1973-01-12

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A). 1972-73

[Stage Direction]
PROPRIETY OF INCLUSION OF ITEM L30a IN REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I sent to Your Honour today notice of my intention to raise what I consider to be an extremely important matter, a question not only of a grievance as a right of privilege but also involving the inherent jurisdiction of the House.
On Monday, January 8, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) introduced Supplementary Estimates(A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973. These estimates included an item of $454 million for the Department of Manpower and Immigration, headed vote L30a. This amount represented two special Governor General's warrants of $234 million and $220 million respectively which have been issued for the purpose of attempting to appropriate money during the period between the end of the last parliament and the calling of this parliament. The President of the Treasury Board subsequently moved that the supplementary estimates be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, I raised a question about the legality of this particular appropriation, although I admit I was not as specific then as I can be now because I had not seen the supplementary estimates and so was not able to pursue the subject any further.
Mr. Speaker, on the order paper for today there appears in the name of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) a bill entitled "An Act to Amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 1)", accompanied by a recommendation which gives an indication of what will be contained in the legislation. That recommendation provides, inter alia,:
that the amount authorized under Manpower and Immigration Vote L30a of Supplementary Estimates (A) 1972-73-
That is the one I referred to, Mr. Speaker,
-shall be deemed an advance under that section and not an appropriation described in paragraph 133(b) of that act.
In addition, the recommendation goes on to suggest that the measure will call for the removal of the $800 million ceiling in advances under section 137. It would therefore appear, Mr. Speaker, that I was correct in the suspicion I formed at that time and which prompted me to file the verbal caveat.
The recommendation is an indication of what will be in the legislation. I am not going to bother to read section 137 of the Unemployment Insurance Act which provides a statutory limitation of $800 million on moneys which may be lent by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) pursuant
to a certain procedure for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the act.
It would now appear from this legislative proposal standing in the name of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that the legislative ceiling has been exceeded. It appears almost certain-that is the best way I can put it until there has been a chance for examination-that this was done by means of a Governor General's warrant and not by legislation. What is now being proposed is an attempt apparently to legalize by legislation what was illegal and improper. I suggest, therefore, that there was no right on the part of the government to have so appropriated moneys, that this could only have been done by an amendment to the act.
When one reads the statute it appears to be possible that the appropriation and the Governor General's warrant might-and I use the word "might" advisedly-have been made under section 133. But it could never be made legally under section 137. That is where the grave issue lies. This is not simply a technical issue, Mr. Speaker. The money has been spent, the money is gone, but that is not the point. The question is this: if the money was appropriated or purported to be appropriated and spent under section 133 of the Unemployment Insurance Act it is an outright grant and the burden falls upon the taxpayers of Canada. If, on the other hand, it is a loan made under section 137, the burden is assumed by the contributors, the employers and employees and will be reflected by an increase in their contributions. That is the very important issue of substance.
I recognize that I cannot make a legal argument and ask Your Honour to make a finding on it. This may have to be a judicial finding or it may be a finding the House may have to make later if the motion I intend to move is accepted.
I suggest, however, that under those conditions it was highly improper for this item in the supplementary estimates to be sent to the committee. The proper procedure was for the government to have admitted its fault, to have admitted its irregularity, to have admitted its misappropriation, and have come here with a full statement and proceeded to secure or at least ask the House for legislation. If the legislation were passed and the illegality cured, then and then only should this item be sent to the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee to be considered.
The chairman of the standing committee admitted yesterday-he let it slip out-that there is a firm aate, February 8, when the minister intends to bring the budget down. It is essential that this matter be settled. If it is an outright grant, it must be taken into consideration in the casting of the national accounts. There is an obvious difference between a grant and loan. That is the situation. I was not

January 12, 1973
Supplementary Estimates (A), 1972-73 able to attend the committee proceedings this morning but I understand the issue was raised.
In these circumstances I wish to move a motion. I will read it so that Your Honour may determine whether I am entitled to put it. I would move:
That this House do recall from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates the item in the Supplementary Estimate (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1973 listed under Manpower and Immigration as vote L30a in the sum of $454,000,000 and that the Auditor General be directed to examine the accounts of the unemployment insurance fund for 1972-73 and in particular Governor General's Warrants purporting to appropriate the said sum of $454,000,000 and to report his findings to the Standing Committee of Miscellaneous Estimates, and said committee to report back to this House on this matter no later than March 20th, 1973.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River has raised a very interesting point. He kindly gave me notice but his notice did not refer to a question of privilege. I have some doubts whether the matter should have been raised at this stage in view of the precedents on privilege, since the hon. member himself, either in his notice or in his presentation to the House, failed to refer to privilege.
He suggests that there is some impropriety or illegality in the procedure being proposed by the government. That may be so, but I do not think it is the responsibility of the Chair to rule on such questions. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member, and I am quite sure he will agree with me, that the motion which he proposes is a substantive motion. It is clearly that, and I fail to see how a substantive motion can be raised by the hon. member at this stage. There are provisions in the Standing Orders for motions of substance to be moved in certain circumstances by following certain procedures with notice. I suggest to the hon. member that perhaps he might look into this matter further and find some other way of having the matter debated in the House.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of the very serious nature of the matter raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and in view of the validity of his observations, I wonder whether the House would be prone to give its consent to having that particular item in the supplementary estimates recalled from the committee and reconsidered by the government. If the hon. member for Peace River is found to be right in the eyes of the government, then it can be dealt with properly; if not, it can be returned to the committee.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as to the point of order that has been raised by the hon. member, there is no foundation whatever to the allegation of any impropriety or illegality in the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the President of the Privy Council that if he wanted to discuss the matter raised by the hon. member for Peace River he should have presented earlier the arguments he is attempting to make now. According to my understanding, what we have before us now is, essentially, a motion under Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for Yukon suggesting that if there is unanimous consent the item could be recalled from the miscellaneous estimates committee. That is the

only basis on which there can be discussion now. If the minister would direct his remarks to that point, it might be helpful.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, of course, I accept your ruling. I was not certain when the hon. member was making his submission whether it was on the basis of privilege. If we are to consider the hon. member's suggestion as a request for unanimous consent to withdraw the estimates-


Erik Nielsen: Just one item.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -or any item from the committee, we cannot accept that because we have proceeded properly under the rules of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This again is debate. The hon. member is asking that under the terms of Standing Order 43 the motion be put to the House. I have to inquire whether there is unanimous consent. The minister has indicated there is not unanimous consent. Presenting reports-


Mr. Rowland:: On motions, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before we get to that item I will call presentation of reports. Motions.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I seek leave to move a motion in view of the urgent need for legislation to respond to the increases in the cost of living and in the high levels of unemployment. I propose to move with the unanimous consent of the House, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies):
That this House call on the government to present to the House as its first and immediate priority its legislative and regulatory program on the current economic, inflationary and unemployment crisis of the country, instead of those items now appearing on the order paper, in response to the increased costs in the food, clothing, housing and transport sectors of our economy and the recordbreaking level of unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham proposes this motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 which requires the unanimous consent cf the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.
January 12, 1973

Oral Questions



FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT ACT


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to ask leave of the House to introduce a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Yesterday the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation announced large layoffs of personnel in their Winnipeg and Selkirk plants. This action follows radical alterations to the marketing procedures pursued by the corporation, the dismissal or resignation of significant numbers of the corporation's most senior staff, allegations that the corporation is running a huge deficit and allegations that a part of the inventory of fish of the corporation cannot be accounted for. In light of the fact that the corporation is a public operation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that under the perhaps unfortunate practice we have established in the House under Standing Order 43 the hon. member is limited, after a very brief indication of what the urgency is, to placing his proposed motion before the House. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 he cannot make a speech.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to indicate the importance of the motion by saying that the corporation is the key to the well-being of the fishermen of the western provinces and the Northwest Territories. I therefore move:
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry be immediately established and that the entire matter of the administration and operations of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation be referred to it for investigation and report.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



EXPORT DEVELOPMENT ACT


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-3, to amend the Export Development Act.


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

Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-4, to amend the Fisheries Development Act.


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, arising from the indication in the consumer price index today that Canada's cost of living continues to rise at a rate of more than 5 per cent a year. Has the Prime Minister instructed his ministers to prepare a series of interim emergency measures to halt or at least to reduce this erosion of Canada's purchasing power, particularly in light of the success of our neighbouring country below the border?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: If the Leader of the Opposition is thinking about price and wage controls, the government has already stated its position on that question, that we have contingency plans which we will bring into action if necessary but that we would give no advance notice if we were going to do so.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the government considering any emergency action with regard to the price of certain foods, coupled, perhaps, with a support program, in order to ensure that the drastic increase in food prices taking place now and which has been taking place for a number of months does not provoke a general inflationary psychology in the country? Does the government intend to take any interim emergency action to prevent such a situation from developing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Speech from the Throne and, indeed, the order paper, indicate that the government wants this question of the increase in food prices brought before parliament. A motion is on the order paper to enable this to be done.


Mr. Hees:: That will take months and months.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, it will not take months if the opposition has a clear position on it, which is doubtful.


George Harris Hees: We know the way you deal with all reports.

January 12, 1973
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is very clear the government is not prepared to face up to its responsibility. I again ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the serious increases in the prices of meat, fish and poultry, more than 14 per cent in the course of a year, and taking into account the figures published today showing the current tendency, the government is now prepared to act on an immediate supplementary cost of living payment to old age pensioners, the blind and others receiving such allowances?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that a measure of that applause is directed to the position of the government as it was stated yesterday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES-DEPARTMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF REASONS-PLANS TO DEAL WITH PROBLEM
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: May I follow up this subject, Mr. Speaker, and direct my questions to begin with, at least, to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has his department been watching these increases in food prices, has it made any investigation or inquiry into the reasons for these increases and whether they are justified or whether the supermarkets and others are merely getting what the traffic will bear? I would also ask the hon. gentleman whether his department is engaged in making any plans to deal with this very serious food price situation?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the department has been watching developments with respect to prices. The basic jurisdiction of the department is under the Combines Investigation Act and, as I have pointed out to the House, the practice under succeeding governments has been not to indicate the existence of any inquiry under it unless such an inquiry is terminated, unless the matter is referred to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission or unless some court proceedings are undertaken. So far as plans are concerned, I would refer the hon. member to the answer given by the Prime Minister a few moments ago.


INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES-SUGGESTED FREEZE PENDING REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could direct my next question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that any parliamentary committee or any other body investigating this matter is faced with a time period before any report is produced, let alone any action is taken, and in view of the very serious situation created by the increase in the price of foods, particularly for low income families, would the Prime Minister not seriously consider placing a freeze on the price of food and at the same time providing some support to the farmers who might be hurt by a freeze on the price of food-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that this is a rather long question. Questions should be stated as briefly as possible. Perhaps the minister or the Prime Minister might reply.


David Lewis: I do not know whether the Prime Minister heard my last words-a freeze on the price of food pending the committee's deliberations and report.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the suggestion by the Leader of the New Democratic Party is not a very simple one. He wants to freeze prices on the one hand and subsidize farmers on the other. I would suggest that if his suggestion has merit it should be brought before the committee which has been instructed to recommend action and which can recommend action on an interim basis. It does not have to wait for a final report. If the suggestion has, indeed, any merit at all, I am sure this will be recognized immediately by all the hon. member's colleagues on the committee and the government would then be prepared to consider immediate action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South for a supplementary followed by a further supplementary question from the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES-SUGGESTED INCLUSION OF ACTION TO CONTROL ON AGENDA OF FINANCE MINISTERS' MEETING
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a question in the same area based on my understanding that the Minister of Finance is meeting the provincial Ministers of Finance on the 18th of this month, I believe. Would the minister consider placing on the agenda of that meeting an item specifying the necessity of taking some action with regard to the control of food prices in this country, since it has been forecast that they will continue to go up, in order that the federal and provincial governments may collaborate in imposing necessary selective controls on food prices?


Hon.   John. N. Turner@Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, there is an item on the agenda relating to the general economic situation which is wide enough for that subject to be discussed. I rather doubt that a concensus could be obtained from the provinces on that subject since most of the provincial governments have pronounced themselves against that particular proposition.


UNEMPLOYMENT AND INFLATION-SUGGESTED EARLY INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO DEAL WITH PROBLEMS
Mr. Howard Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, because of the urgency accorded economic matters in the throne speech and because of the two announcements on inflation and unemployment this week, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the government has drafted legislative measures to deal with unemployment and inflation so that the House can deal with these matters first thing next week-in fact, now?
January 12, 1973


Mr. Nowlan:: Why wait for spring?


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? Has at least one measure been decided upon and prepared for legislative action? If so, will it be introduced first thing next week according to the government's priorities? Will the Prime Minister, because of the urgency accorded economic measures in the throne speech, instruct his ministers to present this legislation to the House first thing next week so that we can get on with the job?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member will see some measures on the order paper, and he will see the order of priority in which the government calls them. It would be interesting to have the Conservative party decide on its own priorities. It is difficult to know-


An hon. Member:: We have ours now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -from this morning's questions-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The first priority is to get rid of you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope we would not get into a debate.


INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES-REQUEST FOR ISSUING OF INFORMATION INDICATING PRICES RECEIVED BY FARMERS
Mr. S. I. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Has the government given consideration to putting out a release, perhaps monthly, to indicate the increase in the cost of food as related to the price the producer receives in order to show that the producer is not at fault?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the bureau of statistics does put out a release on this subject. I do not know if there is any particular detail-


An hon. Member:: We don't know about it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, these releases are public. There was one made this morning and I am sure it is the basis of the questions of some of the hon. member's colleagues.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister feel that the information being issued to the public is adequate and put out in such a way that it tells the true story rather than putting the blame on the producer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for an expression of opinion. The Chair will now recognize the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings on a supplementary question.
Oral Questions


INFLATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT-EFFECTIVENESS OF MEASURES IN FORTHCOMING BUDGET TO DEAL WITH PROBLEMS
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Does the minister have reason to believe that the measures to be introduced in the budget he has now prepared for presentation to the House in the very near future will be more effective in dealing with inflation and unemployment caused by inflation than the budget he presented on May 8 last and, if so, would he take the first opportunity on motions to explain what the reason is? Come on!


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member but the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings is rising on a point of order.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the minister owes an answer to the House so the people of the country can be prepared for more increases in inflation and unemployment similar to those that resulted from the last budget if the new budget is not going to do a better job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INQUIRY INTO FOOD PRICES BY SPECIAL COMMITTEE-PLANS TO PROTECT LIVING STANDARD OF PERSONS ON LOW INCOMES IN THE INTERIM
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that if the committee inquiry into prices is to do anything worth while it will take some time, has the government any plans in the meantime to protect the living standard of low-income individuals and families from further erosion by higher prices?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, some measures were announced by the government in the last budget, notably the increase in pensions by escalation. Further measures were announced yesterday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will return to these supplementary questions in a moment.


George Harris Hees: The Prime Minister is supposed to speak to the Speaker, not to the Hansard reporter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. For the moment I will recognize the hon. member for Champlain.
230

January 12, 1973

Oral Questions SHIPPING


COASTING TRADE-PRESENTATION OF BILL BASED ON DARLING REPORT
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Does he intend to introduce a piece of legislation in order to implement the recommendations made in the Darling report of 1970 concerning the coasting trade in Canada which was to be reserved to ships flying the Canadian flag?
er in fact the premiums set for employers and employees were sufficient to take up the cost of the program as of December 31?


Hon. Robert E. Andros@Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that employee-employer premiums for last year were in fact insufficient to fund the employee-employer charges to that portion of the fund, and I announced that information in December.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please.


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the cabinet will shortly spell out the Canadian government policy on this matter.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Alexander:: I have one last supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked three supplementary questions on the same subject. I will recognize him for a last supplementary and then recognize the hon. member for Yukon, but we will have to try to make some headway.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Because of the importance of the matter I know the House would want me to elicit all the information possible.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the fact the Unemployment Insurance Act has a statutory limit of $800 million, can the minister advise the House whether or not he was running at a deficit in the months of September and October when he applied for the first Governor General's warrant?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would want legal advice as to what the definition of deficit is with regard to that question before I could answer.


An hon. Member:: You sure need it.


Robert Knight Andras: I am not trying to evade answering, I am simply trying to understand exactly the terminology the hon. member is using so I can respond.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can help the minister. All I am trying to find out is whether in fact the government had spent the $800 million set out in the statute at the time the minister's department applied for a Governor General's warrant? That is a simple question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Will the minister answer this question: Does the amount that he has requested by way of Governor General's warrants cover all costs up to December 31 or is he now preparing further estimates in respect of further costs?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He needs legal advice before he answers that.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think I would like to examine that question-


George Harris Hees: I think you had better examine your whole department.


Robert Knight Andras: -extremely carefully and get expert advice and not attempt to offer information which may not be complete.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Just let the record show that the fund is in terrible shape.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the $800 million ceiling was to apply to advances to the Unemployment Insurance Commission in order to fund it pending receipt of employer and employee contributions and pending the determination of the government's cost of unemployment insurance benefits in excess of 4 per cent. Those figures are not determinable in total until about April of the next year. The advances did in the end exceed the $800 million statutory ceiling and we sought Governor General's warrants for that purpose.


Gerald William Baldwin: Illegally.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am glad the minister is now letting the secrets out of the bag. Will the minister advise now wheth-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF GOVERNOR GENERAL'S WARRANTS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL FUNDS
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board. Since the matter will perhaps be referred to the committee and since the warrants of which we have been speaking have not been tabled in the House-I realize the government has 15 days from the commencement of the session within which to do this-will the minister see to it that the warrants are tabled on Monday so members can have full information?



January 12, 1973


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


LEGALITY OF GOVERNOR GENERAL'S WARRANTS USED TO PROVIDE FUNDS
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he was requested to give and did he give a legal opinion as to the legality of these Governor General's warrants? If so, would he table that legal opinion?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we were certainly involved in the analysis of that action, and I can assure the hon. member that the action was legal and proper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: It is not the practice, of course, to table legal opinions in the House.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. In view of the fact the governments of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec are appearing before the Canadian Transport Commission to state their opposition to Bell Canada's application for rate increases, will the minister indicate whether the government of Canada is now prepared to do the same?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, this matter was not looked into but I am prepared to consider it in the light of the question of the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might allow the hon. member to ask a supplementary question and then I will recognize the hon. member for Don Valley.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that at least at the present time the government does not intend to make such a statement, and because many individuals and groups, including municipalities, have indicated they would like to appear before the commission to state their opposition to this application but are unable to attend Ottawa hearings because of problems of cost and time, will the minister request the commission to hold hearings in centres other than the city of Ottawa?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter we can look into, but I forgot to specify earlier that many representations are received by the department which not only
Oral Questions
passes them on to the commission but also insists that they be given careful attention.


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. lames Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister tell us whether or not the board of directors of the Bank of Canada has made a recommendation to the government as to whom the next governor should be and whether the government has accepted that recommendation?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.


James McPhail Gillies: When that decision is made, would the minister recommend to the governor that the minutes of the Bank of Canada be published on a delayed basis so we could have more information on how monetary policy is being made in this country?


John Napier Turner: That is a useful recommendation. I do not know whether the hon. member is preaching for a call or not.


HOUSING
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In light of the increase in shelter costs of 1.2 points this month which, coupled with the past 12 months, means there has been about a 10 point increase, is the government considering reducing the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials to abate inflation in the housing sector?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York Simcoe has a supplementary.


REQUEST THAT TERMS OF REFERENCE OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FOOD PRICES BE ENLARGED TO INCLUDE HOUSING
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Secretary of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the continuing rise in the costs of housing and shelter generally in Canada, would the minister now agree to amend the motion before the House to appoint a committee to inquire into the trend in food prices so the committee may also inquire into the trend in shelter and housing costs as well?
232

January 12, 1973
Oral Questions


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this motion is in the name of my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who would be responsible for any amendment thereto. I am sure the committee will have sufficient work in front of it in dealing with the question contained in the reference, but that certainly would be a matter for debate when the motion is considered by the House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, could I also have the same answer, if it is the same answer, from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's suggestion is one that can be considered in the course of the debate on the motion once it is called.


INCLUSION OF REMOVAL OF SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS ON AGENDA OF CONFERENCE WITH PROVINCES
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Will the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials be a subject on the agenda of the conference the minister has been telling us about which is to be held in order to consult with the provinces?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The agenda is certainly wide enough to include any such representation that any provincial delegate may wish to make. However, I would caution such delegate that the decision would be made by the Minister of Finance who has the responsibility for tax measures.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Who is responsible for making up the agenda for this consultation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have proposed an agenda to the provincial ministers. Most have indicated that the agenda suggested by me is totally satisfactory and provides a foundation for a complete discussion of housing policy. A few ministers have made a few suggestions which I am happy to accept as to agenda items. When we agree on a final agenda it will be published.


POST OFFICE
Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Now that the postal unions have voted to accept the recommendations of the conciliation board report and have in fact gone back to the negotiating table, is the minister prepared to indicate whether or not the federal government is prepared to accept the conciliation board report?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with longstanding practice I do not think the hon. member would wish the government, for its side, to disclose what the course of negotiations is or the position being taken. I can say, however, that the negotiations were resumed on Thursday in a constructive and helpful way and are progressing satisfactorily.


James Aloysius McGrath: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of the considerable discontent that has been generated within the postal unions by the failure of the government to respond to the recommendations of the conciliation board report?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the responsibility for communicating the general situation to the members of the postal union lies with the negotiating committee. The negotiating committee is, I think, fully aware of the government's position.


STEPS TO FIND ALTERNATIVE MARKETS FOR DAIRY PRODUCTS FOLLOWING BRITISH ENTRY INTO EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement by the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board of England and Wales that enlargement of the EEC will virtually eliminate the necessity for dairy imports, could the minister announce to the House at any early date what measures he proposes to take to find alternative markets for dairy products such as cheese, of which 85 per cent of our exports have gone to the United Kingdom?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, my officials have already been in contact with officials of the EEC. We have made representations to them with a view to reaching a satisfactory arrangement.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East has a supplementary to a previous question.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the appropriate minister to give us some indication concerning the government's intention in respect of the Bryden commission report. Can it be released and, if not, why?
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if I may answer that question, a similar question was put during the last parliament. The answer I gave at that time was that the Bryden committee report had been submitted to the government for its advice. It

was not intended upon the setting of the committee that the report would be made a public document. It was to be treated as advice as if it had been advice from servants of the government. I have noted the hon. member's representations today and earlier and I will be quite happy, when we come to the point where amendments are being proposed to the law, to consider whether it might be possible to make the Bryden report available. I am not in a position to make a commitment to my hon. friend that it will be made public, but I asssure him that the position will be considered.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, as the reply the other day was somewhat vague, can the minister give us some indication when we may expect these very necessary amendments to the act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my view at the moment is that we cannot expect these amendments in the early part of this session.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the fact that the NORAD agreement is due to expire shortly, can the minister indicate to the House where negotiations stand now, if they are under way, at what level they are being conducted and at what point he expects to become directly involved himself?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there are no active negotiations going on at the present time so I am unable to state at what time I might be actively involved myself.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Would the minister give his assurance that the House will have an opportunity to debate the question prior to any final agreement being reached between Canada and the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there will be plenty of opportunities when the standing committee is struck to discuss this and other issues. Of course the government itself will take responsibility for agreements of this kind.


MANPOWER
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the tragic level of unemployment across Canada and the particular difficulty students have in obtaining employment, will the minister reverse the decision of his department, to take effect on February 1,
Oral Questions
which downgrades and effectively emasculates student manpower offices on hundreds of campuses across this country?


Hon. Robert E. Andros@Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such downgrading. I shall look into it. The hon. member must have some evidence of it, but I do not have that evidence. I will look into it and report to him directly.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank the minister for his reply, Mr. Speaker. After he finds out what is going to take place with regard to these student manpower offices, will he make a statement on motions because this applies to campuses all across the country, and I know there are many students on these "campi" who are concerned?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, off the cuff it is my impression that we are in fact stepping up this service to the various students on all the different "campi", but I will make sure of this and get the information to the hon. members in one form or another.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the serious financial problems faced by young people trying to enter and remain in farming, can the minister say whether Canadian farmers are likely to see any expanded agricultural credit programs over the next few weeks?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Possibly, Mr. Speaker.


Jack Burnett Murta: The minister says "possibly". I would like the minister to inform the House what form these agricultural programs will take and when we can expect them to be introduced, so that members of the House and also the Canadian people can have a look at them?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have met with all my provincial counterparts and many farm organizations in Canada since accepting this portfolio, asking them for their input. As soon as I have all their submissions I will let the House know.


POSSIBLE REINTRODUCTION OF INCOME STABILIZATION PLAN
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question I would like to ask the minister whether, when he indicated on his recent trip to western Canada that the grain receipts income plan would be implemented, he had the concurrence of the Minister of Justice who speaks for the Wheat Board?


Jack Burnett Murta: Income stabilization plan.


Stanley James Korchinski: Yes. Did the minister get the concurrence of the Minister of Justice before making the state-

January 12, 1973
Oral Questions
ment that the stabilization plan, otherwise known as the grain receipts income plan, would be reintroduced?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes to listen to the tape recording of what I said he will find that I was slightly misquoted.


Stanley James Korchinski: Then may I ask the Minister of Justice who reports for the Canadian Wheat Board whether, in view of the fact that he now has a crutch in the form of the NDP, which party was one of the stumbling blocks to that plan, he intends to reintroduce it even though there was no mention of it in the Speech from the Throne?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how helpful that crutch will be at any given point in time. At present we are examining further suggestions from farm organizations in connection with stabilization. There is certainly a general reaction from farmers that they desire a stabilization program. It would be our intention to introduce one after these discussions are completed.


POSSIBILITY OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO SASKATCHEWAN LAND BANK PROGRAM
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is a follow-up to the question asked by the hon. member for Lisgar and I direct it to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the need for assistance faced by young people who start farming, and in view of the representations made to the minister by the government of Saskatchewan for financial assistance for its land bank program, can he say if any financial assistance for this program will be forthcoming?


Eugene Whelan: All I can say
is that negotiations are still continuing with the province of Saskatchewan, with my provincial counterpart. I can say that we will make no different deal, no different agreement, no different arrangement with Saskatchewan than we have with any other province.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the increased frequency of lost aircraft in Canada's northern region and the growing amount of air traffic in that area, is his department actively considering a stepped-up program with respect to the installation of improved air navigational aids for traffic in that region?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, after talking with the hon. member previously I communicated with officials of the department, and I hope he and I will be able to discuss the matter further.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As a result of his discussions with his officials, Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise whether it is the intention of the department to establish specific air corridors into the northern region, hopefully with the installation of v.o.r. and distance measuring equipment along those routes?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I have had further discussions on this I will communicate with the hon. member.


POLICY RESPECTING INSTALLATION OF CRASH POSITION INDICATORS IN AIRCRAFT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Would he indicate to the House the proposed policy of his department with regard to the installation of crash position indicators in Canadian aircraft?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take notice of this question.


John Raymond Ellis: Would the minister indicate whether his department is prepared to develop a Canadian standard for crash position indicators?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will answer this question as soon as I have discussed the matter with the departmental officials. It is a technical matter and I really do not know the answer.


SAFETY OF PLANE MOVEMENTS AT CALGARY AIRPORT- REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF CONSENT TO STOCKYARD CONSTRUCTION NEARBY
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have sent notice of a question along the same lines regarding air safety. I want to ask the Minister of Transport a very serious question in connection with the safety of commercial airline planes landing and taking off at the Calgary International Airport. Before there is a serious commercial aircraft accident caused by large flights of birds attracted by a project known as a stockyard or agrimart, the construction of which was consented to by his department prior to his being appointed minister, would the minister review this situation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very serious question. I communicated with departmental officials after the hon. member sent me notice of his question. I am told by the technical people in my department that this has been under study but they do not see any danger because they are going to take certain precautions in order that aircraft will not suffer from the presence of this stockyard.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he had a chance to review the evidence presented to an admistrative board at the municipal level, where experts other than those in the Department of Transport stated quite emphatically that there was a serious chance that this stockyard might be the cause of an accident, and may I point out that recently we have had the evidence of a

serious crash near Miami airport allegedly caused by birds?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is something I brought to the attention of the department. All new evidence will have to be considered. In the meantime, those responsible for the construction of the stockyard will have to put up a bond of $50,000 in order to give us a guarantee that they will take steps to see that birds attracted to it will not cause any danger for aircraft.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Is it the intention of the Solicitor General to reintroduce the young offenders bill this session and, if so, will there be substantial changes in the philosophy and procedures it envisaged?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the committee hearings in the last parliament my department is examining the young offenders bill in consultation with the Attorneys General of the different provinces. Once this consultation is completed we will announce our intention. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may answer a question that was put to me yesterday, since I am already on my feet.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I will recognize the minister at the end of the question period for that purpose.


John Gilbert: In view of the fact that representatives of social agencies and government officials indicated at the committee hearings in the last session that there was an urgent need for diagnostic and related services for the treatment of young offenders, has the Solicitor General taken any steps to consult with provincial officials to try to remedy this situation?


William Warren Allmand: It is on that very point that we are progressing to discussions with the provinces, Mr. Speaker. These services are under the jurisdiction of the provinces and we want to do what we can with them to improve the situation.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I draw to his attention the report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs of last June in which recommendations were made with regard to studies on the effects of incarceration on European theatre prisoners
Oral Questions
of war and also the question of the relaxation of some requirements of the War Veterans Allowance Act with regard to prisoners of war in the European theatre. Could the minister tell the House what has been done in this connection?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in reply may I say this question is now under study by my department.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Has the government withdrawn the regulation which allowed deputy department heads to retire public servants prior to the normal retirement age of 65?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that question as notice and respond to the hon. member in due course.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order based on the fact that the President of the Treasury Board publicly stated that this regulation had been withdrawn. I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board if that is not so and, if it is, why does the Minister of Justice not know about it?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that the regulation has been withdrawn, but I do not think that was the nature of the question directed to the Minister of Justice.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to stand here and have the President of the Treasury Board imply that the question I asked him was not the same question I asked the Minister of Justice. It is the same question. Supplementary to that first question, is there authority which would allow for the forced early retirement of employees under federal jurisdiction? Is there such a provision still contained in any regulation or any legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether that is a point of order. The hon. member may be asking a supplementary-


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that it was a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My impression was that the hon. member was asking a supplementary point of order. In any event, we might allow the minister to reply to the hon. member's supplementary question.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there are provisions under which public servants can be retired prior to the customary retirement age of 65.

January 12, 1973
Oral Questions


Donald MacInnis: A further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period, but I shall allow the hon. member to ask a further supplementary and then allow the Solicitor General to reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


POSITION OF GOVERNMENT ON FEDERAL COURT DECISION THAT FORCED RETIREMENT TANTAMOUNT TO DISMISSAL
Donald MacInnis: have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, this time to the Minister of Justice. If there are such regulations left, why is it that the federal government did not appeal the decision of the Federal Court of Canada that the cabinet of Canada was acting beyond its jurisdiction and its statement that retirement before the normal age of 65 was tantamount to dismissal without cause? Why is it that the federal government, and now the President of the Treasury Board, tries to push down my throat and the throats of the people of this House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Solicitor General.


AIRPORTS
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings asked certain questions about the new security forces at airports. The first training course for the new recruits in this force will commence in Regina on February 12, 1973 and will be completed on April 16, 1973. The people in that course will assume their duties immediately. New courses will be started after that and we hope to recruit 311 special constables in the year 1973-74 and 159 the following year. There are 180 commissionaires presently involved in work of this kind and they will be phased out over a three-year period. Some will be given other jobs in the service, some positions will be taken by attrition and others will be given a chance to apply for the job of special constable in the new force if they meet the standards.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has given us all kinds of assurance that they will be enabled to move into the special security forces. Can he give us the assurance that none of these people, all of whom are veterans and many of them disabled veterans who are unable to get other employment, will not lose their jobs as a result of this move?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is my impression that none of them will be forced to lose their jobs. They will either retire in the usual course of events or be given other jobs
or an opportunity to apply for the special force if they meet the standards.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Bell:: Oh, well, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair was trying to be helpful. The hon. member might be allowed to ask his question quickly provided he can get a quick answer.


INCOME TAX
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, this matter is of interest to everybody and is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Have a very large number of income tax return forms been withdrawn because of printing errors and can the minister assure the House that the returns for individual taxpayers will go out on time?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no and the answer to the second question is yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, January 11, 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.
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I gladly fall into step with all those who congratulated you and I also want to congratulate the mover (Mr. Blais) and the seconder (Mr. Blaker) of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
A song-writer who probably does not share my political views has written a very well-known song entitled "My contry is not a country, it's winter". Parodying Gilles Vigneault, I could say: "My country is not one country, it's five countries". But for those five countries to survive they must be integrated in such a way that they will make up what we call our country, Canada. However, it should never be forgotten-and it should be less and less so-that we actually have here five countries or five states.
More than ever, Mr. Speaker, the individual regions are becoming aware of their problems and difficulties and are seeking solutions not only at the regional but also at the national level. These economic difficulties prevailing in the various regions are aggravated by other problems


with linguistic and cultural implications. Canada is therefore a country increasingly difficult to rule.
It is extremely easy, Mr. Speaker, to hurl one part of the country against another. People with the littlest bit of knowledge, in the government or in the opposition, can launch the people from one region against those of another. It has been done with regard to French-English relations. It can be done between the Western and the central provinces or between East and West. It can be done, as it has been said before, between British Columbia and the rest of the country with the best of reasons. Anyone may, on the spur of the moment, raise a serious grievance against the whole of the country.
Yesterday, I heard a member from British Columbia refer to some kind of potential separatism in British Columbia. It is quite possible, because if some day we all behave in such a way that British Columbia will feel completely isolated, there is no doubt that such a movement will emerge. I did not say that there would be-


An hon. Member:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize to the minister.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, I must object to any such interpretation being placed upon the words I used yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I stated quite clearly that British Columbia has not, to my knowledge, a single separatist. I was trying to make that clear yesterday.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there may be some interpretation problems, but I am not responsible for them. I did not say that there were separatists in British Columbia but that these people had problems and that if we did not recognize them, some day they would react just like citizens from another area, the Maritimes, for instance.
I heard it myself from Nova Scotians at the time I was a member of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism; I have just read that some people in Prince Edward Island are thinking of separation. Obviously I am not saying that they are prepared to separate nor that they will. However it must be admitted that the Canadians we represent are particularly sensitive about relations between their region and the rest of the country.
So, if that type of prejudice is to be exploited, one need only say that without a doubt that eastern Canada is poorer than central Canada. It must therefore be expected that the representatives of eastern Canada demand energetically that historical and permanent injustices be remedied. There is nothing abnormal in that; provided it is done without stirring one area against the rest of the country, I believe that is normal.
In Ontario, for instance, some people say: We pay most of the bill. Some of us out west or in the east could stir the citizens against Ontario. That province does not give only. The department I headed distributed considerable money
The Address-Hon. J. Marchand
to certain regions; that of Industry, Trade and Commerce gave a lot of money to the province of Ontario. I will never go to the trouble of adding it up because the day we start thinking of our country merely in terms of accounting with regard to the various areas, that day it will be threatened with disintegration.
We are together, Mr. Speaker, because we believe we can all benefit from the situation, even if we have reasons to complain, even if there are frictions. We believe it is preferable to be together rather than separated because it means greater advantages. No nation exists through divine right.
Nations such as ours are the results of historical accidents. Who could explain how Canada that we know is made up of French- and English-speaking communities? It is not because of a universal plan but because historical events have brought us together this way. Why the Flemish and the Walloons in Belgium? It is not because of divine right; it is a result of formation of groups throughout history. Therefore, these people must get along together.
This country is built up the very same way. Every one is aware that regional interests are becoming ever more important. There are certain things that policitical parties must not do on the national level. The government must not be praised at all times, and what they do must not be misinterpreted. Partisanship must continue to exist and the opposition are bound to criticize the government and prepare to replace it eventually; such is the normal game of politics. If that normal game is held up on the pretence that there are problems in Canada, then democracy is not for us.
So one must be much more careful when taking positions so as to avoid breaking up the country by resting on things that will not be changed.
I have been told, you should not talk about it so nothing will be said. This may be the best way. Because of their temperament or their culture some say when a problem comes up: Sweep it under the rug. This is not my way of doing things. I came to Ottawa a little over seven years ago with some colleagues for the very simple reason that we believed in federalism and we saw in our province a rising movement trying to convince our compatriots that belonging to a country such as Canada not only was not worth it but actually made us poorer, that we were not represented and that we played no part in Ottawa, that we were a French-speaking entity in a large English-speaking world which, of course, continuously steered the country according to its interests. That is what people were saying not in their living rooms but publicly and that is what was being suggested by a political party which enjoys freedom of existence in that province and particularly in the Quebec National Assembly. There is a problem in Quebec that has not necessarily been created by the other provinces, but it is there and we have tried to solve it. Furthermore, we were convinced-and I still am-that several injustices people were complaining about were real.
It would be naive to think that here in Ottawa, for example, French Canadians enjoy fair play in the civil service. The fault is not necessarily with the Englishspeaking people, but, frankly, there was no fair play, and if you want statistics, I shall provide them. Let us just

January 12, 1973
The Address-Hon. J. Marchand
read the report of the commission on bilingualism and biculturalism-
Who is responsible? Mr. Speaker, I do not care to inquire into it. We were interested in correcting that situation step by step, and not by force just by saying: Now, gentlemen, we want to restore the balance. We wanted to proceed very gradually, in such a way that the Frenchspeaking people in Ottawa, might feel at home.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: The problem really existed. There was also the problem about Hull-Ottawa was developing very well. So much the better. I am the first to be proud of our beautiful capital city, which was erected for the main part with money coming from all the Canadian people, through the National Capital Commission. I am not jealous; I am happy to see that we possess a beautiful capital city. However, there was a problem: all the French-speaking Canadians were crowded in a neighbouring small town, across from Ottawa, by the name of Hull, and that town was not developing at all. One of our objectives was to try not to deprive Ottawa of its normal development, but to achieve in Hull things that would allow the French-speaking people also to be rather proud of their town.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: I will not tell you about the harassment I was subjected to because I was responsible for the National Capital Commission.
I expected that. Of course when I was elected to the House of Commons I did not think everybody would welcome us with open arms. It is obvious that some people do not understand but I was nevertheless happy because, all in all, I believe that the English-speaking people in Ottawa understood fairly well the contribution we wanted to make and they supported us. Not only did they support us, but they were very sympathetic.
We met with fanaticism, there is no doubt about that and it will happen again for, you see, it is in the nature of things not to understand everybody's problems, I know that. Besides, the same is true of each of our areas. Before I went to the Maritimes my idea of those provinces was entirely different from the one I have now. Now I can understand the people from those provinces, I can understand why some seem to push their demands more loudly than others, they have more serious problems than others. There are some outside Quebec who do not understand what is going on there and I am coming now to a more ticklish subject.
I will tell you quite simply about what happened during the last election campaign. War was declared upon us yesterday because of a film. In fact, it is the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who put the finger on us-it seems that he is now the one who answers for the Progressive Conservative party in the province of Quebec. He did it because we made a film featuring four French-Canadian ministers. Now, two or three days ago, I met the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and told
[Mr. Marchand (Langelier).)
him I would send him the film with a letter and even the sound track.


An hon. Member:: That was four days ago.


Jean Marchand: Yes, but anyway, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe said at six o'clock last night that he had not received it. Only the hon. member for Yukon-there never was any question of my sending that film to the member for Saint-Hyacinthe as I had said I would send it to the Progressive Conservative party. Would the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe by himself be the Progressive Conservative party?


Mr. Wagner:: No.


Jean Marchand: No? Well, anyway, we produced a film to show what? First-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, forgive me for interrupting on a question of privilege. I think it ought to be explained that the film was sent to me at my request, a request made in conversation with the minister. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) did not know this until about 20 minutes ago.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, at first we have been represented as those French-Canadian swindlers in Ottawa who were in quest of power. People have said that it was shown only in the province of Quebec and in French.
In the first place and for the information of former "Mr. Justice", this is not true. On October 3 last, between 10 and 10:15 in the evening, this film was shown on the entire French network, that is in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Ontario. If it has been hidden, it must be far away.


Claude Wagner: It was shown in French but not in English.


Jean Marchand: It was indeed shown in French but not in English. I gave the hon. member a copy of it and it is up to him to have it translated. However, I will tell you why it was not shown in English.


Claude Wagner: We are listening.


Jean Marchand: The hon. member has delivered his speech, he should now let me deliver mine.
I will mention the problem we had to face during the last election in the province of Quebec: the new Progressive Conservative star surely did not frighten us. In fact, it did not bother us a bit. Neither did the Social Credit Party which was, in our opinion, limited to some regions as far as the election was concerned and they nearly achieved what they intended to. I extend to them my congratulations for their success in the election.
In all event, what was our problem? It was to answer objections from another party which did not take part in the fight and said to everyone: These people do not represent anything in Ottawa. They are just pawns in the hands of the English-speaking people, they do not accomplish anything.
January 12, 1973

Therefore we wanted the film to show that French members from Quebec in Ottawa were useful, that they did achieve something, that we had a role to play there. That is not all. I also stated in that film-and you will agree if you watch the film and read the transcript published in the Toronto Star-that of course we did not take the power from the other ministers. In fact, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) and the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) were respectively Minister of Finance and Secretary of State for External Affairs, and they had as much power in their departments as we had in ours.
That was the purpose of the film. Not one time did we attack the Progressive Conservative party, the Social Credit party or the NDP. The purpose was to try to convince French Canadians that whenever we fight in Ottawa, we have a role to play and we can improve the situation.
Here is how it was interpreted by the Toronto Star. It was considered as a manoeuver of the "French Power" in Ottawa. Incidentally, a short article which is quite important and worthy of quoting for the very reason that its author is an intelligent man, the hon. Senator Eugene Forsey, stated, and I quote:

I notice that George Bain is raising the complaint that during the recent election campaign the government said a great deal in Quebec and little outside about Quebec power in Ottawa. Well, why not? In Quebec, the story was being constantly spread that Quebec had little or no power in Ottawa.

He understands the issue. He understands that it is through this issue that some people in Quebec are trying to demolish the country.


Thomas Miller Bell: Senator Forsey is a Liberal.


Jean Marchand: It does not matter if he is a Liberal or not. The important thing is whether it is the truth or not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will not quote any longer this article which is stating very simple things. It says for instance that when the western ministers travel through western Canada, whether they are from the Conservatives or NDP, they certainly do not say during an election compaign, that they have no influence on the contrary, they say they have a lot of influence and that it is important that they be in Ottawa. They do the same as we do! But why is it a scandal when French-speaking people are involved?
This is what the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was referring to when he said that we, from Quebec, have to defend ourselves everyday as well as the rest of Canada by telling the French-speaking people that the English people are not that bad. We could remain silent as many people did here in Ottawa. Not only did they not say one word but they did not fight back. And if English Canadians are not prepared to defend certain basic positions in
The Address-Hon. J. Marchand
this country let them not rely on us as we shall not defend them even in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I have always accepted criticism as Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and I still do. Why not? Nothing in the constitution stipulates that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is a saint, that he never makes any mistakes because he is not infallible. But I cannot accept that during an election campaign, with the climate we all know, sensible people try to suggest that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is using his department and his moneys for election purposes in the province of Quebec and giving more money to Quebec than to the other provinces. This is without any justification Mr. Speaker, bordering on racism and no doubt condemnable.
Besides, it is peculiar, to put it mildly, because in many cases they are undeniably impartial people and I am convinced that some of them do not realize the consequences of their utterances in Quebec. They don't do it out of sheer malice.
For instance I heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), whom I consider to be a man of utmost integrity and even a friend of Francophones. He said nothing obnoxious, except on election night when all he had to say about the changes in the cabinet was that Marchand, Goyer and Pelletier were being removed. Why, referring to a rearrangement involving some 15 ministers, single out three of them individually. As taken up by the English-speaking press, the interpretation was: the three French Canadians, of course. But why? And on top of that came a statement from the hon. Allan Blakeney, premier of Saskatchewan: Marchand uses his department in favour of his province.
Now, Anglophones, who already have a chip on their shoulder concerning bilingualism, want to make the most of the malaise, specially in Ontario, and they of course draw their own conclusions. They say: "It is quite evident that those fellows are trying to seize power". That is how things happen. I don't say there was a plot aiming at an anti-French-Canadian backlash.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister is attributing statements to me that I certainly did not make. He must be confusing me with someone else. Perhaps while I am on my feet I might ask the minister a question. Before his time runs out, will he tell us something about what he is going to do with the problems in the Department of Transport?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: That is the situation, Mr. Speaker. Let's sweep the problem under the rug. I will not do it, Mr. Speaker. It is too serious for that.


Mr. Peters:: All the members of the Cabinet cannot be ministers of social affairs. We must have something else in

January 12, 1973
The Address-Hon. J. Marchand the cabinet besides social affairs. It is an important problem, but do not overdo it.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I merely say that-


William Arnold Peters: So is every other major cabinet minister.


Some hon. Members:: Shut up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has the floor.


Jean Marchand: I am merely trying to explain, Mr. Speaker, why we have been sensitive about that issue.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I think I invested enough in Canadian politics-and it is quite difficult, in Quebec, to do what we are doing-not to accept that such a statement, which affects some people's reputation, be simply interrupted by someone who does not like it. We do not like it either, Mr. Speaker, to have to do this job and go and fight everyday. Just because the hon. member for St.-Hyacinthe makes a statement which is absolutely unfounded does not mean that we are going to keep quiet and say: Here is a French Canadian who knows his way around, but who simply confirms in their prejudice those people on the other side of this House who have never understood this problem. I had rather listen to another one than him. In any event, he decided to play this part, let him try, but he will perhaps be put up with the same fate as his predecessors, in a party which never had a French Canadian leader.
If the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe came here for the only purpose of destroying those who have been fighting for federalism in Quebec, I suggest that he may return to the bench for the third time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Do you think you are the saviour of this country?


Jean Marchand: Now, wait a minute. Yesterday they had fun while the Prime Minister was under attack; now it is not funny anymore. Well, here is a little bit of a speech that is not funny at all.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe attacked the Prime Minister; he even went as far back as the days of Cite Libre. He went pretty far to show how the Prime Minister had changed. How terrible. That seems true to me. In any case this is now the fourth or fifth time that these excerpts are quoted in this House. They were distributed at all political meetings. Everybody knows that. But he did now know, so he read his quotation.
At any rate, let us try and find out about the intellectual or ideological continuity of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. His background is a nice one, undoubtedly that of an upright man who was on the Bench. Premier Jean Lesage got him from the Bench to appoint him minister in the Liberal cabinet. He came to the liberal convention and was defeated by Mr. Robert Bourassa. He did not like it and he left the party. He was appointed to

the bench by the Union Nationale under Mr. Jean-Jacques Bertrand. Political parties later held conventions. I do not know if the Creditistes held theirs first or if it was another party, but the name of the member for Saint-Hyacinthe was in the papers for at least a month. "Is he going to go, or is he not going to go"? He was keeping quiet. It would have been easy for him to give an answer; all he had to do was make a statement and everything would have been over. The leadership was up for grabs and he was interested. It is frightening to see in the first row so many people interested in leadership.
When the Union Nationale and the Creditistes held their conventions his name was in the papers for a month. One could read, "The next leader of ..." He finally said no. Later, the whole thing started all over again with the federal election. Newspapermen phoned him to ask him, is it true that this time you are going to Ottawa? Not a word. And when the election was called he decided that the country had to be saved, that the problems were too serious.
If we had waited for another year he would have waited another year on the bench, and it is not more serious than that. If the problems were that serious he could have stayed in politics to fight. We sought refuge on the bench. That is his business but he has no business criticizing those who change their positions because he is the perfect model of a guy who never knew exactly what he wanted in life, except to be the leader of something.
Mr. Speaker, the opposition has nothing to worry about: whatever our position in this House, we will not swallow all the nonsense that may be uttered nor the injustices that may be done. We will give them tit for tat and when we can no longer do it, we will go elsewhere; it will mean that our place is not here anymore.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, if I were a member of the Progressive Conservative party I would ask myself serious questions. How is it that in the province of Quebec the Progressive Conservative party does not succeed as well as a very young party, almost without money, the Social Credit Party of Canada which gets three times as many votes? How can that be? How is it that there are not more Progressive Conservatives? When the hon. Leon Balcer left the party, he said: There is no place for French Canadians in that party. It is a thing they will remember. They will remember also Mr. Maurice Allard who said that there was no place for French Canadians. They will remember what the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) said when he left that party. In any case, he told me about it and I hope he will say it: that there was no place for French Canadians in that party. I am not happy about that, Mr. Speaker. I do not like hearing that and I wish there was as much place for French Canadians in the Progesssive Conservative party as in all other parties.
However, I should like to comment the great statement from the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe: All parties are Canadian. They are Canadian but in what way? Who on the other side of the House is going to support seriously for instance our policy on bilingualism? That does not mean that all the regulations on it should be accepted. I know some people say there is discrimination. I agree but we are the first ones to correct them. I can say personally as a former trade unionist that there are English-speaking
January 12, 1973

people lor whom I would fight to death if they were to be unfairly treated under some of our programs. However, I know ever since I came to Ottawa and even before, that all the obstacles to the legislation aimed at making this country a little more bearable for the French-speaking people came from the opposite side of this House. I would not say that of everybody and I will not in the case of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) but I could say it of a group I could very well identify if I absolutely wanted the subject I was referring to earlier to snowball.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Give us names! Look within your own party!


Jean Marchand: This was the situation in connection with the Royal Commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. Some members of this party did not ask whether the problems were being settled but rather: "How much does it cost?" This was heard everyday. A member from the official opposition was worried about the cost of bilingualism and biculturalism instead of worrying about the future of the country and the welfare of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we will not ask for any favour. We are not asking for any preferential treatment because we are French-speaking. However, we shall not tolerate one instant being treated differently because we are from Quebec, even by the leader of the Quebec wing, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe supported by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). We will not mind. That our policies be criticized is normal. We shall play the game and this will make for a healthy climate. We have no objection to this. However as regards gerrymandering and intriguing, they will have to do it alone but they will find the war tougher than expected.
If the atmosphere does not clear up, it will be quite simple. That is not the only thing one can do. I understand that parties have a role to play, I accept attacks, but I do not accept the kind of indictment attempted on us during the last election. I do not accept that pernicious and perfidious interpretation of the film, which had only one purpose. The film can be criticized by saying "They eat too much". That was one of the hon. member's criticisms: "They eat a lot". We were eating the same damned ham which is eaten here in the restaurant, Mr. Speaker. What Progressive Conservatives eat every day. That's all we were eating. "It is horrible to see them eating when some lack food", they commented. That is super politics, really super. And that is how they seek to achieve the unity of Canada. The film can be criticized. But I say Mr. Speaker, that if debates are to be normal, that kind of fighting should cease. We are going to do our part let them do theirs and there will be an opportunity to help Canada. Otherwise, if the battle is on another plane, we will fight and fight hard.
Mr. Speaker, I am ready to have a last try. We shall do our conscientious best and I hope that all together we will contribute to the unification of the country.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to take part in this debate. My first words will be of congratulation to Your Honour upon
The Address-Mr. Crouse
your elevation to the high office of Speaker of this House. It is a position which I know will be filled with dignity, with honour and with fairness to members in all parties. I also wish to congratulate my hon. friend, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) upon his appointment to the position of Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole House. His appointment indicates recognition by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of the hon. member's many years of service to this House, and I wish him well in his new office.
I join with others who have preceded me in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address for their contributions to this debate. In view of the time limit, I serve notice now that at the conclusion of my remarks I intend to move in English and in French an amendment to the motion presently before the House. The words of that amendment are as follows:
That the following be added to the Address:
"This House regrets that Your Excellency's advisers by their inertia, indifference and parliamentary incompetence, have chosen not to deal immediately with the problems affecting the Canadian people and particularly the aggravated situation resulting from the current simultaneous high rate of unemployment and rising living costs."
Those of us who were here in the previous parliament cannot help but notice the change in the seating arrangement and in the men who occupy these seats, especially on the government side of the House. We cannot help but notice as well that the air of uncertainty which seemed to hang over the Prime Minister and his colleagues following the events of October 30 pervades this chamber like a Fundy fog. I suppose this is due in part to the verbal whipping given the Prime Minister by the four western provincial Liberal leaders when they met in Regina on December 1, and the lack of discretion which was shown by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) following his organic discussions with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). Obviously, following the election the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice remembered the words of the late President Kennedy who said in his inaugural address: "Let us never negotiate out of fear but let us never fear to negotiate".
We have now seen the fruits of these negotiations in the votes that have been taken in the House. We may never know all the details of the deal which has been made between the Minister of Justice on behalf of the Liberal party and the hon. member for York South on behalf of the NDP, but obviously a scheme was arranged whereby the present minority Liberal party will be kept in office by the voting strength of the NDP. No matter how much the Leader of the NDP may bluster and apologize, he and his supporters have been exposed as fakes and charlatans when it comes to adhering to stated policy and principles. Their attitude today seems to be: if you do not like our principles, Mr. Prime Minister, we will change them. The election is over and the results are here for all to see in the House of minorities.
Many are the reasons given for this situation, but I was surprised and somewhat appalled by the statements made by the right hon. Prime Minister when he made the charge that members of the Conservative party do not stand for

The Address-Mr. Crouse
Canadian unity. Today, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) stated somewhat the same views. Speaking as one who comes from Atlantic Canada, I only wish he had told us something of his plans to improve our transportation problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The right hon. Prime Minister tried to whitewash his own idiotic economic policies when he spoke, his idiotic policies which he presented over a four and a half year period, by laying the blame for the near defeat of his government on everyone else but himself where it rightfully belongs. I do not, I cannot and I will not, accept the Prime Minister's views on this matter and neither do some members of the Liberal party who are sitting in this chamber today. The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) has publicly aired his dissatisfaction with the leadership of his party and most of the defeated Liberal candidates in Alberta have been demanding a national party policy conference.
The present minority government is the fifth in the last 15 years, and Canada is beginning to resemble the troubled French fourth republic which was almost continually going to the polls. In fact, we have had seven federal elections in Canada since 1957, and I foresee another one before the end of this year. I say this because the Liberal ship of state is somewhat like Bluenose II, Mr. Speaker, with which you are familiar. It has a bit of dry rot here and there, both spars removed, some holes in the planking, some weakened internal supports, and the whole outfit is in need of a complete refit to remove the encrusted barnacles from its hull.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Muir:: There is a smell of decay.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: As one of my colleagues said, it needs a new skipper.
The throne speech has produced a philosophy from this government that is quite unique and that is a far cry from what it enunciated in 1968. The philosophy, as I read the throne speech today, seems to be: the best for the west and the least for the east. Since we who come from the east are obviously number 2, I suppose we shall have to try harder.
The Prime Minister stated that he and his government proposed to correct their mistakes without in any way turning their backs on Liberal principles, and then he went on to give the House some examples. He spoke of the penal system and its abuses, of the government's immigration policy and its abuses, of changes which are necessary in the DREE program and in the unemployment insurance program. Afetr four and a half years in office, I say to the Prime minister and his colleagues that it is high time they recognized that there was an obvious need for the federal government to deal with bread and butter issues such as unemployment, housing, and rising living costs. There is an obvious need for the federal government to deal with rising educational costs, rising medicare costs, declining fisheries resources, our agricultural markets, just to name but a few.
The throne speech deals in broad generalities with some of these problems, and while it sounds very promising it does not deal in specifics or tell us how the necessary improvements are to be accomplished. I suppose this is due to the fact that for the wedding between the Liberal party and the NDP the Prime Minister needed something old and something new, something borrowed and something blue. So he took the old NDP with its new lack of principles, and he borrowed quite heavily from the big blue book of Conservative campaign proposals. However, that action puts the Prime Minister in the position of the little boy who copied his answers for the exam. He knows the answers but he still does not know how to work out the problems.
What worries me now is that the Prime Minister obviously believes he dealt with our major problems, since he said in his speech that there were few sins of omission and that in his opinion the reason he lost the majority of his party was due to the lack of communication between the government and the people. This is nothing more than arrogant nonsense for this government is full of informers, advisers, regional desks, bureaucrats and planners who should have been quite capable of getting the Prime Minister's and his colleagues' viewpoint across to the electorate. If they did not, I would like to know what function was fulfilled at a cost of $10 million annually by Information Canada which was established by this government. I suppose it has never occurred to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Transport, in light of his speech today, that the Canadian electorate understood only too well the information they were receiving from Ottawa, and since they had had enough of manipulation, meaningless slogans, fancy theories, instant election icings and all the other candy and nonsense that goes with image making they followed the only course open to them which was to attempt through the hallot box to rid this country of this heartless, arrogant and irresponsible Liberal government.
They almost succeeded and time alone will tell whether this whipped, sullen and frustrated administration will be any better or be any more responsive to the needs of the Canadians than was the previous one. Quite frankly, I have my doubts. I am concerned when I read in the Speech from the Throne that the government plans to submit proposals for a new national communications policy. This is a proposal which we on our side shall have to examine very carefully. In my opinion, the history of communication is in many ways the history of civilization. Much of man's progress can be measured by the state of his communications, and all of us are today much better informed, for example, about conditions on the moon as a result of improvements in our system of communication.
Some years ago Thomas Jefferson declared; "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free-It expects what never was, and never will be". He went on to say that "Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe". But, the written word and mass education did not bring an earthly paradise, for man can respond to the demagogue as well as to the philosopher and the capacity to read does not always guarantee that man will choose good over evil. In today's civilization there are only a few parts of the world where people are physically imprisoned


and controlled by their governments. However, though the physical subjection of people is rare, we see today the struggles and tensions developing over control, not of man's body but his mind. This struggle is being waged with ever greater and more subtle intensity. I say this because every day we hear the expressions "brainwashing", "subconscious persuasion" or "imagine making". These are the tools of the ad men who use them to sell us new products, new ideas or tired, frustrated, old politicians.
Now, salesmanship is not new, for down through the years we have had traders and conmen. But what is new is that today we are in an electronic age where there are tremendous opportunities for manipulation of the media. In my opinion, the present situation puts a tremendous responsibility on what is still called the free democratic press of this country. We said during the campaign as Conservatives that in the event we formed the government we would abolish Information Canada and this wasteful extravagance. Quite frankly it is bad enough at times to receive inadequate news coverage, but in my opinion there is a far greater danger, and that is manipulated news by the government in power. Government diluted and directed information in this electronic age could so assail freedom of thought and opinion as to fatally undermine what is left of our free institutions.
I believe the salvation of our country and the solution to our problems lies where it always has, in the strength of the individual mind and character. It is the message which is the thing of value and, in my opinion, the men in the press gallery have a tremendous responsibility in this session to see that the message of the twenty-ninth parliament is clearly conveyed and portrayed to the Canadian people. That is the point I want to stress most clearly at this time.
In the time allotted to me it is not possible to deal with all the proposals put forth in the throne speech. In the wording of the speech, the government is fully committed to two prominent goals, namely national unity and equality of opportunity for all Canadians. These are high sounding ideals, and in my area of Canada one of the items contributing to disunity in this country and inequality of opportunity is the transportation policies of the federal government, and our problems in this area have intensified in recent years. We have had nine freight increases in two years.
Studies of this problem have been made, solutions have been proposed and, almost without exception, these have been deferred, watered down, shelved or ignored. As a result our agricultural industry, our fishing industry and all forms of our manufacturing industries operate at a tremendous disadvantage when compared to industries located in other parts of Canada. Unfortunately, recent policy statements by this government will only serve to compound our problems. Here I refer to the announcement to build four new icebreakers to break the ice on the St. Lawrence seaway in order to extend the shipping season on the Great Lakes. Obviously, this government is oblivious to the changes which have been brought about in the shipping industry, and apparently it plans to write off the total capital cost with interest amounting to some $700 million on the St. Lawrence seaway. I say this
The Address-Mr. Crouse
because the seaway cannot pay its way, and its operation to date has not justified its tremendous cost to the people of Canada. At the present time the trend toward larger ocean going ships, the establishment of seaside container shipping facilities and the introduction of rail developments that shorten the running time from ocean ports to inland centres, plus the shallow depth of the seaway, make the waterway obsolete even in the summertime. I suppose by raising this criticism it will be pointed out to me that I am anti-Quebec. This effects not only Quebec but Ontario as well. What I am saying is that we should not pursue and continue the waste of money on this obsolete facility.
Today the maritime provinces, especially Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, have the only natural deep-water ports north of Norfolk, Virginia. With 500,000 deadweight ton tankers now on the drawingboards, the shipping industry seems almost certain to come back into its own in Atlantic Canada. In my opinion, it would make sense to retain the seaway as a seasonal water route for the inland coastal trade and grain movements, while using our tax dollars to upgrade facilities in Nova Scotia which can be used on a year round basis, and are closer to overseas trading centres. I believe quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that any dollars spent on expanding year round shipping on the seaway are dollars robbed from Atlantic Canada. I say this because we are told all our transportation services in Atlantic Canada must be kept on a paying basis. I ask this government, why are we in Atlantic Canada singled out? Why does this rule of thumb not apply to other parts of Canada?
Our natural business axis in Atlantic Canada is north and south, not east and west, but our natural growth has been hampered by unfair and unjust freight rate charges and by tariff changes which favoured central Canadian manufacturers to the detriment of industrialists in Atlantic Canada. Some 100 million inhabitants of the eastern United States seaboard are within easy shipping access from ports in Nova Scotia. These markets present new and even greater opportunities for our fishing industry, and there is a great potential in this area for expanding our agricultural economy through the increased sale of our agricultural products, especially quality pork products. Nova Scotian farmers have a good base of breeding stock, they have vast experienc in management and in feeding, and producers have proven that they can compete in quality pork products with anyone on this continent.
In my opinion, this industry could be expanded, but our agricultural industry, our Christmas tree shippers, our fishing industry and our industrialists are penalized and held back by an antiquated transportation policy. We need a change in present policy, and in my opinion the emphasis must be shifted from railway profits to development of the Atlantic region.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
January 12, 1973
The Address-Mr. Crouse
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at noon, I was addressing myself to the problem of transportation in Atlantic Canada. I would point out to you, Sir, that the industries of Atlantic Canada are not one inch closer to the markets of central Canada today than they were in 1867. What we need is not just freight rate subsidization. I believe the railways in Canada should be used as an instrument of national development rather than operating on a rate system designed to recover the cost of their operation in each area. In other words this is the first step, in my view, toward economically unifying Canada, which is a problem which seems to be of great concern to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand). By the government's own admission, the DREE program has failed. It is stated in the throne speech that it must be decentralized.
I submit there would be little or no problem in relocating industry in Canada when rail rates and the economic disparities they cause are equalized or brought into closer balance. An efficient transportation system may not guarantee economic expansion, but the lack of such a system is having a detrimental effect upon the growth of Atlantic Canada. The throne speech indicates that the government assigns the highest priority to an economic policy that will reduce unemployment, contain inflation and strengthen the economy generally. While no mention is made about restoring the shipbuilding industry in Canada, I believe this is one area that is worthy of consideration by the government. More than two years have passed since the report of the inquiry on the coasting trade of Canada was submitted to the Minister of Transport.
The Darling report recommends that Canadian coastal waters be reserved to Canadian flag vessels which is a practice common in every modern maritime nation. It recommends that the development of Canadian resources on our continental shelf and in the Arctic be combined with provisions requiring the use of Canadian shipping. Since this report was published, there has been extensive exploration without any commitment to use Canadian shipping or Canadian workers. In view of our present high level of unemployment which is expected to increase, I ask this government if it is concerned with developing our human resources, as well as our natural resources, why has it not taken action to provide more aid to the Canadian shipbuilding industry? The $2 billion, for example, spent on unemployment would have built a lot of ships. That is the point I want to make. Practically every maritime nation in the world has strong policies to keep a deepwater merchant marine under its registry. In some cases it is done by direct subsidy, and in others it is a preferential tax exemption.
In 1947, this country had 155 ocean-going vessels under Canadian registry. Since then our fleet has dropped to almost nil, with the operators claiming they were taxed out of business. Some may say the cost of building up a modest Canadian merchant marine would be excessive. But we must ask ourselves how many millions of dollars we are paying annually to foreign countries by chartering their ships to carry our cargo. If these hundreds of millions of dollars had been spent for Canadian vessels, they would inevitably have found their way back into the economy of our country instead of being completely lost.

At the same time such a course would have given thousands of Canadians in all walks of life, new jobs, new opportunities and new hopes for the future which are not now available. It is hard to realize that Japan for example, which built a very small percentage of the world's ships in 1950, is today building over 50 per cent of world tonnage. Today, we are providing a small subsidy toward the cost of building domestic service ships and those built to foreign order, but I believe this program ends in March so action is needed immediately if our shipyards are to be reactivated, and if employment is to be provided for the workers in those yards.
There is no other trading nation in the world that puts its overseas trade at the mercy of foreign carriers, and I believe we should immediately consider a subsidy program which would cover at least a ten year period so that the Canadian flag could once again sail the sea lanes, providing new opportunities for our people.
Finally, the Speech from the Throne promises further measures to control foreign ownership of Canadian owned business. In my opinion, speaking as one who comes from Nova Scotia, this is a very important matter in our province since it deals with the preservation of our inheritance and our birthright. However, I believe any debate over ownership and control of Canadian industry should also deal with the thorny problem of ownership and control of unions operating in Canada. Whatever one may think about the role of foreign capital in Canada, we cannot continue to ignore our foreign dominated unions which represent a factor more closely related to people than to capital. After all, people in my view are far more important than money, and I cannot help but wonder why capital and not people is receiving all the attention when this matter comes under discussion. We are told by interested and concerned people that foreign investment prohibits Canadians from developing an independent economic, cultural and political identity of their own. These people appear to have a point worth considering, but unions keep reminding us that they, too, play important economic, cultural and political roles in our society.
Since some 62 per cent of unionized Canadian workers are members of unions with headquarters in the United States, it would be interesting to know what the Canadian Labour Congress would think about a government controlled screening process for unions that want to operate in Canada. It would be also interesting to know how Canadian union members would proceed to acquire full control of unions presently operating in Canada. I, personally, think this would be quite difficult, and it is insufficient to say that Canadian union members can break away from their American dominated unions if they so desire. First of all, responsible union leadership would have to be found in this country. Another consideration would be the Canadian welfare, pension and strike funds in the United States. The federal government would have to move to assist Canadian union members in securing an equitable portion of these assets, or some adequate compensation.
To the best of my knowledge, Canada is the only industrialized nation in the world without a broad trade union movement of its own. I realize that the workers in Quebec
January 12, 1973

have their own unions, and there is also a growing tendency for public servants at all three levels of government in Canada to form unions. But the fact remains that the vast portion of the primary and secondary industries in Canada are organized by arms of U.S. unions. I, for one, believe that legislation to redress this imbalance has been needed for a long time.
I say this because other countries seem to be doing very well on the labour front without American based unions. When it comes to hard decisions, Japanese or German workers make the decisions for their respective unions, and American workers always act in their own best interests. It is not surprising that American workers inspired United States laws which restrict imports from other countries, including Canada, at the cost of jobs for many of their Canadian counterparts. If we had a national Canadian union movement it would not solve all our problems, any more than Canadian ownership of all our own industries would solve all our economic problems, but I do believe that a truly Canadian trade union movement is a matter of great importance, and should receive equal consideration when the question of foreign ownership is under study.
For all the reasons I have given, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell), the following amendment to the motion:
That the following be added to the Address:
"This House regrets that your Excellency's advisors by their inertia, indifference and parliamentary incompetence have chosen not to deal immediately with the problems affecting the Canadian people, and particularly the aggravated situation resulting from the current simultaneous high rate of unemployment and rising living costs."


Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, it is with very great pleasure that I take part in this debate which at least up to now has been quite interesting.
I should like first of all to congratulate the member for Stormont-Dundas on his re-election as Speaker of this House, as well as the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and the Assistant Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole (Messrs. McCleave, Laniel and Boulanger) who were elected to their present office.
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to hear several speeches which were generally rather interesting. As for myself, I am returning to the House with a second mandate which seems to me quite clear, but I must not forget to congratulate, like several previous speakers, the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne (Messrs. Blais and Blaker).
I do not wish to dwell at length on the last election campaign. On the contrary, I think that there are many matters to be discussed, considering the hopes to which the Speech from the Throne have given rise among all the Canadian people.
I would like to offer my sincere thanks to those people of my constituency who put their trust in me and who, in an overwhelming majority voted for the man first of all. I think they have understood the old saying that parliament or any other institution is as good as the men who make it up. I think that it is on this principle that, as members of this House, we must work in common. Like so many
The Address-Mr. La Salle
others I could, of course, remind you of several anecdotes about the last election campaign, but I do not feel this is the best place to do it. I would rather be tempted to look, on the whole, at the last election which took place in the country.
Evidently, it is easy for members of the opposition to say the party in power has lost the confidence of the people. I think it is important to underline that the ones who shout loudest about the deterioration of the party in power could at least admit that opposition parties did not get the confidence which all parties were looking for either.
As an independent member, I usually feel much at ease to discuss these problems.
Last night, during the vote on the amendment, I found out that no party had obtained the confidence of the majority. This is what had raised a doubt in my mind as to the value of the amendment proposed by the Progressive Conservative party, which could not allow me to favour its passing, since I was already aware of the fact that the objective that we must reach is that of the interest of the Canadian people.
The reasons of the election result of October 30 are numerous. Many people have thought that this could depend on an economic factor, others gave other reasons. I think that, in general, the government itself who, for four years, did not succeed in giving us this economic stability, has been one of the major factors of the decrease of its majority. But we should perhaps rejoice and yet entertain reservations as to what this government can achieve in the days or months to come.
The Speech from the Throne, as I said before, gave rise to some hope among the population. Can we entertain doubts? One can always have misgivings about an electoral program, about a speech like the one that was delivered. Should we already dally on taking the government to task for not having implemented some of the proposals put forward in the Speech from the Throne? We could also criticize the government for the present state of affairs.
For instance, why did the government wait until after October 30 to announce capital injections of the order of $500 million, where we must admit that they are quite justified? A year ago already, we experienced the same problems. There again, it is never too late to make amends and I believe that we, as legislators, must nevertheless welcome the decision. In his own constituency, each hon. member should inform the organizations concerned of those amounts being made available to the provinces and municipalities in order to achieve some projects still at the planning stage.
Mr. Speaker, many people are concerned about the consequences of a minority government, but considering the announcement made of the availability of $500 million and the excellent suggestions contained in the Speech from the Throne, we should rather discard worries and believe that a minority government may be beneficial to the population, since the various political parties will no doubt try to do more and better with the prospect of a forthcoming general election. The fact remains that

The Address-Mr. La Salle
Canadians will benefit from a government that will surely feel hard-pressed by the opposition, and I trust that the opposition in turn will endeavour to force the government to come up with some long overdue legislation.
Such is the state of mind in which we must work in this House.
I was listening to the leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Stanfield) speak of restoring the confidence of the Canadians. Is it possible? Only to the extent where we act as administrators, and not by applying ourselves to embarrassing the government and forgetting our prime responsibility as Members of Parliament. He also added that the government should assume its responsibilities. No statement could surpass this one, I feel; and I share the opinions of the leader of the Progressive Conservative party when he speaks in that fashion. Exactly what is the responsibility of a Member of Parliament? Does it depend on the fact that he is part of a group? Is it because he is of the opposition that he should oppose the government rightly or wrongly? Should he not instead, as elected member, behave as an administrator who respects the commitments made during the election campaign?
Personally, Mr. Speaker, since as far back as in 1968 I have felt that it was my duty to serve the interests of society way before those of my party.
No doubt that the system under its present form is causing us difficulties.
I have resisted the temptation to become too easily part of that system and of course I had to choose a course which will not be an easy one. But the people trusted me any way because I think I have met their expectations by telling parliament of my constituency's needs and by supporting unceasingly legislation which I felt would benefit society, and that, to my mind, is the responsibility of a Member of Parliament.
There is no doubt that all political parties are fascinated by power. It is easy to say to the government: You did not get the trust of the majority, so you must give up the reins of power. But it is too easily forgotten that those calling for such a move failed also to gain a majority. The new parliament is inviting us, I think, to discuss mutual problems and to support measures which seem to be the most favourable.
I think that the composition of this new parliament enables the opposition members to get together and force the government to do something, should it refuse to do it.
True, there is also a Speech from the Throne which offers, only on paper of course, a lot of things. I think that the role of each member is to bring the government to implement this program as soon as possible. In my opinion, such are the responsibilities of each hon. member. Unhappily, by habit or ambition, they will try to bring down the government and forget the major interests of our people.
During the last election campaign, my motto was: "Man first", and I believe that this motto was relevant.
In my view, every hon. member should think first of the interests of the people before those of a political party, without being concerned about whether the government will be led by the grits or the tories. I do not think that the

Canadian people want their members to bring about a new election, but they certainly want the government to pass legislation that will benefit the country.
In the Speech from the Throne, many measures are mentioned and nothing can stop the opposition parties from forcing the government to improve present legislation and to introduce new legislation.
In my opinion, this is the real responsibility of each hon. member as well as of each political party. In fact, it would be dangerous if the only aim of a political party was to bring down the government. What the population needs is a Parliament working to safeguard the interests of the community.
Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to hear the new Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) state that it was not up to us to determine the priorities of the provinces and that he was making it his business to ensure that there would be major consultations with the provinces. This was in fact reflected in the Speech from the Throne and it is something quite new for the Speech from the Throne to give such importance to the provinces in the establishment of new legislation or new arrangements, fiscal or otherwise.
I am personally pleased to see that the government has decided to consult the provinces more than it ever did. This is good for the provinces and it gives an opportunity to establish a more decentralized federalism, which our federal governments have been looking forward to for a very long time. The Speech from the Throne meets the aspirations of a good number of provinces. I think we should believe as members of Parliament in the decentralization of power and in consultation with the provinces.
Much has been said about the outcome of the election, but the general agreement is, I think, that the major problem still is of an economic nature with all Canadians being affected. In spite of its financial incentives and other measures, the government has not even succeeded in checking unemployment, the rate of which has doubled between June 1968 and October 1972.
The measures taken were therefore inadequate. Now this economic problem troubles each and every Canadian. However, I would like to remind you that the province of Quebec, which I have always defended in this House, besides this economic problem is faced with a constitutional one.


An hon. Member:: A Conservative problem!


Roch La Salle: It is important, I think, that this federal government, as well as all the members, realize that the handing over of certain powers to Quebec is a must, and furthermore that the province wants it badly.
The major problem in Canada is the economic situation: but the second one especially where Quebec is concerned, is no doubt the recovery of some powers by the provinces, taking into account the special situation in which the people of Quebec find themselves. I feel that political parties ought to realize this situation if they want to curry favour with the province of Quebec. The problems of Quebec will not be solved merely by providing economic
January 12, 1973

stability. Moreover, there is in the mind of the people of Quebec a basic wish of recovering certain powers which are absolutely essential to their own emancipation.
I am always eager to defend, in this house, the interests of Quebec, aware that it is my responsibility and that, with my friends, the liberals, we can manage to build a country in which a viable federalism is possible.
I should like, at this point, to quote a few excerpts from the Speech from the Throne which says many things, but I feel it is always dangerous to limit oneself to reading or listening to grand articles. It has been said: A man is judged not by what he says but by what he does. The people have judged the government and a whole group of members of parliament. Those who might be tempted to interfere with the proper functioning of the house will be judged in turn.
Mr. Speaker, I found the speech of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) very interesting. His open-mindedness with regard to certain social measures was obvious. He also indicated that the government would introduce measures favourable to the old, measures which I have been requesting for quite some time, one of which notably is the payment of old age security pensions at age 60.
Perhaps can we still hope that in the near future the minister will announce that persons of 60 years of age can receive that pension.
I feel it is my duty to remind the government that it has done much in this respect but, having in mind the present economic situation, it could have achieved more.
In my opinion, we would gain by lowering to 60 the eligibility for old age pensions. I think this would be one method of considerably decreasing unemployment, expe-cially when nearly 400,000 people aged between 60 and 65 belong to the labour force. We have tried for a few years to increase unemployment benefits. A rotten generation which is getting $100 a week is creating unemployed people who more often as not become revolutionaries. Why not spend this money somewhere else and give a rest to those aged 60 years who deserve it? Granting $100 a week to a couple instead of one person as it is the case with the social welfare and unemployment insurance, this goal could be realized.
I ask the minister to give serious consideration to this suggestion and to have the eligible age for pension established at 60. This would lead to extraordinary results in the creation of a better social environment. It would be more profitable to create happiness for a 60-year-old person by paying an adequate pension instead of compelling a young person to go and get his pittance at the social welfare office or to draw unemployment insurance benefits. In fact, the employer who would see his workers getting younger would not be unhappy either. His older employees, 60 years old or over, would understand and recognize that their government would have done something proper. In my opinion, it is the government's first responsibility to restore that social climate which is missing here. This is a way to do it and because of the evidence I often hear in my constituency I know that many 60 year olds would be happy to take well deserved holidays. There are more machines and fewer workers. All these reasons
The Address-Mr. La Salle
militate for reduction of the eligibility age at 60 for a pension. This would greatly reduce unemployment. I hope that the minister will once more consider my intervention on behalf of these persons who have been waiting for a long time for more income security.
They also mentioned benefits that would be granted to the blind, and considering the extra needs these people may have I really hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will act in the fairest way possible as regards this group of people.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak as well of the importance of the economic situation in my constituency. I know that in 1973 the minister of Regional Economic Expansion will change the boundaries of "special areas" and designated areas. My riding has had the advantage of being recognized as an average designated area. This is not the best designation. I know in my riding several people who complain about the establisment of new industries. Of course, supplementary benefits were bestowed on other regions, and I am very glad of it, but I wish to bring these reasons to the minister's attention, because I hope that he will consider the region that I represent, that of Joliette, when in 1973 he will appraise the needs of my region, and that he will take into account the wishes of all of the people who live in this riding. I shall certainly have the opportunity of making representations to his department, and I hope that I will be carefully listened to.
I was pleased as well, Mr. Speaker, to see our government taking an interest in amateur sports. Of course here again a lot has been said about it but very little has been done. And today, it seems that grants to amateur sports will be doubled. I wish to remind the minister once more that until the government spend adequate amounts to provide municipalities with basic tools to enable young people to organize, it will be ridiculous or stupid to speak of improved physical fitness for our youth. We need basic tools; therefore we need money. I mentioned last year a tripartite formula under which financing could be shared by municipalities, the Federal government and Provincial governments. I still believe this would be the best way to enable municipalities to obtain adequate arenas and public swimming pools, etc. But so long as money will be spent on writing fine writs which will remain on shelves, I don't think we shall improve the fitness of our young Canadians.
We shall have a unique opportunity of action at the occasion of the Montreal Olympics of 1976. What is the federal government financial assistance in this connection? No assistance has been announced to date. I request from the government that they grant the Olympic organization the financial assistance they are entitled to.


Mr. Cyr:: Was it required?


Roch La Salle: I cannot say whether that assistance was already required but I believe that rather secret negotiations have taken place. Anyway, I think parliament should admit the importance of those games. All Canadians willing to participate will be able to do so and not only Montrealers. Consequently, it would be disastrous if Montrealers were the only ones to support those games. I

January 12, 1973
The Address-Mr. La Salle
suppose that the Montreal members will find it their duty to meet my invitation and will request from the government the financial assistance required by those games since it has not yet been required by anybody here.
With a view to stimulating the competitive spirit of all young Canadians willing to participate in those games, I think it would be only fair if the whole country were to support the cost. I am all the more free to speak that I am not myself from Montreal and that the authorities of this city have made laudable efforts for this important project to succeed. And if these games took place in Toronto, I would say exactly the same thing.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like once more to urge the minister responsible for housing not to forget that serious matter that was often discussed and which seems to have been neglected up to now, the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. I think the matter has been in the air for three years now and many seem to have made an about-turn. The government has remained silent on the subject. Political parties, taking into account the composition of this parliament, would have a unique occasion to force the government to have that tax removed and the beneficial effects it might have are well known. The suggestion was made on many occasions and I repeat my request one more time.
I could not conclude my remarks without touching upon agriculture, an industry that holds an enviable place in my constituency. I was very pleased to hear some mention in the Speech from the Throne, for the first time, I believe, of amendments to Canada's feed grain policy in order to allow eastern producers to obtain that grain for the same price as western producers. My hope is that this year the amendments to the feed grain policy will retain the attention of all hon. members-both from eastern and from western Canada-because our policy should have a national scope if we want to show better justice toward the producers.
I recommend to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to lend an ear to the request of the dairy producers and to agree to a grant increase of 50 cents, since the production costs increase from year to year. In my view, the request of Canadian dairy producers is thoroughly justified and I intend to support that representation.
In my opinion, we forget something about farmers. I know that in my constituency there is an organization of young farmers who complain because they cannot take advantage of the management courses sponsored by the Department of Manpower and Immigration. A very substantial assistance could be offered to those young producers who would probably no longer have to ask for grants after a certain number of years, being more qualified and better businessmen. Those management courses are quite important for those young farmers and I hope that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) will remember that recommendation which I make on behalf of the young farmers of my constituency. I imagine that the same concern is felt in other parts of the country.
What about the buying back of small farms? I know that recently the Minister met his counterpart from Quebec; I also know that negotiations are still underway and that

agreements have not yet been reached but I would invite the Minister of Agriculture to consider seriously the arguments submitted by his counterpart from Quebec in respect of the priorities chosen by that province.
I have heard ministers say how important the priorities of the provinces are to them and on that basis I must be more confident than ever that the hon. Minister of Agriculture will consider carefully the priorities established by Quebec so that the latter can benefit by the buying-back-of-small-farms program and so that no farmer will be penalized by an agreement that is late coming.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish the new members a lot of success in this house and I invite them to participate actively in its business. I caution them against a certain form of disappointment, as I experienced in 1968. It is important to keep in mind first the interests of society if one really wants to assume his responsibilities. This is an invitation I extend to several members and by meeting the needs of society we will allow the government, any government, to act and act quickly. Our responsibility is to force the government to act as quickly as possible but only in the interest of those who have long been waiting for help.


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me and thus giving me a chance for the first time in this chamber to speak on behalf of my constituents in Toronto-York West. I should like to refer to my constituency in the few minutes allotted to me under our rules. Although I am a new member of this House, I would like also to talk about what I consider the life and mental health of the twenty-ninth parliament to be. I want to make reference as well to the Speech from the Throne which is very important to my people. I hope to spend a moment or two discussing some personal interests of mine as a result of my 10 or 12 years in broadcasting. In addition, I want to make some reference, as have other members, to the death penalty and redistribution to both of which references are made in the throne speech.
Before I comment any further on these matters, I want to offer my congratulations to the mover and seconded who set a precedent and some measure of competence, especially for their colleagues on this side of the House, which it will be difficult for all of us freshmen in this House to equal. No matter what party we represent, we all listened to them with pride. I think they have challenged us to do as well as we continue in our debates in this parliament.
I take some exception to remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais). He referred to the fact that some years ago a commission was appointed, and there were many commissions appointed by this House, to consider the Canada-United States border. Coming from North Bay, he expressed regret that at that time North Bay was not made the main border point. I would obviously have had to object if that had happened. I would not want history to be different because Toronto and my constituency, of which I am very proud, would not be part of Canada. As someone who considers himself to be a moderate economic nationalist, I

want to say that we now have enough problems without trying to buy back the golden horseshoe.

Mr. Speaker, before saying anything more, I should like to tell my French-Canadian friends that I very sincerely regret not being able to speak their mother tongue more fluently. If some day, one of my children has ever the honour of sitting in this chamber, I hope he, as well as all his colleagues, can discuss the future of our great nation in either one of the official languages and do so with pride.
Approaching with optimism the beginning of a long and fruitful twenty-ninth parliament, I hope I can express myself correctly in both official languages before it is ended.
I must add that one of my brothers teaches French and spends long hours correcting my English.

You can see the problem I have, Mr. Speaker, when I speak of family; we are a family. It is terribly important, especially under the present conditions of this parliament, that this not be forgotten. We are a great conglomerate of many peoples, especially the two founding groups in this country. We have many personalities. I have a view on some of the internal problems between our founding peoples. My view is optimistic. I believe that both sides are learning at last and meeting each other, no matter from what remote part of Canada we may come. We are starting to compare our different cultures and qualities. There are a few dissenters and they should never be encouraged. I think there are a few who are not capable of realizing the great strength and diversity that this kind of background gives to our nation. The personal maturing power, and I mean this most sincerely, of first, tolerance, and then respect, love and the full enjoyment together of this great nation makes this country greater.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I am convinced that our troubles, our fears and at times the spotty regressiveness, in fact, shows that we are getting there and the sooner the better.
As is traditional in this particular debate, and with Your Honour's indulgence, I want to speak of my constituency. It is enormous in size by population, 140,000. It consists of all races and nationalities. I understand that it is traditional in a maiden speech to discuss the history of one's constituency. I regret that Samuel de Champlain unfortunately travelled approximately 60 miles north-northeast and did not cross through my territory. The Pennsylvania Dutch eventually found their way to my birthplace of Kitchener. William Lyon Mackenzie was busy a little closer on Yonge Street having a few drinks in the tavern with the boys. Unfortunately we had some trouble finding easy access-or the people who lived in York West in that era had some trouble-because they had no means of proper transportation, or proper access. Many years have passed since then, and only in our quarter of metropolitan Toronto do we remain without rapid transit or a transportation system adequate to move us to that part of town should any crisis arise and should the establishment have to be fought. No, sir, we have no great historical monu-
The Address-Mr. Fleming
ments in York West except, perhaps, for the town of Weston, a small community now engulfed by suburbia but where you can still go on a Sunday afternoon and hear a band concert, where you can still go into a milk store when you are new in the community, as I was a month or two ago, having lately moved into my constituency, and be told, as my wife was told: "You are new around here; it's good to see you". It is this small town spirit which many of us who come to large cities so much miss.
I wish to refer, also, to the question of redistribution when I refer to the area of Weston. While the Commission, I am sure, and the gentlemen on it are doing their very best to organize and readjust so that there may be proper and fair representation for all parts of our great country, I feel that particularly in the division of my area serious damage has been done to the community of Weston, and I plan to present a brief to them on that subject. They have now decided that the leader of the New Democratic Party will pick up-I am sure we could not call it gerrymandering-will pick up an arm about a quarter of a mile wide and five miles long; he would pick up one half of the community of Weston from the CN rail tracks running northwest to the Humber River. This will divide the community. I do not believe there are that many votes involved, and trust some consideration can be given to drawing the southern boundary of the new riding of York-Lawrence straight across so as to include those people again as part of Weston, all of Weston being a full westerly third of that new riding of York-Lawrence.
I also hope, because I believe we must never forget conditions in the communities which began to build up and create the massive urban areas of today, that it would be appropriate for the riding not to be called York-Law-rence, because it is in a portion of York and that particular main thoroughfare goes through it, Lawrence, but to call it Weston-York-Lawrence. I plan to find another occasion on which to talk further on this subject.
Talking about the history of the riding and its make-up, almost 40 per cent of my constituency will now, with redistribution, become Etobicoke North, another new riding in metropolitan Toronto. Although I hate to see this kind of division it will make it much more manageable and allow the people in all sections-because I am divided three ways and then a little,-a chance to have closer communication. With 140,000 people you just cannot get to everyone, learn their problems, draw the correct conclusions and then express them in this chamber. I might say the same for the new riding of York West which will now take route 401 as the southern boundary, with the Humber River on the west, and allow that to be a much more homogenous riding, thereby allowing the member for that riding, in time, to cope more adequately with a smaller population and their problems.
York West and its constituents have tolerated a great deal in the name of technological development and advancement for our men and women. We have Highway 401 cutting our riding in half, to serve the greatest good of the greatest number; we have highway 400 plunging down from the north so that our people can escape to a healthier environment on weekends. We have the Humber River, once sweet and beautiful, running through our riding, now polluted and stagnant. We have many of those ago-

January 12, 1973
The Address-Mr. Fleming
nies of suburban sprawl. We find an old home where a family has lived for 50 or 60 years now having as a neighbour a 200-unit high-rise apartment. We have firms like Canadian Gypsum, if I can mention a company by name, which now claims to make an effort, at least, to clean up the pollution but which for many years brought suffering to the people of Weston in the absence of action at all levels of government, though at last something is being done. But this is the kind of agony which suburban community must suffer in the name of the greatest good, and so that all people can move back and forth and so that we can advance.
I believe there is a new mood, however. I think it was displayed in my own metropolitan area during our municipal elections last December-one which says it is not necessary to totally sacrifice a few for the greatest good of the greatest number; that solutions must be possible without unmerciful punishment of the few and that in the future the path of progress must always be smoothed by making sure that the environment remains acceptable for all and a pleasure.
The hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly) said yesterday that he believed his constituency to be a microcosm. I guess we all, with our commitments to our own people, think our constituencies are a microcosm of what Canada is. I present the same argument. The English language and culture have been adopted by the majority in my constituency, but the English people are, in fact, a minority. They are a good and proud people and I have that same background. I share with them much of the history that we respect together. The second largest group is the Italian people, and I have come to know them as a warm, generous and gracious people. I think we must do more to help them recognize our system and our traditions, to help them communicate better so we can all live happily with our traditions in one united country. I am also proud that the third largest group in my riding is French-Canadian. They represent only 5 per cent, but I pledge to this House that I will work on getting to know both our languages. I hope that by the time the next campaign comes-and please don't rush me-I can speak to them in their own language.
Our Community is made up of all races, Mr. Speaker, something of a rainbow as I think of it-it is black and yellow and red and brown and white. I like to think that we are here and that many young people can come here just now when they are looking for that pot of gold beyond the rainbow. They are not just looking for monetary gain. They are looking for that feeling of pride, of security and safety, of being able to put down roots in the knowledge that one's children will be well educated and that in the final years of one's life one will be able to live with one's friends and neighbours about you. I believe that is why people come to Canada. As their member of parliament I am committed to seeing that their hopes are realized.
I would like to turn now, briefly, to the elderly. In my opinion, the record of the government with regard to senior citizen housing has in recent years been very good. Starts made on senior citizens housing have increased over the years and there have been more senior citizens' dwellings started since 1968 than in all the years since

confederation. Nevertheless, there still remains much to be done. It was for this reason I was most pleased to hear the minister say the other day that there will be further action, and real action, taken to assist our senior citizens.
In my riding there is a large amount of Ontario housing, the funds for which, as I understand it, come in large measure from federal funds. Despite this it appears that the federal government does not have much to say as to the manner in which these dwellings are constructed. In my opinion, too often have ghettos been created in which people's pride has been denied them. I hope that in situations where we are contributing substantially to facilities to look after people who need care, we shall try to influence provincial and municipal governments to make sure that such people are made to feel part of the community. It is also important that we show concern about those who live in the buildings, concern that they should be proud of their ability to work, proud of earning their living, proud of, and satisfied with, the work they are doing.
I look forward, as I am sure we all do in this House, to the unravelling of the rest of the plans of the government and the debate over the issues we are all here to confront.
I have mentioned the elderly, and the hardship they encounter in trying to live on fixed incomes; I have mentioned those who are unable to work, and their right to live with pride and to lead a meaningful life and to be encouraged to that end. The subject of inflation, as will certainly appear from the figures published this morning, is one of increasing seriousness. We cannot excuse ourselves on the ground that other people have failed to find a solution. I hope that in this parliament we will find new approaches and do what others have not managed to do.
On the issue of unemployment, let me say I look forward to the budget; I know it is coming down soon. And despite the fact that we have the fastest growing labour market in the western world, despite the fact that a great number of jobs have been found, as long as there is a problem, we must do better, and I look forward to our doing so.Let me say again, that we owe a commitment not just to the sick and the disabled or to the elderly; we owe it to all our people, health and happiness for those working and paying taxes as well.
I look forward to a more active role in modern transportation by the federal government. Also, when we talk about modern transportation I should like to make reference to rail services. It is my belief that within our urban areas communications are improving tremendously and we are becoming more and more innovative. However, in improving communications we must not forget the need for communications in our rural areas and perhaps the re-establishment of many rail lines the passenger services of which have been put out of use.
With regard to housing, I should like to make a brief comment on the fact that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has indeed had a commendable record over the past few years. In 1966 there were 134,474 housing starts, and five years later, in 1971, 233,653. This represents a tremendous increase which, translated into dollars, is from $1.6 billion to $4.6 billion. Nevertheless, much more must be done. I was encouraged when the Minister
January 12, 1973

of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) said that further action would be taken in this area, and I look forward to hearing about that action from him particularly because of the need for improved benefits and the availability of lower interest loans to people in my constituency.
Having spoken on all the issues with reference to proposals which I find encouraging in the throne speech, there are a couple of personal interests to which I should like to refer briefly. I was employed as a broadcaster for almost 12 years until I had the privilege of becoming a member of the House last October 30. Over that period of time, although I have not fared badly at the hands of any employer, I have become aware of the fact that, incredibly enough, many people who, for the satisfaction of having their voice heard over the air or to bolster their ego, find themselves working a seven-day week, 16-hour day. Under the federal Labour Code this should not be permitted, but these provisions have not been applied to them as they should. At the appropriate time I will raise that matter.
I also have a real interest in the question of the death penalty and its abolition. I have been an abolitionist for a number of years and have been involved in the work of the Canadian Society for the Abolition of the Death Penalty. However, I also have a very real respect for the need of our people to feel secure on the streets, safe from harm. For that reason I intend at a later appropriate time, together with my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), to move an amendment to the legislation proposed by the government, which will call for the total abolition of capital punishment but will also call for a 25-year mandatory incarceration-and I am sure rehabilitationists in this House will rail at this-before any consideration is given to parole.
I think that our first priority at this time-after saying it is wrong, immoral and not a deterrent to take life in our society, and thus justify those who take it illegally-is to show our people that we believe in their security and we will remove their fear. However, I hope that in the not too distant future the House will consider statistics from across the world and from our own country and will perhaps be able to argue with the Canadian public and decide amongst ourselves whether that length of time, in fact and in experience when you become fully aware of all the involvements, is an unreasonable period. Rehabilitationists will argue that it is. However, right now we must allay the fears of our people, and I do not believe anybody wants to be party to putting a rope around a person's neck and taking a human life.
We have exciting days ahead and there is a very special responsibility upon us. Perhaps I do not have the right to say this when I am so new in the chamber, but we all are here to represent our constituencies, with full responsibility to do a job for our people and ultimately for Canada. I hope that we do act responsibly.
Finally, I should like to add my congratulations to those of other hon. members, Mr. Speaker, and I hope, as a freshman member in this arena of democracy, that I can learn from your example. My personal actions will not always be as unbiased or perhaps as unemotional, but I hope that I will be able to earn in this House, by my
The Address-Mr. Stevens
behaviour, even a small measure of the respect Your Honour has garnered.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak as the representative for York-Simcoe I do so with great humility. My riding covers an area that has sent many distinguished representatives to this House. I refer, for example, to the Right Hon. Sir William Mulock, the Hon. Sir Allen Aylesworth, to a man who became a legend in his own time, Herb Lennox. I would also remind those who now choose to form the government that the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King represented a portion of my riding for a brief time in the 1920s, although he had difficulty holding the seat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: From 1925 until 1963, the more northern portion of the riding which is in Simcoe County was represented by the Hon. W. Earl Rowe, former Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario. To follow in the steps of such gentlemen is indeed a great honour. It is not only a great honour, it is a great challenge.
It has been said that the proper functioning of the House and of any parliamentary system is heavily dependent upon the Speaker of that House. Having read Hansard and having witnessed the operation of this chamber in the last week, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion the House has made a wise choice in choosing you once again its Speaker. In selecting the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) as Deputy Speaker, I feel that an equally good choice has been made. I would also like to comment on certain other officials of the House. I refer of course to our able Clerk, Mr. Alistair Fraser, and to his deputy, Mr. Gordon Dubroy, whose facility to remember the names of members of the House is truly phenomenal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Both men have been most courteous and helpful to me during these "orientation" days. With such gentleman to guide us and oversee our deliberations, this House will indeed perform smoothly.
I would be remiss if I did not indicate my pleasure at being able to sit in this parliament with so many colleagues form the Progressive Conservative party, in particular our leader, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), to whom we have had the opportunity to listen, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). I believe I speak for my colleagues and for virtually the whole House when I say that their addresses were notable and of statesmanlike quality.
May I also add my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and to members from all parties who have spoken for the first time in the House during this debate. The quality of their addresses was high and I only hope my remarks will approach theirs in eloquence and substance.
It may be helpful to the House if I described the riding which I have the honour to represent. It is a riding which contains some 100,000 people. It stretches for approxi-

January 12, 1973
The Address-Mr. Stevens
mately 60 miles from a point north of Toronto to the outskirts of Barrie. Speaking generally, one may say that it lies on either side of Highway 400 going north from Toronto. It includes such urban areas as Stouffville, Aurora, Newmarket, Bradford and Tottenham. It has some of the most beautiful rural countryside in Ontario.
A little over two years ago a major portion of the riding was reconstituted municipally into the region of York. On average it is not a poor riding, nor is it a wealthy riding. In many ways it is an average constituency, reflecting an interesting cross-section of Ontario urban and rural life. Many people both live and work in the riding. There are many more, however, who work in other areas, particularly Toronto, who must commute to and from their place of work.
In the past four years the Trudeau Liberal government has failed in the Toronto-centred region to listen to the people. On behalf of those people, let me tell the government once again, we do not need a second airport at Pickering. We do need, however, federal assistance to facilitate urban transportation, and we desperately need federal action to help lower our housing costs, in particular our building land costs and mortgage interest costs.
Not only does the present government fail to listen to our problems but they appear, at least in the urban affairs field, to act in the most erratic way. They either do studies on studies or they act completely without research. Let me be specific. With no reference to municipal officials in my area, or even to the former Member of Parliament who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), the Pickering airport site and proposal was suddenly announced one morning. It now appears that there was inadequate thought and study before the decision was made. But rather than hoist the whole proposal, the Trudeau government has been trying to cover their tracks by clever public relations.
After starting expropriation proceedings at the request of the former Minister of Transport, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) ordered a hearing, not on the question of need but, rather, in what way a second airport should be developed. It is proposed that when the expropriation is confirmed there will be a new study into southern Ontario transportation needs, which may or may not confirm that there is need for a second Toronto airport and that the most ideal site for it is Pickering. If the government were honest they would inform this House that the selection of the second airport at Pickering was a political decision. We now find that, having made that decision, they place themselves in a ridiculous position when they try to justify the earlier decision.
For example, while they were reviewing alternative sites for the airport they stated that they did not wish to put the airport in another location that had been mentioned because the noise area of the airport-which I remind hon. members is now proposed to be substantially in my riding-would, in the case of the other proposed site, be over a swamp and they felt that swamp life might be disturbed by the noise from the aircraft. They appear to be more concerned with swamp life than with human life.

The Trudeau government's other approach of studying studies is shown in connection with the institution of commuter rail service in my area and Toronto generally. There have been ten studies to date, including the last one, the Soberman study. For ten years Liberal representatives from my region stated that a commuter train service would be instituted on a permanent basis. As the past election drew near, pressure obviously grew to commence the service. We were informed in June of last year by the then minister of transport that he felt there was in fact a need for commuter train service into our area and that he had authorized the institution of an experimental train- not a permanent one, an experimental one-and he would subsidize the running of that train to the extent of $100,000. Then there was silence. Subsequently, after the election was called, we were advised the train would be starting November 1, two days after the election, but that it would run for approximately five weeks, not indefinitely as was first indicated.
This information was received by the residents of my riding for what it was, a wanton attempt by the present government to buy votes. It was not made clear at the time, however, that the $100,000 referred to by the then minister of transport was simply a numbers game. What he really proposed was that his department would underwrite the losses of the Crown-owned CNR in running the train, but that the extent of the losses would be determined and set by the CNR themselves. How nice a situation-out of one pocket and into another within the same department!
When I asked officials of the CNR how they determined the daily running loss for the train, one official was very explicit; he said, "Well, it is to be run for 28 days. We were to be underwritten to the extent of $100,000, so we simply divided the 28 days into $100,000. That worked out to about $3,600 per day, so that was the charge". It mattered little to the Department of Transport that a private group was able to rent a similar train to run between the same points for $1,800 a day. In any event, the train ran. It was well utilized. The Minister of Transport was asked to extend the service, but I suppose, the election being over, he felt: what is the point? They completed their double bookkeeping and ended the service. As a result, Aurora, which was the terminal point for the first railway in western Canada to run from Toronto-that was in the 1850s-found itself in the 1970s, 120 years later, without passenger train service.
I have dwelt on these two immediate problems in my riding because I feel that parliament should be aware of such specific ineptitudes of the present government, but I have also referred to these two matters because I feel that in Canada today one of the great weaknesses of the present government has been their lack of action on the urgent needs of our urban areas generally.
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the present government's ineptitude, their lack of planning, their politicking, has not been restricted to my riding alone. It is typical of how this Trudeau Liberal government has ruled the nation for over four years. Their deficiences in handling Canada's inflationary trends, the unemployment crisis, and the maladministration of the unemployment insurance fund, have already been referred to by some of my
January 12, 1973

colleagues. At a later date I hope to speak further on these matters and on the staggering personal income tax load that the Trudeau Liberal government has inflicted on Canadians. This is a load which, when we as individuals have finished paying our 1973 taxes, will mean that Canadians, in the aggregate, in the last five years that Trudeau has ruled this country will have paid more in personal income taxes than was paid in the previous 100 years by all Canadian individuals.
Today, however, I would like to go further in exploring the present government's activity with respect to urban affairs. This is an area where perhaps the Trudeau government is poorly fitted to serve, in that it is a field where people do not understand political orientations. They demand and expect results. The average person believes that he is entitled to adequate transportation to and from work. He believes he is entitled to a reasonably priced home in the type of community where he and his family will benefit from suitable educational, recreational and sociological facilities. In obtaining these objectives he is not interested in becoming bogged down in political foreplay. The legal red tape of federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions in this area does not concern or affect the average man. He knows only what he sees. He respects concrete proof of government action rather than intangible, abstract promises. To date, however, the Liberal government has given us a large ration of such promises. It has shown little leadership in this field, and I am indeed fearful that the recent jockeying of cabinet posts, with two ministers new to their portfolios attempting to cope with the questions of urban affairs and urban transportation, does not augur well for the future urban dweller in our country.
This is a field of great challenge. It is a field where the federal government could take a lead and do dramatic things which would be well received in this country. The Department of Urban Affairs was formed in 1971 with great expectations. The cost of housing in Canada had become prohibitive. Between 1961 and 1971, lot values increased by 139 per cent in Toronto; in Ottawa they increased by 147 per cent, in Hamilton by 177 per cent, and in the metropolitan Toronto development fringe they shot up by 194 per cent.
No other area on this continent has suffered such an increase in land values. Translated into human terms, which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) says is all that he is concerned with, we find that the average new NHA bungalow in the Toronto area sold for $17,368 in 1961 and could be carried with a minimum annual income of $5,284. Today, however, the average new, detached house in the fringe area of metropolitan Toronto sells for $42,146 and requires an annual income of $16,623 to carry it. The Minister of Finance may not like to deal with statistics, but I assure him these rising shelter costs constitute a human tragedy in our country. The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs has not improved the matter to date. Based on this morning's Statistics Canada figures, we find shelter costs have risen by 6.3 per cent since December, 1971, and they rose by .7 per cent in December alone.
The throne speech itself, and the speech yesterday of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs were much better
The Address-Mr. Stevens
in form and presentation than in substance. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs is most eloquent when he deals with planning, with conferences and with matters which generally speaking are not wholly within his jurisdiction. But on matters more clearly within his jurisdiction, or those in the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport, we find that both ministers and the throne speech are much less specific concerning what action is planned to improve urban conditions in this country
Therefore, let me be specific for the benefit of these two ministers and the government. The one-quarter to one-half billion dollars the government plans to spend on the second Toronto airport would be better spent improving urban transportation in the Toronto-centred region. To be more specific, one-quarter of a billion dollars would be the amount of money, roughly, required to cover the entire capital cost of bringing in sufficient commuter train equipment to service 200,000 commuters per day in the Toronto area. I would suggest this would be a much more worthwhile expenditure for the people who live in the Toronto area than the proposed Toronto airport expenditure.
I would also emphasize that if either of the two ministers to whom I have referred had to cope with traffic on the Don Valley expressway and sit for an hour or an hour and a half bumper-to-bumper with little to see other than the little used CNR trackage beside this expressway, there is no doubt that their priorities would change very quickly. There would be better co-operation in respect of the urban matters to which I have referred.
I suggest that the government should in due course appoint a standing committee on urban affairs and housing in order that these matters could be looked into in much greater depth. I would also suggest that innovative ideas should be brought in and an attempt made to try to break the traffic congestion which exists in so many of our urban areas. In this respect I would suggest they at least consider such things as self-drive taxis. This new, slightly unorthodox transit system was recently installed in Montpelier, southern France. The self-drive taxi is an extremely simple proposal to end traffic congestion in downtown areas. The motorist pays a joining fee of approximately $75; with this retainer fee he is entitled to use a fleet of computerized, self-drive cars.
The basic idea is that the motorist drives his car into the centre of town on a high-speed highway, such as Ottawa's Queensway. At each central exit is a parking lot, where he leaves his own car and drives to work in the self-drive taxi which he can later leave at any one of certain specified parking places. He goes home in the same manner. The great advantage to the motorist is the fact that, although the initial principle of self-drive cars is similar to that of a taxi, once the retainer fee is paid the service is cheaper than that of a taxi. The organizers estimate that one self-drive taxi replaces 15 or 20 cars, thus eliminating the major cause of downtown traffic congestion. I mention this simply as an example of the type of innovative measures the Department of Urban Affairs could take in an attempt to relieve traffic congestion in our urban areas.
To this end, I propose to introduce a private member's bill dealing with the establishment of a national urban transportation authority. We believe, and I certainly do,

January 12, 1973
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles that such an authority is worth consideration by the government in that it would attempt, in all urban areas, to bring together under one authority the administration and operation of airports, harbours and railway facilities. In this way, I feel many of the problems which have been experienced in the Toronto region could be avoided and there would be a much more constructive approach to the needs of urban areas if such regional authorities were in existence.
In conclusion, I would emphasize that while we have great economic problems in this country-and I sincerely hope this House will deal with them at the earliest opportunity-we also have great urban problems. To this end, I would urge my colleagues and friends to the left, who so far have supported this government, to reconsider their position-


William Arnold Peters: They are thinking about it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -because I can assure them that if they had walked the streets of my riding as I did during the past election campaign, they would have been impressed by the fact that voters in at least two out of three homes indicated they had no doubt about the way they intended to vote; they intended to vote against the Trudeau Liberal government. Their only indecision was whether to vote Conservative or NDP.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, for the NDP now to lend support to the government is breaking trust with many voters who voted NDP in their earnest desire that the Trudeau government be removed from power. I noticed during certain of the NDP "justification" speeches with respect to the present axis between the Trudeau government and themselves that they indicated the Conservatives and Liberals are somehow alike. As a new member of this caucus, I would ask them to reconsider that belief. One day when I was in the chamber they referred to a previous government formed by the party to which I have the honour to belong, and indicated that in their opinion it was not unlike the present government. I would ask them to come up to the 1970s. For example, only 23 per cent of the present members of this caucus were in the caucus to which they referred. On the other hand, over 70 per cent of the members of the caucus across the floor from us were in the caucus of the government tuat was soundly defeated in the recent election. Ours is a new caucus. Give us a chance and we will produce results.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like, very briefly but most warmly, to underline the congratulations that have been extended to Your Honour on your election to the chair once again. It is good to have you presiding over the proceedings of this House.
Sir, from my point of view the most significant and most useful statement that has yet come to us in this session from the government side of the House was one that was uttered yesterday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). It is recorded on page 202 of Hansard for January 11. It reads as follows:

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.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, during this past week or so it has been extremely difficult to get precise statements out of the ministers opposite. It was a refreshing departure from that rule of non-disclosure for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to make it clear that there will soon be a measure to provide for a substantial increase in the old age pension.
I also want to commend the new minister on the speech that he made yesterday. I listened to it with interest, and I was pleased to note that he spent practically his entire time dealing with matters which come within the purview of his department. And I was also pleased that, whereas in the last four years we were told time and time again that proposals that we were making could not be considered, yesterday there seemed to be a willingness to listen, indeed a willingness to consider improvements in the whole field of social security.
This morning when I learned that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) was going to take part in this debate, I was naive enough to hope that he would follow the pattern set by his colleague and that he would tell us of his plans for coping with the problems that come within the responsibility of the Department of Transport. They are many. Hon. members will not be surprised if I mention one in particular, namely, the problem of Canadian National pensions. I had hoped that the Minister of Transport would have something to say about this issue which is of wide concern across Canada today; but no, he chose to spend his entire time on matters completely removed from his own department; indeed, he spent his entire time on a speech which I suggest was a disaster for the party to which he belongs.
However, Sir, I return to the Minister of National Health and Welfare whose speech of yesterday I warmly welcome, and in particular I am glad to sense a willingness on the part of that minister, as revealed in his speech, to consider the problems in the field of social security that need to be dealt with just as soon as possible. With respect to the announced increase in old age pensions, I was pleased that although he said about certain other measures that they would have to wait until after certain federal-provincial conferences, or until after certain studies had been completed, that delay did not apply to the old age pension increase and that this is to be brought forward very soon.
It is because this attitude of greater receptiveness to ideas with regard to social security has been displayed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that I think it is appropriate to set out in front of him, and in front of other ministers, a range of pension and other problems that are crying for solution. To a very large extent they are calling for solution because in the last four years the government thought they could be pushed under the rug, or pushed off till some date distant in the future.
First of all with respect to old age pensions, and in particular the Old Age Security Act, I want to say to the minister that we will hold him to that promise to make an

increase that is substantial and not just a token. Our view-we stated this very clearly in the last parliament and we stated it very clearly in the course of the election campaign-is that the basic pension, the universal pension paid under the Old Age Security Act, should now be increased to $150 a month.
If the government wishes to retain its principle of a supplementary amount on top of that basic pension, we will go along with it, but we insist that there must be a substantial increase in the basic amount of the pension itself. We want it to be $150. We might give consideration to some figure between the present $82.88 and $150, but let the minister not try to fob us off with nothing being added to the basic pension and with simply trying to add an increase to the supplement.
A substantial increase, in our terms, means an increase in the basic monthly pension. And we want that increase to be substantial. And we want it now. As a matter of fact, we want a great deal more than members of the Conservative party were prepared to commit themselves to during the course of the election campaign. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was in Vancouver he was asked, as were other party leaders, by representatives of various pension organizations out there if he would support a basic pension across the board of $150 a month. He said he was prepared to give an increase but he was not prepared to commit his party to an increase up to $150 a month, nor has he done so even yet. Until my friends in the Progressive Conservative party are prepared to state what figure they are prepared to give, I suggest they cease perpetrating their gimmicks that only mislead the pensioners of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that a priority equal to the need to increase substantially the basic amount of the pension, is the need to lower the eligible age. If the government is not prepared in these few weeks or in this session to adopt completely the program that we have announced, namely, making pensions under both the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan available At age 60 to all those who are not in the labour market, at least they should make a start on such a program. A few years ago the government found a way of lowering the pension age from 70 to 65 without doing it all at once. That is something it could do now. The old age security pension and retirement benefits under the Canada Pension Plan could be made available this year at age 64, next year at age 63 and so on until we get down to age 60.
Another move in that direction is to provide that the old age pension is payable to the spouse where the breadwinner is on pension, even if that spouse has not yet attained the age set out in the Old Age Security Act. I noticed yesterday that the Minister of National Health and Welfare referred to the problems of spouses not on pension and to the problems of persons just under the pension age. He did not make a commitment in that area as he did with respect to the amount of the proposed increase, but he referred to the subject and that gives me hope, to know
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles that he is thinking about it. I say to the minister that this is one of the things that must be achieved before this parliament winds up.
Mr. Speaker, when we say that this parliament was sent here to do a job, when we say that we want to see this parliament work, we insist that one of the areas in which it must produce the goods is with respect to the lowering of the eligible age. We would like to see it brought down to age 60 right away under both the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan, but at least the legislation must be put on the statute books to get that process started. We place that suggestion before the Minister of National Health and Welfare and before the government as a whole.
Another improvement that needs to be made in the Old Age Security Act concerns the escalation of pensions, which now takes place on an annual basis. Several years ago when Miss Judy LaMarsh, the then minister, first announced the proposal to increase the old age security pension on a basis related to the cost of living index, I complained right away. She tried to throw back at me that this was something we had been requesting for years. I pointed out that this was not the case; we had been asking for pensions to be related to the standard of living, the gross national product, to the wage index, not just to the cost of living index.
We are discovering that even though the government has removed the 2 per cent ceiling on the annual increase, the escalation according to the percentage rise in the cost of living index always leaves the old age pensioners behind. They are going to receive an increase in April, 1973, based on the percentage rise of the consumer price index in 1972 over what it was in 1971. They are behind, and every year as this happens they get further behind. One solution would be a quarterly or monthly escalation, although I do not believe that would really be a satisfactory solution. I think it would cause more complications than it is worth. The real solution is to relate the increase in the old age security pension to the gross national product, to the wage index or any such index that measures the rise in the standard of living, and not just the rise in the cost of living.
So, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that I welcome his attitude most warmly. It came as a pleasant surprise to me. I had thought that the minister was one of the Trudeau backroom boys and that when he got here on the front bench he would be as restrictive and niggardly as the Trudeau government has been in the last few years. For some reason or other there has been a change over there, Mr. Speaker. They are willing to look at things they would not look at last year at all.
When the minister is looking at the Old Age Security Act, I would ask him to look at all the features I have placed before him this afternoon. They are important to the people of Canada, for they do not want this parliament to wind up or get dissolved without action being taken on these important aspects of this important subject-Canada's Old Age Security Act.
By the same token, Mr. Speaker, I call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare to bring before this parliament improvements in the Canada Pension Plan. Again, I

January 12, 1973
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles
feel that I can make this plea with some feeling of hope because the minister indicated yesterday that discussions are going on with the provinces about ways in which to improve the Canada Pension Plan. The Quebec government has already put the spurs to the federal government by making improvement in the Quebec plan with the result that its benefits are now better than those under the Canada Pension Plan.
I know that federal-provincial discussions are involved and this sort of thing can take time, but such discussion should not take too much time. I submit that one thing that can be done right away is to remove the 2 per cent ceiling from the annual escalation of pensions under the Canada Pension Plan. It should at least be put on a basis equal to that which now applies in the case of old age security, both the basic pension and the supplement. As I say, Mr. Speaker, many improvements can be made to the Canada Pension Plan and the government will have our co-operation in trying to get these improvements through. But right away let us have the removal of the 2 per cent ceiling on the annual escalation of all the benefits under that plan.
I turn now to another area, that of the pensions of retired public servants, including retired armed forces personnel, retired RCMP personnel and the many other categories that come under that general heading of retired public servants. That legislation also needs to be improved, and one of the first improvements that ought to be made-in fact I was hoping that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) would have announced it before now-is to remove the 2 per cent ceiling on the annual escalation.
In the last session of the last parliament the President of the Treasury Board assured me that this would be given consideration. I believe there have been discussions between the government and the staff associations, but nothing seems to have come of those discussions. Time is going on and nothing is being done. Mr. Speaker, it is utterly ridiculous for some pensions to be subject to escalation, at least to the extent that the cost of living goes up, but that other pensions, like those received by retired public servants, are limited to an annual escalation rate of 2 per cent.
May I remind the minister that there are improvements that need to be made with respect to the provisions for early retirement and that something should be done to remove the discrimination against retired members of the RCMP and armed forces personnel. They have to wait until age 60 to get their annual escalation even though, under the most recent legislation, it is possible for certain retired public servants who are under age 60 to get the annual escalation.
The formula respecting the Public Service Superannuation Act also needs to be improved. I think that we as members of this House should not be content with provisions in acts such as those which apply to retired public servants that provide for their widows a pension of only 50 per cent of what the pension of the public servant himself would have been, when in the case of Members of Parliament the pension for the widow is 60 per cent. In my view, the pension for the widow of the public servant should be a lot higher, for the first year or two anyway.

But there is no defence for providing a 60 per cent pension for our own widows and only 50 per cent for widows of retired public servants.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the ear and the attention of the President of the Treasury Board. I know he is concerned about these matters, but I ask him to adopt the same attitude as his new colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He should admit that the pensions we are asking for are justified because, somehow or other, there has been a change in this parliament; somehow or other there is no longer in this House a situation in which an arrogant government with an overpowering majority can just say no. We have a government that is interested, as it has to be, in the views across the aisle. I can tell the minister that the views in this part of the House across the aisle are very strong with respect to these pension matters, and we feel that they should be improved right across the board.
I turn now to another facet of the pension question. Just as I was sorry that the Minister of Transport did not deal with matters coming under his purview this morning, so I am sorry that he is not here this afternoon. Whether his presence would make any difference, I do not know. I know, however, that the minister should face the seriousness of the situation regarding pensions affecting employees of Canadian National Railways.


Mr. Benjamin:: And of the CPR.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If he does not know it now, he had better face up to the fact that there is a good deal of ferment among Canadian National personnel, both active and retired, about their pension plan. This ferment is evident in a number of areas. However, first, if I may, I wish to speak about those who are retired. There is real concern that the escalation of pensions for those who have retired has not been put on a permanent basis. Pensions have been escalated twice on an ad hoc basis for retired railway workers. In the case of retired public servants, the escalation is now a permanent arrangement. Canadian National pensioners and employees feel that the escalation of Canadian National Pensions after retirement should be put on a permanent basis. They also feel that there should not be a 2 per cent limit to that escalation, the limit imposed in the two ad hoc escalations that have thus far taken place. I think many things need to be done to bring the Canadian National pension arrangements into conformity with what the employees and pensioners feel they are entitled to.
There are some things that ought to be done without delay. The first thing that could be done next week would be to provide for the escalation of CNR pensions to be put on an annual basis and for that escalation to be based at least on actual increases in the cost of living rather than on any 2 per cent ceiling. Every time you hear me making reference to escalating pensions on a basis at least equal to the rise in the cost of living, you will hear me use those words "at least". So far as I am concerned, even that is not good enough, because the result, as I have already said, is that pensioners are always forced to lag behind.
January 12, 1973

Even at best, even if there were no time lag, all that you do by raising pensions in accordance with the increase in the cost of living is to enable pensioners to continue to exist on the same standard of living that they had at the beginning. In other words, you enable them to continue enjoying their poverty. In the meantime the standard of living of society as a whole has gone up, one of the reasons for that being that these same pensioners helped to bring society to the point it has reached. Because they have played their part they should share, in my view, in the rising standard of living. Therefore all pension escalation should be related to the rising standard of living. Certainly there are two indices that are better than the cost of living index; one is the wage index, the other the rise in the gross national product.
In addition to insisting that we do something for retired CNR pensioners, notably, that we put the escalation on a permanent and more satisfactory basis, we feel that something must be done about the pension plan itself with respect to those still working. The rates used in calculating pensions for those in parliament are out of this world, and I could talk about that-but why stir up hon. members this afternoon? I say that in light of the fact that federal civil servants obtain pension credits equivalent to 2 per cent per year of service and Air Canada employees, as well, get pension credits equivalent to 2 per cent for each year of service, so that an employee after 30 years of service is paid a pension of 60 per cent of the average he earned over a certain given number of years, this formula should also apply to CNR pensions.
At present, however, under the Canadian National scheme the highest figure that applies is 1 i per cent. Even that does not apply to all present employees in Canadian National Railways. Those who have been there for a number of years still are given a credit of only 1 per cent or H per cent per year for their earlier years of service. The cry of many Canadian National employees in this country from coast to coast-the government is stone deaf if it has not heard this cry-is for Canadian National pensions to be determined on the basis of 2 per cent per year of service.
The government can give us the usual excuse by saying that the railway company is a Crown corporation and that the government does not interfere with such corporations. We know all the talk to that effect. But we know, too, that when on occasion we have refused to pass a certain bill providing money for the Canadian National, somehow something has happened. Therefore, we say that this government has the responsibility to see to it that this group of people who work for the government in just the same way as those who work for Air Canada work for the government, since Air Canada is a government-owned air line, and in the same way as federal public servants work for the government, is provided with decent pensions, with a pension plan that is similar to that provided to those other groups I have mentioned.
We should also make provision for a number of other changes. I am thinking of the provision for widows. Why is it that we have included 60 per cent in our own Members of Parliament's retirement plan but let 50 per cent widows' pensions be the rule in the case of public servants
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles
generally and employees of the Canadian National Railways?
During the past few months meetings have been held in various parts of the country at which certain management persons from the Canadian National Railways have tried to tell those employees that their pension is wonderful. They have even been told that the average pension of a retired CNR employee is higher than the average pension of a retired public servant. You know, that means nothing until you compare the salaries or wages they have been paid over the years, the length of service, and so on. The result has been not to convince those employees that they have the best plan in the country; the result has been to increase the ferment. The men and women who work for the CNR want justice in their pensions. They want the discrimination against them ended, and we insist that there must be action on this without delay.
A moment ago when I started to refer to Canadian National pensions one of my colleagues who used to work for the Canadian Pacific Railway made an interjection. I do not know if it was picked up by Hansard. I waved him down because it was my intention, once I had finished talking about Canadian National, to speak about CPR pensions as well. It is time for the government to start talking turkey with respect to this matter. Do not give us the line that the CPR, because it is a private company, is one we cannot touch. They are in a public business; its employees are serving the public of Canada. They are taking the same sort of raps under the aegis of their employer as are the employees of Canadian National.
It is time for the government to tell the CPR that it must at least match the provisions with regard to pensions that are available to employees of Canadian National Railways. The increase, in some cases 12 cents, 15 cents or 50 cents a month which the CPR paid a few years ago, was an utter disgrace for any company, public or private. This government has talking power with the CPR. So we in this parliament want action on behalf of Canadian Pacific Railway pensioners just as much as we want it on behalf of Canadian National pensioners.
I see my time is running out, Mr. Speaker. Most speeches include a sentence like that. The member hopes that he may persuade Mr. Speaker to be patient. I ask you to be patient for only a minute or two longer.
I am pleased to see the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) in his place this afternoon. I welcome him to this. House and I congratulate him on his appointment to his important portfolio. I am one of the members of the House who had the great privilege in the previous parliament of serving on the Standing Committee of Veterans Affairs. Even though we may feel that there is still much to be done, I think it can be said that we did a pretty good job. It is a wonderful committee, in terms of its non-partisanship and its desire to achieve things, and I think we did a pretty good job. Yes, we did pretty well, Mr. Speaker, but there is still some unfinished business. The occupant of the chair at the present time is fully aware that this is so. Notably, there is the question of doing something about the basic rate of disability pensions paid under the Pension Act.

January 12, 1973
The Address-Mr. Cyr
I thank the minister for the answer he gave me the other day, namely, that the report of the special committee that studied the basic rate will be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs as soon as it is established. I hope this is something that will be dealt with before anything happens to this parliament. This is a piece of unfinished business that must not again go unfinished. The basic rate must be put on a basis consistent with what the plan was when the Pension Act was first set up many decades ago. It was set up on a basis that would be fair to the veterans of this country.
But, Mr. Speaker, I make a special plea to the new Minister of Veterans Affairs to take it as his responsibility in this parliament to see that something gets done by way of substantially improving the War Veterans Allowance Act. Most of the improvements we made in the last parliament with respect to veterans were improvements in the Pension Act and in one or two other pieces of legislation related thereto.
It is also true that we made some increases in the allowances paid under the War Veterans Allowance Act, but the basic approach of that act, that piece of welfare legislation, is that it has a means test which gives the veteran very little advantage over the civilian. This still stands. In fact, during the past four years the slight advantage that was there for the veteran has been narrowed. That is wrong. I do not think the people of Canada like it. If we were still a little closer to the time of the last war, I think there would be very strong opposition to it. I call upon this minister to ensure that improvements are made in the War Veterans Allowance Act, particularly in terms of raising the ceiling on the means test in that act.
I see that Your Honour is about to rise. I shall sit down without having to be told to do so. I simply want to thank the House for listening to me this afternoon. I thank the government for having so many ministers here. I plead with all of them to appreciate the seriousness of the whole pension situation, and to give their active attention to all aspects of the pension problem. I plead with the government, with other Liberal members and with all opposition members not to allow anything to happen to this parliament until we have solved many of the pension problems our people now face. In particular, let nothing happen to this parliament until we have achieved a substantial increase in the old age security pension and a lowering of the eligible age under both the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, on the opening of this twenty-ninth Parliament, I think it is proper to offer to you, in my own name and for those Gaspe people you were visiting during your holidays of 1969, our congratulations on the occasion of your re-election as Speaker of the House. The task of the Speaker is not an easy one. However, your talents, experience and knowledge of parliamentary procedure narrowed the choice of a Speaker and I understand why you were unanimously elected. I ask you to believe that we are very proud that you are still with us.

On the subject of the House Speaker, may I be permitted to remind you of 1926, when the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, then Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party, was heading the government. He then proposed to have a Liberal as Speaker. He was Sir Rodolphe Lemieux, the member for Gaspe. I wish to underline this fact since it was the first time since Confederation.
On the other hand, for the second time in the history of the House, we have elected a member of the opposition as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole. The first one was Mr. Georges H. Boivin who was the member for Shefford, in 1918. The election of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) is a very happy choice.
I also wish to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne (Mr. Blais and Mr. Blaker). They certainly showed a remarkable ability in doing the task that the right hon. Prime Minister assigned to them.
In the speech which the Governor General pronounced on January 4, there is one excerpt which the Gaspe people will certainly appreciate. I quote:
__the Government will meet with the provincial governments in
the five regions of the country, to examine the impact of freight rates on economic development and consumer prices. The railways have agreed to participate in these meetings.
I am grateful to the government for its concern, shared by the provinces, about the impact that freight rates can have on the economic development of some areas removed from the large centres of production and consumption.
In the past, the government has recognized that the very expensive services offered by the transportation industry constitute a real obstacle to the development of several parts of the country. Indeed, studies show that high transportation rates are a real problem because they do not allow for the shipment of goods from producer to consumer at a reasonable price. In order to correct this situation, subsidies are already paid to this industry for some classes of goods and in some areas of the country. As an example, I shall only mention the special subsidies paid for the movement of goods in the Atlantic area, which benefit the Gaspe peninsula.
An area like the Gaspe peninsula should be serviced by several means of transportation. We should therefore not limit ourseves to railroads: highways, air lines and boat services may also be used. By accepting those operations and in agreement with the provinces, we must find better solutions to that communications problem. Indeed, it must be recognized that without government assistance, transportation in the Gaspe peninsula is not very profitable.
In our area, there is not enough goods being moved at present, to provide services at a reasonable cost, the largest item being imported consumer goods.
Rates are one factor that affects transportation. They determine exactly what "economic" distance separates the producing area of a given item from its destination and provide for greater advantages for those areas that export the same items.
January 12, 1973

In compliance with the Canada-Quebec agreement for the development of the lower St. Lawrence area, Gaspe and Iles-de-la-Madeleine, signed in September 1971, funds amounting to $113,500,000, including a federal contribution of $61,300,000, will be provided for the implementation of an integrated transportation system to facilitate both regional and external exchanges. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a major breakthrough for eastern Quebec.
The contribution of the federal and provincial governments to the improvement of the road network around the peninsula will enable us to kill two birds with one stone; not only it will expediate the transportation of goods by road but also accommodate 800,000 visitors after 1977 in the Forillon national park and the other tourism centres.
Mr. Speaker, while remaining in the field of transportation I wish to thank the Liberal government which, since 1963, showed a marked interest in the improvement of airports and landing strips in Gaspe and the lower St. Lawrence area. Much remains to be done and the future of air transportation in Gaspe will largely depend on government action. It is the responsibility of the department as well as of the Canadian Transport Commission, in co-operation with the province and the municipalities, not only to control the optimum use of grants in the building of airports and to rationalize permit deliveries but also to maintain travellers' safety and guarantee that carrier operations are economical.
Thus air transportation will be able to play its role which is to facilitate travels to people at a reasonable price while permitting a larger number of customers to enjoy the advantages of freight transportation, affording air mail transportation which is not done currently.
Moreover, air traffic can contribute to regional development by offering new outlets to certain products and by facilitating the exploitation of various parts of this region by air transportation and mainly by developing the tourism industry as mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.
The Gaspe Peninsula must constantly face not just the transportation problem, but also a broadcast problem. In fact, in some areas, television reception is far from being satisfactory.
I would therefore like to point out how important it is for the CBC to extend its television services so as to reach the people of the Gaspe Peninsula.
I congratulate the CBC for accepting to extend its services by increasing the number of its stations, and this has been done in Matane in the Gaspe Peninsula. However, it should consider as soon as possible establishing relays that would put at the disposal of the whole population of that region, especially in the difficult areas, an appropriate service. I refer particularly to the mountainous areas of northern Gaspe.
Under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act, the Canadian Broadcasting Company, as a national broadcasting agency, is responsible for providing all Canadians, in both official languages, with adequate television services, and I congratulate the Canadian Radio Television Commission on their having considered the Gaspe peninsula as a pilot area in the development of their program.
The Address-Mr. Cyr
Undoubtedly, the CBC, in their master-plan, will exercise the vigilance required to remedy anomalies existing in some areas of the Gaspe peninsula and like the CRTC, the agency will recognize the Gaspe peninsula as a priority area.
The CBC seems to be experiencing financial difficulties it its efforts to fully implement its five-year plan. As mentioned in its 1971-1972 report, its budget is $27 million short. It is suitable, I feel, to suggest that CBC for a few years, should reduce the funds earmarked for programming in order to increase those covering capital investments and infrastructure in every area of Canada where television services are needed.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne also specifies and I quote:
In another area of social policy, the field of housing and urban development, the Government proposes the following action, in co-operation with the Provinces:
-assistance in the provision of low-cost housing and other accommodation for senior citizens
-home-ownership assistance to low and moderate income families
-a land assembly program to assist in the creation of new communities and to check urban sprawl
The last paragraph should certainly be especially emphasized as it expresses a very bold attitude. Indeed, one can read in Chapter II of the report by Mr. J. W. MacNeill entitled "Environmental Management" and submitted to the government in 1971 the following excerpt on certain aspects of environmental management, and I quote:
Throughout the world, value structures and institutions are being challenged as seldom before. A major challenge to both stems from the growing, global crisis of the environment. During the middle decades of the twentieth century mankind has become increasingly aware that life on planet Earth is seriously threatened. Man's exploitation of his natural environment to nurture his economic machine is resulting in unsustainable pressures on that environment. His utilization of artificial environments-the cities, office complexes, factories and homes in which he spends most of his time-is resulting in increasing stresses on him. Population growth, urbanization and industrialization are being propelled by an exploding and unregulated technology, The costs of this process in economic, social, ecological, esthetic and psychic terms are becoming increasingly intolerable.
In Chapter VIII, Mr. MacNeill goes on to say on Canadian Urban Growth, and I quote:
The salient features of national population trends have been outlined. From this it is evident that Canada is already predominantly urban and will become increasingly more urban. By the year 2000, over 90 per cent of our population will inhabit less than two per cent of our land mass. Moreover, these Canadians will be concentrated into fewer and larger regions. In Part Three we take a more detailed look at the projected pace and polaziration of Canadian urban growth, the possible future dimensions of some urban environmental problems and their significance for the role of government in urban environmental management.
Mr. Speaker, in Table 5 of the book entitled "Environmental Management" are listed the largest urban regions where 90 per cent of Canada's people will reside: Mont-

The Address-Mr. Cyr
real, Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa-Hull, Edmonton, Hamilton, Quebec City, Calgary and Winnipeg. In order to check urban growth in these areas and in others just as big that are developing, governments should promote the creation of new cities where man's health will not be constantly endangered.
As concerns the building of homes for older citizens, I should like to bring to your attention a few considerations.
In fact, it can be seen that the provincial governments affect much larger credits to the construction of such homes in urban centres than in rural communities. From such a situation, it is clear that the older people called upon to live in these homes will end their lives in centres where pollution reigns supreme, not to mention all the other problems of urban life which they will have to face. No doubt there would be some advantage in building those homes in the countryside, near lakes, beaches, rivers or mountains.
If the governments responsible for the construction of centres for older people provided a more generous contribution, it would no doubt be possible, without getting too far from the hospital services older people require, to build those homes in tourist resorts; in so doing, we would ensure to the people concerned a more favourable environment, while offering them healthier recreation activities. In such places, the retired people could practice light sports, according to their physical condition, even do some gardening, things they could not do in larger centres.
At the present time, the government has to rely on programs such as New Horizons to keep busy the older people living in urban centres, whereas if they were properly settled in places far from the cities, they could work, find recreation and stroll in peaceful and beautiful surroundings, all things essential to the relaxation of the mind.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to address myself to another subject. On December 27, Canada suffered the loss of a great Canadian. We were all saddened by the death of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson.
At the opening of the twenty-ninth parliament, both Houses rightfully paid tribute to this former prime minister.
In the House of Commons, the right hon. Prime Minister stated the following:
In this place he was the initiator and guide of many measures that have contributed to the strength and purpose of Canada-our flag, some of our most outstanding social legislation, the recognition in various ways of the diversity of Canada and of the historic rights of its peoples.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) spoke in these terms:
To him, Canada was a country to love and to build. He worked sincerely and at great length for the cause of unity in this country.
And the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) stated this:
Also, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated, it was during his regime that we witnessed the debate on-and it was not always a happy debate-the acceptance of a distinctive Canadian flag.

I shall now quote the leader of the Social Credit party of Canada (Mr. Caouette) who said:
Mr. Pearson worked for national unity in Canada. He never said anything in the west against the east or in the east against the west. He always tried to convince the Canadian people, whether they spoke French, Ukrainian, Italian, English or any other language, that their first duty was to be genuine Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I knew Mr. Pearson personally, and everyone will agree that he knew how to listen to individual members and give them suitable advice. I remember that in November 1965, when I was defeated in the general election in Gaspe, the Prime Minister called me in his office and talked with me for almost 30 minutes. Needless to say that because of his warmth and his desire to help his colleagues, I have always considered him thereafter as a real father. If I remained in politics, it is as a result of his sound advice.
The Prime Minister who gave to the Canadian people a distinctive flag is no longer with us. All political parties paid a tribute to him, and rightly so for having given a flag to our country.
On February 15, 1965, by royal proclamation, the flag bearing a maple leaf was declared the national flag of Canada. That was eight years ago, and throughout Canada as in friendly countries, this flag is respected. As a matter of fact in 1965, six months after its proclamation,
I was a member of the first Canadian parliamentary delegation to enter the Soviet Union. I can assure the house that when we got off the plane at Moscow airport and saw the Canadian flag waving above the air terminal, our hearts burst with excitement. Wherever we went, the Canadian flag was hoisted and we were proud of that gesture on the part of the Soviet authorities. The same thing happened when we visited the other countries of Eastern Europe.
The Department of Public Works spent thousands of dollars for setting up spotlights on Parliament Hill buildings so that Canadians as well as foreigners may see the Canadian flag by night as well as by day.
Mr. Speaker, it is highly regrettable to see that after eight years, Canada's national flag is still without a place of honour in the Senate and the House of Commons.
During the last parliament, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) introduced, on three occasions, a bill calling for the display of the Canadian flag in both Houses of Parliament, but this bill was never passed. Moreover, several hon. members spoke about it, but the House never took any decision in this regard. I myself spoke to the House leader and to several ministers, but this matter has always been outstanding.
On February 2, 1972, I wrote a letter to the Speaker of the House, expressing our desire to see our flag displayed in the House of Commons and in all committee rooms. The Chairman answered as follows:
Dear colleague,
I received your letter of Febraury 2 and I read it with much interest.
As you point out, many of our colleagues suggested that the Canadian flag be displayed not only in the House of Commons but in our committee rooms. This is an excellent suggestion; personally, I am prepared to accept it without reservations. However, such a decision should be taken by the House itself,...
January 12, 1973

. .. This matter could be dealt with by the Committee on Procedure. I hope that consideration of this matter will be undertaken very soon. Sincerely yours, Lucien Lamoureux.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest, that the Committee on Procedure and Organization introduce as soon as possible in this House a resolution to provide that the Canadian flag be displayed in the House of Commons, where and as determined by the Speaker. Such resolution will be passed without any debate and we shall always be pleased, after it being passed, to quote with pride: [English]
Pledge of allegiance to the Canadian flag.
To my flag and to the country it represents, I pledge respect and loyalty.
Wave with pride from sea to sea and within your folds, keep us ever united.
Be for all a symbol of love, freedom and justice.
God keep our flag.
God protect our Canada.

Mr. Speaker, in all the legislative assemblies I have visited and that surely you have visited also, the flag of this country occupied a place of honour. Like several of my colleagues I hope that before the 8th anniversary of the proclamation of the Canadian flag the committee on procedure and organization will have introduced a resolution to that effect.
Since the members of that committee will be appointed very soon and so they will keep in mind my suggestion I would like on behalf of my voters in the constituency of Gaspe and on my personal behalf to unfold for the first time in this House the national flag of Canada with the hope that on February 15 next, the members of this House will approve unanimously the resolution to the effect that our flag be placed permanently in this House and in committee rooms.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that it is irregular to unfold even the Canadian flag at this time.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise on this first occasion to address the House in the throne speech debate I want to add my congratulations to those which have been heaped upon Your Honour by hon. members on all sides of the House. This is a double pleasure for me because, as you know, Sir, your constituency of Stormont-Dundas borders mine, and the distinguished townships of Matilda and Mountain which are in my constituency look to your city of Cornwall as their capital. I am naturally pleased, as well, to see the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) appointed Deputy Speaker. I have known him only a short time, but his reputation preceded him because other members of the House have told me of his wisdom, of his moderation and reason. I am satisfied that during the life of this parliament that will become apparent to all of us.
I do not have to address you, Sir on the subject of the beauties of Grenville-Carleton, the worth of its people and the variety of problems that face them, because as a distinguished member of the bar of Ontario, particularly
The Address-Mr. Baker
eastern Ontario, for many years, all these matters will be familiar to you.
I am perhaps unique in this House in that I have very many distinguished hon. members as constituents of mine. I met today at lunch, for instance, the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), who tells me he lives there. I notice things are rather quiet in the constituency, so I imagine he is behaving himself. The minister of urban affairs is a constituent of mine; he lives along the Rideau River. On behalf of all those who live along the Rideau River in my constituency I would remind him that as the river goes by his door he has a great job of work in cleaning up that mess in order that it can be enjoyed by him and all others. The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) and the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin) are constituents of mine. I am pleased to say that on the street on which I live in Parkwood Hills there lives the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). In fact, on many occasions prior to entering this House I have pushed the car of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre out of the snow. When I hear of that organic understanding, I wonder if my action was wise.
I want to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the performance, and I must call it that, which took place in the House on Tuesday night by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson). I must confess I did not learn very much about economic expansion in this country, but I enjoyed his speech because it was laced with wit and wisdom. If any hon. member is prepared to move a motion that he be granted an Oscar for that performance, I am prepared to second the motion. For all of the good fun, there was one significant statement that lingered with me when I left the chamber. That was his statement about the right and, indeed, the duty of a member of this House to speak for the people he represents and for his constituency. So, Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak about these matters for a few moments.
In the southern part of my riding along the St. Lawrence there is an industrial belt, the prosperity of which depends to a great extent on the actions that are to be taken in this House by the government in fields of taxation, economic expansion and the national economy generally. In between that area there is a large urban area to the north; there is an agricultural community that suffers all the problems of marketing and diminishing income that plague the agricultural community everywhere in Canada. In addition to that, it was beset this year by weather problems of an adverse nature and it did, I am sorry to say, suffer from the inadequacies of remedies that this government and the present minister's predecessor were prepared to recommend to assist the farmers who were in need.
Throughout the whole area there are small businessmen in small towns who are waging their own war of attrition against shopping centres, chain stores and other huge operations, and only time will tell how they can fight that battle and whether or not it will be won.
In terms of influence, whether in Prescott, Nepean or along the Rideau River which I mentioned, the overriding influence on the lives of the majority of people in my
262

The Address-Mr. Baker
riding is that of the federal government, which happens to be the largest employer. Whatever this government or any other government decides to do or not to do has a direct bearing on the quality of life of most of the people in the constituency.
In the throne speech the government has indicated that we will be asked to consider amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the President of the Treasury Board, who is in the House, that I welcome that news. However the government may protest to the contrary, I am sorry to say it is a commonly held opinion that the government's record in this field is not without blemish. I join the staff associations in welcoming this intention of action that is long overdue. I hope when these amendments are presented to the House they will adequately deal with all the subjects these associations have laid before government on many occasions.
Without going into any detail at this time, I hope there is an expansion of those matters which can be the subject of negotiation and arbitration between employees and employer. I hope there will be reconsideration of the whole process of arbitration to ensure that it is expeditious, just and trusted. I hope this expansion will lead employees all over Canada to turn their backs upon the strike weapon and look to trusted tribunals for a way out of disputes between employers and employees.
I trust that the legislation will contain reconsideration of the whole field of managerial exclusions to ensure that they are reasonable and that to the greatest extent public servants in Canada will have access to their staff associations. I hope the areas of negotiation will be broadened to include matters in respect of pension plans, life and health insurance plans, rules on promotion, lay-off, transfer and probation. All these things are important to the people of Grenville-Carleton and to their families and, following the advice of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, I intend to speak on them at the appropriate time.
I am bound to say that with all other public service matters, the vast majority of the people of Grenville-Carleton are concerned about the policy of bilingualism as it applies to the public service. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) took pains in the opening of his speech on Tuesday night to remind us that institutional bilingualism is not to be confused with individual bilingualism. I was delighted to hear the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton vindicate me in the position I have taken with regard to the implementation of the Official Languages Act at every meeting throughout this past campaign.
I am pleased that the minister's remarks in respect of fair, humane and a new, flexible approach to the implementation of bilingualism in the public service are to be honoured. I was pleased to note that the Minister of Finance supported my view that the program should contain safeguards, and it does not contain them now, that would ensure that no career public servant of either language group would suffer penalty or hardship in our earnest efforts to implement a most difficult program.
I want to remind you and the members of the government, Mr. Speaker, that when a voice is raised against

thoughtless and heavy-handed methods of implementation-and that is what we have in this country-that ought not to be twisted in the mind of any member of the cabinet into an implication that the voice is raised against the principles of the Official Languages Act. I ask the government not to confuse an attempt at a dialogue with destructive criticism.
Every public servant I met during the campaign-and I met thousands-supported the principles of the Official Languages Act. I met very few, however, who appreciated the attitude of the government in the matter of implementation-let that be clear. I heard about it, and I wager that the Minister of Finance heard about it. I wager that the President of the Treasury Board heard about it, and I wager that the Minister of Finance's ears are still burning over what he heard during that campaign. There was almost universal distrust, when there ought not to have been. There was anger, when the government could have fostered understanding. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I am sorry to say, did nothing to allay that anger when he came into my riding at the invitation of my opponent and said, "If you don't like it, get out of the public service".
Mr. Speaker, I also heard another line, familiar to me, that came out of the speech of the Minister of Finance last Tuesday. He said:
I have little patience with those who insist they are in favour of bilingualism in principle but then proceed to engage in destructive criticism of almost'anything beyond token efforts to put this into practice.
That is familiar, because the Prime Minister came into my riding and said he had no patience with those who merely paid lip service to the principle of the act. I ask the government not to confuse a request for reason, moderation and simple justice with lip service. I ask them to ensure that in whatever they do to cure any inequities for one group of Canadians, they do not begin to inflict inequities on another group. I say that because it is also within the true intent and spirit of the Official Languages Act. The act was meant to give equality of status to both our official languages. I am interested in ensuring that there is also equality for the people who work in those official languages in the public service of Canada.
I put the matter this way, Mr. Speaker, as simply as I can: public servants want to be hired and promoted on their own merit; public servants want a legal guarantee that the Pearson pledge will be honoured; public servants do not want favours, they want fair play.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: These are the basic principles that ought to be embodied in anything we are asked to confirm in this parliament.
The Minister of Finance also said that no party has a monopoly on national unity. I want all hon. members of the House to understand that I agree with him, but I also want to remind him and the House that national unity is a two-way street, and I suggest that he remind the Prime Minister.
January 12, 1973

The whole question of language training is important to Canada and I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on it in the throne speech debate. In the short time available to me, I want to say that I hope the government will reconsider the whole program of grants to the provinces for second language training. There is no doubt that the place to start language training is with the young, and there is equally no doubt that this will be much more effective than taking an older man or an older woman and attempting to teach them a second language. But the shot ought not to be scattered and perhaps we should consider, at least at the outset, the concentration of those funds within the bilingual districts of Canada, as a real beginning. There ought to be adequate research to identify real and realizeable targets, the measurement of the effectiveness of language training programs and the lowering of teacher-student ratios.
In this whole field, the stressing of impossible deadlines ought to be thrust aside and we ought to move in such a way that in a generation from now-I do not say 100 years from now, although the Prime Minister always talks about 100 years from now-those who are children now will be able to communicate with each other in both our official languages.
The whole question of the national capital of Canada is one with respect to which there was no reference in the throne speech. I regret that, because I believe it is of singular importance to the country, not only from the point of view of those things that I have been discussing but also from the point of view of people who live in the national capital area. There can be no doubt that there is no body of the federal government that has a more profound effect upon the life and growth of the Ottawa area.
I believe that the time has come to review the operations of the National Capital Commission in the development of this area and with respect to its relationship with other governments in the area. I hasten to point out that I do not intend us to embark on any grand inquisition of the National Capital Commission-far from it. But it is a fact that there has been no large-scale review of it since 1956.
In recent years the role of the NCC has changed. At one time its predecessor was the builder of highways, the maintainer of roads, and also the maintainer of flower gardens. Today the NCC has moved from that primitive stage to be a major force in the life of this area. In that same period of time the local municipal institutions have also changed; there are now large and powerful regional municipalities on both sides of the Ottawa River.
The NCC plans and arranges for the provision of large parkways and other works that affect the whole thrust of the planning and development of the area. It owns or administers government installations and buildings that affect the revenue picture of the local municipalities. It owns the largest tract of open land, the green belt, through and around the city of Ottawa and the townships of Nepean and Gloucester.
It has made commitments in sewer and sewage treatment installations, and in other matters, and thereby influences development both in the public and private sectors. It owns vast areas of parkland. In short, its influence on the Ottawa area, on the city of Ottawa, the townships of Nepean and Gloucester and the cities of Vanier,
The Address-Mr. Baker
Hull and the Gatineau region, is immense. I believe the time has now come, in view of the changing operations of the commission, to examine thoroughly its structure and operations.
Perhaps now we ought to explore whether there should be representatives of the local or regional governments on the National Capital Commission. This is something that was tried at one time and abandoned. Perhaps it ought to be re-examined again in these new circumstances. Perhaps we ought to see if there are any consultative processes that will permit a closer relationship between the NCC as the municipal arm of the federal government and the local municipalities in this area.
What is the future of the green belt in the next 20 years and how will it affect development, if at all? Is there a green belt agricultural policy? Can we make it into a model agricultural area for the whole of Canada? How will it affect the development of single and multiple family dwellings, of commercial and industrial development and all the problems of servicing such development? Is there any way in which the multicultural nature of the country can be focused and emphasized in the national capital area? It is not now. It would be very healthy if it were emphasized.
What is the real role of the NCC in the development of a transportation system for the national capital area, which so far as my township alone is concerned has grown from a population of 2,000 to 70,000 in a period of 22 years? Ought the National Capital Commission to be represented on a national capital transportation commission to serve both sides of the river? I am sure there are many answers to these questions and, indeed, many more questions.
A review by a joint committee of this House and the Senate such as was undertaken previously, or by a committee of this House alone, would provide real answers, with an opportunity for public input, and input from the members of this House, from planning organizations, from farm organizations, from ratepayers' and community associations, from the municipalities generally and, indeed, from the government itself with respect to its role. I am satisfied that the commission and its staff would welcome such an inquiry and I urge the government to consider this matter among its priorities.
It is Friday evening, Mr. Speaker, and I have occupied the time of the House enough. I want to thank you, Sir, and through you my colleagues, for the attention given to this my maiden speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate you on your re-election as Speaker of the House of Commons. As it is just a few minutes to five o'clock, I wonder if the House would be disposed to call it five o'clock and allow me to retain my position in the debate. If that were done, I would be happy to call it five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion has been made that we now call it five o'clock. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday morning next at eleven o'clock.
At 4.51 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, January 15, 1973