1973-01-10

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter affecting the privileges of the members of this House and of very great importance to Canadians. Last Friday I rose on a question of privilege concerning the advance publication of the Speech from the Throne. I rise on essentially the same matter today but with the addition of some new information which I believe will be of interest to members of the House. I should like to refer to the Toronto Star of Friday, January 5, and read from a column by Jack McArthur, financial editor of that paper and one of the most effective financial critics in this country, in which he says the following:
Investors and investment officials have a multi-million dollar reason today to be deeply disturbed by yesterday's Speech from the Throne in Ottawa.
Their misgivings will have less to do with the content of the speech-by tradition, a general statement of government intentions-than with how it was released and what had been happening in the stock market in the two sessions prior to the address.
Unlike a budget address, the throne speech is usually felt to have little potential for shaking stock prices. The secrecy which surrounds its release is not as intense as when a budget is coming.
That was all too obvious yesterday. Many people knew of its contents several hours before it was delivered. And this time it did have meaning for the market.
Words like "disgraceful" or "scandalous" may be too strong. But nasty phrases are appropriate.
The fact is that before the speech, during Toronto Stock Exchange trading on Wednesday and Thursday, oil and natural gas stocks were battered lower. Analysts said it was because of a rumour that the throne speech somehow would indicate unfriendliness toward exports of Arctic natural gas to the U.S., or toward the building of a $6 billion gas pipeline from the Mackenzie delta in the far northwest.
These are big ticket concerns. They involve some of the biggest tickets Canadians have ever seen. Hundreds of millions of dollars are already being spent to find northern gas reserves which can only be developed soon if gas is sold to the Americans.
There had been a recent drumming of criticism of large resource development in itself; of selling non-renewable resources to the not-so-well-loved Americans; of environmental and social damage which may go with northern development.
The Liberals found themselves running a minority government. Would they try to sidestep these controversies by stalling? It suddenly dawned on Bay Street early this week that this was possible, and that it might be indicated in the throne speech.
This made oil and natural gas stocks look less attractive to some investors. They bailed out, knocking down prices in chunks which shaved many hundreds of millions of dollars from the total value of affected shares.
By late morning yesterday, the stocks of companies like Imperial Oil, Shell Canada and Gulf Canada were disaster areas.
And then began a brisk comeback. Losses were sharply reduced in afternoon trading.
Something else happened about mid-day yesterday. Information on what was in the throne speech began to pour into newspaper offices across the country.
It was arriving by wire with the admonition that it could not be publicized before its release, expected to be around 3.30 p.m. That happens to be the time the Toronto market closes.
Given this indication of relatively slack security, and given that markets were open, it is inevitable that some of the more alert people in the investment community and elsewhere would have known something of the speech's contents before the market closed; that is, before the official release time.
And it was precisely in this period that some petroleum stocks were rising strongly after their earlier collapse.
We may ask these questions:
-were some people buying the stocks because they had discovered, or felt they had discovered, that the speech contained no terrible news about gas, oil and pipelines?
-if so, were they buying from investors who had no pre-knowledge of the throne speech? Were those uninformed investors victimized by a situation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member and I would ask him to kindly resume his seat. I have doubts as to the procedure being followed by the hon. member. I think he knows, or should know, that the rules do not allow him to make a speech of substance at this time. He should indicate briefly what his question of privilege is. I do not think it is quite in order, and it is certainly not in accordance with the practices of the House, for a member to come before the House and read a long newspaper article or editorial to support the proposed question of privilege.
I am not saying that the matter is one that should not be considered seriously, but I suggest to the hon. member that there are certain limits within which he must stay according to the practices of the House. I would invite him to indicate as soon as possible what the question of privilege is so that the Chair may be given the opportunity to rule as required by the Standing Orders.


Peter Reilly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to be as brief as I can. The question of privilege is, on the one hand, much the same as I indicated last week. It was, in my opinion, an affront to members of this House and to the dignity of this chamber to release the Speech from the Throne so far in advance. Second, it was a breach of privilege and an affront to the Governor General to have the contents of his speech on the street, as it were, before the man even began to read it. Third, Mr. Speaker, this procedure could have bilked investors out of their savings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
136

January 10, 1973
Oral Questions


Peter Reilly: I have been called a joker for raising this issue, but this farceur, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), moves that the subject matter of my question of privilege be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has indicated that this is substantially, or essentially, to use his word, the same matter as he raised last Friday. Since I received notice of the motion from the hon. member, I had thought that this might provide an opportunity for the Chair, for my own benefit and the benefit of hon. members generally, to review the practice relating to parliamentary privilege. Perhaps this is not the occasion and I should wait for another opportunity to do so.
I really feel that the hon. member raised this matter last Friday. There was a ruling made upon it at that time. He now brings it before the House a second time. In fact, I think it was raised a second time in the debate yesterday by the hon. member, so he now comes before the House a third time and tries to revive the matter by way of a question of privilege.
The hon. member knows that, essentially, parliamentary privilege is raised in the House for the purpose of asking that a debate take place giving priority to a specific motion; in other words, the matter is so important that it should take precedence over other business that the House is supposed to consider on a certain day. The proposition pf the hon. member in this instance is that we should debate the motion he has proposed and then it would be up to the House to determine whether the matter should be referred to a committee as he suggests, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River.
My ruling is that the matter was considered last Friday and a ruling was made then. I suggest to the hon. member that it is not sufficient to come back to the House and say new evidence has been unearthed, so that he may raise the matter a second or perhaps a third time by way of privilege. I have made a ruling, and I do not consider that the motion should be put to the House for debate at the present time.
Having said all this, I certainly do not suggest that this is not an important matter. I do consider that it is a very important matter and one which ought to be of interest to hon. members. But that type of question can indeed be discussed in many ways in the House, either in the Speech from the Throne debate or by way of private member's motion. I repeat that it can be considered by the House and debated by hon. members in so many ways other than a question of privilege which would take priority over all other business of the House in this sitting.
I am not ruling that it is not an important matter, that it is not of interest to hon. members, but simply that it should not be debated at this time by way of a question of parliamentary privilege.



MR. BEAUDOIN-PROTESTS RESPECTING CALENDAR PUBLISHED BY POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning a personal attack on the feelings of the French Canadian members and the entire population, especially in Quebec as a result of the publication of a nice red calendar of which I recently received a copy from the Post Office Department.
Mr. Speaker, I bitterly note that St. Valentine, St. Patrick, Mother's Day, Father's Day, Dominion Day, Thanksgiving Day and Remembrance Day are indicated, even Hallow'een. But the feast-day of French Canadians recognized by the House a few years ago and which is always observed on June 24, that is St. John the Baptist, does not appear thereon.
Mr. Speaker, I raise a question of privilege because my rights as a French Canadian and Member of Parliament are slighted by this unfortunate omission of the Post Office Department, and I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the said calendar of the Post Office Department ceases to be circulated and a new calendar be printed so as to take into account these representations in order to truly respect all cultural groups in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: With the greatest respect, I suggest to the hon. member for Richmond that his motion is one of substance much more than a question of privilege. He suggests that his privileges as a Member of Parliament have been slighted in the circumstances that he refers to. I cannot accept this claim. Other prerogatives or privileges of the hon. member may perhaps have been slighted, but I do not feel that the said motion can be submitted to the House under the Standing Order concerning breaches of parliamentary privileges.
I suggest to the hon. member, somewhat like I did to the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) a moment ago, that even if this question is of interest to all members of the House, it could be considered under other circum-stancer rather than by way of a question of privilege.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the appropriate minister whether it be the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the increase in oil prices announced by a couple of companies and in view of the significance of these increases for the national economy
January 10, 1973

and the people of the country, has either minister been in touch with the companies concerned and can either minister report to the House on any such conversations or any proposals the government intends to make?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I can report that another of the major companies has indicated that it will follow the increases. As far as the eastern market is concerned, the indication from the companies is that the cost reflects the increase in the international price of oil of about 20 cents. In western Canada the cost not only reflects the competitive value of oil but also the cost increase in refinery operations. On that basis we are accepting that these increases will hold.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the end of the minister's reply. Did he say that the government is accepting this explanation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we are accepting the fact that costs have increased in the refinery operations and that in due course these costs will have to be reflected in the price of the product.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the minister when he is going to announce his national energy policy so that others outside the government and the Canadian people generally can have a context in which to assess this type of price increase? I ask this question particularly because my recollection is that he promised the announcement of such policy by the end of 1971 and again by June, 1972.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. gentleman that I became minister in January, 1972-


An hon. Member:: We know it, don't we?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -so his statement is not correct. However, I expect to be able to put some documents before parliament some time during the course of the spring.


INQUIRY AS TO COMMUNICATION FROM BIOMASS ENERGY INSTITUTE ON ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON RENEWABLE BASIS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on this subject. Has he received any communication from the Biomass Energy Institute requesting an answer to their offer to enter into a research and development program for the development of energy on a renewable basis?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to make an inquiry in that regard and respond to the hon. gentleman.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, would the minister also inquire of his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and ask him to free this corre-
Oral Questions
spondence from the civil service level and bring it up to the ministerial level for decision?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will make that inquiry.


GASOLINE AND FUEL OIL PRICE INCREASES- INVESTIGATION OF REASONS BY DEPARTMENT OR NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD-ADEQUACY OF SUPPLIES
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As three major oil companies have now raised the price of gasoline one cent a gallon and the price of home heating fuel oil by two cents a gallon, while at the same time paying to their producing companies an increase of 20 cents a barrel on top of the 10 cents a barrel increase of last November, has the minister's department or the National Energy Board investigated this matter to see whether or not these price increases are warranted or whether they are based entirely on the fact that there is a shortage in the United States and a more attractive market in that area so that, consequently, Canadians are being asked to pay for the increased price in the United States?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker; as I just indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, approximately just under half the Canadian market is not supplied by Canadian oil but by offshore supplies. As I indicated, the price increases, I am advised, are principally for the recovery of the increased cost of the raw material coming from offshore. With regard to the increases in the market west of the Ottawa Valley, it is true that the price there is affected by the increased price for western Canadian oil production, in part arising from the markets for this product in the United States.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the widespread hardship in some parts of the United States because of the shortage of home heating fuel oil, in view of the fact that the Alberta authorities estimate that the consumer demand for February will exceed by 15,000 barrels a day the productive capacity of the Alberta fields and the fact that the province is shipping daily to the United States at present over a million barrels of crude oil and condensates, what steps are the minister's department and the government taking to ensure that there will be no shortage of home heating fuel in Canada this winter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. gentleman that the source he referred to indicated that the Alberta authorities expected no difficulty whatsoever in meeting Canadian demand despite very high shipments to the United States. I made it clear to the Alberta authorities and the industry, as I indicated yesterday, that the priority so far as the government of Canada is concerned is that existing Canadian refineries should continue to have feed stocks. If the industry fails to take steps to assure this, then, of course, it is faced with the prospect of regulations with regard to oil, as it is now faced with regard to gas.


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

January 10, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members wish to ask supplementaries on this subject. I would at this point invite hon. members, if they can, to limit the number of supplementaries. I have noticed with some unhappiness that in recent days not too many opportunities have been given to members in the back rows to participate in the question period. If the front benches of the several parties, on one side or the other of the Chair, take up most of the time in asking their questions and putting supplementaries, we know who the victims are. It is those who responded so sympathetically to my admonition. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands on a further supplementary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has told the House that he has been advised about the reason for these price increases. I assume he means he has been advised by the oil companies. What investigation is the government itself making with respect to these price increases in view of the fact that three oil companies within a matter of hours instituted these price increases? Is any investigation being conducted? Second, is any consideration being given to investigating this matter under the Combines Investigation Act to see if there has been any collusion in these price increases by the three major oil companies of this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the advice I referred to was that of the National Energy Board. As to whether or not there may be an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act, the hon. member knows that under the law the director of investigation and research has the responsibility for doing so. I will make certain through my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that this matter is brought to his attention if he has not already noticed it.


GAS AND OIL RESERVES OFF EAST COAST-ESTABLISHMENT OF GOVERNMENT BODY TO CONTROL DEVELOPMENT, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the serious situation that exists off the coast of Atlantic Canada, particularly Nova Scotia, brought about by the discovery of oil and gas reserves, will the oil companies be left to decide for themselves how these resources should be developed, at what rate, where production would be marketed and at what price, or does the government intend to establish some authority over the industry to manage both the rate and type of development that will ensue offshore?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand whether the hon. member is talking about refinery operations that might occur in Canada from foreign feed-stock or the development of offshore fields. If he is talking about the former, there is, of course, the present jurisdiction exercised by the National Energy Board under the National Energy Board Act in respect of the importation and marketing of oil products. If he is talking about the development of the offshore fields, as I mentioned to the hon. gentleman the other day there have been intensive discus-
sions between officials of this government and officials of the governments of the four Atlantic provinces and Quebec in respect of the possible mutual development of that area. I would hope that these discussions could be brought to early fruition in order that co-operative development of the offshore fields can continue.


GASOLINE AND OIL PRICE INCREASES-INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION TO REDUCE TAX CONCESSIONS TO COMPANIES
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the outrageous behaviour of the oil companies in increasing their prices and their profits, is the minister now prepared to bring in legislation to remove some of their very sizeable tax concessions?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources set out the answer to that question quite clearly.


Mr. Baldwin:: You are a little more humble than he is.


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
When his officers are looking into a local initiative project, must they before approving or disapproving it take into account the unemployment existing in the locality from where the project under study has been submitted?


Hon. Robert Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, one of the criteria for approval of Local Initiative projects is the degree of unemployment. Another criterion is that the people hired by the project sponsors are to be drawn first from the manpower offices in terms of those people on unemployment insurance or welfare. So the answer is yes, the degree of local or regional unemployment is a major consideration in judging these projects as to their merits.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Since the minister says that it is one of the criteria, could he tell the House what the others are which are essential to guide the civil servants when they have to take the decision to approve or disapprove such a project?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister might perhaps answer this question briefly, but this information should normally be supplied on motions.
January 10, 1973


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the current criteria have not essentially changed from those that applied last year. It is my understanding that they were released during the period when the House was not in session. I think that information was sent to all members but I will certainly look into the matter and make sure, if that was not the case, that it is done forthwith.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-ALLEGED REFUSAL OF REGIONAL MANPOWER OFFICES TO GIVE INFORMATION TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT ABOUT APPLICATIONS
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the new Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can he say whether any orders or instructions were issued to the local regional manpower offices that they were not to divulge any information to Members of Parliament on LIP applications?


Robert Knight Andras: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I have asked the manpower offices to co-operate to the fullest with Members of Parliament from all parties. There has been no directive to the contrary.


John Howard Lundrigan: Would the minister inquire why officers at the top levels in the regional offices are advising Members of Parliament that they are not permitted to discuss LIP applications with M.P.s and that if they are found doing so they will be severely reprimanded?


Robert Knight Andras: I will certainly investigate that matter because there is no intention on the part of the minister's office or of senior people in the department, as far as I am aware, to convey such an instruction.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister inform the House whether the government is represented at the interlocutory injunction hearing in connection with the James Bay hydro project and, if so, by whom?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: We were initially represented as a party named in the initial proceedings, but we have not been formally represented since the situation changed and we are no longer a party to the proceedings.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Does the government intend to arrange for a senior official, a person at deputy minister level, to continuously attend the hearings, and will that person be presenting a brief at the hearings outlining the position of the government?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: I shall need to check to determine the extent to which officials of the department at a fairly senior level who have been involved in the case have in fact been following the proceedings from day to day. I have not received a report recently but I shall be glad to get the information for the hon. member.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In light of the government's constitutional responsibility toward the rights of Indians and Inuits, has the government formulated a position with respect to the issue before the hearing and, if so, will that position be outlined to the House or to the hearing immediately?


Otto Emil Lang: The Department of Justice is, of course, in the position of advising other departments of government with regard to the legal aspect of the government's responsibilities and we are in constant touch with the departments concerned in that regard, but it is not the custom of the department to inform other persons of the advice we are giving.


INQUIRY AS TO STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT POSITION RESPECTING ABORIGINAL RIGHTS-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I address a related question, Mr. Speaker, to one of the unchangeables in the cabinet, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: If the applauders had known what I meant by "unchangeable" they would not have applauded. Inasmuch as the fundamental question involved in the James Bay affair is that of aboriginal rights, is the minister in a position to make any announcement which differs from that made in the past, namely, a declaration that the government will respect the aboriginal rights of these people not only in the James Bay area but elsewhere in Canada?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister oi Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I might be given the opportunity at this time to answer a question asked earlier by the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald). Regarding the cases that are before the court, we are not present there because, according to the new government policy, we do not want to substitute ourselves to the Indians who are quite able to defend their rights. As it has been realized, we have made available to the Indians and Inuits all the documents needed and some officials of my department have even gone to court yesterday as witnesses.


Frank Howard: I should like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister with respect to the response just made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who has obviously denied and abnegated the constitutional responsibility of the federal government-

January 10, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member wish to ask a supplementary question? He knows he cannot present an argument or enter into a debate.


Frank Howard: I simply noted, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister was picking up his earphone and I wanted to wait until he had it on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: And he is now putting it away, which obviously indicates he is turning a deaf ear to the plight of the Indian people in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was indicating government policy when he said, as I took it, that he and the government had no interest in protecting the rights of the Indian people?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the minister on his question of privilege, but obviously we could spend the rest of the question period debating the issue. I think the 40 minutes should be reserved as much as possible for questions and answers and not debate. The minister has the floor.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member for Skeena implied that we do not have the interest of the Indians at heart. I must protest that he cannot say so. If we are not at the hearing it is because we are no longer paternalistic, as he would be if he were in charge. We let the Indians do what they want to do.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that all hon. members, including the hon. member for Skeena and the minister, will appreciate that this is a matter of debate between the minister and the hon. member which could go on for a long time. My hope is that we can move on to further questions. However, if the hon. member has a further supplementary he will be recognized for the purpose of asking it and then the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Yukon. After that, we will go on to the next question.


Frank Howard: May I ask a supplementary question which probably will prompt a reasonable response, and inquire of the minister whether he would be prepared to refer the question of aboriginal rights to a special committee of the House of Commons in order that all aspects of it might be examined?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in all circumstances the committee can agree with any procedure and if it wishes to set the moment when it will study appropriations for the department on that question, it will be a pleasure to discuss the matter with the committee members.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: In the absence of concurrence on the part of the minister in the suggestion made by the

hon. member for Skeena, and in the total absence of any mention of the Indian people in the Speech from the Throne, can the minister tell the House today what the intention of the government is with respect to the settlement of aboriginal land claims in this country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are always in communication with Indian peoples. On many occasions, we have stated that we will abide by the provisions of the law which the government must assume in favour of the first citizens in Canada. We intend to pursue discussions of those questions with them. I think we would be ill advised to mingle politics with that problem.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Would the hon. gentleman tell us today in what manner and when he intends to make his token payment to the disaster-stricken farmers in northern British Columbia and Alberta?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the payment to the farmers in Alberta and British Columbia will be as large as any payment we have made to farmers in any other part of Canada. As soon as we receive the claim forms and submissions from the provinces concerned we shall act accordingly.


Frank Oberle: May I ask the minister whether he is considering further payments to these farmers, because the payment he is suggesting is obviously only a token payment and these people have suffered-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now making a speech.


Gerald William Baldwin: In light of the drastic decline in farm population as a result of deliberate government policies-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Gerald William Baldwin: -I should like to ask the minister whether it is his intention to change those policies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
January 10,1973


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister inform the House of the terms under which the Canadian National Railways pension fund made a loan to the Swiss-based, foreign-owned corporation, Fidinam (Ontario) Limited, amounting to $33 million?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1 was not
aware of this. I will take the question as notice and inform the hon. member as to the situation.


John Paul Harney: While the minister has that question under notice would he look into the following matter as well? Has the CNR pension fund contracted to lease back part of Upper Canada Place in Toronto, the building in question, in a manner similar to that arranged between the Workmen's Compensation Board of Ontario and Fidinam (Ontario) Limited?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this question should be placed on the order paper. The minister having been advised, at the same time he looks into the first matter perhaps he will look into the second.


POST OFFICE
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
Since the calendar just published by his department makes no reference to the national day of French Canadians, does the minister intend to have a new calendar printed?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. member, I wish to indicate that already some representatives of the government party have made the same request. I shall simply remind the hon. member that this calendar is not an ordinary one, but rather a document designed to help the Post Office customers to better use the services offered by the department and to offer them guidance with regard to their mailings.
It is true that no mention is made either of the feast of St. John the Baptist, or of St. Joseph, or of the Queen's birthday in that calendar. But can the hon. member give me the assurance that the Canadian people will start sending greeting cards for St John the Baptist day-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
Oral Questions
I am happy to see that the minister has been sensitized to the question after the event. However, can he tell the House whether he was aware of the fact before the publication of the calendar and why he did not act then in order to have the French culture get as much respect as the others?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think that the hon. member's question is in order.


MANPOWER
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the fact that municipalities throughout Canada and in particular the city of London have expressed an interest in and a desire to be included in the on-the-job training program, has the minister given this any consideration?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we are giving consideration to the possibility of public bodies participating in the on-the-job training program. The final answer is not yet available but I will advise the House when that decision is made.


William Charles Frank: In view of the fact that large municipalities such as the city of London are major employers and the fact that the same municipalities are eligible for local improvement grants, this request should be worthy of more consideration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West on a supplementary.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-APPROVAL OF PROJECTS AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the serious unemployment situation, can the minister now bring us up to date in respect of approval of projects in the amount of $50 million under the Local Initiatives Program?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, approvals to date represent, I think, some 70 per cent of the funds which were made available. I really am repeating myself in this answer in view of the details I gave yesterday. I can only undertake to do our very best to have all approvals finalized by January 19. This will represent a situation where applications were held open deliberately and announced as such until December 31. It would have been both unfair and impossible to deal with all the applications prior to that date.

January 10, 1973
Oral Questions


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-PERCENTAGE OF APPLICATIONS REFUSED FOR LACK OF FUNDS- PROVISION OF REASONS TO APPLICANTS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the minister. Is the minister in a position to tell the House what percentage of the applications now received will have to be turned down because of lack of funds? Also, in respect of those that are turned down can he assure us that the applicants will receive word concerning the reason their projects were not accepted?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we will do our best to advise all applicants whose applications are not going to be approved. We will first advise the sponsors involved in projects where approvals are going to be forthcoming. In fact, we are doing this by telephone now because the contracts have been negotiated and the formalities will have to follow. As to the percentage of applications that will not be granted approval, at the present time I cannot give an accurate figure but I think we have on hand applications which could amount to in excess of $400 million whereas the total applied to LIP is about $165 million.


INQUIRY AS TO LOCAL IMPROVEMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise the House, in view of the fact that so many local initiative applications will not be approved, whether he intends to announce a program to supplement LIP called the local improvement assistance program?


Robert Knight Andras: It has been leaked to the press through sources I cannot yet identify that there is some consideration being given to such a program. When and if such a program has been finalized I will be happy to advise the House.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, assuming that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has recovered from his stirring, if not informative, performance last night, may I ask him whether he is aware of the application by TEMBEC, the community group in Temis-caming which is seeking to take over the CIP mill that was closed down, the application for designation as a special area and for a grant from DREE, an application that was made some weeks ago? Can he inform the House whether he is aware of the application and its status now?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The status is that it is still being examined

but I have a wire among my papers which arrived today asking for an appointment. This was also supported by the hon. member for Temiscamingue, the leader of the Social Credit party. I have agreed to meet them. It is simply a question of whether it will be tomorrow or on Friday. We will discuss the whole matter in detail at that time.


David Lewis: I have a very short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate briefly whether there are any difficulties in the road to making the grant and enabling this community group to continue the plant and the employment that would be available?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are considerable difficulties. It would take too long to list all of them. Pollution happens to be one. There is a very serious and costly potential pollution problem. There is also some question of the viability of the project. This is why I would like to obtain more figures from those promoting this venture.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the hon. Solicitor General.
Is he in a position to report to the House on the drug affair which would be at the origin of the event that occurred last weekend at the Leclerc Institute?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, we have learned there were, without any doubt, drugs used at the Leclerc institution in the incident which took place last Saturday night, but to this date the authorities have not found how the drugs were brought into the institution. The penitentiary authorities have been working closely with the RCMP during the last year in an effort to stop the traffic in drugs at penitentiaries. Several new methods have been introduced but in this particular instance we do not yet have all the facts.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the privileges of members of the House and the use or abuse of the question period. I can understand members on the back benches opposite being given an opportunity to make inquiries of the ministry when they cannot obtain answers to questions during the ordinary course of business, but for a parliamentary secretary to be communicating with another department seems to be stretching the abuse a little too far, especially in view of the obviously prepared answer.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member on a question of privilege.
January 10, 1973


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who has been a member of this House longer than I have, that according to the Standing Orders a parliamentary secretary is allowed to ask questions. Unless the Chair informs me that it is against one Standing Order, I intend to continue doing my duty, which is as important as that of the hon. member for Yukon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: On the question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope it will be a different question of privilege. The hon. member raised a question of privilege which was perhaps more a point of order and the hon. member who asked the question has responded. I doubt that any purpose would be served if we were to use the remaining minutes of the question period in debating the question of privilege.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is the minister aware that when inquiries are made at his departmental offices for a simple blank application form for DREE the caller is asked whether he is a member of the government side or a member of the opposition? That happened this morning. Can he assure us that all members will be treated equally?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled that such a question should be asked, if indeed the implication is what it appears to be. Certainly my suspicion is that it is a matter of becoming acquainted with new members and just asking-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: However, whether or not that is the case, it is an entirely unnecessary question and I will see that it does not happen again. Perhaps the hon. member will give me the information.


BANKRUPTCY OF VALEWOOD PRODUCTS LIMITED-INQUIRY AS TO INVESTIGATION BY RCMP FRAUD BUREAU
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, in view of fact that a DREE promoted industry, Valewood Products Limited in Renfrew, Ontario, has gone into bankruptcy and that the president and major stock owner had two previous business failures before obtaining a DREE grant, I wish to ask
Oral Questions
the minister whether or not, in view of the fact that he has just built a new apartment building in Palm Springs, Florida, the minister is recommending that the RCMP fraud investigation bureau investigate this bankruptcy?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If it were to be a question of investigating the bankruptcy it would be a matter, I would imagine, either for the Solicitor General or some other minister. But I will be glad to look into the details that the hon. member has outlined.


MANPOWER
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: I should like to direct a question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has a decision in fact been made by his department disqualifying local government districts from being eligible for LIP grants?


Robert Knight Andras: I did not quite catch the question. Would the hon. member kindly repeat it?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the minister whether the minister or officials of his department have made a decision which disqualifies local government districts as they exist in Manitoba from being eligible for LIP grants, as they were last year?


Robert Knight Andras: Off the cuff I would say the answer to that is no. I certainly know of no directive or policy decision that has been made to exclude such organizations. Most certainly municipal organizations are eligible. However, rather than give the hon. member a final answer today I would appreciate an opportunity to doublecheck that information.


HISTORIC SITES
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that last year the government announced a new program called Heritage Canada, which was to be used primarily for the preservation of historic sites and buildings, when will this new program start functioning and what sum has been allocated to it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this corporation has not been set up yet. I had announced our proposal to establish this corporation and we hope that during the

January 10, 1973
Oral Questions
weeks to come, directors will be appointed and will set the program into motion.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Has he received the report of the hearing officer appointed on November 9 to consider objections to the expropriations for the Pickering airport?


Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister oi Public Works):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I received the report last Friday. It consists mostly of a digest of all the objections that were put forward. We will look at the report and make our decision before February 4.


Ronald George Atkey: Would the minister be so good as to advise us whether that report will be made available to members of the House and to the public?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: I have no basic objection, Mr. Speaker, but I shall confer with my colleagues.


VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL-ROAD BUILDING AND RUNWAY EXPANSION-AWARDING OF TENDERS FOR BRIDGE WHILE HEARING IN PROGRESS
Mr. lohn Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport following my question to him on Monday. It concerns the Sea Island ratepayers and the public hearing that is taking place on the Hudson Street bridge. Today the minister's department awarded tenders for the Hudson Street bridge. I should like to ask the minister how the department can award tenders before the public have had a chance to be heard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question, of course, is posed in the form of an argument and it certainly is not in order.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State who is responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is based upon a report made to the House by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts which recommended that the CBC should immediately take steps to attempt to recover $134,573.99 from the 17 employees who were employed in the United States and did not pay income tax. Has the minister asked the CBC to take these steps, have they been taken, and if not, why?


Hon. lames Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, that preceded my appointment. I shall have to check the history of this matter and refer it to the CBC for a report.


CANADIAN CULTURE
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the right hon. Prime Minister. Would he please advise the House when he plans to name the advisory board on multiculturalism?


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, may I answer this question? I should like to assure the hon. member that active consideration is being given to this matter and a decision will be made as soon as possible.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The same question was asked of the Prime Minister last year in June or July and we received the same answer. There are seven million people, the silent minority, who would like to know a little more about what is happening.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Steve Eugene Paproski: If the minister wants, I can handle this for him.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. First, I wish to congratulate him on his appointment. I hope he knows one end of a boxcar from another.


John Napier Turner: What's the difference? You tell us.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The difference is that there is a brake end and a non-brake end.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In view of the minister's discussions with the railways regarding freight rate increases, what assurances, if any, does he have that the railways will not file increases with the Canadian Transport Commission before the completion of the meetings with the four western provinces on this matter?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there has been no formal undertaking in this regard.
January 10,1973


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member for Joliette excuse me. I shall give him the floor in a moment, another hon. member wishes to ask a supplementary.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I lost something in the translation.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: No, you did not.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Since the minister did not have formal engagements and has no assurances, may I ask him whether, in view of the proposal in the throne speech to up meetings on this subject with the four western provinces and in view of all the briefs and submissions that have been made by farm organizations and the four western provinces on this subject for over 40 years, he or his department has prepared alternative proposals of any nature for presentation to these meetings?
TTranslation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know that my department is making a detailed study on this problem, and when we meet with the provinces we shall be in a position to discuss this matter with them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period but since it is the special responsibility of the Chair to look after independent members I will recognize the hon. member for Joliette.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Roch La Salle: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I bear the Chair similar interest.
I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Referring to the Speech from the Throne, the Quebec minister of social affairs stated that he thought it would now be possible to make progress in family allowances matters.
Could the minister tell us whether he has received new proposals from the Quebec government or whether he at least intends to meet in the near future the minister in charge of social affairs in Quebec?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have received no recent communication from the Quebec minister of social affairs. I have had the opportunity of meeting him and getting in touch with him on various occasions, and I am sure I shall do so again in coming weeks and months.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, January 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. J. Blais for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 52).
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is natural that I should be very deeply touched by the warmth of the reception that I have received from the government benches. They are ringing bells at the moment. They may be wringing their hands before I have finished.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I at once want to say that I never rise in this House without that feeling of diffidence that binds us all. There is a deep relationship of friendship between members sitting in different parts of the House. Always at the beginning of a new parliament it is a matter of pleasure to be able to join in welcoming the members who enter this chamber for the first time, and to realize that these new members have an idealism and a desire to serve that are of so high a quality that everything that we can do to assist them, we who have been here longer periods of time, should be done.
I speak as one who has seen eight Speakers chosen to the chair you again honour, Sir. I have been here a very long period of time, and I can say to you, Sir, what I have repeated on other occasions, that the ability and the capacity that you have displayed make your name one that will always live in the record of great Speakers of this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: At the same time, I must refer to something that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has done to make it possible for a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to be Deputy Speaker of this chamber. That hon. member is a man who has given himself in devoted service, and has become recognized as one of those members who, when he speaks in the House, has something to say. His knowledge of the rules will be of tremendous benefit to him.
I mentioned a moment ago the relationship between members sitting opposite one another, and I am going to say something at the moment that I have not said on any other occasion. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) has just suffered the loss of his mother, a woman whom I knew through the years, whose philanthropy and service earned for her tremendous credit in the hearts of all who knew her, and to him I extend my deepest sympathy.
Now, Sir, having said those things, I want to say something about the new members. You have been a great Speaker but, in my opinion, you have been hampered by rule changes that were made, one or other of them, under closure, which have had the effect of throttling the mem-

January 10, 1973
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker bership of this House during the question period. Only recently I was in the United Kingdom and spent several days in the gallery of the House of Commons at Westminster. Ministers there give answers. The first questions to them are questions on the order paper, but the supplementary questions are of a nature most devastating to ministers who are endeavouring to delude-I did not say deceive-endeavouring to delude by using a volume of words to conceal the facts. No matter how short a period or how long a period this House lasts, I would like to see a committee set up for the purpose of reviewing the rules of the House because, Sir, as I look back over a period of almost 33 years in this chamber and think of the greats throughout those years, I can only say that parliament lived before the changed rules so mangled the rights of members as to render the question period an innocuous exercise.
One learns. I think that every day I learn, even now in the autumn, in the golden autumn of my life. This institution is a great teacher. Through the years I followed the course of listening to the maiden speeches of hon. members. I could mention two or three. I have sent them messages after their speeches were delivered, regardless of party politics, for this institution will only be the cathedral of freedom it should be when members express themselves with that capacity and ability that were apparent in the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply and will, I know, become even more apparent as numbers of these young men and women make the most difficult speech that any of them will ever make in their lives, their maiden speech.
I think, too, of the two youngest members of the House of Commons. Thanks to the legislation introduced by the government we have a member in the House, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan), who became a Member of Parliament at the age of twenty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: May he ultimately become another William Pitt the Younger. I think, too, of another hon. member who represents a constituency with a quadruple name, Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty), who is brilliant and able. It is a great thing when those who have been here over the years see coming into this institution those in their youth who, in the years ahead, will make their contribution to this country. I cannot fail either to mention that for the first time in all its history we have the third brother of a distinguished parliamentary family in our midst. The late Senator Horner has already had two sons in the House of Commons, another elected recently, and they tell me that there are three more coming on!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Up to the present time, there has been no break in the high standard of their political objectives.
Circumstances made it impossible for me to be here the other day to listen to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). However, I read that speech, a thoroughly statesmanlike one. As I entered the House on

that occasion the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was in the penultimate paragraph of what had apparently been a very long speech. Were he here now, but he has left as he so often does, I would refer to that speech. I realize all the difficulties of a prime minister, Sir, and with the greatest sincerity I say to you that there were portions of that speech unworthy of a prime minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Our relationship has always been of a friendly nature, but I must say that for him to drag up that petty, shrewish and niggling suggestion the other day that has won elections in Quebec in the past, was something that I would not have expected to fall from his lips. I thought there was a new reform, that he was a penitent following the election. I have reason to believe that. He explained the reason for the outcome of the election as being the result of an incomplete communication. Well, I wonder what sort of information that million dollar menagerie of his gave him? Desks, subdesks and top desks, and yet he was not getting the feeling of the Canadian people. I hope that one of the first things he will do will be to demobilize that group.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I said that I thought he was a penitent. How many of you saw the picture of him going to Government House to advise His Excellency on the outcome of the election? He was dressed in a leather jacket, with no tie; the nearest approach to being in sackcloth without the ashes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: In the face of all this, he produced that speech the other day. It has been a strange thing to watch the performance since then. In Saskatchewan we used to have bush pilots who flew by the seat of their pants and when they were in difficulty they threw some of the cargo overboard. I am glad the Prime Minister has thrown away some of the cabinet cargo and put others in small containers.
Mr. Speaker, it is a serious matter when the Prime Minister pretends that he has seen the error of his ways. There has been a part reformation in the House. Today, we see some of these ministers! There were weeks and months on end when we could not identify them because they were not here. That was the first lesson that we endeavoured to inculcate throughout the past four years, that ministers should be here and now they are. The quality of the answers they give, however, has not materially improved.
It is interesting that he who condemned the monarchy and ridiculed it has, in the twinkling of an eye, become a monarchist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am going to establish what he did over a period of time in that connection.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: What is-
January 10, 1973


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, any time anybody wants to ask a question, I will be only too happy.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Get up, Joe, go ahead.


John George Diefenbaker: I am talking about responsible members. Mr. Speaker, this great transition reminds me of a quadruplet which goes:
The Devil ill
The Devil a Saint would be;
The Devil well
The Devil a Saint was he.
What has happened? While all this has been going on the Queen has been invited to go here, there and everywhere. She was not referred to in speeches from the throne on one or two occasions and while this new approval of the monarchy takes place various departments of government, including the Department of National Defence, have abolished the heading "On Her Majesty's Service" or "O.H.M.S." from their letters. No longer does that appear, but at the same time there is this pretended devotion to the monarchy. I am going to come back to that in the days ahead, Mr. Speaker.
What of the Speech from the Throne? Well, Sir, it was a remarkable speech, different from the grandiloquent parade of platitudes that characterized some of these speeches in the past. It must have been written by someone other than "I am ahead" or Ivan Head. You recall that he published the Prime Minister's speeches or at least wrote the foreword. He said, with approval, "He speaks like poetry". There is nobody more objective than the man who wrote the speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: What was the Speech from the Throne? Mind you, when you take it in the composite it is attractive. I have had something to do with writing the Speech from the Throne on occasion and I admire a piece of work like that. What does it provide? A rehash of the things of the past, an assorted mixture of a survival kit and soothing syrup, but it does not deal with the problems facing Canadians today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: It promises to do so in the future. Mr. Speaker, you judge a Speech from the Throne on the basis of past experience. Without reading at length, may I be permitted to read part of the Speech from the Throne of September 12, 1968. In the speech we are presently considering there is not a word about the just society. In the speech of 1968 we read this:
My Government is deeply and irrecovably committed to the objectives of a just society ...
On the next page of Hansard I find words to the effect that a just society is vital to the future of our country. Then, the following again mentions the just society. Where has it gone now? What happened? There is now the highest taxation in Canada's history, the highest cost of living, and the highest level of salaries ever paid to senior civil servants.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


Mr. Hees:: And the highest unemployment.


John George Diefenbaker: Where has the just society gone? The Prime Minister was asked in Regina on an open line show, "What happened to the just society?" I think it is only proper that the answer should go in Hansard. The answer was:
The next time you see Jesus Christ, ask Him what happened to the just society He promised 2,000 years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John George Diefenbaker: The listener could not understand that. I thought it might be one of those loose statements you hear about. A few days later the Prime Minister was asked in Wingham, Ontario, what he meant. He was asked if what he said was intellectual and Christian. He said that as far as its being intellectual was concerned, he thought it was, and as to its being Christian he said, "I can talk to Him in a familiar way and He hasn't objected so far." Where is this nation going? I will not deal in particular with the Speech from the Throne except, as I conclude, to refer to some things that must be established and for which there can be no excuse for not establishing. Of course, that remark has to do with western Canada. I am coming to that matter now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You took a long time.


John George Diefenbaker: The response from the NDP indicates that the party realizes that sooner or later truth must come out. I am not here to criticize them in any way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I think they are a very fine group. I congratulate them on the numbers they elected this time. In 1945 they elected 28, and 27 years later they have increased that number by three. Mr. Speaker, I am not a mathematician, but at that rate of growth they should be able to form a minority government by 2048. Even I do not expect to be around then.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I am always greatly impressed by the eloquence of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). He came to my constituency and spoke. I heard him and admired greatly his speech. I have so told him. I have been greatly interested in following the peregrinations that the NDP has followed since the election. I am thinking of that meeting that took place between the last of the Mohicans from the western slopes of the Rocky Mountains to the city of Winnipeg and the leader of the NDP. These two Oxonians got together and discussed things in general. According to news reports the hon. member for York South said he was telephoned by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and invited to the minister's office. There, he said, the minister in effect proposed some kind of alliance or coalition between the Liberals and the NDP. Then the Minister of Justice was asked whether he had made a proposal for an "organic understanding"-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 10, 1973
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


John George Diefenbaker: -whatever that is. This process, Sir, used to be called bundling.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: In the early days of the New England states, young men and women could not get together when they first engaged in a courtship, so they occupied the same bed, with a board between them. That was bundling. This is modern bundling, or "an organic understanding". Mark you, I want to be fair to the Minister of Justice, because a minister of justice knows the meaning of words. He said that it was not so much that he wanted to talk about the current situation, oh, no; he just wanted to look into the recesses of the mind of the hon. member for York South and see if he could find out what he thought. Was that not a delightful exercise? There was the Minister of Justice, a political phrenologist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I will not read these reports. A headline says, "Lang on carpet". That is no place for the Minister of Justice. Anyway, he was communicated with.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: Never mind, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South was seeking the floor on a question of privilege, but he has now withdrawn his request. The right hon. gentleman has the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interfere with a point of order from anybody on the subject of the study of phrenology. Anyway, those two got together and they talked. They shuffled and juggled and jiggled, apparently just short of marriage, and the hon. member for York South decided not to accept any "organic understanding". Well, this was one of the most unusual gatherings that ever took place. On the one hand there was the suppliant, and on the other one who was like Warwick. After all, Mr. Speaker, those who sit opposite live by the grace of the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I do not criticize in any way the vote on the motion to adjourn, but I do want to point out something to the members of the NDP and it is this! The leader of the NDP said that as far as he was concerned he wanted to assure that parliament would live, and that is admirable. He wanted to assure that the Liberals should have an opportunity of bringing in their legislation. While I disagree with that, none the less, there is nothing improper about that whatsoever. I do want to point out that the leader of the NDP on November 16 said this:
It would be improper for Mr. Trudeau to ask for dissolution if he's defeated.
He agrees that he said that, and as a constitutional authority I accept his view.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: He went on to state:
It's his duty to advise the Governor General to call on Mr. Stanfield to form a government.
There can be no argument about that, but what happened when the Prime Minister stood here the other day? He produced a monstrous doctrine that in the event the government was defeated on anything of importance, and he referred to one or two matters, then he would go to the country. There was not one suggestion that if the defeat were within the first couple of weeks, the first month or the first two or three months, as one or two members of the NDP had mentioned outside the House, that then the Governor General would call upon the Leader of the Opposition. There was nothing of the kind. The Prime Minister threw overboard any suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition could become Prime Minister as a result of the defeat of the government.


Erik Nielsen: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: On the original motion that is now before the House, if the government gets a vote of confidence then as far as the Prime Minister is concerned that is the end of the ball game here. He will stay on and on until defeated and then will go to the country. The Leader of the NDP stipulated this, and rightly so, that if the defeat came within a short time after parliament opened, then the Governor General should call upon the Leader of the Opposition. On the basis of that, I can understand the vote on the adjournment, but today that has been changed and Caesar says: If I am defeated I will go the country. Mr. Speaker, that proposition is one that is a denial of democratic government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The time allotted to the right hon. member has expired. He can continue with the consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: I again ask members of the NDP to give reconsideration to their stand in that the Prime Minister has departed from the initial premise that was declared by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). What is going to happen here is this: the Prime Minister will get his vote of confidence, that is clear now after the vote on the adjournment motion, and whatever he does, more or less, or little or more, if at any time defeated he will do one of two things. First, he may resurrect that monstrous doctrine of 1968 which I opposed to the limit, the right of the government after defeat on a budget item to come back to parliament after three days of grace and ask parliament to vote confidence. He has already indicated that I said that is what he would do when I spoke three days after the election. After all, I have not the time to read Machiavelli today, but I have heard the Prime Minister say over and over again what a great politician Machiavelli was. Machiavelli said, among other things:
Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.
January 10,1973


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: He also said:
He knew well how to counterfeit the fox and the hon. which natures, it is necessary for a prince to imitate.
I have many more quotes, but I will use them on another occasion.
This proposition is one that is a negation of parliament. If the Prime Minister would accept the proposition of the leader of the NDP it would all be understandable. If he is defeated within the next two or three months, will somebody acting for the Prime Minister, if any member of the cabinet dares speak, advice that the Prime Minister not then make it possible for the Governor General to call on the Leader of the Opposition? The leader of the NDP put forward a proposition that was thoroughly statesmanlike and constitutional, and the Prime Minister took and threw it overboard when he spoke the other day. What he said was: "I do not care-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know what word he would use.


An hon. Member:: A four-letter word.


John George Diefenbaker: He said: When I am defeated, if it is on a matter of legislation which I believe is necessary, then we will go to the country.
I want to conclude by a reference to policies. I note that Radisson and Grossiliers now have company. The Prime Minister has suddenly discovered what they found so many years ago-Western Canada. While I do not like to give special attention to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), he was responsible for one of the finest billboards in Saskatoon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot put it on Hansard but it was a large billboard which showed the Minister of Justice whispering to the Prime Minister these words, "They listen", but beside it there was a sign which read, "Yield".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: What did the Minister of Justice whisper to the Prime Minister? Well, two days before in Vancouver an individual was speaking to the Prime Minister in a most disrespectful and improper way. The Prime Minister was shown speaking to him with his hand up to his mouth, very much in the same way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: What did the Minister of Justice whisper? He may have said: Don't use those words you used in Vancouver to that fellow because that is what the farmers feel you think of them. I am speaking of a four-letter word followed by a three-letter word being "you". That must have been what the Minister of Justice whispered to him.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


John George Diefenbaker: Well, do you think the use of that word is restricted only to the Prime Minister?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I mentioned western Canada and I am going to make two or three suggestions. The Minister of Justice has endeavoured to the best of his ability to do something for western Canada, but what will be done? As I read that throne speech, it reminds me of my boyhood on the Prairies when one would see great castles in the air in the far distance; a mirage. There was not one definite promise. I am telling you that you are not going to fool the farmers with mirages. They have been ignored and forgotten in the past few years. What are some of the things that will have to be done? The western farmer has taken a terrible beating. The situation improved in the last few months because of world conditions, but the western farmer has lost from $350 million to $500 million as a result of the policies of this government.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: You know, Mr. Speaker, it is music to the gambler's ear to hear the suckers roar.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The Lift program was a complete farce. If that program had not been brought in there would have been available to the western farmer at least 100 million more bushels of wheat than they are going to be able to sell. The time has come to put an end to those gentlemen in their ivory towers in Ottawa who tell the farmer what he should do rather than take the advice of the farmer and farm organizations.
I hope I have some support from the Minister of Justice in the following matter. Our province and the province of Manitoba are losing their populations, and they are losing their representation in this House. When I was Prime Minister I think Saskatchewan had 17; we are down to 13 now and in the next redistribution we shall lose another. I think the time has come for an amendment to the British North America Act similar to those amendments which were passed, I think, in 1949 and 1952, to provide that an increase in membership will be provided and furthermore that, regardless of population, our representation shall not go below a set base.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I ask this House and the government to do that which was done in consequence of the representations made by the late Right Hon. James G. Gardiner, providing for an increase in the membership of the House, if necessary, so as to assure that members from constituencies in Manitoba and Saskatchewan will not represent areas so large as to make it impossible for them to properly carry out their duties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: In that connection, I must say I was one of those who was opposed to the Victoria Charter. If

January 10, 1973
The Address-Mr. Gillespie
the Victoria Charter had been accepted, as it was by Liberal, Conservative and NDP governments, and had come into effect, Saskatchewan and Manitoba would have been eternally second class provinces because they would never have sufficient population to equal 50 per cent of the total of the four western provinces. In other words, they would have to take whatever was given to them. I never fail to express my thanks and appreciation to Premier Bourassa for what he did to put an end to the Victoria Charter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Now, I shall say a word on the subject of freight rates. They are destroying us. I have listened to the Minister of Justice on this subject. At the end of the war we were discriminated against to the extent of about 15 per cent. There have been increases regularly-horizontal ones-since then. The result is that today the discrimination against western Canada amounts to some 45 per cent. I, therefore, suggest that one of the first things which should be done should be to pass legislation in parliament to roll back, for a period of five years, the general rate structure so that the present discrimination which prevents the kind of industrialization which the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion endeavoured to bring about could be achieved in larger measure in western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to see reformation, even if it comes awfully late, because deathbed repentance does secure salvation in Heaven. I am glad to see that the winter works program, which was ditched, has been brought back. We brought it in. And I should like to see the Roads to Resources program, which my government undertook, restored.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I speak, now, for myself on the subject of multi-culturalism. The hon. Minister of State (Mr. Hai-dasz) is a bit tough. The sum of $91 million is being spent this year on bilingualism and $3 million on multi-culturalism.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame!


John George Diefenbaker: I think the first thing that should be done is to endeavour to restore the ethnic language press in this country which was practically wiped out of existence in consequence of the higher postal rates which came into effect several years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I know the problem of government. Ministers carry a terrific load. As for the office of Prime Minister, no one who has not occupied that position has any idea of the burden it entails. It takes away that freedom and those holidays which ordinarily one would enjoy.
The subject of inflation was mentioned by my hon. friend from-


An hon. Member:: Prince Edward-Hastings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Two years ago the Prime Minister announced with the greatest of glee that inflation had been licked. Since then, of course, the new Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), who was formerly Minister of National Health and Welfare, said there was going to be higher taxation which would hit the middle classes harder. He did not get any good marks for that from the Prime Minister. But that has been the course-soak the middle classes. I have always been opposed to unnecessary government interference with the operations of the free market. I believe today, on the basis of the experience of the United States, that there should be brought into effect immediately price and wage controls so as to meet the problem of inflation which is today worsening at a rate almost beyond comprehension.
Sir, I shall conclude now and thank all members of the House for the courtesy they have shown me in remaining here through a rather lengthy speech, and for the fact that they permitted me to speak beyond the 30 minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to start by extending my congratulations to you on your election as Speaker of this House. Your eloquent turn of phrase, your wit, your patience and your wisdom are well known to us. These are qualities which are known here and well beyond the four corners of this House. I should like also to take this opportunity to congratulate the Deputy Speaker, a man who has a distinguished parliamentary career, a man who I know will serve us well. I suppose really one might put it in these terms: as a House we are to be congratulated on our good fortune. I should like to also take this opportunity to congratulate the mover, the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais), and the seconder, the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker), for their eloquent statements in leading off this debate. I know their constituents will be proud to learn of the fine progress they have made and the early recognition they have gained from this House for their abilities.
I have listened to most of the speeches made by hon. members and have read some others. I have been impressed by the quality and the seriousness of the speeches. I have been impressed also by the good will and I think the good sense already displayed by this twenty-ninth parliament. For this is a crucial parliament. The pace of events outside these hallowed halls will not wait for us. The particular perspective-and I should like to emphasize this this afternoon-is that as an industrialized nation, as a nation depending quite uniquely on foreign trade and our ability to compete in international markets for our standard of living, nothing could be more damaging than if we were to become the victims of bickering and petty politics, if we were to become preoccupied in an inward-looking way while the rest of the industrialized world went about pursuing its interests and maximizing its competitive position. This would be complacency in default. This would be a mistake of monumental propor-
January 10,1973

tions and one for which the future generations of Canadians would properly hold us accountable.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is a crucial parliament. It is a time to move on, not to look back. It is a time to seek solutions for the fundamental problems facing the people of Canada, not expedients. It is above all not a time for stop-gap measures. It is a time when the people of Canada are looking to the judgment and the energies of calm men, not to the frantic antics of ambitious men. It is for that reason that I think the perspective and content of the Speech from the Throne are so important at this time.
In my remarks this afternoon, I would like to touch upon that perspective and those measures for which I am responsible. Quite simply, the government's economic objectives are aimed at jobs now and in the future. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), in his remarks yesterday, has already referred to the special measures which the government has taken to alleviate the very special seasonal problems that we, as Canadians, have always had to contend with, and probably will have to contend with for many years to come-those caused by the very nature of Canada, the harshness of our winters, the enormous influence of the seasons on many of our enterprises, the vastness of our land and the isolation of many of our communities. Our situation in Canada is different. It is different from the United States and it is different from Europe or Japan, with their population densities, their large numbers of large cities close together, and the greater mobility of the working man and woman in those large cities and between those large cities.
I do not intend to recite all the measures the Minister of Finance has already dealt with in respect of the special programs. The point I should like to underline today is the future perspective. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, has already indicated on a number of occasions the programs of support. I think the right word is "support"- programs to support the ongoing health and competitiveness of the private sector, the major creator of new jobs for Canadians. I should like to emphasize three aspects of the government's program to strengthen and build a healthy, growing, job-creating industrial base for Canada. The first area is exports and access to markets. There are our forthcoming negotiations on a multilateral basis under GATT which we expect to get underway this year. Second, our bilateral negotiations will continue with the EEC, with Japan and with our great trading partner to the south. Then, third there will be amendments to the Export Development Act to increase the capital of the Export Development Corporation and to raise the financial ceilings for lending and for guaranteed export insurance in foreign operations.
The second set of measures I should like to deal with are designed to assist small business. I want to discuss and elaborate on these, and particularly the new initiatives to strengthen management and consulting services and to improve the access of small business to financial facilities to finance the growth of small business.
The third section of my remarks will deal with the question of foreign control and ownership measures mentioned in the Speech from the Throne to ensure further control by Canadians over their economy by the screening of foreign takeovers of Canadian owned business; mea-
The Address-Mr. Gillespie
sures respecting the transfer of technology from abroad and access to it by Canadian entrepreneurs; measures to increase Canadian participation in the ownership and control of resource projects and, in consultation with the provinces, measures dealing with new direct foreign investment and the sale of land to foreigners.
The Speech from the Throne went on to mention that when these and other measures are taken together they will contribute to the development and elaboration of a coherent set of industrial policies for Canada. I want to emphasize that phrase "a coherent set of industrial policies for Canada". There has been a good deal of discussion in the press and in this House about the industrial strategy question. To me, it is a confusing label. I believe it is also a confusing label to most people. I shall indicate to you the reason. I think most people have gained the expectation that all we have to do to solve everything is to produce some sort of all-purpose grandiose government game plan called, "an industrial strategy for Canada". I think this expectation has caused confusion in the business community and among members of the public at large.
A recent article in the Financial Times of Canada for November 27 makes this point quite clear. It indicates that it means different things to different people. For instance, it raises all sorts of questions with regard to the definition of an industrial strategy for Canada. For example, it raised these sorts of questions with respect to possible definitions of an industrial strategy for Canada: some sort of an all embracing, once in a lifetime statement of a national economic policy; a blueprint for the development of secondary manufacture; a plan to control foreign ownership; some scheme for government intervention to influence the structure of industry; a manifesto for the allocation of industrial resources by government; a policy for encouraging industrial research and development; a system of industrial priorities; and a policy for the development of energy resources. All these particular descriptions have been used at one time or another by one speaker or another to indicate what he means by "an industrial strategy for Canada". I would prefer a somewhat different way of designating our evolving set of industrial policies.
This is not to suggest in any way that the government does not intend to continue and accelerate its work to plan ahead for the future of the Canadian economy and the Canadian business community. I am simply being a little more realistic when I talk about the government's so-called industrial strategy as being directed more toward the development and elaboration of a coherent set of industrial policies for Canada rather than the almost impossible task of producing a master plan.
When talking on this subject, my predecessor, the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, spoke about:
-the need for an ensemble of co-ordinated objectives and instruments, i.e., policies, programs and institutions.
This ensemble or set of industrial policies is an evolving and continuing process. It is a process which is going to be flexible enough to meet changing domestic situations and changing international situations. It is important that

January 10,1973
The Address-Mr. Gillespie
these policies have a long-term perspective as well as the ability to meet short-term challenges, and I shall have more to say about the industrial strategy tor Canada, a coherent set of economic policies, of industrial policies, on another occasion. I want to lay that sort of background to my remarks.
I should like to say as well that my predecessor has undertaken a great deal of consultation with representatives of all elements of the Canadian community, and I certainly hope to continue this dialogue and this kind of discussion.
Now, I should like to turn to the three areas which I have mentioned earlier in my remarks. I will have to abbreviate to some extent what I would like to say on all of them. If I have time, I am also prepared to state a position or an elaboration of the recent initiatives in my discussions with respect to the auto companies regarding their pricing policy, something which I mentioned to the House earlier this week.
The three areas which I would like to emphasize are, first, that of expanding trade. I have already alluded to the trade negotiations. We will be entering, I hope this year, what might be described as round seven of GATT. The Kennedy round, which was concluded five years ago, was round six. We are well engaged in the preparatory phase of round 7. Second, the Export Development Corporation is a particular institution to which I think this House should pay some attention because it has been so successful in moving Canadian goods into the export market. As I have indicated, I will be proposing some amendments with respect to the Export Development Corporation.
In little less than three years, the Export Development Corporation has made loans in support of capital goods totalling over $700 million. This translates into the equivalent of about 100,000 jobs. Indications are that this could increase by another half a billion dollars in 1973 alone- the equivalent of another 70,000 jobs. This phenomenal growth is, of course, a reflection of the growing competitiveness in world markets of Canadian goods, particularly high technology equipment and engineering services. Therefore, in order to ensure that, as our export markets expand, the corporation can continue to provide such an important assistance, I will be proposing substantial increases in the corporation's authorized capitalization and the financial ceilings for the various lending, guaranteed and export credit insurance operations.
I will now turn to the area of small business, and in the course of my remarks I want to emphasize six specific new initiatives in this area. First, I would like to say something about the importance of small business in Canada. Hon. members may know that about 60 per cent of the Canadian labour force is working for establishments having the essential characteristics of a small business. Over 3,500,000 Canadians or 40 per cent of all working Canadians are employed by businesses with 15 or fewer employees.
Small business provides Canadians with many advantages, in addition to the goods and services they produce. I want to emphasize several of them. First, I should say that I regard it as our greatest source of entrepreneurial potential. It strengthens factors of fundamental importance,

such as personal independence and private initiative, technical and commercial innovation, and Canadian business autonomy. It is an essential element in regional economic expansion because it has a lasting quality, a growing quality. As the previous figures indicate, small business provides the economic livelihood of the majority of working Canadians.
Generally speaking, the most far-reaching federal consideration shown to small business over the past 25 years has been in the field of taxation and financing, and I would like to review these briefly so as to set the other measures in context. Successive governments have made special income tax provisions for small business. As you know, current provisions are that a tax rate of 25 per cent applies on the first $50,000 of taxable income, of business profits of Canadian controlled private companies. This applies up to an accumulated level of $400,000 of taxable income. The presently outstanding budget proposal is that in the case of manufacturing and processing profits earned in Canada, this tax rate of 25 per cent will be reduced to 20 per cent, effective January 1, 1973.
Regarding small business financing; in the past, the two most familiar to the House since world war II would be the Industrial Development Bank and the Small Business Loans Act. I would just like to emphasize something which perhaps is not generally known about the Industrial Development Bank. I think that it has had a success far greater than most Canadians realize. Its outstanding loans have been increasing at a rate of better than 20 per cent per year. In other words, it has been doubling its outstanding loans about every three years. It is estimated that by 1975 its outstanding loans should be significantly over $1 billion. Neither do I think that most Canadians realize that the bank has 46 branches across the nation, and has been expanding its branch operations.
There is also a wide range of other federal financing programs for assisting both large and small incorporated businesses in specific industries; for example, the automotive industry, shipbuilding, textiles and pharmaceuticals, and for assisting in specific phases of operation such as research and development, export marketing and financing, and the improvement of efficiency.
Most of these programs are administered by my department. They include the program for the advancement of industrial technology known as PAIT, the industrial design assistance program, the program to enhance productivity, the defence industry productivity program, and the general adjustment assistance program, about which I will have more to say in a moment. I am sure hon. members will be pleased to note in the latter case that close to one-third of the approved applications were for companies with annual sales of less than $1 million, and two-thirds were for those companies with sales of less than $5 million. The programs of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion have also been a useful source of financing assistance for small businesses.
But despite the existence of these forms of federal assistance for small business, there is still, in many areas, a need for greater access to capital, and although the situation is being continually improved there are new
January 10, 1973

measures which I would like to refer to at this time. In particular, the Minister of Finance mentioned the Industrial Development Bank in his speech, with respect to which there will be new initiatives. New initiatives might be in such areas as the financing of inventories, and also with respect to greater equity financing. The specific details will be announced shortly.
One major initiative to assist the financing of small business is the extension of the general adjustment assistance program, to which I referred a moment ago. I would like to emphasize that this will be given a different cast. It will be given the opportunity to help firms restructure so that they can take advantage of new opportunities, or improve their international competitive position.
As hon. members may know, the general adjustment assistance program is designed to facilitate access to last resort financing. It was put together to ease the transitional phase for Canadian industry following the Kennedy Round tariff reductions. It was modified at a later date to include textile manufacturing firms. Now, the new shift in direction will make that program available to all manufacturing firms, and to their service industries which significantly affect international costs of those manufacturing industries, an improvement I believe which will be greeted by all hon. members of the House.
There are many other factors in addition to financing which influence the course of small business. I refer particularly to the question of management, and to management consulting services. It is probably true that the management problem is a far greater problem for most small businesses than the financial one, and indeed sophistication in management practices in a small business, in contrast to a big company, marks the fundamental difference between the small and the large firm.
With respect to managerial assistance, about eight months ago my department started a pilot project known as counselling assistance to small enterprises, or CASE. This pilot project was started in Montreal. It uses the services of retired businessmen. I think it has been uniquely successful. CASE'S assistance to small business has grown from a slow start in March to 26 man-days of counselling in June and about 109 man-days in November. Since its inception, the Montreal CASE office alone has provided a total of 430 man-days of counselling, including the completion of some 70 projects. A second office has been started in Winnipeg, and we intend to extend the service as a national program. Five new centres will be opened in the fiscal year 1973-74.
The fourth point I want to make deals with the extension of regional offices. We have already restructured the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to give the regional offices much more importance. This change reflects a fundamental shift to local service-a new emphasis on an integrated one-stop shopping service for small businesses. As you know, Mr. Speaker, my department now has eight such regional offices in operation in every province with the exception of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. Our intention is to strengthen these offices and to increase their number.
Perhaps it might be of interest to the House if I were to mention that my departmental officials are meeting today, as part of a three-day seminar, with provincial
The Address-Mr. Gillespie
industrial sector experts to discuss present and future problems and possibilities, and I intend to follow up that meeting with a federal-provincial meeting of ministers of trade and commerce as soon as possible. I want to emphasize co-ordination, and our wish to co-operate with the provincial governments in this area.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at ways to accelerate the transfer of technology to small businesses, with the assistance of such agencies as the National Research Council's technical information service and, in particular, a beefing up of Canadian Patents and Development Limited.
In connection with small business, the sixth area that I would like to mention this afternoon is tourism. I think most hon. members are aware that tourism is one of the most rapidly growing industries in the country, and one which traditionally is associated with small business. The government has recently inaugurated a new travel industry development program. A major part of the program will provide productivity improvement assistance designed to help the smaller businesses in the industry. This, in turn, will facilitate financing, in which the Industrial Development Bank is playing an important role.
In the final analysis the efforts to assist further any particular sector of the economy, including small business, will only meet the desired result if they are part of a coherent set of measures for increased industrial growth and employment and, secondly, if such measures are complemented by continued initiative in the private sector in all aspects of business operation, such as technical innovation, improving efficiency, financing, and export marketing.
I would like now to deal with the foreign direct investment area. I think the reference to it in the throne speech indicates the importance that the government attaches to it. I might even go so far as to say that it is a key area in the Speech from the Throne. I consider it an area of fundamental importance to the present and future development of Canada. As indicated in the throne speech, the government intends to introduce measures to give Canadians greater control over the development of their country.
The foreign takeovers review bill is to be introduced with appropriate amendments. The new legislation will cover additional aspects of foreign control of the economy. Proposals will be brought forward for: one, the registration and screening of the establishment of new foreign-controlled businesses in Canada; two, measures will also be introduced to provide for the registration of new licensing arrangements and other similar agreements under which a Canadian business obtains the right from a foreigner to produce and sell goods and services and, three, I should like to emphasize in the takeover bill the greater identity of the screening agency itself. In the proposals that will be placed before the House, members will see a different kind of screening agency, one headed by a senior official reporting directly to the minister. In proposing these new measures the government will-

January 10, 1973
The Address-Mr. Gillespie


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. minister has expired. Is it the wish of the House that the minister complete his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alastair William Gillespie: In proposing these new measures, the government will not be moving into totally uncharted waters. A number of other countries control the establishment of new, foreign-controlled businesses. Still others, such as Japan, India and Mexico, are concerned about the terms under which domestic firms obtain access to foreign technology.
We must learn from their experience. But our situation is different and this is what I want to emphasize. We have to find our own solution. We have to recognize that as the neighbour of the great country to the south, one which has produced more technology than any other, our legislative programs have to be tailored to our own specific needs. I do not need to emphasize the fact that we have regional interests and strong provincial governments with their own interests. Because our situation is unique, we do not intend to propose to parliament a process whereby we will rush into this thing headlong. In that way, I think we would only end up with a Roman circus, It is far more important to introduce the measures in this important and sensitive area, which is of immense importance to the development of this country, in an orderly way. Therefore, the approach which I shall be proposing is as follows.
First, the foreign takeover legislation. We will set up a review agency and gain some experience in the screening of takeovers. This would be the first step. The second and third aspects would follow. That is to say, that building on our experience and after consultation with the provinces, we will proceed with the registration and ultimately the screening of new investment. I would hope that the third aspect, the registration of licensing arrangements affecting Canadian business, would follow promptly.
My learned predecessor was fond of Latin maxims. Let me quote one which is appropriate to the present circumstances: "Aut Caesar, aut nihil"-all or nothing. This approach has no place in formulating sound foreign investment policy.
The reasons for proposing the registration and screening of new foreign-controlled business are straightforward. A great many Canadians, including a number of provincial premiers, stated that the government's decision to review foreign takeovers did not go far enough. There was some concern that the proposed Foreign Takeovers Review Act could be easily circumvented by a foreigner wishing to do business in Canada by simply opening up a new business.
There are also a number of reasons for seeking more information about Canadian licensing of foreign technology. Technological advance is an important contributor to economic growth. In the United States it is estimated that technological innovation accounts for around 40 per cent of industrial growth; the estimate for Canada is a more modest figure, probably around 30 per cent in terms of the gross national product. Therefore, new technology is one of the most important determinants of competitiveness and export performance.

Canada is, and is likely to remain, a large net importer of technology. Dependence on foreign technology is difficult to measure but various indicators show much the same pattern: some 95 per cent, some say as high as 99 per cent, of patents issued in Canada are registered to foreign owners; among industrialized countries, Canada is first in the percentage of patents which are foreign owned and last in the percentage of patents owned by nationals of the issuing country; an OECD study based on four performance indicators of technological innovation suggests that Canada has the worst performance amongst the ten most advanced industrial countries.
Mr. Speaker, there are three basic ways in which we can import technology: through finished products, through licensing arrangements and through foreign direct investment. That is why I have emphasized in my remarks this afternoon that the licensing arrangement is an important part of this whole package. Licensing agreements are important because under certain circumstances they may restrict markets or they may affect the procurement of goods and services or they may require that any improvements in the product be ceded to the licensor, effectively discouraging research and development on the licensed product. They may also involve dictating prices in a way which would affect the Canadian company's ability to earn a profit or transfer profits. These are the same sorts of restrictions that concern the government in the area of foreign direct investment.
Mr. Speaker, a number of other measures have been taken in this area, but referring to the Speech from the Throne I should like to mention the following points. When the revised Canada Corporations Act is introduced in parliament it will contain a provision to require that a majority of directors of any company incorporated under that act be resident Canadians. This is not a substitute for a general policy on foreign direct investment but will constitute a useful supplement to the review process. It would give Canadians a greater voice in management decisions and make the management of foreign-controlled companies, as well as their foreign parents, more sensitive to Canadian interests.
There is also a good deal of concern in the country about the increasing rate of sales of recreational and other land to non-Canadians. Several provincial governments have introduced or are contemplating legislation in this area. At the next meeting of first ministers, the government will consult the provinces about the feasibility of federal measures to control the sale of land to foreigners. This package of measures constitutes one aspect of the government's efforts to increase Canadian control over our economy. The other important strand comes from efforts to support the development of strong Canadian controlled businesses, such as the program designed to support the development of small business which was referred to above; a reduced tax rate of 20 per cent on the first $50,000 of income available only to Canadian corporations; the deductibility as an expense of interest paid on funds borrowed to finance the purchase of shares of other corporations-to put Canadians on an equal footing with would-be foreign buyers; elimination of federal estate taxes, and the provisions in the present Income Tax Act to help keep savings in Canada. There are other programs such as PAIT and GAAP to which I have already
January 10, 1973

referred, and the IDB. The latter two have been used almost exclusively by Canadian controlled firms.
Let me sum up, Mr. Speaker, and I must say I appreciate the indulgence of the House. The policy measures I have discussed are part of the government's ongoing response to the large volume of foreign direct investment in the country. I do not have to remind hon. members of past steps affecting the major sectors, such as the control of foreign investment in financial institutions, broadcasting, newspapers and periodicals; the establishment of the Canada Development Corporation or the provisions in the tax system to support Canadian controlled business. These measures are not against foreign direct investment in any absolute sense, but seek to recognize the existence of costs and benefits in particular projects, and to maximize the advantages for Canada.
There is no retroactivity or narrow nationalism reflected in this approach, an approach that looks ahead to the future and not backward to the past. The review process is complemented by positive steps to support the development of strong Canadian-controlled business. Better performance from the Canadian business sector will reduce our dependence on foreign investment. These measures, Mr. Speaker, are part of the government's attempt to frame a coherent set of industrial policies which will give to Canadians greater control over their economic future and rising standards of living in all areas of the country.
I would close by repeating that these governmental initiatives in the area of economic policies and programs are designed to bring continued expansion of the economy and further creation of employment along with a greater role for Canadians in their own economic life. They are only one aspect of a throne speech which recognizes the needs of this country and reflects the government's determination to act on those needs.


Mr. lames Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I need not tell the House how honoured I feel and what a great privilege it is to be here, in the presence of such eminent Canadians as the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and great political leaders such as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette). Not only is it an honour, but it is also my great good fortune to be serving in a house presided over by you, Mr. Speaker. Long before I came to Ottawa I was told of the distinguished way in which you conducted this house, of your courtesy, your friendliness, your good humour and, particularly, of your great abilities under stress and tension. Of course, I am particularly proud to rise as a member of the party led by that distinguished Canadian, that man of courage, great determination and wisdom, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: I also want to add my congratulations to the mover and seconder to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and only hope that my remarks will approach theirs in eloquence and substance.
The Address-Mr. Gillies
I am also proud to be a Member of Parliament representing the riding of Don Valley, a relatively new riding. Only one member has represented it previously. It is an urban riding in the city of Toronto, a riding with all the problems of any metropolitan riding in this country at this time.
May I bring to the attention of hon. members on the government side a particular institution which is located in Don Valley. I am speaking of Glendon College, part of York University. Although I realize fully that education is under provincial responsibility, Glendon College is perhaps unique in Canada in that it is a totally bilingual college. Knowing of the government's great interest in developing bilingual programs in Canada, I hope it will see fit to be responsive to the goals of that college.
The problems besetting Don Valley riding are the problems of Canadians in urban areas; the problems of housing, transportation, and, more particularly, those of economics which are plaguing all Canadians today. It is to these issues I wish to turn my attention this afternoon; to those aspects of the Speech from the Throne that are concerned with the economic situation.
I am always surprised so many people believe that the type of economic performance found in any country, province or town is the result of some sort of magic and that they cannot do anything about it. This may have been true 100 years ago, perhaps even 50 years ago, but it has certainly not been true at any time since 1936 when Lord Keynes published his great book, "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: It certainly is not true today. The economic position of our country is the result of economic policies we have followed and the economic measures we have enacted; and certainly no one in Canada can say today that our present policies are anything but less than satisfactory. Unemployment, as we learned yesterday, now stands at 6.8 per cent, and will possibly go as high as 7 per cent before the winter is over. Although I am not keen to make international comparisons, the fact is that during the past few years Canada's level of unemployment has been the highest among the industrialized countries of the world. This situation was described by an eminent economist at a recent meeting in Toronto of economists from all over the world as perhaps the most shocking unemployment situation to be seen in any industrialized country of the world.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


James McPhail Gillies: As I said, I do not like international comparisons; they are often spurious, but the fact of the matter is that the unemployment rate in Canada is close to 7 per cent while the unemployment rate in the United States seems to be going down to 5 per cent. This is one comparison one can make with a high degree of confidence, because it is well known that the definition of unemployment in the United States is much the same as ours and the way in which unemployment figures are collected in the United States is similar to the way in which they are collected in Canada.

January 10, 1973
The Address-Mr. Gillies
I need not dwell on the cost to Canada of this unemployment. There is the cost in terms of human misery, as we were told so eloquently yesterday by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). The fact is that there are almost
600,000	Canadians who are not working now and many of them were not working a year ago. That is a national shame. The other cost to the country and to the government, is the cost entailed in the lost production that we can never recover. No one knows exactly what that loss may be. According to present estimates, it probably lies between $7 billion and $8 billion a year. In addition, of course, because of this high level of unemployment, many Canadians are not paying taxes who otherwise would pay them and the tax burden on Canadians fortunate enough to work is that much higher, because they must support the various schemes for helping those who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed.
As if our unemployment rate was not sufficiently shocking, we are also faced with the problem of inflation. We will not see the new inflation figures for another two days, yet it appears that the inflation rate in Canada this year will probably be at about 5 per cent and that it is apparently rising. Again, there is a cost to Canadians in terms of the erosion of their savings, and the suffering of those on fixed incomes is practically incalculable. What is also devastating is that our present inflation rate is higher than the inflation rate of the United States. There, the rate of inflation appears to be about 3 per cent, while ours will be at about 5 per cent. That differential may be of enormous and serious consequence to the future development of the Canadian economy. We all know that about 25 per cent of the Gross National Product of this country is generated through foreign trade and about 75 per cent of our foreign trade is with the United States. If we are priced out of the American market because of the rise in prices in this country as compared to those in the United States, the effects on unemployment could be enormous.
In short, the performance of our economy is perhaps as poor as that of any industrialized country in the world. We suffer from a high level of unemployment and a high level of inflation.
How did we reach this situation? Clearly by following wrong policies. The first great mistake made in Canada was in accepting the proposition that there is some sort of trade-off between unemployment and inflation; that the way to solve inflation is to create unemployment in our economy. This is a proposition that is based on the idea that the reason you have inflation is that you have an excess demand in your economy. One could argue for some time the morality of accepting the idea that you are going to cure inflation by having high levels of unemployment. Aside from that, the fact of the matter is that over any extended period of time it just does not work. The analysis is wrong, the application was wrong and the results have been disastrous. Inflation in this country is not the result of excess demand. In fact, even though inflation could be the result of excess demand, when you have a 6.5 to 7 per cent unemployment rate it makes no sense at all to think that the way you will solve the inflation problem is by cutting down demand. Such a view is simply preposterous.

The cause of inflation in this country is a cost-push situation, and we have to attack the problem on that side if we are to have any sort of success. We can see today the results of accepting the trade-off proposition as a basis for economic policy. We now have in our country rising prices and rising unemployment. We have both inflation and unemployment at the same time, and this is a new phenomena for Canada as it is for most industrialized countries. It is a great mistake to think that we can solve this new type of problem through the traditional use of monetary, fiscal and exchange rate policies.
The second mistake we made in the last few years, a mistake which the Minister of Finance alluded to the other day, was in respect of the time it takes economic policy to work in Canada and what the lags actually are. There is no question but that the government waited far too long to move from a policy of restraint to a policy of expansion after it was clear that the unemployment rate was not going down in the way the government hoped it would. Even today, with an inflationary rate of 6.8 per cent, there is still some debate as to just how expansionary the economy is at the present time. There is a debate as to whether or not we still have some fiscal drag in the economy.
If you take the budgetary surplus for the first eight months of 1972-1973 on a public accounts basis we find it is $759 million. A year ago it was $172 million. I realize there is a difference between public accounts and general accounts, but even so, the fact that there could be any sort of debate as to whether or not there is a budgetary surplus when we are operating in an economy with 6.8 per cent unemployment seems almost incredible. It seems to me we must find ways in order to interpret much more intelligently what the lags in the economy are and how we are going to be able to overcome them.
The third mistake was a failure to recognize the great structural changes taking place in our economy over the past few years. I have heard, as I am sure everyone in this House has heard, that the reason we have high unemployment in Canada is the great rate of growth in the labour force. We have a great rate of growth in the labour force, but it was very apparent in the 1960's that in the 1970's we were going to have this growth. People were already born, so it was very evident they were coming into the labour force. Moreover, we have known that in the past few years we have become a society of cities. We are one of the most rapidly urbanizing nations in the world. We knew the type of jobs people would need in the 1970's would be a great deal different from the type they needed in the sixties. We knew the labour force being developed for the 1970's would be one with a great deal more education than in the past. All of these things should have been recognized and something should have been done about them, but nothing was.
Similarly, we certainly should have seen by 1970, or even before, that we had to consider the impact of foreign investment in this economy and what its impact on employment opportunities was. We certainly should have recognized the role of subsidiary corporations in the Canadian economy and what they were contributing as
January 10, 1973

far as employment was concerned. We have had, and did have, several reports, but little action taken.
There is little chance that we are going to be able to absorb the people coming into the labour force in the future unless we can find ways of increasing our export trade in manufacturing. We cannot increase our trade in exportation in the manufacturing sector of the country unless we have meaningful programs in respect of foreign investment and foreign subsidiaries. Similarly, we cannot increase employment as we must unless we examine the situation in the service trades. But all this is in the past. I would be the first to say that hindsight is always 20-20. The important questions are, where are we going and what is going to happen in the future? All we can go on in that respect is what was said in the Speech from the Throne and what the Minister of Finance said yesterday. It seems apparent from what was said that we are to have some expansionary forces in the economy and expansionary fiscal policies, although we do not know to what extent.
I notice that the Minister of Finance in his May 8th budget referred to the fact that he was worried about injecting too much fuel into the economy; so how much expansion there will be we do not know. We will have to wait and see. The Speech from the Throne did not indicate that the government had rejected totally the trade-off principle, although it did indicate that the emphasis was being put on employment. There was almost no mention in the speech of inflation, other than that it is a worldwide problem, and then immediately there is a reference to a conference on food prices. It certainly seems to me to be naivety to the extreme to think that inflation in Canada is going to be solved by a conference on food prices. I do not believe it is unimportant to have such a conference, but at the same time if this is our major approach to dealing with the problem of rising prices, I assure you it will be doomed to failure.
It has been said there will be a new industrial strategy, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) dealt with that for a few minutes this afternoon. There has been some suggestion about increasing employment in the service trades. Apparently great emphasis is being put on expansion of winter works programs, which the provincial premiers said as long ago as last August would be too late. Apparently, we are going to see more LIP programs in an attempt to create jobs.
I know that the Speech from the Throne is not a budget speech and one cannot expect to have a detailed outline of what is going to happen in respect of economic policy, but it seems to me that surely in the face of the economic problems this nation faces, problems that are uppermost in the minds of all Canadians, we could have expected and should have obtained in the Speech from the Throne a much stronger statement about the direction this country is going to move in terms of fiscal and monetary policy and in terms of exchange rate policy. If we are going to make any progress in solving the basic problems of unemployment and inflation in this country, we must have a completely new approach to our monetary and fiscal policies. To even pretend to believe that by the sorts of things mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, such as the expansion of LIP programs, winter works programs and
The Address-Mr. Gillies
so on, we will solve our fundamental economic problems seems to me to be an act of faith which most people cannot accept.
Think of what was left out of that speech. Nothing whatever was said about monetary policy; nothing about interest rate policy or foreign exchange rates. Then, there is nothing in the speech about goals for the Canadian economy, and absolutely nothing about the reorganization for making economic policy. Every Speech from the Throne I have read indicated it was the objective of the government to secure full employment and price stability. These are the kinds of statements one always expects. But at a time when the economy has the amount of unemployment and inflation we are witnessing today, the Canadian people surely deserve more positive statements regarding the methods by which the government intends to achieve the goals they so platitudinously put forward. For several years we have been in a situation in which most forecasts made in those speeches have failed to come true. In spite of this, I do not see anything in that speech about the reorganization of the policy making process to meet the current circumstances.
We have failed to establish an independent short-term economic forecasting unit in this country responsible to parliament, although the projection on which the Minister of Finance based his budget last May turned out to be wrong. He said in his speech then that he expected .the unemployment rate to be lower at the end of the year. It was a wrong forecast.


John Napier Turner: What about the institute at York.


James McPhail Gillies: Surely, it is the University of Toronto.


John Napier Turner: How about the forecasting institute at York?


James McPhail Gillies: Very good. All I would do is refer the minister to some of my columns in the Star at that time. At any rate, it seems to me that the short-term forecasts have been wrong, and it is not possible to make policy successfully in the absence of accurate information.
The first thing that must be done is to reorganize federal policy making structures immediately so that we might be in a position to have better decisions.
There is nothing in the Speech from the Throne to suggest that the Minister of Finance intends to move to full employment budgeting. Without doing so, it is extremely difficult to develop successfully economic policy. The Minister of Finance says a great deal about the rate of change in the gross national product. When one is dealing with short term economic situations, forecasts of changes in the gross national product are not particularly helpful in terms of the unemployment situation. The very fact that the gross national product has varied so much this year with only marginal effects on the rate of unemployment shows it is not an effective instrument to be used on a short-term basis. What is needed is a projection on the basis of full employment estimates in order that we may determine what deficit or surplus we should
158

January 10, 1973
The Address-Mr. Lessard
be running, so we could be in a position to make immediate changes from time to time to deal with problems of unemployment and inflation.
I fully agreed with the Minister of Finance when he said that solving problems of unemployment and inflation would not be easy. It will certainly not be easy. But this is precisely why the methods described in the Speech from the Throne are unsound. Mere declarations will not do the job. What we need is a whole new approach to economic policy making. We have stumbled along with high unemployment and high inflation. We must be willing to accept new ideas, to approach the concepts of price and wage controls if they should be necessary, to look at the whole question of capital flows and their effect upon exchange rates, to take account of the fact that the structure of the economy is changing drastically. The economy is very different in the 'seventies in its structure from what it was in the 'fifties or in the 'sixties; the Canadian economy will not respond to-day to the conventional use of monetary and fiscal policies as it did in the 'fifties and 'sixties. If we fail to recognize this we are doomed to live for years with unemployment running at 6 or 7 per cent, something which is totally unnecessary.
It seems to me there was nothing in the Speech from the Throne to indicate that the government had changed its mind about the way in which to deal with the problems of the economy. For this reason, I urge every member of the House, particularly members of the New Democratic Party to my left, to join with me and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in supporting the motion of non-confidence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, at the very opening of my remarks, I should like to join those who have spoken here in this House during the past few days and express my sincere congratulations on the great confidence which all members of this new House have displayed in the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lamoureux) by electing him for the third time, which I believe is a record, to the high office of Speaker.
I remember with pleasure that when I arrived here in the federal parliament in 1962, it already seemed apparent to all that his ability would soon be recognized.

My congratulations are also directed to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) on his appointment to the high office of Deputy Speaker. Certainly, he enjoys the confidence of all members of the chamber, and I wish him well.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to congratulate the hon. members who have also been elected Chairman (Mr. McCleave), Deputy Chairman (Mr. Laniel) and Assistant Deputy Chairman (Mr. Boulanger) of committees of the Whole House.
As customary, I add my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Blais) and the seconder (Mr. Blaker) of the Address

in Reply to the Speech from the Throne for the skill and ability they displayed on the occasion of their maiden speeches and I am sure that their contribution to the proceedings of the House was, on this occasion, and will be in future highly appreciated by all. I wish them a long and fruitful political career.
Mr. Speaker, it is not so easy to achieve a long career in this House, since there are 99 new faces in this twenty-ninth parliament and there were 104 in the twenty-eighth. At that rate it soon becomes evident that the office of Member of Parliament does not carry great stability.
However, I welcome all these newcomers and congratulate them on the confidence they have deserved from their fellow citizens.
A new parliament has just started and the Speech from the Throne brought down by the government is in the opinion of all the best we have had in several years. Of course, it does not give the details of the legislation which will be introduced but practically every subject is dealt with. The document indicates what steps the government intends to take to correct the shortcomings and the errors brought to its attention during the election of October 30 last.
I thank specially the cabinet on behalf of all my constituents for the concern the ministers showed in respect of all classes of the society.
I would like first of all to make a short review of the agricultural situation and you will easily understand why.
To me, Canadian agriculture is more than an industry. It has been and it will continue to be in the years to come a way of life for hundreds of Canadians. Although a lot of things have changed in the organization and production techniques the fact remains that the very large majority of those involved in that occupation are in it because they like it and for them as well as for their families it is a way of life they would not want to give up and that we as legislators must protect.
We, Canadians, are privileged to have a country with a very fertile soil. We are also privileged to have enough men, women and children who choose this difficult occupation the value of which is not always recognized by city people. We must therefore examine seriously the adverse consequences that some of our decisions could have on agriculture in the immediate future and particularly for the years to come. If one refers to the information provided by the 1971 census, one sees that the total number of cultivated acres, as compared to 1966, has again fallen from 174,124,828 to 169,668,614, a decrease of 2.6 p. cent. Furthermore

and this should really worry us-the number of farms and farmers has registered a further reduction during the same period. In 1966, we had 430,522 farms in Canada, and now, in 1971, that is five years later, we can find only 366,128. More alarming yet is the decrease of the rural population, now totalling only 1,489,565 people, which means a startling reduction of 24 per cent within five years. In Canada the farm population in 1971 represents only seven per cent of the total, whereas it amounted to 10 per cent in 1966 and 12 per cent in 1961.
Mr. Speaker, such statistics should give us pause.
January 10,1973

For me, it is clear that we should increase our aid to agriculture, if we intend to check the exodus to the larger centres and counter all the social problems involved.
I am happy with the mention of feed grain in the Speech from the Throne. For four years, we in the province of Quebec notably campaigned to have the injustices suffered by the eastern farmers corrected. The fight is not over, but there is now hope, for the text of the Speech from the Throne is very clear to me, and I trust it is clear also to others.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote those lines once more:
The Government supports the principle of an equitable relationship of prices of feed grain to livestock feeders in various areas of Canada-
And this includes eastern Canada.
-It is the intention of the Government to implement before the next crop year, procedures that will ensure the optimum development of the feed grain and livestock industries within Canada.
However, Mr. Speaker, I want to caution the cabinet against a half measure now being developed by officials and which, should my information prove accurate, would be unacceptable to the Quebec farmers. I warn the House that after four years of struggle, I shall accept nothing less than an equitable solution. By taking this definite position, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on behalf of all eastern farmers who are exasperated by administrative delays and shufflings of all kinds.
If we do not soon get justice, I shall regretfully support the thesis of the Quebec Minister of Agriculture which aims at self-sufficiency, even though I know that it will be very difficult to apply and that it even has a certain percentage of irrational use of resources and energy.
I am now giving a severe warning. Our lack of action in this matter of feed grain has perpetuated an obvious injustice that cannot be further tolerated. This is why we shall not put up with half measures, and I trust that I have been clearly understood.
Obviously, I should have liked to speak about the marketing of farm products, the dairy industry which is very important for agriculture in Quebec, but time is running very short and I would like to deal with several subjects equally of concern for my fellow citizens. I will certainly have the opportunity to come back to this great subject of agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign the various welfare measures as well as their application and consequences were warmly discussed throughout Canada. Some contend that they are too generous and that they encourage laziness, social irresponsibility while others would want to get more assistance.
Very briefly I would say that people in my constituency are also worried about the sharp increase in social measures and, in particular, they have serious doubts about the relevance of the last amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. It seems evident that the recognition of illness as an eligibility criterion as well as the reduction of the number of weeks required to receive benefits has disturbed the labour market and made the application of the legislation difficult if not impossible.
The minister in charge seems to have been misinformed as to the future consequences of that legislation as well as
The Address-Mr. Lessard
the civil servants' ability to administer it. Delays up to five months and a great number of errors lead me to believe that we went too far and too fast in amending the former legislation. The harm is done and it will not be easy to go back, as those who are getting the benefit of the present situation will not see things in the same light. But with a few minor amendments to the legislation and especially a more efficient administration, somewhat decentralized-I emphasize that-things should improve. The administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act should be decentralized. It is too far from people who need it and has become inhuman. It has become the toy of technocrats.
I am sure we could easily correct the abuses and iron out the difficulties we have known during the first year the new act was in force. And those amendments should be adequate in order to improve the situation and make the law and its administration more consistent with the sound objectives the legislation aimed at.
The question of family allowances has also been of concern to my fellow citizens and that is why, Mr. Speaker, they are unanimously asking for the increase contemplated during the last session. However, we strongly oppose the measure whereby the amount allowed to each child would depend upon the family's income. That proposal is absolutely inapplicable. It would lead to abuses and costly and ineffective administrative complications and I totally agree with my fellow citizens on that matter.
They suggest rather that family allowances be included in the taxable income of taxpayers. Overpayments will be reimbursed according to the size of the family and its income. Without being perfect, this formula would seem equitable and very easy to apply. Furthermore, it is a means to achieve the intended goal which is to assist large families with low incomes.
The old age security program has also been the target of harsh criticism. Older citizens 65 years and over and without any income are still experiencing difficulties, especially in cases where one spouse has not yet reached the age of 65. Mr. Speaker, consideration should be given to the advisability of lowering the minimum age of eligibility to 60 for the spouse whose mate has reached age 65. Of course, there might be some requirements in order to avoid abuses. For instance, there could be a requirement that the recipients have been married for at least five years so that older people would not marry younger women, because there might be cases where 40-year-old women would be receiving old age security payments and this would not be acceptable.
I very often receive complaints about the annual guaranteed income supplement. In fact, each year, when people file requests to have adjustments made according to their income for the preceding year, we hear of grievances by people who did not obtain the desired adjustments or what they were hoping for. It is always the same thing and we must intervene. Even though people agree that those who have no other income should receive the guaranteed income supplement, this system discriminates against others who have saved and done without some luxury in order to contribute to a private pension fund.
25714-1X1

January 10,1973
The Address-Mr. Lessard
Afterwhile, they realize that they are being penalized in a way by not being eligible for this supplementary income.
I admit it is not easy to solve that dilemma in a satisfactory manner. On the one hand, we must help those in need and, on the other hand, we must encourage those who are able to do so to fill their needs. There are a few contradictions to it. So we must rely on the pride of people and unfortunately that has a tendency to disappear nowadays.
Of course, the Canada and Quebec compulsory pension plans will produce a long time result that fewer and fewer people will need the old age guaranteed supplement.
Until then, however, we will have to try and improve the present system while at the same time keeping the normal cost of this program and other social security programs within reasonable limits for the Canadian taxpayer who already finds the bill he has to pay too high.
As can be seen, nothing is easy in politics; we are always looking for a right balance. This is what various governments who led this country tried to do and, in the case of social legislation, it is certainly an area where the Liberal governments were particularly active in the past and they will still be in the future.
A lot of work on our part and understanding on the part of all sectors of our society will still be necessary before we reach a reasonable level of guaranteed income for all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the tradition in this House is that during the debate on the Speech from the Throne, particularly at the first session of a new parliament, the members go over the characteristics of the riding and the population they represent.
So it will be a pleasure and an honour for me to speak about my region of Saguenay Lac-Saint-Jean and particularly the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean.
First of all I would like to thank sincerely all the population of my riding for the trust they have shown once again by re-electing me for a fourth term to the parliament of Canada.
It is with mixed feelings of pride and humility that I shall endeavour to represent them. With humility because I am aware of my weaknesses faced with such a difficult task, but with pride when I think of the beauty and the dynamism of the riding I have the honour to represent for the fourth term.
The magnificent area I represent in this House, with three colleagues, is located 140 miles north of Quebec City. Discovered right at the beginning of the colony, the first homesteaders settled there permanently only in 1836.
Forestry, agriculture and later the development of hydroelectric power, have been and continue to be the basis of the regional economy. These resources have been responsible for the establishment of cities, towns and numerous villages along the Saguenay River and around beautiful Lake St. John. The last census of 1971 showed the total population of the area had reached 265,000 people.
Today, however, we worry in my area. In the last five years we have lost over 60,000 citizens, most of whom were young people looking for work which they could not find locally. Indeed, our large regional industries seem to

have reached their peak; they no longer create the jobs required by an ever increasing labour force. The exodus of those young people is a tragedy; if it lasts many more years it will cause serious problems.
The senior governments must at all cost help stem that bleeding away and multiply the job opportunities. Of course DREE gives some assistance but that is not enough. The areas in the vicinity also need additional help. I therefore hope that the decentralization of the DREE administration, as mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, will result in this extra help being given to foster economic growth throughout my riding.
Mr. Speaker, my area is experiencing difficult times. It seems to me that some people would like to cause more trouble. Indeed, it is not by reducing the number of spokesmen in rural areas that we will contribute to solve those problems. However, this is what will happen if the report of the committee responsible for electoral boundaries readjustment is carried out as proposed.
It is especially delicate for me to discuss the matter since my constituency happens to be the one which will disappear if the proposal concerning my area is passed. One might think that I want to save my job by objecting to fewer constituencies, but under the circumstances, the constituents of the entire Lac-Saint-Jean area have unanimously asked me to object to the recommendations of the committee.
Of course I am interested in continuing to represent the people of Lac-Saint-Jean riding, since that is exactly the mission they devolved upon me by a strong majority on October 30 last. But what I want above all, Mr. Speaker, is that the region should continue to be represented by four Members of Parliament and not by three. Whether I or someone else is here after the next election is not my present concern. In fact, it will be up to the people to decide who will represent the area after the next election.
Mr. Speaker, if the proposal of the commission is adopted as it stands, the three ridings of my region will have the highest average population of all regions of Quebec, an average even higher than that of Metropolitan Montreal. When you consider the scope and variety of problems, that is rank, unacceptable discrimination.
That is why I strongly object on behalf of all my fellow-citizens to the reduction in number of ridings in my region and also to the suppression of the name "Lac-Saint-Jean" which has identified the region so well for over three centuries.
I would like to conclude-the time allotted to me is nearly expired-by making a few comments on the results of the election of October 30 last as well as on the membership of this parliament.
Many Canadians have been worrying about the problems facing the economy and the unity of Canada. This concern and the attendant uncertainty were revealed on voting day since the duration of this parliament which is meeting early in 1973 is rather speculative.
I think that the result shows that we failed-in fact all parties failed-to bring in a program for the future which could have put an end to the people's concern.
January 10, 1973



Now, Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to say a few words in the other official language of my country and tell my colleagues that although I come from a region where the population speaks practically only French, I am pleased to assure each of you here that you will always be welcome in my region. It is a beautiful region and you will certainly enjoy your visit to my riding.
On the other hand, I hope, as a French speaking Canadian, that we will also always be accepted by others in the rest of Canada, and that the long battle fought for the recognition of our rights in this country will finally come to an end for the good of all of us as Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join my colleagues in congratulating you and your colleague on being chosen to the high office of Deputy Speaker and Speaker, very difficult and most respected offices. I congratulate you, and may the Great Spirit guide you in your work.
Before I begin my comments on the Speech from the Throne I should like to give you a little of the background of my family. My purpose is not so much to brag, but to give credibility to what I have to say here today and to what I will be saying here in the future.
My grandfather on my mother's side was a famous Shandalar Indian from Arctic Village. When he was a little boy there were no white people in his part of the country. He was a peacemaker with the people during the surveying of the boundary lines between Alaska, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. That was in the very early part of this century. He was born about 1850.
My grandfather on my father's side was a Scotsman from the Orkney Islands. He worked for 52 years as a chief factor for the Hudson's Bay Company in the Mackenzie district, in the Peel River country. He also was a peacemaker between the Indian, the Eskimo and the white man. Both of my grandfathers were very good friends and they did much for this country in the early times. My grandfather, John Firth, financed Vilhjalmur Steffanson's first expedition in exploring the High Arctic. He was also one of the first J.P.'s and honourary constable to work in the Peel River country. I hold up these handcuffs to show you Mr. Speaker. They were his, but he never once had to use them because he had the respect of the people, the Indian, the Eskimo and the white man.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter (Wally) Firth: Up in that part of the country my paternal grandfather John Firth, and my maternal grandfather Dinji Cho, were big men for many years. They died only about 25 or 30 years ago. I think they did very valuable work for the good of Canada and for the good of mankind in that part of the country. As a Member of Parliament representing the Northwest Territories and representing the native peoples of that part of the country, I will try to do my best to work for mankind and for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The Address-Mr. Firth


Walter (Wally) Firth: I stand here very proudly as a Metis and representing the largest constituency in Canada. And, if I am not mistaken, I believe I may be representing the largest electoral constituency in all the world. I speak of course of the Northwest Territories which has an area of 1.3 million square miles. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that any government in any other part of the world would allow such a stupid situation to exist.
The Commissioner of the Northwest Territories, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have travelled parts of my country, and they can vouch for what I have to say in that respect. It is an almost physical impossibility for one man to give good representation to that very important part of Canada. You must take into consideration not only the vastness of the land, the harshness of the climate, the difficulty of travel up there, and the extreme high cost of travel, but also the lack of a good communications network, and the fact that there is not only a diversity of languages but also great differences between east and west in the Northwest Territories. I mean cultural differences.
As I say, there are several languages spoken in that part of the world, and today there is still a very high rate of illiteracy. I was indeed most disappointed not to learn from the Speech from the Throne that that situation would be changed. Another omission in the Speech from the Throne that I was not very happy about was that the Inuit, the Indian and the Metis people, the very first citizens of this land were not even mentioned.
In my constituency approximately two-thirds of the population are people of native ancestry. They were at one time some of the richest people in this land. Today they are some of the very poorest people in this land. This is especially so in terms of very bad and dangerous housing conditions, the extreme shortage of housing, and the lack of good community services. As long as this situation continues to exist with the very first citizens of this land being the very poorest in their homeland, I fail to understand how one in this country can say, "I am proud to be a Canadian." That is a disgrace to this nation. That is the truth, and I am sure you all know it. I would suggest that it is especially a disgrace when this country can spend millions of dollars for a pie in the sky, or for something better known as Anik.
If the present trend continues, as it now seems likely it will, with the government and large companies in the south continuing their exploitation of the beautiful north, and with the south trying to make the north into something like the south, with big ugly cities, and all the pollution and other things that go along with civilization, without the people of the north having any meaningful say in the whole matter, then I am sure this country will be in great trouble.
A few months ago Reverend Father Adams of Inuvik, who spent 30 years up in that part of the world, who learned the language of the people and who lived with them, mentioned that if oil and gas lines are built in the north, particularly in the Mackenzie corridor of the Northwest Territories, there was a danger some people up there just might blow up the pipelines, particularly if those people did not derive any long-term benefits from them. I

January 10,1973
The Address-Mr. Firth
would like to add my warning that that danger does indeed exist.
It was only a few months ago that a hint of this situation was given when the court house, the seat of justice, at Hay River in the Northwest Territories was blown up. Give us six more years of a colonial type of government in the Northwest Territories, give us a few more years of school and job training without any jobs at the end of the schooling or training, give us five or six more years of people from the southern part of the country running our lives by remote control, give us a few more years of insufficient federal representation and I, or anyone else who knows the north as I do, can guarantee that this country will be in deep trouble in the north.
I do not advocate that the Northwest Territories should not be developed; I do not say that at all. I want to make that very clear. I do want to mention two priorities at this time, and only briefly. The first is that the aboriginal rights and native land claims for that part of Canada must be settled, and settled soon. When I talk about aboriginal rights sometimes I wonder about a land deal made back in 1871 between the Hudson's Bay Company and the Canadian government. I do not know who was guilty of the misdemeanor, but some deal took place between three parties without the fourth party involved having any say in it.
We should be allowed to have a more fully elected government in the Northwest Territories, a more responsible and fully elected government. Then, and only then, can orderly development begin. In the meantime, I believe it is important that a good prospectors program, a good incentive program for exploration and prospecting work, should be encouraged at this time in the north. But it should be carried out very carefully, and the people of the Northwest Territories should have some say about where such work can take place. I say this because I think we should find out once and for all if we do have a big storehouse of oil, gas and minerals in that part of the world, to be developed by Canadians for Canadians. On the subject of oil and gas pipelines, I think it might be wise at this time to take a more careful look at the situation and abandon the idea of building a large pipeline, possibly two pipelines, before talking with the people in that area. I think the people of that part of the country should be consulted before such work or such study is undertaken.
I also think we should look at the feasibility of building a railway line rather than a pipeline, and of course, Mr. Speaker, this all would be done only after the settlement of aboriginal rights and the native land claims of the people up there. I do not think the idea of a pipeline is wise at this time, but to some extent I would go along with the idea of building a railway. Canadians are good at building railways, I think, but pipelines are so specialized in nature. There are many arguments in favour of a railway.
I should like now to mention a few pressing needs of the Northwest Territories. One is in the area of housing. I should like to see some funds made available as soon as possible to the Northwest Territories government in order

to fully implement the report of the Northwest Territories Council task force on housing. This report was adopted by the territorial council in October of last year in Frobisher Bay, but I understand it has become hung up somewhere along the line.
To point out the desperate need for housing in many parts of the Northwest Territories, I should like to read an open letter addressed to the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories which was printed in a recent issue of "News of the North" which is published in Yellowknife. This letter reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
I feel compelled as both a social worker and a resident of the Northwest Territories to bring to your attention a matter which is causing me great concern. You have no doubt been aware for some time of the critical shortage of low cost housing in Frobisher Bay as well as the terrible substandard conditions of some of our present housing. However, in the event that this matter has not been brought to your attention, I would like to share some of my observations with you.
As a growing community of 2,500 people and a reported growth centre in the Baffin region, I do not understand why there have been no new houses built in Frobisher Bay this year. In fact we have lost six houses to fire this year and these have not been replaced or repaired and now stand empty. People are continually moving to Frobisher from the outlying settlements and yet there is no housing for them. It is not unusual to find new families of eight or nine people forced to move into the already crowded homes of residents where they must live in the hope that a house will become vacant. In the last little while there has been a large influx of young single people coming here looking for jobs; not only are they not finding jobs, but they are forced to sleep wherever they find room.
Not only is there a critical need for new housing merely to accommodate our expanding population, but the existing housing situation is a disaster. A great many people live in condemned substandard housing. In one matchbox which is certainly no larger than ten feet by twelve feet there resides a 70-year old lady, here two grandchildren; and three other related adults. In another one of these units which should have been destroyed years ago, a mother and her two children live with plywood over the windows and very poor heating. In all these units there is only one exit which is separated from the rest of the house by the stove creating a serious fire hazard. In many units plastic of plywood covers the windows and doors to keep out the bitter wind.
Maintenance is almost non-existent. People must wait weeks and even months to have a door or window fixed. Even in some of the larger homes the residents must use gas stoves and patchwork to keep out the wind and cold. One older fellow had to leave the shack which was his home after a storm left six inches of snow in his room. In some houses I have visited, the temperature is in the fifties and people must wear coats to keep warm. Contrary to what many people might think these are not isolated situations, at least not in Frobisher.
The implication from this lack of adequate housing is reflected in the life of the community. One of the highest T.B. rates in the world; seven serious fires this year involving three deaths, drinking is rampant, and past the critical point; family problems have compounded and dissatisfaction among the young people is growing like a cancer. And yet-no one appears to care.
We are constantly hearing about all the positive growth in Frobisher. We receive a one million dollar ice arena. Someone is building a $20,000 royal suite in the apartment complex for visiting dignitaries complete with $900 tea settings and $3,000 dining room suites. Yet the local people must live in dehumanizing, degrading and dangerous housing. Is this somebody's master plan for Frobisher?
I know you get a large number of invitations for tours, but next time you are in Frobisher give me one hour of your time and I will
January 10, 1973

give you a tour which will leave you with a sick feeling in your stomach. I know it gives me that feeling. Along with anger and frustration because nobody is doing anything about it.
I understand you are a sensitive person and one that cares for the native people. It is for these reasons, I am writing this letter in the hope you will use your influence to do something about this tragic situation.
Yours sincerely,
L. H. Thompson, M.S.W.
Frobisher Bay, N.W.T.
Mr. Speaker, I can vouch for the accuracy of these statements. I made my rounds to almost every home in Frobisher and everything the writer has to say is true. There is even a lot more to tell. Therefore, I ask that funds be made available as soon as possible to the Northwest Territories government for the implementation of their housing program.
Regarding the Local Initiatives Program, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the rules leave a lot to be desired, especially where the program pertains to the Northwest Territories. The cut-off date of May 31 is totally unrealistic for the north. I should like to see some allowance made for the fact that many programs cannot be started there until after breakup, usually at the end of May. Ice on the rivers and lakes prevents such projects as airstrips for communities and docking facilities from getting under way. I think this matter should be given consideration.
Another topic that has been making the news almost every fall in the Northwest Territories and many other parts of the country is the matter of search and rescue, a very important topic indeed. Millions of dollars have been spent in years past in searches for lost aircraft, particularly in the Northwest Territories. These millions have been spent in many ways looking for people who were lost. I think a lot of that is rather foolish. It should not be necessary to spend millions of dollars in searches if the money were spent properly in the first place to provide navigational aids, good weather reporting-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter (Wally) Firth: These searches would not be necessary if such services were provided. I know whereof I speak because I have flown commercially in the Northwest Territories for a few years. The flying industry is very important to the people of the Northwest Territories because of the vastness of the country and the lack of roads. We accept aircraft as a means of transportation to a greater extent than most people in other parts of this country. But we do not have sufficient navigational aids or sufficient good weather reporting stations, Mr. Speaker. This situation must not be allowed to continue. We are losing too many lives and losing a lot of the taxpayers' money on searches instead of using it to prevent people and planes from getting lost in the first place.
Another program which would prevent aircraft and people from being lost in the Northwest Territories is in the area of pilot training. I suggest that we could use a good pilot training program in the Northwest Territories through which the native people in that part of the world could be used. I think it has been proven that this would work because of the success of the native pilots we have
The Address-Mr. Firth
up there already. The program would not cost too much money as it could be run as a student loan program where some of the money is recovered when the trainee goes to work as a commercial pilot, an aircraft mechanic or mechanic pilot. This is something that should be looked into very soon, Mr. Speaker, as the program we have at the moment is not working out.
To fill another need in the north, a trappers assistance program should be initiated as soon as possible. The trapping industry could be a big industry, as it was before, but certain events have taken the trapper away from his trap lines, such as the building of the DEW Line which provided high wages at a time of depressed fur prices. Fur prices are good now and game is available, but there is no program to help the trapper get back on the trap line. I suggest that the cost to outfit one trapper and help him get back to the trapline would be in the neighbourhood of $3,000 to $4,000. I suggest that some sort of trappers' loan program should be set up to help these people who are unemployed in the Northwest Territories.
Reverting to the subject of roads and highways, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention the need for a highway in northern Alberta. This is not part of my constituency but such a highway would tie in with the Mackenzie highway system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter (Wally) Firth: The road that I am talking about would benefit the towns of Fort McMurray, Fort Chipewyan, Fort Smith, Pine Point, Hay River and that area. The road would be an all-weather highway from Fort McMurray to Fort Chipewyan and Fort Smith. It would, as I say, tie in with the Mackenzie Highway system. There is a great need for this road. I do not think it would be difficult to do, and ought to be done as soon as possible. I think it would be a wise move if either the Alberta government or the federal government were to build that road, since it would help to bring down the high cost of living in certain areas and also contribute to the tourist industry.
To sum up my remarks, Mr. Speaker, what I should like to see done for the Northwest Territories and its people is as follows: I should like to see the aboriginal rights and land claims of the native peoples of that part of the country settled. As I said earlier, this is important and in the next few days I hope to be introducing bills on this subject. Then, I should like to see one or two more constituencies created in the Northwest Territories so that the area could be represented by two or possibly three Members of Parliament. Finally, I should like the government to consider giving us more responsibility in governing our own affairs by replacing our colonial type of administration with a fully elected territorial council.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter (Wally) Firth: Then, we could move forward to a well planned, orderly, industrial, social and economic development of the Northwest Territories and, possibly, to provincial status.

January 10, 1973
The Address-Mr. G. Caouette


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, despite what my father may have said in his last speech, you will forgive me for not speaking to you in Ukranian. Unhappily, years have gone by and I have lost practice of this language.
Nevertheless, you will understand how excited I am to take the floor for the first time in this House, knowing the qualities and the competence of all my colleagues. One feels very small and nervous when one has to take the floor.
Mr. Speaker, like those who spoke before me, I wish to take advantage of the first opportunity to congratulate you as well as your deputies. I wish you had been beside me, like at the opening of the session, in order to benefit from your advice about Standing Orders and the procedures of this House. However, I know your fairness and I understand that, even from your chair, you will be able if not to advise me at least to show tolerance towards me and all the new members.
Mr. Speaker, given the very special circumstances which make me sit in this House during the same session and at the same time as my father, I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to thank him for all he has done for me. Without his efforts, both physical and intellectual, I should certainly not be here today to represent the people from Charlevoix. His determination, his work and his earnestness have been and continue to be a source of inspiration for all of us, especially for me. If a politician was able to defend and represent the essence of Canadian unity, I think he is the most outstanding example in Canada and that he still has a lot to teach, especially to the Progressive Conservative members.
I note with pleasure that, according to his habits, he can still criticize his opponents' actions, but unlike the other leaders of opposition parties, I must admit that his criticism is always followed by positive suggestions designed to improve situations. Therefore, I hope, Mr. Speaker, to be in a position to follow his example and that I will be given an opportunity to remain as deeply humane as he was.
Mr. Speaker, what strikes me particularly in the Speech from the Throne is the ease with which the party in office can write something and act in a thoroughly opposite way. Mention is made of equality of opportunities for all Canadians, of social justice. However, if ever one party acted dishonestly during the last election that party was indeed the Liberal party. At the very moment speeches mentioned justice, respect for the individual, respect for the law, mayors in parishes and provincial civil servants were being used to implement campaign patronage.
For instance, in La Malbaie, the social welfare cheques were delivered from door to door, on Sunday night, on the eve of the vote. And in Saint-Fereol, on voting day the mayor was driving the electors in his car, while providing liquor. Of course, I will admit that to vote Liberal, one has to be somewhat intoxicated, but this cannot be called justice.
Mr. Speaker, when people have money, they think they are allowed to do anything. They will even offer $50 per family to get votes. Then, on the opening of parliament,

equality of opportunities is being extolled. Mr. Speaker, I must confess that in the Speech from the Throne I should have like to see the government pledging itself to give up all electoral gangsterism and to promote once for all a sound and honest democracy. But, on the contrary, the election is hardly over that the defeated Liberal candidate travels through the constituency and tells the people, and I quote his words:
If you do not get on our bandwagon, your local initiative project will be rejected, and I will see to it personally.
Mr. Speaker, these things happen in Charlevoix. The guilty ones are the Liberals who are now promising equality for all. I must say that as far as honesty and respect for democracy are concerned, I have seen better.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Speech from the Throne will not be, as usual, a screen of hypocrisy, but the indication of a new government orientation. Whatever is being said by some experts, I think there is always room for rehabilitation as long as the brain is not too badly affected.
Mr. Speaker, on the subject of the Speech from the Throne, I can detect the likelihood of a conference between Quebec and Ottawa as the government wishes to, and I quote:
-increase employment opportunities in Canada.
And the only genuine expert in the matter is in Quebec. I therefore hope that the federal experience will not end up as that of Quebec with "Bob the job".
However, I would like to point out to the government that in a society such as ours, it would be high time for the authorities to refrain from hoodwinking the people and admitting that we have reached cross-roads. Either automation is encouraged and administration is planned so as to enable the individuals to profit by the technique used as a substitute for work through additional social measures, or automation is restricted and the individuals remain enslaved to manual labour.
It is quite well to promise jobs, but it would be proper to recognize the human genius and consider the drastic change due to machinery. It rests with the government to make possible changes, but instead of thinking it delights in the electoral demagogy of irresponsible promises. They promise an expanding economy, but they deny to the citizens of a whole riding even the right to live. They talk about aid to tourism, while at Pointe-au-Pic, a port in my riding-a natural oasis for tourists-they refuse access to this place to tourists. They spend millions to create parks and they forget to develop natural tourist attractions on the shores of the St. Lawrence.
In order to get votes, at Riviere-du-Loup, they invest-or rather I should say that they sink-$12 million in a place where sardines are stranded, while on the other shore of the river, the mere fact of improving a wharf would facilitate the development of a sea port to accommodate the biggest ships, as well as smaller ones.
For the past 15 years, they abandon wharfs in Charlevoix. Some are cut in half, others are breaking down at the bottom, under the action of erosion and sink into the river, a situation that has been experienced for the past 15
January 10,1973

years. But finally here we have the government undertaking in the Speech from the Throne to encourage tourism. So we hope that, contrary to his wont, the leader of the government will accept to visit the riding of Charlevoix to become aware of the already existing but undeveloped touristic possibilities and the amount of investment needed to make this area of the country profitable for the population which has now been reduced to asking for the designation of special area.
Mr. Speaker, reducing regional disparities, checking excessive urban development, those are reasons that lead me to suggest to the government that it become aware of the possibilities offered by the riding of Charlevoix so that it may keep its promises.
Now that they have put an end to the ferry service at Les Escoumins, which is unfair to forest producers, they are not sure whether they will provide the grants needed for the maintenance of the Forestville airport, thus depriving citizens of transportation in case of emergency. They let the sea invade the land in Portneuf because they would rather study erosion than prevent landslides by merely building a retaining wall. People like the inhabitants of Ile-aux-Coudres are left without emergency transportation service, because the authorities will not repair the piers so as to enable ships to dock along the island at night. Should an emergency arise, people are left to die because they are not important, or so it seems. Such was the attitude of the government in the past. Those are all examples, Mr. Speaker, of opportunities for the government to create jobs for people and to reduce regional disparities.
Mr. Speaker, the present state of mind of the minority government and the good will it demonstrated in the
The Address-Mr. G. Caouette
Speech from the Throne make me feel optimistic about the development of my riding but only the future will prove the seriousness of the government and its will to help the people, in particular those of Charlevoix.
In closing, I should like to remind my colleagues that, if before October 30 we were all candidates for a party, on the night of October 30 we were elected, by democratic process, members of a riding; but, and this I stress, once elected we not only represent those who voted for us but all Canadians. I trust that each one of us will remember, during the debates, when votes are taken, that parliament represents every single elector in each of our ridings.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the voters of the riding of Charlevoix for electing me and I hope to prove to them that they made the right decision by offering my services to each and every one, whether they vote for me or not. As member for Charlevoix I intend to serve all the people.


Mr. lohn M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to speak but in view of the time perhaps I might be permitted to call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, January 11, 1973