneously with the capital punishment bill?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, just prior to Christmas I received a report from the Hugessen task force which dealt with the whole matter of parole, temporary absences, sentences and so on. We are presently studying that report with a view to preparing some legislation or changes in the regulations, and we will be announcing our intentions in due course.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
In view of the fact that towards the end of 1971 the government guaranteed a minimum support price of $1.50 per bushel of potatoes, and that the opposite trend is now manifesting itself in that potatoes are selling for $3.50 per 50 lbs. and, according to my information, might sell as high as $5 to $6 by April 1973-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I suggest to him, and to all other hon. members, that many more could take part in the period if questions were shorter-and I must add, answers as well. In any event, I invite the hon. member to put his question as quickly as possible, as we have reached the end of the oral question period.


Léonel Beaudoin: Can the minister tell us whether or not he intends to take steps to protect the consumer?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the matter of the cost of potatoes really falls within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture.


Léonel Beaudoin: I would therefore ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he can answer my question.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the price of potatoes I was talking to my colleague from Prince Edward Island and he is quite happy with them at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on the usual Thursday point of order I would like to ask the government House leader about the business for the rest of this week and for next week?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the throne speech debate today and tomorrow and next week until it comes to its conclusion. Following the conclusion of that debate I will be calling one of the items at present on the order paper. Whether it will be the resolution on food prices or the debate on capital punishment is something I have not finally determined. I would be happy to hear from the other House leaders as to what order of business they would prefer.


Gerald William Baldwin: In light of the fact that there have been a number of references to the budget, can the government House leader or the Minister of Finance make a very visible effort to indicate when we are likely to have the budget?


Mr.   Tumor@Ottawa-Carloton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss that further with the government House leader to see just what his panorama or timetable of business is.



POST OFFICE


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order arising from your recommendation that the President of the Treasury Board ponder my supplementary question. Could the President of the Treasury Board or the Postmaster General now reply because I feel that this matter is of basic importance in restoring efficiency in the Post Office, which has suffered a serious decline?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not quite a point of order, as I am sure the hon. member will recognize. However, in view of the fact there was some difficulty or noise in the House when his question was asked, perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply to it now.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: You
are correct about there being noise in the House, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure what the question was. I will have a word with the hon. gentleman after the question period.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker-
The Address-Mr. Reid


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wants to ask his question again, perhaps by consent we could allow it, but after that we will move on to orders of the day.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, it is an important supplementary. In view of the fact the arbitrary low pay scale laid down by the Treasury Board for the new job classification of code operator has been a major concern in the long drawn-out contract negotiations, will this item be given priority consideration in the renewed negotiations?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would not like me to issue an ultimatum. As the hon. gentleman knows, there was consideration of this point by a conciliation board which formulated a report and we expressed our views before it. I am quite sure that the scales of pay and classifications will be examined, or re-examined, in the negotiations which are now taking place.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think we should miss the opportunity to offer the Minister of Communications our best wishes when he makes a telephone call at four o'clock this afternoon to northern Canada to Mr. Ludi Pudlik at Resolute in the Arctic. I wonder if I could prevail on the minister to ask Ludi to call northern Newfoundland for me because that part of northern Canada still has a most unreliable telephone service-I cannot get through to them-and the television service is also terrible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a point of order. Orders of the day.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, January 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. J. Blais 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. 52).
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be able to congratulate you on your successful re-election not only to the House of Commons but also to the Speakership of this House. This is the third parliament in which you will have been the Speaker. I think this has created a rather valuable precedent in our affairs, in that we have now made a series of decisions with respect to you, Sir, which have led, perhaps, to the creation of a permanent Speaker in the House of Commons. Your attainment of the office is well deserved because with your sense of humour and abilities you are able to break up tense moments in the House with a word of humour, thus making Members of Parliament who have never been particularly cognizant of the authority of the Chair, they being carried away in the battles of the moment, aware that they should pay more attention to the rules than otherwise might be the case.

The Address-Mr. Reid
At the same time I would like to comment on the election of Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think it is high time that the practice of sharing high positions in the House of Commons between parties was adopted and continued. I hope that in succeeding parliaments this precedent that we have begun will be continued. I think that the person who now holds the position of Deputy Speaker has been particularly well chosen.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not congratulate the Deputy Chairman of Committees and the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees, both of whom served well in the last House of Commons, on their re-election to those positions.
This brings me to an important point which has to do with the committee system as it will operate in this House of Commons in which there is no majority. It has been the practice since the committee system was revamped under the government of the late Lester B. Pearson that, with the exception of the Public Accounts Committee, chairmen of committees have been drawn from the party with the largest numbers in the House. It was always my feeling that this was an undesirable precedent, because the role of a chairman of a committee is analogous to that of yours, Sir, in the House of Commons, in that the committees are microcosms of the House of Commons with the parties represented on them in proportion to their strength in the House. The role the chairman of a committee ought to play should be that of Mr. Speaker in the House of Commons. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems that, given the standings in the House of Commons, we have an opportunity to try to revise the way in which chairmen have been selected.
The suggestion I would put forward is that Mr. Speaker, in conjunction with either the whips of the various parties or the House leaders, should develop a panel of chairmen from both sides of the House, including all groups in the House of Commons, who would serve as chairmen of these committees. I think this would be a valuable precedent. It would give experience to a variety of members in the functions of the House of Commons; it would provide a valuable training ground for individual members to learn the rules and to train for important positions such as the role you now play, Mr. Speaker, the role of Mr. Deputy Speaker, Chairman of Committees and Deputy Chairman of Committees. I think that this kind of precedent could only strengthen the House of Commons particularly at a time when the role of the Chair and the role of the chairmen of committees are going to be of particular importance to the smooth functioning of the House. I think it would also be a happy advance toward building on the precedent which has led, I would hope, to the continuing development of a permanent Speakership of the House of Commons and the bipartisanship of the office of Speaker of the House of Commons with the inclusion of Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Recently the redistribution commission for Ontario made a series of recommendations regarding that province. The riding I represent, Kenora-Rainy River, is one of the largest in Canada. Unfortunately, under the recommendation of the boundary commission that riding would expand by approximately one-third even though, if one

looks at the population figures for northern and northwestern Ontario, it would be possible to have the same number of seats available instead of the present recommendations under which we will now lose two seats, one for northern Ontario and one for northwestern Ontario. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the rural ridings in Canada, not only of northern and northwestern Ontario but all across Canada, are too large.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: The workload for rural Members of Parliament is simply becoming far too great for them to handle and for them to exercise all the responsibilities they must when they become members. The reason is quite simple. By their very nature rural ridings do not have large centres which can provide the government services so badly needed. That means that the people depend more on their Member of Parliament than do those in larger communities with a variety of government services. The workload is different and I would say that the workload of a rural Member of Parliament is far in excess of that of an urban member.
This development is unfortunate. It seems to me that the redistribution commission has gone a step further in the way in which it has attempted to divide Ontario by creating urban ridings and has left vast rural ridings without any natural communication centres through which the people can contact their member. In my own case I would have to work out of both Winnipeg and Thunder Bay in order to provide proper communication with my constituency. There is no large centre in my constituency which means that the scattered population does not receive that kind of representation to which they are entitled to receive from their member. More important, Mr. Speaker, they do not reap the full benefit of the services of either the federal government or the provincial government because of their isolation and the distance from the larger centres of communication from which government operates. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that they do not receive proper value for their tax dollars because of this diminution of services.
I think the way in which the redistribution commissions have been operating works against the rural areas and makes it difficult for them to benefit from the development programs of the government, for example, regional development expansion. It makes it almost impossible for Members of Parliament representing such areas to participate fully in the work of the House and to provide national representation in their areas. The Member of Parliament is responsible for being the linchpin between the federal government agencies, provincial government agencies and his constituents. The workload becomes very heavy.
Parts of the Speech from the Throne could be entitled "What I have learned from the last election". I think we all learned a great deal about how people feel about government, not partisan politics, but the way in which government is carried on. One of the things which has bothered me is the expansion of governments into areas in which they were not before. There has been a tremendous feeling of uneasiness in that what the government says it can do is not in fact being done. The people feel that govern-
January 11, 1973

ment decides to do things, makes promises and sets up a bureaucracy, but the results of that bureaucracy and those promises fall far short of what was originally intended. They feel that the bureaucracy which has been established to do certain things does not benefit them but only the members of the bureaucracy who hold jobs. They feel that the bureaucracy is not sufficiently sensitive to the needs of the people, that administrative procedures, decisions, interpretations of regulations and even acts of parliament are designed not to assist the people who have selected Members of Parliament to vote these laws into effect but to assist only those people who are administering them.
It is my feeling, Mr. Speaker, that there have to be new ways of solving the problems other than the traditional ones of identifying the problem, identifying a solution and then creating the bureaucracy to solve it. That mode of action is no longer successful. I am encouraged by experiments such as the opportunities for youth and local initiatives programs which have given people an opportunity to use their own ideas and to work on solutions to their own problems.
Because of this distrust, if you will, of the governmental process, it strikes me that we must be prepared to consider another proposition. In the early 1960s there was considerable debate in the House of Commons, in the provinces and in the country at large about the possibility of appointing an ombudsman for Canada. 1 know the idea was canvassed in the House and the former member for Red Deer presented a bill to the House of Commons. I am in the process of preparing a bill for consideration of the House about the creation of the office of ombudsman.
Because of the situation in which we now find ourselves with a minority parliament, the government will not have the energies to cope with the growing power of the bureaucracy; it means that the energies of the government will be concentrated in the House of Commons; it means that we as Members of Parliament will not have the energy to try to cope with the growth of bureaucracy; it means that we must find some other agency to deal with this growing problem. Therefore it seems to me that the creation of the office of ombudsman would be beneficial not only in terms of dissipating the uneasiness of so many of our constituents over the development and exercise of bureaucratic power, but that it would be beneficial for the bureaucracy itself to know that there was a means by which people who felt they were being discriminated against by that bureaucracy could have an adequate hearing of their grievances. It seems to me that this role can no longer be played to the fullest extent by the Member of Parliament if government continues penetration into a variety of areas of Canadian society.
In the Speech from the Throne I was delighted to see concentration on the needs of western Canada. As a member from Ontario whose constituency is significantly affected by developments in the west, I feel there is a caveat I must enter on behalf of my constituents. That caveat is that if and when the meeting with the four western provinces is held to consider their economic intentions, there must be provision for representation from northwestern Ontario. Our area is affected directly by what goes on in the west and is dependent on decisions
The Address-Mr. Reid
taken in the west. I am referring to federal government decisions in response to the desires of the west. While it may be convenient for the federal government to divide the country and to operate on the basis of provincial consultations, it is also important for the federal government to deal adequately with the northwestern Ontario region that abuts on the western region, and to provide us with representation to permit us to make our own case at conferences involving the government of Canada and the West. We in northern Ontario have a separate personality, if you will, and we need representation to speak for northwestern Ontario. We do not merely need representation from the province of Ontario which we feel has never been able to speak adequately for us at Queen's Park, let alone at federal-provincial conferences.
I was also pleased to see the reference to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the speech and the promise that there would be more decentralization and closer co-operation with provinces. I wish to make only one comment concerning regional economic expansion. I say to hon. members who come from Toronto and from what we in the north call the golden horseshoe that if there is any sense in the existence of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in Canada it means that growth must be limited in those particular areas and diverted to the fringe areas of Canada. Perhaps a certain amount of growth will need to be taken away from the golden horseshoe area. It will not do for Members of Parliament on this or the other side of the House to speak piously of the aims of regional economic expansion without being prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to limit their own growth and to take active steps to divert growth, that is, existing industries, to areas in need.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: If that basic principle is not accepted by the House the Department of Regional Economic Expansion might as well be eliminated, because it will not have any long-term effect. It will not bring any significant longterm benefit to those fringe areas of Canada that want to grow but have been unable to grow because of the way in which policy until now has been designed in Canada. It has been designed to protect and develop secondary industry in central Canada, which I interpret as being Ontario and Quebec.
I now return to a serious problem existing in my constituency at present. The provincial and federal governments have determined that one of the growth industries in northwestern Ontario that must be developed is the tourist industry. Camp owners have been urged to winterize their operations and to try to keep open, where possible, for 12 months instead of concentrating on the two summer months as some do. Some have accepted this challenge. The province, in addition, has been stepping up its advertising campaign. The federal government has been co-operating through the Canadian travel bureau in attracting more tourists to the area.
In the area I represent a considerable cloud overhangs the development of the tourist industry, that cloud being mercury pollution. That pollution has hampered, hurt and

January 11, 1973
The Address-Mr. Reid
restricted the development of our tourist industry which at present is probably the second largest employer of people in northwestern Ontario. In 1970 mercury was discovered in the English and Wabigoon River systems and the provincial government, acting in concert with the federal government, issued a series of directives. I wish to put these directives on record because they are interesting.
On April 6, 1970, Hon. Rene Brunelle, Minister of Lands and Forests, closed down all fishing, commercial and sport, in the Wabigoon River below Dryden up to and including Clay Lake. On May 1,1970 Mr. Burnelle issued a statement which reads as follows:
I have initiated action which will close certain fisheries today. They are as follows: All commercial fishing in the following lakes in the territorial district of Kenora, Ball, Indian, Grassy Narrows, Lount, Seperation, Umfreville, Tetu, Swan and Eaglenest. In so' far as sport fishing is concerned, action is being withheld pending consultation by our health dept. Pending further advice, anglers are cautioned to refrain from eating fish from the lakes named in the Kenora district.
On May 14, 1970, Mr. Brunelle issued a further bulletin:
The sport fishing ban established in early April will be lifted immediately. Fish caught by anglers from these waters should not be eaten in the opinion of the health authorities in Canada and the U.S. The mercury in them makes them unfit for human consumption.
This was known as the fish for fun program. Anglers were encouraged to fish for sport, that is, to catch fish but not to eat them. They were to throw them back into the water.
On May 15, 1970, Mr. Colin Myles received a telephone call from the Ontario fish and wildlife department stating that fish from the river system must not be eaten. Then Hon. James Auld, Minister of Tourism in those days, is reported as having said:
In these designated areas fishing will be strictly for fun. This means no shore lunches or take-home stringers.
On May 22, 1970, Bulletin No. 1 issued by the provincial Department of Lands and Forests dealt with Ontario waters affected by mercury. It said there was no longer a ban on sport fishing in certain Ontario waters recently found to be contaminated by mercury but that all fish caught in these designated areas should not be eaten but returned to the water. In a letter of July 14, 1971, Dr. Sutherland, chief of the health studies department, said:
I have no hesitation in stating as my opinion that the fish from these waters should not be eaten.
In a further letter of November 16, 1971, Dr. Sutherland said.
I am informed by our Department of Lands and Forests that there is no evidence that mercury contamination in the fish has decreased significantly. We will recommend strongly that fish from these waters should not be eaten.
On February 28, 1972, Dr. Stopps, also of the health studies branch of the Ontario Department of Health, said: With calculations such as these, it is quite obvious that eating fish from the English River system would be hazardous to the health of camp guests.
This conclusion was confirmed by letter shortly afterwards by Dr. Richard Potter, the present Minister of Health.
In yesterday's Ottawa Citizen, dated January 10, 1973, at page 36 there appears a report of an interview with Dr. D. G. Chapman, director of the food advisory bureau in the federal department of health. The report in part reads:
Mercury is extremely toxic in fish and any legal maximum levels for other foods probably will be "considerably lower" than the present 0.5 parts per million (ppm) guide now used for levels in fish, Dr. D. G. Chapman says.
It goes on to say:
"All evidence points to the desirability, from a health hazard standpoint, of reducing this level as soon as possible," he told the Ontario Council of Commercial Fisheries last year. . . .
"We're never too happy about a chemical as toxic as this in any food product and therefore we wouldn't want to establish even this level too firmly. We might want to see it reduced."
Dr. Chapman says in the article that there has been a series of experiments by the department of National Health and Welfare with cats. The animals have been fed regulated amounts of mercury in order to discover how much mercury is necessary to kill a cat, or at least to cause symptoms of disorder. They are now beginning to make important findings. According to the report Dr. Chapman says:
The symptoms, which come on gradually, include: Numbness in the hands, arms, lips and tongue; gradual loss of hearing leading to deafness; gradual blindness with loss of vision from the periphery or edges of the visual area leading to tunnel vision and eventual blindness; deterioration of speech; unsteady gait and general inco-ordination of limbs.
In cats, it has led to almost paralysis of the hind legs.
The point I am trying to make is that mercury pollution constitutes a serious problem in my area. Indian people, who habitually have obtained a great part of their living from the waters of the region through commercial fishing, still fish. Such fish still form a considerable part of their diet. Those Indians who were active in providing services to the camp owners as guides and workers in the camps and the camp owners are concerned because until this matter is cleared up satisfactorily the whole of the tourist business in my part of northwestern Ontario is under a cloud. Up till now we have been unable to get the provincial government, which has the primary responsibility for the fisheries and for the tourist industry, to take any action at all even though they recognize it is a serious problem. They have been unable to provide the kind of assistance and leadership which is required to deal with this problem fairly and equitably from the point of view of everyone.
The Indians from the reserves of Grassy Narrows and Islington are most concerned about the situation. A great part of the diet of these people still is fish because it is all they can afford. They have been petitioning the Ontario government for some time to provide assistance and advice. The only thing they were told by the provincial government authorities is that women at a child-bearing age ought not eat any fish because of the potential damage to any child they might be carrying or which they might in future be prepared to carry.
In the Kenora district death by violence of the Indian people is one of the highest in Canada. There has been

January 11, 1973

some suspicion that part of this has been caused by the build-up of the mercury in their systems. It has only been in the past two or three months, after a great deal of pressure brought by the Indian reserves in the area, the provincial government has agreed to hold an inquest into the deaths of a number of people who died under what can only be termed as unusual circumstances. That inquest, the first, will be held some time later this month. The Indians themselves, their Indian organizations- Grand Council Treaty No. 3-have been most active, most concerned and most worried about the fact that the effect of the mercury build-up in the body may have something to do with some of the diseases and difficulties these people have been suffering.
It is not good enough for us to say we should compensate these Indian people because something more important is at stake. What has happened as a result of this mercury contamination is that not only have we destroyed the livelihood of these people in terms of the commercial fishery and the tourist industry but, more important, we have also destroyed what the Indians feel most keenly, their way of life. It is now no longer possible for these poeple to live off the land and supplement their diet and income by living off the land as they did in the past. So the hurt to these people goes far beyond anything we might be able to compensate in terms of money. When these people appeal to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) I hope he will be as generous in providing assistance to them as he has been to the Cree from James Bay in giving them the funds or the means by which to fight their battle in the courts of Quebec against the massive power diversion project.
There is one final point on this problem. The tourist industry represented through its association, the Kenora District Camp Owners' Association, has been petitioning the Ontario government to provide assistance, help and guidance. Their problem is simple. The tourist industry in my area at the present time is based to a large degree on fishing. The commercial fisherman perhaps sells his catch at an average price of 50 or 60 cents a pound while the tourist who comes and catches fish, which he takes home to show his friends, finds that the fish cost him about $10 a pound. This valuable industry is based upon the eating of fish, shore lunches and the taking back of fish to the homes of the tourists in the United States. Sports fishing is permitted by the Ontario government but not for eating. The federal government does not permit the sale of fish caught containing over .5 parts per million, while the Ontario government permits fish caught under Tourist Auspices above that scale to be eaten. This is also a commercial transaction. It seems to me it involves a moral question which must be faced.
I feel that governments cannot allow double standards of this nature to develop. It is a question of moral responsibility. It seems to me that the area ought to be closed to all fishing until the Ontario government or the federal government is prepared to say that the rate of mercury contamination in the fish is low enough for it to be eaten by individuals without any harm to their health. Now, the situation is ambiguous and unusual. It seems to me it is morally indefensible. The camp owners and the Indians have been working on this.
The Address-Mr. Wagner
My last point concerns the responsibility of the federal government in dealing with this case. I believe that under the constitution fishing is a matter of federal responsibility although in the case of the provinces they have responsibility over the waterways and I understand responsibility for the fishery has been delegated to the provinces. Nevertheless there is a clear federal responsibility because fish basically are a federal responsibility even though it has been delegated to the provinces which have primary responsibility.
The second point is that the waterway in which this has happened is an interprovincial waterway. The Wabigoon River and the English River system flow into the province of Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg. Here it has caused a considerable problem of mercury pollution. It seems to me the federal government, if it is requested by the provinces concerned, cannot refuse to participate in any program of rehabilitation and/or compensation if that is requested. The federal government ought to be prepared to provide assistance to these people when it is required because in my opinion there is a definite federal interest involved.
In the throne speech the government announced it has a number of measures with which it wanted to deal. One that caught my attention was the provision of a series of regional conferences to deal with transportation problems in Canada. Transportation is very important in my constituency and in all of northwestern Ontario. I know the federal proposition is to meet with the provinces in terms of regions. That would mean that the prairie provinces would be a region and that Ontario would be a region. Northern Ontario, however, is a bridge between the heartland of Ontario, or the golden horseshoe, and the Prairies. The problem is that transportation rates have been calculated in a way that has discriminated against those communities which have their existence on this bridge. Transportation rates have not been calculated to provide those communities in northern and northwestern Ontario proper consideration and proper rates in proportion to other communities in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue if there is unanimous agreement. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Bell:: No.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I hasten to extend my respectful greetings to you, not merely in keeping with etiquette and established usage, but because I have already recognized that you possess the intellectual and moral qualifications that make an impartial and respected mediator.
I also extend these sentiments to the Deputy Speaker of the House (Mr. McCleave), an unanimously esteemed and appreciated colleague. I congratulate the government on its non-partisan action and hcpe the precedent set will be followed. If the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker can be so readily replaced, why could this not apply also to the

January 11, 1973
The Address-Mr. Wagner
head of the government and the leader of the official opposition? I also extend greetings to the mover (Mr. Blais), and the seconder (Mr. Blaker).
Mr. Speaker, I realize that I am sitting in the Canadian Parliament at a time when parliamentary government is living through a unique period of its history where it must serve the prime interests of the Canadian people rather than the electoral designs of political parties.
Mr. Speaker, I feel it is a privilege for me, as member for Saint-Hyacinthe, to represent with my Quebec colleagues the aspirations of that province in the Canadian Parliament and this when all Canadians, from whatever province or region, are precisely yearning for unity in diversity, common ideals which respect the characteristics of all partners.
I would have liked so much, Mr. Speaker, to speak today about the position of our party concerning the government platform. However, the generalities of the Speech from the Throne, stamped with fine intents and pious hopes, do not prompt me to improve upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not have to apologize for what I am going to say this morning. Truth has its own rights and so has justice.
I am not very proud of the behaviour shown by some hon. members in this House. Last Monday, I was surprised by the nature and the tone of the speech of the Prime Minister. He was not the man I knew before nor the writer I read once. Listening to him and embarrassed by his words, I remembered an article he wrote earlier in his career in the 56th issue of Cite Libre, in April 1963. This article is entitled:
Pearson or the abdication of the mind.
The head of the government said then:
The political philosophy of the Liberal party is quite simple: say anything, think of anything or, better still, do not think of anything at all, but bring us into power because we are the ones who can govern you best.
Ten years later, we hear the echo: "Say anything, but bring us into power".
Mr. Speaker, unaware of what was in store for him, the hon. member for Mount Royal wrote concerning those who did not dare criticize the then Liberal leader, and I quote:
They recognize that the leader of the Liberal party was a little rash about changing the platform of the party, but they feel that this is not the time ... to condemn the leader and divide the party.
Further on, one can read:
The Liberals believe that power is their own property.
Mr. Speaker, this is how the Liberal party had been stigmatized by its present leader. So I say, with reason, the more it changes, the more it remains unchanged.
This desire of the present government to hang on to power at all cost makes me say that its minority position uncovers its political immorality.
Mr. Speaker, the incredible remarks that the head of this government and the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Caouette) have made last Monday have simply made me sick.
Why did we have to listen to these two awkward and ridiculous representations about Canadian unity, so called by some people, awkward and ridiculous representations according to the most objective observers, to editorialists and even to the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis)? They were made to conceal their ineptness to deal with and solve now the real problems, that is economic inequalities which affect the Canadian people.
It was not even clever to resort to such tactics of diversion, Mr. Speaker. I want to state clearly that I had to control myself not to intervene and rise on a question of privilege. Today, I appeal to the pride of the people from Quebec and to the dignity of all Canadians so that they no longer tolerate such situations and I shall keep on doing it.

As a member of this House from the province of Quebec, I note how often and with what ease the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) readily employs distortion to make debating points which could not otherwise stand on their own. Might I give one illustration? On Monday, the Prime Minister referred to an editorial published in the Vancouver Sun of November 3, 1972. The section from which he quoted was put this way in the original editorial:
A minority government headed by Mr. Trudeau is almost certain to be defeated in parliament within a matter of months with a further loss of party prestige. The most important prospect, however, is that in the meantime frustrated English-speaking Canadians will feel that their wishes as expressed at the polls last Monday are being thwarted on a constitutional technicality by a party that owes fundamental political allegiance to Quebec.
The editorial writer puts that particular view forward as a prospect, and that is the precise word he uses, "prospect". The Prime Minister, in quoting from the editorial on Monday, did not include that part about the prospect.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Claude Wagner: He began his quotation in this way, and I quote this time from Hansard of January 8 at page 53: -frustrated English-speaking Canadians will feel that their wishes as expressed-
It is abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister, by taking this sentence out of its original context as a prospect, has changed the whole meaning of that section of the editorial. The newspaper assesses this as a mischievous reading of its real position, and I agree with that assessment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Of course, my purpose in covering this matter is not to defend the editorial integrity of the Vancouver Sun. I use it as an illustration, I think a particularly emphatic illustration, of how the Prime Minister is prepared to distort material that is unfavourable to his position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: One has to ask why the Prime Minister indulges in this kind of distortion. The Vancouver Sun thinks it is mischief, but in view of the serious stakes in

January 11, 1973

terms of national unity I consider it to be much more serious than mischief.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: I consider it to be a tragic and destructive act, particularly when it is done by a man holding a position of high office with the solemn obligation he has to help Canadians understand each other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: What the Prime Minister did on Monday constitutes an act of blowing up bridges, and there is no justification for that, politically or morally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Of course, the right hon. Prime Minister wanted us to forget the weaknesses of his administration, and in turn the leader of the Social Credit party wanted, us to forget how barren and fruitless his monetary theories were.
Mr. Speaker, during the next months the Creditistes of Quebec, the real ones, those who have been deceived too long, those who like us both outside and inside this House believe in the same principles, the same values, will know at last that their leader has taken them into a blind alley.
And now, the Liberals, those whom the Prime Minister described in such a sweet way in 1963 in Cite Libre, who are they? They are the ones who last October in Quebec, and in Saint-Hyacinthe in particular, led a campaign designed to tarnish the Conservative party and my own reputation. They are the ones who did not say a word when they saw some of their friends resorting to discriminatory and reprehensible tactics. They are the ones who spread or allowed people to spread most slanderous rumors regarding myself. However, Mr. Speaker, the voters of Saint-Hyacinthe had the last word and, as the Prime Minister most appropriately said, Vox populi vox Dei.
And today, these people come up to us to lecture us, to make repeated innuendos and do so with the greatest of ease.
Mr. Speaker, they played with feelings, worked on racial prejudices, and one has only to remember what they did on television during the election campaign. They used the French Power theme on television where one could see the three doves and one or two common birds gobbling away well garnished plates while exchanging empty words, as they did during this debate, on the problems of today. I challenged them to translate and present the same trailer to English Canada.


William Heward Grafftey: Never!


Claude Wagner: They refused to do it. They did not dare do
it.
The Address-Mr. Wagner


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I do not have much time left. I will discuss this matter later on.
Mr. Speaker, here they are-


Some hon. Members:: There has been a point of order.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: There is no call for rising on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Do I understand that the Minister of Transport was rising on a point of order? If he was, would he please state it?


Jean Marchand: I never received any request of that kind and for the hon. member's guidance as well as to save him time, I add that the film will be in the hands of the Conservative party at one o'clock this afternoon and there will be a letter with it.


Claude Wagner: Now that October 30 is gone they are going to translate what is said in the film. I am surprised because the present Minister of Transport is the only one who does not know that we had dared them to produce that picture in English, because it was mentioned by all newspapers and all radio stations in this country as well as by all the members, and the Minister of Transport is the only one-maybe he was attending to something else at the time-who did not know about our request.
Mr. Speaker, there they are those who have two ways of speaking throughout this country.
And I should like to say something that the Minister of Transport will understand: when we attacked certain ministers of this temporary government during the last election campaign, it had nothing to do with race, language or ethnic origin, but it was on account of their incompetence, their arrogance, their lack of judgment which the people condemned and which the right hon. Prime Minister corroborated by appointing them elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, I should also say here-and I am proud to recall it-that it was under the Progressive Conservative government, headed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that Canada got its first bilingual cheques, simultaneous translation in the House of Commons and the appointment of its first French-speaking Governor General.
The House must know also how kind and understanding the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has been and always is towards Quebec. My colleague for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Graftey) and myself have nothing but congratulations and thanks to address to our hon. colleagues and our leader for the way in which they welcomed and always welcome us to the House, to the caucus and to the party committees.

January 11, 1973
The Address-Mr. Wagner
Mr. Speaker, as far as I know and as far as the people's wishes are concerned, there are and must only be Canadian parties in this House, parties capable of meeting the aspirations of the two founding peoples of our country.
Mr. Speaker, we must find answers to the problems of the day and even now prepare to meet the challenges of the '80s. However our friends of the government are not ready yet.
How can they anticipate solutions for tomorrow when they cannot in a Speech from the Throne in 1973 clearly offer remedies to current problems; there has been a change of style certainly but the status quo remains as far as inspiration and efficiency are concerned.
The government would rather cling to power in complicity with the New Democratic Party. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, the elderly who are fed up with having to barely survive from one election to the other are waiting for what would allow them to live decently and with dignity. In the meantime also, Canadians in general, literally crushed by excessive taxes, are faced with darly increases in the cost of living especially the cost of food whose control is constantly delayed. Yet, from month to month, the humiliation of unemployment or its ghost keeps haunting thousands of Canadian families. The government has disgracefully underestimated this human and social problem, satisfied as it was with an insignificant winter works program which was announced so late that nothing can be done for this winter.
However, during this time, small businessmen are putting aside their planning programs because they are unable to find out where the government is going.
During this time also, the farmers-especially in eastern Canada and Quebec, such as the farmers in Saint-Hyacin-the for instance-are being penalized by quotas for industrial milk and by the cost of feed grain.
A word of warning to the government: Quebec is tired of being considered by this government as a poor relative within the federal Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, these are practical problems for which the Speech from the Throne offers no definite solution nor a priority list.
People are asking for more!
Mr. Speaker, that is the reason for our lack of confidence in this government.
The failures this government has experienced from 1968 to 1972 are still prevailing under a marketing approach which can only last as long as a coat of cheap but glossy paint.
From now on, how can the Canadian people, especially the young people, believe more deeply in public affairs and public men, in our institutions, when they are bound soon to find out that political parties, such as the Liberal party and the New Democratic Party, change their style according to the mood of the moment or the circumstances surrounding an election?
Where is that public honesty that should constantly preside over the actions and behaviour of those in public life? Certainly not on the government side!

This government is losing its credibility, for it is showing a lack of competence when confronted with alarming problems, and probably also a lack of principle.
As the member for the Saint-Hyacinthe constituency, my duty is to hasten the defeat of this government.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the land is strong but to keep it strong we need a direction for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will call upon the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford) at two o'clock. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, many distinguished members of this House have spoken in this debate already. I am honoured to participate in it at this point, and honoured to follow the distinguished member on the other side, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), who had the floor just before the luncheon hour, and whom I welcome to this House.
Like all others who have participated in the debate I would like to extend congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, and I would also like to congratulate the House for its Wisdom in again electing you to the office you hold. I think this House will require all of your abilities, particularly one of your most marked abilities, that of displaying a delightful sense of humour, something which I hope you never lose. May I also congratulate your constituents, Mr. Speaker, for giving us the opportunity to re-elect you so that you may serve your country and parliament. In passing may I say that I have always found, in the two departments with which I have been associated, that in order to get civil servants to act more quickly it was useful to tell them, "This is something Mr. Speaker wants." Somehow when they are told that they snap to it in ways in which they otherwise might not.
May I also congratulate the two new members who moved and seconded the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais), in moving the motion, expressed very well his concerns for his riding and his country. I recall having had the same honour as he some years ago, and I know his feeling and that of all new members, the feeling of pride, of hope and of promise, when first they come to parliament. I can assure them, at least from my own experience, that they are entering upon a career for which they will have no regret, the most honourable and rewarding career to which any Canadian can aspire.
The hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker), is to be thanked, especially from my point of view, for expressing the recognition that urban Canadians have special problems, not to mention special opportunities. In his speech
January 11, 1973

he came down advisedly against the kind of unplanned expansion that has blighted cities and nations across the world. He suggested the kind of co-operation between the federal government and the provinces and, I would like to add, the municipalities, that is needed to pull urban programs and strategies together. I applaud the speech he made.
I would like, as a British Columbia member, to devote part of my speech to the conference that was announced in the throne speech on western economic opportunities. May I say to the Premier of British Columbia, who said he hoped the conference would not be a reason to delay action on various matters, that that is not the intention. The purpose of such a conference is to assure, in a cooperative way, that we will be expanding and developing the potential economic resources and opportunities of western Canadians. The three agenda items suggested in the throne speech are, of course, preliminary ideas. Action will be taken quickly to follow up with an agreement on the kind of agenda that we should have. I am glad that the western premiers as a group have welcomed these plans that we have put forward, and are anxious that the conference be as productive of results as possible.
The hon. member for Lachine quite properly noted a crystal clear emphasis in the Speech from the Throne. That emphasis is the federal government's urban commitment. This commitment, this major sense of direction on behalf of the great majority of Canadians who live in towns and cities, is an activist commitment spelled out in some detail in the throne speech. This urban commitment will be spelled out further in more detail in my speech this afternoon, and will be spelled out in totally new legislation regarding housing, the building of new communities, land banking, and measures relating to neighbourhood improvement and rehabilitation. It will be illustrated in initiatives to be introduced at an early date allowing the federal government to assist the revitalization and rebirth of city cores through the relocation of railway tracks and yards. It will be spelled out in the urban commitment to Canada that will be the subject of a federal-provincial conference to be held in this city on January 22 and 23, and in policy and budgetary initiatives to be taken by CMHC which are to be announced as they are taken.
The kind of life that Canadians have in our cities and towns is the kind of national life we have. This country is rapidly heading toward being 90 per cent urbanized, or more. That unconstrained urbanization, and so far really unmanaged urbanization, is being concentrated in a relative handful of larger cities and metropolitan areas. It can, conceivably, lead to congested chaos in some areas and isolated rustic poverty in others. The British, who have been attempting to cope with heavy urbanizing trends for a long time, know this. I quote the Chairman of the Greater London Council:
Cities are indeed national assets, but they are not permanent assets.
Like all assets, they need to be preserved and developed, and it is time that central governments recognized more clearly that investment in the future of their cities is as vital to national prosperity as it is to the well being of the cities themselves.
The federal government appreciates that national investments are required for the future of urban Canada and for the future of the nation. We are talking here of
The Address-Mr. Basford
investments of planning and co-operation, and setting of priorities, as well as investments of money. We have made major moves in these directions.
I have been Minister of State for Urban Affairs, and the minister responsible for federal housing policy and for the National Capital Commission during a year of great activity and change in our cities. Much more activity and much more change-not only physical change but social change, and change in what people find important to them-are upon us. Canada, to cope with this change, is on the threshold of developing urban policy in new ways, ways that accept that urban Canada is too complex to plan and work for without radically new forms of sharing knowledge, planning and application of resources.
I do not want to dwell on the past, but I do wish to report on the tri-level conference on urban affairs held in Toronto last November, the first such conference with federal, provincial and municipal representation. It was an important breakthrough, and I am happy to take this opportunity to report its success to the House. It was the first gathering by the three levels of government to discuss specifically urban issues-how to cope with the pressures and challenges of urban Canada.
The federal government was successful in winning support at that conference for the three main goals that I expressed there. I said that the consultative process should be joint and involve all levels, that it should be continuous and an on-going process, but not a process of constitutional change, rather one of discussing priorities and fitting them in with the proper jurisdiction. All of these goals were attained and we are now in the process of organizing the next conference for 1973. I have already suggested, when discussing the national tri-level conference, that its agenda could be. It should set down issues such as provincial development strategies and regional plans so that the federal government could be supportive of those plans, such as the Toronto centred regional plan which is a provincial plan. We could sit down and discuss those policies and be supportive of them in our federal policies. I have said and I suggest that we should consider in this process problems of municipal finance, problems of housing, of social change, of transportation and the more specific issues such as land cost and sewerage treatment. The Toronto conference affirmed the principle of a national forum for all the three governments to examine major issues and to take representations back to governments which retain all their powers and jurisdictions.
Mr. Speaker, it is not a method of amending the constitution and it is not a method of interfering with the proper jurisdictions and responsibilities of governments but it is, it seems to me, a way of assuring that the constitution is not used as an excuse for inaction; in urban Canada it is a process of consulting on objectives, on goals, on priorities and on strategies.
As was agreed at that conference, Mr. Speaker, we are proceeding, with considerable success, to set up regional tri-level consultative processes involving the federal government, all provinces or groups of provinces and local governments. We are also setting up, and have working, action committees in such cities as Winnipeg, Montreal

January 11, 1973
The Address-Mr. Basford
and Vancouver to deal with specific urban issues that are of particular concern to particular areas; issues such as housing, community rehabilitation, federal buildings and land use, transportation, harbour and airport activities. The many strands of federal urban concern include transportation-airports, harbours, urban transportation systems and, in a program to be introduced into this House shortly, the relocation of railway tracks away from downtown areas except for tracks and facilities which can be used for new or improved modes of urban transportation.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and I jointly announced the federal intention for this new program and we saw it as a major contribution to the rebirth and revitalization of cities and towns alike. The legislation in essence, Mr. Speaker, will enable the federal government to come to the assistance of local governments and provinces by requiring-and up until now we have had no power to so require-the railways to move their yards, tracks, stations, etc. if that is in the best over-all urban interests of the city or area concerned. There is no federal or any other power at the moment to require anything of the railroads in this respect. The preparation, introduction and passage of such legislation is, in my view, a matter of urgency and priority. Since our announcement, widespread interest has been expressed in cities from one end of Canada to the other, in letters to me and applications to the Canadian Transport Commission in Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, St. Thomas, Ontario, White Rock, Moncton, Montreal and many others.
The amendments to the Railway Act which parliament will be asked to approve with regard to railroad relocation will also provide for expenditures on building and improving grade crossings across the country to be almost doubled. From my experience in this House, I know that many hon. members worry about this both from the point of view of urban development and safety. The strands of urban concern include housing and community planning programs of this government, administered through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I should like now to devote the rest of my remarks to the programs of that corporation. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been one of the great institutions of the federal government since the Second World War; it has been the builder, the facilitator, the catalyst and often the goad in assuring for Canada a supply of housing that has put this country in a far better position regarding homes for its citizens than most other countries. It is moving now onto new ground and, as I have made very clear to the corporation, it cannot any longer be simply a banking institution or a lending institution for the building industry. It has moved far from concentrating on supporting the building of middle class housing. In recent years, it has moved from having to treat housing as an economic commodity and housing policy as an economic stimulus to be turned up or turned down according to prevailing economic winds in the country.
The corporation, under this government, is the instrument of federal social policy in the field of housing and community planning. This changing role-the process of adapting itself to the changing needs of the country-has not been an easy one. A major reorganization of the corporation's management structure, which will involve

the appointment of new senior personnel, is now well under way. In terms of the activity of the corporation, its outlook, and its views, it must as a matter of social policy, be on the lead edge of development.
The new direction of the corporation-and of federal policy-puts housing within its community context and that community context within a philosophy that says adequate homes in a good environment are a social right of Canadians. We have adopted a basic principle that says it is a fundamental right of Canadians, regardless of where they live or their economic circumstances, to enjoy adequate shelter at reasonable cost.
This fundamental right may be self-evident to some, but no Canadian government has yet explicitly and publicly accepted it, with all that it implies, as the cornerstone of federal housing policy. I have said this since I have been minister and I repeat it now because I think it is important. I must add that the realization of that right-the enforcement of that right-cannot be achieved by the federal government alone or any local government alone; to assure the enforcibility of that right will require the combined resources of all governments in Canada working in concert with the industry and with individual Canadians.
The new amendments to the National Housing Act, which I shall be introducing in this House very shortly, are an affirmation of this principle. Our first goal is that there be enough new units and improved and repaired units, in sufficient variety, for Canadians. Toward that end, we are building houses in record numbers of units. In 1971, more than 233,000 units were started in Canada, a record to that time. For 1972, the number will leap to about 250,000 and we foresee a strong pace of construction through 1973.
The unprecedented volume of house construction in the [DOT]past two years assures that we will far exceed the target of one million new units set for the five-year period ending in 1974. Related to the matter of availability of housing is the question of land prices and planned urban development. It is apparent that the private market does not always function well in the development and opening up of new land. The federal government will provide the initiative and assistance to allow all levels of government to participate in the land market in a concerted way. Through the public assembly of land and the development of new communities, pressure will be exerted to reduce the cost of residential land. For this purpose the federal government, and I will be setting this out at the federal-provincial conference in a few days time, under agreed guidelines for urban development will make a commitment at that conference to make available to provinces and municipalities not less than $100 million a year for at least the next five years for purposes of land assembly and new communities.
Before I leave the subject of the availability of housing, I ought to mention that it is our intention to re-introduce the new financial mechanisms legislation that was introduced in the previous parliament. Hon. members who were here are familiar with that legislation. There will be some minor amendments to it. The original provisions
January 11, 1973

were lor the establishment of a federal mortgage bank and for the support of private mortgage investment companies. Their purpose is to improve the flow of private capital into the residential mortgage market, which essentially helps the middle and higher income home buyers, while leaving the government and taxpayer free to concentrate on housing for lower income Canadians.
The second goal is accessibility of housing. Houses must not only be available; they must be within everyone's reach. Private markets, no matter how well they may work, cannot give everyone the assurance that they can obtain housing they can afford. Where this kind of help is needed, it is the role of governments to provide the help. Under the federal government's programs twice as many housing units have been created for low-income people during the last four years than in all the years since the end of the second world war. That does not mean that there is not more to be done. Nevertheless, I think that indicates the thrust we have been following and will follow in the new amendments that we shall introduce.
Apart from measures initiated by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), we will be introducing amendments to improve access to housing for people who could not otherwise afford it. The federal government will offer in its legislation a number of alternatives providing a range of choice in the type of housing and forms of tenure. There will be, first, an assistance program to help low income people purchase their own homes rather than reside as tenants in public housing developments. They will be assisted by subsidies towards payments of principle, interest and taxes. The government is giving them the right to purchase their homes as an alternative to living in public housing units.
Second, there will be assistance for improvements to existing houses under the repair and rehabilitation sections of the legislation to be introduced. Those proposals enjoy the support of municipal and local governments. The program promises to assist in improving existing but deteriorating houses in neighbourhoods in the downtown core areas of our cities. In the past we have bulldozed such areas. In future, we will be providing this kind of program in order to stabilize, preserve and conserve those areas for the people who live in them. This sort of program was emphasized in the speech of the newly elected mayor of Toronto. I look forward to introducing this kind of legislation which supports the objectives that he outlined in his speech on housing policy for Toronto.
Further, Mr. Speaker, there will be assistance to cooperatives and other non-profit corporations to build or acquire housing for low-income and elderly people. I have spoken to some in the co-operative movement and they are responding. I said, "Go out, please, and build as many houses as you can." I also told them that I do not want the National Housing Act in any way to be an impediment in their particular decision to build.
The amendments to be introduced will contain, for the first time, a special section relating to co-operative housing and to the special structure, organization and ownership provisions dealing with the co-operative movement, so that there will be no impediment in the legislation which will prevent those people from going ahead with programs they want to carry out. All these measures, to
The Address

Mr. Basford
some degree, offer an alternative to public housing which, nevertheless in my view, continues to be a useful instrument for providing good, affordable housing to some sectors of the population. I can assure the House that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation funds for low income housing certainly will not fall below the high 1972 level of commitment. Actually, that commitment can be expected to increase.
The third goal deals with the quality of housing. In addition to making housing available and accessible, we must be concerned with the quality of housing and ensure that people get what they pay for. The resources of the corporation for research and development will be enhanced, and the government proposes to take the initiative in a series of systematic developmental projects which may be taken indirectly by CMHC or supported by CMHC or undertaken jointly by CMHC, the local government and the private sector. I will be putting before a number of provinces a proposal in which we propose to undertake a precise study of the specific needs in the major regions of Canada. We will shortly receive the 1971 census data and will use comprehensive on the ground housing figures. I think we need much more information than is presently available to us in terms of the housing needs of our communities, the income levels of different neighbourhoods and the age of the people in order that our programs may work effectively. We want to fulfil the real housing needs of the five major regions of this country.
In addition, as mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, I shall introduce amendments to the National Housing Act dealing with warranties and I will outline this legislation in more detail later. One of the proposed amendments will provide that where a builder fails to complete a dwelling which he has sold, CMHC may advance the purchaser money out of the Mortgage Insurance Fund to have the dwelling completed. It is advanced on behalf of that purchaser. In addition, as the National Housing Act applies to less than half the houses built in this country, there is a need for a comprehensive purchaser protection plan. This, as well, is being developed by the corporation and will be announced in due course. It would provide for all housing built in Canada and not only that covered by the National Housing Act. I think all hon. members who were here previously will respect the vigour with which I discharged my former portfolio as minister of consumer and corporate affairs. I want to afford the same sort of protection to the house purchaser.


Mr. Paproski:: Promises, promises. Do it now.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The final goal, and I am rushing to finish, deals with the community; not just with housing, but with the community in which that housing stands, whether it be urban, rural or remote. The government, with the co-operation of the provinces and municipalities, proposes to make new kinds of assistance available to preserve and improve neighbourhoods and small communities which are a vital strand in the social fabric of Canada, but which are threatened by deterioration and decay.
The throne speech mentions new communities. It does so because an urgent requirement is developing to provide alternative ways of coping with urban growth, alter-

January 11, 1973
The Address-Mr. Basford
native to what we have now, under which, simply, cities sprawl ever bigger and, in many instances, our best agricultural land surrounding those cities is paved over. New communities taking the pressure off the old are one way in which the federal government, in co-operation with provinces and local governments, can bring some shape and direction to the inevitable and rapid growth of urban living in Canada.
More than just the relieving of pressure on existing cities and neighbouring farm lands is involved, important though those considerations are. New or expanded existing communities, chosen within provincial planning strategies, can be a means of economic buildup for regions. They can be developed within a metropolitan region or on a resource frontier, to give two popular examples. The federal government is prepared, by amendments to be introduced to the National Housing Act and by involvement in federal-provincial conferences, to take the lead in creating some viable alternatives to the uncontrolled and unplanned expansion of our great cities. Some existing provisions of the National Housing Act and some new provisions which are contemplated can be of great assistance to provinces and municipalities in planning and developing new communities which will meet the anticipated needs of our growing urban populations.
This assistance can be made available for the acquisition and planning of the land which may be needed for many purposes related to the creation of new communities. For example, on the subject of new communities, I might take this opportunity to inform the House that the Ontario Housing Corporation, on behalf of the federal government and the Ontario government, is optioning some 5,000 acres near Ottawa for a new community. This land, the acquisition of which is to be announced this afternoon, has been designated a potential new growth area by the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. The action of the senior government in acquiring the land is to complement the far-seeing initiative of the local governments concerned. The new community ultimately will have a population of 100,000 people.


Mr. Baker:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would accept a question now or prefer that I wait until the end of his speech.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am quite happy to answer a question now.


Walter David Baker: A few moments ago the minister mentioned the announcement of a super-city outside Ottawa. Could he tell us whether or not he has had any consultation with the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton with respect to its location, and whether or not he has had any consultation with the township in which it is to be located concerning its location.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of the hon. member that the point he is raising is not a point of order, a point which concerns the rules and the operation of this House, but is merely a question he wishes to ask of the minister. If the minister should reply to the question, it would take away from the time allotted to him. It would be very difficult at this time

to allow the question to be answered because we have reached the point where the time allotted to the minister has expired. Unless hon. members of the House would agree that the minister be allowed to go beyond his allotted time, I could not allow the question. It is agreed that the minister be allowed to reply to the question and complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Miller Bell: Apart from the fact that ministers have been receiving an extra five or 10 minutes in order to finish very important speeches, we do have a tight schedule to follow.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that point. First of all, if the House is giving its consent that I continue, may I say I thank them. I appreciate the comments of the whip of the opposition party and will be very brief indeed. In reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), there has been a long series of negotiations and discussions with the chairman of the regional district and, of course, the plan is in accordance with a planning study commissioned by the regional district, by the Ontario Housing Corporation and by the two agencies of the federal government, the National Capital Commission and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Speaker, if the minister would permit a question, I should like to ask him if it will take as long to develop the new city outside Ottawa as it has taken to develop the Malvern development outside Toronto which started in 1951.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I would hope not. I think the Malvern development has shown what has been wrong in respect of land assembly in the past. I believe its operation is serving a useful purpose. One of the things I will be discussing with the provinces in particular is how better to manage provincial land assembly schemes in order to ensure they are placed on the market when needed and have a desirable effect on prices. What I am talking about now is total planning in terms of a growth plan for the region, which is a regional and provincial plan. This is very important for future growth.
In conclusion, and bearing in mind the statement of my friend in the opposition, may I say that in proposing amendments to the National Housing Act there were in the changes introduced in Bill C-213 a number of programs including assisted home ownership, repair and rehabilitation of neighbourhoods and support by the federal government of loans and grants to non-profit organizations, both municipal and private. The provisions required a matching provincial grant in all the three programs and it would be my proposal to delete the requirement for cost sharing in those programs in order to make federal grants available regardless of the extent of provincial and municipal contributions. In all those areas, there is always provincial and municipal support. It only adds to the red tape if they are required to be matching. I shall be discussing that kind of proposal with the provinces. We will also be considering with the provinces funding arrangements which would assist them in extending their forward planning beyond a one-year time frame. This

would involve the commitment of federal housing funds to the provinces for longer periods of time than is currently provided. I think this would be a vast improvement, permitting federal, provincial and municipal governments, to plan what their housing programs would be.
One of my own most urgent priorities for the immediate future is to strengthen the federal-provincial partnership in the field of housing and community building, to improve the quality of communication between the federal and provincial governments and, through the provinces, with the municipalities. I am hoping, beginning with the federal-provincial conference sheduled for January 22 and 23, to develop new techniques for joint planning in the areas of policy development, program planning, allocation of resources, and particularly joint efforts in research and development which will rapidly expand our common knowledge about the character and dimensions of the problems which we face together.
I would hope that at that conference-and I have suggested to my provincial colleagues that this be the case-local governments and municipalities would be invited by the provincial representatives because I think we all realize there will not be a home building or community program in this country without the involvement of local government. I would hope the federal government through the National Housing Act would respond to local government needs as effectively as it possibly can.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister where that conference is to be held.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is it to be held in Edmonton?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No. It is to be held in the national capital area, I might reply to my large friend from the Conservative party.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Larger than you.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am fast catching up with the hon. member.
Before this conference takes place, I expect I will have placed before the House of Commons the proposed amendments to the National Housing Act, so that delegates to the conference will have before them an explicit statement, for their consideration, of the government's proposals. The proposed legislation and other policy proposals which do not involve legislation, can be modified and improved through discussion and debate in this House and outside, with the provinces and through them the municipalities, before being put into effect.
Mr. Speaker, in the time allowed I have endeavoured to set out the thrust of the federal housing policy and the thrust of federal urban policy. I suggest with deference that it is a thrust worthy of the confidence of all members of this House regardless of party.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Jack Marshall: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there will be isolated parts of Canada which will get the advantage of the thrust of national housing policies, particularly in respect of the rehabilitation program to which 25714-13
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
$4 million was allocated and which the Council of Social Development said was not enough. What is the minister's recommendation in that regard?


Stanley Ronald Basford: There are several provisions in the amendment which relate to rural Canada and several policy initiatives. With regard to the other matter the hon. member raised, I accept the suggestion of the development council that $4 million was inadequate, in the sense they put it forward, but it was solely an estimate of the amount we considered that municipalities and provinces could absorb in a year under the program. If they can absorb more, I can assure the hon. member there will be more money available.


John Gilbert: A further question-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I am, of course, at the service of the House, but I might point out that the minister has already received an extension of the time allotted to him and that we must be fair to other hon. members who wish to take part in the debate.


John Gilbert: It is only a short question. Can I ask the minister why he did not touch on one of the most important factors relating to the cost of housing, that is, high interest rates? Am I to believe he does not intend to do anything about the high interest rates which constitute one of the main factors in the cost of housing?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I would refer the hon. member to my remarks a few moments ago about the residential mortgage bank in the proposed legislation.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is for me, as for other new members, a great privilege to speak in this House. It is well known, though it bears repeating, that election to the House of Commons is the highest honour our fellow citizens can bestow. Progress within the House is gratifying, I suppose, but it is not bestowed by one's own neighbours.
I take this opportunity to add my felicitations to Mr. Speaker upon his reappointment to the high office he holds, as well as to the Deputy Speaker. I support all that has been said about the eloquence and grace with which the affairs of this House are handled. In this connection, I am rather reminded of the cavalry general who had not participated to any extent in a battle and was asked to describe the role of cavalry in the battle. His answer was that it lent dignity and distinction to what would otherwise be merely a vulgar brawl.
This has been, for me, a surprising week, beginning with the unfortunate speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-I shall say no more about that-followed by the New Democratic Party voting against consideration of old age pensions at this time, followed by the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) launching what was, I suggest, the most scathing attack on the government yet heard, particularly as it came from a former member of the cabinet. The hon. member for Verdun said he might leave this House tomorrow, next week, or next month. I would regret to see him go. I believe him to be a man of high principle and one with the courage of his convictions,

January 11, 1973
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
and such people are not easily found. He follows a long line of distinguished people who have been squeezed out of the Liberal government in similar circumstances. I think of Mr. Winters, of Miss LaMarsh, of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), of Mr. Kierans and others, substantiating the claim made by a well-known columnist that in this cabinet only the weak can survive.
I should like to add my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the motion in reply to the address. I was impressed by their sincerity and eloquence. I should also like to compliment the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) on the speech he made in this House yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I found that speech to be most informative and I regret that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) was not present to hear what might prove to be the most knowledgeable speech we shall hear on this subject during the present session.
It is customary on occasions such as this to refer to one's own constituency, to its natural benefits and to its man-made problems. I do not propose to depart too greatly from that custom. I suppose no two constituencies are alike, but I do believe that Victoria is a constituency truly different from the others.
It is particularly gratifying for me to be speaking here this afternoon on the birthday of a former member for Victoria, Sir John A. Macdonald.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Victoria, Mr. Speaker, is noted throughout Canada for the beauty of its environment. I suppose this is well known to all hon. members; if it is not, I extend to them an invitation to visit us at their earliest opportunity. We shall be glad to see them and I am sure they will receive the usual Victorian welcome.
I should like to mention one important difference between Victoria and other constituencies, namely, the sociological make-up of its people. Over 30 per cent of the eligible voters are old age pensioners. There were at last count 19,600 residents of the age of 65 or over. These people are in many cases entirely dependent upon the financial arrangements that our society makes for the care of its elderly.
Perhaps the next largest identifiable group in my constituency is that of active government employees. Many of the employees of the defence installations in Esquimalt live in the constituency of Victoria; this group includes both military and civilian employees but again their livelihood depends on the decisions taken in this House. Another sizeable group is made up of those who have retired from the armed services. During their service, most of these men and women, have been posted to and fro across the Dominion, and having once seen Victoria they naturally select it as a place of retirement. Their decision is usually based on a desire to live in a liveable climate and the Victorian way of life. Financially, though, their decision is often hard to support. Victoria, as hon. members will have gathered, operates on a very narrow economic

base and the retired serviceman in Victoria is almost always under-employed. The three categories I have mentioned are all dependent upon financial arrangements made by the federal government, and I shall have a few words to say about those arrangements later.
In addition to the three groups noted, many Victorians are employed by the provincial governments and by our educational facilities, which are becoming noted for their academic excellence. The University of Victoria has been able to engage some lecturers of international reputation, attracted again, I believe, by our climate and our way of life. Hon. members will note that all the people I have mentioned are employed in the public sector, and in truth this describes Victoria. The private sector of our economy is narrow indeed. We have tourism in the summer, a small and dwindling but efficient ship-building industry, a couple of sawmills. So it can be readily seen that the public sector outweighs the private sector to a greater degree than in almost any other city in Canada, with the possible exception of Ottawa itself.
I should now like to speak about the effects that government action, or inaction, have had on the various segments of the economy of Victoria. In the private sector we suffer from three disadvantages which are difficult to overcome: the extra cost of handling and shipping to and from the mainland; the distances to markets, particularly Canadian markets, and finally our higher labour costs. For these reasons, it is sometimes difficult for us to bid competitively on a dollars and cents basis for federal contracts such as shipbuilding. It is my contention, however, that we are entitled to a reasonable share of such contracts. We pay taxes but we do not believe that paying taxes should be our only type of participation in the federal economy.
In a flatulent press release about a year ago, the government announced that defence contracts were to be allotted henceforth on a zonal basis. To my knowledge there has been no indication of this reasonable concept being put into effect. I should like to point out to the government that Victoria shipyards are second to none in efficiency. Our yards have never burned a ship on the ways; our yards have never subjected a ship to the acid test given the Restigouche; our shipyards have never submitted a bill for two and a half times the estimate for a refit.
The plight of the pensioner is very close to anyone representing Victoria whether on the local, provincial or national level. The federal government has shown itself to be remarkably indifferent to the disastrous effects to inflation on those on fixed incomes.
A rise in the cost of living is immediately reflected in a lowering of the living standards of approximately half my constituents. For those living on the old age pension and supplement only, it means less food or meaner shelter. For those with a fixed income of their own, it means having to give up some things for which they had worked and saved to enjoy in their old age. They feel tricked and cheated by society and that is what your inflationary policies do to them. I could go on but hope to have another opportunity to speak on what I would consider to be an equitable basic old age pension. I have accordingly placed

on the order paper a notice of motion recommending a basic old age pension of $150 per month. I find myself in support of the increased income supplement instituted by the British Columbia government and deplore the legalistic quibbling of the federal government as to the obligation to share under the Canadian Assistance Plan.
Perhaps a few words about our place in confederation might not be amiss at this time. During the recent election campaign the touring media fell into a recurring habit, when in British Columbia, of searching for B.C. separatists. As far as I am concerned, separatism in British Columbia is a figment of the imagination of eastern writers. The central government, and particularly the present one, give us sufficient provocation, but our hearts are loyal and will remain so. We do, however, reserve the right to point out the inequities of the federal government. We look for an even-handedness by the central authority and recently have felt that it has been lacking.
A recent example of this is the government policy or lack of policy regarding federal properties in urban areas. Thirteen days before the last election, the government found itself able to purchase some $30 million worth of privately held land in the city of Toronto to be used for the enjoyment of the people of that city. In June the city of Victoria had been treated quite differently. A parcel of land wanted by the city for use as a waterfront park but owned by the federal government was sold, not given to the city by the federal government, at $50,000 an acre, $20,000 cash, the remainder on a mortgage at 9 per cent interest. I would not want you to be under any misapprehension. We do not wish the people of Toronto to be deprived of a park if it is the policy of this government to give parks to cities, and we do not mind the government refusing us if it is government policy to refuse people when they ask for Crown land for parks, but to give land on the one hand and refuse it on the other while charging our taxpayers usurious interest rates offends our sense of fairness.
When I suggested to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) that we would like to be treated in the same fashion as Toronto, the answer was that the Toronto land was to be a national park. To me this conjures up visions of "Smokey the Bear" patrolling the southern end of Bay Street, but to the overburdened taxpayers of Victoria paying high interest rates to their own government it is not funny.
I think this uneven-handedness has been exemplified by the operations of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. It was our understanding that regions having serious unemployment problems might reasonably expect to qualify for economic expansion. British Columbia had
61,000	unemployed in September, 1972, as against a comparable national figure of 459,000; that is, B.C. had 13J per cent of the nation's unemployed. To alleviate the distress, DREE had at that time allotted 1.4 per cent of its funds to British Columbia. The figures speak for themselves. We had 13 i per cent of the illness and received 1.4 per cent of the medicine. The patient can hardly be blamed for feeling neglected.
I should like to point out as well that recent figures show that the metropolitan region of Vancouver has for eight months of the last 12 had the highest unemployment
25714-13J
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
rate in all of Canada, and again this month it is the highest. Why, in B.C., we are only to be allowed to have a designated region several hundred miles away from this great pool of unemployment is beyond me. I spoke of 13 j per cent unemployment in September and the treatment we got. I believe that it was just about the time of the release of these figures that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) made his contribution to the national debate by announcing that henceforth the sale of firecrackers would be prohibited. The script appeared to have been written by T. S. Eliot and the establishment had apparently decided that the government would go out, not with a bang, but with a whimper. Perhaps the hon. member for Verdun supplies the second half of the quotation, which is from what could be the litany of the present regime, the Hollow Men: "We are the hollow men, we are the stuffed men, leaning together."
I hope that my remarks may have explained to this House why and how British Columbia, particularly Vancouver Island and specifically Victoria, has come to a state of disenchantment with this government. As I said at the beginning, each constituency is different and each constituency has its problems. The problem is not that the majority have been silent but that this government has not been listening.
So, here we are in this House, at a crucial time in our history. The other day we heard the leader of the New Democratic Party give his familiar criticism of corporations. It was like old times for me. In British Columbia we have not heard much about corporate welfare bums since the NDP became owners of a railway, a hydro monopoly, one of the largest ferry fleets in the world and other corporations. This appears not only to qualify them as corporate owners, but even worse, as conglomerate owners, and the word "conglomerate" is even worse than the word "Corporation" in the NDP lexicon, I believe. At the same time, Mr. Barrett announced that he was providing government funds to pay for up to one-third of the cost of building an automobile plant if the foreign corporation would build it in British Columbia. On top of their other acquisitions, of course, they have $500 million in the bank. The silence on the subject out there has become defeaning since the B.C. NDP government decided to practice a little ideological nepotism by granting a contract to a Manitoba corporation, NDP sponsored, to supply buses to their corporation, B.C. Hydro.
The interesting part is that apparently public tendering is passe with the NDP when in office. The Minister of Municipal Affairs in British Columbia was in a hurry and said; "I'm not going to horse around with tendering." In British Columbia, the taxpayers will never know how much these two NDP corporations have ripped off them. So I wish to thank the member for York South (Mr. Lewis) for his nostalgic trip down memory lane, back to the high ideals and piety of the NDP when out of office.
The election results have transformed the Prime Minister into a modern day Uriah Heep, and the leader of the New Democratic Party has enjoyed a position of kingmaker for the last two months. If he now makes the wrong decision they may be the last enjoyable months he will have for a long time. Perhaps I might quote what Uriah Heep said to another David:

The Address-Mr. J. R. Gauthier
Now come, I have got some of you under the harrow. Think twice before it goes over you.
Then, he continues:
I will be a friend to you, in spite of you. So now you know what you've got to expect.
The other David, speaking to his Uriah Heep, said:
I have shown you often enough that I despise you. Why should I dread your doing your worst to all about you? What else do you ever do?
A couple of days ago the hon. member for York South suggested we wait and give this government yet another chance to bring forward legislation before voting it out. My reply is: Why wait for spring, do it now.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to congratulate you and your colleagues for your appointment to these high posts. I am proud to see that the role of Speaker belongs to a dedicated Franco-Ontarian who is doing honour to his province and to his country.
I should like also, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate and to thank the mover (Mr. Blais), and the seconder (Mr. Blaker) of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. It is a pleasure for me to see that like myself they are members of a minority in their respective province.
Also, Mr. Speaker, may I express my gratefulness to the Ottawa East electors who kindly elected me as their respresentative. I accept the honour and I shall endeavour to carry on my duties with all the dignity of that post and with all the ability I have.
During 27 years, from 1945 to 1972, Ottawa East was represented by Mr. Jean Thomas Richard. He was a man of action, a man of the people, and his voters and his country are obliged to him for 27 years of devoted service.
He acquired in those years as a servant of the Canadian people and his riding an enviable reputation as a lawyer and as a member of Parliament. He managed to prove that he was a serious man, a man who could listen to and serve the people of Canada. The people of his riding came to visit him in his office, in the House of Commons, and he always had time to see and help them.
During his long career in Parliament, Mr. Richard served as chairman of the Canadian section of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in 1965 and as chairman of the public service parliamentary committee in 1966-1967. A former whip of Ontario Liberals, Mr. Jean Thomas Richard also had the honor of acting as Deputy Speaker, in 1971. My predecessor served his country and the constituency he represented in Parliament and I should like, on behalf of the electors of Ottawa East, to extend to him our sincere thanks and to wish him long life and happiness.
Franco-Ontarian by birth, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks about the importance, for all of us, of bilingualism and above all of the ever growing recognition, in the English-speaking provinces, of the French fact which represents over one million Canadians living outside Quebec.
I want to be the spokesman for a people who unhappily have been too often in limbs, namely the Franco-Ontari-

ans. They do exist and I belong to that group of people who are competent and who want and can render great services to their country if they are given the opportunity of doing so. They proved that they were perseverant and steadfast, while respecting the rights of others. They fought for their country, they overcame a law which prevented them from studying in their own language. They lived with the fact that until very recently they were refused education in their own language, financed by public funds. They fought with persistance and today, anxious for better understanding, they continue to fight for the implementation of a legislation which is supposed to do them justice.
Even if this falls under provincial jurisdiction, the present government as well as the previous one, under the late Lester B. Pearson, recognized more than others that it was necessary to do justice to minorities through legislation, in the fields under federal jurisdiction, where necessary.
This Franco-Ontarian nation of which I am part was severely put to the test but survived and its future is very promising. What is more surprising is that this nation in spite of its problems of survival, the battles it had to fight, still has to fight and win without revolution and hatred. It is through persuasion and perseverance and by recognizing the rights of the majority that it succeeds in convincing more and more the members of the majority of the rightness of its claims and thereby improving its position without however infringing upon the rights of others.
It is only by giving justice to the minorities and through understanding of that fact by the majorities that this country will survive. In spite of the immense progress made in that field, Mr. Speaker, it happens too often that the authorities and even this government, no matter how sympathetic and understanding it may be, act as if "francophone" and "Quebecer" were synonyms. People are unaware of the fact that there are francophones outside of the province of Quebec and if we want a fair representation of francophones in important positions we will have to look outside of the province of Quebec to get them.
I would like this government to recognize in a practical way that francophones outside the province of Quebec constitute a nation with which dialogue is necessary, or the only thing that will be left will still be a silent minority. Francophones exist independently from their brothers of the province of Quebec but thqy are as francophone as they are and because of their qualities it is their intention to demand to be recognized as such in the allocation of positions and duties in the service of their country.
I repeat, no other government has been as appreciative of the development of French-speaking minorities outside the province of Quebec. As a matter of fact, it was the right hon. L. B. Pearson's governement that gave us the report of the B & B Commission. This royal commission prompted noticeable changes in provinces that have met the hopes of the French-speaking minorities in matters of education. Well informed Canadians will never forget the important role played by the federal government in giving its support to the education of minorities. In provinces where people are still struggling for the recognition of minorities' rights in education in their own language,
January 11, 1973

those who speak French know and greatly appreciate the important contribution made by the Liberal government towards the solution of their just claims.
The objectives of the French speaking minorities still pertain mainly to the life of this country as a whole. Some would have us believe that over a 100 years of relative peace guarantees confederation. But I would like to remark that the last 10 years with mounting tensions have shown that confederation is still on trial. The unrest is somewhat related to language; it is therefore natural for minority groups to turn to governments, especially the federal government, for legislation and for solutions to their problems.

As for education, Mr. Speaker, after the publication of Volume II of the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the federal government stated its acceptance of the principles underlying the recommendations of the commission and suggested a very broad program of co-operation with the provinces in order to stimulate the teaching of the language of the minority and the study of the second language. An amount of about $300 million, spread over a four year period, was allocated to the program which was to result from this co-operation.
Having worked for 11 years in the school field in Ontario, I would like to stress the importance of these programs on the education of French-speaking minorities outside Quebec. In fact, the objectives to which the federal and provincial governments have subscribed are that we should enable Canadians to have their children educated in the official language of their choice and that children should be provided with an opportunity to learn the other official language as their second language.
We are pleased to note that young people are much more receptive to bilingualism. The major recommendation of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism in favour of an equal partnership between the two major cultural groups will fall in fertile soil, since our young people are receptive to the idea of bilingualism. Obviously, this will take some time, but will eventually result in fewer tensions and a united Canada.
A bilingual education system is not the final answer to the major problems of national unity. I suggest that education systems should make every effort to teach both languages, but one should be wary of the attitude of some parents who, having transferred this responsibility to the school system, exonerate themselves from all risks and all blame for the example they set in not themselves practicing what they teach their children. Many parents confine the important problem of bilingualism to the school system while they do not exercise tolerance in the adult world to prove that they too are willing to make the effort. Let us not rest the problem of national unity on our children's shoulders. We are facing a communication problem, and human communication is greatly influenced by the attitudes of the people involved.
The Address-Mr. J. R. Gauthier
Mr. Speaker, I should also like to emphasize the major contribution of the federal government to the teaching of the second language in provinces with a strong Englishspeaking majority. I am aware that federal-provincial agreements will be negotiated again soon and I hope that our national contribution will be adequate in view of ever-increasing needs.
Nevertheless, because education comes under the sole jurisdiction of the provinces, serious consideration should be given to distribution of amounts contributed by the federal government for elementary and secondary education. It should be ensured that in the course of future federal-provincial negotiations we obtain a report from the provinces covering distribution of these amounts to achieve the specific objective for which they are meant, which is education of minorities. School systems are anxious to broaden their programs and they need manuals. Only through fair distribution of federal funds can the deep-rooted determination of both Francophones and Anglophones to study in their mother tongue be met.
At the same time, those young Anglophones wanting to learn French will be able to study under teaching conditions designed for their needs. It is only through the development of dynamic and modern language programs that we we will be able to satisfy those many people who wish to enrich the Canadian nation, not only in working together as a nation, but in knowing each other in our hearts and mind through the appreciation of both the main cultures of our country.
It is through the support and the recognition of all Canada that minorities will be able to realize their rightful ambition. Some Quebec separatists suggest that we have been assimilated. We are not so and much less separatists as some badly informed Anglophones believe. I cannot help but being proud in saying that we are all convinced federalists.
It is the utmost desire of Francophone minorities outside Quebec to live and let live. We want to live as we please, according to our character and state of mind, as free and responsible citizens with the assurance that in working together we will assure the progress and development of our country. We want to live while maintaining our language, our faith and our traditions, but at the same time respecting other people as we want them to respect us.
The French speaking minorities outside Quebec are at the forefront of bilingualism in Canada. They have fought to preserve their cultural and linguistic heritage, and in so doing are an example to their country.

Through federal contributions, francophone minorities are contributing to promote a Canadian way of life which is advantageously reflected on our country.
As they obtain funds from the federal government, francophone minorities are not ashamed nor indebted to anyone. They are rather doing the country a tremendous service by ensuring the survival of bilingualism and endeavouring, for instance, to obtain what we all want-a

January 11, 1973
The Address-Miss F. MacDonald
united Canada where both official languages and both cultures will thrive in peace, brotherhood and, above all, the respect for individuals.

Representing a riding which, by historical associations within our capital, has a rich heritage of architectural and educational values, it pleases me to note in the Speech from the Throne that, in co-operation with the provinces, we will provide assistance for the rehabilitation of older neighbourhoods. We must preserve our cherished neighbourhoods where a certain type of life has been created, and where tradition has helped shape the eventual national capital and, indeed, reflected itself on to the whole of Canada.
The people of my riding are most appreciative of and attentive to the social security measures which will be reconsidered and reorganized. With a large population of senior citizens who have contributed so much to this country, it is indeed warming to their hearts to see that they will be treated with compassion and equity with a guaranteed annual income.

A large number of citizens of my riding have low incomes. The opportunity for them to buy and live in their own house, with the help of the federal and provincial governments, will give them another opportunity of finding family atmosphere and benefitting from an economic factor in real estate which they could not have hoped for otherwise.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, allow me to remind you of a passage in Saint-Exupery's "The Little Prince". You will recall that when the little prince met the fox, he hoped to befriend him, for he was sad. But then the fox replied that he could not play with him because he was not tame. Thereupon the little prince asked what the word "tame" meant. "It means," replied the fox, "to create ties".
Of course, said the fox. To me, you are still just one little boy out of hundreds of thousands of little boys. I do not need you. And you don't need me either. To you, I am just a fox similar to hundreds of thousands of other foxes. But, if you tame me, we will need each other. You will become unique in the world for me. I shall become unique in the world for you .. .
That is what Canada means to me, Mr. Speaker: the close ties between two great peoples who are part of a country that is unique in the world.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands):: should like to add my sincere congratulations to the many already expressed on your election to the high office you hold, Mr. Speaker. Two days ago in the House, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), mentioned his participation in Mr. Speaker's first nominating convention. Sir, I remember participating in an equally auspicious occasion, the recounting of votes that followed Mr. Speaker's first election campaign. And I maintain, Sir, that throughout those tense days you displayed the same impartial and objective approach, to those of all political persuasions who were involved in that recount, that has since earned

for you the high regard and respect in which you are held in this House and beyond.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is a
great privilege and honour to rise in this House today as the representative for the historic riding of Kingston and The Islands which has contributed so much to the development of this great country. This year we celebrate the 300th anniversary of the founding of Kingston in 1673 by Frontenac, and today, January 11, is the anniversary of the birth of Kingston's first Member of Parliament, Sir John A. Macdonald.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: While I do not mind sharing him with the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), I would remind him that he is uniquely and distinctly Kingston's.
Sir John A. popularized many things in his time, not the least of which was to encourage hon. members to be born on his birthday. I am sure you will understand, Sir, if I take time to express my greetings to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan), the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) and the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance) on their special occasions.
What Frontenac in his time, and Macdonald in his, built on this continent they had to defend against military threat, political intrigue and the scepticism or the selfishness of men whose vision was small. Frontenac in the 17th century, and Macdonald in the 19th, had ambitions for Canada that transcended the times they lived in and the territory they occupied. Both men looked west. Frontenac extended the power of the King of France into the heart of North America. Macdonald's breathtaking concept of achievement was to secure half the continent to hand on to succeeding generations of Canadians.
I will not belabour the parallel between Frontenac and Macdonald. Their legacy belongs to each of us as Canadians and will be shared by many millions of Canadians to come. The House will understand if on this day especially I claim that special part of the Frontenac and Macdonald heritage which belongs uniquely to the people of Kingston and the Islands. Over the years the constituency of Kingston and the Islands has been represented in this House by many distinguished and remarkably gifted members. I assure the House that I am acutely aware of the exceptionally high standard of service to Canada that they have set.
And none more so than Sir John A. Macdonald-who first spelled out for this country a national policy-as we in our time are engaged in developing a new national policy. It is on several aspects of a new national policy that I wish to speak this afternoon. It is impossible-and indeed foolish-to try to escape the hand of the past in a place like Kingston. It was here that the parliament of the United Canadas sat in 1841. It was here, in the words of Kingston's motto, where the confederation dream began.
January 11, 1973

The cornerstone of Macdonald's dream-of his national policy-was a partnership between English and French speaking Canadians, making the best of the vast geographic challenge confronting them. This goal is as pertinent today as it was then but, like virtually all other things, the nature of the partnership and the details of the arrangements between the partners have changed substantially since the days of Macdonald.
They have been changed, redefined, in some respects even reversed, partly through informal means, partly even by changing the British North America Act. All these changes were necessary and, in the long run, no doubt advisable and desirable. But they have not brought us perfection nor a lastingly satisfactory solution to the kinds of tensions which are inevitable and can even be rewarding, in a multi-ethnic federal state. It is the very fact that we have not reached a lasting solution in the partnership that makes it imperative for each to find a mode of life with and alongside the other, while at the same time not so weakening the joint enterprise as to lay it open to further erosions of Canada's independence of action-economically, culturally, diplomatically-in relation to its powerful southern neighbour.
It is not unfair to say that although much has been achieved in the past in working out arrangements which seemed satisfactory at the time, there is at present clearly much discontent on the part, not only of provincial governments, and particularly that of Quebec, but also of various private groups within the provinces.
Important steps may have to be taken toward a redefinition of the partnership. In so doing, we at the federal level must remember that creative co-operation and interdependence in these fields, as in others, requires continuous consultation, not merely the presenting of proposals for comment. In devising new departures, alternative ways of doing things and compromises aiming at the mutually least disturbing arrangements we must, above all, maintain an open mind and a flexible stance. Nothing can be debarred from discussion and no approach should be ruled out as unthinkable. I am among those Canadians who are convinced that the long-run interests of both English and French speaking Canadians can best be met if we update our partnership in such a way that both come to feel strongly that our respective goals are being served and aided by the presence of the other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: This partnership has been strengthened by the presence of other groups and cultures. In addressing ourselves to the needs of the developing multi-culturalism of Canada I should like to pay particular attention to our native peoples.
The new national policy must spare no effort to provide full partnership to the native peoples. Although the numbers of these Canadians are smaller than those of some of the other main groups making up the country, the resources needed to be applied to achieve this end will have to be enormous-quite beyond what one would arrive at if one attempted to apply some sort of national per capita formula. The reasons are many, and relate to the nature and difficulty of the problem; our neglect of it over the years, and, let us admit it, the moral redress
The Address-Miss F. MacDonald
Canadians owe those they have so shamefully treated in the past.
More perhaps even than money, or at least equally, what is needed is the intellectual and creative effort to evolve new solutions and the moral and ethical courage to assign the problems of the native peoples the highest possible priority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I must stress that I found the throne speech shockingly inadequate-in fact abysmally silent in this respect. There was not one single word about the native peoples, and yet there are complex and difficult problems associated with efforts to create conditions under which the native peoples can participate on a footing of complete equality with others, whose values they may not share and which they may not wish to adopt. But whatever the size of the challenge, or because of it, we must assign it the highest priority: the nature of the problems requires it, our past neglect imposes it and the human suffering and injustice involved cry for it.
This is not the time or place in which to become involved in the details of this revision of the national policy, but one fact is utterly beyond dispute. In coping with the problems, in all their varied manifestations and at whatever level, the full, free and vigorous participation of the people most affected must be sought and assured. It is no longer good enough to fashion policies and possible solutions, no matter how well-intentioned and, after they have been thought out, written up and congealed, present them for discussion to their "victims". The total involvement of the native peoples themselves, in the evolution of adequate policies must be the top priority and it must be accompanied by an important psychological adjustment on the part of those with previous experience in the field. There are those, Mr. Speaker, who, having spent many years following a paternalistic approach in their work with native peoples, may find the premise difficult to accept, but accept it they must, that even some false starts and potential errors may be valuable beginnings if they are made by a people working out their own difficult problems. In any event, a new national policy must rest on a vast and urgent attack on the inequalities and handicaps affecting Canada's native peoples and this attack must be centred on the full participation, from the beginning to the end, of those most affected.
There is another facet of national policy that is achieving a growing awareness in Canada-national independence. I venture to say that every national parliament that has ever assembled in our country has had to face in one way or another the three great issues of Canadian political history, national unity, national independence and national development. These three issues confront every generation of Canadians with new and different responsibilities; and from every generation of Canadians new policies are needed. But the underlining challenges to our continued life together as one nationality are in this twenty-ninth parliament, as they were in the first, national unity, national independence and national development. It

January 11, 1973
The Address-Miss F. MacDonald
is sometimes difficult to articulate these questions in terms of the every day concerns of the Canadian citizen. But I am certain that there is running not far below the surface in this country a strong current of Canadian nationalism, a consciousness of our identity and an awareness of the need to strengthen our economic and political independence.
Sir John A. Macdonald believed that there were certain distinctive values which the people of British North America had in common, values which were worth the effort of developing a strong independent state. In that sense, Macdonald was a nationalist. In that sense, too, I am a nationalist. Macdonald recognized that confederation could not work if Canada did not have a strong, independent national economy. That is no less true today than it was in 1867. Canadian nationalism is considered by some not to be of primary importance, because there is not one concrete incident or issue to crystalize it. The cause of Canadian nationalism is too complex and important to be wrapped up in one issue; it is all pervasive. It relates not only to foreign investment but to many other areas: the extent to which we are producing Canadian textbooks for our schools, the extent to which we have available films produced by the National Film Board, and many other areas.
I believe there is a danger that, if focussed on one issue, nationalism can become negative or chauvinistic or antiAmerican and the good, essential cause of Canadian nationalism is thereby degraded. Rather than attempt to harness this current of Canadian nationalism to one passing issue, surely it is for parliament to give it a creative and constructive explanation in many different ways. I gladly acknowledge the imaginative and positive efforts that are already being made in this direction, such as assistance to the publishing industry in Ontario and the good work of the CRTC, among several federal bodies that I can mention.
The time has cpme to reinforce our control over our economic and political destiny. I believe this parliament can do so by joining with the provinces in an effective means of examining present and proposed foreign investment in Canada. We can do it by re-examining our resource policies, not by being stampeded into precipitate action by others. We can do it by adopting an industrial strategy to ensure that Canadian resources are processed in Canada. We must provide support for the development of an independent Canadian technological capability. We must adopt measures to encourage foreign owned companies to re-invest their profits in Canada and to ensure that Canadian borrowers are not deprived of capital because our lending institutions have chosen to give preferred status to the larger multi-national corporations. I firmly believe that such measures would strengthen and stimulate our national economy.
A new national policy must commit Canada to the elimination of poverty. There are probably as many as 6 million men, women and children in this country today who are compelled to live on incomes which are below the poverty line. I have seen poverty in this country. I grew up with it in Cape Breton. I have seen it in rural Saskatchewan. I have seen it in the outports of Newfoundland, and I have seen it in my own constituency. Until we have solved

this problem, no government can dare feel self-satisfied, no politician can be allowed to indulge in complacency.
Economic development means, first of all, real solutions to unemployment and the resulting poverty. We know that poverty causes irreversibly destructive effects on individual character. Isolation and despair have risen in vast numbers of Canadians who are confronted by the cruel realization that they cannot attain the self-respect that comes from a secure livelihood. This is the realistic human side of economic issues. In this post election period, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues say they have discovered the unemployed and the old age pensioners. But it is not enough to offer palliatives after the fact. This government has no comprehensive social policy, no policy which seeks to offer enduring solutions.
I cannot have confidence in a government which has allowed soaring food prices to hurt hundreds of thousands of Canadians on limited budgets and yet has taken no action. I cannot have confidence in a government which fails to provide sufficient expansionary economic policies while a record number of Canadians are without jobs. I cannot have confidence in a government which has resolved merely to do a better job of selling its policies while failing to tackle the maze of incompetently administered programs. These things have happened because this is a government which has become remote from the people and insensitive to individual human concerns, a government whose vision is limited by its isolation from the people.
I believe that the success of any policy is related to the responsiveness of government and I would argue further that the responsiveness of government is related to the sensitivity, understanding and interest of those who hold power. But this has been notoriously lacking in the recent years. I think there is an urgent need for government to recognize, not just pay lip service, to the need for greater involvement, wider participation, more thorough consultation and understanding. I would see this as basic to the evolution of the new national policies I have been discussing. If this should not materialize, I fear the result will be the alienation of more and more Canadians from a political system that fails to respond to their needs.
The maintenance of our political system is of special interest to me because most of my adult life has been spent as an organizer for my political party, as an officer, or as an active worker. It is a matter not just of my personal observation of many Canadians but confirmed by every scientific study of the subject I have seen, that there is a substantial number of Canadians who are convinced that nothing they say or do, including the exercise of their right to vote, has the slightest impact on the governmental or parliamentary process. To many, the machinery of government seems to operate in its own way for its own purpose, and while it closely affects their lives, they feel powerless to influence it.
The House is aware of the numerous methods that have been proposed or experimented with to give the citizens a greater degree of influence on decisions that affect their lives, and the kind of country they live in, but none of
January 11, 1973

this-not the ombudsman, not the regional desk, not information in, not information out-can have anything but a marginal effect. What is essential is that we build up a credibility in our party process, increase the influence and responsibility of the individual Member of Parliament, and secure the integrity and legitimacy of the electoral system, for these are at issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We, as
Members of Parliament and as members of political parties, have a personal responsibility to combat the alienation that afflicts the political system. There is a growing danger to political parties that pressure groups, protest movements, student activists, social planning councils, will so establish themselves as agents of social change that parties will have little room to manoeuvre. Many people already feel there is so little genuine radicalism inside the party system that anyone wishing change must look elsewhere. Yet we cannot function without political parties. It was Lord Bryce, a great scholar and a great politician, who said:
Political parties are far older than democracy. No free large country has ever been without them. No one has shown how representative government could be worked without them.
Sir John A. Macdonald was not only the father of this country, he was the father of his party. I am sure he would be the first to recognize the changes that are necessary in our political and electoral processes to ensure a viable party system and thereby a viable parliamentary system. It is with that reference to Sir John A. Macdonald that I return to Kingston and The Islands. Many important functions and occasions will be taking place in my constituency in this tercentenary year, none more important than the visit of Her Majesty the Queen which His Excellency the Governor General so graciously observed in the Speech from the Throne.
I should like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to extend to you and to all hon. members an invitation to come to Kingston to participate in our tercentenary celebrations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is not only with apprehension and anxiety but with a deep feeling of respect and pride that I deliver today my first speech in the House of Commons.
I have already had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of serving the Canadian people for a few years in other capacities. It is however a great honour for me to take my place in this assembly as elected representative of the constituency of Outremont.
I have been for a long time an observer and admirer of our parliamentary institutions. Those institutions are closely related to the Canadian context and they have appeared quite sensitive to the problems encountered by the government as the result of the complex developments in the world.
The Address-Mr. Lalonde
Now if the successive Canadian governments have remained mindful of the needs of the people that ability is mostly due to the fact that it is made up of individuals sitting in this House who heed the advice of the 264 delegates of the Canadian people who are sharing that task.

This House certainly has known many outstanding parliamentarians. I believe the highest honour that can be conferred on one of its members is that of being recognized by his colleagues as a true House of Commons man. As I begin my parliamentary career, I can only express the hope that one day my colleagues will be kind enough to give me such an honour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: The profound respect that both you, Mr. Speaker, and your distinguished colleague the Deputy Speaker have inspired in all hon. members of the House will set up an ideal which I shall strive to emulate.
I am also flattered by my nomination as Minister of National Health and Welfare. However, my pride is tinged with a substantial dose of humility and the awareness of the challenge so ably met by my predecessors, among them the Hon. Brooke Claxton and Paul Martin, J. Waldo Monteith, Judy LaMarsh and also the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), all of whom successively gave shape to the social security policy of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House of the approach envisaged by the government for its social security policy as outlined a few days ago in the Speech from the Throne.
As indicated in that document, that aspect of policy is one of this government's first two priorities, and there are two excellent reasons therefor.
First of all, our study of the social security system has revealed that income security plans in Canada are inadequate for attainment of the objectives set. They were created for several purposes; first to provide protection for those who normally would have adequate incomes, whose incomes were, on the average, adequate during their lifetime, against the risk of lost earning capacity during a relatively short period and also to assist them in regulating their income flow along the years. In the second place, the plans aimed at ensuring adequate and equitable incomes to people normally unable to be selfsupporting and finally to contribute an income supplement, with due consideration to appropriate work incentives, to those who, during a given period, are unable to earn sufficient amounts.
Now, during that study, we clearly saw that a reform of the Canadian social security programs was not possible solely through amendments to federal legislation; instead, a concerted global approach of all the social security programs, at the federal and provincial levels, was in order.
A second reason for the high priority accorded the Canadian social security policy is the fact that the Canadian people have clearly indicated to the House of Corn-
198

1954. The guaranteed income supplement for aged people was created in 1966, while the Canada and Quebec pension plans date back to 1965.
While drawing this list, Mr. Speaker, I could not help but note that most of these legislative measures had been the work of Liberal governments, over the past 50 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: The people who contribute to the pension plans are entitled to pensions as soon as they retire or become incapacitated, and payment of benefits to their survivors is provided. Elderly people who find it difficult to live on their personal savings and their pension benefits receive a minimum annual guaranteed income by way of the old age pension and the supplement. Furthermore, the provinces grant welfare benefits to those who are unable to make both ends meet because of insufficient income.
Each of these programs has been set up to correspond to specific needs, but they have never been entirely coordinated. Benefits paid to old people, for instance, are fixed, in a general way, by the Parliament of Canada, and are thus different from those set up by the provinces under the welfare plan for those who are blind or handicapped and for mothers with dependent children. These differences result from the fact that each program comes under a different jurisdiction and that the programs themselves were adopted at one time or another in view of purposes which were different and even sometimes conflicting.
Therefore, during this session we intend to strive to overcome these obstacles. The federal government feels that federal and provincial authorities should identify as explicitly as possible the groups of people who now are or should be considered unable to work, and set up a guaranteed plan to be implemented gradually over a given period, which would apply in the most rational way possible to all these groups.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: The second principle is this; the social security system as it applies to people who can work must contain incentives to work and a greater emphasis on the need to get people who are on social aid back to work. Let me say here immediately, Mr. Speaker, that saying this is not advocating a return to poor laws. This is plain com-monsense and good judgment. The first and most important requirement must be the opportunity for people to obtain work. However difficult the achievement of this goal may appear, this government, through the expansion of job opportunities in both the private and public sectors, is as committed as anyone else on the opposition benches to the creation of an environment in which jobs will be available for Canadians who are ready and able to work.
An important incentive is the assurance that a person will not be better off on social assistance than if he takes a job. This involves two separate problems. First, wages generally take no account of a worker's family responsibilities, whereas social assistance must be high enough to provide for all one's dependents. It was to help meet
The Address-Mr. Lalonde
this problem that the family income security plan was originally proposed. Some means must be found to make sure a worker with a family is not penalized by going back to work. The second problem lies in the way assistance payments are calculated; apart from a small amount of exempt earnings, assistance payments are typically cut back by a dollar for every dollar earned. You are thus no farther ahead by taking on a part-time job. Assistance plans should be designed so as to encourage those who can work to take jobs and still receive whatever supplementary assistance is necessary.
It will not be easy to devise incentives that will provide assistance to those who need it, including the working poor; those who work full-time at low levels of earnings, and those who can only work part time, and yet assure the public that those who can support themselves do so. But there is clearly room for improvement in existing mechanisms. In recent months this government has made amendments in the administration of the unemployment insurance program to ensure that those who are getting the support which this program affords are in fact entitled to that support.
Our social assistance programs need similar attention. In this area almost all governments have indicated the need for special measures to help those temporarily on assistance to find jobs, and have recognized that there are obstacles to self-support which must be removed. The task of removing them is not a simple one, but the attention which this particular problem has received in recent years, by my predecessor in this portfolio, and by his provincial colleagues, provides a sound basis for a renewed effort to overcome the various obstacles. I have every hope this problem can now be successfully tackled in a joint federal-provincial forum.
The third principle which would, in our view, guide us in our review of social security problems is this: a fair and just relationship must be maintained between the incomes of people who are working at or near the minimum wage, the guaranteed incomes assured to people who cannot work, and the allowances paid to those who can work but are unemployed. This principle encompasses a basic problem that must be faced in the rationalization of the income security system. We want to develop a reasonable balance between income support available to the aged poor and to the non-aged poor. We also wish to structure benefits for people who can work, in a way that fully recognizes the levels of incomes normally earned through employment. Also, we need to ensure adequate recognition in all cases of the additional needs where there are dependents. Because there is no automatic relationship between what people are able to earn and what they need in order to maintain their families outside of poverty, we will need to supplement low incomes. Supplementation must be structured so as to preserve incentives to work, and also so as to recognize that larger family responsibilities involve larger income requirements. It was this last concern in particular that motivated the development of the family income security plan; and we intend to pursue this concern with legislation in this session. The proposals will be designed not only to meet this pressing need, but also to ensure that the plan can become an integral, consistent part of the total income security system which will result from our broader review.
25714-14J

January 11, 1973
The Address-Mr. Lalonde
The fourth principle we have enunciated is integrally related to the third, namely that it must be recognized that provinces may wish to have the structures of social security varied in accordance with the social needs, income standards and the cost of living in different communities.
Canada is a very large country, and the problems which particular categories of individuals face in relation to the satisfaction of social needs are often quite different. These differences are rooted in the differing demographic, geographic, social and economic circumstances in which individuals find themselves. These variations in immediate environmental circumstances of individuals are of special interest and concern to provincial and municipal governments. On the other hand, we in this House have been especially concerned, as we must be, with national standards. Whether national standards can really be achieved by providing uniform levels of benefits is an issue of major concern to provincial administrations and, I believe, to the community as a whole. There is much evidence that suggests that uniform benefits do not necessarily achieve standardized effects on the relief of social needs.
We must admit, I think, that parliament, despite its excellent record of social legislation, has not yet found a way of providing for variations in payments that would assure fair and equitable results in all situations. This paradox of uniformity which fails to achieve equality has long troubled all who have been involved in the administration of social welfare. In recent years provincial governments have criticized a national security system which is not integrated at the level of the beneficiaries and which does not take sufficient account of provincial resources, goals and priorities. What appears to be needed, if we are to resolve the unavoidable problems of conflicting objectives and priorities within income security systems, are mechanisms by which the issues can be fully discussed with the provinces so that provincial legislatures may play a fuller role in determining what patterns and priorities should prevail in the total social security program.
This is not a matter, I might say, of weakening the federal presence in this area of policy. In so doing, we are not seeking solutions that would involve setting up the federal government as a mere tax collection agency for the provinces, because the federal government, indeed the federal parliament, would not support such an arrangement. Members of this House do not regard themselves as mere representatives of their respective provincial governments for they were elected directly by the citizens of this country to legislate for the whole country, and members of the House are authorized to speak for the population they represent every bit as much as are provincial legislators.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: If the provinces are willing to be one-tenth as flexible as the federal government on this question, if they are prepared to show vis-a-vis our proposal a spirit of understanding similar to the one that we will show vis-a-vis theirs, if they are willing to admit that the con-
(Mr. Lalonde.]
cerns of the members of this House for the under privileged is just as great as that of members of provincial legislatures, then I am convinced that we can find some sensible way of adapting the programs to the needs of different areas and of achieving the integration of the programs which will mitigate if not wholly remove the anomalies which have been found to be unacceptable to so many Canadians.

The last principle derives from everything that has been stated so far. The review of the social security system in Canada has to be a joint achievement of the federal and provincial governments. A more rational system of social security could not be created eventually unless there is a reasonable measure of agreement between the government of Canada and the provincial governments. It is superfluous I hope to emphasize that the very nature of our country demands that our social security system be the result of consultations between the federal government and the provinces. Actually, it was the inefficacy of our efforts in that direction, as I mentioned earlier, that probably gave rise to the contradictions which appear today in the Canadian social security system, since Parliament and the legislative assemblies have a natural tendency to legislate on their own in fields that come under their constitutional jurisdictions.
So, if the provinces agree, it is our intention to re-examine with them the whole social security system. This is what we have done for the past few years within the Canadian government with respect to federal programs and I know that many provinces have done so as regards their own programs, but the time has come to review the whole social security system together and to work out a new approach involving the principles which we believe are generally supported by the population and the legislative bodies in Canada.
We must perform this review with due consideration for other federal and provincial measures. Many of these connected fields will obviously be involved. It is essential to keep in mind the impact of overall economic policies on economic incentives and j *b creation. We must also recognize the occasional need for special measures to create jobs in areas where unemployment is highest. Finding jobs for those who are able to work is indeed one of the cornerstones of the social security policy.
Therefore it is important to understand the effects of legislation on minimum wages at all levels of social security. This is not meant to say that social security levels must be tied in with minimum wages or vice versa. It is rather a matter of properly understanding that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. minister as I must inform him that his time has run out. Unless he is given unanimous consent, he cannot continue his speech. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the wish of the House to allow the hon. minister to finish his speech?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I say that we have been giving permission to the ministers to take an extra live or ten minutes, and this is certainly all right, but may I suggest that questions should not be put from this side following the extended time. So, we are agreeable to the minister having a few more minutes to complete his speech.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we, too, are agreeable to giving the minister a few more minutes to complete his interesting statement. We wish, however, that he would use some of that time to give us some precise information as to what the government intends to do within these broad principles.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed that the minister continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marc Lalonde: I thank hon. members for their understanding and kindness in allowing me a little more time. I will try to complete my remarks in as little time as possible and answer all the points that have been raised, Mr. Speaker.

Moreover, I said that there must be a link between the social security system and the taxation system. The basic hypotheses related to the possibility for single people and families of paying taxes on one hand and to their need for a supported income on the other hand should be considered as components of the same problem. Efforts should be made in order to set up income security programs reaching the objectives within a relationship of interdependence with the taxation system itself.
It is also important to recognize that there are numerous forms of redistribution of income in Canada and that the social security legislation must be approached in the context of the global system: taxation laws, redistribution of certain services such as medical and hospital care, equalization payments to the provinces, regional economic expansion programs and so on. If Canada wants to reach the goals it has set for itself in the realm of social security, it must find the best way of grouping these components.
Lastly, we must take into account the possibility of a conflict between, on one hand, the natural aversion of Canadians for an increase in the general level of taxation an on the other hand the concern that the various governments should have on behalf of all Canadians concerning the improvement of the help given to the poor. It is obvious that desirable goals whatever they may be, whether in the public or private sector, cannot be reached without the necessary resources. We have not discovered yet a magic wand or an alchemical formula allowing us to reach economical or social objectives effortlessly. We mean that the government must undertake a redistribution of resources and that it will take the necessary steps in order to carry out the desirable reforms in social pro-
The Address-Mr. Lalonde
grams. However, that redistribution of resources will only be undertaken after having carefully taken into account the present requirements in various fields and the main social priorities.
Having asserted the conviction of the government that the provinces, in co-operation with the federal government, should review the entire social security scheme in Canada, and having stated the principles which we feel should be adhered to while that review is under way, allow me to explain the procedure we propose to the provinces.
First of all, the principles that should govern the revision should be discussed with the provinces at a federal-provincial conference. We would also hope that those principles would also be discussed extensively by the public, as well as studied by the representatives of federal and provincial governments.
Secondly, the federal government would suggest, after consultation with the provinces, that it develop a theoretical model for a social security system towards which all efforts would be aimed. We would also welcome all alternative models proposed by the provinces, singly or collectively. In that way, we would be assured of seeking the best solution and those proposals would, of course, be debated during a series of federal-provincial conferences should several conferences be needed.
May I add that we will not suggest that, to achieve this revision, an independent semi-autonomous federal-provincial commission or secretariat be created which would be vaguely responsible to the federal and provincial governments.
Lastly, I am convinced that the provinces will agree on setting a time limit for this study. I shall suggest a maximum period of two years to the provincial social welfare ministers. The federal government would be willing to speed up the process if the provinces so wish. In any event, I feel it would be possible, in that period of time, to develop an objective or the prototype of a social security system, and elaborate specific plans to enable us to attain that objective or use that model.
However, this government wants to assure the Canadian people that this global review of the social security system will not bring everything to a standstill during that period. Indeed the pursuit of a better integration should not lead us to desregard, even temporarily, the citizens' welfare through the existing programs.
This government has committed itself to introduce a new guaranteed family income plan which would take particular care of the needs of low income families, because it recognizes that the institution of a just and equitable family allowance plan is a basic element of the social security system. Families whose breadwinner is unable to work need allowances to increase the income guaranteed by reason of their inability to work. Families whose breadwinner is able to work, as I said a moment ago, also need family allowances because their salary does not take into account their dependents.
Before the social welfare ministers' conference in April, we will introduce in the House measures to deal with the new guaranteed family income plan. When I shall have had discussions with my provincial counterparts and

The Address-Mr. Lalonde
benefited from their suggestions, I will be able to introduce the new legislation concerning the guaranteed family income plan.
The government has also undertaken to improve the economic situation of the aged. The first leading principle of the social security system of the future, we stated, is that aged people who can no longer work must be provided with a guaranteed minimum annual income. A number of amendments have been made over the past years to improve the lot of pensioners and aged people in Canada.
Canada already has a guaranteed income plan for the aged. We must still find out to what extent pensions paid constitute a fair income.
I wish to ensure the House that I have considered all suggestions submitted for the improvement of old age security pensions, and that I have already discussed this matter with several of my provincial counterparts. I am confident that I shall complete this consultation with the provincial ministers well before the official formulation of a proposal to the House. However I can assure hon. members that a substantial old age pension increase will be announced soon, and I hasten to add that it will not be a mere token increase. We will bring forward other measures in order to improve the financial position of more elderly people, measures we must first discuss with the provinces in the light of the principles stated in the Speech from the Throne as to a complete review of the social security system. While making our decision, we must always bear in mind the opinion so often expressed by my provincial colleagues that increasing the gap between the pensions available to people over 65 leads to greater difficulties as regards people under 65. That is a question to which we should give great attention in our upcoming federal-provincial review of the overall income system.
Mr. Speaker, I also should like to point out to the House that officials met recently in order to improve the benefits provided under the Canada Pension Plan.
The 1970 white paper on income security recommended substantial increases in pensions for widows and disabled people.
Discussions took place this week and they will continue in March, then we will have the opportunity of discussing them with the ministers during the April meeting.
I should like also to inform the House of the very important meeting on health matters that will take place next Friday with the ministers of health in order to consider that question and, if possible, agree on a new and complete health care financing system in Canada. Under that proposal, new financial arrangements would be introduced to give greater scope to the provinces when they set their priorities within the national overall standards and follow the policy they deem the most efficient, considering such priorities.
Since I became interested in the affairs of the state, Mr. Speaker, I have been warned on occasion that a government should never venture on a road whose destination is more or less uncertain. For two reasons, I cannot accept such advice from timorous and conservative souls. First, if we perceive with enough vision the guidelines and if we have devoted sufficient time to the consideration of a
problem-as we have certainly done within the government of Canada-we do have then a sufficiently clear notion of the road to take it with some confidence.
Still more important however, if we do not have the courage to revise the programs thoroughly we are unfailingly imposing on the taxpayer, even without knowing it, the high cost of temporary and incoherent solutions. If I understand the Canadian people well, the governments should put an end to the dispersion of efforts and participate instead in the entire revision of the system just as the government of Canada is suggesting today.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I begin with my sincere congratulations to you and to all our presiding officers, but particularly to the Speaker of the House, who has again been acclaimed as the chief commoner among us. I am not one of these who believe in developing sophisticated techniques for securing for all time the position of permanent Speaker. I always believe that when the time comes Members of Parliament will choose from among themselves a Speaker whom they will want to have in office as long as he will stay, and this is what we have been able to do. We have chosen one of us. He is chief among us, primus inter pares. We honour his selection, and that is a fair way to have the whole matter dealt with. I congratulate our Speaker and I congratulate our corporate wisdom in time after time giving him the burdens of the high office, the functions of which he discharges with ease, grace and great impartiality.
I have as well to congratulate the hon. members who moved and seconded the address. I think they acquitted themselves very well.
This is a most interesting time to be in parliament, Mr. Speaker. It is my seventh parliament. I come from the cradle of confederation, the city of Charlottetown-sometimes I have to assure people that in spite of my appearance I am not a father of confederation! It is indeed a most interesting time. I look across at the truncated, traumatized and slightly tenderized government led by a swinger who has become a clinger. I look down to my left at those who were the mighty terrors in this House-my, how terrible they could be. They are now the handmaidens of the iniquitous of yesterday. The people across the way wear the cap of penitence and the cloak of humility. How different things are from four years ago when I took part in the Speech from the Throne. The whole place was supposed to tremble at the merest shrug then.
It is not of course for me to tell my erstwhile neighbours to the left, geographically that is, what they should do and how they should preserve themselves in the public life of Canada. I believe they have a role to play but because I used to sit near them, and I like a good many of them, I should just like to say that as they accept the embrace of the fervent and fevered party across the way they should just pay a little attention to history. When Ulysses saw the cave of the Cyclops he almost went in, but he noticed that all the tracks went in and none came out.
I am surprised that the hon. member, the scrapper from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), with his
(Mr. Lalonde.]
January 11, 1973

great knowledge and love for the Prairies, did not think of a situation later than the one that faced Ulysses. I think of a period before my time, in 1921, when a party much larger than the New Democratic Party was in this House. There were 64 Progressives-64, Mr. Speaker. They were courted by the Liberal party, then as now determined to stay in power whether the people wanted them or not. What happened to the 64? In the next election there were 24, in the next election there was only half that number and so that once great party, an important party of idealism, disappeared, and there was very little left but a cabinet post or two and a few senators. I wonder if I am going to see the day when I will leave my duties in this green chamber, walk across to the red chamber and there see Senator Knowles and Senator Lewis being introduced by Senator Argue to those august gentlemen. For this advice there is no charge, Mr. Speaker.
I am happy to be taking part in the Speech from the Throne today, January 11, and to hear the fine speeches like the one of my good friend the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) in British Columbia. I call it "the other Victoria" because there is Victoria, Prince Edward Island, my home town, which is somewhat smaller than but just as beautiful as his fine city. I liked his literary style and the statesmanship of his utterances. I was delighted with the maiden speech of our maiden member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald). She said things that should be said about people who really concurred in the ideals of Sir John A. Macdonald.
Sir John A. Macdonald was not regarded as one of the greatest orators of our public life. He would rank behind Howe, Laurier and Bourassa. The story is told of one occasion when at a great public meeting he was applauded for the great speech he had delivered. One of the poll chairmen told him that it was the greatest speech he had ever made. He replied, "Do you know why? That glass of water in front of me was straight gin". But the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands had straight water-I ordered it for her. She did not need anything else to deliver a fine and eloquent speech.
I was much impressed and moved by the fine address of my new colleague, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). This is the kind of wisdom, the kind of moderation, the kind of concept of the whole country that we need in these days. As I looked at him, I thought of Sir John A. Macdonald and came to the conclusion that we have a modern Cartier among us. I salute him and I predict for him great accomplishment for his province, for our party and, much more important, for our country.
Sometimes hon. members will make a mistake and in this debate refer to the Speech from the Throne. I am going to lapse just for a moment. I was impressed by some discoveries there and some continuing amnesia. I am glad that the west has been rediscovered. It needed to be found again by the people on the Treasury Benches, but I wondered why the Atlantic region still seems not to be visible. There is to be a conference with the four western premiers. Just because we have hardened to a situation where unemployment is chronic, where the cost of living is the highest, where these things become constant over the years, that is no reason some effort could not have been made to redress the imbalances of that part of
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie
Canada from which the whole country had its origins in the Charlottetown conference. Search as I could, I discovered very little that had a direct bearing upon the economic problems of my province or the other three provinces by the Atlantic.
I did note one item, Mr. Speaker. The government will meet with provincial governments in the five regions of the country to examine the impact of freight rates on economic growth and consumer prices. I can tell them that for one region they might as well save their time and the taxpayers' money. Surely to heaven, we do not need a top level conference to discover that nine freight rate increases in four years would not be a good thing for the economy of the Atlantic region. We have had studies up to our necks. We would like now a little remedial action. That is my suggestion on that matter.
I do not go in for partisanship in this House. I do not know whether that has increased my popularity or not, but I am impressed by the effort made by the present government at conversion. If it comes off, it will make that incident that befell St. Paul a very slight and casual undertaking! I am wondering if in fact we are seeing any repentance or a new form of arrogance.
I am troubled when it is suggested to the people of Canada that they should recant their judgment because they are bidden to do so and that those Canadian people who rejected the government's best thoughts on October 30 should some day in the future go all-out for them when their second best thoughts are put forward. Are the Canadian people to be bidden to give an accolade to this truncated cabinet and to the ministers who obviously could not have been first choice or they would have been put in the cabinet earlier?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: It comes close to suggesting that the people do not really know what they are doing after all; that if we can dress the thing up some way they will swallow this and come through with what was supposed to happen on October 30 anyway. I would not count on that if I were a member of the government.
We are impressed with some interesting changes, and I heard this suggestion in the speech of the minister who has just left the chamber. I remember that the provinces were likened to the opposition. The provinces and then-premiers were terrible. Now we are overwhelmed with dominion-provincial co-operation and consultation. The provinces are almost as popular as the Queen.


Robert Muir: They rediscovered her.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I followed with close interest the minister's speech. I do not wish to critize the speech itself, because he obviously is a scholar of great distinction and is clearly used to writing speeches, although I suspect he may be used to writing speeches for members who have unlimited time in the chamber, since he went a good deal beyond his time. I appreciate the generosity of the two whips in donating my time and allowing him to continue. However, I am a man of great generosity and do not complain. My only reaction to the minister's speech was

January 11, 1973
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie
this: I had to go back to the Speech from the Throne to find something that was close to specific. It struck me that instead of telling us in specific detail what would happen, what the impoverished people of Canada can expect from this government, the minister delivered, rather, a position paper which was drawn up before the Speech from the Throne was delivered. I am now further from knowing, as I am sure other members are, what the government plans in this important field than on the day we heard His Excellency read the speech. Somehow there has been a reversal of priorities.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps he read the wrong speech.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: My colleague suggests that perhaps the minister delivered the wrong speech. Perhaps he did.
As hon. members may know, I have been given special responsibility in the vast and important field of national health and welfare and I plan to discharge my duties as best I can, although I do not think even in the days of modern image makers I can pass as the epitome of physical fitness and become a household word to the youth of Canada in that regard. However, I can say that I kicked the smoking habit long before I heard of Judy LaMarsh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Perhaps that is one of my attributes which qualifies me for my eminent position, in as much as I am following such an eminent minister as the Minister of National Health and Welfare, (Mr. Lalonde). This morning I was reading in the Montreal Gazette just how eminent he has become. We are told he is the architect of new social policy. Clearly, he is a very important man. What do they say about the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier)? He is left on the beach. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) we are told is no longer vital, I assume they mean politically rather than otherwise. And, the former solicitor general (Mr. Goyer) has been overtaken by change. So, I am now given the responsibility of following one of the giants of the new administration. It makes you think.
I thought he would tell us something about the Olympic games. There is some confusion over which minister is responsible for that important exercise. I thought he might tell us a bit about what happened to the Le Dain Commission which used to hold us so breathlessly attentive in the previous parliament. I want to know, particularly, what is to be done for our old age pensioners. I had the fearful sensation throughout his speech that what the impoverished and underprivileged of this land would get would be another series of consultations and studies. Perhaps, under the new dispensation, they may even be called royal commissions. That adjective is now acceptable. I do not know what is to happen. Has the White Paper of 1970 been completely discarded? Is there no federal initiative at all? What will this government do regarding those portions of the social welfare program which are solely its responsibility. What will be done about old age security? I remember, not long ago, that the payment was jacked up by 42 cents a month. Will the new benevolence double that? Will the extra payment be brought up to the six buck level of earlier days of Liberal munificence? I fear that, while many will be impressed by

the minister's literary style, by the structure of his address, if the needy are looking for solace they will not find it in anything that has been said.
I want to be as positive as possible. I hope that there is on the part of this government, finally, a sincere withdrawal from the old politics of confrontation with provinces. Far too much of that went on. The dominion-provincial conference was a battle ground where you won your spurs by snapping back at the provinces. Of course, the entire realm of social welfare requires tremendous involvement on the part of provinces because our fathers, in their wisdom in 1867, gave to the provinces the burden of jurisdiction in this field but not the adequate taxation field. So, it has been a constant battle for them. There must be meaningful discussion with the provinces. It has been called for time and again by the leader of my party and others. Even if this were to be a deathbed conversion, and even if the newly converted were to be in office a short time only, it could be a positive good. I was disturbed by the frequent reference to words such as "further study, further examination". I jotted them down. Some are to start in April. Why? When in the world will benefits start to flow? The minister's speech, I think, was certainly no manifesto for action. I am afraid it was a highly literate stalling device. The government is stalling for time. There seems to be a good deal of that today.
It is interesting to note that people who are so "hepped up" in staying in office are so terribly slow in producing that legislation which will indicate where they are going.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Last fall it was declared that the country could not afford to lose the services of such people as sit opposite. One would think that logic, and the minister used the word "logic" a good deal in his speech, would compel the government to act, would compel it to introduce piles and piles of legislation and would compel the government to tell us what it will do with its stay of execution. Yet, Mr. Speaker, alas, there is no indication from the government that it is poised for action, that it is composed of a group of people finally awake to the inequities and inequalities in this country, determined to do something meaningful about them and finally willing to show compassion for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who find it difficult to get along day by day.
There are people in Atlantic Canada, actually in all parts of this nation, who just cannot cope with grim economic realities. Are there to be increased benefits for them? We do not know if the government will do something for those people, or when. I still do not know what it will do, and they do not know. Will we see any moves regarding the old age security pension? Are we finally to do something in this field. I know it is not the minister's department, yet it should be of concern to him, but are we to do something about the war veterans? We are burying gallant men who have died and not received pensions to which they were entitled-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: -because of lumbering, inefficient, careless and cold bureaucracy somewhere. I hope there will be action at the ministerial level finally to process the
January 11, 1973

claims of these men and to give them their just deserts. It is simply criminal. I am sure there is not a member in this House who has not had personal experience with his constituents, especially the gallant old boys of World War I who are passing on. No amount of retroactivity will do those gallant sons any good.
It was interesting to hear about the minister's incentives. When he was reading about them I quickly looked up one of the policy statements of my party which pretty well contained all of them. So, for that part I liked the speech. As he read further, I concluded he had only read it and had not really determined what he would do with it. He still does not know what he is going to do with it. The provision of incentives can hardly be meaningfully put into effect by a government which month after month displays that it cannot find work for thousands and thousands of Canadian people. So, we get back again to this issue of the general incompetence of the government. I heard the minister say that the government was committed in this field. As one of my colleagues said, they may have the commitment but do they have the competence. This is the question we must ask and which our people must ask.
I think the time has come for us to look very carefully at the question of incentives. I believe a government has an obligation to provide the opportunity for people to work. Some of us Calvinists are often sneered at for what is called the old fashioned work ethic of people several generations ago. But when I look around the world and see country after country competing with Canada in the markets of the world with economic gain I wonder if the work "ethic" is so out of date after all. Nor can I believe that any but a very small group of Canadian people prefer the dole to meaningful work. No society should be placed in a position where government makes it easier and better economically to be on the dole than meaningfully and interestingly employed. These are the kinds of things I believe we must examine. To that part of the minister's speech, I take no exception. I think it is the kind of thing he should think more about and which we should think more about.
I look forward to something which might mean more hope and more confidence. Part of the problem of the government opposite is that it never really sensed the extremity of the problem. It never realized I am sure how much poverty stalked this rich land. The government never looked at what happened to the person who under the system is penalized because he did find work. I received a letter from a man 71 years of age who said he never drew a cent of unemployment insurance in his life because he had always found something to do. However, he said he now is idle and while his neighbour who is 31 years younger has been receiving unemployment insurance every winter he cannot receive a cent because he is over age 70. Is that just a statistic or just a little human tragedy about which we should be concerned?
The minister mentioned the FISP program. I profoundly hope, with his great intellectual capacity and agility, he will not recycle the administrative monstrosity that was before us in the last parliament. I hope he will correct the errors where the need is greatest but that we will not have
The Address-Mr. Nesdoly
the Canadian people required to abjectedly display their poverty before some emanation of the state. I think we have passed the stage of the rude means test which caused such agony to so many people for so long.
Finally, since I have had one good habit since I came to this House of never exceeding my time limit, I will resume my seat and say in a personal way that I wish the minister well. If all the things he produces will benefit the people of Canada he will find not carping criticism from this side of the House but rather as much thoughtful and helpful discussion as we can give him, because I believe in the field of social welfare there is no ground for partisan infighting and I for one do not intend to indulge in it.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Mr. Speaker, might I join with other members of this House in congratulating you on your election to office. I should like also to extend my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker. Needless to say, after stomping through Meadow Lake constituency for several months the atmosphere here is somewhat different and therefore my knees are somewhat shaky. However, as time goes on I believe probably I shall warm up a little bit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: A number of references were made in this House, with a certain amount of derision, to the fact that only 10 per cent of the seats in this House are held by members of the New Democratic Party. I should like to remind members of this House that although we hold perhaps only 10 per cent or 12 per cent of the seats, if we include the Northwest Territories and some of the other far flung constituencies, we represent half of the land area of this great country. I think this is something the members of the Liberal and Conservative parties should note.
For too long a period the members of the old line parties have considered these far flung areas to be nothing but places from which to obtain the raw materials which provide jobs for people in their huge cities. Some reference was made to a socialist ripoff in British Columbia. We have had that ripoff in Saskatchewan for quite a number of years, but the people get right back to it again after experimenting with the other sort of thing. I have had an interesting experience since coming to Ottawa. Back home my telephone bill was something in the order of five dollars and a few cents. In Ottawa, my bill amounts to something over $6. This is a city which has a dense population in relation to that of Regina and yet the phone bill in Regina is lower. Let us not talk about a Socialist ripoff because I know something about the purposes of public utilities and the Crown corporations. Reference was made to some people going to bed with other people. I can assure hon. members who are concerned about our virtue that we intend to hang on pretty tightly to our pyjamas.


An hon. Member:: You will be wanting to sleep with us one of these days, too.


An hon. Member:: Never. We do not want to prostitute ourselves.

January 11, 1973
The Address-Mr. Nesdoly


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: I appreciated the remarks of the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald).
I believe she is the only speaker so far who has referred to principles. Perhaps we should speak a lot more in this House about principles. Perhaps I should turn now to the text of the speech I have here. I am not very good at speaking off the cuff, although I did not do too badly in that regard in my constituency. However, my knees are shaking a bit now.
First of all, I should like to point out that when I speak on behalf of the constituency of Meadow Lake, I speak in a very real sense on behalf of all Canada, because 84,000 square miles of the constituency I represent is in reality a microcosm of Canada. From farming and ranching areas in the south, we move into the lake and forest country toward the north, and lumbering, fishing, trapping; a natural gas field, some hardrock mining, and, in particular, uranium mines, one of them presently producing and another which will be producing next year. It is true we lack a city, a concrete jungle, but that is something we feel we can do without. The entire area is interspersed with 32 Indian reserves and inhabited by people who have come here from all parts of the world to make their homes.
A good deal has been said in this debate about national unity. To many people in my area, the entire question of national unity is a very remote one because they have already learned to live with each other and borrow the best from each other's cultures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: I have been a guest in English homes where they served Vareneyke; I have been in French homes where they have served Hungarian goulash. When I was in Arborfield, my wife learned to prepare all these dishes as well and she offered them gladly to all our neighbours who wanted to try some of her Ukrainian recipes. Today, we in Saskatchewan have solved a good many of our social problems. It has been a long history. History tells us about the northwest rebellion and the hanging of Louis Riel, as well as the bungling which was responsible for it. Nowadays, in Saskatchewan, our history books consider Riel to have been a patriot, not a rebel. History tells us about the Ku Klux Klan and some of the weird associations formed by it. There were cross-burning ceremonies in the Moose Jaw hills, and people telling men in the sheepskin coats to go back where they came from. This was rather like the immigration backlash which was supposed to have occurred during the last election. In my opinion, that is a somewhat shameful thing. Occasionally there are instances of discrimination against the so-called men in the sheepskin coats. In the past, there were a great many more.
There were many hard times. I can recall the relief measures of the 'thirties, along with the "Bennett Buggy" and the Anderson cart, low wheat prices, poor wheat sales, and the march to Ottawa which was stopped, not without some bloodshed, in Regina. It is because of these many hardships experienced that we in Saskatchewan attempted to develop a type of society just a little different from that in other parts of Canada. As a son of

Saskatchewan, I am proud of the fact that we were in the forefront of the movement for hospitalization, medicare, compulsory auto insurance, better schools, and other social and much-needed reforms. We conceived the hospitalization legislation in 1948, and much to the credit of the administration of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), a national hospitalization scheme was introduced in the late 'fifties or the early 'sixties. Medicare followed in 1967, introduced by the Pearson government after a lot of birth pains and Liberal promises dating back to 1919.
Despite the fact that we have overcome many of our problems, many still remain at both provincial and federal levels. Here, I am mainly concerned about federal responsibilities. I should like to express a few ideas in relation to my constituency-and what applies to my constituency applies, also, to many other areas in my province and in Canada. To me, it seems that if the Liberal and Conservative parties had their way they would abandon something like 3,000 miles of Saskatchewan rail lines. It all started with the MacPherson Commission under the Conservatives and now it appears it will be finished by the Liberals hiding behind the Canada Grains Council. If those railway tracks are abandoned, Mr. Speaker, more than 300 communities in Saskatchewan will disappear. I heard someone say "Manitoba, too". Yes, this applies to Manitoba as well as to other western provinces. If these tracks are abandoned at least 800 elevators will close down and costs to farmers for shipping and handling will be greatly increased. No doubt the railways will save some money. But the cost will be borne by the producers and by the people who pay taxes in the Meadow Lake constituency.
These are some of the effects rail line abandonment will have on the constituency of Meadow Lake which were revealed by some research we did before the election: one, more than 253 miles of railway line will be abandoned. Two, in the past ten years, an average of 4.4 million bushels of grain have been carried over those tracks each year. That grain would have to be trucked. Three, more than 2.39 million bushels of grain elevator capacity would be closed down. Four, other farm services would disappear as elevators closed down, for example, supplies of fertilizer and lumber. Other services would soon move out of the community. People would lose their local stores, service stations, recreation facilities and other benefits. Five, more than 1,655 farmers in the constituency would have to haul their grain longer distances in large trucks. Six, the grid road and municipal systems, as well as other highways, would need to be totally rebuilt to handle the larger trucks, and higher taxes would be the result. Seven, tax revenue losses to municipalities would be extremely high. For example, on the basis of 1964 figures-and the situation has probably worsened since then-the Village of Shell Lake would lose 21.36 per cent of its total tax revenues. Spiritwood would lose 18.4 per cent of its tax revenues and Paradise Hill would lose 16.34 per cent.
Such losses, and those sustained in other communities, would have to be made up by local residents. The government has made some nebulous mention of transportation in the Speech from the Throne. Nevertheless, I should like to see spokesmen on the front bench opposite make a clear statement immediately concerning their attitude

toward the planned abandonment of these railway lines by 1975, because we, in Saskatchewan, are not going to take the present situation lightly. We do not care who we may be accused of being in collusion with. We want to stop the abandonment of railroad lines in Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Now, there is talk out west about a great plains project, or something of that kind. A bunch of easterners came out west to make proposals-there was not a westerner on the committee-and they came up with a great many ideas which were going to save the west. At a meeting we held several months ago the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) suggested that the only idea they had not come up with was to cross a boxcar with a goose so that it could fly by itself.
I was rather disappointed, in examining the Speech from the Throne, to note there was nothing said about native rights. I think I will leave that part of my speech because the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) covered the subject yesterday, and I agree with what he said. One thing I would mention is that we must remember that the Indians and Eskimos of Canada were the original Canadians. During this entire battle over bilingualism and multiculturalism not much has been said about native rights, and that is very disappointing.
It would be interesting to see what the implications are in the throne speech for the so-called western conference on development of the northern frontiers of the four western provinces. Because my constituency covers half the northern frontier of Saskatchewan, perhaps this statement represents just a tiny flicker of hope for the constituents of Meadow Lake. For too long the people of that constituency have been waiting for some sort of coherent transportation and communications policy for the north. People from Green Lake to La Loche want better radio service. Television service is something they just do not have. Toronto has 11 channels but the people of the north have none. They have been told there are some long-range plans in this respect.
Mail service in that area has to be improved. For example, a post office is required at Turnor Lake. This is a community that had 126 voters on the voters' list, with approximately 400 people living there. There is a road to this village which is 50 miles from the next community with a post office. Their mail and pay cheques are picked up by one resident and put on the store-counter in the village, but often they are lost. Surely these people are entitled to postal service.


An hon. Member:: Not under this government.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: People throughout the north would like better roads. Many roads have been built, but we have to develop a better economic base there; the provincial government has had some difficulty finding the finances necessary. Roads are required to places like Pinehouse, Patuanak, Dillon, and a road to the south shore of Lake Athabasca is certainly something required in the long range because the people of Uranium City require access to the outside world. We do not want Edmonton to be the
The Address-Mr. Nesdoly
commencement of all transportation to the northern part of the province.
It is interesting to note that in the last seven years some $464 million has been spent by federal authorities on road construction and improvements. Some of these expenditures were under cost-sharing agreements with the provinces and covered roads to the frontier regions. Some of the money was spent on national parks and Indian reserves. It is interesting to note that Saskatchewan received only $2.17 million, or 0.6 per cent of the total expenditures, yet within the boundaries of our province there is just a little less than 5 per cent of the total population of this country, with 27 per cent of the nation's roads. That is something that members of this House may not be aware of. In my view this is not justice and equality of opportunity for the people of my constituency or the people of my native province.
Let me suggest that when we start talking about the development of the northern frontiers of the west, high on the agenda should be placed the whole matter of communications, transportation and aid to small industries. If Saskatchewan's north is to be developed, it must have roads, it must have communications facilities. Certainly, if we had had proper communications facilities the type of thing that happened on election night would not have happened. Nobody knew where he stood until at least a week after the election. I was one of those who was saved, by the grace of God, at the last minute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Another John Wesley.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: The crash program to increase employment rather intrigues me. Some months before the election the western premiers asked the Prime Minister of Canada whether he would announce the winter works projects early in the season so that suitable plans could be formulated before the prairie winter set in. Some projects are just now being approved. It is pretty hard to start building something in certain parts of Saskatchewan where four days ago it was 40 below in the morning. I defy any hon. member to put on mitts and go out there and hammer nails.	'
In October, a few weeks before the election, the government announced a local initiatives program that was to be financed to the tune of $85 million. I understand this has now been increased to $165 million. From my constituency, up to the end of last December, approximately 40 local initiative project applications had been received. To date, seven have been approved, although information in this regard does not flow very quickly. I understand one more was approved this morning. I do not know what the dispensation of the rest of the money has been. I know that four or five applications have been rejected outright. It is interesting to note that seven of the 40 applications have been approved-perhaps now it is eight; I want to be fair. The total cost is $172,178.
Let us do some simple arithmetic and divide the $165 million approved for local initiative projects by 264, the number of constituencies in Canada. This gives us a figure of $625,000 per constituency. It appears to me that the constituency of Meadow Lake is not getting its fair share of the Local Initiatives Program grants that are

The Address-Mr. Nesdoly
available. Perhaps I should hasten to say, to be completely fair, that maybe we are not entitled to $625,000 because our population is so low and our unemployment rate is not as high as in some parts of Canada.
I believe that some formula could be developed so that areas, provinces or constituencies could know in advance what their allocation would be. In this way the people would know exactly where they stood and would not feel they were being discriminated against by the government. I feel it is imperative that the government come up with a formula which will take into account population and unemployment rates.
If there are problems of regional disparity in Canada, it is because the federal government has helped create them through its indefinite steps, its procrastination and its "pork-barrelmanship" on some occasions. I say pork-bar-relmanship because I have ample reason to believe there have been occasions when grants have been assigned for certain projects and have gone into areas which the government thought would garner it votes. I have a strong suspicion this is what happened before the last federal election. It is quite evident that the manoeuvre did not work too well.
Not only should DREE programs be decentralized considerably; the whole question of providing jobs for Canadians in depressed areas and in high unemployment areas should be decentralized to a greater degree, because I feel the bureaucrats in Winnipeg should not be making the decisions for northwestern Saskatchewan. Decisions for Saskatchewan should be made in Saskatchewan and not in Winnipeg or Ottawa as has been the case in the past in respect of the Local Initiatives Program. Because of the high rate of welfare and unemployment, our areas should be getting special consideration in order to provide for a society of justice and equity, words that have been so glibly thrown about in this chamber.
There were two local initiative projects which were rejected and which I think are worthy of mention in this debate. One I should like to refer to is the Butte St. Pierre project. Some years ago in northwestern Saskatchewan we had a priest, Father Imhoff, who is perhaps one of the greatest painters of religious works of art the west has ever produced. He has painted the inside of many churches. Many of his paintings are in a church at Butte St. Pierre. Owing to increased farm size, and for other reasons, the church at Butte St. Pierre is no longer being used. People in the neighbouring town of Paradise Hill have raised a considerable sum of money for the purpose of moving the church at Butte St. Pierre to Paradise Hill. They have asked for a modest LIP grant, but their request has been turned down. This would also have provided a considerable amount of work for the unemployed people in the area.


William Arnold Peters: There is no sex or marijuana in that project.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: The government rejected the project and said that funds were not available. The same is true of the Loon Lake recreation centre which was built by the people in the area. They raised thousands of dollars and originally provided much volunteer labour. Now they

want to complete the recreation centre and have asked for a modest grant. This centre could also be used by the native people, because there is an Indian reserve adjacent to Loon Lake. Again, this project met with an outright rejection.
As I mentioned earlier, we do have a uranium mine in my constituency in a place called Uranium City. At one time it was a thriving city indeed. That was back in the 1950s when at its peak it had a population of 7,000 which later declined to 1,700. It was one of the original uranium mines in Canada. The mining company is a Crown corporation, Eldorado Nuclear Limited. It has been the cause of some concern in our area for the last year or two. For one thing, the current decline of jobs in Uranium City is creating hardship for many families.
I believe it is the duty of the federal government and Eldorado Nuclear to provide economic conditions that will be of benefit to the people who live in Uranium City. I think the government should have a more aggressive uranium sales and stockpiling policy which would assure throughout the year a reasonable level of employment in Uranium City.
While jobs are disappearing in Uranium City, the government has provided $29.5 million to Denison Mines Limited, one of the corporate welfare bums, to stockpile uranium. It would be interesting to know just what has been happening to uranium production in Uranium City. Is uranium production by a Crown-owned company being sacrificed in order to bolster the private sector of our uranium mining industry, namely, Denison Mines? I point out, by the way, that the former chairman of the board of Denison Mines is a man named Stephen Roman who was a Progressive Conservative candidate in a Toronto riding.
Furthermore, I feel that Eldorado should be purchasing high-grade ore from small claim owners. There are many small claim owners in Uranium City, and some very rich small veins of ore. Eldorado should be able to buy this high-grade ore from the small claim owners and process it on their behalf. This would provide employment to some people who are currently unemployed in Uranium City. It appears that perhaps the government is interested in protecting Denison Mines whose largest mine, I understand, is at Elliot Lake-and the Elliot Lake seat is presently held by a Liberal member.
In conclusion, I would simply state that for the last 23 years the Meadow Lake constituency has been held by "liberatives", meaning Liberal or Conservative members. These Members of Parliament stumped around the constituency saying that their government would build railroads in the area. That is what the people in my area have been told for the last 23 years. I am thinking particularly of the railroad from the town of Meadow Lake connecting up at Grand Centre, Alberta. In 23 years of railroad building not a single inch of track has been laid down, and now it is proposed to abandon another 250 miles of railroad. I want to add that some people in the Goodsoil-Pierceland area have to haul their grain to market 50 or 60 miles away.
For years the Liberals and the Conservatives have told the people, "We will try to provide you with television service in the far north". These people are still waiting for television. For years members of these two parties have
January 11, 1973

been promising to build roads to Uranium City, but any roads that have been built to our far north have basically been provided with the assistance of provincial funds and the money of the people of Saskatchewan. In all justice, I should point out that the roads to resources program in the late fifties and early sixties was of some help.
The irony of our situation, also, is that in the last federal election my opponents went around the constituency, especially its northern areas, saying, "Look what we have done for you. We have provided you with medicare and hospitalization". I really became angry on hearing this, because the people of Saskatchewan know very well where medicare and hospitalization came from, who provided it and who opposed it. Millions of dollars were spent in trying to defeat it in 1962, and this effort succeeded for a while.
Federal funds went into hospitalization and medicare only when the government was forced into doing it by the weight of political pressure as well as for reasons of political expediency. They had to do this if they wanted to survive. They have been stealing a lot of our thunder, but we are still proud of being called the conscience of the nation. I know very well who financed the doctors, who tried to oppose medicare in Saskatchewan in 1962, who sent funds in order to defeat the government of the province, and who had integrity and belief in the basic goodness of human beings.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should give this parliament an opportunity to work and we should get away from some of the quibbling that has been going on-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired, unless there is unanimous consent to allow him to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Boisvert).


Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, it is the first time I have the honour to speak to this noble assembly and, on behalf of my constituents in Drummond and of all the right-thinking citizens of this country, I am proud to be able to show how well-founded were their discontent and criticisms as regards the government and to inform the latter of their desires and hopes.
There have always been criticisms; but there is less and less hope among Canadians because they have less and less faith in the promises of this government, which used the same methods that were used by all previous governments to deal with the same problems. The government still considers taxpayers as suckers that can be fooled according to the same old recipe which everybody finds disgusting but which never changes because the head is always the same: high finance, the leader of the Grits or of the Tories who cooks for himself only without even wondering about the taxpayers or knowing whether they are starving or able to provide for themselves.
The Address-Mr. Boisvert
In the Speech from the Throne read by the Governor General, the government gives us a list of pious wishes. It is all bluff. The taxpayer follows from afar and sometimes absent-mindedly what goes on on the federal scene and hears false ringing comments from government members and the official opposition, not to mention the dreams of conquest on the part of the NDP.
Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne the government begins to consider the reforms advocated by the Social Credit party for more than 30 years. One must therefore conclude that in the case of the Liberals, the age of discretion is 30. Better late than never, however.
Mr. Speaker, there are problems in Canada and particularly in the constituency of Drummond.
Drummondville is a major town of the province of Quebec situated in the center of the riding of Drummond, whose taxpayers have chosen me to represent them; I want to thank them heartily and assure them of my dedicated service for the whole duration of my term of office.
Drummondville is a centre for textile industry, and its main employers pay below-average salaries. That is why Drummondville has one of the lowest average income in Canada. When workers are dismissed, they are perfectly entitled to receive welfare benefits, and there are a great many of them who have no other means of subsistence. All the other industries are also of secondary or tertiary importance. There is really no basic industry, on which secondary industries could be grafted.
Drummondville is situated at a crossroad in Quebec. In fact, it radiates towards all major centres of the province. Its highway system is excellent and adequate for the needs of any industry. The government deprived it of an excellent opportunity for extension recently when it was decided not to build the new airport in Drummondville but at Sainte-Scholastique. I mention the airport because for some time it was the greatest hope in the history of our town.
The location of Drummondville at the crossroads of Quebec, near large centres such as Trois-Rivieres, Montreal, Granby, Sherbrooke, Victoriaville and Quebec had been praised. Thousands of citizens had signed petitions voicing their desire to see that project carried out. The unemployed and the recipients of social welfare were anticipating better days. The pride of all citizens had heightened with the hope that their town would be gaining importance. Our hope was based on the support of two ministers of the constituency, one at the provincial and the other the federal level. As it happened the airport was set up elsewhere in an unknown and remote area near the federal capital and Ontario in a hilly district which did not lend itself to speedy development.
It seems to us that the government could have made up for it by promoting the establishment of thriving and viable industries among us which could have contributed to bring new assets and stimulate the trade in order to enable the economy to operate more regularly and normally.
If, in our democratic system, the government is not free to ensure each citizen a fair distribution of resources, it

January 11, 1973
The Address-Mr. Boisvert
could-and that is not asking for the moon because it also belongs to the Americans-ensure a fair distribution of industry throughout the country through genuine incentives which, while respecting free enterprise, would put all Canadians on an equal footing, thus eliminating under-developped areas in Canada and keeping Quebec from constantly lying in stagnation, having to do with crumbs. By that I mean industries in which Ontario or the western provinces show no interest and which pay low wages and prepare workers to spend winter drawing unemployment insurance benefits that they will in fact get in the spring only, all this thanks to the system we now have.
What is required is a true industrial policy based on short and long term planning, satisfying the requirements of the environment and respecting human dignity.
The existing legislation as well as those that are being proposed in the Speech from the Throne are nothing more than stop gap measures, an inconsistent policy of social welfare that will benefit only the rich companies.
Some industries have undertaken a real blackmail campaign against this government and the Canadian people while literally demanding to be paid for making profits. It is highway robbery to demand to be paid by those who, in a number of cases, are being exploited, and to demand from low income taxpayers that they pay taxes not for bridges, roads, schools or hospitals, but for dividends that directly fall into the shareholders' pockets.
If this government really wants to have a sound industrial policy, it will need a sound basis, one that will resist any pressures while providing the country with a modern, flexible monetary system based on respect for the community and intended to look after the interests of Canadians.
This industrial policy should include efficient measures on behalf of the unemployed.
Right now the Unemployment Insurance Commission is in a terrible mess. In fact, I am receiving complaints by mail, by phone and from people who come to my Drum-mondville office saying that their unemployment insurance benefits are not coming in or are late. People have not received anything for two, three or four months and this is called insurance.
It is a real joke because when you are out of work and thus deprived of income this is when you need money the most. The first objective of unemployment insurance is precisely to fill that need and I say that the Unemployment Insurance Commission will not give the service it was created for.
Yet, the Speech from the Throne says, and I quote:
In respect of people, who can work but are temporarily unemployed, legislation will be introduced to clarify certain aspects of the Unemployment Insurance Plan and to prevent abuses that have not been overcome by the administrative action already taken.
Mr. Speaker, it is precisely in the administrative measures and waiting periods that the abuses exist. There will be abuses as long as man will be considered to be at the service of computers and not computers at the service of man.
Mr. Speaker, people who have difficulty understanding or being understood by unemployment insurance officials

have to leave Drummondville and drive 50 miles to go to the Sherbrooke office. When you are without a salary or benefits because the computer does not understand you, you cannot afford to make such trips.
This is why I would like to invite the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) to consider the possibility of opening an office in Drummondville to examine in that location the cases of people having difficulties. As Drummondville has a population of 45,000, I think this request is quite justified, especially in view of the large number of unemployed people in this town and the surrounding area.
This decentralization would get the Unemployment Insurance Commission nearer its first objective of helping the jobless and would put an end at the same time to a great deal of criticism about this service which is no longer worthy of the name.
When a man has stopped receiving the benefits to which he is entitled, he applies for welfare assistance and has to submit to a whole series of inquiries, indiscretions and intimidations because of rules and instructions which leave no latitude to the officers who deal with the poor, even though for many years we had two ministers in the constituency. It will be evident that the office which I have taken over is not an easy one to fulfill.
Mr. Speaker, people come to see me each week at my office to ask for help because they do not succeed in gaining satisfaction during various interviews they have with social welfare officials. Yet, there is a member of the National Assembly in the constituency, he is even a minister, but since he does not do anything, I try to deal with these cases. I am saying this, Mr. Speaker, to urge the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to closely control the situation in order to impose stricter conditions to his provincial counterpart if need be so that proper consideration will be given to the human being.
Presently in Quebec, the pride of the people is being annihilated by restrictive socializing measures which suppress all freedom of action and speech and could deprive him of an income that he cannot do without.
This phenomenon reaches even the farmers who have had a difficult year in 1972. Everyone knows that the rains of last summer destroyed the crops and caused huge losses to the farmers of the province. The farmers in the Drummond riding were not spared and many were so discouraged that they even thought of selling their property. It is at this point that they understood with an even greater shock that the federal government and the Department of Agriculture is very little concerned about them.
The Speech from the Throne advocates a fair relationship of prices of feed grain to livestock feeders in various regions of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I maintain that before we speak of a fair relationship of prices of feed grain used by western and eastern feeders, we should begin by paying the meager amount of $400 to those who have been waiting for it since last summer.
I protest against this situation. It is shocking to see that farmers are up against rain in the summer and red tape in the winter.
January 11, 1973

It makes one wonder whether there should not be a ghetto for eastern farmers, at least if the government keeps on treating them as second class citizens and showing some interest in them only when the time comes to consider their profits for income tax purposes.
Mr. Speaker, Social Credit demands respect for human beings. A case in point is that farmers, who are the back bone of our economy, are not appreciated at their true worth through snobbery or because it is not profitable for high finance.
Mr. Speaker, the government is now beginning to take seriously the reforms advocated by the Social Credit for over 30 years. When the government starts to talk about a minimum guaranteed income, I am all for it as well as the party of which I have the honour to be a member. Even though only part of the population is concerned, it is a start, and the government deserves praise for thinking at last of some of the people. Soon the monetary system will be placed at the disposal of the people, it will no longer serve only the big financiers.
Then and only then will we speak of true democracy because although we now have parliamentary democracy we do not really know economic democracy. Economic democracy will be a fact only when all Canadians are shareholders in their country, just at it goes in private industry.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard), the following sub-amendment:
That the main amendment be amended by deleting the words after "Your Excellency's advisers" and substituting therefor the following:
. . . did not introduce the social credit reforms required to guarantee a minimum annual income to all Canadians, for instance the old age pension at 60."


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member moved an amendment about which I have serious procedural doubts. But before ruling on the matter, I am willing to hear the comments, recommendations or advice of my hon. colleagues of the House. Here is the amendment:
That the main amendment be amended by deleting the words after "your Excellency's advisers" and substituting therefor the following:
. . . did not introduce the social credit reforms required to guarantee a minimum annual income to all Canadians, for instance the old age pension at 60.
The question before the House is therefore the following:
We respectfully affirm to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's advisers did not introduce the social credit reforms required to guarantee a minimum annual income-
To my mind, this is a new amendment and not a subamendment. As I said, I would be happy to hear the comments of hon. members to help me decide whether or not the proposed amendment is in order.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, we moved a subamendment in order to bring something positive to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), which is practically meaningless. It is
The Address-Mr. Portelance
something purely negative, while our sub-amendment brings in at least something positive.


Mr. Speaker:: Any further comments? I suspect that the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) is rising in order to suggest to the Chair that the amendment is out of order. Should he try to convince me that the motion is in order, I would be willing to listen to him. Otherwise, I am ready to make a ruling.
In my opinion, there is no doubt from a procedural view point that the hon. member's amendment raises an entirely new matter. It does not attempt to explain the substance of the amendment moved by the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) but rather to substitute an entirely new proposal.
The hon. member's motion would have been in order as a main motion and not as a secondary motion appended to a motion already before the House. For this reason, I regret to say to the hon. member that his motion is not in order as a sub-amendment.


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to join with the other hon. members in congratulating Your Honour on your reelection as representative of the Stormont-Dundas constituency. I am sure that your constituents are as satisfied with your services and your ability to represent them for the fifth time in the House of Commons as are all the hon. members in finding that your reelection as Speaker was a unanimous decision. Your past experience, your sound judgment and your competence asserted during previous Parliaments fully justify your holding the Speaker's office.
I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) for his appointment as chairman of the committee of the whole House. Such an important function will be occupied, I am convinced, by a man who deserves the confidence and the co-operation of all hon. members. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, to my knowledge, has always acted objectively, whether in the House of Commons or in committees, when speaking on behalf of his party.
Mr. Speaker, two other hon. members also deserve congratulations. I shall first congratulate the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais), the mover of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, who acquainted us with his constituency in such a vivid fashion that I shall be only too happy to accept his invitation and visit his riding.
I also wish to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker), the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. He gave us the background of his constituency of Lachine. Although he did not mention the Lachine massacre, perhaps he could have referred to the massacre of October 30 last, when he gave a sound licking to his Progressive Conservative opponent.
Mr. Speaker, I also take pleasure in congratulating all the hon. members, both new ones and former ones, who have been elected to the House.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne proposes several new measures, all equally important, whether it be in the social, economic, political or national unity fields. I

January 11, 1973
The Address-Mr. Portelance
am surprised to note that the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) criticizes the content of this Speech only to turn around and take credit for the measures which are proposed. He is accusing the government of stealing the Progressive Conservative platform as if his party were the only one concerned with the well-being of Canadians. I think that it would be more honest to state that the Speech from the Throne contains rather the recommendations and suggestions of all parties, including those of the Social Credit party of Canada, the New Democratic party the Conservative party and the Liberal party.
During the recent election campaign, I have met a number of my fellow citizens, mostly mothers, who told me that the present family allowances did not meet needs any longer and would only be justifiable if they were adjusted to the needs of the people.
I was happy to listen to our Prime minister's New Year's message, in which he insisted upon the family, which is one of the foundations of society and I quote:
The Christmas season gives us opportunity to be present with our families and our loved ones from whom at other times of the year we are too often separated by work and circumstances. We are able to conside how fortunate we are to live in a country which protects the family unit as a very precious element, which regards it as one of the cornerstones in our way of life. It is in a family setting that so many of our national characteristics are best understood, and best appreciated.
In 1973, the family is as important as it was in 1944. The right hon. Mackenzie King, who was the Prime Minister, said in this House and I quote:
Family and home are the foundations of national life. In order to secure a minimum of welfare for the nation's children as well as to provide them as many equal opportunities as possible in the fight of life, you will have to approve a measure designed to establish family allowances.
Mr. Speaker, it was true in 1944 and it is even more so in 1973 that family is one of the foundations of the Canadian society. I hope that, very soon, the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) will give us all details as regards a piece of legislation in this very important field of family allowances.
Advantages brought by such a plan are obvious. In the first place, we must help the family and better abide by the principle of social justice. Of course, allowances are financed by the rich, those whose incomes are high enough to make them fall in the taxable brackets. Indeed, it is mostly to meet the expenses represented by all kinds of allowances that the federal government is compelled to maintain a high level of income tax. It is more fair this way: those who are more privileged and have more resources obviously benefit more than others from society and the general prosperity. Is it not fair that they contribute more to assist those who, by bringing up children, make possible the existence and prosperity of the nation?
Low income people, of course, are not assessed at the same tax rates. However, they pay indirect taxes, which the government collects on consumer goods. This is an ideal tax from the point of view of people within the government, because it is easy to collect and because taxpayers pay it and often do not notice it.
But although this indirect tax is advantageous to the government, it brings serious drawbacks to the taxpayer.

For one thing, by its very nature, it prevents any deduction for dependents; secondly, and this is more serious, it makes heads of families poorer to the very extent that their dependent expenses are higher and decrease their ability to pay. For instance, the 12 percent tax on manufactured goods which is included in the selling price to the consumer is to be paid only once by the purchaser who is single. However, a man with dependents pays it once for himself, again because of his wife and as many times as he has children. This is the case for all indirect taxes going to the government.
This is a case of injustice for those with families. If the government is to maintain much longer this indirect taxation, it must make up for this injustice and has no way of reimbursing the taxpayers other than paying family allowances or a guaranteed annual income which will correct this situation.
It is often said: "Equal pay for equal work". It is true to a certain extent. However, responsibilities of single persons and of those with dependents are not the same and the matter of equal pay does not hold true.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Arthur Portelance: Mr. Speaker, since I began to speak shortly before recess, I will try to be as brief as possible.
I said before recess that we often hear the following saying: Equal pay for equal work. It is true up to some extent, but the responsibilities of the two individuals, a single person and a married person with children, are not the same and equal pay is unfair.
During the last election campaign, several mothers complained that family allowances had not been increased for many years. As early as 1951, they rightly complained that the amount of $5 per child up to 6 years of age, was inadequate. This fabulous amount of $5 was not enough to buy a quart of milk daily at 19 cents a quart for a month. Do we realize that in 1973, although the allowance for that age group has been raised to $6 per month up to 10 years of age, it is not even enough to buy a quart of milk a day for 30 days, because the milk is sold at 35 cents a quart? Milk costs have increased twofold, but family allowances are still at almost the same level.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the government and the Minister concerned to review this situation as early as possible and to increase once and for all family allowances in such a way as to allow the head of the family to discharge his responsibilities more readily. If family allowances were pegged on the cost of living, as the old age pensions are, they would truly be effective.
It is true that during the last Parliament a bill was introduced. Although it was not perfect, I am sure many Canadian families would have benefited from the amendment, even those of the riding of Toronto-Trinity whose

representative (Mr. Hellyer) voted against adoption of the Bill.
We, of the Liberal Party, during the last Parliament, felt it would have been more equitable for some families to receive amounts of $15 and $20 monthly instead of the present $5 and $8.
The bill was introduced in the House and I believe a majority of hon. members were prepared to pass it. But since this did not take place, today, the new Minister of National Health and Welfare has already given us to understand that the Family Allowances Plan will definitely be reviewed and that it will all be done in co-operation with the provinces who are interested in improving such a plan. I hope that it will be possible to do all this quickly enough.
One of the responsibilities of members of this House is to make sure that family allowances are paid everywhere in Canada and that the amounts are not too different from one province to the other. I do not think it would be fair for a province to be able to pay $35 allowances while other provinces could only afford to pay $20 a month. It is advisable that these things be considered in future discussions between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his colleagues from the various provinces.
The minister also dealt with the improvements that will be made to the old age security pension plan. Of course, in the last election campaign, many members certainly heard about the problems that exist in that field, particularly in the case of a married man who has reached the age of 65, who is deprived of his earnings and who has a younger wife.
In Quebec, a 65-year-old man is entitled to a pension of $150 a month. If his wife is younger, they both will have to live on that amount. In my opinion, there surely is room for improvement in such cases and I hope this Parliament will give this matter priority.
Much has been said about unemployment insurance during the election campaign. Several candidates of some parties accused the government of bad administration with regard to unemployment insurance. I think all those former members who voted for this legislation should be proud of themselves. I am convinced that Canada still has one of the best unemployment insurance programs in the world. On account of it, several fathers, mothers and children were able to have a better Christmas and New Year's because they were in receipt of unemployment insurance. It is true that there are several unemployed people in Canada. However, it must be remembered, before introducing such a program, that two thirds of the Canadian workers are not unionized. The last third which is unionized certainly has better working conditions than the two thirds which are not.
For the first time in this country, a worker was entitled to benefits in case of illness, which was not the case before, except for people with good jobs, such as federal, provincial or municipal public servants, and people working for big companies that could afford such benefits. But under the new unemployment insurance system, workers are entitled to such benefits in case of illness.
For the first time also, women, in case of maternity, will be able to receive their salary for a maximum period of 15
The Address-Mr. N. Homer
weeks, and they will also be eligible to unemployment insurance assistance after eight weeks of employment.
The drawing of maximum benefits after 20 weeks of employment has also been allowed. All this was beneficial to the economy.
During the holiday season, the department stores had one of the best years ever. And I am sure that the sales were not made only to people who are employed. A good number of unemployed people had happier holidays because of their unemployment benefits provided by insurance, this humane program introduced by the last Parliament.
Ninety-four per cent of the population of Canada is working while 6 per cent is unemployed. However, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the 94 per cent who are working have a responsibility towards the 6 per cent who are out of work.
I would like those who have a job to keep it as long as possible because I have faith in the Canadian worker. I am sure that among the unemployed 6 per cent many would also be working if it were as easy to find a job as it is claimed.
We constantly hear that there are problems in Canada. There are problems but we know that Canada has the second highest standard of living in the world. The only other position in which we could be is the first one. It is not all that bad. I hope that with the help of all our recently elected friends, we will succeed in reaching this first position. I am sure that this is the main goal of all my colleagues on this side of the House.


Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate you on the appointment to your high office. I offer my congratulations, also, to the Deputy Speaker. I know this parliament will be the better for Your Honour's presence in the chair, and as a result Canada will be a better place. I am not sure we can say that about many of us.
It is with a great deal of satisfaction that I rise to speak for the first time representing the people of Battleford-Kindersley. They have bestowed upon me a great honour by choosing me to represent them in parliament, and I hope that during my time here I shall be deserving of their trust. For the benefit of hon. members who may not be familiar with the constituency of Battleford-Kindersley, I might mention a few of its attributes. The constituency borders the province of Alberta. The distance from north to south is about 230 miles, and it extends eastward into Saskatchewan for some 100 miles. It is a very large constituency and it is likely to become still larger when redistribution takes place.
It is a wonderful place in which to live, and there are a lot of very hard working people there. We do not have a high unemployment rate in Battleford-Kindersley; when the jobs are not there, it seems people just go and find them. As I say, they are a hard working, aggressive and progressive people. As for the principal cities, I have North Battleford and I share the city of Lloydminster with the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).

January 11, 1973
The Address-Mr. N. Homer


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr.   Homer@Battleford-Kindersley: Within the constituency are some of the finest ranches and some of the finest herds of breeding cattle in the world. Being so large, my constituency extends northward into the parkland and south into some of the best wheat growing land in western Canada. I might add that it lies in the flyway of the Canada goose. It is also on the migration route of many other species of geese and ducks. This attracts hundreds of people from all over the United States and Canada to visit the area during the fall. There are in Battleford-Kindersley a great many active and lively communities served by 12 weekly newspapers which do much to hold these communities together.
In my speech this evening I intend to deal mainly with agriculture, coming, as I do, from an agricultural constituency. I had a very interesting experience early in November. I attended a meeting in Kindersley at which about 150 mayors, reeves and other responsible leaders were present: they had come from within a radius of about 60 miles. For two days the problems facing rural Saskatchewan were examined and discussed. We followed a procedure whereby we listed problems in order of priority. The first, we agreed, was the depopulation of the rural areas. This, of course, is closely related to agricultural policies. We felt that the main cause of this depopulation was the inability of young men and women to get started in farming.
During my time in this House I hope to devote myself strenuously to policies which will help not only to maintain the population of rural Saskatchewan but to increase it. This is vital to the social life of the region and to the communities concerned. I do not intend to go into details now, but I have in mind amendments to the farm credit legislation, amendments long overdue, which would enable young men and women to get started. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that in the city one can buy a $30,000 house by making a down payment of $500. One would need a lot more cash than that before the Farm Credit Corporation would look seriously at an application to acquire a half section of land.
Before I address myself more specifically to the subject of agriculture I wish to bring before the House a very serious social issue. On Monday we heard an hour and a half of whimpering about how the west was lost. I can tell the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and a number of his hon. friends who are absent from the chamber tonight that I was asked many times to state my position on the issue I am about to mention. In fact, it was raised more frequently than any other issue which was discussed during the campaign. Every day in hospitals across the country human beings are being slaughtered as a result of the legislation which was passed in 1969, a bad piece of legislation, poorly drafted, allowing therapeutic abortion to be carried out in hospitals. In the first month after its passage, September, 1969, there were 105 such abortions. In December, 1971, there were 3,090. How many will there be this month? Heaven only knows. In 1971 there were 30,944 therapeutic abortions.
Before long this House is expected to discuss the question of the death penalty, something which would affect relatively few people. What about the innocent human
[Mr. Homer (Battleford-Kindersley).)
beings who are being murdered every day-and "murdered" is the term used by a great many very fine people who have approached me on the subject. I have committed myself to trying to do something about this problem in the hope that an amendment can be made to the legislation. I know members of all parties are most concerned about this question and I hope we will reconsider the legislation in the very near future.
I should now like to turn to some agricultural problems I feel must be dealt with immediately. In the last few years we have not appeared to be a very credible supplier of grain. Sure, we can sell it now because there is a shortage in the world and our customers will take it in spite of the inconvenience to and the harassment of them. This spring the United States will be increasing its wheat acreage and we will probably increase ours. We could very quickly be back in a similar situation to that which existed in 1969-70. We were not prepared for it then, but let us prepare for it this time.
The "build for a billion" minister is not in the House at the moment, but I advised him this morning I would be speaking on matters pertaining to the Wheat Board and would be critical of his position. Let me list four things that must be done immediately, some of which will take four or five years to complete. We can carry on no longer with a band-aid approach to agricutural problems, with the minister flying out in an attempt to give the farmers a lift.
We have no shipping facilities capable of handling large ships. In five or ten years' time wheat might be handled this way, with a saving of perhaps 10 or 20 cents a bushel, and the difference could well mean a sale. I can foresee the day when we will be loading our wheat through United States ports such as Seattle because we cannot handle large ships and the customers will want loading done that way. We have to get at this problem right away because it cannot be solved in a month:
We do not have sufficient storage from which to fill the ships now coming into port on the west coast, let alone the larger ships to which I have referred. We do not have enough storage to ensure that a proper supply of wheat is available of various qualities and grades for export. We cannot guarantee delivery on a regular basis because we cannot assure customers that there will not be hold-ups due to strikes. Of course, the previous government had a policy regarding grain strikes: they allowed them to continue for 50 days in the east and 21 days in the west, provided it was just before an election.
If we are to be a reliable supplier of grain we must realize that one of the first things our customers will ask is whether we can deliver when they want delivery. They do not want to store two years' supply of wheat in their countries: they want to buy wheat from somebody who can fill the ships and get the grain to them quickly; they cannot afford to wait days, weeks and months. Our acreage seeded to rape and barley fluctuates drastically. Our customers are aware of this and do not consider us a very credible supplier of grain when we do not seem to know how much we are going to seed from one year to the next.
January 11, 1973

There are a number of other things that should be done immediately. We should have storage facilities somewhere in Asia. Many countries there could use wheat. We could develop these markets by providing storage there to fill orders of 20,000 to 30,000 bushels at a time. This matter has been mentioned often and should have been looked after five or ten years ago. We should also begin immediately to develop as quickly as possible a number of varieties of feed wheat. Had we done this years ago I am sure we would now have markets and would be selling feed wheat. I realize that progress is slow; it took us five years to adopt protein grading.
We should improve facilities at Prince Rupert. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board made an announcement a long time ago that he was going to improve these facilities. He could not explain specifically what he was going to do then, and has not explained since. There is no reason in the world why we should not be using the port of Churchill to a greater extent. You will never convince people in western Canada that the reason for not using that port to a greater extent is something other than that related to political power in central Canada. These mistakes are academic ones for the ministers and civil servants to solve, but they make the difference between existing and making a living in western Canada.
Our storage policy is responsible for another problem in Canada. This problem has created a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars to western Canada in the last five years. The farmer has been expected to store his grain while the large companies were being paid for storage. The farmers stored it for nothing, and the federal government told them it was surplus, there was a glut on the market and they should get rid of it. They sold it for 40 cents to 50 cents a bushel in the area in which I live. The same wheat is selling today for $3 a bushel in Vancouver. Wheat sold seven months ago will not bring the western farmer more than $1.40 a bushel. I assume the minister in charge of the Wheat Board will have an opportunity to speak, although I know he is not at the top of the priority list. I should like to hear him emphasize once again, as he did during the campaign, that the Lift program was not a mistake.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) on his tremendous feat of getting elected in western Canada. One would have to say this was entirely a personal victory; Liberal policies could in no way have helped him get elected in the riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt. In 11 of the 13 constituencies in Saskatchewan, the Liberals came third. With the union we now have in the House, I am not sure they will not be running candidates opposing each other in those constituencies.
The Minister of Justice said the Lift program was bad medicine but it was necessary. Speaking on behalf of the western farmer, the result of the election was also bad medicine but perhaps equally necessary for the Liberals. From what I have heard, the people of Saskatoon-Humboldt felt they had to get this hon. member elected because he could fight from the inside. I wish him lots of luck in that regard.
The Liberals' discovery of the west is nothing less than an admission of failure to handle the problems of western
The Address-Mr. N. Homer
Canada in the past four and a half years. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board could perhaps learn something from the results of the election and be a little more honest, because he cannot fool the western farmer. There were headlines in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix three inches high, to the effect that the minister had said the two-price system was permanent legislation. I did not see the bill, but it was neither permanent nor did it give any priority to wheat. This was a one-shot acreage payment. Had the minister been honest, the farmers would have thought better of him.
Wheat is now selling to flour mills at $1.95 a bushel. If a feeder wanted to buy it, it would be $3 per bushel. What we have is the wheat grower subsidizing other farmers. I am sure the minister in charge of the Wheat Board can explain this to the wheat producers. I hope he can also explain to the wheat growers what he means when he says the two-price system is a great breakthrough for the west. The $1.95 should have been a minimum price.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan) on his appointment to the cabinet. I assure him I am looking forward to working on the agricultural committee. A long time has passed since the election and we have many problems to tackle. I urge the minister to make that committee active as soon as possible.
There does not seem to be any rush for legislation in the House. Let us have some agricultural legislation brought forward immediately. I am very anxious to see measures that would bring some sort of stability and confidence to the agricultural industry, and a move away from the Liberal band-aid approach. The new minister has been quoted very often with regard to national marketing boards. I say to him that the only marketing board legislation that is likely to get through the House is that which comes at the request of the producer, and then only that which leaves complete control in the hands of the farmer. So far as western agriculture is concerned, such control must be in the hands of the western farmer-and "control" is the key word here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norval Alic Horner: In this respect I want to mention briefly the Wheat Board. I think it would be an excellent idea if an active producer advisory board were set up to advise the Wheat Board. It is an odd thing that we hear voices in favour of the Wheat Board handling rapeseed, but not from rapeseed growers. The NDP are in favour of such a move. It is strange, since the producers and customers do not want the Wheat Board to handle rapeseed. When you are in business, it is the customer who counts. But, of course, business is something that the NDP do not understand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norval Alic Horner: It is the belief of socialists that the farmer does not know anything and that the civil servant is the source of all wisdom. So it seems to me that a federal socialist Liberal government and a federal socialist New Democratic Party should get along

January 11, 1973
The Address-Mr. Davis
very well: this is very interesting to me, having spent all my life in Saskatchewan and being subjected to the provincial authority of one or the other. Talk about Tweedledum and Tweedledee! Two years ago in Saskatchewan our government changed hands, but I did not notice any difference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norval Alic Horner: I notice that the term "small businessman" is used in the Speech from the Throne. Not only has the government discovered the west, they have discovered the small businessman. I spoke to hundreds of small businessmen in my travels during the campaign and found them to be desperate and disenchanted with the socialist provincial and federal governments. I went to a store one day and the owner said to me, "I have an inspector downstairs looking into education tax and an inspector upstairs looking into income tax. If I could sell this place, I would be gone". If you want to do something for the small businessman, get off his back, I say; let him run the business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: They are all provincial inspectors.


Mr.   Homer@Battleford-Kindersley: The throne speech also spoke of assistance to provinces with regard to secondary education. I am very interested in that question since I have had something to do with education in the last six years. Many mistakes have been made in the past in putting federal money into education which is under provincial jurisdiction, and I hope that we will move cautiously in this area. This assistance is certainly needed, but we should not move too quickly.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, may I first say that it is good to see you back in your place. There are not many of us from the class of 1962 who are still here, and still fewer from the influx of 1958. It is good to see you back in the chair exercising your usual wisdom and compassion.
I shall speak particularly about environmental and fisheries matters tonight and I shall dwell on two paragraphs which appear in the Speech from the Throne. They are important paragraphs and they describe new legislation designed to protect our national heritage. One relates to the management of our renewable resources, the other describes further initiatives which the government is taking in the twin fields of fisheries and oceanography off our coasts. The actual wording, to remind hon. members, is as follows:
Measures to protect the natural environment and to enhance the productivity of Canada's renewable resource industries will be laid before you. In addition to amendments to the Fisheries Development Act, you will be asked to consider an environmental contaminants act and a Canada wildlife act.
The second paragraph in the throne speech which I should like to read is as follows:
To preserve the ecological integrity of Canada's coastal and maritime areas, further preparations will be made for the Third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference. The Ministry of State for Science and Technology, in co-operation with the Department of the Environment and other interested departments, will recom-

mend a national program of research and development in the field of marine science and technology.
In the first paragraph reference is made to three new pieces of legislation, amendments to the Fisheries Development Act, a new Canada wildlife act and a new environmental contaminants act. Passed by the House, they will form an integral part of Canada's growing arsenal of laws which are essentially environmental in character. Under this heading I would class the Canada Water Act, the Clean Air Act and Canada's Territorial Seas and Fishing Zones Act, among others.
This new legislation has much to recommend it to hon. members, beside helping us to cut down on pollution, help protect endangered species and help us to increase our national output. These pieces of legislation will generate more jobs. They will be most helpful in the disadvantaged parts of the country. By helping us to better manage our renewable resources it will also help us in the fight against inflation in this country.
Hon. members will want me to be specific, and I will try to do so. Let me concentrate for a moment on our proposed amendments to the Fisheries Development Act. The scope of this particular bill will be broadened so that financial assistance can be provided to small inshore fishermen who require ice-making, ice storage and fish-chilling facilities.
Installations of this character are badly needed, especially in our outports. They are needed in order to cut our losses in the fisheries and to improve the quality of our fish. More of the small fisherman's catch, in other words, will reach the marketplace. Being first quality rather than second quality, it will fetch a higher price for fishermen. Now 20 per cent of all landings are rejected by our fisheries inspection service as unfit for human consumption. This is a monstrous waste which can be avoided if we have the right kinds of chilling and preservation facilities. Outright losses are one thing, but of the 80 per cent of our inshore fish which is actually sold, more than half is currently classed as second quality.
Remedying these two situations together will put another $25 million in the pockets of our inshore fishermen. The cost of this ice-making, ice storage and fish-chilling program is likely to be small compared to the benefits. The once-and-for-all investment of less than $10 million will produce an annual income increase in the pocket of the fishermen themselves in the order of $25 million. This is a high benefit cost ratio in anyone's language. Not only does it represent a marked increase in productivity, but it also means that thousands of fishermen in Newfoundland, the Maritimes, across the Prairies, in the Northwest Territories and on the west coast will have more money to spend because they are operating more efficiently and more of their fish is making its way, in good quality, to market. I would put the once-and-for-all cost to the federal treasury at $5 million, with grants being made on an individual basis. In total, this means that local co-ops and individual fishermen will be called upon to put up about another $5 million.
I might describe this increase in another way. As a result of this amendment of the act we should be able to
January 11, 1973

increase the earnings of all our inshore fishermen and lake fishermen by about 30 per cent. We can do this at a cost of $5 million to the federal taxpayer and raise the income of 20,000 fishermen without killing any more fish than we do today.
The second piece of legislation to which I refer, and which was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, is the Canada wildlife act. A bill of this kind has never before been passed by parliament. True, Mr. Speaker, we have the Migratory Birds Convention Act, but we have never had legislation on our statute books dealing specifically with wildfowl and the establishment of wildlife sanctuaries.
This new legislation will require close co-operation with the provinces, all of which have important responsibilities in this area. This is one reason why I have consulted personally with all the provincial ministers who are concerned with wildlife, in general the ministers in charge of recreation and conservation. Without exception they have welcomed the government's initiative in this legislation. Also, they are high in their praise for the technical competence and managerial ability of the Canadian Wildlife Service. Under this legislation we will be able to obtain additional funds for the protection of individual species and for the acquisition of certain lands the ownership of which is essential if we are to manage our wildlife resources as we should.
The wildlife program we have in mind will cost the federal treasury something in the order of $10 million but, again, as with the fisheries scheme, the benefits are likely to be several times the cost. Many millions of dollars already accrue to our federal and provincial treasuries through the sale of hunting licences and the like. Ducks Unlimited spends more than three million U.S. dollars a year on the preservation of waterfowl alone. Our own tourist industry benefits in a major way from programs of this kind.
This afternoon the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly) rather facetiously referred to geese and grain. He talked about geese being crossed with boxcars to fly grain out of the country. Last year we did much to develop a facsimile of such a scheme in the crop depredation program. It is a $1 million a year program, a joint program with the provinces. In effect, it feeds ducks and geese on their way north and south across the country. It feeds them at public expense and not the expense of the individual farmer. Lure crops are planted, and the prairie farmer is insured. Hence, my reference to geese and to their unique ability to pick up and move grain on the Prairies.
This brings me to the third piece of legislation in the Speech from the Throne with which I am concerned, the new environmental contaminants act. Here the emphasis will be on prevention rather than cure. We will be screening new man-made substances. New products like plastics and toxic chemicals will be the first to be vetted under the proposed law. They will be vetted essentially by the industries themselves. Of course, our specialists and engineers in Environment Canada will be drawing up the test procedures and protocols. They will be responsible for the guidelines, much as the officials in the Department of National Health and Welfare in the Food and Drugs Divi-
The Address-Mr. Davis
sion are responsible for tests that apply to food additives, drugs and pesticides. But industry, basically, will be called upon to do its own testing and our officials in government will be keeping an eye on industry's performance in this regard.
There may be some hon. members among us who see this screening process as offensive to the private sector. I cannot agree with them. Most chemical companies would welcome a firm policy in this area, a set of environmental guidelines or protocols which would help them sort out the kind of products they can sell with impunity. At present they run a considerable risk that one of their products may be on the market for a number of years before environmentalists point out its dangers.
We will be looking out for chemicals that have four common characteristics. The first are those that only slowly degrade or break down in nature. The second characteristic is that they are taken up by living things and are concentrated as they pass up through the natural food chain. Third, they are rapidly and widely dispersed, often found hundreds, if not thousands, of miles from their source; and fourth, having entered the environment they may be irrecoverable and even with the expenditure of large amounts of money they can never be brought under control. The names of some of the offending substances are familiar; they include heavy metals such as lead, cadmium and mercury, and chemicals like the polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. Unfortunately, some of these substances are already present in alarming quantities in our biosphere. Since their sources are many, and since their use has become worldwide, international cooperation is often essential if we are to keep these environmental contaminants under control not only in Canada but elsewhere.
I might mention in passing that similar legislation is being considered in the United States and that a toxic substances act is being drafted in Washington. Our legislation will be broader in scope. It will deal not only with substances toxic or poisonous in nature, that is, poisonous to all living things, but also with other pollutants that tend to suffocate because of their bulk volume or concentration in a single place.
I have used the word protocol, Mr. Speaker. Environmental protocols are tests that establish the safety of a new product. We have developed several for checking out substances. NTA, a substitute for phosphates in detergents, is a case in point. The protocol here has been developed with the assistance of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Environment Canada is also working with the Department of Agriculture on pesticides. We are already working with industry, with various companies, on other important new industrial products. The idea of containment is fundamental to our approach to pollution. Either we prevent a product from being manufactured in the first place or we insist that it be recycled within the factory premises. If possible, nothing should get out that is toxic or suffocating. This makes sense, because it is terribly expensive to gather it up again. Such a toxic substance could do irreversible damage if it got loose.
As I have said in the House on other occasions, Mr. Speaker, our national pollutant abatement standards are

The Address-Mr. Davis
linked to the best possible technology. As new techniques are devised, our standards are continually tightened up. Every new plant in this country must make use of this new technology. Here I would emphasize the word "ideas". Already as a result of this technologically-oriented policy of ours we have developed a good deal of fresh and valuable Canadian know-how. Not only has this been beneficial, in environmental terms, in Canada, but it has an important dollar sign attached to it. It is a new industry which is selling its expertise not only to firms here but also widely in the United States, in Sweden and the USSR. With these multiple dividends to Canadian workers and to our scientific community in mind we have launched a number of research projects for broader programs. They are essentially co-operative with nature and industry. In our pulp and paper mill industry, the research is increasingly being undertaken on a dollar for dollar or 50-50 basis, the taxpayers putting up half of the money for this and industry the other half.
We have already scored a number of important breakthroughs. Here are a few which also show considerable promise and which may be highly successful not only from an environmental point of view but also from a financial point of view. The first is the use of oxygen to bleach wood pulp rather than using other chemical ingredients. Over a period of time this would make a pollution-free industry of one which is now largely responsible for much of our pollution. I have no doubt that the pollution outstream from those mills using the new process could be eliminated in its entirety. Preliminary estimates of cost benefits over a decade are interesting and show a benefit cost ratio of better than six to one.
Second is a new process for treating waste waters from mining operations. This would be invaluable for salmon rivers like the Miramichi and the Fraser. This technology, which is also transferable, is now in an advanced stage. I think it will be suitable not only for Canada but for other countries as well. It promises to have a benefit cost ratio in the area of ten to one.
Third, we are exploring a new process for controlling the emission of sulphur dioxide from smelter gases. By eliminating the expense of the limestone washing process, savings would result to both the smelter and the refinery. This process would have benefit both at home and abroad. It has an indicated benefit cost ratio of more than three to one.
Fourth, other investigations are under way in laboratories and more particularly in industry across the country. Many of them are in the chemical, food and allied industries. Others promise considerable savings to municipalities in respect of sewage collection and sewage treatment.
These are among the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why Environment Canada is entering into numerous contracts with industry and occasionally with universities, that is, to develop new technology which can not only create a pollution abatement industry in this country but can also provide meaningful and well paid jobs for many Canadians.
What I have described is clearly an integral part of our over-all industrial strategy. It turns losses into gain; it converts present day wastes into products of future value;

it adds to our efficiency in a very material way; it will improve our earnings and at the same time it will help to clean up our national surroundings.
I believe quite sincerely, Mr. Speaker, that it pays to be clean. It may cost some industries more than others to be clean, but the total Canadian community is bound to benefit. We will have to expend less effort in tidying up our surroundings. We will not have to use as much paint, to suffer as much wear and tear or feel as badly as we have at times. Indeed, we will be a lot healthier and depreciation of our assets will be slower. Our great Canadian outdoors, if we are careful and plan far enough ahead, will be preserved for all time.
In over-all national terms, the cost of an abatement pollution program is unlikely ever to exceed 2 per cent of our national income. It may have fallen to as little as 1 per cent by 1980. In narrow economic terms-which does not look insurmountable-the savings in dollars and cents to individual Canadians may be several times that amount. The over-all benefits accruing to the whole Canadian community may be several times the actual financial cost to industry and to individuals in this country.
As I have said before in this House and in other places, and I say it again now, we in Canada can have a substantial rate of economic growth and a clean environment. We can expand our industrial output as long as we do it intelligently and put into effect the best possible technology, particularly a technology to suit our own Canadian problems in our own industries and eventually by selling the results abroad in our own interests and in the interests of others.
Mr. Speaker, I have very little time left and I should like to deal, not with matters which are largely internal to Canada but with matters which relate to our coasts and the sea. Not only do we have the longest shoreline in the world but we have the largest continental shelf which adds roughly 40 per cent to the area of our nation. How we manage these seas and direct the quality of the living resources which they nourish is very important to us.
In their forthcoming review of our departmental estimates, hon. members will see that we are adding substantially to the surveillance of these waters. In the fisheries and marine services alone, we are adding three large ships and a dozen medium-sized patrol craft by 1975. We are adding other shipping capacity in the area of research. In co-operation with the Department of National Defence we are stepping up surveillance from the air. A number of scientific expeditions are being planned, some in co-operation with other nations, which will also let us know more about the continental shelf which joins our shores.
Hon. members will be glad to know that we have gained a greater measure of control over the dumping of oil and other wastes near our coasts. The strong position which Canada took at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972, and again at the Conference of Maritime Nations in London last fall, led to a convention which gives the coastal state certain powers of intervention which it never had before. For instance, Canadians could take emergency action against ships not only coming and going from Canadian ports but also passing close to our shoreline.
January 11, 1973

In conjunction with other fishing nations we have also pioneered, and to a considerable degree succeeded, in bringing about management of our fishing resources, those out over our continental shelf and beyond our own exclusive fishing limits, onto a sustained yield basis. This is true particularly in the North Atlantic where there is raiding and indiscriminate fishing by long-distance fishing nations, which on other continents has been so destructive in the past.
Preparatory to the next Law of the Sea Conference we will be hosting a conference on fisheries management-a conference of the world fishing nations-in Vancouver, in February. This will deal primarily with management, not only to preserve the resources but to make sure our fisheries resources are in the best state possible.
Finally, let me say a word about the next Law of the Sea Conference. It will be first convened in New York in November, 1973; the subsequent meeting is scheduled for Santiago, Chile, in April, 1974. Not only have Canadians a great deal riding on the outcome of this very important conference, but so do many other countries where the people are becoming increasingly concerned about the viability of their fisheries and the quality of the waters which wash their shores.
Mr. Speaker, several important priorities were outlined in the Speech from the Throne, and I think I have touched on all of them in my remarks tonight. Pieces of legislation, and the program relating to our fishery areas, among other things, will expand job opportunities for Canadians. They can certainly help to increase the income of Canadians because they are highly productive. Because they add to our efficiency they should do something to ensure a greater measure of price stability in the country. This applies particularly in respect to fisheries legislation which does something about other areas of the country which are less fortunate from an income and employment point of view.
I hope that these pieces of legislation will be brought forward soon, Mr. Speaker, and that all hon. members will do their utmost not only to expedite their passage but to improve them during the course of debate here and in the standing committee on environment and fisheries.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I first extend my congratulations to you and to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and immediately express my regret for having to bring to the House again a situation that detrimentally affects my own constituency.
As hon. members who were here during the previous parliament are aware, I have been putting forward certain objections and grievances. These finally culminated in a petition being placed before the House. It was accepted by Mr. Speaker and by the government, and referred to the justice and legal affairs committee for study. I and the people I represent, on whose behalf I put forward the petition, were delighted when the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs came down unanimously with a favourable report. In so saying, I remind the House that
The Address-Mr. D. Maclnnis
the committee was made up mainly of lawyers; there were 12 representatives from the government side of the House and eight members from the other parties.
In view of this favourable report it is regrettable that the Cape Breton Development Corporation, known as Devco, failed to act and implement, on behalf of the people of my area, the provisions of the legislation passed unanimously by this House in 1967.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Donald MacInnis: I should like for a few moments to review the details. I realize that it may be somewhat difficult for all members of the House to follow this. This legislation was introduced because of an ailing coal industry. It affects a somewhat localized part of Cape Breton, and because of that I doubt if some hon. members are interested. It would make about as much sense for some hon. members to be concerned about this piece of legislation as it would if I were to get up and, in opposition to four or five western members, try to speak on wheat. Nevertheless, I especially ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and members of cabinet present in the House to pay particular attention to what I have to say.
I have prepared a 25-page brochure which I will make available to members of the House in order that they may become familiar with the facts. The evidence is documented. Most of it involves the corporation itself and the justice and legal affairs committee. There is evidence from other committees before which Devco officials appeared. Once they have looked at this material, I am sure hon. members will realize that the way Devco officials implemented the legislation passed by this House in 1967 was not what was intended by parliament. I am appealing to parliament to take a close look at this matter, because we want what was requested in the petition and what parliament intended originally in its legislation.
To begin with, Mr. Speaker, having undertaken to rehabilitate the mines in Cape Breton, the authorities completely ignored them. I will send a copy of these documents to the Prime Minister. In this situation, I think it would make sense for the government to act. This House passed the legislation and a committee of the House fully supported the people of my area. I would therefore be interested in listening to him on this matter and in his doing something about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald MacInnis: Briefly, the situation was this. The committee made certain recommendations which Devco failed to follow. They have not been followed to their full extent by any means. Instead of attempting to rehabilitate the mines the authorities in the area initiated a pre-retirement leave plan. The legislation was to make available $3,000 to a married man and $2,400 to a single man. Yet immediately afterwards Devco turned around, contravened section 48 of the Unemployment Insurance Act and told the men, "We will give you $3,000 but you must go down to the unemployment insurance office and pick up the money you are entitled to for the first 171 months, and we will reduce or take that amount from the $3,000 we will allow
January 11, 1973

The Address-Mr. D. Maclnnis you." As a result, as members of previous parliaments have seen, cheques for one cent were paid out twice a month by the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
Is this what the government intended? I am not asking that merely as a rhetorical question. Do not the members on the government side of the House feel that Devco was doing the wrong thing, especially as there was a unanimous report from the justice and legal affairs committee on the subject? Devco ignored the report.
Now the situation in Cape Breton is this: in addition to violating the Unemployment Insurance Act, the corporation has said that the pre-retirement leave moneys, so far as it is concerned, are not earnings which come under the unemployment insurance fund but are earnings so far as the Canada Pension Plan are concerned. As a result, those who have been forced to take pre-retirement have continued to make contributions until they have reached the age of 65. Devco has been using the 1923 standard of $75 pensions. Some men have worked in the collieries for 50 years. They will be paid $50 from the Canada Pension Plan and will obtain $25 from the corporation.
Is this what the government intended when it passed section 18 (a)(i) of the act? That section requires Devco to set up a pension plan for its employees. Section 18 (a)(ii) requires the setting up of pension arrangements for former employees and their dependants. In addition to the documentation which I can make available to hon. members, they can peruse that section of the legislation.
One will also find, on reading section 28 (e) of the legislation, how generous are the provisions respecting pensions for the officers of Devco. The criminal aspect of this is that the Devco officers have been brought under the civil service superannuation plan, yet nothing has been done for former employees who come under sections 18 (a)(i) and (ii).


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Donald MacInnis: What makes this even more hard to take is that in the five-year period some officials of Devco will contribute more than miners contribute in 45 years. In other words, it would take miners 45 years to catch up with the contribution the officers make in five years.
Although nothing has been done with respect to sections 18 (a)(i) and (ii) of the act, Devco is getting ready to sign a contract with its present employees. The arrangement is for a pension of $4 per year, as I understand it, up to a maximum of 20 years, making a total pension of $80, or $5 in excess of the standard set by the previous company in 1923. Surely that is not what the government intended. Surely that is not what the justice and legal affairs committee supported. Again I say there were 12 Liberal members on that committee. This is not what we were led to expect from the legislation passed in this House in 1967. What I say, I say without fear of contradiction. The documentary evidence is there for anybody to examine.
Having established the Cape Breton Development Corporation, the authorities then brought a man over from England, or from the U.K., I ought to say. When he came, he brought many of his buddies with him and then disregarded the wishes of the people of Cape Breton. His

actions affected the livelihood of the entire Cape Breton area. He imposed on the people, and I have documentation to prove it.
What did he do after imposing on them? In his representations to the minister, he lied; and I say that advisedly. He lied to the minister on a number of occasions and that fact can be documented inasmuch as he appeared before a committee of this House. There he contradicted himself, and Devco officials appearing before the justice and legal affairs committee also contradicted him. In addition, you will find a note from the former minister, the meaning of which is plain. There is a letter verifying the fact that Blackmore lied to the minister on more than one occasion. This can be further verified by a perusal of the evidence placed before the justice and legal affairs committee. It can be shown that it happened on at least three different occasions.
The legislation required Devco to consult with all unions certified under the Nova Scotia labour act. Devco and Blackmore failed to do that. They imposed on the union, they imposed pretty well on everybody, and they made threats. They impose their will on everybody. They say the pre-retirement benefit must be taken this year and that it may not be available next year. They also tell the men their jobs may be gone. They used coercion, lies and threats. This matter has gone to court. The court did not do justice to the situation. This is fully documented for the benefit of everyone. In one instance the court said:
Pension benefits will not be paid to the widows or other dependants following the death of an employee or retired employee, including the plaintiff.
It goes on to say that the plaintiffs would not be called. That is not in accordance with the facts, because some of the plaintiffs were called back. The matter went to the court and the court did nothing. I appeal to every member of this House, this House which is often referred to as the highest court in the land, for justice for the Cape Breton miners and their families, as well as the other people involved.
If we reflect on this situation at the time it began, we will recall that I have been raising the subject since 1967, as well as during the last parliament, in respect of what Mr. Blackmore, the import from the United Kingdom, has done in Cape Breton. It is interesting to note that he is no longer there. The people of Cape Breton, however, today are paying for the sins of Gerald Blackmore just because the House of Commons does not stand behind the legislation passed in 1967.
I appeal to hon. members, especially the government, to stand behind this legislation. In my petition before the House I did not ask for anything that was not in the legislation. I now ask the government to take a good, hard look at what has gone on and to see that what the legislation intended in the first instance is carried out.
I have a document here in respect of what Mr. Black-more stated. I have a letter signed by the original president, along with the president of the former company. This, however, was dishonoured before the ink was dry. I will make this document available so that all members can check it with the preamble to the legislation, and also
January 11, 1973

check it against sections 18(a)(i) and 18(a)(ii), and so on. Then they might ask, did we intend that the high-salaried principals would receive the protection that others have been denied?
The hon. members might go on and look at the different approaches taken by Devco and the former chairman of that board who is now running the National Capital Commission, much to the regret of many people in this area, I am sure. They might check out what the vice-president in charge of development had to say, and then turn to the evidence given before the committee, which indicates that they were entirely wrong in their statements before the committee.
Again I say there have been blatant lies, impositions and coercion. A man is made to subsidize his retirement by the use of his UIC benefits. He is also forced to subsidize his final retirement by using his Canada Pension Plan benefits. I might say that in addition to that, if a man finds employment with somebody else and makes a contribution to another employer, Devco in the end reduces his final retirement benefit. Despite the fact that some of these men paid both their own share and the employer's share of unemployment insurance, nevertheless Devco uses it to subsidize the retirement benefit.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) is here, and I would ask him to take a good look at the evidence placed before the committee. I appeal to him to see that the legislation passed in this House is fully supported by the House of Commons.


Otto Emil Lang: I read the court evidence, too.


Donald MacInnis: You should read section 18, which makes it mandatory for Devco to see that the pension scheme protects its employees and dependants. In other words, while the judge says there will be no benefit paid to widows or dependants, section 18(a)(i) of the act provides:
pension arrangements for the benefit of persons, and dependants of persons, employed by the Corporation-
Section 18(a)(ii) reads:
pension arrangements for the benefits of persons, and dependants of persons, formerly employed by the companies-
Today we have a situation where the judge comes down with a decision and says that no pensions will be paid. If the pensioner dies, the pension dies with him. Devco is getting ready for a big stunt; it is going to set up a pension scheme of $400 a year for a man who has worked 20 years. Then let us see what they intend to do for a dependant widow and other dependants of a miner. They may be protected for a five-year period, or if he lives over a year into his pension years they can look forward to a pension from the corporation for one year after the death of the husband.
I might also mention that I have documented evidence to the effect that in its own policy statements Devco has said that it will pay a widow for the month of the pensioner's death until the last day of the following month, but not thereafter. That is in contravention of section 18(a)(ii) of the act. I have another quotation here from Devco. It reads:
-make a single payment to her on the last day of the month in
The Address-Mr. D. Macinnis
which the pensioner dies and again on the last day of the month following but not thereafter-
I submit that that is an absolute contradiction of section 18(a)(ii) of the act. Again I appeal to the members of this House and point out to them that the legislation passed by this highest court of the land is not being fulfilled. The judge said that none of these men would be recalled. That is not the fact. So far as the judge's finding is concerned, he expressed it in dollars and cents and not in accordance with right or wrong. He referred to the cost and also to the benefits to be paid. He referred to them as being substantial.
I ask anyone in this House if he would consider $75 a month after 50 years service substantial. Why did the judge refer to the dollar and cents aspect? We went into court on the recommendation of the committee, looking for a right and wrong finding. We did not ask for an opinion in respect of dollars and cents, but this is what we got. We want justice. We ask that there be a further examination of the legislation passed in this House, because if there is such an examination no one could come to any conclusion other than that these men are not protected under the civil service superannuation plan in the same way as members of Devco.
If there is any question about this, I can read a letter made available by the former minister who I am sorry to see has left the department because we were just about reaching a conclusion on this; I think he was sympathetically considering the matter and was reaching the understanding that he had for some years been listening to lies from Mr. Blackmore. I think he was prepared to do something about the matter, and this letter would indicate that the former minister of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was prepared to do something. The new minister has also shown a sympathetic approach and has indicated to me he hopes something can be done to straighten things out.
Now where did the minister stand? I have a letter here addressed to Mr. D. V. McDuffe, assistant, Canadian legislative representative, United Transportation Union. It reads as follows:
Dear Mr. McDuffe:
Replying to your letter of February 1, 1971, I wish to advise that employees of the Devco Railway who were formerly in engine and train service of the Cumberland Railway Company Limited could be included in the public service superannuation plan but at the present time are not because the corporation has not applied to have employees in these categories (and in like categories) included in the plan.
This is the letter from the former minister of that department indicating that the employees of the Cape Breton Development Corporation can get the protection of the civil service superannuation plan if the Devco officials will look for it. They have not made any effort whatsoever to provide this protection for the men. But they have provided for themselves, and for four years they have been enjoying that protection.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Donald MacInnis: The legislation, and again I refer to section 28(e), is only a blanket

January 11, 1973
The Address-Mr. D. Maclnnis
coverage for those not covered in sections 18(a)(1) and 18(a)(2), and the same privileges are available, or should be available, and according to the minister's letter are available, should Devco officials such as Blackmore, who has finally been removed, make such an application on behalf of these employees. There has been no effort in this regard.
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. I could refer to the fact that the president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation has made the following statement:
Gentlemen, I recognize that the pre-retirement leave plan is wrong and I intend to do something about it.
That is from the responsible officer, the president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. I will repeat it for the benefit of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) if he will just pay attention to me for a moment. Would the Minister of Finance please pay attention to this one statement by the present president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation? I quote:
Gentlemen, I recognize that the pre-retirement leave plan is wrong and I intend to do something about it.
Well, he did. A year ago last November he changed it around. It will be recalled that I said originally the Cape Breton Development Corporation leave moneys were not considered as earnings under the U.I.C. and that therefore they took 100 per cent of the men's U.I.C. benefits and subsidized their own retirement, in violation of section 48 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. So it has been changed around; Mr. Kent has changed it around. He said, "We are going to pay it all to you now and it is going to be considered as earnings."
I have had this out with the commissioner of U.I.C. and he said that it was part of the contract of service. He told me that they only get part of the U.I.C. benefits now, whereas they were getting it all when Devco was using it. Now they get only a portion. I ask you, why did they stop paying the men U.I.C. benefits? The answer I received was that they have a contract of service, and I suggested that they have a contract of service which is subject to recall. The commissioner agreed. He said they have to consider the merits. I am sure hon. members will agree that that is a strange thing. That contract of service has been in the retirement leave plan since its inception. It has been there ever since its inception, and I say they cannot now turn around and say it should be considered as earnings, because they took 100 per cent of the men's insurance benefits and used them.
I could go further and quote from page 29 of the sixth report of the justice and legal affairs committee in which a responsible officer of Devco admitted to the use of coercion. It is right there in the committee report. When questioned by a member of the committee, he responded by admitting they had used coercion. Is this the type of justice the government had in mind when they set up the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act?
I have said before-and I invite members to check this in Hansard by referring to the report of April 15, 1969; anybody is free to mark down the date and check it-that the plan was not legally set up. The House leader at that time reported that the government had approved the plan. At that time I brought to the attention of the Chair that I had been in contact with Treasury Board; on April 15,

1969, Treasury Board had not only not approved it, and on April 15 they had not even heard of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Donald MacInnis: Yes; and this House was told that it had been approved. And Black-more went about the country in Cape Breton and told the people that the government had approved this. He forced the plan down their throats. The effect was to put men on the street at the age of 60; in fact, it put men on the street before the age of 60, against their will.
Then on April 16, 1969, the minister then responsible for the department, in answer to a question by the leader of the New Democratic Party, reported to this House that Treasury Board would probably give approval the following day. So that would take it to at least April 17. They imposed; they used coercion; they lied. Yes, they lied. I think the government would be well advised to call Mr. Blackmore back from western Canada before he ruins the coal industry there. That is all he did in Cape Breton. He closed mines despite the fact that evidence was given before the committee that no mine would be closed until alternative work was provided outside the coal industry, a requirement in the preamble to the legislation. They put the men on the street but they failed to provide alternative employment. In fact, a report came to the House that on February 5, 1970, there were 1,200 miners working in the new mine at Lingan. For the benefit of hon. members I will tell them what was going on in that new mine on February 5. A construction crew was just removing sod. However, on that date they were on strike and there was not a wheel turning at the new mine at Lingan. So there were not 1,200 men working.
If further proof is required that Mr. Blackmore was doing a snow job at the expense of members of this House, documents are available to me. In addition, I have the evidence from the public accounts committee which will further support my statement. Then there is the evidence which was placed before the committee on regional economic expansion. This would further substantiate the fact that all Mr. Blackmore did was to impose his will upon the people of the area and lie to his minister. If he had not lied to his minister, the miners in the Cape Breton area would not be faced with the situation they face today. They would not be receiving one-cent cheques-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being 9.30 o'clock p.m., it is my duty in accordance with section 4 of Standing Order 41, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question to the House.
The question is on the amendment. Is the House ready for the question? Those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Those opposed to the amendment will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
January 11, 1973


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Stanfield) which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 2)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Alexander	Hamilton	McCleaveAlkenbrack	(Swift Current-	McGrathAndTe	Maple Creek)	McKenzieArrol	Hargrave	McKinleyAtkey	Hees	McKinnonBaker	Hellyer	MitgesBaldwin	Higson	MorganBalfour	Hollands	MuirBawden	Holmes	Munro (Esquimalt-Beattie	Horner (Crowfoot)	Saanich)(Hamilton	Horner	MurtaMountain)	(Baittleford-	Neil (Moose Jaw)Beatty (Wellimgton-	Kindersley)	NesbittGrey-Dufferin-	Howie	NielsenWaterloo)	Hueglin	NowlanBell	Hurlburt	OberleBlenkarn	Jarvis	O'ConnorCarter	Jelinek	O'SullivanClark	Kempling	Paproski(Rocky Mountain) Knowles (Norfolk-	PattersonClarke	Haldimand)	Reilly(Vancouver	Korchinski	ReynoldsQuadra)	Kuntz	RitchieCoates	Lambert	RocheCossitt	(Edmonton West)	RynardCrouse	Lawrence	SchellenbergerDanforth	Lundrigan	SchumacherDarling	MacDonald	ScottDick	(Egmont)	SkoreykoDiefenbaker	MacDonald (Miss)	StackhouseDinsdale	Maclnnis	StanfieldEllis	(Cape Breton-	StevensEpp	East Richmond)	Stewart (Marquette)Fairweather	MacKay	TaylorForrestall	MacLean	Thomas (Moncton)Frank	Macquarrie	TowersFraser	Madill	WagnerGillies	Marshall	WhittakerGrafftey	Masniuk	WiseHales	Mazankowski	WoolliamsHaliburton Hamilton	McCain	Yewchuk-107.
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain)
Division
++NAYS
Messrs.
Allard	Gray	MunroAllmand	Grier	(Hamilton East)Andras	Guay	NealeBarnett	(St. Boniface)	(Vancouver East)Basford	Guay (Levis)	NelsonBeaudoin	Guilbault	NesdolyBechard	Haidasz	NystromBegin (Miss)	Harding	OlaussenBenjamin	Harney	OlivierBlackburn	Herbert	OrlikowBlais	Hopkins	OuelletBlaker	Hymmen	PelletierBlouin	Isabelle	(Hochelaga)Boisvert	Jamieson	PelletierBoulanger	Jerome	(Sherbrooke)Breau	Knight	PennerBroadbent	Knowles (Winnipeg	PetersBuchanan	North Centre)	PortelanceCaccia	Lachance	PoulinCafik	Laflamme	Prud'hommeCampbell	Lajoie	RailtonCaouette	Lalonde	Reid(Charlevoix)	Lang	RodriguezCaron	Langlois	RompkeyChretien	Laniel	RondeauClermont	Laprise	RooneyComtois	La Salle	RoseCorbin	Latulippe	RowlandCorriveau	Leblanc (Laurier)	Roy (Timmins)catd	Leblanc	Roy (Laval)Cullen	(Westmorland-	SaltsmanCyr	Kent)	Sauve (Mrs.)Danson	Lefebvre	SharpDavis	Leggatt	SmithDe Bane	Lessard	(Northumberland-Demers	Lewis	Miramichi)Dionne	L'Heureux	Smith (Saint-Jean)Douglas	Loiselle	StanburyDrury	MacDonald	Stewart (Okanagan-Dube	(Cardigan)	Kootenay)Dupont	Macdonald	Stewart (Cochrane)Dupras	(Rosedale)	StolleryDuquet	MacEachen	SymesEthier	MacGuigan	Thomas (Maison-Faulkner	Maclnnis (Mrs.)	neuve-Rosemont)Firth	Mackasey	TrudeauFleming	Marceau	TrudelFortin	Marchand	Turner (LondonFoster	(Langelier)	East)Fox	Marchand	TurnerGauthier	(Kamloops-	(Ottawa-Carleton)(Ottawa East)	Cariboo)	WalkerGendron	Mather	WatsonGilbert	Matte	WhelanGillespie	McRae	WhicherGodin	Morin (Mrs.)	Yanakis-148.
Goyer


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
At 10.02 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
225

Friday, January 12, 1973