1973-01-08

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Striking Committee. As I would like to move concurrence in this report on motions I should like to read it. It is very brief and reads as follows:
Your committee recommends that the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates be composed of the following members: Messrs. Alexander, Balfour, Caouette (Charlevoix), Clermont, Comtois, Demers, Gauthier (Ottawa East), Grafftey, Langlois, Leblanc (Laurier), Lundrigan, Mather, McGrath, Nielsen, Orlikow, Poulin, Reilly, Roy (Laval) and Woolliams.


CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OF STRIKING COMMITTEE
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the first report of the Striking Committee, presented this day, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates(A) for the financial year ending March 31, 1973, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 59 I move:
That the Supplementary Estimates(A), 1972-73, tabled this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, of course this is not a debatable motion, but on a point of order I should like to say that while we accept this motion we do so without prejudice to our right to assert when the estimates are considered by the committee that they include Governor General's warrants. In accepting the motion now we reserve the right, if necessary, to take exception to the use of Governor General's warrants which are payments urgently required for the public good. Our
acceptance now is without prejudice to that right being asserted later.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask leave of the House to move a motion on a subject of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the wide repercussions of the recent duties imposed by United States authorities on Michelin tires manufactured in Canada, raising consequent questions about our regional economic development policies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion meet immediately with their United States counterparts for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Americans would rescind these duties until multilateral trade talks between our two nations take place.


Mr. Speaker:: Motions under Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity so the motion cannot be put and debated at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the worrisome precedent set by United States authorities in imposing a duty on Michelin

January 8, 1973
Oral Questions
tires, with possible international repercussions and a direct effect on Canadian regional development policies, will the minister now say whether this in fact is an isolated case as he indicated earlier?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister oi Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I did not make any such direct assertion that it was an isolated case. I said at that time I hoped it would be, and that continues to be the case.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, is the minister now aware that two of seven Canadian pulp companies which were recently hit by United States tariffs in respect of their products were also in receipt of DREE aid, and how does he propose to deal with this situation in the general context of regional development policies?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think that question is so broad in scope it would be impossible for me to answer it in terms that you would permit. I would be glad, however, to discuss it with the hon. member, obtain more specific data from him and try to give him an answer.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since both the federal and provincial governments have large sums of money committed in the form of grants or loans to Michelin, is any co-ordinated actidn being undertaken by the federal government and the premier and government of Nova Scotia toward having the special import duty on Michelin tires reviewed or rescinded?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The answer is yes, but perhaps my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is more directly concerned with what I might describe as foreign trade matters, might be able to amplify.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce should be allowed to reply to my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for York South might be recognized now. The minister might be allowed to reply to the question on this subject asked by the hon. member for South Shore, but I have recognized the hon. member for York South. We might allow him to ask his question and then come back to the other question.


MICHELIN TIRE COMPANY-PROPOSED PLANT IN UNITED STATES-MAINTENANCE OF CANADIAN PRODUCTION
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on this same subject. In view of the fact, as already stated, that both the federal and provincial governments have made large grants to Michelin and in view of the company's announcement that it intends to build a plant in the United States, will the minister inform the

House whether the government has obtained assurances from Michelin that it will continue to produce and export the number of tires it undertook to produce and export at the time the DREE grant was applied for and received by the company?


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in replying to this question might at the same time reply to the question of the hon. member for South Shore which I believe was substantially the same.
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, on the first question, representations will be made to the United States authorities-


Gerald William Baldwin: Will be made or have been made?


Mr. Gillespie:: Representations have been made, but additional representations will be made in view of the finding now made by the United States administration. On the second point of the hon. member for York South, the question of assurances, so far as I am concerned the commitment stands.


David Lewis: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether in any representations made to the government of the United States the minister or any other member of the government is seeking assurances from Washington that this unilateral action in the case of Michelin tires and in the case of some other products will not be continued in respect of any other exports from other firms receiving government grants in this country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.


David Lewis: Is that part of the trade negotiations continuing with the United States government? Are those negotiations in fact continuing and is the auto pact part of those negotiations as well as this problem?


Alastair William Gillespie: The question of negotiations with the United States will after confidence is given to the government by the House. I would expect discussions to start shortly thereafter. With regard to the particular point of Michelin, we would hope it is an isolated situation. I think it is worth pointing out to the House that this was not an initiative of the United States government but was in response to a complaint by the United States rubber manufacturers.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's statement that he does not intend to do anything about this matter until there is a vote of confidence I should like to ask him whether he believes a government that sits back and does nothing about this matter deserves a vote of confidence?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MICHELIN TIRE COMPANY-INQUIRY AS TO REMISSION OF DUTIES ON IMPORTS INTO CANADA
David Lewis: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, this time to the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement made by Michelin to the United States Com-
January 8, 1973

missioner of Customs that the company had been promised by the previous Minister of Finance, Mr. Benson, that there would be tariff remissions on Michelin tires imported into Canada, will the Minister of Finance inform the House whether such a promise was in fact made and whether that promise is still in effect or whether, as I hope is the case, the government has had enough sense to rescind it?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the preamble to the question because I was not party to any negotiations that might have taken place between my predecessor and Michelin Tire, but I can assure the hon. member that there has been no remission of duty.


CANADA-UNITED STATES-INCLUSION OF MICHELIN TIRE PROBLEM IN DISCUSSIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he tell the House whether the question of countervailing duties and our regional economic policies is one of the irritants in the continuing negotiations that will evidently resume after the vote in the House?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Not as far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker. As my colleague said, this action arose out of a complaint by a United States manufacturer; it was not instituted by the government of the United States.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs intend to add this matter to the list of subjects for discussion between the United States and this country when and if he decides to enter into such discussions again?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Like all members of the House, we hope that the question of assistance to various regions in this country will not be frustrated by action of that kind.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture?
Since there is an increased demand for dairy products, will the minister advise the Canadian Dairy Commission to increase subsidies for the next dairy year?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are having a meeting with the Dairy Commission one day this week, at which time this will be discussed.
Oral Questions


QUEBEC-LOANS TO FARMERS-INQUIRY AS TO AGREEMENT WITH PROVINCE TO PAY HALF OF LENDERS' LOSSES
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he inform the House whether he has signed an agreement with the Quebec government whereby the federal government will pay half of the losses that financial institutions suffer in making loans to farmers in that province.


Eugene Whelan: I would have to check, Mr. Speaker, to see what papers I did sign. I have no recollection of such a document.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Burnett Murta: While the minister is checking to see what papers he has signed, I wonder if he could indicate whether a similar program would be available to other farmers in other provinces of Canada?


Eugene Whelan: I can say as Minister of Agriculture that any programs under my signature that apply to one part of Canada will apply to farmers in other parts of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: What about Peace River?


FEED GRAIN-REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF SUBSIDIES
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Does he intend to take immediate steps in order to do justice to the Canadian or Quebec farmers, especially those from the Saint-Hyacinthe constituency, who have been waiting months for the $400 subsidy which has been refused or unduly delayed for administrative reasons?
I see that the matter makes the government members sneer-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member having asked his question, the minister could perhaps reply.


Eugene Whelan: I know that you, Sir, are personally aware of some of these problems in other parts of Canada than Saint-Hyacinthe. I am sure the Chair is aware of how just the Department of Agriculture has been and will be in dealing with them, and you can be sure we will deal with them in a just and fan-manner.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Until such time as an adequate bill is passed, does the minister intend to take steps to help the Quebec farmers, specially those of Saint-Hyacinthe, who face an unbelievable high increase in the cost of feed grains in the province?
38

January 8, 1973
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think we have made the picture as clear as possible. We are reviewing the whole topic of how to supply feed grain equitably all across the nation. If the hon. member has any suggestions on how we can act any better or any faster, I would be pleased to hear them.


OLD AGE SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the general reference in the throne speech to the taking of steps to improve the economic conditions of old age pensioners, may I ask the minister if those steps will include an increase in the basic amount of the old age security pension? Will they also include a lowering of the eligibility age?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be able to make a statement in the House on this subject later on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When is "later on"? Could it be this week?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the government about to notify all local initiative project organizers that they are no longer eligible for unemployment insurance benefits?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, this kind of ruling emanates from the Department of National Revenue. In light of the story that appeared in the press this morning I have asked my officials to review that aspect of it, and I shall be able to advise the House further after discussions have been completed.


John Allen Fraser: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can the government assure this House that organizers of local initiative projects who are contributing to the unemployment insurance fund will remain eligible for unemployment insurance benefits?


Mr. Andras:: Mr. Speaker, I would not give that assurance until I have completed the examination to which I have referred. I can, of course, assure the hon. member, and through him those people affected, that if they are not eligible for benefits all the premiums they have paid into

the fund will be refunded to them. But until this examination is completed I would not go further at this stage.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister tell us if the reports that have appeared in the newspapers today, to which he alluded, indicate a change of policy on behalf of the government?


Robert Knight Andras: No, Mr. Speaker, they do not indicate a change of policy. As I indicated in my earlier answer, that decision was made by the Department of National Revenue ruling whether the person involved was an employer or not for the purpose of getting unemployment insurance benefits. What I am saying is that we are reviewing that decision with the various departments involved.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Canadian government proposed a meeting with the other three countries that have been proposed for a peacekeeping role in Viet Nam-Hungary, Indonesia and Poland-to work out satisfactory conditions for carrying out such a role and, if not, does the Canadian government intend to propose such a meeting in the very near future?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is simply no. However, we have been in touch with representatives of these countries. Since we have not made a decision to participate, of course it would not be appropriate for us to have meetings on the basis of which we would be committed.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, since we all hope that the time is coming very close when such a peacekeeping role will be necessary, is the government simply going to allow itself to drift along once again into a situation of this kind without doing any preparatory work-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -as has often been the case in the past?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member realizes that a question in those terms is not in order.


INCOME TAX
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In elaboration on the reply given by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition the other day, would the minister advise the House if it is the intention of the
January 8, 1973

government to reintroduce what was known as Bill C-222 immediately or within the next few days rather than wait for the budget that may come in the weeks ahead?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I thought I dealt with that in some detail on Friday. I am having consultations with the House leader as to the best way of reintroducing the substance of Bill C-222.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Without waiting for the budget?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the issue is open until I have had a full opportunity to canvass this with my colleagues.


PROVISION OF FORMS FOR 1972 RETURNS
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary either to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister's decision have any effect on when taxpayers will be able to secure the proper forms for tax returns for last year?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. Preparation of the tax return forms takes about three and a half months. The decision was made in the middle of last September to prepare them so that they could go out starting this week, I hope, in order that people entitled to refunds could file and have their returns processed as quickly as possible.


Gerald William Baldwin: Have you got enough trucks to send them out?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West.
(Translation]


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member, on a point of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, 1 can understand why you are used to seeing me sit on the other side of the House but I must point out to you that I am here now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: I got up at least half a dozen times.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not see the hon. member but I did hear him. I shall recognize him in a moment.

For the moment I recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West.
Oral Questions MANPOWER


LOCAL INITIATIVE PROGRAMS-APPROVAL OF PROJECTS AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the fact the minister indicated on December 6 that he would direct his officials to process LIP programs in order that the new funds in the sum of some $80 million could be allocated immediately and since we are now in January, can the minister inform the House whether all the funds have now been distributed? I understand that some $50 million worth of projects are sitting on his desk awaiting approval.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, they are not sitting on my desk awaiting my approval but about $50 million of the fund is still being examined in terms of the some 11,000 project applications we have had and we are processing these just as quickly as possible.


An hon. Member:: Are they for summer employment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of members would like to ask supplementaries but perhaps in fairness the Chair should recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue. I recognize that he should have been called before. I realize that there are a number of supplementaries on the subject raised by the hon. member for Hamilton West, but I now recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue and we will take the supplementaries later.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I am afraid of over here is the questions of the Progressive Conservatives.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
I apologize for coming back to this matter, but since Friday has his department had further communications with the provincial authorities of Quebec in connection with the CIP plant in Temiscaming?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, not specifically with regard to that particular project. The consultation to which I referred on Friday was with the minister, my counterpart in the province of Quebec, and it related to a meeting which we are proposing to hold later this week and at which I have no doubt the Temiscaming question as well as a number of others will be discussed.
40

January 8, 1973
Oral Questions


POSSIBILITY OF DECLARING TEMISCAMING SPECIAL AREA
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Is it the intention of the minister or his department to designate the town of Temiscaming as a "special area"?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, this would be part of any proposal that we might be able to work out in order to assist this particular project. As the hon. member knows, it is quite complex from a variety of angles and this is what we are looking at now not only in consultation with Quebec; I hope also to talk with the promoters of the project.


MANPOWER
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in view of the enlightening statement he just made in regard to the $50 million which apparently means some 50,000 jobs. Can the minister inform the House when he intends to have the balance of this money allocated? Can he give us some indication of when this money will be distributed?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I could not give a precise date, but in all sincerity, it will be done just as quickly as it can be done wisely.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. In view of the concern about inflation and price increases expressed in the Speech from the Throne, will the Minister of Communications make a statement on motions concerning the government's attitude toward Bell Canada's imminent application for a rate increase?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I do not deem it necessary to make a statement on this subject at the moment. The hon. member knows that hearings before the Transport Commission have begun today or will in a day or two. Therefore, I do not think it would be appropriate to make a statement at this time. However, if it became clear that such a declaration were needed, I would not hesitate to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Calgary North. Perhaps we might allow a supplementary to the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister assure the House that he will at least draw the attention of the Canadian Transport Commission to the fact that two of Bell's subsidiaries in the fiscal year 1971-72 received $8.8 million in federal grants, according to the public accounts released today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member will appreciate that that is a representation. The hon. member for Calgary North.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS DATE OF CONFERENCE WITH WESTERN PROVINCES- AGENDA
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the date has been set for the proposed conference between the federal government and British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and whether a statement will be made to the House as to the priorities that will be discussed in reference to the economic opportunities as mentioned in the Speech from the Throne at that western conference?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as to the date, none has been set. The announcement, of course, was only made last week in the Speech from the Throne and exchanges are now taking place between the provinces and myself to try to find a date and place for that conference as well as a proper agenda. On the second part of the question, the hon. member will see that in the Speech from the Throne itself several examples of things that we think should be discussed are given there.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one supplementary following what the Prime Minister said. Is the Prime Minister considering discussing with the western provinces in particular that phase of the change in taxation under which the estate tax was abolished and replaced by a capital gains tax so that those provinces will share, as they did in the previous tax provisions, to the extent of 75 per cent of the national revenue?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we will refuse to discuss no subject which is placed on the agenda by the provinces themselves. I would hope that at this particular conference we would especially consider items which have to do particularly with the economic development of the western provinces and not necessarily with subjects that are common to all provinces, or a multitude of provinces, and which can be discussed at other forums such as the finance ministers' meetings.
January 8, 1973


MANPOWER
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Hamilton West of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the deep concern on the part of organizations, particularly in areas of high unemployment, over the delays in having their local initiatives projects approved, would the minister investigate the reasons for the delays and make a statement on motions at the earliest possible opportunity outlining the reasons for the difficulties, the state of progress at present and the expected date of final approvals?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will give that request consideration.


ACTION TO EXPEDITE DEPARTMENTAL LABOUR-INTENSIVE PROJECTS
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Under the $60 million federal labour-intensive program to bring forward departmental projects contemplated for future years, what action has the minister taken to put this program into effect and what criteria are being used as to the allocation of funds among the various departments and regions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume the hon. member would expect the minister to give that information by way of a statement on motions.


LOCAL INITIATIVE PROGRAMS-ALLEGED DELAY IN CONSIDERING APPLICATIONS FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Could the Minister of Manpower and Immigration explain to the House why it was, particularly in British Columbia, according to my personal knowledge, that all LIP applications for municipalities were postponed and given the last possible consideration for approval, thus preventing many municipalities from implementing programs before Christmas?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I was most certainly not aware of that condition. If the hon. member can give me details, I will be glad to investigate. As it stands now, I was not aware of that situation.


TRANSPORT
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Does the minister propose any particular action to forestall the closing of
Oral Questions
many railway stations in western Canada, many of which are revenue producing?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: In my
opinion, Mr. Speaker, the question is somewhat of a general nature and I would like to know the names of the stations referred to by the hon. member. I shall then be in a position to give him an answer.


Stanley James Korchinski: Does the minister plan to have any meetings with the provincial authorities on this whole question, at which time all those names will be placed before him?


Jean Marchand: I say, Mr. Speaker, that I will meet the provinces not only on this but on the freight rate problem and many other problems as well.


Stanley James Korchinski: When?


Jean Marchand: After the throne speech debate.


Gerald William Baldwin: Which one?


Stanley James Korchinski: The minister is on record, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the House whether his department is looking into the possibility of postponing the 1975 date for rail line abandonment, in conjunction with the problem raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie?


Some hon. Members:: Answer!


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


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister a question relating to the abandonment of rail lines by 1975 under applications by the railways to the Canadian Transport Commission. I hope the minister will inform himself about this major problem facing western Canada. I ask the minister again if there will be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has already asked his question.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Can the minister give the House some information as to when he intends to bring in amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act and whether we can anticipate legislation before the end of January?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I am not in control

January 8, 1973
Oral Questions
of the House timetable. I will discuss this with the House leader.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a brief supplementary to the government House leader. Can he indicate what priority the government attaches at present to amending the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other related acts of the parliament of this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that point, while we attach importance to changes to be made in that piece of legislation, I would not think that we could expect to see any bill for some time yet, certainly not in January.


LABOUR RELATIONS
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Can he assure the House and country that his department is making every effort to keep management and labour at the bargaining table in the B.C. dock workers labour dispute?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would advise the hon. member that the parties had a ten-hour session on Friday. Much was accomplished. I think the parties intend to meet again to endeavour to resolve this dispute.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is management prepared to go back to the bargaining table after the session on Friday?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have had no indication to the contrary yet.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Solicitor General.
Since several prisoners committed suicide lately in many penitentiaries and since a sixteen-year-old inmate of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary hanged himself in his cell last Friday, will the hon. minister do something about that matter?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I was informed about this unfortunate incident last Friday and asked for a full report. It seems that the unfortunate young man was seen in his cell at 11.30 p.m. and was found dead half an hour later. I have asked for a full report and will provide details to the House as soon as possible.


Léonel Beaudoin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Will the inquiry the minister intends to hold also touch upon the suspected drug traffic in federal penal institutions?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for another report on the drug problem arising from another incident that took place at the Leclair Institute on the weekend. I hope to have a full report on that as well, but that is a separate inquiry:


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the House when the new regulations affecting new air charter flights will be officially announced by the Canadian Transport Commission?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly when it will be. I know it is under study and as soon as I have any information I will be happy to communicate it to the hon. member.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As the regulations have not been officially released at this time, would the minister be prepared to investigate why some airlines and some air charter firms are advertising and indeed promoting new charter flight schedules based on the new rules?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will look into this.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Harry Olaussen (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the House whether Canadian National Railways has yet decided to commit itself to some agreement with the British Columbia Railway with regard to a possible connecting line in the Squamish-Lillooet area of British Columbia in order to provide an alternate route to Vancouver?


Jean Marchand: I do not
think an agreement has yet been reached but I believe that many meetings have been held between the two railways and I am hopeful that within a very short while-it may be a matter of days-an agreement can be reached by them.
January 8, 1973


Harry Magnus Olaussen: Would the minister undertake to make a statement on motions at the conclusion of these discussions?


Jean Marchand: I do not think it would be necessary if an agreement should be reached. The hon. gentleman would only have to read the agreement.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Can the Postmaster General inform the House when the conciliation report providing a fair deal for the 8,000 members of the Canadian Postmasters Association serving small town and rural communities will be brought down?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the report has already been made public. It has been given to the employees who have considered it and are now voting on it. I think that the hon. member can easily get a copy of this report.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am referring to the conciliation report dealing with the 8,000 members of the Canadian Postmasters Association in small town and rural communities. The reason my question is urgent is that the last contract expired in September and the present rates are altogether inequitable. Could the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member will allow the minister to reply.


André Ouellet: I am going to check, Mr. Speaker-


INQUIRY RESPECTING DELEGATION OF OBSERVERS TO POSTAL WORKERS' MEETINGS
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Could the minister state whether, when meetings do take place to consider the pros and cons of the vote concerning going on strike or not, at the Post Office Department, his department intends to send observers in order to find out exactly what is going on?


André Ouellet: The vote ends today, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY AS TO ACCEPTANCE BY GOVERNMENT OF CONCILIATION BOARD REPORTS ON DISPUTE WITH POSTAL WORKERS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I have a supplementary for the President of the Treasury Board. In view
Oral Questions
of the fact that balloting has concluded, can the hon. gentleman inform us whether or not the government intends to accept the report from the conciliation board on the postal situation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do
not think the result of the balloting is yet known.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister and it is really supplementary to a question asked of him earlier. Will the right hon. gentleman tell the House whether he is planning any further federal-provincial conferences for other areas of the country when economic conditions reach the same deplorable state there as they have reached in the west?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is hypothetical.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the numerous pleas which were made to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Transport, requesting their personal intervention concerning the problems inflicted on the residents of Sea island by the proposed road building and runway expansion at Vancouver International Airport, may I ask whether it is the intention of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Transport to meet personally with the people involved and investigate their charges of injustice and discrimination?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have had some exchanges with these people by way of correspondence, and so has the previous Minister of Transport. My recollection of the matter is that the representations made in their last letter to me had been sufficiently answered by the then Minister of Transport. A copy of the letter was sent to myself. I will check whether there has been any further arrival of representations to myself or to the Minister of Transport in recent weeks.


John Douglas Reynolds: Would the Minister of Transport see fit to meet with these people before the meeting which is to be held on January 17 regarding access to the bridge, and would he also discuss at that time the meeting being held today in Vancouver concerning the airport?


Jean Marchand: If there are any complaints and anybody wishes to meet with me I will look into the file and be ready to arrange such a meeting if it seems useful.

January 8, 1973
Oral Questions FISHERIES


EAST COAST SALMON FISHING BAN-PROVISION OF APPEAL PROCEDURE RESPECTING COMPENSATION TO FISHERMEN
Mr. G. A. Percy Smith (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and it relates to the ban on salmon fishing on the east coast of Canada. Having in mind the widespread concern expressed by salmon fishermen over the amount of the final payment in respect of compensation for loss of income, will the minister consider immediately an appeal procedure for the fishermen who feel they were treated unfairly by his department?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister ol Fisheries):: The answer, of course, Mr. Speaker, is yes. I will personally take an interest in any appeal under this unique program. If the hon. member knows of individual cases where I can be of assistance I shall be glad to review them personally.


Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Since there is evidently an appeal procedure, will the minister show some interest in the fisheries, back up the promises which were made and investigate from an Ottawa standpoint this whole sorry mess?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the high unemployment in the Northwest Territories and in view of the concern felt by a number of people who were working on the Hire North project-the clearing of a right of way in the Northwest Territories-that they will be laid off, would the minister be willing to make a statement at this time to alleviate their anxiety?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister oi Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, following representations we received, work resumed this morning on the work site and all the Indians who were working on this project and who report for duty in the coming days will be hired and we hope to start a new project that will be carried on later during the year.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Could the minister give the House his assurance that the Mackenzie corridor, sometimes called highway or road, has not, in fact, been abandoned but will be a continuing project?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we did not decide to stop the construction of the Mackenzie Highway, we are proceeding with it. But, as we should, we must take into account

both the interests of the Indians and those of ecology, and that is why we are proceeding at a speed that allows for the hiring of Indians and the protection of the environment.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, January 5, 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.
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I say how pleased we are to see you in what has become to us your accustomed place, and to give you my renewed assurance of our co-operation and confidence in you in the discharge of your arduous duties and responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish also to extend my personal best wishes and, if I may, cordial welcome to the new members among us, approximately 60 of whom sit on this side of the House in this party. I think they have all sensed, as I have, that this may well be one of the most interesting and challenging parliaments in our history. I share with them a sense of deep responsibility, and the hope that what we do here during this parliament will add to the distinction of this honoured place as well as bring benefit to the people of Canada whose interests we serve and whose needs and aspirations we must represent.
Hon. members will be well aware of the steady and persistent encroachment upon the rights of parliament, a process that has accelerated in the immediate past. We now have the opportunity to arrest this process and begin the reclamation of the rights and responsibilities of the role of parliament, and I am confident that the majority of members will seize upon this opportunity.
I wish, of course, to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply for their contributions to these proceedings. Both members were faithful to the high standards set by their many predecessors and both of them I listened to with great pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, bilingualism is a rather vital aspect of Canadian reality, as is the existence of a variety of cultures and geographic areas; there is no reason why English-speaking Canadians or Canadians of French origin, or any other ethnic origin cannot live and work in harmony and mutual respect. There is no reason why the Altan-tic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, cannot join efforts with

the Prairies and British Columbia to build a country of which they can all be even prouder than they are now.
Can anyone honestly claim, Mr. Speaker, that in their last four and one-half years in power the present government has helped unite Canadians in the pursuit of a common goal? Can anyone honestly claim in this House that Quebec and the Atlantic provinces are happier now? Can anyone claim that a last minute effort to make the western provinces believe that their needs will at last be met was enough to mislead them? And does anyone really believe that Ontario and other provinces will be pleased with the way in which their money was spent on inefficient programs, total failures, intended to reduce regional disparities?

We need a new alliance-an alliance of English and French-speaking Canadians along with those of other cultures; an alliance of provinces and regions; an alliance of all Canadians determined to work out their own future in association with each other. We have the human resources, we have the natural resources, and with determination and good will we can move ahead.
We must start by restoring confidence in the government and in the economy of this country. We must start by committing ourselves never again to permit a government deliberately to slow down our economy and thus create suspicion and frustration from one end of our great country to the other. We must go on from there in association with each other to build up Canada in all its elements and aspects, and in all its human and physical diversities.
No one could be more pleased than the members of my party to note the prominence given to the Crown in the Speech from the Throne. On the occasion of the opening of the twenty-eighth parliament some members may recall that the Crown was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne; perhaps hon. members recall my comment at that time. Whatever else may transpire this year, all Canadians will be pleased by the presence of Her Majesty the Queen and His Highness the Duke of Edinburgh in Canada not only on one occasion but on two occasions.
to the hon. gentlemen opposite on the front benches including, of course, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Even while he may not be entirely comfortable in his present circumstances-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: He is more comfortable than you are.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I want to assure my hon. friend from St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) that I never felt better in my life. I am happy to see that my right hon. friend appears to be in good health even though, perhaps, he has not fully recovered from the experience of the last election. He seems to have had a good rest and to be ready for the rigours of this session.
I listened to the language of the Speech from the Throne with very keen and considerable interest. With respect to much of the language in the throne speech, many of the words in it and a good deal of the policy proposed, suggested or hinted at, I would have to say only that I could have done better. I cannot commend the Prime Minister
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
either for originality or for innovation, but I do congratulate him on a very considerable effort at plagiarism. What this speech represents is an abject confession of failure, a more or less contrite admission of incompetence, an astonishing lack of commitment and a bankruptcy of original thought.
It might be difficult for a compassionate man to read that speech and not feel sorry for its author if he did not know that the speech represents monumental cynicism rather than an act of repentence. One would have to be either naive or simple-minded, or perhaps both, to accept at face value what appears to be this miracle of conversion. Of course, Sir, this government has always been noted for its style. Style was the essence of its policy, or lack of it, and it was a grand style. Its rhetoric ranged from high blown generalities, such as the declaration that Canada stood at the threshold of greatness, to premature and pious proclamations, such as the announcement that the war upon inflation had been won and inflation had been licked. This was a grand style made grander by the expressed conviction that parliamentarians, at least those on this side of the House, were nobodies. It was a style of utter sophistication punctuated by four letter words.
Now, after four and a half years, this government produces an epic failure in economic management, yet during that time joblessness and welfare became a way of life for hundreds of thousands of Canadians; a term of office actually described as wasted years by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). After all this, the government comes limping back to parliament, its ranks riddled by casualties, disguised in sack cloth and ashes with that old arrogance recycled into something that is almost obsequious humility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We are looking at a government that has not only lost its style, not only lost its majority, but has lost its credibility just as surely as it has lost the trust of the Canadian people and just as surely as it does not have the confidence of this House.
The question of trust and confidence is part and parcel of the question of credibility. What can be said of a government which has presided for four and a half years over folly and failure; four and half wasted years during which it squandered its mandate? What can be said of a government which comes before parliament today advocating policies that it opposed yesterday and abandoning policies today that it championed yesterday? Virtually every paragraph in this Speech from the Throne represents either a retreat from its own policy or an attempt to retrieve something from somebody else's policies. After the wasted years in which the battle to contain inflation was fought by the unemployed, by pensioners and those on fixed income, all of whom bore the brunt of the failure of that effort, the government proposes now, in the Speech from the Throne as we read, to have a committee sit on this problem. Of course, not even that meagre response originated within the ministry. Giving credit where credit is due, the proposal to establish a parliamentary committee to make a special study of the problem of

January 8, 1973
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
rising food prices was taken from the leader of the New Democratic Party. Apparently the hon. member for York South finds in this proposal, and this feeble gesture, sufficient recognition of his terms for his party's support of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Apparently this is what he meant when he said he did not expect to get a whole loaf but would settle for half a loaf. None of us could have believed that he would settle not only for less than half a loaf but for these crumbs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Members of this House will recall that the wasted years, as described by the hon. member for York South, were marked by an increasing deterioration of relations between the federal government and the provinces. They will recall the federal government's quarrels with the Atlantic provinces in respect of offshore oil development and rights. They will recall the federal government's quarrel with British Columbia and the beliger-ent and uncooperative attitude of this government toward the government of Ontario. Hon. members will also remember the deaf ear that this government has always turned to the west, until this sudden conversion, and they will recall the complaints expressed by every provincial premier of Canada that this government simply refused to consult or co-operate in such mutually important matters as winter works programs. That was before the election.
During the last election campaign if a leader of a federal opposition party was seen in the company of a provincial premier the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) considered that to be something sinister. Our party proposed during the last campaign to end this unhappy period of alienation and hostility. Speaking in Calgary in the company of three provincial premiers I said:
The commitment I make to the people of Canada in return for their support is to restore the spirit of Confederation and the spirit of co-operation, the recognition of the need for consultation and the recognition of the need for coordination of federal policies with provincial priorities.
I went on to state:
The first action of a Progressive Conservative government toward fulfilling all the promise of Confederation would be to convene a federal-provincial meeting on Priorities for Tomorrow.
The response of the government at that time was silence. Now, mark this miracle of repentence and conversion as we see it in the throne speech. "Finally" in the words of the throne speech, and "finally" is the operative word, is to the effect that "it must be accepted that a reconsideration of Canadian social services must be conducted jointly by the federal government and the provinces".
Again, when the government introduced its policy with regard to foreign takeovers of Canadian-owned businesses we made the point, and we were joined by quite a few others in this, that this proposal of the government had been developed and presented to parliament without any consultation whatever with the provinces. The Premier of Ontario said repeatedly that no effective policy could be introduced in this regard until and unless effec-

tie coordination and co-operation between the federal and provincial jurisdictions had been worked out. The response of this government at that time to what was obviously a commonsense statement was silence.
There is a final recognition of the principle of the need for consultation in this area. The Prime Minister has proposed to meet with provincial first ministers in order to harmonize goals, policies and programs for the benefit of all Canadians. In short, he has caved in. It has occurred to him that there is a need for the conference for which we have been calling for so long. In fact, Sir, as I read the throne speech, there seems to be a frenzy of consultation, and the only conclusion I can draw is that it is a long way from October 30 to Damascus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps as striking as the Prime Minister's sudden embracing of federal-provincial co-operation and consultation is the government's sudden and swift concern for small business. We recognize the problems of Canadian small business and the need for incentives in the interest of the economy generally, with the specific intention of creating employment. It is our belief that by providing growth incentives through tax credits to small business more can be done to stimulate private initiative, more can be done to create new job opportunities and to stimulate the demand for goods and services than through the direct government loans, concessions and programs which are now in effect. On October 19, we put forward this argument and supported it by specific policy proposals. The response of the government was completely negative. The Prime Minister, of course, had little or nothing to say because that was his campaign style. Instead, the matter was left to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). I quote him.
It would provide an opportunity for some individuals to reap a rich bonanza without any demonstrated need of small business for funds.
This in spite of the fact that small business failures in August of this year reached record levels, and from then on represented the worst record of small business failures since the days of the depression. Yet the response of this government through the mouth of the Minister of Finance was that the need has not been demonstrated.
Something has happened since October 30 to change the mind of the government. They have promised aid to small business through the provision of management and consulting services, which I suspect perhaps means the provision of some of the consultants left over from among all the consultants who are now consulting the government. They have promised to improve access to finance facilities, whatever that might mean, and I suspect not even the government itself knows what it might mean. The government proposes the extension and improvement of the Industrial Development Bank which might mean that the IDB will be encouraged to make collateral loans directly, or it might mean something else, or it might mean nothing. Mention is made in the Throne Speech of decentralization of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which, long before the election, the provinces had
January 8, 1973

urged the government to do, as had such organizations as the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. I had said myself:
I do not think we can make enough progress by administering a regional development policy through a bureaucracy a thousand miles away. One way we can improve upon it is to decentralize these activities so that we can increase the contribution and make better use of the resources of those directly involved.
There was nothing but the silence of rejection from the government. We also said we could not do anything effective about fighting regional disparity until there was a sensible attack made on transportation problems. We on this side of the House are pleased, for whatever it may count, that the government has adopted our own proposal with respect to conducting a fresh examination, in cooperation with the provincial governments, of the freight rates structure in this country and its impact on regional economic interests and prospects. It would be comforting to believe that all this represents some change of mind, some change of heart, some new found wisdom on the part of the government. But I am unconvinced. The real difference, Mr. Speaker, between the government's mentality as of October 30 and their attitude as of today is not that they have gained some fresh wisdom, but that they have lost 40 seats. There is no real difference between the Prime Minister who dissolved this House last summer to go dialoguing with the Canadian people, and the Prime Minister who sits across from us today. He is the same Prime Minister, seasonally adjusted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is the same Prime Minister, and nearly the same government, which asks us to believe in their genuine conversion to the cause of Canada's economic independence. I do not know whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare ever got to the Toronto Star for his rendezvous and briefing. In any event, the message got to him and his colleagues. In their rush to placate their friends and pacify their critics, we have a new fagade erected, made up from a grab bag of proposals, borrowed from any source they could find. After the exhaustive analysis which produced the Gray Report, after all the drafting and re-drafting and after the ultimate rejection of it, this incredible government has now at least confessed to see the need to do something. We said we would require that Canadian citizens, residents in Canada, constitute a majority on the boards of all companies operating in Canada under federal charter. The throne speech proclaims that there will be a requirement that a majority of directors of federally incorporated companies be Canadians. We said if any policy is to be effective in this regard it must be worked out in co-operation with the provinces. According to the throne speech, there will be consultation-although this was ridiculed previously-with the provinces with respect to developing measures dealing with new direct foreign investment.
We said that a Conservative government would insist that Canadians be given maximum opportunity to develop and apply their own entrepreneurial and managerial skills so as to ensure their increased participation in the business and industry of their own land. The throne speech indicates there will be measures introduced to increase Canadian participation in the ownership and
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
control of resource projects and respecting the transfer of technology from abroad and access to it by Canadian entrepreneurs. I could go on enumerating other proposals in the Speech from the Throne which have been culled from the Conservative manifesto by a government empty of its own initiatives, barren of its own policy and without an original idea in its head.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With reference to the government's proposal to review, reorganize and reconsider the social security system in this country, we find still another handwringing confession. According to the throne speech, the social security system, as it applies to people who can work, must contain incentives to work and a greater emphasis on the need to get people who are on social aid back to work. Mr. Speaker, that discovery ranks with John Cabot's discovery of Newfoundland, Christopher Columbus' discovery of America and the Prime Minister's discovery of western Canada. Only a few weeks ago this kind of sentiment was characterized by the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) as reactionary. Anyone who talked about incentives to work was no fitting apostle for the leisure society. After four and one half wasted years, now they tell us about incentives and now they talk about the need to get Canada back to work. Well, it is interesting to see how they run. But we have, I think, a somewhat novel circumstance. It could be said of that circumstance that we have a lame duck Liberal government, bargaining with the New Democratic Party to keep it in office so that it may attempt to implement some Progressive Conservative policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On the face of it, this might well appear to be true. But it is not only interesting, in reading the Speech from the Throne, to see those policies which, for example, have been borrowed from us in order for the government to avoid complete political bankruptcy but to notice what has been left out. A great newspaper in this country which is ordinarily quite friendly toward this government in its editorial columns made the comment, I believe, that there is less in the Speech from the Throne than meets the eye.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not the only one in this country who is in his winter of discontent. After all, he has nothing to lose but his job and, as he has told the whole country on television, he even has certain options there: he can either resign from the office or he can be kicked out, but the choice is his to some extent. This is really a winter of discontent for many Canadians whose options are running out. I refer, of course, to what has become a standing army of unemployed Canadians, some one half million of our fellow citizens, half of whom are young people and many of whom have not had a job for several years under this government. This government has a responsibility to them which it failed to discharge and, more important, Sir, this parliament has a responsibility to them which it can discharge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 8, 1973
The Address-Mr. Stanfield


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But it cannot discharge this responsibility by keeping in office a government that has not only failed to respond to this human tragedy but, worse than that, has even failed to see the tragedy. I am sure that the hon. member for York South must recognize this as a crucial weakness in the government's posture as revealed in the Speech from the Throne. The government's first priority, as revealed by the Throne Speech, is to reduce unemployment, contain inflation and strengthen the economy- words which have a familiar ring. As we read on, only the gullible and the cynical could convince themselves that this government has either the competence or the creative capacity to do anything about this problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Some months ago I said that our first priority is full employment, by which I mean a rate of unemployment of 4 per cent or less, not the 7 per cent which existed at that time and the well over 6 per cent which it still seems to be. I am interested in hearing from the Prime Minister what his objective is with respect to unemployment which the Speech from the Throne of course is very careful not to mention. When this government came to office there were about 375,000 Canadians out of work, and that is plenty. In the past year, the average has been some 560,000 Canadians out of work. During the recent campaign, before the votes were counted, spokesmen for the government were preparing the way for a campaign to convince Canadians that the present level of unemployment is an acceptable level and that all we need to do is to get used to it. One way of getting used to it, Sir, is to accept the cost to the taxpayer of financing that level of unemployment. I say that that rate of unemployment is unacceptable, the cost of it is unacceptable, and the government responsible for both the rate and the cost of unemployment is also unacceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The only way that the government can reduce the cost of unemployment sufficiently is to reduce the number of unemployed. The only way in which the number of unemployed can be reduced is for the government to identify its priorities and its objectives, and to place before the country a combination of policies, including an economic policy, a taxation policy and a social policy, designed to bring about the result we want.
In this clutch of rhetoric in the Speech from the Throne, we find no coherent program that offers either an assurance to this House or hope to the unemployed, and yet you can obviously see what is happening: the government is trying to put off its program on unemployment until the budget is presented. I say to my friends in the New Democratic Party and to other members of the House that on the basis of its record on economic policy, and of its record on unemployment, this government is not entitled to anybody in the House assuming that in some weeks' time it might produce in a budget something helpful and useful with regard to creating jobs in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say we are entitled to hear now what the government's program is to reduce unemployment. Apparently they cannot even make up their minds on so basic a consideration as to whether or not they intend to proceed with the 3 per cent additional levy on the Canadian taxpayer on personal income tax. The working men and women of this country begin this year with their wages and incomes further reduced by increases in their payments to support the unemployment insurance program, by increased prices and, as far as they now know, by increased personal income taxes. At the same time, the taxpayer, the farmer, the small businessman and the wage earning Canadian are confronted with a new tax form which they do not understand and which even high class chartered accountants find confusing. I doubt whether the government itself, including the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury), understands this form. This misunderstanding will lead to confusion and confusion will lead to chaos, unless and until the people are given a clear indication of what demands are to be made upon them in terms of taxation and at least until some considerable effort is made to assist the taxpayer. He needs to understand not only how much he has to pay but, with that form in front of him, how he is going to go about it.
Then we have the older people, our senior citizens, those who are retired and unable to work even if they wished to work, those who exist on old age security benefits. The throne speech indicates that legislation will be introduced on the subject as an immediate step. What legislation, Mr. Speaker, and when? Considering the record of this government over the past couple of years in this area, is anybody in the House going to give this government a vote of confidence without being told what it is the government intends to propose with regard to old age pensions?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope I am not getting too much static from over there yet because we are only getting started.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: They are all bluster; they will not act.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Any good society, any compassionate people and any worthy parliament would not abandon or neglect these people. The cost of food in this country increased last year by almost 10 per cent and the cost of living has gone up by over 5 per cent. These same older people are now faced by the harsh realities of the Canadian winter. I think it is incumbent upon this parliament to determine where the government stands on this and what, if anything, the government is prepared to do.
We in this party, Mr. Speaker, made a commitment to the older people of this country. It was not a commitment to be honoured at some time in the future, at some distant date. It was not something to be done after prolonged study and analysis. It was not something to wait to do until after April 1. It was to be the first order of business in the next parliament of Canada, which ought to have been called in December, and this matter ought to have been dealt with in December.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
January 8, 1973


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We are not going to retreat from that commitment, from that responsibility, from that obligation. Anybody who wants to run for cover can run. We are going to stand and fight for the principle that when a government fails a nation, the result of that failure will not be that the government survives while the weak and the helpless pay the penalties for that failure. We want to know where the government stands on pensions, and we want that matter dealt with immediately.
There is no element of surprise in the situation that prevails here today. The government may not have the trust and the confidence of the country, but apparently it has the trust and the confidence of the New Democratic Party. A marriage of convenience has been arranged between the two parties, a union achieved by cynicism on the one hand and by sheer fright on the other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The rest of us have to watch this mating ritual which moves about in strange and complementary ways, each ensuring the preservation of the other, each dependent upon the other, and each counting upon the other in order to survive.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Sir, who would have thought that our hon. friend, the member for York South, after all his ardent declamations upon and against the party of the corporate welfare bums, would have volunteered to become one?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Who would have thought that having declaimed upon four and a half wasted years, the hon. member would now be advocating still more of them?
Sir, I think I have to commend you on the way in which the various parties have been placed in this chamber. I think it appropriate that the government's true majority, the Prime Minister's personal bull pen, has been tucked away in the corner to the left underneath the public gallery. This party of Woodsworth and M. J. Coldwell, this party of intellectuals and ideology, of firm principles and lofty idealism, can now blush unseen-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and at least, so far as the matter now before the House is concerned, can remain unheard. This seems to be their disposition. Apparently they have no amendments to offer. They have no vote to cast in these present proceedings. They have assumed a new responsibility and a new role in this parliament, namely, to guarantee the continued existence of a truncated, repudiated government.
All of us recall the past orations of members of that party to my left, who described the Conservative and Liberal parties as old line parties, who described them as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Sir, that was before the courtship and the marriage. Now, we have got the same old Tweedle Dee, but a brand new Tweedle Dum!


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


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Who wrote that, Bob?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) will get a credit if he would like to have me give him one.


Mr. Muir:: That's about all he will ever get.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This party, the NDP, no longer profess to lead public opinion. Indeed, Sir, I understand they have taken polls and they are going to follow those polls. This is the situation of a party that once prided itself on having its own position, of accepting whatever the consequences were of that position. A party that once professed itself to be a party of principle, now has become the party of polls, procrastination and pontification.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Our venerable friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), a little over a week ago was asked if the government had done anything since October 30 to merit his confidence and support. I would like to quote his reply. What the hon. member says is usually worth quoting. He said:
I don't think so. I don't think any of the announcements have done anything more than give the impression of a government that is anxious to stay there. In terms of actual substance we have had nothing from the government that meets our views on taxation policy, nothing that meets our views on social security, nothing that meets our views on foreign ownership ... so we don't see any great difference in the stance of the government today from what it was just before the election.
I agree with that statement. I am only sorry that the hon. member for York South no longer agrees with it. The fact is that there is nothing of substance in the throne speech that meets his views or mine on taxation policy. There is nothing tangible in the throne speech with respect to social security. And if there is anything in it that meets the hon. member's views on foreign ownership, I can only express my surprise at his newly limited objectives in that field.
The hon. member for York South cannot possibly be satisfied with the indications in the throne speech of government intentions with respect to taxation policy. He cannot possibly be satisfied with the Prime Minister's answer the other day which clearly indicated the government cannot even make up its mind whether or not to proceed with its earlier declared intentions to let the increase in income tax go into effect and stay in effect. Indeed, a month after the election, speaking to a business audience in Toronto the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said that it was his intention to seek the early approval of legislation to implement the tax measures announced in the budget of May 8. Of course, the 3 per cent income tax increase was part of the budget of May, 1972. Indeed, Sir, although the Minister of Finance may show neither compassion nor concern for the taxpayer, consistency has been his virtue. He alone can claim to be consistent among all the gentlemen in the front seats.
As I have said, we have been concerned with the urgent plight of our citizens living on fixed incomes, especially those who are retired and whose survival depends upon

January 8, 1973
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
old age security benefits. We have said, and the hon. gentlemen to my left have said, that these pensions have been seriously eroded or depreciated by inflation, particularly in view of the increased cost of food and shelter. We have proposed immediate provision for increased assistance and we still propose this, but where are my hon. friends on my left now? Where is their concern? What are their intentions? Sir, they did not even wait to ask the government what it proposed to do about old age pensions, what it proposed to do about assistance to the blind or what it proposed to do by way of changing the Unemployment Insurance Act. They did not even wait to find out what the government proposed to do before rushing off and declaring public support for the government on this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, if they do not follow the dictates of their conscience, they cannot avoid the logical conclusion which the Canadian people will draw. It is not a legitimate excuse to suggest, as they have done, that they cannot overthrow the government before spring. Why wait until spring? Since when has democracy become a sport to be practiced in warm weather? The crucial decision which rests with this House is to determine if this government is humane enough and has the necessary ability to govern this country.

The question before the House is whether the government has the trust of the majority of members assembled here and obviously it has not. I have a feeling that the people of Canada do not really expect very much from this government but they do expect something from this parliament. They must be perplexed and puzzled to read that the principal consideration of many hon. members here is for how long and at what price the government can beg or buy support in order to stay in office. The disposition of the parties in the House and the decision of the government to meet parliament has been a matter of fact for more than two months. The Minister of Finance was sent on some kind of search and destroy mission in the guise of seeking organic union. We do not know the result of his efforts or negotiations. We do not know whether, as a result, we will have another and second great Canadian "otto" pact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: However, he has tried and apparently others have, too. Now, we are given to understand that the New Democratic Party, although it is no doubt still interested in the guaranteed annual income, is particularly interested in a guaranteed minimum wait.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I want to say to my hon. friend the leader of the New Democratic Party that his interest and anxiety to see the government's legislation could not possibly be any greater than mine. I do not want to misrepresent my hon. friend's position-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -but from what he said I assume that he is prepared to sit here for the time being at least, benevolent and benign and apparently motionless, until such time as he has seen the legislation and formed an opinion of it.
I have a series of proposals to express to my hon. friend which I think he cannot very well refuse.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Point no. 1-


David Lewis: Are you pointing at me now, Bob?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am pointing at everybody now. Point no. 1, the Prime Minister should tell the House today what he proposes to do to reduce unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is no concrete indication of this in the Speech from the Throne and, as I said, the record of the government on this subject cannot be supported on this motion on the basis that it may produce a satisfactory program when it produces its budget. The hon. member for York South knows as well as I do that there is nothing in the record of this government to justify any such assumption. The Prime Minister cannot make the excuse that he has to wait for the budget; he did not wait for the budget when he announced the pre-Christmas package which the members of the New Democratic Party criticized as earnestly and heartily as did I. Point no. 1 is that the Prime Minister should tell the House today, in concrete terms, what the government proposes to do to increase employment and reduce unemployment.
Point no. 2; the Prime Minister should indicate today what the government proposes to do about reducing income tax rates for 1973.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Jot these down, Pierre.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the 3 per cent increase to stay in effect? The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the government have told us very precisely what their intentions are with respect to the rate of corporation income tax during 1973. I ask my hon. friend from York South whether he thinks that individuals are entitled to less information about their tax rates than our Canadian corporations?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Point no. 3 is in regard to legislation in general. The Prime Minister has refused to give a list of the bills that he intends to introduce during this session. I can understand that in a way because he is not sure how long he is going to have the responsibility, but he has given us no idea of the priorities of the government with regard to legislation.
I say that the Prime Minister should tell the House today what the six pieces of legislation are that are highest on the government's list of priorities and which it wants to see introduced and passed. This would give us some idea
January 8, 1973

of the legislative priorities of the government. This is necessary if any member of the House, or at least of an opposition party, is to have a clear idea of the legislative objectives of the government which would enable a member to reach a considered opinion on whether to support the government on the motion that is now before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Point no. 4; whether or not the Prime Minister gives the information I have requested about employment policies, income tax policies or legislative priorities, we wish to see this debate adjourned after the other party leaders have had their say, at least until first thing in the morning. After all, we should have had this speech and we should have had some urgent legislation in December. We should have had this debate in December.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government has had ample time to prepare. I am sure the bill on old age pensions must be ready. It must be ready for introduction today so that we could discuss it tomorrow. I should like to see the House start consideration of the government's legislation on old age pensions tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not want to see the old people kept waiting a day longer than necessary. It may be the legislation will be so unsatisfactory that nobody can support it. Yet, surely it is ready and surely the government could introduce it today. We would consent to reverting to introduction of bills and waiving any notice required for the introduction of this bill in order that it may be introduced, say, a few minutes before six o'clock. Also, we would waive any notice required for second reading tomorrow. After all, we read in the Speech from the Throne that legislation will be introduced to improve the economic condition of old age pensioners and that this will be an immediate step.


An hon. Member:: Where is the bill?


An hon. Member:: Let us get at it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Surely, it is ready now. We have no desire whatever to obstruct the government while it is here and I hope the government does not intend, while it is there, to obstruct parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government ought to start producing important legislation right away. I want tomorrow to discontinue this debate for one purpose, namely, to get on with the consideration of legislation for providing aid to the old age pensioners. Tomorrow, at the appropriate time, the government could introduce some other legislation that it must have ready. Surely, it is reasonable to ask the government to introduce the legislation alluded to today. The bill must be ready because, as I say, the government says it will introduce that legislation as an
The Address-Mr. Stanfield
immediate step. I do not see why the government and all parties in the House would not welcome this initiative. Then, we could take whatever length of time is necessary tomorrow and on subsequent days to get this bill under way. Of course, whether it is one that is worth supporting or whether the details will need to be changed we will find out. Afterwards, after the government has introduced some other legislation, we could come back in a reasonably short time to this debate and continue it.


An hon. Member:: Or the cancellation of this debate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We will not cancel this debate, and I do not think my friends opposite will. They are not willing to cancel this debate. They are looking forward to a vote of confidence and hope to obtain it. I am bringing forward some proposals that will provide some long delayed aid to our older people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We want to see other legislation introduced which, according to the Speech from the Throne, is ready. The Speech from the Throne contains this statement:
.. . legislation will be introduced to clarify certain aspects of the Unemployment Insurance plan and to prevent abuses that have not been overcome by the administrative action already taken.
That is described as an immediate step. Clearly, that legislation must be ready and the government could introduce a bill relating to that matter tomorrow. I am not saying it needs to be discussed right away. However, the bill I want to see introduced right away relates to old age pensions. Surely, a bill relating to unemployment insurance is as important to my friends in the NDP as it is to me; surely, those hon. members would want to see such legislation before they make up their minds as to what they think about this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government has put forward its proposals. Since the Prime Minister stated clearly and concretely what he proposes to do about unemployment and taxation and since he gave us half a dozen legislative priorities and objectives I say, why not introduce a bill today. The bill relating to old age pensions must be ready. It could be introduced so that we could proceed with second reading tomorrow and, as well, promptly introduce other legislation such as that relating to unemployment insurance. In any event, the government has said that it will introduce such legislation immediately. I think that the government's actions will give us a clearer idea of how much there is behind the fagade of the Speech from the Throne.
The hon. member for York South may not wish to support our amendment; but he will not be required to take that decision until such time as he has been able to form his own judgment as to the quality and character of the government's program regarding employment, other legislation and the degree to which it satisfies the House in meeting the genuine needs of the country.
I wish to propose an amendment to the motion before the House, because the evidence makes it even more clear

January 8, 1973
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
that this government is deserving neither of the country's confidence nor its trust. I put it forward, aware of the critical condition of the Canadian economy and the personal crisis being faced by so many individual Canadians as a result of conditions in the country. It will be tragic for the people and tragic for the country generally if this Parliament were to maintain in office a government so lacking in conviction, proper attitude and credibility. We in this country need a government that stands for something. We do not need a government that has no mind of its own, a government apparently in full retreat from many of its own principles and beliefs, a government that has done nothing since October 30 but back and apologize. So, Sir, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) I move that the following be added to the address:
We respectfully affirm to Your Excellency that Your Excellency's advisers do not possess the confidence of this House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to express my real pleasure at seeing you in the chair and that you accepted the urgent request of your colleagues of this House to preside over their debates. All of us take pleasure in expecting this session to be very tumultuous, and I think that everyone must be happy to see you in the Chair, Mr. Speaker. In the past, you have proved several times to be very qualified to preside over our debates.
I wish to say as well that one of the pleasures-and there were not many-brought to us by the election was to see the quality and competence of elected members. As for me, when I listened, last Friday to the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, I was happy to see, as the leader of the Liberal party, that we had among us two young men, alike in various ways: both are married and fathers of two children, both have studied law, both have worked for the community as a whole, and for their riding in particular. As the leader of the Liberal party, I was very grateful to see that these two men had another common characteristic: both belong to a linguistic minority within the province where they come from, both have learned the two official languages well enough to be able to speak them eloquently and accurately. The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) and the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker) have both reminded us by their presence in this House that we have in Canada many great figures, and that our country is lucky to welcome in its parliament people of this quality, who are ready to work in the interest of our country.
Mr. Speaker, at the outset of his remarks, the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) sae fit to recall that I had undertaken the last election campaign by proposing to the Canadian voters a form of dialogue, a dialogue between the people and the candidates, a dialogue which would allow us to ask ourselves questions, to learn from one another what were our projects, our aspirations, our dreams, our successes and our failures, a dialogue on which I intended to meditate with my colleagues following the election in order to try and determine in a somewhat more accurate way the sort of
Canada the Canadian people would like to see in the '70s and the sort of government it would like to be led by.
Several lessons must be drawn from the October 30 election, some of them pleasant, others less. I think it must be said in all humility that the first lesson to be learned as a government is that the population was not satisfied with our administration. It is a lesson we accepted in all due humility and which was followed by a second one, and I suggest to hon. members of the opposition-some of whom I hear grumble-that they also draw the same lesson with humility, that the Canadian population although it did not indicate great enthusiasm about our party indicated that it did not want any other party than ours to lead this country.
Mr. Speaker, it must be recognized that our party although it lost a great number of seats still has a plurality of seats in this parliament and obtained a plurality of votes in the last election. When I was listening to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition I could not help think that he felt rejected by the population. Twice, as the leader of his party, he offered himself as an alternative to the government. In two general elections, he came before the Canadian people to lead the destiny of the country, but on those two occasions, he was rejected. His entire speech was stamped with bad humour as a result of that double snub, but quite surprisingly, he attempted at length to explain that he was thrice annoyed, since in a large part of his speech, he took the members of the New Democratic Party to task for supporting us instead of him. He dwelt extensively in his speech on how he would have conducted the proceedings of this House had he not been effectively rejected by the people and the members of the New Democratic Party.
Now, we drew one conclusion: that we should accept the verdict of the electorate, form the government, correct the errors which, of course, we made in our administration and introduce to the House of Commons a program on which it would not, at the least at the start, deny us its confidence. That was our intention in the Speech from the Throne. That is my intention in making my remarks, this afternoon; which will be completed by those of the ministers and members who will speak during the debate on the Address in reply. That is what we started to do as early as on the day following the elections when we took administrative steps-of which I shall give a few examples later on-in an attempt to remedy some of the administrative errors we might have made.

There has been some criticism of this decision-criticism of the fact that we decided to form a government- not so much on constitutional grounds as for other reasons. I think there are so many precedents, and these are so clear, that the question was not really whether we had a right to form a government; the question asked by some constitutional experts was whether we did not have a duty to meet the House of Commons and to seek its confidence. I repeat, I have seen no serious proposition on constitutional grounds contesting the right of this government to stay in office and to meet the House of Commons. There have, however, been some political arguments put forward to deny us this right and I think these might be categorized in two ways.

January 8, 1973

The first, I suppose, should be called the theory of momentum. It appears that a certain number of academics, aided and abetted in some cases by the media, state that this government had lost momentum in the elections whereas the Conservative party had gained momentum, and that therefore, having lost momentum this party should resign. My only comment by way of advice to those academics is that if the theory of momentum were to apply to university life those professors should go back to growing radishes.


Gerald William Baldwin: You have not lost momentum; you are going backwards.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The other argument of a political nature which was put forward to deny this government the right to meet the House of Commons is difficult to characterize. It appeared in some circles, but I suppose the clearest characterization of it is in an editorial called "Clinging to Power is a great mistake" which appeared in the Vancouver Sun for November 3, 1972.


Mr. Hellyer:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see that the hon. member agrees with the editorial, but perhaps he had better wait until I read a few phrases from it. The editorial indicates that the Prime Minister undoubtedly has the constitutional right to face parliament, but then it goes on in this way:
-frustrated English-speaking Canadians will feel that their wishes as expressed at the polls last Monday are being thwarted on a constitutional technicality by a party that owes fundamental political allegiance to Quebec.
This feeling is only too likely to be a positive incitement of an intensified anti-Quebec backlash of the kind that was an admitted factor in the fall of the Trudeau government from majority power.
The editorial continues:
-Mr. Trudeau now finds himself and his party with a majority of seats in only one province-the one from which he comes. He has a minority of parliamentary seats throughout Canada, and a majority of his minority represents the French-speaking minority of Canada's two major races and cultures.
In these circumstances, we think it a very grave mistake for Mr. Trudeau to try to perpetuate a government that has been overwhelmingly repudiated by the English-speaking majority.
Those are words, Mr. Speaker, which one would have preferred not to be written in a responsible paper. Unfortunately, they were written and I can only hope it is a very small minority of people who entertain such thoughts. It is very important for this government not to dwell on any answer to this kind of editorial except in so far as to say-


Some hon. Members:: Then why raise it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members want to know why I raised this. I raised it because I know there are members sitting in the Conservative ranks who, during the election, tried to divide Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.
The Address-Mr. Trudeau


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hear them cry "Shame". The shame is theirs, Mr. Speaker. I see that they remember with not very much pleasure the kind of campaign some of them conducted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Just let me say that as far as we are concerned we do not count members by their ethnic origins, and we do not count votes according to whether they were cast by English or French-speaking Canadians.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You never heard all your Liberal candidates.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) will have the chance to make his speech.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order to allow the right hon. Prime Minister to continue his remarks.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I quoted from an article in a newspaper which is widely read in this country. However, I see the displeasure of hon. members opposite.


George Harris Hees: We don't like lies.


Mr. Fairweather:: Try your Rosedale colleague on election night.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member will have a chance to make a speech and then he can talk about my Rosedale colleague. If he wants to quote specific Members of Parliament, I think I could name quite a few from his own party.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Name them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: At a later point in my speech I shall be talking about national unity, and if hon. members wish me to name names I shall do so with pleasure. Perhaps I should not say with pleasure but, rather, with regret, Mr. Speaker. I think that this kind of reaction is a sign of a very guilty conscience.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have no guilty conscience.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The conclusion, then, that we drew from this electoral contest was that we had a political and a legal right to govern until this House withdrew its confidence from us. We had a right to do so, but we also had a duty to show to this House what we proposed to do in the session that is opening.
I repeat, the Speech from the Throne was a first attempt to lay down the general lines of our action. Speeches by various ministers in the days to come will, I hope, spell out in greater detail some of these courses of action. My own speech will largely be based on the reasons for deciding to form a government and on the two broad categories of reasons for wanting to come before this House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: The first being divine right.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Divine right in a democratic country, I suppose, is something that is translated by the electorate. If I could quote Latin, contrary to the advice of Disraeli,

January 8, 1973
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
to the members of the House of Commons, Vox populi, vox dei. The first reason, I repeat, was to try and correct those areas in our administration where we had been incompetent, or where we had appeared to be incompetent.
I hasten to say that in my opinion there were sins committed by this government, although very few of them were sins of omission. Whether we look at our legislation or our policies having to do with the assertion of our sovereignty in the Arctic, with our extension of our territorial seas and fishing rights and two policies concerning people, such as our Indian policy and our multi-cultural policy; whether we go through foreign affairs, that whole area where we took steps which anteceded by some time some steps which were going to be taken by the President of the United States and which I think it is fair to say benefited this country, particularly in the area of trade and of wheat sales, or whether we go from that to our policy and legislation in the area of quality of life having to do with our numerous anti-pollution policies and legislation and the creation of national parks throughout Canada, I think it is fair to say that this government swept no problems under the carpet. It did not solve them all, by a long shot, but it did not try to escape any. It met them head on, and because of that we did make some mistakes; it is those mistakes which we propose to correct.
Before I give some examples of that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the point that we propose to correct these mistakes without in any way turning back on our Liberal principles and without in any way withdrawing from the faith that we, as Liberals, have in the land or the fact that we, as Liberals, always tend to err on the side of liberty rather than on the side of gain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) spent some time attempting to show that we were plagiarizing and borrowing policies of his own, and that we were turning back on our principles. I even read a silly statement by someone that this is a "U-turn" government. I must say that what puzzled me, after his long recital of the measures that we have plagiarized and borrowed from him, was the statement that all these measures are such that he has now decided to vote against them. I think it will be important in giving some examples to indicate where we will try to redress some of the administrative mistakes or incompetencies, but I will show, in so far as I will give the examples, that in no case do they entail an abandonment of principle and in no case do they indicate a reversal of any of our Liberal policies.
One example can be given in the area of penal reform. A great deal was made during the election and before the election of the mistakes, and sometimes sorry ones, which had been made by those who in our penal system have been favoured by the government in an attempt to rehabilitate them. We are just now in possession of the Hugessen report on penal reform, the penal system and the matter of parole and bail. I think it is fair to say that we will ensure that these reforms are, and I repeat, in the
spirit of liberalism, because we think that Canada is fortunate enough a country, is rich enough a country, is educated enough a country and is peaceful enough a country to be able to seek new ways of rehabilitation and seek new ways of bringing back into the mainstream of humanity those people who have been punished by our penal system. What will be evident from the position taken by our Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is that this will be done in such a way as to protect the public, and it is this reconciliation of these two things which this government will attempt to achieve.
In the field of immigration, again a Liberal policy of non-quota admission of people to this land who wanted to come and establish themselves here, resulted in a certain number of abuses. These abuses once again followed from the spirit in which we interpreted the laws, a spirit of trust and confidence in mankind. These abuses did happen, and in November we indicated how we would begin to eradicate them by taking action, for instance, against those who come as tourists and then decide to apply for landed immigrant status. We have already reversed that policy. We have already indicated to those who do come as tourists, and this was announced in December, that they will need work permits in order to work in Canada.
The third example of Liberal policy, which we in no sense renege on, and which is fundamental to the unity of this country but which did cause some difficulty in application, is the whole area of bilingual policy. We referred again in December, thankful that we had at least enough members to have a claim to form the government and to have occasion to carry into practice, to the pledge that had been made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) some months before that he would, before the year's end, announce the principles whereby we would be able to pursue the policy of bilingualism in the civil service, yet do it in a way which would be completely respectful of the Pearson pledge of 1966 and of my own pledge some years later. We have made those principles public.
It was amusing, by the way, Mr. Speaker, to note that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) had obviously not got together in their reaction to these pledges and these principles. I understand that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe found that the principles represented a withdrawal from our move toward bilingualism and that the hon. member for Peace River felt they were indeed meaningless. I hope the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe will have, in the weeks and months to come, a number of occasions to educate his fellow members of the Conservative party and caucus about some of these principles.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I, for one, welcome his entry into the Conservative party, although I must say I should have preferred that our good Liberal member had won in Saint-Hyacinthe. I do say his entry into the Conservative party is a good thing because it is important that Quebecers with reputation and prestige enter the ranks of the Conservative party as that is the only way we can ensure

January 8, 1973

that all our parties represent a good cross-section of Canada. I only hope he will not have to follow the course of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who some years ago gave up any hope he had of explaining policies of bilingualism to his colleagues on that side.
Unemployment insurance was also a subject which was much discussed during the election, and on which we had some lessons to learn. I am always surprised to hear the criticism which those who are not in our party level at us when we seek to draw from the lessons of the election, correct what mistakes we might have made and apply what conclusions we might have drawn from the electoral results. Had we decided not to make any changes they would have said it was typical Liberal arrogance, that we did not listen to the electorate and that we intended to go on forever not mending our ways. When we do decide to mend our ways, we are chided by members opposite for mending our ways and therefore for being hypocritical about it. Unemployment insurance is another example of where we can mend our ways by ensuring that the spirit and the letter of the law is applied. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) has made some public statements. In due course, he will be announcing the policies which will be brought in by administration and legislation. The essence of them, however, is that in order to qualify for unemployment insurance one will really have to be available and will really have to be willing to work. In this way, we will certainly be disqualifying from unemployment insurance people who just draw the insurance and really do not attempt to find a job or who disqualify themselves because they quit a job when they are working.
A fifth example has to do with the LIP grants and the Opportunities for Youth grants. It is true that these programs were recognized, even by members opposite, as imaginative ways to ensure that useful work could be done by the community, ways which were unusual and ways which were outside the normal industrial sector. Indeed, I believe most members of every party complain when certain LIP grants or certain Opportunities for Youth grants which they judge to be valuable are not recognized and admitted into the program. But there is no doubt that here, too, there have been some abuses. That is why in the future we will tie these programs to the manpower offices themselves to ensure that the people who are qualified for these grants are hired through the manpower offices and that preference is given to those who are unemployed or on welfare.
As was indicated in the Speech from the Throne, the field of welfare is one which generally is under the administration of the provinces. It is also one to which Canada contributes handsomely through the Canada Assistance Plan. It would be impossible to change the administration of welfare and eradicate abuse of it single-handedly, but it is our intention to discuss with the provinces a way of administering these welfare programs so that incentives to work are contained in the program. Work incentives must be built into our welfare system so that everyone who works retains substantially greater amounts of income than those who can work but who do not.
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
A further example of Liberal policies which must be adjusted without abandonment of the Liberal principle of helping all those parts of the country which need assistance in attaining faster growth is in the changes which must be brought into the DREE program. This was a department with little more than three years existence and it had always been the intention of the minister to bring a review of that department's work in front of the government. Already some announcements have been made that the DREE program will be decentralized. The operations will be decentralized in such a way as to obtain greater integration with other levels of government and with the private sector.
In the field of the economy, no doubt we did not attain the results that this country and ourselves would have liked to have attained. During the election-and I think it was a mistake on our part-we did indicate that in comparison to other industrialized countries Canada had really not done badly. We quoted expert advice from the OECD countries, from the London Times and from various financial journals. We indicated that really, by comparison, Canada was performing rather well in economic terms. However, we recognize that that was not an approach which the Canadian people found satisfactory. They do not want to be told that in historic terms or in terms of comparison with other countries our economy is not a dismal one. They want to be assured that Canada will do everything it can to fulfil its high potential. That is why in the Speech from the Throne we chose words to indicate we wanted to bring about the most rapid decline possible in unemployment and wanted to bring about a more satisfactory exploitation of the economy's potential. Much more will be said on this by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) when he participates in this debate and, of course, when he brings in his budget.
But it is certain that the Canadian people in their decision of October 30 felt that a high growth rate was not enough, and that it should be high enough to fulfil the economy's potential. That is why the Speech from the Throne indicates quite clearly the high priority the government attaches to achieving better performance in the economy, both immediately and in the long run. We know the expectations and forecasts for 1973 all point in the direction of a rate of growth in excess of the economy's potential, a potential of about 5} per cent as I believe the Economic Council of Canada mentions. But in view of the rate of growth in the labour force and the need to reduce unemployment from the unacceptable high levels which prevailed over the past few years, it is necessary for the economy to grow to the maximum of its potential if all people willing to work can find work. That is why it will be the objective of the government to ensure that a rapid and real economic growth will in fact take place.
Mr. Speaker, the second set of reasons why we decided to form the government and meet Parliament has to do with all the goals we want to propose to the country for the 70's, for the immediate and remote future. Those are goals which were identified by the Liberals diming their convention and have been accepted by the people. We are aware that it will not always be easy to achieve them but

January 8, 1973
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
as Liberals we believe they will be better pursued by a Liberal government than by a government made up of the opposition parties. I should like to discuss those goals under four headings, Mr. Speaker.
The first covers the place the individual should occupy in society, the second involved economic facts, the third groups a series of programs and objectives concerning political rights and the rights of Parliament and the fourth is related to national unity.
Let us start first with the rights of the individual- economic as well as social rights-which constitute a kind of charter of economic rights that is outlined in the Speech from the Throne and is based on this liberal philosophy according to which, in an orderly society, we are each other's co-insurers, all required to come to the aid of other members of the society who are in need, who are less favored. We are co-insurers, by way of taxation or otherwise, of certain fundamental rights that we want to make available to all individuals in our society. Without getting into details, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be fair to state that one of the most fundamental rights is the entitlement to hospital and health care, and in this field, projects and programs have already been well outlined in the past, mostly by Liberal governments.
In future, since such rights are being exercised jointly with the provinces, the aim will be to make sure that the costs remain under control and, above all, that such rights generate a situation where health services prove more accessible, more efficient and less costly. Already the Speech from the Throne points to appropriate meetings and no doubt we shall have policies to announce to parliament during this session.
Another basic right in a society that believes in equality for individuals is the right to an education. Mr. Speaker, people know that the matter fundamentally comes under provincial jurisdiction, but this did not prevent a federal government, and a Liberal government, that of the late Right Hon. Lester Pearson-and I believe that this happened essentially when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was Minister of Finance-found a formula which allowed the federal government to massively contribute to post-secondary and post-graduate education. In 1967-68, that contribution was about $420 million; in 1972-73, the figure will reach about $1 billion.
And there again, Mr. Speaker, the point will be to come to an understanding with the provinces in order to ensure that in a society that has faith in equality of opportunity, such right pertaining to the individual be set forth both with due respect to our constitution and expected to benefit those who seek an education.
A third area where our government is providing initiatives is that of legal aid, and I believe that hon. members have witnessed the fact only a few days ago on announcement of some agreements being signed by the federal government and the provincial governments of Quebec and British Columbia aimed at finding a formula that would allow the federal government to share the costs of legal aid in criminal proceedings, in order to ease the burden of the provinces in that area and encourage them in the field of civil law-which falls under their jurisdiction-to take the necessary steps to ensure that all individuals have equal access to legal aid.

Housing is another area, Mr. Speaker, where our record is commendable. In fact, the building of over one million housing units was undertaken in the last five years, which is considerably more than those built in the previous five years. However, the point which should attract our attention, Mr. Speaker, is that 85 per cent of the federal funds are spent on housing for the aged and low income people. I think this is a revolutionary re-alignment of our priorities and that, here again, the Liberal government intends to indicate at a federal-provincial conference to be held very soon how it wants to set new structures in the field of housing, preservation of urban communities, restoration of that sense of the community. Here is another reason, Mr. Speaker, why this government wanted to meet the deadline, wanted to set up a policy to the benefit of the individual.
The last of the examples I wanted to give has to do with income security. Several paragraphs of the Speech from the Throne indicate how we want to approach this problem. There is, Mr. Speaker, a concern not only to co-operate with the provinces but also to get a new rationale, a new cohesion behind this mass of programs dealing with the issue of income security. Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, it is a question of ensuring that the two kinds of programs are well integrated, those dealing with individuals able to work and those dealing with individuals unable to work. And by maintaining the differentiation between those two groups through logical and coherent programs, we hope to finally evolve a society in which those who can actually work within the framework of minimum-wage schemes, unemployment insurance plans, LIP and Opportunities for Youth programs may prove to be useful to society and thus earn a profitable income, whereas, with regard to those who cannot work, programs such as family allowances, old age pensions, additional benefits to needy senior citizens and social welfare programs are integrated in such a way, like I said earlier, as to encourage those able to work to stay in employment while making sure that those who cannot will not be forsaken by this society.

The second group of policies which have to do with our goals for the 1970's are those which can be described under the general heading of the national economy. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) will be speaking on these subjects. Indeed, there are about a dozen measures enumerated in the Speech from the Throne which, "will contribute to the development and elaboration of a coherent set of industrial policies for Canada." I will not elaborate on them now, Mr. Speaker. The ministers will have occasion to do so.
I just want to repeat that it has been this government's practice in the past not merely to bring in policies which would increase growth, increase the quantity of goods in our society, but to have policies which would co-ordinate other priorities, priorities in the area of equality, of the quality of life, preservation of the environment, domestic control of the economic environment, the necessity for regionalism, the strengthening of less developed regions,
January 8, 1973

and so on. This will be the essence of our thrust in that area.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I did not hear that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member did not hear the word "thrust"? Perhaps if he returned to his seat I could direct my remarks more to him.

The third category I announced is in the area of political rights and in the area of parliamentary proceedings. There again, opposition members will be tempted to say that there has been a swift turning round, that all of a sudden the government will be concerned with parliamentary issues.
Mr. Speaker, let me simply outline the government's achievements during the last four and a half years. This government has attached a great deal of importance to the members' work, and in several ways, namely by increasing the working facilities, the available space, the number of secretaries, machines, telephones, and in giving hon. members the necessary access to documents to enable them to perform their work efficiently. The government also set up the Beaupre Commission which, as is known, recommended an increase in the salaries and allowances of members of Parliament. The government unhesitatingly had these increases adopted. It also substantially improved the Pension Plan. It also introduced, I believe, a fairly new piece of legislation in Parliament whereby members, first those belonging to the opposition and later on government members were granted the funds required for research bureaux, precisely so that they may do their work and have access to the information required for criticism of government policies and in-depth studies of government proposals.
The Throne Speech indicates that our interest in parliamentary proceedings will lead to several new legislative measures. The Throne Speech mentions the field of conflict of interests.
The government intends to establish regulations for three possible categories of conflicts of interest. I would readily say, Mr. Speaker, that there has not been too much cause for alarm in this field at the federal level because, very fortunately, there are very few cases of conflict of interest. Nevertheless, considering the proper administration of Parliament and for more insurance for electors in this field, we intend to introduce regulations on this subject. We shall do so in the case of members, senators, ministers and bureaucrats as well.
In the case of election expenses, we shall reintroduce the legislation proposed during the last session, but incorporating several amendments which have been suggested by the committee and the public. There will be amendments which in particular will provide that the origin of financial contributions to political parties be better known.
We have also proposed that the meetings of the House and of the parliamentary committees be transmitted by radio and television. This is a measure that was discussed during the last session by a parliamentary committee. To my mind, opinions were divided on the matter at the time and the government is prepared to introduce this measure
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
and hopes to gain the co-operation of the opposition parties.
I wish to discuss another matter, Mr. Speaker, the question of information media. I do not know what will be our conduct toward the advance briefings to members of the press gallery. The issue was raised as a question of privilege last Friday by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly). He was complaining about a custom which dates back to a number of years-and let me say that he himself was aware of it when he was a member of the press gallery and certainly took advantage of it. He complained that we used to give advance briefings to the members of the press gallery.


Mr. Reilly:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) state his question of privilege?


Peter Reilly: The question of privilege is, (a) I did not take advantage of pre-releases or documents of this kind when I was a journalist and, (b) the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) knows very well it has never been the practice to release documents of this nature four hours in advance of the time that hon. members were to hear their contents.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I heard the exchange. I heard the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West the other day, and I now rule that the remarks of the right hon. Prime Minister dc not give him a question of privilege at this time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I said on Friday, I seek nothing but guidance from the House today. The government thought it was doing the right thing when it allowed the members of the press gallery to do their job as they did in the past. The government has often been accused of secrecy. In this case we tried to follow a practice dating back at least 20 years I am told and it seems that the members opposite and particularly the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) are not happy about it.
I repeat that if the House wants this practice to be stopped in the future, I will be the very first to request the members of the cabinet to comply, but I would like this to be made quite clear. I have had this checked with members of the press gallery and also with people who were with the office of the right hon. member for Prince Albert and as far as I have been able to gather from witnesses still alive this has been common practice over the last 20 years. Therefore we have only followed a most common procedure. It is not quite clear to me yet what the member is upset about. If he would speak clearly and have the House set a guideline for the government, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I would be the first to abide by it. But I am inclined to believe that the hon. member merely wanted to call the attention of the House on himself. The kindest thing I can say about him is that he played a sick joke.
In another field, Mr. Speaker, namely that of the Queen's visits, I would like to state, as did the Leader of the Official Opposition, that I was happy to hear that in

January 8, 1973
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
1973 Her Majesty the Queen and her husband Prince Philip will come twice to Canada. I take this opportunity to say that following requests from the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness visit those provinces on the occasion of the RCMP centennial, it is my pleasure to announce that Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh agreed to visit Regina and another city in Alberta which has not yet been chosen but which is intimately connected with the RCMP's past. They will do so during the first week of July 1973.


George Harris Hees: How was it in Damascus?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have a lot more to say, Mr. Speaker, but I need some water.


An hon. Member:: Put some octane in it.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It is not heavy water.


George Harris Hees: Come on, get the wheels rolling again.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker,-


George Harris Hees: Here it comes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -if the member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings does not behave a bit better than that, I will not let him have his photograph taken with me the next time I go there.
Mr. Speaker, the last subject that I said I wanted to include in the reasons for deciding to stay on in the form of government concern the whole subject of national unity. I must confess, probably to the delight of some members opposite, that I think it is clear that I was optimistic and probably a bit naive to use, during the last campaign, the theme, "The Land is Strong". It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the question of national unity has not been solved in this country. It is obvious that not speaking about it during the campaign, and letting this field be occupied by many people who were not working to make this country any more united,-


An hon. Member:: Who are they? Name them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -was a mistaken tactic on my part, whereas in 1968-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt my hon. friend because he did not interrupt me, so I apologize. I was the Leader of the Opposition and I was fairly active in working against my hon. friend. Is he suggesting that I said anything that would militate against national unity? I would just like to be clear on that point.


An hon. Member:: That is it; you never said a word.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to-


An hon. Member:: He was just making smear remarks.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was not going to name the Leader of the Opposition as having contributed to that thrust of disunity. I think it is fair to say that, as a leader of a party, he has shown responsibility in the area of national unity and that he was one of those who tried to talk his own members into voting, without complete success I would say, for the Official Languages Act. I am sure that he has done his utmost to contribute to national unity in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Since the Leader of the Opposition asks the question, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask him one that he might want to answer at some later date or perhaps even now. I was informed that in the last stages of the campaign or thereabouts he accused the former minister of regional economic expansion of being a "Pere Noel", I think were his words, because he had been too generous to Quebec. I see that the hon. Leader of the Opposition acknowledges that he did that. Mr. Speaker, this suggestion is not conducive to national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: You are still as smart as ever.


An hon. Member:: Turner, you might as well take over.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I certainly accused the hon. gentleman of lavishing funds in the form of a Father Christmas. I think I mentioned the sum that he spent, though I have forgotten what it was.


Jean Marchand: I remember; you will have the answer now.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I want to make it very clear that I said this in the province of Quebec; I said this in Quebec City.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say, Sir, that if the Leader of the Opposition is prevented from criticizing a minister such as the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) for wasting money on the grounds that by so doing he is anti-Quebec, then we have reached a pretty sorry state.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Why don't you resign? You have discredited yourself as leader.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we are all sensitive to different things and it is perhaps a fact that I have been overly sensitive to this type of divisiveness. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition is justified in feeling that there was nothing divisive about speaking in that way. It so happens, though, that if we are sensitive to this kind of talk it is because in Quebec no federalist would try to blame the federal government for being too favourable to any one province. The Separatistes speak like that in Quebec-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
January 8, 1973


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I was not accusing-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Three ministers spoke like that on a television program.


Mr. Stewart (Marquette):: Is that what you meant when you said you had a lot more goodies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking of a lot more goodies-


An hon. Member:: You were talking of it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This reminds me of a headline in a responsible newspaper during the campaign. It will be recalled that at the time I had been talking about the "Highways and Byways" program which applied to all Canada. There was a headline in a reputable English Canadian newspaper on the first page which read, "PM promises more goodies to Quebec".


An hon. Member:: Was that wrong?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there was not a French paper of which I know-and if it happened, I am sure it was not in any paper but a separatist one-which mentioned more goodies being given to the west when we decided to buy 2,000 hopper cars or to bring in two price wheat, something which would bring $57 million more to the west. There was not a paper in Quebec that had for its headline, "More goodies for Toronto" when we decided to expropriate there for the purposes of an urban park.


An hon. Member:: Oh, boy!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Nobody in Quebec, I repeat, except the separatists, say that the federal government has been too favourable to Ontario or too favourable to the west. Indeed, the separatists do say that. One of their recent publications tried to establish that Quebec has been "done in" because there are fewer miles of railway in Quebec than there are in Ontario and that Quebec has a larger territory, without taking into account the density of population and so on. A separatist publication establishes that the federal government gives more money to the western farmer than to the Quebec farmer, without making the necessary examinations regarding the importance of agriculture to the west as compared to Quebec. But these are separatist publications, Mr. Speaker. These are not publications which support the cause of federalism. I repeat the same is true of the politicians themselves. Sure, there are separatist politicians in Quebec who spend their time saying that the federal government is a government which colonizes Quebec and has nothing but generosity for English Canada. Sure, there are separatist publications which try to turn the people of Quebec against the government of Ottawa, because there is too much English power in Ottawa. Sure, there are publications in Quebec which try every day to convince the people of Quebec that they cannot get a square deal from the federal government, because that government is dominated by an Eng-
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
lish speaking majority. But these are separatists, Mr. Speaker; these are not people who believe in federalism. I cannot understand why the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters were not sensitized to this reality-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Come on!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -when many of them exploited the theme of French power.


An hon. Member:: Who did?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Name one.


George Harris Hees: Name one.


J. Michael Forrestall: The Prime Minister was the one who was exploiting it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, let there not be hypocrisy. I have seen material by Conservative candidates-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Name them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: I was being as good a Canadian as the Prime Minister is. Cut out this nonsense.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will not be silenced on this subject. I can understand-


An hon. Member:: Name one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when I was in Saskatchewan five weeks ago I made a speech and I named in that particular case-


An hon. Member:: Name one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I named the premier of that province and I quoted many instances in which he reviled the government because it had been too favourable to Quebec; and I think that hon. members opposite in their own consciences know-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What are you trying to do?


An hon. Member:: Lewis had better think of that one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Lewis does not have to think of that one, because those are not sentiments which are shared by the Leader of the NDP. I have heard him in Quebec and elsewhere stand up for Canadian unity in a way which I do not think has been emulated by other members of the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What are you trying to do?


An hon. Member:: Name names.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) asks what I am trying to do.

January 8, 1973
The Address-Mr. Trudeau


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The Prime Minister is making me nervous.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And he should be nervous, Mr. Speaker, because this is a very important matter. I would like members of his party to realize that one of the reasons historically why they have not enjoyed as much support in Quebec as they would have liked, and why they do not enjoy that success now, has little to do with the problem of organization about which the Leader of Opposition spoke, I believe in Alberta and Quebec after the election. It seems that the only thing needed for strengthening their support in Quebec is a better organization and getting their message through a little better.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What do you lack in Alberta?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am suggesting that more than that is needed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What do you lack in Alberta?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: More than that is needed. I am answering the hon. member for Hamilton West. I am speaking of the kind of sensitivity I have alluded to and talked about this afternoon. It is the kind which is obviously not shared by the members of the hon. member's party-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The Prime Minister is alluding to race relations.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and without it they will not make inroads in Quebec.


An hon. Member:: You have said enough on this subject.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the hon. member says, I have said enough on this subject.


An hon. Member:: Too much.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: There is enough innuendo, certainly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Too much has been said, I am sure, for the easiness of hon. members opposite, or to put them at ease, but not too much to remind them of some truths which it is important to hear in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What about the names?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: At any rate, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Names.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is strange how some of the members who are the worst offenders in this case have not asked me to name names. Generally, it is those who feel innocent who have asked.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition asked me if I was including him, and I answered at some length. If

any other member wants to know if I am thinking of him, I will tell him if I have any evidence on such matters relating to him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Smear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Oh, yes, I have 130 names.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In any event, Mr. Speaker, we have included in the Speech from the Throne the following phrase:
Parliament will be asked to confirm the basic principles of the government's program for bilingualism in the public service.
That is an occasion to which we are looking forward, when members of the opposition with unanimity, I hope, will support not only the Official Languages Act, which is the law of the land, but the principle which underlies our faith in that act, and apply this Official Languages Act in many other areas where it is workable.
As in other areas, we will accept amendments if they are improvements. We will not accept them if they are contrary to the principle of the Official Languages Act, without which we do not think this country can continue to remain united.


An hon. Member:: We will decide.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It will be an excellent occasion for individual members opposite who feel offended to stand up and be counted, and to say that in fact they do or do not support the principles and theory of the Official Languages Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Does the Prime Minister think that that act is synonymous with national unity?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is a very simple yes. I am suprised the hon. member should have asked-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hope to introduce the hon. member one of these days to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) and perhaps, to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle). Perhaps he will then be placed in a position to understand why the principle of two official languages is, indeed, fundamental to the unity of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The fact that the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham asked that question seems to me to prove the point I was trying to make. Perhaps he will want to tell us whether during the election campaign he did suggest that this government had mainly regard for the province of Quebec. I see the hon. member is seeking the floor to answer my question. I will gladly be seated to enable him to reply.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: In a word, Mr. Speaker, no.
January 8, 1973


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hope the hon. gentleman will not accept the invitation of the Prime Minister. I trust that the debate will proceed on traditional lines.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the time has come for me to draw my remarks to a conclusion.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank the hon. gentleman for his applause, but I have a few more minutes in which I can talk and then he can applaud for longer.
The essence is that we do accept the responsibility of minority government. We realize that the verdict of the electorate was to the effect that no party was given an absolute mandate to govern alone. We believe that much can be achieved by a minority parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would be less than candid if I said I would not have preferred a somewhat different verdict. But the people of Canada did express their views in the election. They sent us here as we are, no party having an absolute majority. Nevertheless, they did send us here with instructions to act as a legislative body, for the government to formulate positions and policy, and bring forward bills, for the opposition to question them and debate, but also to produce. We were sent here to ensure that Canada would have a strong government, that Canada would have a government able to govern, a legislative body able to produce. And I think we must follow the rules of the game as they were laid out by the Canadian people.
Some things for us will be questions of confidence. Some things would mean the demise of the government. If, for instance, there should be a clear vote of no confidence in the government, if the government should be defeated on fundamentals, on basic principles-and I do not mind repeating, Mr. Speaker, that the Official Languages Act and its application to the public service of Canada is an example of such an area-we shall go to the people. If the opposition wish to defeat us on such a question and on other fundamental questions, they will have that opportunity. But I hasten to add that other questions, if they go against us, will not be interpreted by the government as a defeat of the government. We shall accept amendments-


An hon. Member:: You make the rules.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member said we are making the rules. Let me remind him that even when we had a majority government we did not feel obliged to resign because some of our legislation-I am thinking of the national marketing act legislation-which was only passed after years of debate-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: How about the tax measure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Other measures, such as the grain stabilization bill, were withdrawn by the government because they failed to obtain passage. But we did not consider that to be a cause for resignation or for going to the people.
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
The logic of the government's position is not one of our making. It is one which follows from the result of the election. I know the temptation will be great, when the government accepts any modification of its priorities or its legislation, to say that the government is clinging to power. But if we pursue this logic further, I take it the same reasoning would apply also if we were to give our place to the Conservative opposition and if they were to form a government. Either they, too, would have to act as a minority government or else they would be obliged to ask for the dissolution of the House. So, it would seem to me that the logic which we accept is that which was given to us by the Canadian people when they voted on October 30. If it is an election that is desired, if we wish to reject that verdict of the Canadian people, we should say so clearly. That is not our position. It is our position to accept the responsibilities of governing, to try to place before the House of Commons a program which will as best as possible seek to respond to the lessons we learned in the election and to the priorities as we perceive them as a result of that vote.
The history behind our decision is a long-standing one. I have some notes here which I compiled with the help of Senator Forsey. I have an article by Eugene Forsey, as he then was, published in the month of August, 1963 in the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science. It is interesting to read in that article and others that Sir John A. Macdonald remained in office despite several defeats between 1867 and 1873, sometimes on some very major issues. And if any precedents were needed by my friends in the New Democratic Party, I would suggest the precedent by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Find a better one!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The minority Labour government of 1924 announced that it would consider decisive, defeats on direct votes of no confidence by the responsible leader of any party but it would not consider decisive, defeats on any other motions unless they went to the roots of the government's policies. There is even a precedent for my hon. friends on this side, taken from Mr. Gladstone's government of 1894 when he was actually defeated on an amendment to the address, which was passed by a snap vote, and he neither resigned nor asked for dissolution.
I do not think that anyone should be under any misapprehension: this government is not going to cling to office for the sake of clinging to office, swallowing everything and anything so long as it is still permitted to occupy the treasury benches. But we are not going to give up simply because we are defeated on some motion or bill, or some part of a bill or some amendment unless we feel that that defeat goes to the roots of our policy.
We want to see this parliament work. We want to see it work for the good of the country. We want to see it work under the leadership that we are prepared to give it. We are not going to abdicate our responsibilities or to bring this parliament to a premature end just because this House, in the exercise of its judgment, defeats us on some
62

January 8, 1973
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
matter that is not a matter of principle, some matter that does not go to the roots of our policy.
I began my speech-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, would the right hon. gentleman permit a question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few moments before finishing my speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not wish to permit a question. The right hon. Prime Minister.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am sorry the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will not permit a question on such an important issue as the matter of voting.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure on other days the hon. member will have an opportunity to ask questions. I have been speaking for an hour and a half now and I should like an opportunity to conclude my remarks, for the benefit of people in the gallery.

Mr. Speaker, such is the program we wished to put before parliament and such are the reasons that made us realize it was imperative for us to come before the House with a plan for action. Such is also the spirit in which we shall try to interpret the lesson the Canadian parliament learned from the electorate through the latter's vote on October 30. What remains now, Mr. Speaker, is in the hands of the men and women who are gathered here.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I did not wish to interrupt the previous speech, but at five o'clock it was my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)-Consumer Affairs-Food prices-Scope of terms of reference of joint committee; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)- Sports-Montreal Olympic Games, 1976-Circumstances of sale of television rights to American Broadcasting Company; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Housing-Whitson	Gardens subdivision,
Chelmsford, Ont.-Action to maintain value of houses not subject to foreclosure.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not have unlimited time; in fact, the rules give me only 30 minutes. I hope I can confine myself within that time, but I am sure the House will grant me additional minutes if I require them.
May I first join others in expressing our party's pleasure that both the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker occupy the positions they now have. I also join in congratulating the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, both of whom presented to this House addresses that won for them and their constituents a great deal of respect.
I want to start with something the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in his final words. If I understood them, he said that the government would decide whether or not defeat on a certain piece of legislation was a matter of no confidence. I want to tell him that as far as we are concerned, it will be parliament that will make that decision. If in our view defeat of a piece of legislation is important to parliament and to this country, but the government does not consider this a motion of no confidence, then we will make certain that this House votes no confidence in the government on a special motion.
Secondly, I want to say to the Prime Minister that I agree with him-

-that the Official Languages Act is important for Canada's unity, but I wish to tell him that to speak about it the way he did this afternoon cannot help Canada's unity.

He does not serve the unity of Canada by permitting in Quebec a film boasting of a certain power in parliament and in the government. He does not promote the unity of Canada by saying the kind of thing he said this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Above all, I say to him that although the question of bilingualism in the federal civil service is a crucial matter for the unity of Canada, it has always been his mistake to consider it as the only thing that mattered in Canada. There are economic and social questions in this country of equal importance to the maintenance of unity in Canada.
Before passing to my main speech I want to say a few words to my new suitor this afternoon, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I read somewhere the other day that the Leader of the Opposition had said that his tongue was not hanging out for office. From the speech that he made this afternoon I suggest to him that his tongue is not only hanging out, it is tearing at the

January 8, 1973

roots. He said that on the basis of its past performance, the government does not deserve the confidence of this House to deal with employment, unemployment and other matters. I fully agree. If there were an alternative in this parliament that deserved our confidence, the situation would be indeed different. There is nothing in the record of this government in four and a half years that deserves the confidence of the members of the New Democratic Party. But there is nothing in the record of the Conservative Party in this country, with a majority government or a minority government, or in the record of the Leader of the Opposition while premier of Nova Scotia, that warrants our confidence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Will you tell that to the people of Nova Scotia?


David Lewis: I have said that to the people of Nova Scotia, and I will say it again.
A newspaper man, Bruce Little, wrote these words. I did not check his arithmetic, but I think this passage is very interesting:
Nova Scotia has spent more money for every Nova Scotian on heavy water than the U.S. spent for every American on its moon program.
The difference is that the U.S. got a man on the moon and Nova Scotia did not get heavy water.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I could spend the next 15 minutes indicating the record of the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party, but I have no intention of doing so. I intend only to underline the following. The Leader of the Opposition chides me about having declaimed against the party of the corporate welfare bums which sits opposite. I want to remind him that I declaimed just as loudly against his party as a party of the corporate welfare bums.
Why did I do so? It was not because I accused the Leader of the Opposition of something he did not say. Let me read to him what he is reported to have said in Toronto, not years ago but on October 19, 1972, in the context of dealing with the subject I dealt with during the campaign:
I am not opposed to the established practices of providing incentives to corporations through the various devices of accelerated depreciation write-offs, deferred profits and the like. My experience in government persuades me that these are not only acceptable but they are, in many instances, essential.
On that basis, what right has he to say to me that I am following someone else in respect of corporate welfare bums? But if I have, I am in the very good company of the Leader of the Official Opposition.
He wants to know what the government will do about pensions, and he says to us in the New Democratic Party that we should not even give the government an opportunity to tell us what it has in mind because we cannot trust it to do anything. I waited to hear what he had to say about pensions, but the only thing my assistants were able to find was the policies and commitments of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, dated September, 1972. On page 52 there is a heading, "The Stanfield Alter-
The Address-Mr. Lewis
native", dealing with poverty. All it says about old age pensions is that his party would maintain the present old age security and guaranteed income plan and remove the 2 per cent ceiling on the cost of living adjustment.
That gentleman wants me to assist him immediately; not one month, two months, three months or four months from now, but next Thursday. He wants me to assist him to take the position of the Prime Minister. I say to him that if we had a real alternative that we could feel in our hearts and in our minds, neither of those gentlemen who are tied to the corporate system of this country would be prime minister of Canada. But that is not in our hands. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, who has a great deal of patience, "Just be patient, Bob, your day may come; but I doubt very much whether you will do any better than Pierre". I must add that even the Conservative party would find it difficult to do worse.
Let me say one more thing in that regard, and I say it seriously to the hon. gentleman. There were some things which he and I, on behalf of our respective parties, demanded during the election campaign. We may have differed as to the method and as to the amount for old age pensioners and the like, but there were some things that we demanded from the government and said the people of Canada ought to have. We both agreed on these things.
With all the earnestness I have, I would ask him to lay aside for a few weeks this hunger for office and show in this parliament the concern for Canada and Canadians that he tried so hard to show, for obvious reasons, during the election campaign. I also ask that he and his colleagues join us in the New Democratic Party in making this parliament work and making this government produce on its promises. If it does not, then out it will go.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I would expect the Leader of the Opposition to then be given an opportunity to show what he can do, and we will make exactly the same offer to him and his party: they will stay in office as long as they produce, but when they fail to do so they will go out the same way, no matter when the election may be. This is what parliament is all about. It is precisely because this kind of sequence is possible to this parliament that our party and caucus made the decision it did, to avoid this sort of frustration of dropping one government on Thursday of this week, and dropping another government three or four Thursdays hence and going to the people without result.
The Leader of the Opposition reminded Members of Parliament that at the opening of the last session of the previous parliament I said that the Trudeau years had been wasted years; that the people of Canada would show their frustration and anger when they next had an opportunity at the polls. On October 30, the Liberal party reaped what it deserved for its dismal performance from 1968 to 1972. The result is that there now sits a humbled government.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I don't know about that.


David Lewis: I did not say it was humble; I said it was humbled.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is different.
64

January 8, 1973
The Address-Mr. Lewis


David Lewis: Gone is its complacent and reckless majority, and what we still have to find out is what has taken its place. Is the throne speech a genuine recognition of problems which had previously been ignored, or is it merely clever political window-dressing in order to hang on to office? At the very opening of my remarks I want to tell the government clearly and emphatically that if the throne speech is merely window-dressing, it will not hang on to office: we will bring it down to defeat if its legislative proposals fail to live up to the promises in the throne speech.
We in the New Democratic Party believe it is our responsibilty, indeed that it is the responsibility of all members, to behave constructively in any parliament, particularly in a parliament with a minority government. We believe it is our responsibility to give parliament an opportunity to find out precisely what the government proposes. During his speech the Leader of the Opposition said he wanted the government to have that opportunity. I suggest to him that if he is berating us for deciding to give the government a chance to tell us what it intends to do, this is really inconsistent with much of what he said.
We believe we must give parliament an opportunity to solve at least some of the urgent problems facing our country and our people. I want to make clear, however, that it is not a blank cheque we offer the government. We in the New Democratic Party offer the government an opportunity to deliver. Ours is a c.o.d. policy; our votes can be collected only on delivery. Do not forget that. I want to make that very clear to hon. members on the treasury benches so there is no doubt about it.
In an attempt to demonstrate the breadth and depth of the government's conversion, the Speech from the Throne covers every area of national and international concern. I could almost see every ministry and every minister vying for space in the confessional.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I could not get in.


David Lewis: The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) says he could not get in. It is therefore necessary, because of the array of subjects in the throne speech, to seek priorities for action by this parliament in this session. I say that the prime concern remains the unacceptable level of unemployment. The immeasurable costs of the ill-conceived and futile policy on inflation, initiated in the prideful early days of this government, are still with us. Only the pride has gone.
Although the Speech from the Throne contains a commitment to "expand job opportunities at a rate that will bring about as rapid as possible a decline in the numbers of unemployed," details are still lacking. They should be provided quickly, and I want to suggest action on a number of fronts.
Mr. Speaker, although it is only five minutes to six, since I am about to enter into a discussion which I would not like to have interrupted perhaps you would allow me to call it six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it the wish of the House that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) may I point out that I know, from being present at the beginning of the hon. member's speech, that he intended to request the unanimous consent of the House to an extension of time. I wonder whether we could not settle this question immediately. I would ask hon. members whether there would be a disposition to allow the hon. member to go beyond his time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members.
At six o'clock, Sir, I suggested that it was important for us to indicate some of the lines of action that this session ought to take in view of the absence of details in the throne speech. I want to say, first, that measures which were announced late last year should be strengthened even at this late date. In fact, I want to urge parliament to put the seasonal capital works program on a permanent footing so that it may be planned over the long term; thus, delays in getting it going every year may be avoided.
Every member of the House knows that municipal governments are chronically underfinanced and that the municipalities invariably have long shopping lists of capital projects and of services urgently needed. I underline that these are not temporary or short term, they are not make-work projects; they touch the basic needs of our people and they affect the quality of life of Canadians. I urge that at this session we undertake an imaginative and well planned program in this area. This would create employment to a progressively increasing extent.
Furthermore, I am confident that the provinces and municipalities will welcome more federal initiative so long as they retain the opportunity of developing and establishing their own local priorities.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the budget expected this month or early in February must provide for an important tax reduction. Besides the maintenance of the 3 per cent tax cut provision which has expired, at least in principle and according to the letter of the Act, on December 31, we are also counting on a substantial tax decrease in favour of taxpayers in the lower or medium income brackets. In spite of the fancies which rove in the minds of some financial advisers in Ottawa, an increase in consumer demand will doubtless help create jobs. There is no excuse for not increasing consumer demand when, during the last couple of years, an unemployment level of 6 per cent or more has been experienced. In the present situa-

January 8, 1973

tion, a personal income tax reduction is not only desirable but practical. The revenues of the government have greatly increased, much more than anticipated in the government estimates. For example, in his budget last May, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) expected a deficit of $450 million, but during the eight months previous to December, the government had a surplus of $759 million, a mistake of more than a thousand million.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, when we realize to what extent public revenues have been underestimated and to what unbelievable degree the expenditure of the unemployment insurance scheme were undervalued, we are inclined to ask ourselves if the Department of Finance is competent enough to use a slide-rule, let alone a computer.
Thirdly, the budget must propose some selective reductions in the sales tax to manufacturers on items on which the tax becomes regressive, since it applies to families with low or average income. Such a measure would give rise to an immediate increase in consumer demand and employment.

Fourthly, to the extent that investment needs to be stimulated, it should be encouraged in small and Canadian-owned business through a redesigned Canada Development Corporation. I point out that these smaller, Canadian-owned firms are labour-rather than capital- intensive and would indeed open new job opportunities.
The marketing and management services referred to in the throne speech would also help. But what we do not need, and what we in the New Democratic Party will continue to oppose, is a continuation of the corporate rip-off at the expense of the ordinary Canadian taxpayer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: This has not worked to produce commensurate employment in the past and will not do so in the future.
The commitments in the throne speech to more action in the fields of housing and anti-pollution, if the government means it and if they are properly and energetically implemented, would be of immense value in the fight against unemployment, for these areas create jobs directly and immediately. In our view, the billions of dollars granted to large and mostly foreign-owned corporations in tax concessions and tax deferrals over the last number of years with the intention, assumption or excuse that they would produce jobs, have not done so. They have served only to increase the tax burden on the individual Canadian, to distort our economic development, to expand foreign control of our economy, particularly in the resource industries, and to swell the profits and power of large corporations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: The NDP continues to oppose, and is determined to oppose, this policy. I hasten to remind the Leader of the Opposition that this is a policy supported and promoted by his party as well as by the party opposite him. I say simply-I hope that those on the government benches understand this-that therefore much
The Address-Mr. Lewis
depends on the fiscal policies which the promised budget unveils.
I can say now that we oppose today, as we opposed last May, the corporate tax cut and the accelerated write-off proposals contained in that month's budget. We do not believe they will result in significant job creation. Indeed, the accelerated write-off provisions for new machinery and equipment make it relatively more attractive to use machines instead of people and may well result in fewer rather than more jobs. Furthermore, I think that all members of the House, members of the government party, members of the official opposition, and my colleagues, ought to know that a disproportionate share of the lost revenues through these rip-offs to the corporations will be captured as windfall gains by foreign-owned corporations.
Look at the facts. It is true that in the manufacturing sector, 75 per cent of Canadian companies are Canadian controlled; but it is also true that 25 per cent of foreign-controlled companies own 58 per cent of the assets and receive 64 per cent of the profits. It is, therefore, obvious that most of the additional $500 million which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) hoped to give away last May will be a direct contribution to the coffers of the foreign-owned and foreign-controlled firms in this country. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, please note that some of this money will find its way from our treasury into the treasury of the United States government, due to a reduction in the credit which U.S. subsidiaries would otherwise receive or be allowed for taxes paid in Canada.
What concerns us equally about this attitude of the Liberal party and the Conservative party toward this subject is that the benefits of the accelerated depreciation-the accelerated rip-off, I should call it-and tax cuts will go mainly to the large corporations. The Minister of Finance has justified his gift on the grounds that these companies need the money to finance their expansion. Yet it is well known that it is the small and medium sized, Canadian-owned firm which has the greatest difficulty in borrowing for expansion from our regular financial institutions. It is these firms that the government should be trying to help. It is usually because of their limited equity position that such firms are unable to borrow in conventional money markets. Our major financial institutions prefer to lend to large firms whose equity and cash flow positions are large enough to guarantee security.
The New Democratic Party feels strongly that the $500 million which the government proposes to give away in its forthcoming budget, if it carries out its intention of bringing back the May proposals, and some of the DREE incentives should be used to provide equity to small and medium sized, Canadian-owned companies in the service and manufacturing sectors. I suggest to you that strengthened by this additional equity, these firms would be able to obtain the funds they need for expansion from our banks and other lending institutions.
The result would be both a strengthening of the Canadian-owned sector of the private economy and, if the equity were provided through the Canada Development Corporation, as it should be, a sharing of the benefits by the

January 8, 1973
The Address-Mr. Lewis
Canadian people generally. Further, if we did that it would be possible to ensure that the money was actually used for expansion and job creation rather than simply fattening the assets of the corporate giants in this country.
I refer hon. members of the House to the Gray report. They ought to read it and reread it. I say this to members of both the government party and of the official opposition. I refer them to that part of the report which states that 44 per cent of the funds used for the expansion of foreign-controlled firms in Canada from 1960 to 1967 was obtained through accelerated capital cost allowances. I ask, how much longer are we going to offer foreign-controlled firms the means to buy us out with our own money?
At last, the government has indicated a long overdue concern about the rising price of food. Last fall the Prime Minister said rising food prices were good for the farmers. Apparently the farmers, along with millions of other Canadians, were unimpressed by this argument. The government's decision to establish a parliamentary committee to study food prices indicates that although the Prime Minister may not know what is good for the farmer, he knows what is good for his government.

Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised at the extent of the research the government devotes to the food industry. It has always washed its hands of it. Even last summer, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs blamed the higher prices on the producer while the Department of Agriculture published a newsrelease according to which the processors and retailers-and not the farmers-were to blame.
Every week, Mr. Speaker, full page advertisements in all the newspapers across the land claim that the supermarkets make modest profits, such as 0.6, 1 or 1.5 per cent on their sales. Only when one studies their profits as compared to their investments, that is according to the method used by the other industries in calculating their profits, do we see their miserable profits of 0.6 per cent, as in the case of Dominion Stores Limited, for instance, become in reality 11 per cent, that is, a far more reasonable income, whatever the point of view. It could well be that it is-

-"mainly because of the meat," Mr. Speaker!
We do not believe that the proposed parliamentary committee is an adequate substitute for a prices review board with power to roll back and control food prices. We do not fool ourselves about that. However, this parliamentary committee might be a useful start, but only if it is set up without delay and if it is given wide and full powers to call witnesses, to require the production of documents and to examine the books of processors and distributors. We call upon the government to establish the committee immediately and to give it the necessary powers.
Food is an important part of the cost of living, particularly for Canadians on pensions, on welfare and on low incomes generally. These people deserve better. The action proposed in the throne speech is minimal. Delay would be inexcusable. In our view, the committee should not be burdened with members from the other place except, Mr. Speaker, for those Senators who may wish to

testify in their capacity as directors of various corporations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, somebody a little less kind than I am has said that perhaps the Senators might be interested in doing something about the increasing price of Geritol.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: The other major factor in the cost of living of the average Canadian family is that of shelter. There are some brave words in the throne speech on the subject of housing, but what exactly will they mean in practice? If they mean no more than the proposals we received in the last parliament, then the government and CMHC are still failing to tackle adequately this urgent problem.
I note particularly the omission of any reference to lower interest rates, and the gentleness of the appeal for more mortgage money from investors. In our view, parliament has the authority and should act to require banks and other institutions to invest a certain proportion of their reserves in housing and to lower interest rates on mortgages. The need for decent homes grows greater every passing year. I plead with the government to use its opportunity to make a bold and effective start now.
A careful study of the Speech from the Throne shows some very important and desirable suggestions in the field of social policy. But it also contains some wording and some aspects which arouse doubts and worries. For many years our party has advocated a floor, under income, for all Canadians or, as it is now called, a guaranteed annual income. We are, therefore, pleased to see the acceptance of this principle, at least as far as concerns those who cannot work, the aged and the incapacitated. But I wonder what the somewhat unusual language with respect to pensioners is meant to convey. The throne speech says, "legislation will be introduced to improve the economic situation of old age pensioners". We will wait anxiously to see precisely what these words mean. All I want to say at this point is that failure to increase basic pensions, or the government merely presenting a token increase, will not be acceptable to members of the New Democratic Party. I am sure that such action will not be acceptable to many other members of this House nor to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: We shall also watch carefully the proposed changes in the unemployment insurance plan. We appreciate that there has been some abuse of the program, and we do not condone such abuse any more than any other section of this House does; nor do we oppose appropriate measures to tighten the administration, so long as they do not hurt the innocent.
What we regret, Mr. Speaker, is that already, as a result of the measures taken by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) in tightening some of the rules, we have received complaints, indeed cries for help from unemployed Canadians clearly entitled to benefit who
January 8, 1973

have been caught in the tightened net. I know it is now thought politically wise to join in the various reactionary backlashes which were evident in some quarters during the campaign, but I want to say to you, Sir, and to members of this House that we in the New Democratic Party refuse to join in the backlash against social welfare and against such essential measures of social security as a humane and generous system of unemployment insurance. We simply will not support any attempt to emasculate our unemployment insurance program. The real problem is the unacceptable level of unemployment. The remedy is not to hound the unemployed; the remedy is to end unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we still consider the matter of economic independence crucial for the future of Canada as a distinct entity capable of establishing its own destiny.
One of the main aspects which we envisage in this field is the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline project. The bill on foreign ownership was denied adoption by the last Parliament because we felt that that project, considered separately, was a far-fetched way to deal with an urgent problem.
Therefore, we shall await with interest details of those other measures indicated in the Speech from the Throne. Nobody is in a position to estimate their value before their exact nature is known.
I cannot discuss other important aspects of the Speech from the Throne because of the time limit set by the Standing Orders. Some of my colleagues will deal with them later-especially in the field of agriculture-which leads us to believe that the government has finally agreed to decentralize the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, to re-examine that hodgepodge of giveaway programs in the field of research and development, election expenses, the new orientation of federal-provincial relations and the giving up of rigid positions. Those are subjects which we talked about during the election campaign. We are glad to see that the government intends at least to take a few steps in the right direction.

But I cannot resume my seat without congratulating the Prime Minister and his colleagues on their rediscovery of the west. What a thrill of revelation they must have felt! If there is anybody who has doubts about our democratic process, let him note anew the power of the ballot: at the right time, marked the right way, it maketh hearts to feel and eyes to see. Miracle of miracles, as the song goes.
I can tell the Prime Minister that I have spoken to the offices of the three New Democratic Party premiers in the west. They are fully ready to co-operate. The meeting of the Prairie Economic Council to be held in Winnipeg in a couple of months may present an opportunity to begin preparations for the proposed conference, especially since I understand that British Columbia will attend and that the economic council will become a western one rather than merely a prairie one. I cannot speak for them, but I am sure that the western premiers will not be satisfied
The Address-Mr. R. Caouette
with gestures, any more than we in this chamber would or will be.
Mr. Speaker, what I have been trying to convey to members of this House and, through the press gallery, to the people of Canada is that we in the New Democratic Party ask for solid accomplishments in this parliament. We have reason to believe that our campaign and our position in this House have influenced the content of the Speech from the Throne. This we welcome. There are important proposals in the speech which deserve a chance to be presented in legislation and we believe it would be unreasonable not to provide that chance. This is the reason for the policy which I have enunciated this afternoon and this evening and the policy which I made public the other day. I suggest, again, that it is as important for the Leader of the Opposition and his party to give this government a chance to bring its throne speech into legislation as it is for us, and he should wait patiently before he crosses the aisle-if he does.
As a result of the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon I hope that in the next three days, tomorrow, Wednesday and Thursday, the ministers and members of the government who speak will give us some details of their proposals. Parliament and the people of Canada are entitled to this. The generalities with which the Prime Minister was satisfied this afternoon do not satisfy us, Mr. Speaker. Members of the government have a duty to tell parliament during this debate what the proposals in the Speech from the Throne mean in the various areas I have mentioned and other areas which other people will discuss.
I say, Sir, that all of us were elected to serve the people of Canada, as the Leader of the Opposition said. In his speech he said that he feels this parliament has a great opportunity, that he feels responsible for it and that he hoped this parliament would add to its distinction. I say to him, as I said earlier, that his attitude this afternoon does not add to the distinction of this House nor, indeed, to the distinction of his party.
We in the New Democratic Party believe that whatever the complexion of the government, whether Liberal, as it is now, or Progressive Conservative as it may become at some future date, parliament should function constructively to serve the people of Canada. The government in place should be given a reasonable opportunity by all members of the House to present its program in detail, to present its legislation and its policies. This, Mr. Speaker, is our position, which we believe to be both reasonable and responsible and I am confident that the people of Canada will applaud it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) tells me that we are close to the party in power, which is somewhat true.
My first words will be to congratulate Mr. Speaker, as well as his Deputy, on their appointment to the elevated offices of Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons.

January 8, 1973
The Address-Mr. R. Caouette
I shall also take this opportunity to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Throne Speech, who expressed themselves well, although their primary function was to praise the government: that is quite natural on the occasion of the opening of a session.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the leader of the Progressive Conservative party and of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and also to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) who spoke to us, first of all, of the October 30 general election where we received 737,000 votes, 638,000 of which in the province of Quebec. And those votes were not intended to divide Canada. Indeed, we did not preach one program in one area of the country and another in the other regions.
Today, I heard the Prime Minister blame the opposition for having stirred the Anglophones against the Francophones; a while ago, the leader of the New Democratic Party said the Prime Minister was not serving the interests of Canadian unity in speaking of those matters.


David Lewis: In the words he used!


David Réal Caouette: Yes, if you wish.


David Lewis: There is a difference.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time to tell the truth even if it hurts. Among the members of the New Democratic Party, I noticed, during the election campaign, the strength of their leader's statements. He was consistent with himself. I give him credit for this. He did not say in Montreal the opposite of what he said in Vancouver. He said in Vancouver that the "French fact" was a real fact in Canada and that one had to accept it.


David Lewis: Even in Port Alberni.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, even in Port Alberni. It does not mean that all his followers agreed with him and this is noticeable among all political parties. In Montreal or elsewhere within the province of Quebec, for instance, I have met a few members of the New Democratic Party who are as close to separatists as Rene Levesque may be.


An hon. Member:: What about your party?


David Réal Caouette: Some of our members may feel the same, but our position remains logical in any case, Mr. Speaker, not only in the province of Quebec but throughout Canada.
This afternoon, I heard the members of the Conservative party grumble when the Prime Minister said that in a few regions, they had taken advantage of the French power in order to get rid of the other candidates who opposed the Progressive Conservatives, and we could hear them say no, no, no. I went through western Canada myself-not in a jet or a helicopter-to hold meetings and in Saskatchewan I was told to my face that a Catholic French Canadian was not welcome in western Canada. And today the members of the Conservative party deny this fact.

Mr. Speaker, some of the Progressive Conservative members who are with us tonight were elected thanks to the French power in Ottawa. One may grumble as much as he wants to, but how is it that in the province of Quebec the Conservatives have been badly received? Because of inconsistency. They sang one song in the west and another one in the east. That is why only two Conservative members were elected in Quebec, one in Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), with a slim majority, and another in Brome-Mis-sisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), who got a good majority because he said publicly: I do not want to see Wagner in my riding.
Mr. Speaker, when I say that the Progressive Conservatives acted like hypocrites, it is true. The day before yesterday, I was on a radio hot-line in Regina from my Parliament office and I stated that some Progressive Conservative members were elected on the back of French Canadians. A lady from Swift Current wrote me since then; I think that constituency is represented by a Conservative member. What did she say?

Just listened to you on the "Harrison Line"-


An hon. Member:: That's the Tories.


David Réal Caouette: There's the same old gang.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: And the lady told me the following:

Just listened to you on the "Harrison Line," Regina, and I wholeheartedly agree with you.
The English here in this province (not saying all, but a great many) are decidedly anti-French. My own very friends are antiFrench (they are English and Scotch); have had many arguments with them. I am of Dutch descent.
Thank you,
It is signed "Mrs. M. Wall," Swift Current.
And then, Mr. Speaker, they will come and tell us that they worked for national unity.
During the election campaign I heard the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe promise old age pensions of $200 a month at 60. His leader never spoke of that anywhere in Canada. The hon. leader of Her Majesty's very loyal opposition said today, stop the debate immediately to vote better old age pensions. Now he is beginning to like Canada's older people.
Mr. Speaker not so long ago-on October 13, 1970-the House voted on a sub-amendment moved by the New Democratic Party in the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Both the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives voted against it.
We were asking for an increase in family allowances through a sub-amendment moved by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). The Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives voted against it. The leader of the opposition was there; 150 members in all voted against it. For the younger people, the hon. member for Lotbiniere moved a motion on the compensated dividend discount to increase the purchasing power-what the leader of the New Democratic Party just talked about-in order to fight unemployment. The Liberals, the Progressive Conservatives
January 8, 1973

and the NDP voted against it by 188 votes. Only 11 Credi-tistes voted for it.
Mr. Speaker, this prompts me to say that the Progressive Conservative party is not any better than the Liberal party. The motion of the opposition leader states that the government does not possess the confidence of this House. The Progressive Conservatives lost it in 1963. Why? Because they were inactive. And today, instead of bringing in positive measures they say: The government does not possess the confidence of this House. The government is a French power.
Mr. Speaker, in good English I shall say this: In Ottawa we the Creditistes:
We do not want French power or English power: we want real Canadian power for the whole of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Réal Caouette: That is providing our economic system will allow us to be what we are in a free province. It is only then that we will have national unity, and never otherwise.
Getting funds from British Columbia for distribution in the Maritime provinces and in Quebec, or getting them from Ontario-a province that also needs its money-for distribution to other provinces, will not satisfy anyone. We displease those from whom we take that money and we do not please all that much those who get it, as shown by the fact that the government is accused of giving too much to Quebec, and if Quebec is asked whether it is getting too much, it will say: No, this is still not enough. If you go out West, you will hear the same criticism, and so on from one end of Canada to the other. Why? Because the economic system is such that it cannot please all the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne states some nice things. I said, the day when this speech was given, that it promised a lot.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition and his right hand man, who is actually on his left, are agreed now, I think, to recognize the soundness of the suggestions that we offer.
I was saying that the Speech from the Throne deals with things that are not usually mentioned in it: the guaranteed annual income, assistance to small industry, the creation of new industries and the aid required for this purpose.
Mr. Speaker, all this is very nice. It is also nice to hear the leader of the New Democratic Party say: Cut taxes, increase pensions, get rid of the corporate welfare bums, get rid of all that. But where and how can the purchasing power be increased under the present financial system? By robbing Peter to pay Paul? By taking away from the haves to give to the have-nots?

Take away from the haves to give to the have-nots, and at the end you will have all kinds of have-nots and no more haves.


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


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about the Bank of Canada for a long time- we have been here for at least 11 years, and I sat in the House from 1946 to 1949-and nobody has yet understood.


An hon. Member:: You were a Liberal then?


David Réal Caouette: No, I was a Creditiste. It was when I was a Liberal that I could not see clearly.
Mr. Speaker, we talked and we are still talking about the Bank of Canada. Many laughed as they did two years ago when we talked about guaranteed annual income and the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) was always on his feet saying that the Creditistes were crazy. This year, however, the speech from the throne advocates a guaranteed annual income for part of the population. This comes from the Liberals! It is true that fear is the beginning of wisdom; the government is afraid of being overthrown, so it gets wiser. This can easily be seen from the fact that the hon. ministers are less arrogant than they used to be six months ago. They answer questions more readily. In fact, they seem to be more talkative than before. They understand our questions better, and it is a good thing. This is why I am telling the population that a minority government is more efficient than a majority government.
We had another example of this in 1958 when the Conservatives had 208 members. Since there was not enough room on this side of the House, several members sat on the other side. In fact, they were so many that the place was packed with Tories
In 1961 there were one million unemployed in Canada. Those who blame the government for maintaining a system which tolerates 560,000 unemployed should think about the one million we had in 1961.


Mr. Grafftey:: No, no.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi says no, no. This is why the Progressive Conservatives were defeated in 1962, because there were one million unemployed in Canada. In spite of its large majority, the government was helpless. The same thing happened with the Liberal majority government and you will see an improvement in the coming months with the minority government, as in 1963, 1965 and 1968.
However, again I refer to our suggestion concerning the resort to the Bank of Canada, a suggestion which was considered rather funny.
I have before me the 1970 Revised Statutes of Canada, that is 1970 of the Christian era, for those who would not know it!
Section 14 of the Bank of Canada Act sets the powers of the Bank and appropriate government directive. I quote:
14. (1) The Minister and the Governor shall consult regularly on monetary policy and on its relation to general economic policy.
When economy is lagging, the Minister of Finance must meet with the governor of the Bank of Canada and dis-
70

January 8, 1973
The Address-Mr. R. Caouette
cuss with him the utilization of the Bank of Canada. Again I quote the same excerpt:
... consult regularly on monetary policy and on its relation to general economic policy.
(2)	If, notwithstanding the consultations provided for in subsection (1), there should emerge a difference of opinion . . .
In the past, we have witnessed a difference of opinion emerging between a minister of Finance and the governor of the Bank of Canada.
... concerning the monetary policy to be followed, the Minister may,...
... in case the minister did not know that he might, now he will...
... after consultation with the Governor and with the approval of the Governor in Council, give to the Governor a written directive concerning monetary policy, in specific terms and applicable for a specified period, and the Bank shall comply with such directive.
When the purchasing power is inadequate, the minister has the right to write a letter to the governor of the Bank of Canada and tell him to get down to business in order to make the purchasing power commensurate to the goods on sale in Canada, to the Canadian production.
I continue the quotation:
(3)	A directive given under this section shall be published forthwith in the Canada Gazette and shall be laid before Parliament
... because the Parliament has to decide ... within fifteen days after the giving thereof, or, if Parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first fifteen days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting.
This act was passed during the 1966-1967 session. I am speaking about.the Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act, and about Section 14 of the Bank of Canada Act which grants to the minister the power of giving directives to the Bank of Canada.
Section 18 which deals with the Business and Powers of the Bank, powers granted by Parliament to the Bank, reads as follows, and I believe the minister will understand:
(1) The Bank may
(t) make loans or advances for periods not exceeding six months to the Government of Canada or the government of any province on the pledge or hypothecation of readily marketable securities issued or guaranteed by Canada or any province;
(j) make loans to the Government of Canada or the government of any province, but such loans outstanding at any one time shall not, in the case of the Government of Canada, exceed one-third
... of its budget, of its national revenue and ...
... one fourth .. .
... in the case of the provinces.
If the province of Quebec has a budget of 4 billion dollars, it is entitled, according to the Act, to borrow directly from the Bank of Canada up to 1 billion dollars a year, but for periods not exceeding six months. This means putting a lock on the door of the Bank of Canada. What can a province to in six months?
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, that is the most essential problem, which prevents the provincial governments to agree with Ottawa. If Ottawa make use of the Bank of Canada! The minister can do it, the government can do it;

the Bank of Canada has the responsibility, and the law allows it to grant loans.
It is only a simple matter of replacing the words "six months" by "sixty years" as it is done for banks and as it is done for loans granted to India, Algeria, Tunisia, South America, Central Africa or South Africa.
Why not do so for Canadians, provinces and municipalities, through provincial governments? No, the government does not want to. We listen to a Speech from the Throne. We are told to wait for the introduction of bills. We are told forever to take away from the "haves" and to give to the "have nots". This does not increase the global purchasing power of the people by one half cent or a cent. The government is still holding on to its principles.
Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign we advocated three things for a global policy for Canada. First, the guaranteed annual income which we can afford and maintain. Instead of paying unemployment insurance benefits, social welfare allowances and all kinds of other things, through an overly costly bureaucracy as we have now, we say that everybody must be granted a guaranteed annual income whether they work or not. The difference is that the one who works gets a salary in addition to his guaranteed annual income whereas now people are compelled not to work so that they may receive unemployment insurance benefits, social welfare allowances or any other kind of social security.
Mr. Speaker, this is why many people say: I am not going to work; it is more profitable to be unemployed. Last fall for instance it was hard to find people for apple picking in Rougemont or in other areas of the Eastern townships. Why? People were receiving $80.00 or $85.00 a week in unemployment insurance benefits. As they were offered $60.00 to go to work, they invariably said: Let us stay at home, we are not going. If we could find a way to encourage men to work by assuring them of a guaranteed annual income which nobody could touch, every Canadian would be seeking employment at the present time. And we have been suggesting if for a long time. Here again we do not wonder if we have the production to warrant it; no. We keep on wondering if we have the money required for it. It will cost that much. It is always the money problem.
But, for instance, as soon as a war is declared nobody is ever heard saying that there is not enough money to manufacture guns or bombs: money is plentiful. We have never failed to finish off assembling a gun for lack of a quarter.
During World War II when bombs were being dropped on Hitler's head in Germany, were there memos delivered to him before releasing the bombs warning him that they would not be dropped unless he paid cash? No. He was attended to free of charge during the entire war.
Everyone understood and nobody objected to it. But when it comes to setting up a salary scheme which would enable citizens to live a decent life in peace and unity, it so happens that we cannot afford it even though we can afford to displease provinces and municipalities. Currently, everyone is cursing the government.
Mr. Speaker, we advocated the guaranteed annual income throughout the election campaign. You will say: Yes, but everyone in Canada did not vote Creditiste. Quite
January 8, 1973

true, and if anyone knows it, we certainly do. Still, we had surprises in store for some people even in Montreal, where we reaped 157,000 votes, that is as many as the NDP in all of Quebec. In fact we had 100,000 more votes that the PCs and the NDPs combined in the province of Quebec. People will say: Yes, but that may be a trend peculiar to Quebec. How could that be, seeing that I said the same things in Quebec as in the other areas. I went to the Maritimes and said exactly the same thing. I stated that the differences of opinion with regard to linguistic matters did not constitute a real problem but that it was made to look like a problem because of a sad lack of purchasing power in all of the provinces.
In Quebec you hear people say, even economists like Mr. Parizeau, for instance, we don't have enough because Ottawa gives too much to the West. You go West and meet economists who tell you quite the opposite: we don't have enough because the Trudeau government gives too much to his "pea-soupers" from the province of Quebec. You hear provinces rearing up against each other. Although it is not a matter of language, it had been made into a matter of language.
You hear people talk about those Frenchmen from Quebec, then in Quebec you hear people berating the Anglo-Saxons in the other provinces, but in the meantime the financiers are having a ball. Has it ever been noticed that the monetary system has no language? It speaks neither French, nor English, nor Ukrainian, nor Japanese, nor Chinese. It is peculiar how everyone understands the language of the monetary system. There is no one who does not know the difference between a ten dollar bill and a twenty dollar bill, whether English, French, or Ukrainian. And that is the system they dare not touch. Let us fight one another, in French and in English.
Some are praising the government's policy on the official languages, others criticize it, while some others commend it, but as soon as our backs are turned, they violently object to it. Frankness is not much in honour. And then, someone will say: It is all the fault of the French or the English, and then we go on fighting one another with great spirit.
Mr. Speaker, the policy on the two official languages of Canada does not mean that the English-speaking from British Columbia have to learn French. This is where the government is now seriously at fault. To tell a 55 year old man that he has to learn French or English, I find, is a bit stupid. There are people who try to learn the second language and I congratulate them. This afternoon, I heard the Leader of the official Opposition speak French. There were some passages that I did not understand too well, but, at least, he made a commendable effort, and I congratulate him. The other night, on the TV program "Bye Bye 72", he was not introduced in this perspective ... However, those who learn the second official language, deserve to be congratulated. To those who learn English at the age of 50, the same applies. Therefore, I say to the government, let the two official languages be recognized, yes, but to implement this, there is only one way: give the provinces the grants they need to be able, in their jurisdictional area, to teach the two official languages starting
The Address-Mr. R. Caouette
with the first year in grade school and there you will have-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Temiscamingue, but the time allowed to him has expired. Unless he gets the consent of the House he cannot continue. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed. The hon. member for Temiscamingue may continue his remarks.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I thank very sincerely all my colleagues for allowing me to keep on with my remarks, but I will not overtax their generosity.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the only way to get people from sea to sea to know the two official languages, is to teach them at school-not in Grade 13, not at university level, for it is too late then, but when the child is in primary school, in first or second grade; at this stage he will easily learn any language.
I had a personal experience of this. I have two sons, one of whom is sitting with me in this House. When my two sons were but little fellows of five or six, one of my neighbours back home in Rouyn was Ukrainian. He also had a little boy of the same age. The three children played together. One night at dinner, my two boys came to the table talking to one another. I could not make out a word of what they were saying; they were speaking Ukrainian. They had not learned the language at school; they had taken it up while playing with their little friend.
Mr. Speaker, the Ukrainian boy also was speaking French at that age. This only shows how easy it is for children to learn a foreign language.
And in Canada, if we view the problem on the national level, we find the same thing. I do not think that a single province would refuse federal grants designed specifically to promote the teaching of the two official languages in Canadian schools, be it in Vancouver, Halifax or Montreal. It would be the end of the fights now going on in Montreal for instance where it is ordered: You shall learn French, only French, nothing but French. It is no good to tolerate such views and the Quebecers who contend that the French fact is about to disappear are dreaming in colour. They are having the wrong dreams, they are happy heads.
Mr. Speaker, while 100 years ago, there was not one million French Canadians in Canada, today, there are six or seven million of us. What is more, the French language is better spoken today than it was 40 years ago. There has been an improvement. But there will always be prophets of gloom, pessimists. We have some in Quebec, and there are some outside the province who, as out West or in Ontario, say "Speak White". That is not much better than those who in Montreal also say "Speak white" in French in one place, in English in another.
Mr. Speaker, the way we go about it now will not solve the language problem in Canada. Even though the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism was set up at a cost of I know not how many millions of dollars to inform us that French is spoken in Quebec and English
72

January 8, 1973
The Address-Mr. R. Caouette
outside its borders, it did not solve much. But no one trusts the official languages act because everyone feels compelled to learn a second language. But such is not the case. As far as I am concerned, I have not been compelled to learn English. I learned it because I wanted to, and in order to understand what the English-speaking people had to say. I do not regret it today. If I go to United States, England or anywhere else where English is spoken, I understand what people are talking about. If an Englishspeaking Canadian does not want to learn French, he is free to do as he likes; he is not compelled to do so. Nobody will stop anyone from remaining a moron all of his life.
As far as the French-speaking Montrealers are concerned, the same remark applies to them.
It has been brought to my attention that the interpreters are having a hard time trying to translate the word "Gno-chon" (moron). I could say then a "simpleton", for instance, it is just about the same thing.
The second point that we made during the electoral campaign concerns the interest free loans granted by the Bank of Canada. While referring to them a short while ago, I mentioned Mr. Bourassa, the premier of Quebec, who went and borrowed, under the circumstances, 100 million dollars in the United States to ensure the development of James Bay. He went and borrowed 100 millions at 91 per cent, for 25 years. In 25 years from now-


An hon. Member:: That is not expensive!


David Réal Caouette: No, that is not expensive. In 25 years from now, Quebec will have paid 233 million in interest alone, then it will still owe 100 million. Come now, that is not expensive! Very sensible indeed! We shall owe all of James Bay! The development of James Bay will cost at least 25 billion to the province of Quebec! The Canadian government has already begun to invest $8 million; more millions will follow and before long billions of dollars will have been secured.
Mr. Speaker, earlier, I heard the Leader of the New Democratic Party state that we are selling out to the Americans. It is true, and not only the federal government but also the Quebec government is doing so. The Leader of the New Democratic Party must be aware of that fact. His friend, the NDP Premier of Manitoba also borrowed $50 million from the Americans at 9.5 per cent for 25 years to enable the Manitoba Hydro to carry out a project. What will be paid? Interest totalling $100 million. The Leader of the New Democratic Party did not mention it. We beg the corporate welfare bums to finance a hydro-electric project in Manitoba.


David Lewis: They are everywhere.


David Réal Caouette: They are everywhere and the hon. member for York South admits it. They are everywhere. In fact, we want to get them out from everywhere so that Canadians can be masters in their own house through the Bank of Canada.
Premier Bourassa did not come back from the United States with a wheelbarrow filled with $100 million in U.S. currency. He came back with a little piece of paper which

is called a promissory note that said "$100 million", bearing interest at 91% over 25 years, signed Bob Bourassa, endorsed by the province of Quebec, meaning myself and other Quebecers.
The James Bay development is then undertaken. If that project were not profitable, Mr. Speaker, and I call on the Prime Minister, on all hon. members and ministers to disagree, Premier Bourassa would not come back from the United States with as much as a nickel. Is that clear? The Americans wonder whether the project is profitable? It is. Let us write down those figures. What would be the difference between having the figure "$100 million" written in the United States and having them written in the Bank of Canada here in Ottawa? Figures written in the United States belong to the people of America, that is obvious and everyone knows it. Why not have the same figures written in the Bank of Canada, based on the same resources, not on the moon, but on the James Bay resources.
Mr. Speaker, we can use the same kind of ink, the same type of pen and write the figures here in Canada, instead of having them written in the United States. Then we would own James Bay. In this way, we are giving them James Bay and then, later, you will hear people like the hon. member for York-South tell us about the "corporate welfare bums". That is exactly how it comes about.
We therefore suggest resorting to the Bank of Canada and not to set up "dollar machines"-such as were heard about-to print dollar bills inconsiderately. No, the figures should correspond to the facts.
Let us take another example. The right hon. Prime Minister boasted during the election campaign that our gross national product had reached $102 billion for the first time in the history of this country. But while our production increases in a staggering way, unemployment increases also and we say to ourselves: Let us fight unemployment in Canada. If, in order to fight unemployment, we employed all the unemployed people so as to produce more, our gross national product could easily reach $125 billion a year. It is not production that is failing, but distribution. Therefore, we must find a way to distribute production among consumers.
That is why we propose the establishment of a guaranteed annual income based on Canadian production. Our national revenue will reach $71 billion this year according to statistics. There is a $31 million gap between the purchasing power and Canadian production, namely $1,490 for each Canadian. The government is always saying: Where shall we find credit? Where shall we find money? We have the production. Why not monetize it through the Bank of Canada and give each Canadian his share through the establishment of a guaranteed annual income? Call it a national dividend if you prefer.
A while ago, the leader of the New Democratic Party spoke about the increasing demand in Canada. We are all for it. But if "demand" is removed from those who now enjoy it and given to those who are short of it, this will not increase the overall demand. Why is the NDP leader unable to suggest means of increasing the overall buying power in Canada?
January 8, 1973

During the campaign we were suggesting a compensated retail discount of 20 per cent. When you buy a $100 item after, of course, an agreement has been passed between the retailers and the federal government, you are assured of a 20 per cent discount. The retailers are at liberty to enter into this agreement or not. But once they have endorsed it they are committed not to increase their prices and to receive the compensated discount from the government. Then, on a $100 item the retailer would apply the $20 discount, the consumer would pay only $80 and the $20 difference would be paid by the federal government.
This government grant would be much more significant than those paid to major companies because it would enable industries to distribute their production and hire workers. Thus through an agreement between the retailers and the government we could fight non only inflation but also unemployment.
This compensated discount is an integral part of the social credit theory. This theory respects private enterprise and individual initiative. We are all for helping individuals give the best of themselves to develop their country. Contrary to socialism under which government should grab everything, we Creditistes say: Give more and more freedom to private enterprise to allow it to develop because initiative is private. If you cast everybody in the same mould you turn them into a herd as do certain European and Asiatic Communist countries. That is not the kind of system we want in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, these three points have served my colleagues from the Social Credit Party during the whole election campaign. We did not waste our time trying to throw discredit on any given party; we have acted objectively and in this House, my colleagues and myself will continue to be objective. We want to put an end to this sense of divisiveness in Canada; the remedy which will promote a better understanding and a better cooperation and the best cooperation is still the economic reform, because our crucial problem, which has to be solved as soon as possible, is the economic problem. We must put the economy in the human being's service.
As Pope Pius XI used to say in 1931, that is 42 years ago: the economic goal will be fully achieved and will reach its real end only when it provides all of us with the part of assets that nature and industry are able to provide, and that part has to be sufficient to enable each of us to be well off.
It is to ensure this decent comfort that we are working seriously, objectively and positively. I call upon all hon. members of this House, whatever party they may be with, to cooperate and not think only in terms of defeating the government and preparing the next election but to give Canadians a regime which would respect the human being, a regime which we allow them to become satisfied human beings in a country as rich as ours.
As I have said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Creditistes will continue to make objective suggestions. We will not play games deciding whether or not the government should be overthrown.
I am telling you, formally and quite sincerely, that when the government introduces a piece of legislation, if it is beneficial to the Canadian people as a whole, we shall
The Address-Mr. Nielsen
support it; otherwise, we shall fight it, no matter whether this should bring about elections or not. We have no ties, we are free, even though we have been ignored since the last election. I am saying that for the information of those who might not know it.
Based on the media, one might swear that only three political parties now exist in the House: the Grits, the Tories and the New Democrats. The others are of no consequence. Oblivion sets in. However, we enjoy the consolidation and the satisfaction of not being forgotten, in due course, outside the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the Prime Minister seemed in an excellent mood to seriously study the proposals put forward by the Official Opposition or the other parties.
Therefore, I hope, as I said before, that the Canadian economy may appropriately serve the Canadian people.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think we were all surprised to find that the leader of the Social Credit Party (Mr. Caouette) did not introduce an amendment. Judging from the election campaign platform of the Social Credit Party, the government would have been hard-pressed not to vote in favour of it as they did in 1963. The guaranteed minimum wage, the guaranteed annual income that they urged so loudly during their campaign, failed to materialize in the speech of the leader of the Social Credit Party (Mr. Caouette).
My first comments are directed to the remarks of the leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis). I took exception when he said-I think I quote him pretty accurately-that there was nothing in the record of the Conservative party, whether in majority or in minority, and therefore nothing in the record of the leader of this party, that would merit greater confidence than in those opposite. It seems to me he is overlooking a rather impressive record of social legislation that was enacted during the years 1957 to 1963 and which his party not only voted for but lauded at the time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I speak of the progress that was made in on-the-job training, the progressive legislation that was passed under the then minister of labour, the former member for Ontario, the setting up of vocational schools across the country, improvements made in the unemployment insurance legislation and many others of which he is well aware. He is trying to duck the legitimate accusation that he is in bed with the Liberals as is, it seems, another party in the House. It sounds almost like the story of Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice. Only one of the parties, namely the official opposition, fails to join that common bed.
The leader of this party has made a very sensible suggestion to the government, which I do not think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will accept and which I believe the NDP will not accept either, because I think they are afraid to accept it; and judging by the conduct of the leader of the Creditiste party they, too, will reject it.

January 8, 1973
The Address-Mr. Nielsen
Much was said by the leader of the NDP, in his remarks on the throne speech, about the urgency of dealing with old age pensions. Again, judging from the number of questions on this subject placed on the order paper by the party to my left, and the number of times it has been raised by members of the Creditiste party, one would think this would be an urgent problem, one with which this government should deal immediately.
We have heard many suggestions regarding amendments that are required in order to improve the unemployment insurance legislation. Indeed, the NDP issued a table of priorities before this parliament convened and in that list of seven priorities they stipulated these to be matters deserving immediate attention. Quoting from an article which appeared in the current press, they wanted action to minimize the effects of winter unemployment, a close watch on the operations of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to prevent inefficiency and delay in issuing cheques, an immediate ban on job elimination, tax cuts for the ordinary citizen, and so on.
Our leader has suggested that this debate should be adjourned today or tomorrow and that the government should bring forward immediately legislation which has been prepared and which will increase old age pensions and deal equitably with old age pensioners. If the NDP does not accept that position, if they do not concur in that suggestion, it means that they are not acting in the best interests of those for whom they purported to act during the election campaign. It is the most shallow hypocrisy for the leader of that party to go carousing across the country expressing his great concern for our old people, advocating increases in the old age pension, and then to stand up in the House and say that his party will not support the suggestion that we deal with it immediately because they want to carry on a debate on the throne speech, which will delay immediate action for the old age pensioners.
The same argument applies to the unemployment insurance changes that are necessary. For members of the Creditiste party and members of the NDP, who went through two months of campaigning stating all the ills that must be cured in these fields, not to support the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to deal with these matters immediately is not only hypocrisy but it is a betrayal of their duty to their party supporters and to the so-called principles that they purport to support.
They said, in a decision that was made long before the throne speech, that they were going to wait and see what legislation came forward. They said that immediately after the throne speech they would hold a press conference, which they did. At that press conference they said exactly that which they had already determined they would say, that is, that they would wait and see the legislation. They said they would keep this government in power until such time as they saw whether their legislation merited support, but they would oppose anything the government brought forward that did not agree with the list of priorities that they had presented.
What a phony position to take! They will support the government in power, without seeing the amendments to the old age pension legislation; they will support the government in power, without seeing the amendments to the

unemployment insurance legislation; they will support the government in power, without any idea of how they will create new jobs; they will support the government in power, on the strength of a vague promise by the government to set up a committee to study the high cost of food and the increased cost of living.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It's a love affair.


Erik Nielsen: They love them; they are in bed with them. It is what one of my colleagues called, during the speech of the leader of the NDP, a marriage between consenting adults: that is precisely what it is. That is the most shallow of hypocrisies, the most shallow position for any party purporting to espouse any principles at all to be taking. If these matters are so urgent as the members of the NDP have been wanting us to believe they are, why do we not deal with them tomorrow? Why should not the government bring forward their UIC legislation, their legislation to deal with increases in old age pensions, and let us adjourn this debate and deal with those matters tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I accuse the leader of the NDP and his followers, if they are going to say the same things that he said, of fear. They will not go along with the suggestion of the leader of our party because they do not want the information before they vote. They do not care about having the information before they vote, because they will vote for the government regardless.
When the leader of the NDP says that the leader of this party has nothing in his record as premier of the province of Nova Scotia to merit his confidence, I do not wonder at all why his party has not held a seat in that province since the defeat of Mr. Gillis in 1957. The leader of the NDP just does not understand the Atlantic provinces. He does not realize that the expertise of the leader of this party resides in the creation of jobs and in economic policy. If there was one thing that the leader of this party did in the province of Nova Scotia, it was to reform the economic fabric of the province and create jobs.


An hon. Member:: Tell us some more.


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member wants to interject, let him not do it cowardly, from his seat; let him ask for the floor and I will gladly give it to him. I do not mind reciting the fact that I lived in the province of Nova Scotia for six years while I studied; I am very proud of that. I understand that province, and maritimers generally. I am just sorry that more members opposite and to my left dit not have the same opportunity.
I need only cite the accomplishments in Nova Scotia of the leader of this party in the creation of Industrial Estates Limited, which created and maintained 5,000 jobs in that province. Not a single aspect of that plan has been changed by the present Liberal premier of the province. The leader of this party revised the system of education there and restructured the economic environment of the province into the form which has been continued to this day by a Liberal premier.
January 8, 1973


John Napier Turner: Are you preaching for a call, Erik?


Erik Nielsen: With respect to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who, some say, has been consistent, although I fail to find any consistency in his conduct while in office-


John Napier Turner: Your leader said it.


Erik Nielsen: -I invite him also to rise and take part in this debate. One thing I am concerned about is the introduction into this debate of rather racial overtones by the Prime Minister. The same course, to a lesser degree, has been followed by the leader of the NDP and by the leader of the Creditiste party. I am very concerned about this as a Canadian.
This is a personal viewpoint, Mr. Speaker; I do not speak for my party when I express it. With respect to the Prime Minister, after reading what I have been able to read about his past writings, and listening to him on the three or four occasions since 1968 when he has taken the opportunity to participate in debates in the House of Commons, I believe he has done more to encourage disunity in this country than any other prime minister in our history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: And he did not improve matters today at all. If the Prime Minister had his way, he would allow this debate to degenerate into some kind of racist harangue, to divert the debate from the real issues, and from the real reasons that the election left him and his party in the sorry state in which they now find themselves. No one can overlook the fact that in the city of Montreal and the islands surrounding Montreal something in excess of one million English Canadians voted for the Liberal party. That certainly tends to go against what the Prime Minister was saying today.
I saw hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) who has the good fortune to be bilingual and I have not, laugh when the leader of the Creditistes said that only two members on this side of the House were from the province of Quebec. That is no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker. Our leader has said time and time again since the election that we want to improve that situation. We believe it is important for Canada that it be improved.
I hear more snickers and laughter opposite, Mr. Speaker. I suggest there would not be any laughter if they had any true regard for having at least two healthy, viable political parties in Canada. It is no more a laughing matter that that happened to us in Quebec than it is that it happened in Alberta to those opposite. It is just as vital that there be representation throughout the country for those opposite as it is for those on this side of the House. Trying to shift the real reasons for the result of the election into this area does a real disservice to unity in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: How are you going to get away with this?
The Address-Mr. Nielsen


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) is very uncomfortable in his new portfolio. I am saying these things sincerely. He says I am not going to get away with it. I do not know what he means by that. I am being just as sincere as I am sure he thought his leader was when he was speaking.
It is essential that this kind of thing does not happen, if we are all concerned about national unity. I come from a part of the country that is fighting its way to get into confederation, not out of it. The truth is that the prime minister and his party came to this sad state of affairs in the election, primarily for economic reasons and secondarily for social reasons. They had a total disregard for the human decisions that were necessary in such areas as unemployment insurance, curing inflation and the high cost of living. The Prime Minister felt that as a mathematician he could work out a paper formula and impose it upon the people without regard to the human qualities that must be considered in making such decisions. The idea of deliberately creating huge unemployment for the purpose of curing inflation was unacceptable to the electorate.
Now the Prime Minister speaks of goodies. He accuses the Leader of the Opposition of contributing to national disunity by mentioning in Quebec City certain facts concerning the allotment of funds to particular provinces. I suggest that we have reached a very sorry state of affairs if we cannot discuss the facts concerning the administration of the minister's previous department, whether in connection with funds allotted to the province of Quebec, to the territory of the Yukon or the Atlantic provinces.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They were not all from his department. Mostly these were election goodies.


Erik Nielsen: Not only did we criticize the national parks that were announced by the minister of northern affairs (Mr. Chretien) on the eve of the election in the province of Quebec; we also criticized the waterfront parks mentioned by the ex-minister of energy, mines and resources who hails from Toronto. We criticized announcements by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) concerning dock development in British Columbia. Why single out one province on which to criticize the Leader of the Opposition?
We criticized the "byways and special places" $50 million program announced by the minister of indian affairs. We criticized Sharp's waterfront park in Toronto, estimated to cost $30 million, and Basford's railway relocation program, costing $25 million. We criticized Pepin's boost to STOL planes, to cost $60 million, and we criticized the Minister of Finance's model city in Ottawa, estimated to cost $400 million. We criticized the minister of indian affairs-


John Napier Turner: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have known the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) for a long time and I know he would not want to misstate the facts. The program announced for Ottawa during the election would not cost a cent, because the federal government already owns the land.


Erik Nielsen: All I can say is that if we have that kind of project going on in the city of Ottawa, we would sure like

January 8, 1973
The Address-Mr. Nielsen
to have some of them going on in the Yukon. Last but not least, we criticized the project of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the national historic park in Quebec City, to cost $16 million, making a total of $581 million, if I am correct in my figures. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) may wish to correct me.


John Napier Turner: You are not correct.


Erik Nielsen: I could be incorrect. I am not mentioning the $2 billion of the unemployment insurance fund, or the "big rip-off", after the book of the same name, LIP or the OFY grants in the city of Toronto. I am just citing these instances to illustrate that we are not zeroing in with criticism in one particular province. It is not fair, it is not correct and it contributes to national disunity to charge this party with zeroing in on one particular province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I say that to announce this kind of thing six days before the vote is taken is a deliberate, preplanned effort by the Liberal party to get votes. The people of Canada were not snowed; they were not snowed in Toronto and they were not snowed in British Columbia where the announcements were made. The people reacted like honest Canadian citizens and rejected the Liberals, but not for racial reasons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: They are just no good.


Gerald William Baldwin: They are incompetent, that's all.


Erik Nielsen: The new Minister of Transport says that the people of Quebec did not understand. But the English speaking people of Montreal island understood and voted heavily in favour of the minister's party, so this cannot be attributed to them. Hon. members on this side of the House take a back seat to no one as strong supporters of national unity in this country. The Prime Minister smiles and takes his Buddha stance now. But I do not want to get holier than thou-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The halo is slipping down over your nose.


Erik Nielsen: I did not serve my country from 1942 to 1952 in the armed forces to listen to somebody accuse me of being against national unity. I did not fight to see that happen in this country, and I will exert every ounce of my energy to see that it does not happen. That is one of the reasons I am here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I am not here to see the Prime Minister stand as he did today and lecture us on constitutional law. I remember another occasion when he trotted out the same precedents. He was a freshman minister of justice when the government was defeated on a tax measure in 1968.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In February.


Erik Nielsen: I remember it very vividly because I had to leave in haste to attend a PTA meeting at Vincent Massey school in Ottawa. It was one of the two votes that defeated the government of that day.
The Prime Minister, as the then minister of justice, maintained the position that he does today, that really a tax measure is unimportant with respect to whether or not the government is defeated. What he said then, he says today-that it is up to the government to decide when it is defeated. If I may paraphrase his remarks, he says that if the government is defeated on basic principles it will go to the people, but if other questions go against them it will not be deemed a defeat. Who is the Prime Minister to decide what will be a question of principle?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: There are some who say that hon. members on the other side of the House have lost their arrogance, that they are now humble, yet we have the Prime Minister saying the same thing that he said in 1968. At that time he said, in effect, "We are the masters. We will decide what issues will defeat us. We will decide when the government steps down". What supreme arrogance, Sir.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had a good deal to say during that debate and it will be interesting to see how he now stomachs the following remark which the Prime Minister made in 1968. During the debate on February 27, 1968, as reported at page 7040 of Hansard the Prime Minister said:
A general election is an instrument given to the government to demonstrate that it has control over and the confidence of the Houses.
I say, Sir, that a general election is not an instrument given to the government; a general election is an instrument given to the majority of the members of this House, and if the government is defeated on a matter, our constitution requires that the government should step down. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre intervened in the debate at that point as follows:
May I ask the minister a question? Was I not asking for that position to be stated before the vote was taken, not after the vote had been taken and the government had lost?
He was cheered for that. The then minister of justice answered:
Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is not the case. These are the rules of parliament. They have been quoted at length by the hon. member and they are quite clear. The difference between the argument put forward by the hon. member and my own position is that the hon. member wishes to be on the side of those who decide if the defeat of a specific bill is the defeat of the government. That is the difference. We say we will decide if the defeat of a specific bill is the defeat of the government.
According to the Prime Minister, that applies today as it did then, whether the decision is taken before or after the vote will be decided by the government. What supreme arrogance. Here is what he said on that occasion, as reported at page 7042 of Hansard:

January 8, 1973

I am answering the question. We are masters of the House in the sense that we have to conduct the affairs of government. That is what it means to assume the power.


George Harris Hees: How things have changed today.


Erik Nielsen: They are the same old bunch, Sir, and they have the same views. They are taking the position that they are not going to be unstuck, they are not going to step down until they decide to do so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Just get support for your motion.


Erik Nielsen: This is why the New Democratic Party is going along with them. The Prime Minister says, with the supreme confidence borne of that intimacy which can exist only between bedfellows, that we should get support for our motion of nonconfidence. He knows we are not going to get it because of those to my left.


George Harris Hees: He has already seduced the NDP.


Gerald William Baldwin: Seduction with no promise of marriage.


Erik Nielsen: He says that the matter must be one going to the roots of their policy. What policy? They went across this country for two months spouting policy that has been rejected by the people of Canada, and now they have shifted into an entirely different field.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Talk about U-turn governments! This is the most flip-flop government I have ever seen in this House, or read about.
Before my time expires, I want to return to the innuendoes and inferences left by the Prime Minister, which are beneath the dignity of any prime minister of this country, to the effect that certain unspecified, unnamed members of this House were guilty of some kind of racism in the campaign. What bothers me is not that unsupported charge, not the innuendoes that he left, so much as something else he said. Again, I copied down his remarks. He said that if hon. members want to know, "I will tell them what evidence I have." This bothers me-


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Like wiretapping.


Erik Nielsen: -because there is a new security force and because there is a propensity on the part of the government to compile dossiers on everybody.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Only if the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the House may he continue his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart).
The Address-Mr. R. Stewart


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I could start my speech now and conclude it tomorrow morning if I am permitted to do so, or still agree that it is ten o'clock as it does not make any difference to me.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, before the end of the last parliament we were told that you would not be with us at the next session and we are all quite happy, myself included, to see that you have been re-elected and I congratulate you as well as the three hon. members respectively elected to the positions of Chairman, Deputy Chairman and Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House (Messrs. McCleave, Laniel and Boulanger).
I want to congratulate the two hon. members, the mover (Mr. Blais) and the seconder (Mr. Blaker) of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne who have spoken on the first day of the session. I wish to mention in particular the mover, not only because he is a remarkable man but also because he comes from Northern Ontario. I am pleased to see that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has decided to choose someone from that place, thus proving that we have many gifted people in the North.

We have had an election and the people of Canada sent 264 of us to this House to look after the affairs of the country. They did their duty on election day; now it is our duty to give service for as long as possible in order to carry out what the people have already asked us to do. Can we sit here and say that there should be collusion between one part of the country and another in trying to arrange for the right number of seats in this House so that the people will not need to go back to the polls and make the same kind of decision before four more years have passed?
I suggest, Sir, that there is obviously some kind of deficiency in our system and that the time has come for changes to be made in our basic system. Unfortunately, whenever we mention any change that involves the constitution, we hear the same kind of answer, particularly if it has to do with fixed dates for elections: some people say, "We do not want to be like the United States." That reminds me a little of some people around Ottawa. When you suggest that Ottawa and the surrounding area should be a national capital region, some people say, "Oh, but we do not want to be like Washington."
There is no reason in the world why we have to be like anybody else. There are ways of changing things by using methods that would be to our advantage, without our needing to change our whole system and without our needing to be like anybody else. There is no more reason for Ottawa to be like Washington than there is for us to be Americans. This applies equally in the case of a fixed day for elections.
I do not always agree with the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters), but this is one point on which I agree with him wholeheartedly. I remember that in the previous parliament he submitted a private member's bill relating to specific and fixed days for elections. Certainly, when

January 8, 1973
The Address-Mr. R. Stewart
the people of Canada sent us here they did not intend to choose again in a matter of months a new group to govern them. They sent us here with the idea of our serving their interests for the next few years. This is the way it ought to be.
If we are to play the kind of games that have been played up to now, I can see no possible advantage for the people of Canada. I certainly cannot buy a system under which a minority group such as the NDP in this parliament, with fewer than 12 per cent of the seats in this House, shall decide what legislation shall be brought down and keep one or other party in power. It seems to me that in that situation the tail wags the dog.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Some tail; some dog.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: That is not democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: It is a son of a dog.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: I do not say this because it involves the NDP; I would say the same if the Creditistes or anybody else were involved. Under a democracy, the majority should rule. In this case we are trying to operate under a two-party system with four parties. It seems to me that the people of Canada cannot help but suffer as a result. I think that is the only thing that can happen. On one hand you have a group which has power tentatively and is afraid of losing it; on the other hand there is a group that wants it. Then on the third hand there is a group that wants to use its position of balance of power in order to get the kind of legislation passed that it has in mind.
The people of Canada did not elect fewer than 12 per cent of the members of this House in order for those members to decide the legislation of this House. Therefore, I cannot see why this kind of system should last any longer. If we go back to the country in the next few years, there is no guarantee that we will be returned to this House with any one party holding an absolute majority.


Erik Nielsen: Want to take any bets?


Ralph Wesley Stewart: It seems to me that the time has come to change that tradition. We are great on traditions which are not our own. One tradition which I have abhorred in the past, and I will mention it again since it involves the traditions of this House, is the tradition of traipsing down the hall to the Senate to listen to the Speech from the Throne. Most of us have to watch it on TV because we cannot get in the door. If that is not ludicrous, I do not know what is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the government House leader what the business of the House will be tomorrow.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we will continue with this debate tomorrow.



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

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pursue a question that I put to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), on Friday last regarding the reference in the Speech from the Throne to the establishment of a special joint committee of this House and the other place to study the price of food. I wish to take a few moments this evening to enunciate some of my ideas as to what I think this House should consider in the establishment of such a committee. I want to mention some of the terms of reference that are important with regard to the committee, if it is to study food prices and recommend action on legislation which has teeth in it and is effective.
The first point I wish to make is this. I do not think it is necessary to include members of the other place on a committee of this nature. My leader referred to this point. He said that if they wish to appear as directors of certain companies to which they belong, that would be fine. A committee of this sort could and should be made up of members of this House and this House alone.
The announcement in the Speech from the Throne is welcome to me. I do not know why the government waited so long before introducing a measure of this sort. The price of food has been increasing sharply for the past 12 months. In the last year it amounted to more than 10 per cent. But it was not until October 30, when the government found out that the land was not strong, that action was taken; until then hon. members opposite shrugged off this important question.
I recall, in recent months, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggesting that an increase in food prices might not be bad because higher farm prices would benefit from it. I wish to remind hon. members through you, Mr. Speaker, that farmers are not reaping the benefits of the increase. Net farm income has declined over the last five years and the farmers' share of the food dollar has dropped drastically in the last 20 years. In 1949 the farmer received 57 per cent of the food dollar; in 1972 he received only 38 per cent.
This is the time, therefore, for a thorough investigation into the increase in the price of food. We must find out who is getting the benefit of this increase for which the consumer is paying. I believe the House should move immediately, tomorrow, to the formation of the committee. I urge the minister to contact the House leaders of all
January 8, 1973

parties with a view to forming the committee tomorrow in order that we can take action without delay. I also urge the minister to recommend to the House that we give the committee more than simply power to study the rise in the price of food. For too long we have established task forces, royal commissions, and so on, to study major problems; then all we have done is file away the results in the garbage can, forgotten about them and let the dust gather on them, while the people reap no benefit.
I wish now to make a few suggestions which I hope the minister will take seriously. I believe the committee should be given power, in its terms of reference, to examine the financial records of the various companies and associations which are relevant to its study. It should also have the power to examine all relevant documents.
I believe the committee should take account of all aspects of food prices and look into the activities of all companies engaged in this field. I have in mind five or six broad items, things such as the basic profits of food companies engaged in the production, processing and packaging of food. Third, the committee should look carefully into the distribution of food; this includes transportation by rail and by other means. Fourth, the committee should study the aspects of advertising and promotion; fifth, the conglomerate structures, vertical integration, chain stores, and so on. Here I refer to companies such as Garfield-Weston and all their subsidiaries.
At all levels of the food industry, what we must look for is the profit on equity investment. It is misleading when some of the chain stores say they have only made one half per cent profit, or one per cent profit, on sales. I will use one example. We find firms such as Dominion Stores saying they showed a profit of only .6 per cent on food sales in Canada. But if we look closely at the records we find that the company actually showed a profit of 11 per cent on investment in Dominion Stores across the country. These are some of the aspects of the question which the committee should study as it considers the increase in the price of food and recommends action to roll back these increases.
We must act now because this is an important issue to very many Canadians in my riding, such as those on fixed incomes and poor people on welfare, people who are unemployed and others who do not reap the benefits of our so-called affluent society.
We must act as countries such as Sweden have acted. Sweden announced recently the establishment of price controls on some basic commodities. Similarly, we must have a prices review board that has teeth, that is not afraid to investigate increases in the price of food. If the increase is not justified, parliament has a moral obligation to control the price of food, rolling the price back on behalf of the average consumer.
These are a few of the ideas that I should like the minister to comment on briefly tonight when he responds to my question.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a number of interesting observations on the composition of and terms of reference for a parliamentary inquiry into food prices. I should remind the hon. member that the
Adjournment Debate
committee in question will not be formed by the government or the House leaders but, instead, will come into existence as a result of debate and decision in parliament. I expect we will see a notice of motion on the order paper to establish a parliamentary committee to study food prices very soon. I hope that once this motion appears on the order paper the House leaders will agree to have it called as soon as possible so a decision can be made on it shortly thereafter.
In the course of debate on the motion to establish the committee we will be able to go into the suggestions made by the hon. member this evening, as well as other suggestions that will come from all sides of the House in some further detail. There is no question that a committee on food prices is important at this time and I look forward to its early creation.


HOUSING-WHITSON GARDENS SUBDIVISION, CHELMSFORD, ONT.-ACTION TO MAINTAIN VALUE OF HOUSE NOT SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE.
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, the situation that I raised in my question on Friday of last week was precipitated by the housing shortage in my constituency of Nickel Belt. This shortage of homes at a price our people could afford led to a great deal of land speculation and the building of homes with inferior materials and cheap workmanship, homes that were then sold by questionable methods.
Both levels of government, provincial and federal, consistently refused to pass the kind of legislation that would protect the consumer from scandals such as Whitson Gardens. But how could one expect the old line parties to pass legislation against their staunchest financial backers? In this case it happens to be a Tory bagman and former candidate for the Progressive Conservative nomination for the Nickel Belt riding in 1968, Ross Shouldice. It was his company which built the homes in Whitson Gardens and put them up for sale at an average price of $21,000.
He then established Silhouette Developments Limited and Trasco Realty Limited to sell the houses. Some of the buyers obtained a lawyer of their own and, having their necessary down payment, bought homes. Others, coerced by Trasco Realty Limited, entered into what they thought was a home purchase but later turned out to be a rental agreement. They had been making their payments to Silhouette, which never made the first mortgage payments to the Toronto-Dominion Bank. In the meantime, Ross Shouldice had gone to Blind River, Ontario, and obtained $49,000 in DREE grants and manpower retraining grants to open up Wholesale Homes Limited, which suddenly ceased operations after about one year.
Why is it that when a very small minority of people rip off welfare and unemployment insurance schemes these old line rednecks label them as "freeloaders", but when shysters like Shouldice and Company can bilk the people of Canada for all they can get they are called "free enterprisers"? The way this person ripped off the society makes Moby Dick look like a minnow.
CMHC had and still has a grave responsibility to the home buyers. How is it that CMHC guaranteed loans for

January 8, 1973
Adjournment Debate
homes built by Shouldice and his various front organizations without doing a performance check on this developer? How could such poor workmanship pass inspection by CMHC appraisers?
I call for a complete investigation of the CMHC and the manner in which it operates and underwrites mortgage loans. CMHC has a responsibility to those persons whose homes are not being foreclosed, and that is to rehabilitate the foreclosed homes to CMHC standards and possibly sell them to the Ontario Housing Corporation. Moreover, the government has a responsibility to legislate a national building code and put some teeth into it, and also to introduce legislation to protect the purchasers of new homes in respect of defects, inferior material and unscrupulous marketing techniques.
Indeed, there is nothing new in what I have suggested. As a matter of fact, in Great Britain, where builders are registered with a national housing bureau, they have to offer the following protection to home buyers: inspection in the interests of buyers, that is, to quality and appearance and not just strength and safety, give a two-year guarantee with an arbitration system to settle disputes, provide ten-year coverage against major structural damage, and provide insurance to protect a buyer if a builder should go bankrupt. There must also be an undertaking by the council to implement any arbitration award should a builder default.
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if our constituents in the Nickel Belt, in Whitson Gardens in particular, had this kind of protection under the law I would not have had to direct the question to the minister last Friday and I would not be standing here making a speech tonight. It seems to me that the interests of our people are completely ignored by this kind of government. Surely this is a situation which cries for justice, and I ask for justice for the people who have invested their savings and earnings in this operation.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) in his remarks this evening has ranged somewhat further than his question on Friday. Let me say to him in a general way that I welcome his remarks. In respect of what he has said about housing policy, I am pleased to inform him that there are a number of proposals in the Speech from the Throne which I will be enunciating further in the course of this debate, in the course of a federal-provincial conference to be held in Ottawa on January 22 and 23, and in administrative changes under study in respect of CMHC, all of which will answer some of the problems he has enunciated.
May I also say to him, in relation to his general remarks about the kind of things he has observed in the particular sub-division to which his question relates, that we have seen instances across Canada of bad workmanship and
non-completion of houses which have created great hardship for purchasers. Because of my past experience and outlook as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for three and a half years, I can say that the throne speech indicates our desire and willingness to set up a system of warranties for new home purchasers. I think this is very much needed in this country, and when these proposals are laid before parliament and the country I feel I can look forward to the support of the hon. member for Nickel Belt.
May I say, in respect of this particular sub-division and the difficulties that have been created there, that the practice of that particular selling organization is a matter of investigation by the department of consumer affairs of Ontario. I have told my officials to co-operate with them to the fullest extent. Where there has been wrongdoing and breach of the law, I have no doubt those people should be prosecuted if the investigation should show that. I am sure the hon. member agrees with that position. We will be as helpful as possible.
The hon. member expressed concern about the people within the subdivision, and their investment being protected. He mentioned that unoccupied houses and those subject to foreclosure denigrate the value of other properties in the area and take away from those who are making their payments. May I make clear the legal position of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We assure payment of the mortgages to the extent they are being foreclosed by the Toronto Dominion Bank, the mortgage holder. We have no legal position until the bank in fact forecloses and comes to us, at which time we acquire the property.
I give the hon. member our assurance that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation acts in such a manner as to endeavour to manage that property, deals with it in such a way as to ensure not only recovery of the investment but also tries to avoid impairment of the value of adjoining properties. That is the practice the corporation has followed and will follow here.
On Friday last the hon. member asked whether I would have negotiations with the Ontario Housing Corporation concerning property in this subdivision. I have instructed my officials to do so. I have not yet had a report on that. Whether or not it will lead to anything remains to be seen, because the Ontario Housing Corporation, while it owns and purchases houses, purchases them for a limited purpose. I am not sure that the residents of the subdivision would want the Ontario Housing Corporation to turn these houses, for example, into rental houses or public housing developments of one sort or another. That is a matter for discussion among the people in the subdivision and the Ontario Housing Corporation. I have asked my people to discuss those possibilities with OHC.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.18 p.m.

Tuesday. January 9, 1973