1973-01-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table the annual report of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada for the calendar year 1971.


FUEL OIL PRICE INCREASE-POSSIBLE SHORTAGE- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the recently announced increase in the price of fuel oil by Shell Canada Limited, the cut-back in fuel oil deliveries in the United States, and the estimate by the responsible minister in the province of Alberta that Canada may face a shortage of oil in a matter of months, I ask unanimous consent under Standing Order 43 to move the following motion:
That the government ask the National Energy Board of Canada to make an immediate report on this critical situation, along with its recommendations to rafeguard the Canadian users of fuel oil and related petroleum products against unwarranted price increases and the possible shortage of supplies.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. Under Standing Order 43 this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion therefore cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, while yesterday the Prime Minister ignored my request that he state the policy of his government to increase employment I should like to ask him today whether he is prepared through this House to tell the 580,000 unemployed Canadians, as reported for the month of December-6.8 per cent of the working force-what his program is to reduce unemployment?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer would be in terms which were already mentioned in the Speech from the Throne about measures which have been taken and, of course, measures which will be taken in the industrial sector, plus an answer in terms of the budget speech which we expect will be fairly soon and which will announce a whole series of measures to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we have had these budgets before. Will the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that his Minister of Finance will list fully today and in a very concrete fashion the measures the government proposes to take to reduce unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will be participating in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. He will be answering in part the questions of the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure he will not be able to make a statement of a budgetary nature but I repeat that he will repeat his commitment to make a budgetary speech in the early future.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Indeed he will do that, but I should like to ask whether the Prime Minister can give us the assurance today that at least the 3 per cent increase in personal income tax which came into effect as of January 1, with its effects on employment, the economy and inflation, will be repealed, or does he feel that the corporations are entitled to more information concerning the taxes they will have to pay this year than individual Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


UNEMPLOYMENT-REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE INCREASE IN FUNDS AVAILABLE TO MUNICIPALITIES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS TO CREATE JOBS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask some supplementary questions on the same subject. Perhaps I will direct them to start with to the Minister of

January 9, 1973
Oral Questions
Finance. In view of the very considerable surplus that the increasing revenues in the federal treasury have created, contrary to his estimate last May that there would be a deficit, is the minister now prepared to make an immediate increase in the funds available to municipalities and other organizations to speed up the creation of jobs without any delay?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I said recently that the cash requirements of the government, which I forecast in my budget of May 8 as $2 billion, remain, on the basis of the revenue and expenditure picture, still at roughly $2,200 million. On the question of aid to municipalities, the government has announced a $350 million federal-provincial-municipal loan and grant project. The arrangements with the provinces have now virtually been concluded and I expect, as I said on December 6, that the total cash flow available against winter unemployment this year will be in the range of $375 million compared with $300 million last year.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the $350 million-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-to which he referred was for a period of three years and that only about $50 million of that amount-I am stating this from memory-is to be spent this winter, and in view of the continuing rise in unemployment and the fact that the policies so far adopted have simply not worked, is he not prepared now to take immediate steps to increase the amounts which he proposed last December and to make them available immediately to the municipalities and other organizations?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is right in the sense that the $350 million program for provincial and municipal loans, with a forgiveness feature, is a three-year program and we expect the cash flow from that to be about $60 million to $75 million this winter, but he neglected to draw to the attention of the House the fact that there is the local initiatives program of over $125 million as a direct intervention by a federal department, $60 million for on the job training and so on, amounting, as I have said, to a total cash flow this winter of $375 million.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously there are a number of members seeking supplementaries on this subject. In fairness, perhaps the hon. member for York South might ask a further supplementary question and then I will go to the hon. member for Don Valley.


UNEMPLOYMENT-FUNDS ALLOCATED UNDER LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-PROCESSSING OF APPLICATIONS
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's reference to the local initiatives program, may I ask him how much of that money has already been allocated? Is it not true that a large number of applications have not yet been dealt with? If he is not the minister who can give that information, perhaps the Minister of Manpower and Immigration could do so. Is it not a fact 
that a good many of the applications have not yet been dealt with?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member ask the question. 1 think he will agree that he is now getting into the field of argument.


David Lewis: May I rephrase the question and ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he can speed up the approval of applications which, I believe he mentioned the other day, total 11,000, so that this disastrous unemployment situation may be improved at least a little by more local initiative programs being put into effect immediately?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in fact we have approved about $110 million of the $165 million allocated to the local initiatives program. That amounts to the creation of approximately 70,000 jobs or, more precisely, 231,000 man-months of work.
With respect to the speed with which this is being done, I can only draw to the attention of the House the fact that this is considerably ahead of the same program last year, that the first $80 million was allocated in October, a month earlier than in the previous year, and that the second allocation of $85 million was made in December. We are now into the second allocation. But having said that may I add that I sympathize with the hon. member's suggestion, and we are putting all pressure possible on those in charge of the program to get projects approved and the applicants advised.


UNEMPLOYMENT-INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF SHORT-TERM ECONOMIC FORECASTING UNIT
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In light of the variation in the unemployment figures released today from those anticipated in the minister's budget speech, can the minister tell the House whether the government is now going to introduce legislation to set up an independent short-term forecasting unit?


John Napier Turner: The hon. member is referring to a short-term forecasting unit?


James McPhail Gillies: An independent agency.


John Napier Turner: But for short-term forecasting as opposed to medium and long-term undertaken by the Economic Council of Canada?


James McPhail Gillies: Yes.


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.


James McPhail Gillies: Is the minister prepared to introduce legislation permitting the Economic Council of Canada to enter into this field of economic activity?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.


James McPhail Gillies: Does this mean that the minister is content with the economic forecasting he is getting from the Department of Finance at the present time?
January 9, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is out of order.


UNEMPLOYMENT-USE OF EMPLOYMENT-INFLATION TRADE-OFF APPROACH TO ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he can advise the House whether the government has rejected the employment-inflation trade-off approach to economic management?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker that is something I would like to deal with in debate. It is a little hard to deal with in reply to a question at this time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister advise the House of the figure he had in mind or that the government had in mind when the Speech from the Throne was written, when they indicated that their third priority was to attain reasonable price stability? In order that we may know what it is, Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us the figure that the government has in mind with regard to price stability?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, reasonable price stability means the type of price stability that does not unduly erode incomes, particularly fixed incomes, of Canadians.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister be good enough to tell us what that figure is?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


UNEMPLOYMENT-WINTER CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND- AVAILABILITY OF APPLICATION FORMS TO ONTARIO MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, this is supplementary to the question originally put by the hon. member for York South to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister indicate when the province of Ontario will be in a position to make application forms available to municipalities for loans and grants under the $350 million provincial-municipal winter capital projects fund?


John Napier Turner: Almost immediately, Mr. Speaker. Very thorough negotiations have been taking place between the federal government and the province of Ontario, indeed between the federal government and all the provinces, to ensure that the criteria for loans under the fund are uniformly applied all across the country. I expect a reply very shortly to the letter I sent to Mr. MacNaughton of Ontario. It is a matter of imminence.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made by Dr. W. R. Diamond, the recently retired assistant deputy minister of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, that job vacancies in Canada are at a minimum, does the government now intend to stop trying to pretend that there are plenty of job vacancies available?
Oral Questions
Mr- Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows that that kind of question is not in order.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of housing. When he takes part in the throne speech debate- I assume he is going to-can he assure the House he intends to indicate that there will be provision for a significant allocation of funds for average and low-income housing immediately in order to meet the housing need and also to provide jobs?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there already is a very significant allocation of funds for that purpose, but we will be introducing amendments to the National Housing Act to increase and make the flow of money into low-income housing more readily available to those who want to take advantage of it.


John Edward Broadbent: Can the minister assure the House that the amendments he just referred to will be introduced in the early days of this session and, more specifically, within the next ten days?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I hope to introduce them- and here I may get into trouble-before the federal-provincial conference that I announced yesterday. In any event, they will be introduced during the course of this month.


INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION TO AMEND NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I take it from the minister's answer that nothing will be done, no legislation will be brought in or any plans laid before the House in reference to housing needs and unemployment, until the conclusion of the federal-provincial conference that I understand is to be held on January 20 or 21?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there are ongoing programs of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. For example, there is the sewer construction program which is an ongoing program and one on which vast sums of money are being spent. I hope the hon. member does not think that program should be cut back until other funds are available. That program is going forward with as much money as I can get for it from the Treasury Board.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I never suggested that any program be cut back. In the press conference and the Speech from the Throne the question of housing was of top priority with reference to employment and other economic matters affecting the nation. I am asking the minis-

January 9, 1973
Oral Questions
ter ii the amendments to the National Housing Act and plans for housing changes will be implemented and brought before the House after the conference in question, with a further delay?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful of introducing tne amendments to the National Housing Act before the conference, but they will, of course, be discussed in parliament and at the federal-provincial conference. There have already been two rounds of consultations with the provinces with reference to this matter, but the program envisaged in those amendments cannot be got under way until the legislation is passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are obviously a number of supplementaries. I will return to the hon. members in a moment. If the hon. member for Calgary North will ask his supplementary, in fairness I will then recognize the hon. member for Champlain.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do I take it that this conference is basically superfluous in view of the fact that all changes are to be brought before the House before the conference commences?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is debate. The hon. member for Champlain.


REQUEST THAT MEMBERS PARTICIPATE IN PREPARATION OF LEGISLATION
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the particular circumstances resulting from the last federal election, has the Prime Minister explored the possibility of asking each of the political parties represented in the House to participate in the drafting of the different pieces of legislation he wishes to bring down during this session?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It would seem such a measure would be hard to implement, Mr. Speaker. The co-operation to which the hon. member alludes should normally take place at the time the bills are discussed, I think. I already indicated in the speech that we would welcome amendments which, in our opinion, would strengthen the fabric of the bills. However much we desire this co-operation I fail to see where a decision on a bill itself, normally taken at the cabinet level, could be shared with the different parties, unless of course, members of those parties accepted to be part of the cabinet.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.

In the light of alarming statistics indicating that the unemployment rate in Quebec is almost twice as high as in the west, is the right hon. Prime Minister considering calling a conference on economic problems and possibilities in Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think that if the Quebec Conservative leader looked at the figures he would see that the unemployment rate has decreased in Quebec since last month as compared with the rest of the country.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Would the Prime Minister kindly reply to my question and tell this House whether he intends to convene a conference on the economic problems of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member wants me to reply to his questions, he should not preface them as he does.


Claude Wagner: The Prime Minister might wish to reply to my question.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN PRAIRIE PROVINCES-SUGGESTED MEETING WITH PROVINCIAL FINANCE MINISTERS TO DISCUSS CREATION OF JOBS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that unemployment increased last month in the prairie provinces and in view of the expressed concern of this government, will the minister undertake to meet immediately with his provincial counterparts, the Ministers of Finance of the prairie provinces, to discuss job creation in that region?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am meeting with the Ministers of Finance of the prairie provinces next week, on January 18 and 19, as well as the ministers from the other provinces and that subject will undoubtedly be on the agenda.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES-INQUIRY AS TO MEETING WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTERS OF FINANCE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, and the latter part of his previous answer may have covered part of the question. In view of the tragic unemployment figures in Atlantic Canada, is the minister recommending to his colleagues that they consult or does he intend to consult with the Ministers of Finance in Atlantic Canada in order to discuss the tragic unemployment situation in that region?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic ministers will be at the meeting next week.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES-POSITION OF GOVERNMENT ON 1971 REPORT OF ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic
January 9, 1973

Expansion, perhaps to assist the Minister of Finance in discussions with his provincial colleagues. Has the minister had time to read and assess the report of the Atlantic Development Council of January, 1971, which sets out its conclusions and recommendations for the development of Atlantic Canada? If so, when can he tell the House how much of that report will be a government objective?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have read it. It is an excellent report and I agree with a good deal of it. As for consultation, it has begun with three of the four Atlantic province premiers and two out of the three prairies province premiers and I am hoping to consult with the remainder within the next few weeks and that there will be some disclosure. I will be taking part in the debate on the address and will give the hon. member some details at that time, I trust.


UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED PRESENTATION OF NEW ECONOMIC STRATEGY TO MEET PROBLEM
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. As present indications would lead us to believe that unemployment for January will exceed the 650,000 in January of last year, which certainly makes this an emergency situation is the minister prepared to participate in the current debate before the House and take advantage of that occasion to present to the House a new economic strategy to meet the critical situation in the country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. gentleman's preamble does not turn out to be the case. In any event, I will be participating in the debate and, as I said earlier and as the Prime Minister repeated earlier this morning, I want to bring down a budget at the earliest opportunity.


UNEMPLOYMENT-GOVERNMENT DEFINITION OF FULL EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a question about the unemployment situation. Can he inform the House what the government's definition is, for its own policy-making purposes, of full employment? Even now we do not know what that definition is.


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to try to do that. The hon. member for Trinity and the hon. member for Don Valley were talking about targets. The Economic Council of Canada suggested, when speaking in terms of targets, that the targets for prices and unemployment needed to be supplemented by 13 or 14 other indicators. My own definition of full employment is a situation in the economy in which every able man or woman legitimately seeking a job can find work.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will agree that this type of question and that type of answer are
Oral Questions
more in the debate field than belonging to the question period. Having said that, the hon. member may ask a supplementary.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary simply is: what is that definition in percentage terms? Is it 1 per cent, 2 per cent or 3 per cent? What is it?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman does not understand that the definition of full employment is not a statistical target; it is a human target.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the minister. Did he say human or inhuman?


An hon. Member:: Inhuman, as far as this government is concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to that which I directed yesterday to the Postmaster General.
Does he know that meetings will be held in large urban areas following the completion of the postal workers' vote apparently to explain to the union members the real contents of the resolutions on which the vote was held and the steps expected to be taken on their behalf. Could the Postmaster General tell us whether his department will send some observers to those meetings?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the first part of the question is yes and it is the same for the second part of the question, if we are invited to those meetings.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell us whether he has expressed the wish to be invited to those meetings to the union leaders?


INQUIRY AS TO CONCILIATION REPORT ON POSTMASTERS IN SMALL TOWNS AND RURAL COMMUNITIES
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the question I directed to the Postmaster General yesterday. Is he now in a position to indicate when the report will be tabled on the other important discussions going on with reference to the Canadian Postmasters Association?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in his comments concerning a conciliation report about postmasters, I think the hon. member was

January 9, 1973
Oral Questions
confusing two series of negotiations now taking place. Insofar as the postmasters are concerned, I know there is no conciliation report and we hope to reach an agreement without conciliation proceedings.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris on a point of order.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, in replying to my earlier question the Postmaster General indicated that I was confused about two conciliation board reports. If he would read Hansard for yesterday he would see that the shoe is on the other foot and that he is the one who is confused. May I ask the minister this supplementary. Will he deal more expeditiously with the negotiations that are going on with the Canadian Postmasters Association than he has with the current negotiations on the other conciliation board report?


André Ouellet: I hope so, Mr. Speaker.


CONCILIATION BOARD REPORT-RESULT OF STRIKE VOTE BY POSTAL WORKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ACCEPTANCE OF REPORT
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Has he been informed of the results of the strike vote by the postal workers and is he now prepared to give the government's reaction to the conciliation board report in that dispute?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I missed the question.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East should be given an opportunity to repeat his question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I understand from the minister's reply that he missed my question. Has the minister been informed of the results of the voting in the postal workers, dispute with the government? Also, is the minister now prepared to tell the House and the country what the government's attitude or reaction is to the conciliation board report in that dispute?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think this is more appropriately a question for the President of the Treasury Board inasmuch as that board deals directly with these matters.


James Aloysius McGrath: Then I will refer the matter to the President of the Treasury Board and I hope he will be more informative than he was yesterday.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be more informative but unfortunately I am ill-informed. The results of the strike vote are not yet known to us and it may not be until tomorrow that we learn anything further.


James Aloysius McGrath: Since the strike vote has now been concluded, surely the minister is prepared to tell the House and the country whether or not the government is prepared to accept the recommendations of the conciliation board?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the results of the referendum or the current vote are not yet known to us but we are endeavouring to find out.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the results of the voting are not known but the voting has been concluded, which surely leaves the minister in a position to tell the House whether or not the government accepts or rejects the report of the conciliation board.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is repeating the question he first asked. I appreciate that he did not receive a reply from the minister.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I cannot help it if the minister does not seem to understand the question, which surely is an important one. All I am saying is that the minister should now tell the House whether or not the government is prepared to accept or reject the report of the conciliation board in the postal dispute. That is a very simple question.


Mr. Speaker:: It is very simple but it is the question that was asked in the first instance. The minister chose not to reply, as is his right. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands.


FUEL OIL PRICE INCREASE-POSSIBLE SHORTAGE OF SUPPLIES-INQUIRY AS TO IMPOSITION OF CONTROLS ON EXPORT
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of the shortage of oil supplies in the United States and the tendency for Canadian oil to go south to a higher priced market, resulting in increased prices in Canada and a possible shortage of oil supplies in this country. Does the government intend to impose any system of controls on the export of Canadian oil supplies in the same manner as it has with natural gas?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this question has been the subject of study by the National Energy Board as well as the subject of conversations with both the government of Alberta and the industry itself. At the present time we have no intention of imposing a form of regulation or export control. We have the assurance of the industry that requirements for refinery feed stocks of existing Canadi-

an refineries will continue to be met. In the short term, at least, there is apparently no problem in continuing supplies for refinery feed stocks.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that prices in Canada are already increasing, may I ask what steps the government is taking to ensure that increased demand for Canadian oil in the United States is not used as an excuse for increasing the price to Canadian consumers to an unjustifiable level?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think that the government of Alberta would take the view that this commodity should continue to increase in value along with other products in our community. At the present time we are not proposing any action with regard to price, although we will be watching very closely the impact of United States demand on Canadian prices in the Canadian market.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the government making or has it made any study of the growth rate of crude oil reserves, and is the government satisfied that they are adequate in order to prevent an oil shortage in Canada in the immediate future?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this question has been under assessment. Leaving out for the moment the question of the tar sands, I think I am correct in saying that conventional oil reserves in the central plains have not been growing in recent years. Obviously future Canadian demand will, I think, have to be met by the tar sands and by frontier oil. The question of supply is one of the questions that the board has under study and on which we reported last week. This is being given very careful attention in order to make sure that Canadian refineries have priority with regard to Canadian production.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What response has the government of Canada received from the administration of the United States or from the Secretary of State of the United States to the motion passed by this House last Friday in connection with Viet Nam?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the text of this resolution was handed to the Secretary of State of the United States by Senator Martin when he was attending the memorial service for former President Truman. The embassy has also passed it on to the State Department. There has not yet been a reply.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been any communication by the administration of the United States with the Canadian embassy in this connection? When the minister is answer-
Oral Questions
ing that question, will he also say whether or not there has been any reply from the United States to the several representations alleged to have been made by the Prime Minister and other members of the government to the United States during the two weeks prior to the motion passed by the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not yet received any replies.


John George Diefenbaker: I have one other question, Mr. Speaker. I asked the other day whether the minister would produce to the House the various representations alleged to have been made by the government and he said it was necessary to secure the permission of the administration of the United States, with which I agree. Has the minister asked for that permission so these illusory things can be produced?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman omitted one part of my answer the other day; I said that it was not our intention to ask the United States government to reveal these messages. We feel it is important to retain confidentiality in diplomatic exchanges between the two governments. However, I shall be quite prepared to answer questions about the general substance of these representations.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have never known the minister to be so completely oblivious to the facts. He said the other day that he would, if he could, get the consent of the United States, and I have now asked him whether he had. Is it because there were no such representations that the minister is displaying such reluctance to answer?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from the newspapers this morning that the United States has received such representations and has said so.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board following the line of questions that prompted him to say earlier that he wanted to be more informative. That being the case, would he inform the House when he intends to produce for the examination of members of the House the report of the Bryden Commission?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: believe the so-called Bryden Commission report does not lie within my jurisdiction.

January 9, 1973
Oral Questions SPORTS


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON PROVISION OF FUNDS
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question concerning the Olympic games to my namesake, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the government yet reached a decision in connection with federal financial participation in the Montreal Olympics in 1976 and, if so, what will be the extent of such participation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a previous question, I have already indicated that the Montreal Olympics are not under my administrative jurisdiction.


Mark Willson Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the appropriate minister?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the federal position has not changed from that stated by the Prime Minister in the House some time ago.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the representations made by the Canadian government on behalf of CBC announcer GaStan Barrette who is now in Europe. Could the minister advise us of the nature of those representations and their results, if any?


Mr. Speaker:: Some of those questions could easily by put on the order paper. In this instance I shall allow the minister to answer the question, if he so wishes, but I invite hon. members to consider this other means provided by the Standing Orders of the House.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question correctly, it refers to the case of Mr. Gaetan Barrette, a Canadian citizen employed by the CBC who was arrested in Greece on October 6 and charged with possession of one half gram of hashish. His trial took place on December 21 at which time he was sentenced to seven months from the date of his arrest. His lawyer is filing an appeal. The Department of External Affairs and our embassy in Greece have kept in close touch with Mr. Barrette, his lawyer, his family and colleagues in the CBC and have provided all possible assistance.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Perhaps I could preface it by congratulating him on his appointment to his high office. Many veterans who are applying for disability pensions are faced with long waiting periods between the date of application and the date upon which a decision is reached. Would the minister discuss this matter with the Pension Commission and make a statement on motions outlining the steps already taken and the steps to be taken in order to expedite such decisions?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, certain steps have already been taken. We are aware that some of the requests for pensions have met with considerable delays. This situation has been brought about as a result of the new legislation approved about a year ago in the House, which enabled many veterans who were previously unable to apply for pensions to do so. I believe a great deal of progress is being made by the Pension Commission in this respect. I have held discussions with the commission, and in the not too distant future I hope to be able to make a report to the House which will be very encouraging as far as this situation is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: In
view of the fact that applications now total 9,400 which indicates that the backlog is growing rather than declining, may I ask what immediate steps the minister is taking to deal with this problem? I might add that the veterans are, of course, getting older and that it seems to be taking a considerable time to deal with their applications.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: As to the backlog increasing, I think it will be pointed out in a matter of days, when I make my report, that it is not, in fact, increasing, and that certain steps have already been taken to remedy the situation. I might point out that the legislation passed by the House provided for the addition of seven new members to the commission. These people have been appointed. Hon. members will, I know, appreciate that learning to interpret the act from a legal and medical point of view is a tedious job. Those recently appointed are now in a position to do their work very efficiently, and I feel that great progress is being made. I met yesterday with the president of the Canadian Legion and others from the War Amputees' Association. They are also very keen that we should process these applications as rapidly as possible-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we might go on to the next question.


REFERENCE OF REPORT ON BASIC RATE OF DISABILITY PENSION TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the
January 9, 1973

Minister of Veterans Affairs. Will the report of the group which studied the basic rate of the disability pension that is paid under the Pension Act be acted upon by the government at an early date or, if not, will it be referred as soon as possible to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Just as soon as the committee has been formed I shall be referring that report to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for study as the first order.


MANPOWER
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in charge of the local initiatives program. Has the hon. gentleman given a directive to the officials in charge of this program that applications from municipalities should receive a lower priority than those from individuals? Why does this seem to be the case?


Robert Knight Andras: They have not received such a directive. Applications from municipalities compete with applications from private organizations.


CANADA LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Can the
Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour please advise us why no western Canadian was appointed to the new Canada Labour Relations Board?


John Carr Munro: I shall be pleased to check into that matter and report back to the hon. member.


George Harris Hees: You know why.


John Douglas Reynolds: Will the minister undertake to make sure that a representative of western Canada is appointed to that board should an oversight have taken place?


MANPOWER
Mr. Reg. Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister tell the House how many people received the benefit of federally-funded retraining programs in 1972, or any part of that year-
The Address-Mr. R. Stewart


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that this question should be placed upon the order paper.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It relates to his concern about unemployment in human terms. As the hon. gentleman is aware, the Economic Council of Canada has set a target of 4.5 per cent with respect to maximum acceptable unemployment. Would the minister advise the House and the people of Canada whether he has accepted this direction from the Economic Council as being the target upon which the government should set its sights?


John Napier Turner: That is one of 15 targets the Economic Council recommended as subjects for discussion between the federal and provincial governments. The hon. gentleman's leader has already said he does not accept that figure.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I appreciate the speech which the minister has made to me but I just want an answer to a simple question in order that we can determine in which direction the government is going. Does the minister accept the target for unemployment of 4.5 per cent, I believe, set by the Economic Council of Canada? That is all I am asking. Yes or no?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have already dealt with that subject in human terms rather than in statistical terms.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, January 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. J. Blais for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 52).
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect the complete attention of the House but I expected that at least my loudspeaker would be on.
When the clock struck ten last evening I was attempting to point out that the present system of non-specific election dates is a tradition we can no longer afford. Like so many other traditions, we have maintained it simply because it is traditional. I do not believe it is fair to the peopie of Canada and it is something the House could easily change.

January 9, 1973
The Address-Mr. R. Stewart
I mentioned also another tradition, that of the House of Commons going to the other place to hear the Speech from the Throne and not even being able to enter that chamber. Most of us have to watch television in order to find out what legislation is to be placed before us. This is completely ludicrous and has no place in our modern parliament.
It seems to me that these things, with some imagination, could be changed and that it would be possible to have a nice ceremony for the opening of parliament. If we were to have fixed dates and a new ceremony for the opening of parliament there is no reason why we could not take advantage of our best weather and combine it with our national day. It just takes a little bit of imagination to plan these things. There are those who say there are too many lawyers in the House. If that is the case, perhaps lawyers are not noted for their imagination or creativity. In any case, there could be many beautiful ceremonies attached to our parliament covering such things as the display of our flag and the singing of our national anthem. If the ceremony were held outside, taking advantage of our good weather on July 1, we could have the national band of the armed forces and that sort of thing and perhaps 100,000 Canadians would be able to assist.
I want to say a few words about the redistribution being proposed for northern Ontario. I usually describe my present riding of Cochrane as being almost the size of France because this illustrates the vastness of northern Ontario. In fact, the riding of Cochrane is slightly smaller than France. Those who are deciding the changes and these new boundaries have undoubtedly said to themselves that this fellow in Cochrane does not have enough with an area the size of France but should be given an area as big as Europe.
The commissioners have decided that the new riding should begin slightly north of North Bay and extend all the way up to Hudson Bay, a distance of almost 1,000 miles. Obviously the individuals making these decisions do not know very much about northern Ontario. This is not unusual as the people of Toronto, generally speaking, do not know much about anything beyond Barrie.
The point that should be made and which is of extreme importance is that we cannot divide up areas that are culturally and socially linked. The new boundary on the western side of Cochrane would be somewhere between Kapuskasing and Hearst, cutting off the area of Hearst, which is 90 per cent French-speaking, and throwing it in with another riding that is almost completely Englishspeaking, with the closest community of any size being some 200 miles to the west. Anyone who has travelled in that region obviously knows that the town of Hearst belongs within the district of Cochrane because it is linked culturally and socially to that area of northern Ontario which includes Timmins, Cochrane, Kapuskasing and Hearst.
That is one of the things which have been poorly done by the commissioners in their desire to create a riding almost 1,000 miles long. I object to the way things have been done by this commission. I do not know who chose these commissioners, but it is more than I can understand why they all have to be from southern Ontario when
(Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).]
northern Ontario is five times the size. There is not one member from northern Ontario on that commission.
If you want to divide up a province you must have people who know about the area involved. The last redistribution was conducted in a similar way with the result that the riding of Cochrane has parts in the western end which really should not have been included because they more properly belong to the area of Sault Ste. Marie. However, they were thrown in with the rest of the riding of Cochrane. That situation is being rectified under the new proposals, but they are even worse because of these other things I have mentioned.
I object to the fact that there has been no consultation with any of the elected representatives in the north, municipal, provincial or federal. Consultation comes only after the fact, and from past experience of what these commissions do I know it is very difficult to get the boundaries changed after the recommendations have been made. Consultations should take place with the people who know the area. I could understand such a situation when the matter was solely in the hands of federal politicians and there were those who tried to divide areas to their own personal advantage, but that is quite different from putting redistribution into the hands of officials who know nothing about the areas and do not seem to want to consult with anyone prior to drawing the boundaries. These are matters which should properly be brought before the commission, and you can be sure that we from northern Ontario will do so.
I was extremely pleased to note in the Speech from the Throne that finally there is to be a special discussion regarding freight rates. This is a matter I dealt with in my maiden speech in the House four and a half years ago. It is a matter that we in northern Ontario have been pursuing over the years, particularly in the past few years, because it affects our whole economy and prevents new industry from coming into the area. It is of great importance to northern Ontario. Of course it is important to other parts of the country as well, but it is of particular importance to northern Ontario because we have had so little consideration in respect of freight rates. I welcomed this reference in the Speech from the Throne and I was particularly happy to note that the railroads have agreed to participate fully.
Our difficulty in the past has not been in getting committees here in Ottawa to listen to us but rather in getting the railroads to come to some realistic agreement. There has been a passing of the buck. They say it is not for them to decide, it is for the Canadian Transport Commission or some other body to consider, and it cannot be done at the governmental level without full consultation with the railroads.
I wish to say just a word regarding trade not only because I was a member of the Department of Trade and Commerce but because I believe the posture of Canada's trade should change somewhat for the future. I have always felt we have our own common market in this hemisphere. Our largest customer immediately to the south is a country with a population of over 200 million people. However, there are also the countries of Latin
January 9, 1973

America, the Caribbean and South America. Although we do a good deal of trade with them it seems to me this trade could increase. A few years ago five different ministers went on amission to South America and Latin America. I had hoped that as a result of that mission there would have been an intensified effort to establish our own large group of trading partners here in this hemisphere. But I am afraid that has not come about. I would encourage the Minister of Industry, Trade, and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) to follow that course a little more assiduously.
Two of my parliamentary colleagues and I recently made a trip to Cuba. At the invitation of Cuba the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and I had an opportunity to look at the trade in that particular country at first hand. I believe we could have more trade with that country. As trade is a two-way street, of course we would also have to be willing to buy a little more from them. Since this could affect our trade with some other countries it poses many problems. We have the commonwealth trade preference which is a good thing. So long as it remains a good thing I think we should maintain it. It is supposed to be to our advantage to have the commonwealth preference. If it should be a disadvantage to us, then I believe we should take another look at the whole system.
We have not been able to buy sugar from Cuba, for example, to any great extent because of the existing tariff, whereas the Commonwealth countries enjoy preferential treatment. We in this country buy sugar at present throughout the world, from South Africa, Australia and the Island of Mauritius. Sugar has to be transported back and forth across the Pacific Ocean. It seems silly that Australia should sell sugar to us while Cuba sells it to Japan, Malaya and so on. It seems to me there should be a change in that system so that we could buy more sugar from Cuba and perhaps the Australians could sell more of their sugar to other countries. South Africa sells a good deal of sugar to Canada and enjoys the lack of tariff as a result of its former membership in the commonwealth. It no longer is a part of the commonwealth but still enjoys preferential treatment. I believe that, where it would be to our advantage, other countries should enjoy that kind of treatment. This does not apply only to Cuba. We should take a careful look at all trade in this hemisphere. I hope the minister will adopt that posture in the future.
Before finishing I should like to mention something else which is close to my heart. I refer to the control of Crown corporations by the elected representatives of the people. More and more there are bodies which are independent of parliament and therefore independent of the elected Members of Parliament. This is always done under the guise of the suggestion that there should not be any political interference. Political interference is supposed to be a bad thing. Yet we have something much worse. We have people who do not have a mandate from anyone making serious decisions and ignoring the wishes of those of us who have been sent here by the people of Canada. The people of Canada do not understand that. They say their representatives are powerless to say anything about a body created by the federal government. This is why once again I have submitted for the order paper a notice of motion asking the government to present to the House a
The Address-Mr. Baldwin
proposal whereby Members of Parliament would serve on boards and agencies of the Crown. I do not think we would act necessarily as great experts, but at least we would have a watchdog effect on the spending of the government. That is why the people of Canada sent us here. I believe we would also be able to keep an eye on the bureaucracy which is taking the form of an inverse pyramid as the years go by.
I note that my time is just about up and therefore I shall terminate on that note. Once again, I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, and your colleagues on your election.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate Your Honour. I think I should also congratulate the House on the fact that Your Honour occupies the place you do at this particular time. I congratulate as well the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) who, as your deputy, I am sure will bring to the House good judgment, common sense and a knowledge of the rules. I pause here for a moment to say that we appear to be slowly reaching toward a point where there will be in the chair the independence, the objectivity and the capacity to deal with the most difficult problems, not in the form of persons who inhabit the chair but in the sense in which the Chair is regarded. It has been a very difficult problem. My hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), took a very innovative course before the election of 1968. He made a valiant effort during the course of that election to try to attach to the Chair an attitude of independence of a permanent nature.
It is not my intention to talk about a permanent Speaker, although I have my views on that. But at least by the presence of Your Honour here again and by the presence of the deputy to Your Honour I think we are reaching toward a stage where in my view and in my hope-and I believe in the hope of most members of the House-we will be able to attach to the Chair permanently and forever those qualities which are so essential. The giving up of the right to appeal from rulings-there have been times when I have had some doubts about that-basically was a sound judgment if we are to keep that independence. However, I should like to make the suggestion that while this minority parliament subsists it might well provide an opportunity for the House to review the changes made in the rules to ascertain the defects, imbalances and difficulties which have been created-and we have created them-as a result of those changes.
Your Honour was good enough at different times during the last session to make a fairly lengthy list up to the end of parliament of items that should be considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. I hope that before this minority parliament runs its course, in light of the proportion of members on both sides of the House, there will be an opportunity to review what we have done and to make those changes which have to be made. One of them which I would like to see, Sir, would be at least the right to have in the form of a stated case from Your Honour from time to time a review of some of the decisions that have been made so that we will not dig
January 9, 1973

The Address-Mr. Baldwin
ourselves into the pit of permanency with regard to some of the decisions under which we operate.
I congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply. They lived up to the high traditions and standards of this House. It was a particularly difficult task this year in light of the contents of the Speech from the Throne, but they managed to surmount this monumental obstacle in doing their job. I congratulate the new ministers and the old ministers who have moved sideways as well as those who have moved upwards. I congratulate the parliamentary secretaries, some of whom have moved down and some of whom have moved out. I think there is one very substantial member of the government who will be moving out completely before too long. I say this to the hon. gentlemen opposite who inhabit the treasury benches: make the most of your time because you may not be there too long.
Yesterday the leader of this party, in a very statesmanlike, rational and objective speech devoid of partisanship, made four suggestions to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I will repeat them because I think that at the stage at which we find ourselves it is very important to reinforce the proposals made by my hon. friend. They appear at page 50 of yesterday's Hansard. In case there were some hon. members who did not listen or who did not understand or who were too busy dealing with complaints from their constituents to have had a chance to read Hansard, I will read what my hon. friend said.
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.
That was pursued again today, not only by the Leader of the Opposition but by other hon. members, and brushed off in the same way as it was brushed off yesterday.
Point No. 2. The Prime Minister should indicate today what the government proposes to do about reducing income tax rates for 1973.
This does not involve any breach of budget secrecy. This is a major government decision. We pressed the government on this and we pressed the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on it last May. At that time we were met with a stonewall rejection. The Minister of Finance, supported by the Prime Minister, said "in no way are we going to do that". Surely, Sir, at this time when we are into the new year we would not be discharging our duty if we did not continue to press the government, as my leader did yesterday, on this issue. We got nowhere. We got no reply and no indication.
Point No. 3 ... 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 of the legislative priorities of the government.
This is a very reasonable request in light of the rather peculiar and extraordinary situation in which the House now finds itself. In light of what happened yesterday and what has happened before, for the Leader of the Opposition to ask the Prime Minister for a list of the six most important pieces of legislation and their priority is a reasonable request and I am deeply sorry that the Prime Minister either did not know what it was or did not want to give it or simply brushed the request aside. After all, we

have the practice of the last three years. For the last three sessions the Prime Minister saw fit to introduce a detailed list of legislative proposals related to the Speech from the Throne. In a few minutes I will deal very briefly with what happened to the last one, but in light of the government's record in this respect in the last three sessions surely we are entitled to that information which we are not getting.
My leader went on to say:
Point No. 4. Whether or not the Prime Minister give 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.
To that there was no reply in the House although outside the House the Prime Minister scoffed at it and said that in his view we should proceed with this debate in the usual way because he wants a vote of confidence. I say through you, Sir, to the members of the House that if the Prime Minister felt that way, why did he not call the House together in December? Why did he not summon parliament in December?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: It is now six months since the House adjourned. We did have two days, one at the end of August and the first day of September to deal with a very special matter, the strike at Vancouver. In December it was five months since the House adjourned. The House should have been called together; there are pressing and urgent problems with which it is imperative that we deal. If the Prime Minister feels so keenly about a vote of confidence as being essential to carrying on his government's activities-possibly there is a case to be made although not a very strong one-why did he not call us together in December and say, "I want this vote of confidence"?
I would like to finish my comments on what the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday. The final request he made was that the government should introduce the bill with respect to old age pensions. We are in the middle of a severe and difficult winter, not only with regard to physical but with regard to economic conditions. These are the people who are the first victims of inflation, of the problem which lies squarely at the door of this government. Surely the government must have available-if it does not then it is delinquent in its duty-legislation to deal immediately with this very pressing and serious problem. My hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, said yesterday that we will waive the necessary notice required to bring the legislation on the order paper and we will waive the notice required to let it be debated on second reading today. I look at the order paper and I find it blank. It is just as barren as the minds of the government when they come to deal with the problems of this country. On compassionate and humanitarian grounds, I think it is a shocking indictment of their disregard of the plight of the unfortunate victims of the government's inhuman programs in the face of the economic conditions in this country.
January 9, 1973

Now we come to the question of what we can do and what we must do. I am going to assume that the government has some legislation. Maybe that is a wrong assumption, but I note that on Friday last in response to a question the Prime Minister said:
It will be our intention to indicate, through the House leader, as many bills as are necessary in the coming week-
That is this week.
-to permit the House to see the business ahead of it.
That is an implicit statement that the government has legislation ready. Despite the past conduct of the government I will resolve my doubts at this time and hope that the Prime Minister really meant what he said, that he has legislation ready that the House can deal with, and that the government House leader will list the legislation for us.
Presumably the bills that are ready will be introduced for first reading. Why can we not have one of those bills before us today? Why can we not have the bill dealing with old age pension problems before us today? Why is that bill not before the House at this time?
We are prepared to give up our opportunities to challenge the government on several occasions in this debate. We are prepared to waive those opportunities, to postpone them, so that we can get on with the urgent business of the country. I think that the attitude of the Prime Minister and of the government in response to this reasonable request is shameful.
Apart from the very precise reason I have already given, another reason we are so anxious to get started is the past legislative record of the government. There is not enough time available to me to deal with that, but it is an appalling indictment of the government that it has the worst legislative record of any government in at least the last 50 or 60 years. Even if I went back 100 years I would probably find the same to be true, but I was charitable to hon. gentlemen opposite and only went back 60 years.
I point out that in 1968, 1969 and 1970 only about one-third of the legislative proposals which were put forward were passed. In the first of those years 17 of the bills proposed in the legislative list attached to the Speech from the Throne never saw the light of day. Either those bills were not in legislative form or they ran into the rigidity of the cumbersome cabinet structure the Prime Minister has introduced which constitutes such a barrier to the legislative process. I suggest that an examination of the succeeding year shows almost the same record, and in the last session of the preceding parliament less than a third of the bills listed, I think about 12 or 13, were passed. I do not have the precise records with me now.
My hon. friends in the New Democratic Party are aware of this situation. My hon. friends in the Social Credit party are aware of it. Are they prepared to sit quietly by and accept the continuation in office of the government on the basis of its legislative record, and give to the government a vote of confidence before they have seen the colour of the government's money and the kind of legislation it intends to introduce? If they are, then they are showing a great deal more naivete and innocence than I ever thought
The Address-Mr. Baldwin
they possessed, and my past experience with hon. gentlemen in those parties makes me believe they are neither innocent nor na'l've. They may be other things but those things they are not.
Could it be a fact that the government has not got the legislation ready? Is that possible? We need to find out. I may move a motion before I conclude which I hope will give us an opportunity to find out. Indeed, based on the past record of the government it is likely that the legislation may not be ready, but I will give members of the government credit and will believe that some bills are ready, including the old age pension legislation, simply on the basis of what the Prime Minister said.
Under those conditions was the Leader of the Opposition not justified in making his request for a postponement of this debate? We must bear in mind the stumbling, bumbling record of the government in the legislative sense. Here I am reminded of the story so well told by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I cannot tell it quite as well as he; in fact I do not think anyone can. No doubt he will have a lot to say later in this debate, but if one regards the government's legislative record as a 500-acre pasture, then if one cow passed through that pasture leaving a memorial behind it, in the legislative sense the Prime Minister and the government would be sure to land on that face down. That is the way I apprehend their legislative approach, their bumbling, stumbling ineptness, incapacity and incompetence. It is just tragic, Mr. Speaker.
With a minority House it may well be that we could improve on the legislative programs of this inept and incompetent government. Today we find that the government has not got all the answers. I do not pretend that our party has all the answers, but I believe that the answers are to be found in the totality of all the people of this country and that this House of 264 members is the institution most fitted and best equipped to ascertain the needs of the people of Canada and to respond to those needs in terms of legislation.
We, Mr. Speaker, are not able to initiate legislation. Nor can the House do it. Under our system of government it is the responsibility of the government. It is the government's responsibility to secure the essential financial recommendations from His Excellency and then introduce bills in the House and let the House deal with them.
In the previous majority House we found a great degree of incompetence in providing the type of legislation that was so essential for the good of the country. If any other proof is required, surely what we found out today with regard to the unemployment statistics is the best answer to this question.
If the government would introduce its legislation there would be an opportunity for the House to deal with it and make the legislation responsive to the true needs of the people of Canada. That is what we are asking the government to do. This is a minority House of Commons. The government ought to be prepared to introduce its legislation at once so that we can look at it, so that we can start dealing with it and so that we can start to improve it. This is imperative at this stage.
94

January 9, 1973
The Address-Mr. Baldwin
Yesterday the right hon. Prime Minister sought to evade this issue. I am not going to deal with his speech in detail. I am not going to go into the same channels as he entered in his attempt to evade the questions which were asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I think he would have been much better advised as a true leader of a political movement in this country not to have spoken as he did yesterday but to have responded to my hon. friend by dealing with the questions he asked. Unfortunately, he did not see fit to do so. Like some of his colleagues he whined, whimpered and bellyached about some of the reasons for losing the election. Even the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), that rare, blithe and kindly spirit, murmured some cross words after the election about red necks, I am told. Even that hon. gentleman was seeking alibis for the election results.
I only deal with the Prime Minister's statement, Mr. Speaker, to say that this party will not be deflected from its duty and responsibility to deal with the economic issues and economic evils that plague this country. That is what we were sent here to do and that is what we intend to do. That is what we want to get started on as soon as the government can be persuaded.
To achieve this we will need the assistance of my hon. friends on my left and across on the other side. I suggest to them that they should review the position they have taken. I suggest to them that they should consider whether, under these circumstances, they are prepared to continue their support of the government. In light of what the Prime Minister said yesterday and in light of his refusal to bring forward legislation-and I believe this is legislation in which they are as interested as we are-are they prepared to sit back and allow him to have his way in delaying those steps which need to be taken for the good of the country? This has been called a House of minorities. If what I saw yesterday is to be repeated, if my friends in the New Democratic Party and in the Social Credit party are to yield up their virture so easily, I think that in a political sense this House might well be called a House of easy virtue.
It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that this debate should be adjourned. I seconded the amendment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and it may well be that I am thus prevented from making this motion. However, I suggest that the government be given one more opportunity to proceed in an orderly way for the good of the people of Canada. They should bring forward a copy of the bill to deal with old age pensions today and should table their other legislative proposals. We are prepared to waive all notices required in order to commence debate at once. We are not dispensing entirely with this debate, Mr. Speaker, but what can be said today can well be said a month from now and maybe even better. Let us proceed at once with these measures and let us postpone this debate until a month from now. By that time we could have dealt with the important bills and could have had a budget. Also, my friends to the left could reassess their position and decide whether under the circumstances they still want to support the government. This is the last chance the government will get to make this decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, of course.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Is the hon. gentleman suggesting that the government ought to introduce legislation and place legislative proposals before the House before the question of confidence has been resolved by the House? Is he suggesting that we ought to call the amendment immediately, dispose of all the motions and thus clarify the question of confidence and then proceed to legislation or is he suggesting that the government should advance proposals for legislation to the House while a motion of non-confidence is still unresolved?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I think we should see what the government is going to do to find out whether it is entitled to confidence. In any event it now has 109 members and 46 auxiliaries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi.


Mr. G. A. Percy Smith (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, since the throne speech debate apparently is to continue-I think we all agree that the rules of long standing should not be broken without very serious cause-in opening my remarks I should like to join with other members who have already spoken in extending to you, Sir, my sincere congratulations on your re-election to the high office of Speaker of this House. During my comparatively short experience here, I have come to appreciate the dignity, the ability and the impartiality with which you have discharged the duties of your high office. I am also appreciative of the courteous assistance you provided me as a new member, and I am sure the new members of this 29th parliament will also soon come to appreciate your unfailing good humour and your helpfulness to all members of the House.
I wish also to extend to Mr. Deputy Speaker my sincere congratulations on his election to this high office. His courteous conduct in the House during the time I have been a member, as well as his ability in debate, make me feel sure that the House has made an excellent choice. Although his riding is Halifax-East Hants in the province of Nova Scotia, he was born in New Brunswick. His connections with the county of Kent, part of which forms part of Northumberland-Miramichi, leads me to hope that I may see him there more frequently in the years ahead.
I should like also, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate both the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Both the mover, the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais), and the seconder, the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker), both new members of the House, both speaking in both official languages, performed their traditional roles in a manner in which we can all take pride.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the electors of Northumberland-Miramichi for the confidence they have shown in electing me to represent them for a second time. I assure them that it is a great honour to
January 9, 1973

represent them in this House, and I hope I can justify the confidence they have shown.
It is customary in the throne speech debate for a member to speak about his own constituency and to extol its beauty and other merits, and as well to sing the praises of the Canadians who are fortunate enough to live there. About the riding of Northumberland-Miramichi, I can do this with the utmost sincerity. The Miramichi River intersects it from east to west for over 100 miles. This, together with its many branches leading north and south, serves to make the river the dominant geographical factor as well as a leading economic consideration in the riding. Almost 90 per cent of its population lives within a few miles of its shores. Our people have settled along its banks not only because of its beauty, and it is a beautiful river, but because their livelihood either directly or indirectly depends upon it.
While economic conditions are relatively good on the Miramichi, I would be remiss in my duty to my constituency if I did not bring up certain economic problems that we face. I will confine myself, Mr. Speaker, and rather briefly, to two of these problems before coming to my main remarks on the Speech from the Throne. We are fortunate in having two pulp mills located at Newcastle and Nelson-Miramichi. We also have a plywood manufacturing plant and a chipboard plant. All of these wood-using industries depend to a large extent on water transportation to market their product, chiefly in the European markets. Transportation and the cost of transportation are perhaps the most serious problems these pulp mills face.
There is, of course, the cost of transportation of the raw material to the mills. The source of supply is yearly becoming more distant as the closer stands of timber are depleted. This, however, is a problem faced by all pulp mills in Canada to a greater or lesser degree. But the most costly transportation problem is that of water transportation to market. This cost on the Miramichi is greatly increased by the shallow draft of the bay and river. This means that only small ships are able to enter the river and proceed upstream to the wharves at Newcastle and Chatham. The cost per ton to move the product in small ships is of course much higher. Moreover, such small ships are becoming scarce and difficult and expensive to charter.
At this time pulp mills throughout Canada, as I think hon. members know, are suffering economically. The problem results from the higher cost of raw materials and wages coupled with the lower price for their product as a result of the strength of the Canadian dollar in comparison with that of the U.S. dollar. My concern is that the high cost of water transportation for the pulp mills in my region may mean the difference between those pulp mills in my constituency being viable operations which will continue or uneconomic operations forced to close.
You may ask, Mr. Speaker, what concern this is of the government of Canada, or in what way the federal government ought to be involved in this problem. The answer is simple. For many years shippers and those depending directly or indirectly on our resource industries have been requesting the Department of Public Works to do a proper dredging job and to open up a shipping channel to a depth
The Address-Mr. G. A. P. Smith
of 26 feet. The cost is considerable, cost estimates in excess of $5 million having been made. This cost, however, would be small compared with the economic dislocation and unemployment that would be consequent upon the closure of these industries. Ore concentrates are also shipped to European markets by water through the port of Miramichi and the shippers involved are also experiencing difficulties as a result of lack of adequate depth in the bay and river. Many studies have been made by the Department of Public Works, and lately my constituents and I have been trying to enlist the support of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to go ahead with the dredging. I ask both departments I have mentioned to give the project top priority for 1973.
The other problem that I want to touch on briefly which has caused considerable economic hardship is the ban on commercial salmon fishing in eastern Canada. The imposition of this ban was a serious step affecting, as it did, the livelihood of hundreds of fishermen and their families. Nevertheless, I agreed with the minister when he announced the closure of the fishery. He was acting on the best scientific evidence available which indicated that the ban was necessary to preserve this wonderful and valuable species. Runs had been declining steadily and rapidly since 1967, aspecially the runs of large adult salmon. During the summer of 1972 salmon runs were much improved over those of 1971. This led many fishermen to feel that the ban had been unnecessary. I am personally convinced that the 1972 improvement in runs reflects the normal five-year salmon cycle. The 1972 runs represent the return of the salmon hatched in 1967. That run, also, of course, must reflect the effects of the ban on the Port aux Basques fishery which historically took many fish destined for New Brunswick rivers.
During the election campaign the Leader of the New Democratic Party visited Newcastle in my riding, where he participated in an open line radio program. During this program he was asked what he thought of the ban on commercial fishing for salmon. He replied to the effect that he believed there should be a ban on the sport fishery if there was to be one on the commercial fishery. I feel sure, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman did not realize the economic benefits brought to the province of New Brunswick by the sports fishery and did not realize that hundreds of guides and outfitters would be out of work if a ban on the sport fishery were imposed. I am sure the government of New Brunswick could ill afford the considerable loss of revenue that would be entailed in such ban. I feel that such a complete ban would not be justified in view of the relatively small percentage of total runs taken by anglers. This percentage was estimated by the former department of fisheries, now the Department of the Environment, at about 5 per cent. This contrasts with 86 per cent, again estimated by the department, as taken by fisheries of all kinds, including the Greenland fishery, the Port aux Basques fishery and the drift and set fisheries of the Miramichi. This left, if the figures are correct, an escapement of only 9 per cent for spawning purposes. A general rule cited by conservationists is that an escapement for spawning in the order of 30 or 40 per cent is required and is essential to ensure the perpetuation of any species.

January 9, 1973
The Address-Mr. G. A. P. Smith
If these figures are correct-and they are the best obtainable-the fishery, and consequently the future livelihood of those engaged in the salmon fishery, was in grave danger. For the ban to have any noticeable effect, it should be continued for one complete salmon life cycle, namely, for about five years.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was in New Brunswick during the course of the election campaign, and particularly in my riding though in other ridings in New Brunswick as well, the commercial salmon fishing ban was quite an election topic. The Leader of the Opposition was questioned on his position with regard to the salmon ban and he replied to the effect that in view of the better run in 1972 the ban should be reconsidered. This does not make sense to me from a conservation viewpoint. Neither does it make any economic sense to the fishermen in view of the generous compensation formula announced by the minister to be in effect during this ban.
If any member wonders why the government of Canada should be involved in paying compensation as the result of declining stocks of a certain species of fish, I would agree that this is the first time that this has been done in similar circumstances. The compensation with respect to swordfish which were found to have an unacceptable mercury content was a different situation. The sale of that species was prohibited by regulation of a government of another jurisdiction. In the case of salmon the decline was due to various factors, notably the high seas fishery on the part chiefly of the Danes, and to some extent pollution of spawning rivers.
These are factors over which the fishermen had absolutely no control. But they were matters over which the government of Canada could or should have some control or jurisdiction either by persuasion or by legal means. Hence the principle of compensation was agreed upon. It is a tribute to members from all parts of Canada that not one dissenting voice was heard when the government of Canada decided to spend an as yet unknown sum amounting to millions of dollars in order to save this valuable species of fish on the east coast of Canada. Salmon have long since disappeared from the rivers of the eastern United States, at least for all practical purposes.
The Minister of Fisheries is also to be congratulated for his efforts in convincing the government that measures should be taken to relieve the economic hardship on fishermen during the ban. I feel I should offer this word of congratulation to him in view of the roasting he is being given by officers of various commercial fishermen's associations, as published in the daily papers in New Brunswick during the last two weeks or so.
It is also a tribute to our federal system of government that the nation as a whole can come to the rescue of an area or a group or industry that is in difficulty. It is obvious that the province of New Brunswick with its limited financial resources could never have provided the millions of dollars required to avert the disaster, which is what it would be, of the decline and possible demise of the Atlantic salmon.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, the time I have taken in pursuing this subject but I make no apology for it. All members

have listened with great interest and patience to problems in other parts of this wide country far removed from the immediate concerns of their own region or constituency.
I have said that a generous formula of compensation was offered to those salmon fishermen, so hon. members may ask what is the probelm-and I indicated that there was a problem. The compensation formula provided for payment annually during the ban, up to five years, of an amount equal to the average of each fisherman's best three consecutive years' gross income catch in recent years. The best years chosen varied in different areas. In the case of the Miramichi set net fishermen, the years 1965-66-67 inclusive were chosen by the fishermen. As I have said, the formula was generous and the intention of the minister was obviously to be generous. The problem that now arises is that his departmental officers, either at the regional office at Halifax or here in Ottawa, or both, apparently thought that the formula was too generous and have taken it upon themselves to set arbitrary figures for the catch of individual fishermen, mailing them a cheque marked "final payment".
This is why I asked the minister in the House yesterday whether he would provide an appeal procedure. This he said he would do and indicated that he would undertake the task himself. I wish him success, but it will require a long time to delve into the details of individual claims by those who wish to appeal. I doubt whether the minister has the time to spend hearing appeals in the province or on the east coast from fishermen in the Saint John area and the Miramichi area, and it would be unrealistic to require the fishermen to come to Ottawa with their records and other evidence, including witnesses. I therefore feel than an appeal committee comprised of some person or persons acceptable both to the department and to the fishermen will have to be established.
The question is complicated because many of the fishermen, being small operators mostly earning below the level that would require them to pay income tax, did not keep adequate records of their catch. The payments made to them by the department indicate that they are being severely, and I feel unjustly, penalized for this. Many of the compensation payments appear ridiculous to me, and I have a considerable knowledge of this fishery. They bear no relationship to the claims filed, even those which were supported by adequate records.
In this connection I should mention that because of a policy set out by the minister in 1971 several salmon fishermen lost their licences by the operation of a section that disqualified them if they held a full-time job in an industry other than fishing. However, the minister at that time set up a licence review committee to relieve hardship where extenuating circumstances existed. This would apply, for example, to a fisherman with a large family who, although holding steady employment, had an income from such employment in the $3,000 to $4,000 range. The appeal committee, acting as it was meant to act, reinstated about ten fishermen, but in these cases no compensation was paid or offered by the department. I feel that these reinstated fishermen should be treated in the same manner as others.
I have talked for a long time about fishermen and salmon but I shall conclude this part of my remarks by
January 9, 1973

saying that even full compensation in terms of dollars cannot recompense these people for the loss of a way of life. They are rugged individuals who compete with nature, the winds and the tides, often at their personal peril, to go out to sea in order to earn a living. Neither are they afraid of work. They spend days, even months, during the winter and spring preparing their nets and gear to be ready to undertake this precarious operation. With the optimism that all fishermen must have in great measure these men prepare for the fishing season, and I have a soft spot in my heart for them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair to resume same at 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the old saying goes that adversity produces strange bedfellows. Here in this House we see the spectacle of two parties and two leaders who, in all other circumstances and until the present time, have been at each other's throats, and who fought each other tooth and nail in the past general election and criticized each other in every way possible, desperately clutching each to the other's bosom, engaging in a marriage of convenience designed to make it possible for the government to cling to power for as long as possible and to enable the New Democratic Party to avoid for as long as possible a general election in which, as they well know, they would be squeezed between the present government and the next government to be elected very soon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: While this is going on, we hear pleas from the government benches, in particular from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), urging that the country and parliament be reasonable, asking the Members of Parliament to allow him to stay in office and deal with the economy of the country despite the fact that for several years the government has proved over and over again that it is completely unable to deal with the economy in a satisfactory way.
But, Mr. Speaker, we are a fair party. We wish to give every proposition a fair and reasonable examination, and consistent with this outlook we intend to take a look at the way in which the government has handled the economy in the months since its last budget was presented. Mr. Speaker, in the eight months since the government presented its last budget, a budget which was the sixth of six budgets brought down over a period of three and a half years, each with the assurance that it would stimulate the economy and materially reduce unemployment, the economy has not improved. Indeed, output has declined, as I intend to show.
The best way in which one can present a fair and accurate assessment of the way in which the economy has evolved since the last budget was brought down would be
The Address-Mr. Hees
to look at the government's own record of what has gone on in those months. This record is produced from time to time, as we all know, by the government's own statistics bureau, Statistics Canada, formerly the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The latest of these reports dealing with the economy as a whole is a report having to do with the third quarter of the year just completed. These are the latest figures on the basis of which we are able to make an assessment, and these figures, from which I shall quote in a few moments, show very clearly the direction of the economy of the country since budget night, May 8, when the budget was brought down with such a fanfare by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).
The report to which I have referred, produced by the government's own agency, contains several very interesting statements. I quote:
The volume of goods and services (real output) produced in Canada during the third quarter declined below the real output of the second quarter. This is the first time in nearly three years in which real output has declined from one quarter to another.
Business outlays on plant, equipment and inventories during this quarter declined below their second quarter level.
The advance in the over-all Gross National Product during the third quarter was the smallest to have taken place in any quarter during the past five years.
These are very strange results to be derived from a budget which was brought down with such fanfare on May 8 by the Minister of Finance as one which he promised the House and the country would stimulate the economy and start unemployment on a downward trend. On the night the budget was presented, unemployment in this country stood at 5.2 per cent of the work force, seasonally adjusted. Eight months later, today, we are told by the government's statistics agency that unemployment has risen to 6.8 per cent of the work force. It is very interesting but rather sad to note that during the same period unemployment in the United States was lowered from 5.5 per cent to 5.2 per cent of the work force. All of the figures I have quoted are, of course, seasonally adjusted.
A re-reading of the budget makes it very clear that if the credibility of this government were plotted on a graph it would just about match the decline in the economy that has taken place since the Minister of Finance introduced his last budget some eight months ago. What has caused this very sharp reverse of the upsurge the minister predicted with such confidence on budget night? To get the answer let us take a look at what the minister proposed to do.
His plan was based primarily on a reduction on January 1, 1973 in corporate income taxes for manufacturers and producers, which together comprise 34.2 per cent of the total economy. We were told by the minister with great confidence as he came into the Chamber that night in his shining armour that this would be a new wave. This was the man who could do it when Ben Benson had failed so badly. This was the new man who was going to show that party how he could do this when everybody else had failed. He told us that these things would stimulate the whole economy to such an extent the economy would move on to higher ground.

January 9, 1973
The Address-Mr. Hees
During that debate we voiced some scepticism. We pointed out some of the things we thought were wrong and some of the things that would not come true, and we pointed out why they would not come true. We were laughed and scoffed at by this new champion of the Department of Finance, this new wave, this new brain, this new man and leader who was just about ready to take over. For eight long months we have had to endure the downgrading of the economy which has taken place since that budget was produced.
The government's plan was to reduce taxes on manufacturing and processing which together make up 34.2 per cent of the economy. The government neglected one very important fact in presenting that budget, and that was that also on January 1, 1973, on exactly the same day this tax reduction for manufacturing and processing would come into effect, all other businesses in this country and the whole economy would have corporate income taxes substantially increased as a result of a previous budget of October 20, 1971. Therefore, we can see that the government's plan for stimulating the economy was simply a promise to lower taxes for one-third of the economy, on exactly the same day taxes increased for the other two-thirds of the economy. Any child taking public school mathematics could tell you that this type of arithmetic does not add up to a stimulus for the economy as a whole.
The government is run by a lot of impractical theorists who have had little or no business experience, who know little of what is needed to stimulate the economy and get it moving. They do not understand business problems. These impractical theorists thought this kind of arithmetic would stimulate the economy as a whole. Surely, this kind of cloudy-minded thinking cannot be allowed to continue any longer with its misdirection of the economy of this country. This country simply cannot afford this kind of thing.
As though that was not enough of a deterrent to a business expansion in this country which would lift us up out of the decline we have been in for so long, the businessmen of this country knew very well that on the same day taxes would be lowered for one-third of the business community, taxes would be raised for the other two-thirds and that all of the people of Canada would have their personal income taxes increased by 3 per cent. All the businessmen of Canada, in whom the minister was so confidently relying to create this great upsurge in business by going out and buying machinery and expanding their operations, knew perfectly well that taxes would be raised for two-thirds of them.
All these men knew that the buying public in Canada would have their purchasing power diminished substantially on January 1 as a result of this 3 per cent increase in income tax. They knew this would substantially reduce the purchasing power available to Canadians with a resultant substantial slow down in business. Yet the Prime Minister said during the election that he was puzzled by the reason for unemployment remaining so high. If this Prime Minister had any business experience whatever he would know that the reason unemployment remained high was that there was no continuing, effective stimulus to the economy. This Prime Minister does not seem to realize that in order for industry to absorb our
[Mr. Hees.l
steadily growing work force the economy must increase as a result of a substantial and continuing stimulus which would keep the economy expanding at the necessary pace to absorb that steady growth in the work force year by year.
What kind of a stimulus will do the necessary job? It is very obvious to anybody who understands business that to employ more you must first produce more, and you must sell more both in Canada and in the export market. Let us take a look at what is needed to sell more in Canada. The quickest and most effective way is to put more money in the hands of the Canadian buying public by means of a substantial cut in personal income taxes. That is what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) told the people of Canada during the general election a Conservative government would do. This Liberal government laughed at that. This government has not done that and that is one of the main reasons unemployment is at
6.8	per cent of the working force today. If we made a substantial cut in income taxes, as the Leader of the Opposition assured the Canadian people a Conservative government would do, this would enable the Canadian buying public to go out and buy the things they needed for some time but could not afford.
By putting people to work producing the additional volume of goods required to fill this additional demand this tax cut would pay for itself. First of all, it would reduce unemployment insurance payments which are mainly paid today by the federal government. The additional people at work would be paying income tax and the additional commodities being sold would generate additional commodity tax. The greater volume of goods would result in a lower unit cost of production and make available greater business profit subject to taxation.
Let us look at what could be done to increase sales in the export market. To increase exports we must do two things. First of all, we must slow down the rapid increase in costs of Canadian production and make it more competitive. During the 12 months-these are the latest figures available to us-between November 1971 and November 1972 wholesale prices in Canada rose by no less than
9.8	per cent. This is the largest rise in wholesale prices in the country during the past 25 years. It has, therefore, become painfully obvious that many Canadian products are simply pricing themselves out of the market. It will be difficult to hold the present volume of sales let alone increase that volume if these price increases continue at the present rate. In a few moments I intend to outline what I believe must be done to control the rapid rise in prices so that we can both increase exports, which produce jobs for Canadians, and slow down imports which take away jobs from Canadian workers.
The second thing which must be done to increase exports is to initiate a massive trade drive to include, first, a greatly expanded number of trade missions to the markets of the world where our trade commissioners indicate increased sales can be made if the proper selling effort is put behind them; second, a doubling of the number of trade fairs participated in by Canadian producers in the markets of the world; third, a greatly expanded program of export credits and export insurance, and, fourth, "fly
January 9, 1973

and buy" missions to bring the most important buyers from world markets to see Canadian products displayed in trade shows in our major industrial cities right across this country.
These and other techniques were used by a previous government-of course it was a Conservative government under the leadership of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker)-to reverse, in one year, ten years of trade deficits and lay the foundation for the prosperity of the 1960's. Such a program can be just as effective today. Because of our already far too heavy reliance on the United States market, our greatest potential for trade expansion lies in the European Common Market. During the past year, only 5.7 per cent of our total exports went to the ECM. These were broken down as follows: 48.9 per cent, raw materials; 33.4 per cent, semi-processed; 17.7 per cent, finished products. From these figures it is obvious that there is a very large potential market in the ECM for our finished products if we will get our prices down. Recognizing this, and also that on January 1 Canada will lose the Commonwealth preference which has been of great assistance to this country in selling three quarters of a billion dollars worth of products to Great Britain each year, the Prime Minister made a hurried trip to Great Britain to try to persuade Mr. Heath to try to persuade the member countries of the ECM to include Canada in some kind of special membership.
Anyone in touch with any person in the governments of the European Common Market knows perfectly well that under the present circumstances, because of the coolness which has developed between the members of the ECM and this country, there is very little if any chance of this being done. The reason for the resentment felt by these countries is Canada's unilateral reduction in its contribution to NATO. We reduced our contribution unilaterally by 50 per cent four years ago. This sentiment is still very strong indeed. There is very little inclination on the part of the members of the ECM to make any concessions to Canada in matters to trade or anything else for that matter.
Why is NATO so important to the members of the ECM? Simply because they believe it is their best guarantee that they will not become embroiled in a third world war. It was to provide this kind of collective security that 14 countries of the western world joined together after the conclusion of the Second World War. Each of these member countries agreed to provide and maintain certain parts of a composite force calculated to deter any potential aggressor from the kind of adventures which precipitated the first two world wars. When one country reduces its contribution, this provides a temptation to follow suit with the possible result being the reduction of the strength of the composite force to a point where no real deterrent to aggressive action is provided. I think it has become obvious that if we are to play our full part in providing a practical deterrent to action which could lead to a third world war, and if we are to regain the respect and cooperation of the NATO allies we should now restore the strength and effectiveness of the NATO contribution which this country pledged to make and did make. It did this for many years and should be doing so today.
The Address-Mr. Hees
Finally, what can be done to control the rapid rise in prices of Canadian products which has made possible the increase in imports of more than 20 per cent during the past year and which is making it increasingly difficult to sell Canadian manufactured products abroad in any satisfactory volume? Imports which of course take jobs away from Canadians have been gaining ground because Canadian prices have been rising too quickly to allow many of our products to remain competitive. It is all too clear that Canadians are not willing to pay more for a Canadian made product than they are required to pay for a similar article made in some other country. With wholesale prices of products made in Canada rising at a rate of nearly 10 per cent during the past year the switch to foreign-made products has now become very serious indeed.
What is to be done about it? Price rises must obviously be controlled, but how? Although President Nixon has recently announced that price controls in the United States will be continued for another year, I do not believe that we have to take the full step to price, wage, rent and income controls at this time, because I am convinced that another step will be more effective. I have been told by top leaders of management and labour right across the country that if the government introduces guidelines designed to keep the annual rise in prices to between 2J per cent a year, and 3 per cent a year, and makes it very clear that mandatory controls will be introduced if these guidelines, backed by a flat statement by the government will have no alternative but to obey these guidelines. The reason is that they know that mandatory controls will put their operations into a straitjacket from which it may take years to emerge. I think it has become obvious that such suidelines, backed by a flat statement by the government that non- compliance will be followed by mandatory controls, are long overdue and should be introduced without further delay. So it is clear there are straightforward steps which this government should and must take now to stimulate the economy, to get it moving again and to bring it out of the lethargy in which it exists at the present time.
Unfortunately the Speech from the Throne does not contain any specific steps the government proposes to take to stimulate the economy and get it moving at this satisfactory pace. That speech is simply a public relations document designed to lull the people to sleep and make them believe that something will be done. But it will not be done. This government did nothing in four and a half years and, unfortunately, it is no better today than it has been during that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: It has become obvious that the woolly-minded theorists who run this government must be replaced by practical men, men who have had some experience in the practical aspects of business, who understand business, understand the economy and understand what has to be done to revive it and to get it moving again. It has become obvious that the only men who are available to this parliament to do that job are the members of the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

January 9, 1973
The Address-Mr. Hees


George Harris Hees: It has become more and more obvious that the Conservative party is going to take over the reins of government in the very near future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I have arrived at the conclusion of my remarks and I am sure my friends opposite are sorry to hear that. Under the present program of the government for operating the House there is no way in which any legislation can be dealt with before at least one month has passed. There are a great many people in this country who cannot wait for one more month. Those are the people who did so much to make this country the great country it is today. They are the senior citizens, the people who receive the old age pension. But, as we know, the old age pension is far too low to meet their needs today. These people have had to tighten their belts for the past seven years. This must stop. A Conservative government would stop it. The only way that this problem can be dealt with is to bring in the legislation dealing with the old age pension right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: We call on this government to stop this debate temporarily and bring in their old age pension legislation which will be dealt with quickly and effectively. Let the old people of this country have the benefit of what has been long overdue. Let the government bring in that legislation and present it to the House for inspection, as well as legislation that the government claims to have to deal with the economy to get it moving forward so that something can be done to cure unemployment, to halt inflation and to deal with the other economic problems that exist in the country. We do not need to hold up the House, but we want to look at the legislation so that the NDP and the Creditiste party know why they should be voting non-confidence in the government when the vote comes.
Therefore, on behalf of the party for which I am speaking, I suggest that we should adjourn this debate and get on with the old age pension legislation. Therefore I move:
That the debate be adjourned.


Mr. Gray:: You want to muzzle parliament.


George Harris Hees: May I bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that the seconder of the motion is the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of adopting the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, before we were interrupted by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees)-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I want to say I always enjoy listening to him and following him. His speeches are refreshing in tone if, sometimes, not as refreshing in substance. I remember when he was playing football for the Toronto Argonauts he got the ball to the ten-yard line but he never quite succeeded in getting it over.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Your Honour!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings rising on a question of football privilege?


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


George Harris Hees: I would simply remind the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) that we did happen to win the Grey Cup. And you do that by getting the ball over the line.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The Address-Hon. J. N. Turner


John Napier Turner: I don't know whether or not in that game the hon. member was picking up slivers on the bench. In any event, it was a novel gimmick this afternoon, attempting to adjourn the House, suggesting the government should be bringing in legislation before it had secured the confidence of this chamber, which, after all, is the important question now before the House constitutionally under the British parliamentary system which calls upon the representatives of the people in parliament to decide whether the government has their support. That is the first step any government must take before bringing in any legislation at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: What about that billion dollars in the supplementary estimates?


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: The supplementary estimates contain a legislation item.


John Napier Turner: If I may turn to a matter on which the constitutional experts on the other side are a little less sensitive, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I welcome your re-election to the chair of this House over which you have presided during two former parliaments. To add a personal note, I trace our friendship back to your nomination at the old county seat at Finch in Stormont in 1962. I echo the praise which has been accorded you by my leader and others in acknowledgement of your good judgment, your fairness, your courage, and, above all, of your sustaining sense of humour. May I say, too, that we on this side feel the nomination of the Deputy Speaker to his high office to be a handsome innovation. Those of us who have known him over the years respect his impartial tact. We respect his understanding of this House of Commons. We want to assure him he has friends on both sides of the House, and I doubt very much if he will lose one of them.
May I say to the mover and seconder, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I thought they acquitted themselves with competence, flair and dispatch in the traditional rewarding task they were given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of moving and seconding the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
Before I address myself to the economic situation I should like to deal briefly with the political scene, if I may. The last election did result in, I suppose from our side, an unfortunate polarization of votes, and I want to suggest, in a certain respect, an unfortunate polarization of votes as reflected in this House of Commons. I think it is not necessarily an unhappy circumstance, but not a circumstance to be wished for by any member of the House of whatever political persuasion, culture or linguistic attribution, that so many members having as their mother tongue the French language sit on your right. I think that places a special burden on every member of the House of both languages in order that anything we say here enhances the unity of this country. I do not believe that any political party has a monopoly on national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
++NAYS
Messrs. Lessard Lewis L'Heureux Loiselle MacDonald (Cardigan) Macdonald (Rosedale) MacEachen MacGuigan Maclnnis (Mrs.) Mackasey Marceau Marchand (Langelier) Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo)
Mather Matte McRae Morin (Mrs.)
Munro
(Hamilton East) Neale
(Vancouver East) Nelson Nesdoly Nystrom Olaussen Olivier Orlikow Ouellet Pelletier
(Hochelaga)
Pelletier
(Sherbrooke)
Penner
Peters
Portelance
Poulin
Prud'homme
Railton
Reid
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rompkey
Rooney
Rose
Rowland
Roy (Timmins)
Roy (Laval) Saltsman Sauve (Mrs.)
Sharp
Smith
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Smith (Saint-Jean) Stanbury
Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay)
Stewart (Cochrane)
Stollery
Symes
Tetrault
Thomas (Maison-neuve-Rosemont) Trudeau Trudel
Turner (London East)
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Walker Watson Whelan Whicher Yanakis-153.
102

January 9, 1973
The Address-Hon. J. N. Turner


John Napier Turner: All members of this House are deeply sensitive to the problems of making bilingualism in the public service a working reality in this country. All members and, I am sure, Your Honour, will recognize that nothing is more central to the unity of Canada, which we all seek to maintain, and nothing is more essential to the enduring partnership of the two founding peoples of this country. By now I think we all recognize that it is not enough for anyone in this House merely to assent to institutional bilingualism as a noble ideal and as a principle in support of the abstract. I make the point "institutional bilingualism" because what I am talking about now refers to bilingualism in the public service of Canada. It is that institutional bilingualism which should not be confused with individual bilingualism, the ability of any Canadian to speak either language.
Institutional bilingualism refers to the public service being conducted in either language, available to the people of Canada in either language, and the opportunity for any citizen to work in the public service of Canada in either language, thus preserving the right of any Canadian to remain unilingual if he wants. It is that distinction between individual and institutional bilingualism that I think must be made very carefully.
There is nothing abstract about the objectives of the Official Languages Act. I had some responsibility for introducing that piece of legislation in this House and I had some responsibility for negotiating its provisions with the western attorneys-general, with the attorneys-general of Ontario and Quebec and those in the Atlantic provinces, and there is nothing abstract about its objectives. It gives the authority of law for making the federal institution of Canada reflect the linguistic realities of this country. Surely, it is fundamental to the continuing unity of Canada that Canadians of either language be able to deal with the government and agencies of Canada in their own language. Surely, it is also fundamental to the unity of Canada that we should work toward Canadians being able to work in the public service of our country in the official language of their choice.
I do not think we need disguise the underlying motivations behind the policy of bilingualism. These were stated by the late Mr. Pearson in 1966 when he introduced his resolution in the House of Commons. It is to ensure that French-speaking Canadians have in reality in this country an equal opportunity and, just as important, that they be made to feel that they have an equal opportunity. It is an invitation particularly to young French-speaking Canadians in Quebec and elsewhere to exercise their option for Canada rather than to flirt with the dream of a separate nation state.
I have said on many occasions that nowhere is Canadian unity more important than in the National Capital. This city does not make any sense without a country and it is absolutely crucial for the prosperity of the people of Ottawa, the people of Hull and the people of the whole national capital region, that the policy of institutional bilingualism succeed.
It is a sign of the commitment of this House of Commons in principle and in practice that the Official Languages Act was supported by all parties when it was passed by the last parliament. Implementing the goals of

that act has been a massive undertaking. A great task and great challenge has been to move toward the creation of a public service which truly serves both languages of Canada and the citizens of either language in this country; moving forward with speed and determination, responsive to the will of parliament, yet moving forward with the sense of equity and justice which was also within the collective mind of parliament. There were no charts, no guidelines. There were no paths well trodden. No nation in the world ever attempted this type of program on so large a scale. No body of experience has been revealed and only experience can reveal how the fundamental principles can be refined and developed in order to make the implementation of bilingualism more effective, more rational and more acceptable.
The guidelines which my colleague the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) enunciated last month represent a welcome and even, perhaps, overdue set of basic principles which will immeasurably aid the Public Service Commission and reassure public servants whether they be French-speaking. English-speaking or bilingual. The positive way in which these principles were accepted by all public service staff associations has, I believe, been most encouraging. The staff associations asked for a say in the identification and designation of bilingual positions. They will now have that say. New flexibility has been introduced into the whole program, a flexibility which at the same time protects careers, yet provides an opportunity for all civil servants.
Leaders of staff associations were forthcoming in their expression of willingness to try to make it work. In this latter connection, it is crucial that consultation and negotiation between the Treasury Board on the one hand and staff associations on the other be meaningful and genuine.


David Lewis: And the Public Service Commission.


John Napier Turner: Yes, and the Public Service Commission, as the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has interjected.
I am not going to attempt any exposition of the nine principles which the President of the Treasury Board has enunciated. I think there will be another occasion for the House to pronounce itself on this issue, and at that time I would like to intervene with an exposition of what I believe the principles mean in practice.
It is my privilege to be the representative of a constituency in this national capital region and a Member of Parliament for thousands of public servants both French and English-speaking. I happen to know in an intensely personal way how important it is to press ahead humanely and steadily, yet flexibly, toward the goal of making the public service of Canada an institution in which Canadians can work easily in the official language of their choice and through which citizens can deal with their government in either French or English.
I do not for a moment underestimate the human difficulties that will be encountered in trying to make this policy work, but the government is determined to make the policy work. We are also determined to make it fair. It has to be done in a way that takes into account the careers of men and women who work for the people of Canada in
January 9, 1973

the public service. It must be done because the stakes for the future of this country are so high. I have little patience with those who insist they are in favour of bilingualism in principle, but then proceed to engage in destructive criticism of almost anything beyond token efforts to put this into practice. I think Members of Parliament should welcome the opportunity to engage in debate and to examine the policy in principle and practice on the floor of this House of Commons. Members of this House should welcome the opportunity to affirm the policies which the government has developed. I think hon. members should use such an opportunity to reaffirm their commitment, one expressed in the last parliament, to the Official Languages Act, to its principles and its provisions.
I think such a reaffirmation in this House, and particularly in this House, would go far toward reassuring both those who fear that bilingualism in the public service of Canada is going ahead too fast and those who are concerned that it is not going ahead fast enough. No one has ever claimed that bilingualism would be easy. No one has ever claimed that it would not arouse apprehension or would not add to the cost of government, but Canadians calculate such difficulties small beside the goal of national unity. For me, I believe it is a very small price for being and remaining a Canadian. I think Canadians want to do more than pay lip service to such an ideal. I believe they will approve the effort of the public service, above all places, to show that the ideal in Canada can become a proud reality, increasing the richness of being a Canadian and the dimensions of their mutual understanding.
Having said that, I want to deal with some of the issues in the country which received the proper attention of this House early in its reassembly and this morning in particular. I look at some of the musketeers on the other side. I want to start by saying that in the budget of last May, which the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) referred to in such generous terms, I placed before the House on behalf of the government a number of major proposals for strengthening the economic and social fabric of the country. In terms of the social fabric, there was some immediate relief for those on fixed incomes caught in the escalating cost of living. In terms of the industrial front, those measures were medium and long term and structural in their effect in order to make the Canadian economy more competitive on a medium and long-term basis with our competitors both abroad and within our own market. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings knows this well enough. He knows that the prime industrial thrust of that budget was structural and not meant in terms of immediate stimulus. Foremost among my concerns at that time, and those of the government then and now, was and is, to bring about a rapid increase in the number of available jobs so as to substantially reduce the number of Canadians out of work. Unemployment is a serious economic problem. It is too serious to play politics with, I want to suggest to some hon. members. However, it is much more than an economic problem. It is a deeply and gravely serious social problem and a gravely serious human problem, a problem, as I suggested this morning, which cannot be solved merely by theoretical abstraction or by statistics.
The Address-Hon. J. N. Turner
I say it is a deeply social problem because for those who really want and need work, and their families, unemployment can be a bitter and deeply frustrating experience which warps and wastes lives perhaps forever. An essential prerequisite for the maintenance of a strong and healthy economy-an economy strong enough to give us rapid growth in job opportunities and thereby reducing unemployment-is the maintenance of reasonable price stability in Canada. It is essential to contain the forces of inflation and protect the competitive position of Canadian producers both in our own domestic markets and in markets abroad. Here my friend from Prince Edward-Hastings and I are at one. But the containing of inflation is also important in reducing the squeeze on the rising prices of family budgets, particularly family budgets of those on fixed incomes, and in preventing the erosion of the hard earned savings of Canadians. That again is a human problem which is affecting every Canadian, particularly on shopping days.
Over the past few years Canada's competitive price position generally has improved in respect of other industrial competitive structures. I submit that is true. Even during the period from November 1971 when the United States adopted the second phase of its price and income control program until mid-1972, the end of the second quarter of this year, the rate of increase in Canadian consumer prices was the same as that of the United States and considerably lower than that of any other industrial country. During the summer months, however, there was a substantial increase in Canadian consumer prices, primarily due, if hon. members will carefully and thoroughly look at the statistics, to the sharp rise in food costs. As members are aware and as Canadians are only too painfully aware, sharply rising food prices have become a world-wide phenomenon, a problem for which no country has found a quick and easy answer. The countries which now apply price and wage controls, Britain and the United States in particular, have had to make exceptions for food products. In any event, the experience of other nations today and the experience of Canada have indicated that price and income restrictions offer no ready-made solutions since this is an area which is perhaps least amenable to controls, particularly in the absence of some form of rationing.
While we in the government have been giving, and will continue to give, intensive consideration to the whole question, I very much hope that the House will approve of the resolution to establish the joint Senate-House of Commons inquiry proposed in the throne speech. I hope that the inquiry will be able to shed some new light and provide useful additional education both for the producers and consumers concerning the nature of the problem and recommend means to resolve it. Also, I hope that parliament will pronounce itself upon that in a fair, equitable and effective way.

Mr. Speaker, the budget I brought down in the House last May had two basic objectives and also, to a great extent, was meant to spur the economy in order to stimulate a strong and continuous upsurge in production and employment.
104

January 9, 1973
The Address-Hon. J. N. Turner
It aimed at bringing about greater social justice by alleviating the immediate financial burden of pensioners, of the blind and the disabled, of students, and of all those who are faced with heavy medical expenses. It contributed to the strengthening of our economic structure at medium and long term, improving the competitive position at home and abroad in our highly important manufacturing and processing field in order to supply our rapidly expanding labour force with an increasing number of productive jobs directly, or indirectly in service firms.
The last parliament approved the proposals embodied in the budget in view of increasing the guaranteed income supplement of pensioners and allowing for subsequent increases of this supplement and of benefits under the old-age security and veterans allowances plans in order to fully compensate for increases in the cost of living since the beginning of 1972.
As of January last, the total amount for old age security pension and maximum income supplement went from $135 to $150 a month for single people, and $255 to $285 for married couples. As a result of the cost of living adjustment provided for by the act, the old age security pension will go up to $86.61 from $82.88 in coming April. Together, the old age security income pension and maximum guaranteed income supplement will go up from $150 to $156.75 a month for single people and $285 to $297.82 for a couple.
It is imperative that the House approve as soon as possible the financial measures contained in last May's budget so that the taxpayers can know where they stand.

As I indicated at that time, the corporate measures included in the budget represent a first major step in the development of a coherent set of new industrial policies for Canada-and there are other steps contained in the throne speech which will be expanded upon before this House by my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie)-to strengthen the foundations of our economy and its job-creating capacity. While the pace of employment growth in Canada for several years has far exceeded that of any other industrial nation in the world, it is clear that we must create new job opportunities at a still faster rate to deal with the problem of unemployment. To contribute further to the strength of our economy, the Speech from the Throne outlines a number of other measures that are planned by the government to bring about basic structural changes that are required to increase the efficiency and competitiveness of Canadian industry. Hon. members will recall that in the budget speech last May, I expressed my belief that the economy would continue to grow strongly during 1972 under the stimulus of expansionary fiscal and monetary policies at home and of accelerating economic growth abroad. This was my forecast then; this was a forecast shared by the Institute of Quantitative Analysis at the University of Toronto and shared by virtually every forecaster in the country from labour, management and the universities.
During the first half of 1972, the economy grew very strongly indeed. Real national input increased at an annual rate of 6.1 per cent, and in the second quarter alone it rose at an annual rate of 8.3 per cent. Employment expanded sharply during the first six months and unemployment was on a downward trend. As I indicated previously, Canada's price performance matched that of the United States and was better than that of any other major industrial country.
It is now evident, based on data which came to hand well after the events, that the economy suffered a setback during the third quarter. What was the nature of that setback? In my judgment, and this seems to be confirmed by nearly everybody, the cause was temporary and the result of a series of unforeseeable and uncontrollable developments at home and abroad, unforeseeable even by forecasters.
An outburst of strikes both at home and abroad crippled production in a number of important Canadian industries and hampered exports of many commodities. During the five month period from April to August, the number of man days lost as a result of domestic industrial disputes came to more than 5,750,000. This was more than twice the total amount of time lost through strikes in the whole of the previous year and, in fact, was also greater than the total for all but two of the 11 years before that. Frost and heavy rain in different parts of the country drastically reduced the production of a number of crops, which in turn had an adverse impact on employment in agriculture and in the food processing industries.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Too much "snow" in the election
campaign.


John Napier Turner: In August, for example, agricultural employment was down 54,000 from the level of a year ago. If agricultural employment had been maintained at the same level as in 1971, actual unemployment in August would have been 10 per cent less and the rate of unemployment would have fallen to 4.9 per cent from 5.4 per cent. In addition to the adverse impact on production and employment, the poor weather also seriously aggravated the price problem already confronting us as a result of the worldwide upsurge in food costs and a shortage in a number of food supplies. Primarily as a result of these factors, the growth of employment in the third quarter was seriously retarded, unemployment climbed sharply upwards, our trade balance deteriorated, and there was a levelling off in real national output from the high level reached in the previous quarter.
The setback suffered by the economy during the summer months had serious consequences in terms of rising unemployment and prices. As I said before, however, all the evidence indicates that the slowdown was the result of special and temporary factors rather than of any underlying weakness in the economy. But it has forced the government to readjust its fiscal stance. That is reflected in the additional winter employment measures that were announced during the course of the fall. It is also reflected in the urgent tone of the throne speech, and it will be reflected also in the budget which I hope to introduce at an early opportunity.

January 9, 1973


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But the land was strong at that time.


John Napier Turner: I want to acknowledge very frankly to the House-I always try to lay my cards on the table in their place-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Face down.


An hon. Member:: A marked deck.


John Napier Turner: -that I am disturbed and disappointed that the figures published today by Statistics Canada show that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose moderately in December after declining during the two previous months. Certainly, this development underlines again the difficult problem we face in this country because of the rapid growth of our labour force.
In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, there were 250,000 new jobs created in Canada during 1972, which is more than the number in any previous year since 1966. In December alone, employment in seasonally adjusted terms rose by nearly 60,000 which was the second highest increase in any month during 1972. Over the year, however, the labour force rose by 260,000 and in December alone it increased by 77,000, which was the largest increase in any month last year.
For reasons that are not readily apparent, the problem in December centred mainly in British Columbia where the labour force increased substantially on a seasonally adjusted basis and employment declined moderately. In every other region in Canada there was an increase in employment during December.
To return to the review of more recent economic developments, let me point out that the sharp upward climb in food prices experienced between July and September came to a halt in the following two months,-although the threat of continuing upward pressure on consumer prices generally still remains a matter for concern. After levelling out during the summer, industrial production rebounded sharply in September and October, rising at an annual rate of more than 20 per cent. Labour income has continued to grow strongly and in October was up 11 per cent over the level a year ago.
Consumer spending has also continued to provide a major impetus to economic growth. Total retail sales in October were 11.8 per cent over the same month a year before and total sales during the first ten months of 1972 were also up by more than 11 per cent over the same period in 1971.
The fall months also brought a dramatic improvement in the trade picture. Merchandise exports in October were up 27 per cent over the level a year ago and in November they were up 24 per cent.


Mr. Peters:: You told us that during the election campaign but the electorate did not buy it.


John Napier Turner: Our economy has really picked up in the last few months but there is no denying that the recession felt last summer has left problems in its
The Address-Hon. J. N. Turner
wake. Of these, the most acute is unemployment which is higher than it would have been otherwise, bearing in mind the basic strength of our economic progress.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the minister but the time allotted to him has expired. Is there a disposition in the House to let the minister continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: I want to thank hon. members for their courtesy, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: Why don't you speak about the present and the future instead of the past?


John Napier Turner: Therefore, the government came to the conclusion that more incentives were needed quickly to take up the economic slack and to combat unemployment which reaches its highest level in our country during the winter months.
In early fall, the government announced its intention to invest $125 million to renew the Local Initiatives and Training on the Job programs to relieve once again this winter seasonal unemployment. However, when the full impact of the events that occurred during the summer months was felt this fall on the performance of the economy, the government decided to strengthen already existing programs by setting up a new $500 million program to create jobs this winter, which will help reduce unemployment, not only this year, but also during the next two.
The new program, as well as those announced earlier, will increase federal expenditures for new job creating activities to about $325 million this winter and will supply jobs for almost 140,000 people. To those expenditures should be added $50 million carried forward from last year and covering expenditures for the related loan program which brings the total expenditures for job creating activities this winter to about $375 million. Comparatively, actual expenditures last year were about $300 million.
The basic item in the new program is the establishment of a winter capital projects fund totalling $350 million and intended to make loans and grants available to other government levels for the financing of job creating projects this winter and over the next two years.
A new major incentive has been provided and is intended not only to encourage the provinces and municipalities to undertake job intensive new projects but also to have them carried out during the winter months. Half the total labour costs incurred at work sites, before the end of the program, will be deducted or not subject to reimbursement. But, in fact, the federal government will pay all the labour costs incurred on sites from December 1 to May 31.
We have been criticized for not launching sooner this new extended program. Had we been able to forecast the events which occurred during the third quarter we would certainly have implemented sooner the additional program. It is very easy to criticize economic policies when all the facts are known. However, those responsible for establishing policies must bear in mind indicators of economic performance which lag far behind the facts.

The Address-Hon. J. N. Turner
As I have said, I think anyone who has had even a glimpse or made a professional study of economics would realize that one of the problems in achieving stabilization today is estimating the time lag for fiscal and economic policies to take effect.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The premiers told you in August what would happen.


John Napier Turner: I am confident that the new plan can be very effectively utilized to create jobs this winter. The Local Initiatives and Training on the Job programs are already in operation and can quickly be expanded to absorb more of the many applications already on hand. The $60 million put into additional job creating activities by federal departments will all be directed to types of activity that can be launched with little or no delay.
As I have stressed on many occasions since becoming Minister of Finance nearly a year ago, my first and most urgent priority is jobs, and the economic thrust of the government has to be in that direction. The goal of the government is to bring about the creation of a sufficient number of jobs to provide productive employment for every Canadian who wants to work, who is able to work, and who is prepared to make a reasonable effort to find work.
No one should be under any illusion that this goal will be easily or .quickly reached. We in this country face unique and extraordinary problems in achieving this objective because of the fact that our labour force is growing much more rapidly than that of any other industrialized country in the world, because of the chronic disparities of economic opportunity that have confronted a number of regions across Canada, because of unusually large cut backs in production and employment during the rigorous winter months, and because of our exceptional vulnerability to developments abroad. The substantial job creating programs that I outlined earlier will play an important part in helping to alleviate the problem of seasonal unemployment this winter and during the next two years.
The Speech from the Throne outlined a number of new proposals designed to reinforce the structure of our economy. Because of my particular responsibilities in this portfolio, I am very much interested in those measures that are aimed at strengthening the position of small business in this country. One of the prime aspects of the economic thrust of the throne speech is the health of small business in Canada. The government intends to aid independent entrepreneurs by strengthening and coordinating its management and consulting services across the country, and by improving access for the small businessman to financing facilities. This will involve, among other things, a fundamental review of the role of the Industrial Development Bank.
I have been concerned ever since I took on this portfolio, and have said so often, and not by way of plagiaris-tic exercise, about new policies and new programs to strengthen small and medium sized business in this coun-

try. It seemed to me then, and it seems to me now that much of our industrial dialogue is among big business, big labour and big government. It is all too easy to overlook the vital role played by the thousands and thousands of small businesses in Canada.
An indication of the importance of that role is provided by the fact that an estimated 30 per cent of all Canadians are employed in businesses with 100 workers or less. But small business is more than just a significant source of employment in Canada. It is also a major and dynamic creative element in the economy, playing a large part in generating new inventions, new technologies, new products and new marketing methods. For all these reasons I am determined, as Minister of Finance, that not only should the vital role being played by small business in Canada not be overlooked, but that we in the federal government should do everything that is reasonably possible and practical to reinforce it. My colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), will elaborate on that.
Maintenance of the strong and balanced growth of our economy, that is a fundamental prerequisite for the achievement of so many of our other objectives, depends to a considerable extent on the proper exercise of monetary and fiscal policies. Both of these policies have been highly expansionary over a period of many months, and have played a major role in stimulating strong economic growth.
Sir, I believe that there is widespread confidence in Canada that production, employment and real incomes will continue to grow strongly during 1973. In its recently published Economic Outlook for December, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development forecast that real economic growth in Canada in 1973 would again exceed that of every other major industrial nation except Japan. A few months ago the Institute for Quantitative Analysis at the University of Toronto, one of the foremost independent short-term forecasting groups in this country, projected that the economy would grow by nearly 71 per cent in 1973, following an increase of around 61 per cent last year.
I do not want to indulge in any forecasting of my own at the present time. Economic forecasting is not an exact science, and it has never been my policy to get into the forecasting game. But, as the throne speech said, and as I have already told the House, it is my intention to bring down a budget at the earliest opportunity, to report to the House fully on the state of our economy and of government finances. I can assure hon. members that this budget will put forward major new fiscal and other measures to deal responsibly and effectively with our most pressing economic and social problem, our most pressing human problem, the problem of jobs, and ensure that strong and balanced economic growth, accompanied by reasonable price stability, is achieved in Canada during the year ahead. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members for their courtesy.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgctr):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to say it is somewhat of an honour to follow the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). Since coming here in 1970, I have watched his career with some interest. Today it seems that basically what he has done has been to throw
January 9, 1973

a smokescreen of figures over the whole unemployment situation in Canada. Those people who are unemployed must realize that a smokescreen of figures is very unpalatable. To coin an old phrase, it is still the same old gang sitting across from us. They have not changed very much.
It is indeed a pleasure for me to take my seat in this House once again as the Member of Parliament for Lisgar. I would like to devote a portion of my speech this afternoon to what I believe are the major agricultural concerns that face the country at the present time. Agriculture is the principal interest of many people in my constituency, just as it is of people in may other parts of Canada. It is my principal interest here in the House of Commons. While it is heartening to see that agriculture is once again in a relatively buoyant condition, the agricultural community must guard against a false sense of security. A slight fluctuation in world markets could result in a return to over supply in basic commodities, a situation which the agricultural community must always guard against.
I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) left the chamber part way through the speech by the Minister of Finance.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You can't blame him for that.


Jack Burnett Murta: No, you can't blame him for that, but I had hoped he would be in the chamber to take note of what we in this party will be saying about agriculture. However, I wish him good luck in his new portfolio because I am sure he will need all the luck he can muster during the next few weeks. I believe that in the Conservative party at the present time we have the best collection of people from all across Canada to represent agriculture and devise an agricultural policy that will more fully benefit all areas and segments of Canada. I do not believe this was the situation in the last parliament from 1968 onwards, and I think that resulted, during the last election, in the defeat of the former minister of agriculture. I believe he is now a Liberal organizer in that province and his job is almost as large as the job he had in 1968.
The buoyancy that our grain sales are experiencing at the present time comes from the misfortune of other countries and not necessarily from aggressive marketing approaches instituted by the present Liberal government. While the situation in agriculture is relatively buoyant, we must not overlook the fact that realized net income of farmers across Canada is decreasing at the present time. Costs have been rising at a very fast rate. All agricultural inputs such as land, buildings, machinery, fertilizer and chemical controls, have been increasing in price and the cost-price squeeze that has affected farmers over the past few years has not lessened to any great extent.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the government is faced with some very serious questions and problems in the agriculture industry. With the great process of review and reexamination which the government has been forced to undertake following the election, I hope that it will be asking some very serious questions about agriculture and the people who will be involved in agriculture, over the next few weeks.
The Address-Mr. Murta
Above all, I believe that the government must question its use of what I would like to call band-aid and patchwork solutions, with their constant emphasis on the shortterm view of things that affect agriculture. I believe that the agricultural community must opt for the longer view of things; they must plan for more than the immediate future and those plans must be concrete. Programs such as Lift are a good example of the short-term thinking I am talking about. The Lower Inventory for Tomorrow program has come back in the last few months to haunt the government. The main purpose of that program was to relieve the government of the political embarrassment of a huge wheat surplus which they had failed to move. If they had not been so short-sighted in their point of view and had the interest of the farmers at heart they would not have introduced the program called Operation Lift. Because of that program, Canada does not now have the inventories necessary to take advantage of record prices in international grain markets, so millions of dollars have been lost to the western economy.
Mr. Speaker, the government must examine its attitude toward grain storage. It has to ask itself whether the present system is adequate and if it is providing for the farmers' needs? Should additional grain storage be built, not only in Canada but in countries with which we trade? Should Canada help finance the construction of that grain storage to provide a necessary source of inventory for a very valuable commodity?
We also have to look very closely at the feed grains aspect of our policy in Canada. I believe we must have an equitable feed grains pricing system for supplies to all parts of Canada, and not only to certain areas.
Mr. Speaker, it is also my belief that the government must take a long, hard look at the dairy industry in Canada. I believe that in consultation with people at all levels of the dairy industry some very basic questions must be asked. I refer to such questions as: what kind of an industry do we really need in Canada and, is the dairy industry more efficient now than in 1965 prior to the creation of the Canadian Dairy Commission? One very basic question is whether supply-management will work, and another is whether limiting production and entry into an industry really helps it in the long run. It is my belief that the Canadian Dairy Commission has set national policy without stating, in specific operational terms, where the industry will be in two, three or five years.
Like many other people, Mr. Speaker, I believe that planning has its limitations but plans arrived at by people whose future economic welfare is at stake are far more relevant than ad hoc programs developed and administered by non-elected bureaucrats. I think it is clearly the role of the politician to provide leadership, but it is the responsibility and the right of the people in industry to provide the ideas and the spark needed. The present legislative framework does not provide the dairy industry with the adequate long range approach which I believe it needs so desperately.
In another area, with regard to pricing in the grain industry, I believe that the government must again ask itself if what it has done in the past is good enough for the future. Here I come back to the two-price system for wheat wb'ch was introduced some time ago and it is my

January 9, 1973
The Address-Mr. Murta
contention that it has not been working satisfactorily. Some economists who have looked into the matter have stated that most of the money is not getting to the farmers. It is evident that the system is unfair because nonwheat producers receive benefit from it in the same way as wheat producers. It is plain that by making the payments only to wheat farmers, the government would be encouraging more farmers to go into wheat production. I believe the government must challenge this assumption. The two-price system is a two-price system of payments to all western farmers. Western agriculture would be better served, I believe, by a more realistic pricing mechanism. The two-price system was basically brought in as a political gimmick or a sham, to try to entice western Canada's support for the Liberal government. Of course, it failed.
This brings me to another suggestion, Mr. Speaker. If the government truly desires a stable economy in western agriculture, I believe they should consider a system of floor prices for grain. Such a system would ensure that the price for a particular grain would never fall below a minimum established by consultation with the agriculture department, producers organizations and grain interests-the grain industry itself. Farmers would be guaranteed a certain amount for their products and if the world demand was such that their products could be sold at a higher price, then they could profit. If prices fell below this level, the government could ensure that the farmer still received a fair return for his production. I am thinking in this instance of our so-called Wheat Board grains. I believe that such a concept would ensure more rational planning in our economy. A floor price for grains would do more for farmers than any of the short-term, hastily conceived plans put forward by this government and, in the long run, ensure more valuable results.
It is apparent that a crisis is facing the farming community which will deepen if more young farmers are not attracted to the industry. To this end, I suggest that more and easier credit be made available to young people wishing to enter farming. I believe that emphasis must be placed on people entering agriculture rather than on speeding up their exit from agriculture. At the same time, several departments of government must concern themselves with improving the quality of life in rural areas. The departments that would be concerned, I suggest, are those involved in transport, agriculture, fisheries, regional development, health and welfare, urban affairs and housing. These departments ought to establish a decentralized authority for the various regions of Canada and they should be responsible for ensuring the continued maintenance of services as well as the high quality of life in rural areas. There are many people in urban areas of Canada who are becoming increasingly interested in such advantages of rural life as clean air and water and an abundance of recreational space, to say nothing of plain room for moving around. I think we must make sure that there is adequate planning to support these objectives.
Where possible new industries should be set up in a rural area. Such development should capitalize on the advantages of that area. The best opportunity for this type of development is in the field of food processing. When these products are processed near their source they

take on an added value, hence returning more money to the grain farmer and livestock feeder. There is an added benefit, that of starting an important and natural secondary industry in our rural areas, namely, processing. I think that this is within our grasp.
It would also be wise at this time to examine the government's policy respecting the Canadian Wheat Board. The Board has tended to be under the thumb or jurisdiction of the federal government, which has not made it as responsive as it ought to be to the needs of those people it was designed to serve, our agricultural producers. The government should act in a way which would increase the involvement of the producer in those decisions which affect them. I am talking of decisions the Wheat Board might make. And government should consider not only the Wheat Board; it should re-examine its basic philosophy regarding supply management.
It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is a strong advocate of marketing boards. I believe most members in this House would agree that marketing boards are fine if used exclusively for the promotion and sale of our agricultural products. I do not know of any product that could not benefit from a more aggressive marketing approach. Yet all too often these boards fall into traps created by inward-looking, protectionist politicians and bureaucrats, and become burdened under quotas and controls. From the minister's past history, it is clear that he could easily fall into this trap. Only time and legislation will tell, assuming that the members of the NDP, my hon. friends to my left, allow him enough time to remain as Minister of Agriculture to enable him to consider some of the questions I have asked today.
One of the most important areas that the Canadian agricultural industry must consider today is the area involving the selling or exporting of its products in world markets. I said earlier that our present sales are buoyant because we are benefiting from someone else's misfortunes. At the same time remember that the people in the United States are talking about increasing their total exports of agricultural produce this coming year by 28 per cent. Great Britain has entered the Common Market, so we shall lose some of our preferential status. If we look at Pacific rim countries to which we sell oil seeds, rapeseed, grain and other products, we can see that the continued prosperity of our agricultural industry rests on very, very aggressive selling approaches in those countries. You can be sure, Mr. Speaker, that if we do not pursue markets aggressively, our good friends to the south, the Americans, will. They have demonstrated over and over again that they will do so.
At the same time, we must display a good deal of caution when we talk about marketing and the marketing board approach for agriculture. The basic philosophy behind all agricultural legislation must be that the agricultural producer shall be able to function with the greatest freedom possible in the market place. The government's main obligation ought to be creating a climate in which all segments of the agricultural industry can work together, and in which government and the industry can complement each other.
January 9, 1973

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that in the weeks ahead, however short or long that time may be, my colleagues and I will be able to outline more fully our advice to the government on its agricultural policies, and advise this House of the clear alternatives which we will offer in this field in the months to come.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to preface my remarks by congratulating you on your election and by observing that because of the seating arrangement I find myself so far from Mr. Speaker that at one point I wondered whether I should send him a copy of my speech by telegram. I have reconsidered and, although I am last, so to speak, as a result of the seating arrangement, I take great solace in being a member of a generous party which has given me the honour of being the second member of our caucus to speak on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. It is with great pride that I stand before you as the first New Democratic Member of Parliament for the riding of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. I consider it a great honour to be the first socialist ever elected to the House of Commons by the citizens of this great riding.
It is traditional, Mr. Speaker, that many members, in their maiden speech, devote most of their time praising their constituency and discussing parochial matters. I intend to depart somewhat from this tradition in my speech. I shall naturally make reference to my constituency, but I also want to discuss two issues which I consider vital to the nation as a whole, namely, the state of the economy, with particular reference to economic independence and national unity in the context of French-English relations. Unfortunately, the time-limit prevents me from discussing the social legislation proposed in the Speech from the Throne. I am sure my colleagues will give it its due attention in subsequent speeches.
Sault Ste. Marie, whose history may be traced back to the seventeenth century and the days of the early French explorers, lies at the juncture of three Great Lakes, Superior, Michigan and Huron. Geographically, it is a part of what the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) referred to the other day as "glorious northern Ontario". Visitors from the earliest times have remarked on the scenic beauty of the area and the hospitality of its citizens.
Yet I would be remiss in my duty if I did not temper my laudatory comments for the area I love with an analysis of the special problems and needs of my constituency and its environs. "Glorious" northern Ontario is also neglected northern Ontario. This neglect has been manifest time and time again in the policies and attitudes of Liberal and Conservative governments. Northern Ontario is coveted for its abundance of natural resources, so much so that our economy is resource oriented, with the consequence that we have become reduced to hewers of wood, and drawers of water. Where is the manufacturing? Where is the secondary industry? Where are the jobs? The people of northern Ontario have the choice of digging up the minerals or cutting down the forests, but little else. In the case of my constituency, workers are dependent on one large industry, namely the Algoma Steel Corporation. Let there be a slump in the nickel, gold, uranium, pulp and paper or steel markets, and disaster strikes such a one industry town. Indeed, it would appear that certain mem-
The Address-Mr. Symes
bers of the Liberal front bench would prefer to keep things this way so that when an election is called they can threaten the inhabitants of northern Ontario with the spectre of ghost towns if they dare to challenge government tax policy.
The Speech from the Throne mentions the government's intention to decentralize the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to better identify opportunities for economic development. I want to see the department pay particular attention to promoting secondary industry in Sault Ste. Marie and northern Ontario, and with more good sense in its decision making than was evidenced by the Michelin Tire Company fiasco in Nova Scotia. The neglect of the north is evident in the lack of an over-all economic policy for this area of Canada which is so rich in resources. But this neglect is also apparent in the attitude of the government toward the citizens of this area. Because the population of northern Ontario is relatively small and scattered, northerners all too often fail to get the ear of government. It is essential that they, who have so much in common, have strong representation in Ottawa.
Yet what has just recently been proposed? Through re-distribution, northern Ontario will lose two seats in this House. I cannot think of a more retrograde step than this denial of the right of the citizens of this region to have an effective voice in Ottawa. Further, I deplore the attitude of the hon. member for Port Arthur and Minister of the Crown (Mr. Andras) when he stated recently that to protest would do no good, that the decision on redistribution had been made. That kind of attitude, that indifference, we can do without. Northern Ontario in general, and Sault Ste. Marie in particular, deserve a better deal. The area is rich-rich in resources, rich in potential. Here we find an energetic, talented and generous people, a people who given the proper leadership and, above all, the opportunity can and will do great things for their country. I call upon the government, through sound economic planning, to give them this opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I should like now to turn my attention to a matter which concerns all Canadians, namely, the state of the country's economy. It is most encouraging to hear in the throne speech that the government intends to reduce unemployment and contain inflation. What an about-face from the position taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1969 when he stated:
"I'm afraid there are a lot of people in this country who are bargaining .. . this country can't hang tough (on inflation) too long because it will be frightened when it sees unemployment go up to 6 per cent .... But if the people think we are going to lose our nerve because of that, they should think again; we're not".
Well, Mr. Speaker, unemployment surpassed 6 per cent, prices skyrocketed, the Liberals kept their nerve and lost their majority. The people of Canada have spoken. A truly just society means that people have the right to live with dignity, self-esteem and in reasonable comfort. To deny them this by denying them jobs in order to combat inflation is heartless, cruel, outdated and unnecessary.
Inflation can be controlled not by creating unemployment but by controlling price increases. I welcome the government's intention to set up a joint committee to

January 9, 1973
The Address-Mr. Symes
make a special study of rising food prices. But let this committee not merely investigate the problem; give it the power to take action, because action is needed now.
Action is also needed in the area of corporate tax reform. However, the Speech from the Throne indicates that the government will pursue its earlier policy of more tax concessions and write-offs to large corporations, mostly foreign-owned. How in the name of social justice can this government rationalize examples such as International Nickel which, despite a clear profit of $94,200,000 in 1971, paid not one cent of federal income tax and laid off
2,000	workers? When INCO, in the period 1966-1971 did pay income tax, it did so at a rate of 17.2 per cent while the average citizen of Sudbury was paying at a rate of 25 per cent. Such inequities cannot be rationalized on economic grounds but only on the basis of political expediency, for in the words of a Liberal fund raiser the Liberal party for many years has depended upon Canada's 95 largest corporations for meeting its election expenses. It would seem that if there is one lesson the Liberals have yet to learn it is that the Canadian electorate wants, and deserves, a fair tax system.
The throne speech indicates that the government intends to give aid to small businesses. This is needed and timely legislation, especially with the current trend toward monopolistic and unfair competition practices by big business. On the other hand, I search in vain for any indication of the government's intention to institute a comprehensive labour policy to cope with future problems of technological change and automation. It is bad enough that Canadians cannot find jobs, but what future does the working man have when technological change replaces him by a machine? Long range study and planning among government, business and labour is required if our economy is to have a healthy future.
It is to the future of the economy and Canada that I now wish to turn. I would caution this House that we do not become so engrossed with contemporary problems that we ignore the two-fold crisis that is descending upon us as a nation. Canada is faced with the threat of external control and internal break-up. We lament Canada's perennial problem of unemployment, and governments take short-term measures to try and reduce it. Yet I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we shall never rid this country of high unemployment until we retain control of our national economy.
I need not detail the degree of foreign domination of our economy, as I am sure the members of this House are familiar with the statistics on foreign ownership, which vary anywhere from 50 per cent to 99 per cent, as in the case of the petroleum industry. Earlier, Mr. Speaker, you heard me declare that northern Ontario has a "hewer of wood and drawer of water" economy. Much of Canada's economy can be described in such a manner. Foreign controlled companies have perpetuated the resource-based nature of our economy. Our resources-oil, gas, minerals, forest and water-are exploited, in the process of creating jobs. But the greatest number of jobs are found where the raw materials are processed and manufactured, and that is now outside the country. To make jobs in Canada the processing must be done in Canada.

As long as foreign interests make the decisions we will never get these jobs.
Royal commissions have recognized this. Government reports have recognized this. Indeed, even the Prime Minister has recognized this. If only he would practice what he has preached. I quote from the May 1958 edition of Cite Libre, wherein the Prime Minister stated:
Even if this government-
That is the United States government.
-had been well disposed towards our industries, that would change nothing in the decisions taken abroad by mother-companies, in accordance with their own profits and not with the welfare of the Canadian worker ... in the key sectors of the Canadian economy, non-residents are in a position to take decisions contrary to the well-being of Canadians.
Foreigners will decide if our oil wells are to be worked or closed, if our ore is to be transformed here or elsewhere, if our factories are to be automated or not, if our products are to be put on the world market or not, or if our workers are to be free to exercise their right of association or not. Foreigners will decide . .. and will collect the profits.
Yet to this day foreigners are still making the decisions and collecting the profits. Time after time the government has examined the problem but failed to act in a significant manner-witness the fate of the Watkins and Gray reports. The legislation referred to in the Speech from the Throne is only a token gesture which will do little to bring Canada's economy back to Canadians.
The time has come, on this issue, not for political expediency, but for political courage. What is at stake is the very future of Canada, her survival as a sovereign nation. In the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself, "political domination and economic domination are inextricably tied together".
The future of Canada is also threatened by internal pressures. French and English speaking Canadians seem to be drifting farther apart. The English-speaking majority grow resentful at Quebec asserting her rights, and the French-speaking segment of the population grows increasingly sceptical that English Canadians are serious about supporting bilingualism and biculturalism.
The roots of our misunderstanding lie in our past. The fall of Quebec in 1760 is referred to by English Canadians as the conquest, but this term is a misnomer. The French may have been defeated, but they were never conquered. The British, after their attempts to assimilate the French in 1763 and 1840, finally learned this. It would seem that many English-speaking Canadians, with their majority versus minority syndrome, have yet to learn this lesson.
When we strive to analyze the origins of our confederation we find that it was a reluctant union. This reluctance was based not only on linguistic and cultural differences, but regional ones as well-as witnessed by Prince Edward Island celebrating the one hundredth anniversary of its entry into confederation this year and not in 1967.
Professor J. C. Bonenfant has observed the following:
The great majority of nations have been formed not by people who desired intensely to live together, but rather by people who could not live separately.
January 9, 1973

This observation fits our confederation, and it fits Canada today. If Quebec were to separate, she would be doomed to become a cultural and economic ghetto; English Canada would be assimilated first culturally and then economically and politically by the United States.
Professor Jean Hamelin of Laval makes this penetrating comment on the events of 1867:
Confederation came as a challenge to Quebec, for the province would now have to co-operate in building a unified Canada as well as develop its own tradition. Moreover, the presence of Quebec was a challenge to the other provinces which now had to accept with all of its problems an alien community whose geographical extent would not be limited to Quebec. The general refusal to accept these responsibilities is at the root of the great political crises which have shaken the Dominion ever since.
Both French and English must accept these responsibilities if Canada is to survive. Both cultures must realize that they cannot survive separately. What does the government intend to do to promote this realization?
We read in the Speech from the Throne that the government is committed to the goal of national unity and to furthering the objectives of the Official Languages Act. Commendable objectives, but the crucial factor is the manner of their implementation. During the past four years we have witnessed the rise in popularity of the Parti Quebecois, the FLQ crisis and a backlash among Englishspeaking Canadians in the civil service-not an enviable record. The government must learn that the diplomatic approach in instituting bilingualism and biculturalism is the only approach likely to succeed. And I would think the performance of the Prime Minister yesterday-I have in mind the barbs he directed at certain unnamed members of the opposition-shows he should be the first to learn the necessity for this diplomatic approach.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: I think we would all do well to heed the message of the late Governor General Georges P. Vanier. He said, in part, in his 1967 New Year message:
The measure of our unity has been the measure of our success in the past...
If we imagine that we can now go our separate ways within our country, if we think that selfish interests can now take precedence over the national good, if we exaggerate our differences or revel in contention, if we do any of these things, we will promote our own destruction.
Canada owed it to the world, he maintained, to remain united because-
-no lesson is more badly needed than the one our unity can supply, the lesson that diversity need not be the cause for conflict but, on the contrary, may lead to richer and nobler living.
Let us open the windows and the doors of the provinces. Let us look over the walls and see what is on the other side. Let us know one another and that will lead to understanding ...
I pray God that we may all go forward hand in hand. We can't run the risk of this great country falling into pieces.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is faced with immediate social, economic and political problems. She is also faced with the question of national survival. This twenty-ninth parliament must face these issues squarely, with a sense of immediacy and in a spirit of co-operation. Only with such determination can we build the true north, strong and free.
The Address-Mr. Mackasey


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, my first duty, a very pleasant one, is to congratulate the Speaker on his reappointment and the Deputy Speaker, on his appointment. They are both wonderful Members of Parliament and I suspect they will be badly needed in the weeks to come.
I congratulate also the mover and seconder of the address. I had the pleasure of meeting both members before their election, having worked in their particular ridings. I was very impressed by their degree of bilingualism.
I was also impressed by the remarks of the hon. gentleman who just sat down. I could not help but note when we voted earlier the number of new faces in the House which, I suspect, is close to 100. Noticeable among them are several ladies. I am sure they will make the House more pleasant, but I must confess that my favourite still remains the very young lady from British Columbia who has graced this House now for several sessions.
I should like as well to thank the people of Verdun who, for five consecutive elections over a period of 10 years, have seen fit to return me to office. Let me tell the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) that something went wrong with our machinery, since I lost my first poll in four elections, but I have not had time to do much about finding out just where we went wrong. For a while I had hopes that the hon. gentleman might have selected Verdun for his maiden attempt. I am sure this would have been quite a battle as I am afraid we would have had an awful time dividing up the same machinery. I welcome the hon. gentleman to the House as a personal friend. This is a friendship which goes back over many years. Having said that, he can rest assured that he will not necessarily be clear of any barbs I might throw in the future.


Claude Wagner: Likewise.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: However, he knows that my nature is such I will never resort to personalities.
When one is here for 10 years, he begins to realize that this represents a lengthy period in his life. Perhaps it is not as long as the time spent here by some hon. members, but it is longer than most. These have been 10 very eventful years. I began, naturally, as a backbencher and then became the leader of the national caucus, a parliamentary secretary, a minister without portfolio, the minister of labour and the minister of manpower. The significant thing about each one of these changes was that I moved each and every time from one seat to another. This is the closest I have been placed to the back door of the House of Commons. I almost think that someone has a Pavlovian wish or Freudian desire that my next move will be out the back door. When that happens I can assure you it will be of my own volition, and when I go I will take with me my sense of integrity intact as well as my own concern and feelings for the people of Verdun in particular, and for the people of Canada in general.
I do not intend to talk too long about the throne speech because I may unintentionally be familiar with some of the legislation contained in it. I should have liked to have seen the very persuasive Minister of National Health and

January 9, 1973
The Address-Mr. Mackasey
Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), and I assure you he is a persuasive gentleman, include some reference to the daycare centres which are so badly needed in this country.
I am glad there are to be some changes in industrial relations that pertain to civil servants, because I think that some of the adverse reaction our party felt in this general area was due to the fact that we have not in the last few years been the best employers in Canada, as the government should be. I am hopeful that new legislation in that particular area will be more consistent with the type of legislation one sees in respect of private industry.
Let me say very briefly in passing that we should not react quite so readily to the reactionary forces in this country. It is interesting to note that we have cut back on immigration from about 260,000 people to less than 125,000 people in the last couple of years, in spite of the fact that we had a unique method of permitting visitors to become landed immigrants in this country under certain conditions. I made the decision to cut this particular feature, not because I was against that concept, but because I realized that the appeal system was being very badly abused and could not be rectified without a change in the Immigration Appeal Board legislation. I am pleased that the new minister, a very excellent man, has indicated in the throne speech that he will change this piece of legislation. I hope when he does so he will enlarge the overworked and underpaid board and thereby rectify these issues as well.
I was hoping that the throne speech might finally give recognition to the moral obligation the House of Commons has to the retired pensioners of our major railways. It seems to me that both the CPR and the CNR could well afford to increase their pension plans to at least equal what any other decent employer in this country feels is adequate for those people who have given the better part of their lives to the service of their employers.
I was struck by the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) today. It was a very good speech. I want to make it very clear that in no way can he be held responsible for the present level of unemployment. This is something he has inherited, but he has a responsibility to reduce it. I stand as guilty or as innocent as the rest of the Cabinet under the rules of Cabinet solidarity for the present level of unemployment. That minister spoke of the difficulty of forecasting. The only suggestion I can make is that there are some forecasters in his department he would be better off without. I can assure the hon. gentleman that if they had been in the Department of Labour they would have departed 15 minutes after I took over that department.
Back in 1970 when I was Minister of Labour I said the following, and I stand by it. This statement has a strange similarity to that of the Minister of Finance. Let me quote from page 1860 of the Commons Debates of December 8, 1970:
I might sound rather like a heretic if I were to suggest that a country as rich as Canada should never again be faced with this degree of unemployment. People today are interested in the quality of life rather than quantity of life. A better educated work force and, paradoxically, a better educated non-working force will no longer tolerate the booms and busts of our economy. They have been synonymous with most of the economies of what is loosely known as the western world.
The targets of this and all future governments should at all times be full employment. I think 1 am really echoing the sentiments of the cabinet in general, and certainly those of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in saying that, everything being equal, this government is dedicated to the concept of full employment.


An hon. Member:: What happened?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Further, for the benefit of the gentleman who just shouted "what happened", I shall quote something I said in reference to the former leader of the socialist party:
Big business does generate jobs and the opposition must realize that if we are to have the social policies this country needs, and if we are to create the jobs we need for perhaps the fastest growing force in the world, we will have to encourage Canadian investors, multinational and international corporations to invest in this country, preferably along guidelines that will protect the Canadian economy and prevent further erosion of Canadianism. Nevertheless, I think the suggestion of the hon. gentleman who leads the New Democratic Party that we should be prepared to introduce selective controls might very well be the answer to the next round of inflation. The point I am getting at is that this country can no longer afford the type of unemployment that faces us this winter.
I might suggest that I was talking about the winter of 1970.


An hon. Member:: Things have not improved a bit.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I think things are worse now which is nothing to boast about. I will agree with you. Having suggested that perhaps some improvement is needed in the method of forecasting, I have taken the trouble to list some of the excuses that these Mandarins have been using in recent months to excuse their forecasting inability. The first was the greater number of women in the work force. I realize that this began in 1949. Then, they switched to the growth in the work force as pointed out by the Economic Council some years ago. Then they moved to what is called the participation rate. That lost favour when it became obvious that there could be an increase in the participation rate and a decrease in unemployment, if you look up the figures say of 1956. Then, they coined the phrase, "the welfare bums"-not corporate welfare bums, just people. Then, when that got tiresome they swung to, "work ethic". Now, the Mandarins in Ottawa have discovered a new word, "disincentive". The disincentive has to be the result of unemployment insurance, particularly the increased level of benefits.
As long as you can keep the problem of unemployment insurance, and the alleged abuse of unemployment insurance in the headlines of newspapers which all too frequently are happy to co-operate in this regard rather than perhaps answer the arguments of the New Democratic Party, then you take the spotlight off the unemployment figures of this particular country. We have heard a lot about abuses. In recent months we have heard a lot about unemployment insurance. I have waited a long time to speak on this subject. I will have another opportunity in a couple of weeks to speak about unemployment insurance when the amendments proposed in the throne speech come forward. I am not apologizing for the so-called generosity of a plan which pays $66 average to the workers of this country for a period of 16 or 17 weeks of the year as opposed to what they would have received three

January 9, 1973

years ago, which was $35. I have looked up the results of polls, not only the Gallup poll but private polls which people were kind enough to place at my disposal after the election. I find that 51 per cent of the people who voted against the government voted because of unemployment, that 13 per cent voted because of inflation and 6 per cent because they thought old age pensions needed improvement.
The grouping together of welfare, baby bonus, need to help poor families, poor administration of the unemployment insurance fund and abuses of unemployment insurance made the sum total of 5 per cent. Only 5 per cent of the electors of this country voted against the government because we increased unemployment insurance. That did not prevent people jumping off the bandwagon or moving from the traditional humanitarian approach to one of extreme reactionaryism. The tragedy is not that it affected me. The tragedy is that we have temporarily placed a stigma on one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in any country in the western world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am not a graduate economist, but I remember when I took the subject getting "D's" instead of "A's". Someone asked me why I did not switch classes until I found a professor who agreed with me. This I did, and I received "A's" for the rest of the course. This is an old trick with which I suppose many hon. members are familiar. However, I see very little difference between distributing $2 billion through unemployment insurance payments, which leads to consumer spending in the regions where the unemployed live, and cutting personal income taxes which has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and by other famed economists in the front row. I see very little difference between putting that $2 billion in the hands of unemployed people who have a propensity to spend the money in the region where they are unemployed and cutting personal income tax, thus putting that $2 billion in the hands of everybody, the rich and the poor. Under the latter method, those who are so poor they pay no income tax receive nothing. Those who work and receive it will place it in savings, and the rich perhaps will use it for a trip to Europe.
I wonder whether we quite appreciate the beneficial side of unemployment insurance as an economic instrument. I do not have the figures precisely to the end of December, but I do have them for the first six months of this year. I hate reading statistics because they bore people, but I think it is interesting to note that in Newfoundland-the members from that beautiful province will be interested in this-$42 million was distributed through unemployment insurance in the first six months .of 1972 as opposed to $20 million in the previous year. In Prince Edward Island, the figure was $7) million as opposed to $3.6 million in the previous year. I am using round figures. The poverty in Nova Scotia is certainly something about which the Leader of the Opposition should know. If one looks up the unemployment figures for the period when he was premier of that province, one finds they were shocking.
Those figures may not necessarily have been the hon. gentleman's fault. He enjoyed my use of the phrase "a
The Address-Mr. Mackasey
drop in the bucket". I might remind him that the people of Nova Scotia are still waiting for the first opportunity to have a drop of heavy water in their bucket. It was $42 million in the first six months, for Nova Scotia, as opposed to $22 million the previous year. Even in wealthy Ontario it was $327 million, as opposed to $107 million; and in Alberta it was $61 million, as opposed to $30 million. I could go on and on.
I do not know what is wrong with the concept of providing sufficient income to the unemployed in this country, people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. What is wrong with providing them with sufficient money to at least live with dignity, and not in poverty, while they vainly seek for jobs that do not exist?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Much has been made of the 75,000 jobs that are not filled. The following are the words, not of a politician but of Dr. Kliman of the economics department at McMaster-and we are all used to academics being quoted, as did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) earlier, almost as if they were gospel:
It has been shown before that the numbers of unemployed and the numbers of job vacancies have been misused in statements by the candidates. It suffices to say that it is just as unrealistic to talk of an economy with a zero job vacancy rate as it is to talk of one with a zero unemployment rate. The other side of the frictional unemployment coin is the existence of frictional job vacancies.
The filling of a job takes time. No realistic employer can expect a worker to be standing by waiting to take up a job the moment it becomes available. The mere communication process regarding job opportunities is time consuming. This and other important "frictions" in labour markets mean there will exist at any time a pool of unfilled jobs, even in a period of high unemployment. Each day some are filled; each day new ones become available.
More efficiency in the job search process and changes on the part of the unemployed as to what kind of work is acceptable could have an effect on the jobless total, but likely it would be a minor one.
This comes, not from a Liberal or a Tory apologist but from an academic who has approached this matter in a very clinical manner.
We have heard much said about abuses, and I can make a very good case of the fact that there are less abuses of the unemployment insurance fund now than there were a year ago, because a year ago I recall going to hospital from sheer exhaustion. At that time the problem was one of administration, of efficiency, of getting cheques out on time in spite of poor mail service and in spite of the breakdown of computers. I apologized for it every day. We do not have that problem any more.


An hon. Member:: Yes, we do.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: You will hear about the individual case, but you do not have the questions and the telephone calls that cannot be answered. You do not have the problems which existed in Toronto, because now we have placed in at least 144 Manpower offices a representative of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in order that people can be helped to fill out that all-important computer card which starts the process. It is a fact that we have set up permanent facilities in Newfoundland in order to

January 9, 1973
The Address-Mr. Mackasey
help with the administration of cheques; the winter there made the system very vulnerable as their cheques came from as far away as Moncton.
The following are some of the abuses that were removed from the act: the seasonal benefits which, in the eyes of some people, were abused because, theoretically, anybody who gets something for nothing is abusing the fund. So seasonal benefits have been eliminated. Another concerns the rules for retired people, people over 65; the rules are much more restrictive than they were. Now these people cannot draw at the same time unemployment insurance and benefits under the Canada Pension Plan.
What seems to have escaped the notice of critics is the change in the basic entitlement. It used to be limited to 52 weeks and is now limited to 25 weeks. At the end of the twenty-fifth week the plight of the unemployed person is assessed and the period is extended depending on the rate of unemployment in the country generally and in whichever of the 16 regions he happens to lives. The 25 weeks can, theoretically, be extended to 51 in Newfoundland, but not in Alberta simply because we are now assessing the probability of a person finding work rather than rewarding him for his past labour attachment. So people should look at this problem in that light.
What about the high benefit level, about which there is much dissent? This question really concerns me. Ten years ago the Gill report recommended benefits of 60 per cent non-taxable. Today 66 2/3 per cent is taxable, consistent with the Carter report. In Holland it is 80 per cent. Of $100, the average that we are paying out is $66 to $67. Although these "bums," these people with maximum disincentive, these Canadians who do not want to work in jobs that do not exist, could theoretically stay unemployed for 51 weeks, the average time of unemployment allowed is only 17, a fact that has been consistently ignored by people who do not appreciate the moral obligation of the government to the unemployed of this country, and by members of the opposition who thought they could ride into power by being as reactionary as some of the newspaper headlines with which we had to put up last September or October.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am not saying that the plan is not being abused. There have been abuses of it for 30 years; the average rate is about 3 per cent. Two weeks ago I read an issue of the Globe and Mail which reported on a survey of the medical profession in Toronto, carried out by the doctors' own critic. It said that over 10 per cent of the doctors in Toronto abuse medicare. Their average income is $77,000. Yet when Canadians are broken down into classifications of who is most concerned about abuses of welfare measures, heading the list are professionals, including doctors.
Yesterday I read an article by James Gray, written in Alberta. What is everybody in Alberta so upset about? They have discovered that once women become pregnant they run out and get a job, work for eight weeks, then get laid off, go home and draw maternity benefits. That is the story by Mr. Gray. The slightest bit of research on his part would have indicated that maternity benefits are paid only to women who have at least 20 weeks attachment to

the work force, not eight, and who had been working at the time of conception-not conceived on the job, but working. When you translate this section of the act into plain English, it means that in order to draw maternity benefits one must be in the work force for 40 weeks. As the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) and the new minister would tell you, this is one month longer than is necessary to carry a child, even in Alberta.
I could go on, but I have a little more confidence in people than some members of the opposition, and more than some members in my own party have shown.


An hon. Member:: Name them.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The other day I was hurt when a colleague said publicly that the reason for our defeat was that we went forward too fast with social measures. I was here ten years ago when it was argued that medicare was greatly needed but, of course, not just then. I was here five years ago when the argument was made that the Canada Pension Plan was badly needed but, of course, we should not proceed with it too quickly. Apparently it is never the right time to worry about people. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you who speaks for this group and for that group, but sometimes I have a hard time finding out who speaks for the poor of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I have almost finished, Mr. Speaker. Because I do have a degree of affection for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield)-we never get down to personalities, and I am no longer what he described as the hatchet-man; that honour has been transferred to the minister of health and welfare-for him I have prepared a list of amendments that he can propose when the Unemployment Insurance Act comes before the House for amendment within a couple of weeks, and if he can get the support of the House for them he can bring down the government.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition can move to extend the eight-week period to 12 weeks. This will affect 72,000 people across Canada, according to the statistics available at the end of November. But the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) and other Conservative members from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Quebec should know that of those
72,000	people, about 50,000 live in the Atlantic provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not know how this will sit with the hon. member for Saint-Hyaeinthe (Mr. Wagner), who during the election promised the fishermen more generous benefits, but at least it is one suggestion that would
January 9, 1973

reduce the cost about which the Leader of the Opposition worries so much. Here I speak about the cost of financing the unemployed. Of course, the ultimate is to bring an end to the act entirely. In that way you will provide maximum incentive to work for the "lazy bums" who live on unemployment insurance.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we could go all the way back to the 1930s when we had maximum incentive to work. We had riots in Winnipeg, we had to split up families, we had men riding the rails, we had bread lines: all of these were maximum incentives to work. That is one alternative, if the Conservative party is not concerned about finding an additional 72,000 jobs, and it would be very easy to do, if that party ever became the government.
As I have already said, the official opposition could move to broaden the definition with respect to a worker from eight weeks to 12 weeks, even though-and this is the shame of the suggestion-there are only 19,000 people in Canada today who are on unemployment with only eight weeks labour force attachment. Where is the abuse there? Where is the incentive to scheme and cheat to draw unemployment insurance, when it is a fact that there are only 19,000 collecting unemployment insurance who have as little as eight weeks attachment to the labour force?
A further interesting statistic is that people who are on unemployment insurance, with eight to 11 weeks attachment to the labour force, remain on unemployment insurance an average of 15.8 weeks, ranging from 18.2 weeks in Newfoundland-this emphasizes the regional disparity involved-to 13.3 weeks in Alberta. Further, those who qualify for unemployment insurance and who have more than 12 weeks attachment to the labour force remain on unemployment insurance for an average of 17 weeks, not 50 weeks.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we can eliminate unemployment insurance and save a lot of money. In that way we can give more money to the corporations, we can reduce personal income taxes. But we will also have to set up the bread lines once again. Or we can reduce benefits from 66 per cent taxable to 50 per cent. This would also save a lot of money. The only trouble is that people would then be drawing what they drew under the old act. They would have to supplement their unemployment insurance benefits with welfare and we would be adding $100 million to the welfare bills of the provinces and the municipalities. In Toronto alone we would be adding 7,800 people to the welfare rolls if we did that. It was stated that was the number taken off the welfare rolls as a result of the new schedule of unemployment insurance benefits.
Further, we could save a lot of money by increasing the waiting period from two to four weeks. Would that be very consistent, coming from a party that once suggested we reduce it to one week, at a cost of $176 million? I remember that party's amendment on that occasion. It was a humanitarian and a good one, if only we had had the extra $176 million at the time.
Now we can go the other way and save money. We can shift the 4 per cent level at which the government takes over the financial obligation for the plan, thus assuming its responsibility for the level of unemployment reached as a result of the fiscal, monetary and other policies resorted to by the Department of Finance in an attempt to
The Address-Mr. Mackasey
keep unemployment at its lowest possible level. We could change that to 5 per cent, thus shifting more of the burden on to the employers. Alternatively, we could shift it from 4 per cent to 3 per cent, placing more of the burden on the government and less on the employers. I think that would please some of my hon. friends in the far corner, Mr. Speaker.
Another very legitimate amendment which the Leader of the Opposition could propose is the elimination from the plan of fishermen who are self-employed. Would hon. members from Newfoundland get very upset if we changed the regulations to eliminate self-employed fishermen from qualifying for unemployment insurance? After all, this would be perfectly legal and consistent with the act; you pay unemployment insurance only to those people who are employed. But I do not think that would be very popular in the Atlantic region. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) has talked about the fisherman who earns $43,000 and spends the winter in Mexico. Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago the same fisherman used to go to the Bahamas.
Another amendment which the Leader of the Opposition could move would propose the elimination of the woodworkers who are self-employed and who are included in the act by regulation. That would reduce the number of people receiving unemployment insurance. That would save all kinds of money, but it would affect a lot of people in New Brunswick who are self-employed. In his terms, it might eliminate a lot of abuses; there may be a lot of abuses in woodworking. According to the Financial Post, one of the leading lumber companies laid off 287 people and a month later called the unemployment insurance office to get them back, but nobody showed up for work. The company promptly did what any good, red-blooded employer would do; they went running to the press, talking about the 287 lazy people who refused to turn out for work, having decided to live on unemployment insurance. I got their social insurance numbers and names and addresses and ran it all through the computer. I found that 14 of them were drawing unemployment insurance and the remaining 273 were working for the competitor, with better working conditions and better pay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Another category is the truck
owner-operator.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you bring these forward?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member can move a motion when we bring forward the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. That will eliminate a few more people from the rolls and save money.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, because I am a little over my time, let me say that when I resigned from the cabinet, one of the reasons I did not resign from the House of Commons was that I was determined to stay here and see that the reactionary forces in this House did not destroy some of the decent things in our system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 9, 1973
The Address-Mr. MacKay


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not profess to have ever suffered poverty, but I can remember the hungry thirties. On Friday nights my father would give me a $5 bill to change into dimes, and every night my mother would make sandwiches to be handed out to people who knocked on our door the next day. I remember that as vividly as yesterday. What stands between that type of existence and the affluence of 1972 is the unemployment insurance program which provides the worker with some income so that he can retain his dignity and not have to hide in shame from his children who expect to be properly fed and clothed in a country as wealthy as Canada.
Mr. Speaker, as long as I remain in the House of Commons, which may be one more day or one more week or one more month, I will remain a Liberal-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -and I will pledge my loyalty to the Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, because I know no other way of being a House of Commons man. In conclusion, may I say to the new members that they should learn to appreciate the House of Commons; it is the only thing that really guarantees democracy in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct honour and privilege to take part in this throne speech debate and to do so under your distinguished guidance and direction. It is also an honour to follow the distinguished member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey). I congratulate him on parts of his speech, but with other parts I intend to take issue.
Just as this promises to be an interesting year, an interesting parliamentary session, so the Speech from the Throne reflects an increased awareness of the importance of parliament and heightened interest in this great institution by Canadians generally.
Before making my modest contribution, may I, on behalf of myself and my constituents, place on record the respect we had for the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. He was held in great esteem and affection in Nova Scotia, as indeed he was in the entire nation and the international community of nations.
When a junior member such as I looks at the contents of this Speech from the Throne, he is perhaps-at least I am-in doubt as to whether he should be more concerned with its direct effect on Canada as a whole or the very real concern it has for his constituency. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, in perusing this Speech from the Throne, and indeed having listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) expound upon it, there does not at this stage appear to be much rejoicing to be done, for me at least, on either the constituency or national aspect.
I commend the government for finally recognizing, at least by implication, that freight rates do have an impact on economic development and consumer prices. What a penetrating look at the obvious, Mr. Speaker! I find it ironic that the government permitted so much time to expire during its previous term in office without having come up with any national transportation policy, only now evidencing concern. It is high time that railways were
(Mr. Mackasey.]
examined, and not only freight policies but maintenance policies. Roadbeds are becoming unsafe because of unsatisfactory maintenance. Pensions for railway employees need examination as well, as the distinguished member for Verdun has just said.
With reference to the hon. gentleman, I should like in passing to comment that he is still dragging the heavy water red herring into the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: It is no red herring.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I should like to refer him and hon. members opposite to a speech made by a former colleague of his, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), last spring. He knows where most of the blame lies; it lies on this government which is trying to place this unjust and unfair aspect on the leader of this party. Mr. Speaker, this does not say much for their sense of fairness or accuracy.
There is in the throne speech more high-handed philosophy, and statements such as this;
To preserve the ecological integrity of Canada's coastal and maritime areas, further presentation will be made for the third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference.
Laudable and overdue as this stated objective may be, what our hard-pressed fishermen want is some direct, practiced help. To repay them to some extent for the neglect of the past they want protection from encroachment by foreign fishing fleets, they want adequate compensation for being forced out of their livelihood, and they want treatment to make up for their loss of sick mariner benefits and their fishing bounty.
In agriculture, the farmer in eastern Canada has little to rejoice about either in terms of actual or promised aid by this government. No plans for a regional approach for problems peculiar to eastern Canadian farmers are evidenced in this Speech from the Throne.
There is nothing to indicate that, pursuant to its announced intention to assist home owners, the government intends to remove one of the greatest direct costs to prospective home owners, the 11 per cent federal sales tax on building materials. The government can do all it likes to make it easier to buy a house, but what about the cost and the unfortunate fact that between interest, taxes, etc., the buyer will be saddled with a mortgage for the rest of his life because so few young Canadians can afford the price of a new home? Please, let us attack the initial cost for houses, and let us take this inequitable tax away, as a beginning.
One of the most intriguing and promising statements in the Speech from the Throne was the reference to the much heralded Department of Regional Economic Expansion. This is a good program, or could be. It is an equitable concept following the bipartisan line of thought that results in the sort of benevolent federalism that was responsible over the years for equalization payments, the recognition that the richer provinces should help the poorer and recognizing there should be equality of opportunity, economically as well as linguistically. However, somehow the government has in its familiar way failed to co-ordinate and develop its philosophy and in a practical or meaningful way to develop a comprehensive industrial strategy and policy for Canada.
January 9, 1973

At this point I want to stress that I agree with the recent announcement by the minister concerning decentralization. Our party has consistently advocated this since the inception of DREE. I agree with the Prime Minister when he stated, as he did in western Canada before going to England, that it makes him sad to see DREE used as a divisive issue by people making comparisons between one area and another. Some of us, perhaps, have done this not out of malice but as representatives of our constituencies, fighting for what we hoped was a fair share for our own areas. However, the Prime Minister, in his usual obtuse style, in the next breath proceeded to make comparisons. He compared Quebec with Nova Scotia, to show that Nova Scotia receives more per capita. As usual, he was saying one thing and proceeding to do another.
The feeling of our party is that these grants should be accorded on the basis of economic feasibility and need. Perhaps DREE should be used as an instrument of industrial development and as a social welfare program as well. But it has been badly mismanaged. The statistics and results generally relating to its policies have been hard to evaluate simply because the government has not made them available.
In a recent column, Charles Lynch dwelt at length on the type of information that the Prime Minister and government officials were releasing concerning DREE programs and the comparisons the Prime Minister was making in the areas that I have described. Charles Lynch wrote:
My own impression was that Quebec got the most because it needed the most.
Is it really true, as Trudeau says, that half of all DREE's outflow has gone to the maritimes and that "Quebec only comes later, ahead of some western provinces and behind some others"? Ahead of what western provinces, and behind what others?
Statistics can be made to prove anything, and Trudeau must have been working from a specially concocted set that we have been unable to get DREE to cough up. We're still trying, but it's easier to get a grant from DREE than to get province-by-province comparative figures on per capita grants and total DREE expenditures to back up the Prime Minister's claim.
I agree with Charles Lynch and I hope that comparisons between regions will only be made from the point of view of statistical information and not to establish innuendos or excite paranoiacs who seek to read into those comparisons anything but normal competitiveness as between recipient areas.
One of the commitments made by our party in the recent election campaign was that of decentralizing DREE. I am interested to see that now the government concurs in this, as it concurs, indeed, in many other areas of our policy. Interesting statistics indicating the degree of centralization in DREE and DREE-related agencies show as follows. There are approximately 1,700 employees, as near as I can discover, working in DREE and allied agencies, and 730 of those individuals apparently are centralized in Ottawa.
In Newfoundland, where there are more special areas than in any other part of Canada, there are 15 employees. There are seven in Prince Edward Island, which incidentally is a related area in the sense that the province is totally designated under the so-called FRED program, the
The Address-Mr. MacKay
fund for rural economic development. There are 14 employees in Nova Scotia, 13 in New Brunswick, 90 in Quebec, 17 in Manitoba, 12 in Saskatchewan, 10 in Alberta and 6 in British Columbia. One wonders what those six lonely souls are doing in British Columbia. Are they doing useful work? Are they setting up some petty bureaucracy which does not need supervising?
Why can we not have a more frank and comprehensive set of DREE statistics published every month whether parliament sits or not? These ought to be published in the same way as unemployment statistics are published. Statistics from DREE would give us the basis for valuable economic analysis with regard to what is going on in our country and would be useful in the compiling of data for the study of our unemployment difficulties.
It is to be hoped that the minister will realize that it is imperative for DREE to be more closely associated with the aims and aspirations of provincial development agencies, that he will examine infrastructure programs and that he will check into funding procedures vis-a-vis federal, provincial and municipal governments. He should move cautiously but, I trust, progressively to explore with the provinces better ways of dealing more directly with the often neglected third level of government, that of civic and municipal administrations, in processing DREE grants and loans. At present, Mr. Speaker, some recipient municipalities must pay service charges of a quarter of one per cent on considerable sums of money. They can ill afford to pay these charges.
There is obviously not enough co-ordination between DREE objectives and the efforts of other federal and provincial development agencies. These bodies often compete and work at cross-purposes. For example, while the former minister responsible for DREE tried earnestly to tackle regional disparities, his friends in the Department of Finance were introducing policies to fight inflation. Those policies increased the gap between the wealthy provinces and those less fortunate. Departments of governments like DREE tend to be hermetically sealed. There is not enough concern about what goes on in other departments; the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce should have greater input, so should the Department of Transport.
I feel, as do hon. friends to my left in the NDP, that DREE often promotes inequity. I do not go as far as they do in their philosophy, but I do feel that large corporations which have money to expand often take what is available from DREE. However, because of existing marketing organizations, branch plants, economies of scale, capital cost allowances, depreciation provisions, and so on, they are often already in a pretty good competitive position. It is small businesses in the formative stages which often need help to a much greater degree than older businesses which may be a bit shopworn, a bit obsolete but still viable. Those types of businesses may need an economic blood transfusion; perhaps their priorities should be looked at more closely by the new minister. Like the Industrial Development Bank, DREE should be oriented more toward assisting small industries. For example, 80 per cent of IDB loans are for less than $50,000. I would be interested in seeing statistical information of this type concerning DREE.

January 9, 1973
The Address-Mr. MacKay
Perhaps there is merit, as I said before, in some of the allegations made by the leader of the NDP. However, as usual, he goes too far, overstates his basic position and minimizes the very real and essential contributions made to the Canadian economy by large corporations. He is certainly remiss in his thinking if he feels that he or his party have a monopoly on concern for the welfare of small Canadian businesses, farms or, indeed, average Canadians.
We need more information about DREE. One would like to know which provincial and federal policies have been successful, which have failed, why, and what lessons can be drawn from different plans, procedures and administrative arrangements. Evaluation in recorded form seems to be one of the most neglected aspects of government policy. There are enough bodies working in DREE to do this in an exhaustive way.
I feel that the Regional Development Incentives Act must be amended, specifically section 16 which allows the minister and the government to refrain from submitting a monthly report when parliament is not sitting. How ridiculous, Sir! Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent, and there has been no report since last spring. These moneys are actually trust funds and the Canadian people are entitled to an accounting. They are also entitled to better administration. A more efficient advisory board must be constituted so that DREE grants can be better evaluated.
There must be a better way to run DREE. There is little point in locking the stable door once the horse is stolen, complaining of the many instances where DREE grants have been misused, about companies that have gone bankrupt and citing other failures of the program when in my opinion it is more constructive to have a better advisory board and to find a more efficient way of placing surveillance on the granting of funds and on expediting the disposal of grants, thus eliminating the sorry spectacle of companies depending on DREE funds that they thought were committed, only to find that they were not committed after all.
This department officially came into existence on April Fools' Day, 1969, according to my information. Since then those who have been affected by it must at times have felt that this date was indeed significant. In some instances, instead of being called the Department of Regional Economic Expansion it could have been better referred to, as the "department of ridiculous economic expectations". However, it remains, in our opinion, basically a good program and, like the legendary bird of Greek mythology, the Phoenix, I hope it can regenerate itself and go on refurbished, revitalized and regenerated under its new minister.
The concept of DREE, and indeed our national policy in economic development, has been shaken to some extent by recent developments, one of which affects my constituency. The United States treasury authorities have recently seen fit to impose countervailing duties on Michelin Tires manufactured in Nova Scotia. This is a very unfortunate and worrisome precedent since, as far as I am aware, it is the first time this type of action has been taken

against Canada. It has been invoked against other nations but never against us. At the same time, a duty has been levied against some of our pulp and paper companies, two of which are Domtar and the Eddy Company of Pembroke. The two firms I mention, as well as Michelin, are in receipt of assistance from DREE. The Michelin countervailing duty could have direct and international implications so far as our regional development plans are concerned.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) plays this down, and the minister in charge of DREE says that he hopes the Michelin case is an isolated instance. It is only natural that the ministers would say that because, after all, it was under their inept stewardship that this precedent was set. I charge the government with not placing sufficient priority on ongoing and high-level negotiations with the United States, and as a result we are now faced with a very unfortunate precedent. I trust that there will be continuing high-level negotiations with the United States in an effort to get the United States to rescind their course of action, at least until we have some far reaching, multilateral trade negotiations.
In closing, may I make a submission to the minister. I trust that he and the minister responsible for Devco will immediately explore the contentions of so many members, notably the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis), to the effect that all appropriate provisions of the legislation setting up this unique Crown corporation have not yet been implemented to the benefit of unemployed miners and their dependants. It is my contention that these miners and their dependants are not treated equitably in accordance with the real intent of the legislation. Neither are the approximately 200 miners on the mainland now in receipt of less than the Devco miners, though many of them were part of the same operation.
Lastly, I would ask the minister in charge of regional economic expansion, along with his counterpart, the Nova Scotia minister of development, to take every possible action to benefit a very neglected area of Nova Scotia, the region known as the eastern shore. There is a great need for some initiative to be taken and for some form of development assistance. As I said on another occasion, I am looking forward to a constructive association with the minister in charge of regional economic expansion in exploring and suggesting ways to expedite in a co-operative fashion the operations of his department, which has such potential to attack the all too obvious economic problems that are facing the nation.
Finally, I trust that the Prime Minister will put aside his paranoiac preoccupations with the last campaign and stop brooding about why his "philosopher king approach" failed with the Canadian public. Then he, too, will attempt to do something constructive to attack all this nation's problems.
January 9, 1973



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. It is 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 Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Consumer Affairs; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Sports; the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell)- Fisheries.
Shall I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned till eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[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 of the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (page 52).
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate you on being called upon for the third time to sit as Speaker of this House. You have been chosen unanimously by hon. members because your fairness of judgment and your competence qualify you to fill this position with dignity.
I should like also to congratulate the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) who has been appointed Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole House.
It is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that I have the honour of sitting in this House. I am not familiar with the Standing Orders. I shall try, nevertheless, to learn the rules of procedure and should I ever depart from them, will you be kind enough to excuse me for it.
I also want to thank the people from the riding of Rimouski who showed me their confidence when they elected me member of the Canadian Parliament. The people of the riding of Rimouski include workmen, farmers, businessmen, industrialists, travellers and a lot of teachers. The city of Rimouski is in a way the academic capital of the Lower St. Lawrence since it holds many institutions of learning which are attended by eastern Quebec students.
The Address-Mr. Allard
In this riding, information is of very poor quality. For a few months I have been trying to determine needs and to find means to solve the many information problems from which my riding suffers.
Rimouski and its surroundings are not getting adequate television service, as I said earlier. It is appropriate to remind you, Sir, that there is but one T.V. station in Rimouski, namely station CJBR.
Mr. Speaker, we learned from newspaper reports that on a beautiful star-lit night on November 9, 1972, a satellite called Anik was launched 22,000 miles into space. As pre-arranged, Anik will keep a geostationary position, that is a fixed position over the Equator in relation to the earth's rotation. From this select spot, Anik will be able, 24 hours a day, to lend an eye and an ear to all of our land. For once, Canada has reached the top in the communication field. Anik will simultaneously rebroadcast ten colour television programs and will include over 9,000 telephone channels.
We from the Gaspe Peninsula were pleased to hear about that development in the scientific field, but unfortunately we were soon disillusioned, because Anik seems to have forgotten us. This deplorable condition of poor relatives has lasted too long and I would therefore ask the government to alter it as soon as possible.
If my memory is correct, during the summer of 1970 the present Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier), then Secretary of State and minister responsible for the CBC, had been quite sympathetic during a tour of the Gaspe Peninsula to the grievances of its inhabitants, finding first hand how deplorable was the condition of information in that area. Always conscious of our problems, the minister has apparently stated that Anik carried in its flanks the solution and would give birth to it in the fall of 1972.
Mr. Speaker, Anik is in orbit, but where are the projects aiming at properly serving Gaspesians?
We also know that everything is ready to serve our Eskimo citizens, in the course of February 1973. We know that the CBC has rented from Telesat the services of at least three television channels for $9 million a year. We know that in three of four places, there will be some automatic relays connected with a transmitter for local broadcasting. Frobisher Bay and Resolute Bay will also be able to communicate both ways with the outside. I feel very happy for our northern citizens, but what about us from the Lower St. Lawrence?
Yes, and what about us? Mr. Speaker, what plans are being made to bring in the CBC in this part of Quebec, one of the major Canadian provinces in which information services should be available just as freely as anywhere else in the land? I did believe in the minister's sympathy, and I would like to continue to believe in it.
The people in the riding of Rimouski, who used to live almost exclusively from farming and lumbering, have, like everybody else, undergone many changes. Industries have settled there, and when economic conditions are normal and they operate to full capacity, they provide a living for part of the population. Farming operations in this riding used to be carried on a large scale but they also have declined, because they are no longer profitable.

January 9, 1973
The Address-Mr. Jamieson
Some citizens of my riding are fishermen, although because of pollution that industry has become less profitable. The government should take special steps to safeguard the industry and protect the sources of income of those who are involved in this field.
As for existing industries, in order to develop normally they would require financing at very low interest rates, in order to bring down their production cost and become competitive.
The Throne Speech mentions this problem. I hope that bills and legislation to be introduced in the House will be drafted in the same spirit and that the Throne Speech will not have merely raised false hopes.
For several years, we have been hearing about industrial decentralization but unfortunately, because of lack of adequate services in several towns in eastern Quebec, inadequate communications and high cost of transportation, those who are interested in opening new industries still go to the major centres and we, of the Lower St. Lawrence are missing the bus. This explains the ever increasing number of unemployed in remote areas.
The Throne Speech states that further steps will also be taken to reduce regional disparities persisting in spite of the action already announced in previous Throne Speeches.
The government says that additional funds will be assigned to LIP. I hope it does so soon to enable the officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration to approve a greater number of applications because, to date, we have witnessed a real disaster in that many worthy projects have been turned down for lack of funds. How can a program intended to create jobs do so when most of the projects are turned down? The government is only bluffing which I think is not very wise on its part.
In any event, I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to see to it that the state pay some attention to my riding and show enough understanding to create jobs if it cannot manage to convince industries to move in. The Social Credit party of Canada, of which I am an elected member, presented the people with an economic security program comprising a guaranteed annual income for all.
I must say that voters in my constituency have given a majority vote to this program. Therefore, it is my duty to tell the government that they will have to introduce good legislation in order to reach this goal and to eradicate as much as possible this unbearable situation where poverty exists in the midst of affluence. So, I can hardly wait for the tabling of bills intended for the realization of objectives mentioned in the speech from the Throne to this effect.
Senior citizens, disabled and unemployed people are worried by the constant increase in the cost of living as they cannot benefit from corresponding increases in their income.
On behalf of all the people of my constituency and of the Gaspe region, I ask the government to take immediate steps to insure security and freedom to the labour force, the farmers and every family, as well as more stable employment for our fine youth who ask nothing more than to work for our beautiful and great country.

In conclusion, I wish to raise the subject of abortion which is getting to be a real problem in Canada. The government should take a different attitude in this regard and should be more concerned with education. It should try to open a greater number of family planning clinics for consultation so as to try and stop the action of those who kill instead of facing the real problems of life.
Finally, family allowances should be raised substantially and distributed better, so that the mothers and couples in financial difficulty could keep and raise their children.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Sir, may I at the outset join all members of the House in extending to you and to the Speaker of the House our congratulations-condolences might be the appropriate word-on your unanimous election to these high posts. I hope you will forgive me, Sir, if I say in passing that I am particularly pleased with your appointment because, as you well know, our association goes back a great many years and I think it can be said that since the 1950s we have shared a genuine and deep concern for maximum communication with the people of Canada and for the proper utilization of the media in this country.
I should like to tell my colleagues in all parts of this House that the Deputy Speaker of this chamber is a man who has a profound wisdom and knowledge about the media and who has, to a very rare and unusual extent, a comprehension of both the positive and dangerous sides of the new developments that are occurring in communications. I can think of no one more suited than yourself, Sir, to hold the high and honoured post which you now occupy, which has been given to you with the unanimous consent of all members of this House. I am happy to endorse that election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I should also like to convey to Mr. Speaker the congratulations of all members upon his elevation, if that is the correct word. I notice that he is in the chamber. I have found him, in my several years in this chamber, to be not only a man of sagacity and wisdom but a man of profound common sense. There is a difference, sometimes, between sagacity and wisdom and common sense, but he employs them with a rare combination and blending of which we are all very proud. We are happy to have him back as our Speaker in this particular assembly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: For a particular reason I also wish to compliment the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I suppose one tends to get into something of a rut in this connection after one has been here a reasonable period of time, but I keep saying during each throne speech debate that I did have the honour of moving the address in reply in our centennial year. I say that now with a rather special significance but with no apology for having repeated it, as I said, before because I remember with vividness and unabashed and unashamed sentimentality, when sitting, as I was
January 9, 1973

then, in the back row of this House, the gentleman who occupied the seat of the Prime Minister, a man for whom I had a tremendous affection and endearment, along with the then leader of the opposition, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who together gave a new and "wet behind the ears" member a compliment on that speech. I refer, of course, to the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson.
To me, tonight there is both a sense of continuity and discontinuity in this respect because I think we all realize, regardless of party affiliation and what we may feel as individuals in the sense of our philosophy, that there is in this House not only a sense of continuity, not only the fact that the business of government goes on, but also there are those tragic moments when we realize that men who have served their country, perhaps at the expense of their health and welfare, are no longer with us. It was my privilege not merely to have expressed the sentiments I did in the address in reply in 1967, our centennial year, but to have done it in the presence of the Right Hon. Lester Pearson whom we all think about with such fondness and such affection tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: So I wish very much to compliment the mover and seconder, because this ritual, if it can be called that, is rather important. It not only emphasizes the importance of the so-called individual Member of Parliament, the Member of Parliament who does not occupy either the treasury benches or the front or second-row benches of the opposition; it symbolizes, it seems to me, the importance of the ordinary Member of Parliament, a man who is here because the people of his constituency have sent him here.
That is one of the things that is important about being the mover and seconder of the address in reply. The second thing is that traditionally the role has always been given to new members of this House. That, to me, too is something that is quite important because it illustrates that while there is a continuity in this House, it is not a moribund cure-all. It is tradition, if you wish, that new members of this House in this way can, and have the opportunity to do so, speak out on behalf of their constituencies. This, of course, is another aspect about moving and seconding the address in reply which is important. There is the fact that it polarizes, more than any other event in the whole parliamentary spectrum, the right and the duty of the individual Member of Parliament to speak out for the people whom he represents and to talk about his constituency.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Right. That is what we want from you.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Believe me, there is no argument between myself and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Allan Frederick Lawrence: In that regard.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In that regard. Incidentally, in any other regard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
The Address-Mr. Jamieson


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You got carried away there.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will explain. However, I want to say something to the hon. member opposite. I am sorry, but I do not know his constituency.


An hon. Member:: Northumberland-Durham.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I wish that, coming from the minor leagues, he would spend a little time learning what the batting order is in this House before he starts trying to be the star of the show, because it will not work in that way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are getting nasty now.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the usual word from the opposition when one hits a raw nerve is that one is being "nasty". The fact of the matter is that the hon. member has succeeded in the first two or three days of this league in batting out on each occasion. I simply suggest he learn a little first.


An hon. Member:: You do not learn by sitting here, either.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I want to speak in a non-partisan sense. Members will understand, of course, that I am always non-partisan in these matters. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) and a number of his colleagues would be wise to heed, as I did, the advice of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I remember it well because it made so much sense, as do so many of the things he says.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The right hon. member for Prince Albert told me when I entered this House, having had a close association with him in the broadcasting field for many years before that, "If you have any sense at all, you will sit and listen and keep your mouth shut until you know what it is all about". That has not happened, I fear, in the last two or three days in respect of many recruits of the party opposite. However, that is aside from the point.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is right. Get on with the job.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is not my intention to spend the limited time I have talking about the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Thank you very much. I really appreciate the fact that many of these gentlemen are contributing to what we call in the media a clack. When everything is dead on your side, you hire those on the other side to start the applause.


Mr. Paproski:: We wanted to make sure that you look good this evening.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Thank you very much. At least I am doing better with my dieting program than you are. Mr. Speaker, I am not really worried about the political balance of this House, but I am disturbed that the hon.

January 9, 1973
The Address-Mr. Jamieson
member and myself have been put at the same end of the room; I think there is a real problem there.
In all seriousness, I do intend to talk about the future. The leader of the New Democratic Party this afternoon said, "Tell us what you are going to do".


Erik Nielsen: He is your leader, too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am pleased my hon. friend said that the leader of the New Democratic Party is my leader, too; it gives me an opportunity to talk about something to which I believe we all ought to pay a little attention in this House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Are you going to be serious now?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Very serious. Do you want to sit back and listen?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Relax. It is interesting to note that we have been talking a good deal-of course the media has been engaged in this to the maximum extent possible, and as someone who lived in the media for many years, I understand it-about majority and minority governments and the like. This particular parliament, of course, is one in which there is a so-called minority government. But it is an oversimplification to talk in those terms and simply speak of the number of seats and whether that establishes either a majority or a minority. I did a little arithmetic this afternoon and it is interesting to note the result. I hope hon. members will accept the fact that this is a totally non-partisan comment.


Erik Nielsen: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I see the hon. member of the opposition, who is completely incapable of non-partisan comment, does not agree with me; but that is beside the point. In any event, I do say with all sincerity that having looked over the results of the election, I begin to wonder what really constitutes a majority or a minority government in this country, in terms of any group being able to say that it speaks for the majority of the people. For instance, there are 151 members of this House-they exist on this side and they exist in all parties-who are here despite the fact that far more than 50 per cent of the voters in their constituencies opposed them.


An hon. Member:: What about the highlanders?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have been reading constituency reports from Nova Scotia as well as from other parts of the country.
In any event, what I am saying and what I am seeking to do, as I said, in an objective fashion, is to point out that if one looks at the statistics and goes beyond simply the first set of those statistics, that is, the number of seats that a party controls or does not control in the House or who sits on Mr. Speaker's right or Mr. Speaker's left, one finds that substantially more than half of us are here with substan-

tially more than half of the voters in our constituencies saying that they did not want us. I use the word "us" and not "you"; I am talking about it in a general sense. In other words, the truth of the matter is that historically in this country-and I think the exceptions probably prove the rule-we have had a situation where it has been very rare when any party has had a true majority.
The hon. member will find the boy's room on the right, if he has not discovered it already.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I made that remark, Mr. Speaker, because I was here for six months before anybody bothered to tell me where it was.
But really, Mr. Speaker, without spending a great deal of time upon this particular matter and without being partisan in any sense, let me say that it has been very rare in the history of this country when any government could honestly say that it was a majority government. I will not quote statistics, because they are available to anybody who wants to look them up and it would suggest that I was being partisan. The fact of the matter is that in a great majority of cases members are in the House with less than half of the citizens in their constituencies voting for them. Therefore, I thoroughly agree-and perhaps it is a terrible piece of presumption on my part to agree with Winston Churchill, but I see from the statistics that he was so right-with Winston Churchill when he said that democracy is the worst possible form of government except for all of the others.
There is a lesson in this for us, surely, in recognizing that there is a difference between what happened in the democratic electoral process, with which of course I am in full agreement, and how we act during the electoral process and how we act once we become members of the House, because in the House, constitutionally and in every other respect indeed, there are no parties, and when people talk about about power, when people talk about the acquisition or the relinquishing of power and they talk about it in the penny-ante sense of whether half a dozen or more people move from one side of the House to the other, what they are doing is playing the kind of games which in fact the press, the media and the public have come to recognize as being one of the faults of our whole parliamentary system because we are incapable of rising above them. This has been evident in the last two or three days in the House.


Mr. Grafftey:: But you have been in power for a whole generation and a half.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not particularly care whether or not my friend thinks of it in terms of a generation and a half. All I am saying is that we have a multiparty system with which we are prepared to carry on.


William Heward Grafftey: Poppycock!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: So the hon. member opposite is becoming highly indignant. He has had his chance. What I am saying is that when one talks in terms of who should exercise power in this country, the answer surely has to be that it is the people of this country; and it is the people of this
January 9, 1973

country who have sent us here to decide what is going to be done and what we are going to do about the immediate and pressing problems of this country, not to play the kind of games that have been evident here in the last two or three days and which, I suspect, will go on for some time to come.


William Heward Grafftey: I had a better professor in my freshman year.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member said he had a better professor in his freshman year. Thank God I was never a professor. Thank God I never made it to my freshman year, because I had enough gut common sense to understand that what the public is telling us is to get on with the business of this country.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let us hear about your ministry, Sir.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: We will get to that. Mr. Speaker, All I am seeking to say-and perhaps the jibes of the members opposite have prompted me to go beyond what I might otherwise have said-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Don't do us any favours.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: A fellow needs what we used to call, in show business, a straight man; the hon. member is pretty good at it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am doing all right.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: What I am trying to say is that the important thing at the moment is not who occupies the benches on the right or the left of Mr. Speaker. For my part, I do not particularly care what happens in those terms because, believe me, anybody in this House who thinks that he has some potential claim to immortality because he is here, he is there or he wants to move from there to here, has only to go out to the back of this building and see the statues of the men who have been forgotten for 100 years, 20 years and even 10 years and he will realize that all this is not important.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Tell your leader that, don't tell us.


Erik Nielsen: Methinks thou doth protest too much.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: May I say to the hon. member that his brother does it better on the ads for the Bank of Montreal.
All I am seeking to say-


An hon. Member:: Then say it.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Give me time. All I am saying is that it is about time we realized that we have to come to grips with the important problems and not just play games and not just, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) or someone, said, have one's tongue hanging out, anxious for office. To me that is singularly unimportant. The point is that I find it rather difficult to accept-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Lately?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will not answer that remark of the hon. member because in Hansard it will not look half as funny as it should. However, Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult
The Address-Mr. Jamieson
to accept that the total solution to this country's problems, as complex as they are, can be simply achieved by transferring one group of individuals from one side of the House to the other. I find it very hard, in looking over, not only the individuals who now occupy the front benches of the official opposition but in examining some of the things they have said over the years, to believe that at the very moment there was a change of government in this country the clouds would open and the Leader of the Opposition would be delivered of tablets of stone on which every problem of the country would be resolved in a split second.
I say that because I find it hard to understand how the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), who might become the minister under those circumstances, having spent some 20 years establishing the kind of reputation that he now deplores in this government, could suddenly transform this country into some magical Shangrila.


Erik Nielsen: Have you got an embassy there?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: We don't have an embassy in Shangrila at the moment, but I can assure the hon. member that if he gives us a vote of confidence and he would like the job, I will see that he is first on the list. And I am not at all sure that he would not accept it, Mr. Speaker.
Let us look at what this miraculous group is going to achieve. I wonder how the hon. member for Trinity feels, seated as he is within shooting distance-I use that word advisedly-or those people who tried to destroy him a few years ago, who said he was a total disaster, who damned him into the ground in this House. I am speaking of members who are here now and members who are no longer here. Now he finds it possible to make common cause with them. Is this the man who is going to lead us into the new Jerusalem?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have my doubts. Now we come to the piece de resistance, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). Great Liberal principles? He stands up for them until the time comes when he is no longer the leader and then he switches over to something else. Is this the man who is going to lead us into the new Jerusalem? Is this the party to which we ought to give confidence in this House?
I sympathize with hon. members in the second and third rows opposite, Mr. Speaker. They fought their own battles. They are the ones in this House who tried to keep the real spirit of conservatism going throughout a long period of dreary, arid years. Where do they find themselves now? They find themselves in the third-row; new, "wet behind the ears" members, to quote the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Among them is the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham. Then the Leader of the Opposition says it is terrible to change one's policy. He has changed everything.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 9, 1973
The Address-Mr. Jamieson


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask how much the minister charges for a ticket to this show.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have the highest priced ticket this side of Broadway, with not one nickel going to any corporate welfare bum in the theatrical business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I made a conscientious decision that I was not going to talk about the NDP this evening.


David Lewis: I don't care whether you do or not.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Don't feel offended if I have not done so.


An hon. Member:: It won't hurt, if that's all the harm you can do.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: All I want to say to the hon. gentleman who made that interjection is that he really synthesizes what I was saying earlier. I do not say this in any bootlicking fashion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Hon. members can laugh if they choose, but if they, particularly those who have not been here before, would take a little time to read the record they would know I have consistently said there are many things, not only about the leader of the NDP, but about his followers and his policies, that I admire. Of course I do, and it did not take an election to make that kind of determination on my part. I ask hon. members to refer back to the last throne speech debate in which I said precisely the same thing. I see that somebody else in the audience wishes to ask a question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Would the minister mind if I asked him a question?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Not at all.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, he has only a few minutes left. Would he care to tell us what action he intends to take in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in order to solve the unemployment problem of this country?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I thank the hon. member for bringing me back to earth. One of the happy things, and also one of the unfortunate things about this House is that one gets into this kind of argument, or debate, if one wants to call it that, and I readily admit I have not devoted as much time in my speech as I ought to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. But to end on a serious note, Mr. Speaker, judging from the mood of the House I think all members have taken what I have said in reasonably good grace.
On this subject, the other day I came across something which was written many thousands of years ago. It was by a critic who was writing about the fallings of Pelopone-sian policy-making. That was a long time ago, in Greece.


An hon. Member:: What about today?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: We will come to today in a moment. You haven't been here long enough to know about today. In the position in which the country finds itself now I would like to commend these words, in all seriousness, to hon. members:
Each member presses his own ends which generally results in no action at all. They devote more time to the prosecution of their own purposes than to the consideration of the general welfare. Each supposes that no harm will come of his own neglect, that it is the business of another to do this or that. And so, as each separately entertains the same illusion, the common cause imperceptibly decays.
All I have been trying to say, and perhaps I have been doing it in a little too humorous and dramatic form, is that the important point is for us now to get on with the business of Canada.
In the time I have left I wish to say, with respect to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, that there are a number of things which I can specifically commit to the House at this time. The first is that there will be substantial provincial-federal consultation; that first of all it is important that we as a federal government understand and comprehend what are the philosophies and objectives of individual provinces, and it is not in the first instance our responsibility as a federal government to impose our priorities on the provinces.
Therefore, I commit to the House that we will consult with the provinces. Indeed, the process has already started. We are trying to help them in every conceivable way that we can, to determine what their economic objectives are and, more than that, what it is they want for themselves in its totality, that is, in terms of a life style, in terms of what they want for their citizens. This is something that has been undertaken and which we will carry through to the extreme. We very much want to have that kind of co-operation with the provinces.


Erik Nielsen: But what have you been doing?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have not been doing anything, because I have not been in this particular portfolio.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister may continue if there is unanimous consent.


An hon. Member:: He has just started.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed?


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, on this business of extra time, I should point out that I have a long list of members who wish to speak in this debate. We gave extra time to the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) because he resigned from the cabinet; he was being used as a scapegoat and we wanted to hear the story. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) had an opportunity to be serious, but he did not deal with serious
January 9, 1973

things. I may not be very popular, but I really think we have to stick to the time limit.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly).


Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a profound honour to address this chamber. I shall be always grateful for it regardless of the length of my political career, which I am sure hon. members opposite will try to shorten as much as possible: that is their job.
It is always entertaining to listen to the minister who just finished speaking and swept out. He was, in an earlier incarnation, as many hon. members know, a broadcaster and his prowess was lengendary in that industry.


An hon. Member:: You are not in television now.


Peter Reilly: I must congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), Mr. Speaker. In four short days he has managed to bring into total thralldom his brand new shipment of seals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Reilly: Many times during his career as a broadcaster it was said of the minister that when he was rushed for time he could memorize a three-minute commercial with no notes at all. I am sure we all believe that, as he has just run off a 30-minute commercial without any reference to notes at all, as far as I could see.
He mentioned the presence on this side of the House of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) who resigned from the Liberal cabinet, as most of us know, when his rather simple and decent proposals regarding housing for Canadians went to the bottom of the priority list and were studiously ignored by the Prime Minister's office. I think the minister ought also to have mentioned the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) and the former hon. member for Duvernay, both of whom resigned cabinet posts because of humanitarian concern.
I congratulate the mover (Mr. Blais) and the seconder (Mr. Blaker) of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. For their sake I hope their observations prove more worthy of retrospective scrutiny than the remarks of the mover in the last session of the last parliament, the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher). During the course of his remarks he did me the honour of referring to me when he said, in part, "even the Tories would not accept a man like that around here". He said a lot of other things, too, Mr. Speaker, but I shall not bore the House with them. As it turned out, my party did want me and so did the voters of Ottawa West.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Reilly: Unhappily for the Liberal party, that is the case with a great many seats formerly occupied by Liberals; they have switched to this side of the House. There are a great many reasons for this change, Mr. Speaker, many reasons why the people of Canada, in every region except Quebec, turned away from the Liberal Party and chose instead the party led by the man I am proud to call my leader. I shall list them, as the government so often puts it, in the fullness of time.
The Address-Mr. Reilly
Yesterday the Prime Minister called me a joker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: "Sinistre farceur".


Peter Reilly: It is true, Mr. Speaker, that I inherited from my parents a lively sense of fun and a keen appreciation of the ridiculous. Those qualities have stood me in good stead upon many occasions when the only logical alternative to laughter was to burst into tears at the sights and sounds that were unfolding before my eyes. Never have they served me better than in this House yesterday afternoon when I sat here for more than two hours and listened to the discursive, disputatious and often didactic diatribe from the Prime Minister of my country.
In a forlorn and shabby attempt to explain to this House and to the people of this country his party's dismal showing on October 30, the Prime Minister established what must surely be a new low in gutter politics. He tried to smear the Progressive Conservative party by blaming its so-called anti-French campaign for his party's defeat. He flailed wildly around him looking for reasons to justify his party's failure, and he even tried at one stage to link the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield)-a man of unquestioned integrity and responsibility-with this antiFrench fantasy. The last time I saw this used was in the United States by a man named McCarthy, and I do not mean Eugene.
It was an irresponsible performance. It was irresponsible because it was a smear on all members of this party; it was contemptible because it called into question the good faith of Canadian voters who quite properly turned away from the Prime Minister and his party and, finally, it was irresponsible because it encouraged the very bigotry that I assume all of us wish to stamp out and to avoid.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's remarks yesterday in the House were just poppycock and nothing else. The problems of bilingualism, national unity had nothing to do with his party's defeat at the polls.

No, Mr. Speaker, it was a good deal more basic than that, and because he cannot bring himself to believe that his marvellous schemes and his multiplicity of rationales were unacceptable to the Canadian people, he hides behind a phony charge of racism by this party. He reminds me of nothing so much as the beleaguered politician who was caught up in a fierce election battle and who found himself facing an opponent about whom it was impossible to say one rotten thing. So, at the biggest public meeting in the campaign, he got up and said this:
Some little known and disturbing facts about my opponent have come to my attention and I feel you should know about them. He subscribes to several all-male societies whose members regularly practise the most flagrant philanthropic activities on young boys from poor families. His sister is a well-known thespian and his aging aunt was forced to withdraw from her church activities because she is a self-confessed octogenarian. Not only that, my opponent has been observed performing the piscatorial act from a boat flying the Canadian flag. He and his wife have lived for more than 20 years in open and notorious monogamy. He has masticated regularly since childhood, often in public.
126

January 9, 1973
The Address-Mr. Reilly
Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon had about as much force and effect as that mythical story.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Did you say you were not a joker?


An hon. Member:: He is listening.


Peter Reilly: I have never denied it. No, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people did not turn away from that gaggle of incompetents over there because of any anti-French campaign. The Canadian people turned away from a government that did not trust them and so did not merit their trust in return.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Reilly: The Canadian people turned away from a government that lurched for four years from one economic crisis to the next like an entire platoon of Walter Gordons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Reilly: The Canadian people turned away from a bunch of ministers whose collective philosophy was best expressed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) during his earlier incarnation as l'eminance grise; that philosophy was, if the people do not accept your plan, it is not the plan that is at fault, it is the public relations.
The Canadian people turned away from a government that ignored the advice of the best economists of the country, and visited upon the poor, the weak and the old a time of disaster and travail from which they have still not recovered; and today's unemployment figures bear that out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Benjamin:: Oh, you friends of the working man.


Peter Reilly: I will get to you weak-kneed, bleeding-hearts in a moment. The Canadian people turned away in disgust from a political campaign full of flatulent slogans and totally devoid of specific policies.


An hon. Member:: That's pretty weak.


Peter Reilly: The game is up. No, Mr. Speaker, neither bilingualism nor unity was the reason for the rejection of that tatty ineptitude of Grits. What happened was that the so-called Liberals, whose pre-emption of that otherwise honourable word really ought to be investigated by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) as a giant fraud on the public, these so-called Liberals made the same mistake that old and tired politicians always make. They assumed that the Canadian people could not be trusted with the inconvenient facts. They were afraid to tell the people the truth, Mr. Speaker, so they tried to lull the people with a campaign whose main point was the curious assumption that, despite the steadily mounting evidence before our very eyes that they had wickedly and wilfully mismanaged this country for four years, they still had some kind of divine franchise on

wisdom and leadership. Never mind the sad little war on inflation which according to the Prime Minister was being waged on behalf of the poor and the old-


An hon. Member:: Let's have facts.


Peter Reilly: -and in which the same poor and old became the foot soldiers, the cannon-fodder and, eventually, the victims. Never mind the prime ministerial assurance that he did not care if unemployment went as high as 6 per cent, which it promptly did, paused briefly and then moved ever onward and upward. Pay no attention, they told us, to the fact that the government had clear advance warning from the Economic Council of Canada that if it pursued its announced course, unemployment would rise and so would inflation. Never mind the Prime Minister's declaration that inflation was licked, when actually it was poised for still another leap. They went about the country neighing and braying and telling us "the land is strong", to which one of my constituents replied, "and a good thing it is, too, or else it couldn't have withstood four years of those louts."
This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we heard from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). It was indeed touching to hear him so well defended by the hon. member for Verdun, but on the strength of what he told us today he does not deserve such tender treatment. What did he tell us of the government's plans to reduce unemployment, the latest figures on which make poignantly plain to those hundreds of thousands of Canadians without jobs precisely how much his government cares for them? Nothing.
What good news did he bring to this House about his government's plans for relieving the plight of old people? None. Did he have anything of even passing interest to say to the members of this House about the distressing problem of inflation? There was nothing there, either. Actually, Mr. Speaker, I asked myself, after he sat down, why he had ever got up. He came before this House with no plans, no help and no information on the problems which daily plague the lives of millions of Canadians and which cry out for attention today as they have on every day of every week for the past three years.
The only reason for his intervention that I can conceive is that perhaps conventional wisdom dictates that the resolute refusal to act is the necessary prerequisite to even higher office than the one he now adorns. But that does not help the unemployed; that does not help the old people; that does not help the millions of Canadians whose incomes steadily recede before the relentless onslaught of inflation.
It was also interesting to listen to the speech made by the hon. member for Verdun, particularly his obviously sincere defence of his unemployment insurance plan. I thought, Mr. Speaker, he seemed more defensive than necessary about the plan. I happen to think it is a good plan, a progressive plan and, certainly, to judge from the monthly accumulation of human misery caused deliberately by his colleagues in government, and from the evidence presented every month by Statistics Canada, it is a necessary plan. My only quarrel with it is that it was sold to the people on the basis of faulty figures and we are now faced with an unexpected and astronomical bill to pay.
January 9, 1973

The difficulty is that the money for paying that bill does not come from the housekeeping budget at 24 Sussex Drive; it comes from the pockets of Canadian taxpayers who are already hard-pressed to meet their regular obligations. Of course, one has to temper one's enthusiasm for the plan with the realization that the bill would not be so high were it not for the breathtaking incompetence of the government. It would not be close to as high if it had not been that the government chose deliberately the cruel course of setting off employment against inflation. This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the president of one of the chartered banks told a meeting in Toronto that Canada's unemployment rate was the highest in the industrialized world, and he described this as a national shame.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Peter Reilly: When bank presidents begin describing unemployment as a national shame-


An hon. Member:: -the Tories had better listen.


Peter Reilly: -I think we can take it as certain, all things being considered, that it has become a national shame.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as I said earlier, the Prime Minister attributed racist motives to every member of my caucus. I could scarcely credit the evidence of my senses as I beheld the Prime Minister of my country trying to establish this irresponsible line of argument in his opening speech to this Parliament. When he spoke here yesterday he did a grave disservice to the cause he espoused so earnestly. His grip on reality has grown so tenuous that, although he probably doesn't realize it, there are in this country, in every province and city and town people who will fasten on his unfortunate remarks and fashion from them weapons to use against other people.
There are bigots in this country; some are French-Canadian and others spring from different beginnings. What the Prime Minister ought to know, and if he doesn't know he should be made forcefully aware of it, is that he has encouraged them, all of them. He has made still another of his many contributions to a political situation in which it is already hard enough to be responsive to the legitimate aspirations of your constituents and remain a responsible Canadian.
I represent a riding in which a large proportion of the voters work for the federal government or its agencies. There has been a good deal of speculation by people more expert than I about whether my election was due to the so-called backlash against French-Canadians. The only thing I know is that the only talk of racism during the election came from the Liberal candidate, who accused me of being anti-French because I opposed the government's implementation of the Official Languages Act. The Prime Minister claims he has seen literature of a racist character put out by this party. I can show him literature put out in Ottawa West by Liberals which came close to qualifying as hate literature and which ought to make the party which published it blush with shame.
The National Liberal Federation over on Bank Street sent paid agitators to meetings to make it plain to all the voters of French-Canadian origin that I am not articulate in French. They baited me regularly and persistently
The Address-Mr. Reilly
when I spoke in English, which surely was my right in a bilingual country. The truly sad thing about this is that every time this vicious little cabal opened up on me, they encouraged the bigots, whose support I did not want and whose importunings I regularly turned aside. Not only that, but decent and fair-minded people in the riding were moved to ask themselves some searching questions which might better have been left unasked.
If the Prime Minister wants racism, I can shown him racism among the members of his own party, sponsored by his own national office. I happen to believe that my election was not due to any backlash but that it was due in part to the government's wrong-headed and relentlessly-stupid policies regarding the implementation of the Official Languages Act. It is characteristic of this government and its Prime Minister that they are able to equate, without any mental gymnastics at all, opposition to their way of doing things with opposition to the principle of bilingualism per se.
The fact is that after the election, with all the haste that they could decently muster, the government sent the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) scurrying across the street to the national press building with a list of amendments to their program which paralleled in almost every respect the recommendations that I had made on behalf of the public servants in Ottawa West.
If the Prime Minister wants a second and, in his opinion, perhaps a less biased view, he should have recourse to the long article in one of the local newspapers written by my defeated Liberal opponent. Shortly after the election he wrote of his and the defeat of other candidates in this area and said it could be blamed largely on the government's wrong-headed and short-sighted policy in the implementation of the Official Languages Act in the public service.
Despite all their billing and cooing via the electronic letter-writing machine in New York, the Liberals do not have the franchise for love of country. I suspect that every member in this House loves this country, and I imagine, all partisan cracks aside, that all of them decided to run for office because of a true concern about their country and the direction in which it is going. But because some of us differ on precisely how to achieve the objectives of national harmony and unity, it does not do to dismiss us as bigots, or as obstructionists, or as nobodies or, for that matter, as "sinistres farceurs," though I suppose it might be better to be called a sinister joker than to be a sinister joke.
The people who elected me did so because they wanted me to oppose the record of the last four years and to do my best to make certain that we were not in for more of the same. And I propose to do precisely that. I might suggest to my hon. friends in the socialist party that they were elected for the same reason. I shall make no further allusion to what has been described as the marriage between the NDP and the Liberals because I should like, if possible, to block that connubial metaphor before we have any ugly offspring. I simply put it to them that they are betraying the people who voted for them, and I doubt whether the dimensions of that betrayal will ever be brought more sharply into focus than they were this after-
128

January 9, 1973
The Address-Mr. Reilly
noon when they stood in opposition to immediate relief for the old people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Reilly: It is a sad thing to see men and women who stood courageously, to their everlasting credit, against the repression and suspension of civil liberties imposed by this government in October, 1970-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Marchand:: Is that what you stand for over there?


Peter Reilly: It is a shame to see people like that turn their coats and support a government whose members, on their record, do not deserve to shine shoes of men such as the hon. members for York South (Mr. Lewis) and Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-and I regret that.
Ironically, Mr. Speaker, it was an NDP spokesman who predicted that Messrs. Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier would soon become the three most disillusioned men in Ottawa when they took Liberal orders in Ottawa some years ago. I suggest to the NDP that they will soon experience within their own ranks disillusionment on a scale so grand as to rival that of the disappointed and defeated Liberal candidates scattered from coast to coast. At least, disillusion is rampant among those who have not been smuggled up to the public trough to assuage their election wounds.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, are they barking over there because it is time for a herring? I and the members of my party are not interested in any further condition of psychopathology of a political party that has been overtaken by inertia. I am not interested in delving any further into the impediments that hobble the development of my country. What I am interested in seeing, and what my constituents and my colleagues want to see, is a Canada in which it is possible for people to lead happy and productive lives.


An hon. Member:: That is what we have now.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will be given extra time in view of all these interruptions. I want to see a country in which it is possible for all people to lead happy and productive lives, to find work, to live in dignity and to raise their children in decent surroundings. I want to see a country in which freedom of movement and expression are guaranteed rights, a country in which young people can plan for the future and in which old people can rest in serenity, free from material want. We want to see a united country, one in which all parts of society are treated with concern for their legitimate aspirations.
This kind of Canada is really now within our reach. But we will not achieve it by the kind of performance that we witnessed here yesterday. We will never achieve it by name-calling or by appeals to the uglier side of human nature. We have been invited, along with the new gaggle of Liberal backbenchers that sprung up, as it were, like mushrooms in the nether-most corner of the House, to co-operate in producing some legislation in this parlia-

ment. I suppose it is possible. But we will only achieve it if we face the facts, when we become honest with each other and, more importantly, with the people of Canada, when we cannot only identify our problems but can pursue solutions without bitterness or rancour. If we can accomplish this kind of rapport, this parliament could be one of the most productive in history. Despite the remarks of the minister, which I may not accept but which I will note, I still hope that is possible.


Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this assembly so early in the session. As a new Member of Parliament and being new to active politics, I am honoured to represent the people of Burnaby-Seymour, and particularly honoured to have been the one to regain for the New Democratic Party this seat. There is now unanimous representation in the riding, comprised of four New Democratic MLA's and one New Democratic Member of Parliament.
As a new Member of Parliament it will be difficult for me to follow the variety show that we have experienced tonight, robust good humour and bitter acrimony, with the humility, modesty and gentle good nature that characterizes my own nature, but I will attempt to do so.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not join previous speakers in complimenting you on your appointment and on your conduct of our proceedings. In the words of Oliver Goldsmith-
And still they gazed and still the wonder grew That one small head could carry all he knew
It is a source of great satisfaction to me to note that it was we few, we happy, happy few, we 31 New Democrats, through our esteemed leader, my hon. friend from York South (Mr. Lewis), who spoke first and most unequivocally of the revulsion felt throughout the world at the recent bombing in Viet Nam by United States aircraft. It was most fitting that parliament not be allowed to proceed with its regular business until the feelings of the Canadian people respecting the ruthless slaughter of innocent people were conveyed in no uncertain terms not only to the United States government but to the entire world. I compliment the government on the swiftness of its reply in the form of the resolution presented by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
A European writer, Malinowski, wrote this:
I once spoke to an old cannibal who, having heard of the great war raging then in Europe, was most curious to know how Europeans managed to eat such enormous quantities of human flesh. When I told him that Europeans do not eat their slain foes, he looked at me in shocked horror and asked what sort of barbarians we were, to kill without any real object.
The old man was right. In these days of modern warfare, the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people is worse than cannibalism. It was particularly gratifying to me that the motion was supported so eloquently by another new member from the second largest group in the House. On one point, though, I would take exception to the remarks of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. January 9, 1973

Wagner). His reference to anti-American bias, obviously directed toward our party, was completely unjustified, particularly within the context of the topic embraced by the resolution.
As Canadian citizens who prize Canada's long and honourable world reputation as a country of non-aggression, a country without territorial ambitions, we in the New Democratic Party side only with humanity, as did all parties in the House during the debate on this resolution. I can, however, easily forgive this slight to my hon. friends and to myself on the grounds that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe is also a new member and, therefore, probably extremely inexperienced.
Mention of anti-Americanism leads me to the consideration of relations within our own country. There are those in my own province of British Columbia who have expressed antipathy toward French-Canadians just as there are, no doubt, those in the French parts of Canada who harbour similar feelings toward English-Canadians. Without going into the historical, cultural or political reasons for such feelings, let me simply say that I, along with hundreds of thousands of other people west of the Rockies, reach out a hand of friendship to our fellow Canadians and invite a reciprocal response. For I believe that the ties which bind us as Canadians are stronger than the differences which separate us.
If I may speak personally for a moment, may I mention that my own family has participated in exchange programs with French families, and I know we are all the richer for the experience. I am pleased to note the signs of increased co-operation among some of the western provinces and Quebec, as evidenced by the talks between the welfare ministers of British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec in connection with social welfare problems. Any measure or action which strengthens the unity of the Canadian people is a welcome one to me, for, if I may quote the first Canadian born Governor General of Canada, Vincent Massey;
I believe that Canada is one, and that if our minds dwell on those things which its hearts have in common, we can find the unity as a whole.
Now I wish to revert to the affairs of my province and particularly to my own riding of Burnaby-Seymour. Most Canadians will have watched the BBC series "The Forsyte Saga" in which the Forsyte family dominated the financial scene in England throughout the fictional generations of John Galsworthy's series, just as western Canada has for years been dominated by the financial might of eastern interests. The main character in the series, Soames Forsyte, drew great comfort in his old age from reflecting that by then all his enemies were dead, had gone bankrupt or were living in British Columbia- the latter, in his view, being a fate worse than death.
Throughout the decades a similar attitude of contempt for the legitimate aspirations of British Columbia has been displayed by successive Liberal and Tory governments. There is, however, a new spirit in the west and increasing evidence that western provinces are determined to seize the initiative in order to bring about much needed social and economic development.
There is also, Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne. In common with other members of my party and with all
The Address-Mr. Nelson
British Columbians, I shall watch with cautious optimism for the enactment of those measures which appear to hold some promise that British Columbia will, in fact, eventually become a part of Canada. I have in mind the proposals for an improved national communications policy, for increased co-ordination of provincial and federal programs, the conference on western economic opportunities and, in fact, all those measures which are designed, in the words of the speech itself, "to rank high on an agenda for western development". Perhaps I should use the word "scepticism" rather than the term "cautious optimism", in view of the fact that of the 29 bills promised in the last Speech from the Throne, six were passed, 15 were introduced but not passed, and eight were not touched at all.
One of my constituents-not a supporter of my party, incidentally-expressed the feelings of many British Columbians when he wrote:
If they (the present government) act responsibly and are put out of office on some minor issue it will not bode well for the party which does it, for there are people like me who, though they have taken no part in party politics, are apt to be fighting mad.
He went on to say:
This is no time for petty issues and minor differences. The country is in bad shape, and we need co-operation in parliament.
I have no doubt that similar sentiments have been expressed by thousands of Canadians to all ministers of the House. The position taken by our party in respect of our conditional support of the present government has been derided by speakers of the official opposition, yet this body has displayed an almost indecent willingness to adopt insiduous measures to bring down the government and would gladly engage in a marriage of convenience or any other kind of marriage in order to gain the power they lust after. They may in time get that opportunity, but let them be patient yet a while.
Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of British Columbia will see Vancouver as the spout of a funnel through which most of the goods and services are distributed throughout the rest of the province. My riding, Burnaby-Seymour, is a suburb of Vancouver and has a population of approximately 88,000. It is of the inevitable expansion into and through Burnaby-Seymour that I wish to touch on first. The entire lower mainland region, and particularly Burnaby-Seymour, is vulnerable to the unrestrained and opportunistic development of those who would put profit ahead of the quality of life when, indeed, it is possible with proper planning to have both.
Our municipal planning departments are well aware of the problems and have made designs for the planned growth of the entire lower mainland area. In pursuit of planning they have formed the greater Vancouver regional district council which studies such matters as regional planning, transportation, pollution control, financing and public housing. This group recognizes that no one municipality can establish the goal of creating what it terms a "liveable region". There must be a comprehensive transportation system throughout the entire metropolitan area, for one example and, for another, the creation of banks of large areas of undeveloped land in order that there be scope for long-range planning.
Experience has demonstrated that economic and social development on a large scale may be planned by local

January 9, 1973
The Address-Mr. Nelson
governments, but without the full and cordial support of both provincial and federal governments they are often, in the words of a well known television hillbilly character, "tossing their hooks into a dry creek bed".
The lower mainland region is rated by those who profess to know such things as the third or fourth most beautiful spot in the world in terms of city, setting and climate. On a clear day one can see the majesty of the mountains which form the ramparts of this strikingly attractive setting. Yet it requires very little vision to foresee the day, perhaps within a decade, when the very mountains and the delta lowlands will, like the Los Angeles area, become the repository of a thick, poisonous and choking smog which will lie like a pall over the highly-populated lower mainland region.
The problem of urban growth and its attendant implications of pollution of the environment is one that should transcend partisan politics. It is a problem that must be the concern of every thinking citizen, for it must be obvious to all who are familiar with the region that time is running out, just as it is running out in other major population centres in Canada.
In 1971, the Science Council of Canada in its report pointed out that cities have only two sources of income, the municipal property tax which is resented by many low income and elderly people, and grants from provincial governments-grants which often have strings attached which prevent innovational development.
Even if the money were available, it is virtually impossible to co-ordinate attempts at co-operative development among cities, towns and villages, some of which have a strong tax base and others of which have virtually none. This government has a unique opportunity to provide the kind of leadership envisioned by the Science Council of Canada when it meets with the governments of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba at the conference mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.
So far, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken broadly of the longterm problem of urban development because of the susceptibility of Burnaby-Seymour to urban sprawl. The residents of Burnaby, and particularly those of North Vancouver, moved to these areas precisely to avoid the congestion of urban life. I believe they are realistic enough to recognize that expansion of the region is inevitable and in many cases desirable so long as it is a planned development, but I am bound to mar the sweet reasonableness of my speech at this point to say that this government has until now shown very little evidence and inclination or an ability to plan, for if one thinks of an economy as a man-made thing rather than as a natural phenomena, then surely it is possible to plan programs that will overcome the abuses of which the government has freely admitted its guilt.
The people of my riding will watch with interest any increase in the port facilities west of the Second Narrows bridge, for it is of great concern to us all that much of our shipping is being diverted to Seattle or Portland. At the same time, many of our residents would frown on unsightly industrial development of the foreshore extending east of the Second Narrows bridge, preferring to develop the natural beauty of the region into parks and carefully planned residential areas. I mention the inadequacy of

our port facilities only in passing, because I am certain that this topic will be pursued at greater length by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Neale) and others.
I should like, before my time runs out, to mention the topic on which I have received the greatest number of representations from my constituents. By far the greatest concern has been expressed over the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. That concern was reflected, you will recall, during the first question period in this House. It seems most strange and wonderful to me that during the election campaign the central issue regarding unemployment insurance was the inconvenience imposed on the subscribers by the unwieldly administration of the plan. I see no change in this emphasis from the individual complaints that I receive or from the group representations. Yet almost overnight it seems that the emphasis has been shifted to the cost of the plan, and additional delays have been imposed through the establishment of section 107 of the act which provides for interrogation by what are euphemistically called "benefit control officers" whose skilled questioning may unwittingly jeopardize the claims of the unskilled applicant.
One would hope that the reference to clarifying certain aspects of the unemployment insurance plan made in the Speech from the Throne would refer to steps designed to simplify and expedite its administration. It seems a fundamental law of human nature that the more safeguards one institutes to prevent abuses, the more methods will the minority of freeloaders find to circumvent those safeguards. Skilled interviewers, not interrogators, abolition of the waiting period and lengthening of the eligibility period could probably speed up payments and lessen administration costs. So far as the much publicized cost of the plan is concerned, critics often neglect to mention that a large portion of that cost is retrieved through the payment of taxes in any case. In this connection I compliment the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) for his humanitarian approach to the plan in his speech this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nels Edwin Nelson: We are all concerned with the problem of retirement, both in the area of the Old Age Security Act and of the private pension plans of companies like the CNR and CPR, and I have no doubt that the government will be hearing more from our side of the House on the inequities that exist in the administration and funding of private pension schemes. Whatever influence I can bring to bear on the improvement of pensions will be based on a deep-seated conviction that any person, man or woman, who has served society for a stated number of years deserves to live out the remainder of his or her life in reasonable comfort, with special consideration for the disabled, the blind, the retarded and, indeed anyone who suffers any handicap for which he requires special attention.
Legislators are prone to attach a number to the age at which a person is allowed to retire, the present number generally being thought of as age 65. Many people begin work at the age of 18, which means that they must work for 47 years before enjoying the fruits of retirement. Little
January 9, 1973

wonder that we have an unemployment problem when people work to age 65 and over and are forced to begin work while still attending school. One would hope that the Canadian people could look forward to the day when a person who has given as many as 35 productive years of service to his country would be given the right to retire with full benefits, whatever his age.
There are many other social and economic problems mentioned in the Speech from the Throne on which I could touch, but let me refer directly to this phrase from the speech: "The social sucurity system must contain incentives to work". In that one phrase, the government has hit directly at a basic problem that confronts so many Canadians who have lost the desire to contribute their efforts toward any government whose sole concern appears to be to worship at the shrine of corporate profits and the great god, gross national product.
The best incentive that this government can display is a basic concern for people, an honest attempt to remove the stigma attached to those who are forced to accept welfare, unemployment insurance and other forms of assistance. Canada is a rich and productive nation, but as rich and productive as it is, it simply cannot afford to support the continuing burden of costs that have resulted from past Tweedledum and Tweedledee administrations.
The Speech from the Throne is couched in vague generalities, but it does at least provide some room for the government to manoeuver within the confines of its outmoded philosophy to provide some redress of the grievances expressed by the Canadian people on October 30. No one expects Valhalla overnight. I do not expect a complete levelling-off of incomes in Canada, nor do my colleagues. Neither do I expect a complete reversal from the haves to the have-nots, as was lightly suggested by the hon. member for Temiscamigue (Mr. Caouette) yesterday. But I do expect, and my colleagues expect-and I believe the people of Canada expect-a fairer distribution of the wealth of this country. In a democratic country such as ours, surely the word "democracy" embodies, besides the freedoms usually associated with it, the freedom from want. The staggering costs of maintaining poverty are surely no greater than the costs of eliminating it, and I urge that the government operate from this premise when sind if it considers amendments to the tax structure and the economic and social reforms hinted at in the Speech from the Throne.


Mr. John Campbell (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour for me as a junior member to have the opportunity to address such a distinguished group of men and women. May I take this opportunity to congratulate you, sir, and your associates on your election, as well as all those who have been appointed or elected to various posts. I certainly want to congratulate the hon. member for North Bay (Mr. Blais) and the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker) for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to pay homage to my predecessor, Mr. H. Pit Lessard, a man totally devoted to his constituents, well liked and respected by all. Hon. members who have been sitting in the House for some time will remember him. Unfortunately, for reasons of
Adjournment Debate
health, Mr. Lessard had to retire and take a well deserved rest. I am sure that for a long time, all those who have known and worked with him will keep a fond memory of him.

Mr. Speaker, the county of LaSalle is relatively new. It has been in existence since 1968. It comprises LaSalle, Ville Emard and Cote St. Paul. The city of LaSalle forms the largest part. LaSalle has a population of 75,000, 90 miles of city roads, and ranks as the sixth largest industrial city in the province of Quebec. This is the first time a resident of LaSalle has represented the city.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) in his words a short time ago said that one is better off to shut up, sit back and listen so that when he does get up to speak he can speak factually and intelligently. That is exactly what I intend to do. At this time I should like to express my most sincere thanks to all the people of LaSalle, Ville Emard and Cote St. Paul who gave me their support and confidence during the last election campaign. I shall do my utmost to work ardently for their benefit and for the benefit of all Canadians.



PROCEEDING ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, among the promises set forth in the Speech from the Throne, one which has most interested us in this group is the one promising that a committee will be set up very shortly to go into the matter of rising food prices. We feel that this measure is long overdue. As a matter of fact, on June 1 last year I had the honour to make such a demand in the House on behalf of this group. I said that because of the way in which food prices were spiralling such an investigation should be set up. At that time we were told by the government that such an inquiry was unnecessary and that Canadian food prices were in line with food prices in other countries.
We were also told by the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs that this might be a temporary phenomenon and that we should watch what happened before anything was done. Later, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and other ministers indicated that the rise in food prices was due to poor weather conditions. All this was a postponement, but as late as September the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had not been converted to any change in ideas. In my own city of Vancouver, on an open-line program a woman caller asked him how he could justify his negative and apparently callous attitude

January 9, 1973
Adjournment Debate
to the rising food prices. He replied in the following words:
So if prices are going through the roof, you have a very low roof.
Shades of Marie Antoinette! I may say, Mr. Speaker, that this was one of the reasons the present government met defeat in our province. It was not because of bilingualism but because of high food prices and the high cost of living for people in low income groups. This is why I am concerned about the setting up of a committee to study this problem, and I hope that the message reached the government.
I know there was some gossip that when this committee was formed it was the intention of the government to form it merely to prove to Canadian consumers that they were not being ripped-off. If there is a disposition to set up such a committee for the purpose of proving that the Canadian consumers are living in the best of possible worlds so far as food prices are concerned, and that weather and market conditions will combine to set everything to rights very shortly should there be a temporary aberration, I say that our party will not support that kind of thing.
We are convinced that rising food prices should be investigated. What we need this time is a probe with a purpose, and that purpose must be action. In the four years since the Trudeau government took office, the cost of living has gone up by 20 per cent. A very large part of that rise in the cost of living was due to food prices. Last year alone, food prices went up by 7.4 per cent, and other prices comprising the consumer cost of living index went up by 3.7 per cent.
As a member of the former committee which studied prices, I want to say that almost six years-it will be six years in April-have passed since the tabling of the report of the committee. It is true that certain recommendations of the committee have been met, but some of the most serious questions which were raised at that time have not yet been dealt with. Not all of them were raised in the form of a recommendation.
At the end of our time in that committee certain startling discoveries came to light. I should like to quote part of the committee's report as follows:
Your committee uncovered specific evidence of great concentration of market power. It came to public attention as a result of questions by your committee and disclosed more particularly the so-called Weston empire.
This disclosure was an astonishing revelation and the enormity of the Weston complex surprised even the sophisticated. The far-reaching implications will take some time to assess. The Weston empire reveals for the first time vast holdings and control over food and other related aspects of the economy which will need further investigation to reveal all the implications and to do this, more specific information will of course, be required.
We also pointed out that advertising and promotion had not received our attention in the measure that was required. We said:
The domination of a few large corporations in some sectors of the Canadian economy is clearly evident and gives rise to the question, "is this in the public interest?" Your committee feels that the implications of this question must be fully examined.

Our recommendation was as follows:
That the Joint Committee on Consumer Credit (Prices) continue with its investigation of concentration in the food industry.
So far as we in this party are concerned, this is where this committee will begin, with a continuation of the investigation. We in the committee did not get very far with regard to the concentration of monopoly power in the food industry. I want to echo what my colleague pointed out last night, namely, that in our opinion this committee should be established as a special committee of the House. We do not believe in naming people to the committee who are not subject to the control of the electors of this country. We want a House of Commons committee. We believe we in this House could do a better job and better study the concentration of monopoly power. If members in the other place want to be active on the committee, let them come as witnesses, as my leader said, with the concentration of power which a great many of them bring from the corporations they represent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I believe I have made my point, Mr. Speaker.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that late this afternoon I submitted to the Clerk a notice of motion for the setting up of a parliamentary committee to inquire into food prices. Assuming that this was done within the proper time period, the notice of motion should appear on the order paper tomorrow. I hope it will be possible to call the motion in question for debate very soon after the conclusion of the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
During the debate on this motion it will be possible to go into the matter of the composition of the committee and its terms of reference in great detail, and if the House supports the motion the committee will be created, and once organized it can begin its important work.
I am sure that all members of the House, and Canadian people generally, look forward to this work being undertaken soon in the interests of Canada generally.


SPORTS-MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976- CIRCUMSTANCE OF SALE OF TELEVISION RIGHTS TO AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure who is going to pronounce the benediction to my nocturnal sermonette, because when I asked a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) regarding this matter he said it was not his responsibility, and I do not see the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) here.
I should like to say first that I rarely make corrections to Hansard, but I did not say of the minister that he has moved from the black to the green chamber; I said that I welcome him from the back room to the green chamber. I was not trying to be more colourful than those who call him a grey eminence.
January 9, 1973

Somewhere along the line I may have made a mistake as to which minister was involved, not because the subject is unimportant, not because either minister is unimportant but perhaps because I am advised that this change in responsibilities was made at the time of the cabinet shuffle. Mr. Speaker, that was one thing I did not think very important, because it is highly temporary. The most succinct and perceptive comment upon that particular event, I believe, was that of the Ottawa Journal, which compared the cabinet shuffle with the shifting of the deck chairs on the Titanic. I am also confused about how the transfer was made without a change in the Fitness and Amateur Sports Act, and perhaps tonight or at some later date we will hear more about the reasons for the move.
It is extremely important that somebody accept responsibility for the public interest in the Olympic Games because the Canadian people are very concerned about athletics. They are especially concerned about those international competitions which mean so much to our national morale. I understand that some very important people in the world of sport have communicated with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and presumably their communications have been passed on to other ministers.
I was appalled to note that in the Ottawa Citizen of January 4 nearly half a page was devoted to anxious expressions about the way one aspect of the Olympic Games was handled, namely, the television rights. I quote from that newspaper as follows:
Roger Rousseau, commissioner-general of the summer Olympics ... announced Wednesday an agreement awarding United States television rights to the American Broadcasting Co. for $25 million ...
Shortly after the announcement was made, a spokesman for the rival National Broadcasting Co. in New York criticized the ABC award.
"NBC continues to believe that the procedures used to award American television rights to the 1976 Olympic Games are contrary to the best interests of the people of Canada, the American TV audience and the Games themselves.
"The organizing committee's unwillingness to follow the procedure of open bidding raises serious questions which still are unanswered," the network executive charged.
That is a comment by a very prominent media man in the United States, but I was much more interested and much more disturbed by the statement of Alan Eagleson, whom no one could ignore as one of the leaders in the athletic field in this country, who brought sharply to the attention of the minister the way in which Bobby Orr Enterprises had not been given a chance to bid for the television rights. Mr. Eagleson said:
"We had offered to buy these rights through Bobby Orr Enterprises . . . The transaction with the American Broadcasting Company seems a little bit suspicious to me."
The newspaper report continued:
The games rights would have been sold without a promoter, said Eagleson, who is secretary of Bobby Orr Enterprises, executive director of the National Hockey League Players Association, a lawyer, and a representative of numerous NHL players.
He said that since Canadian taxpayers will have to bear the cost of staging the Olympics "I hate to see $700,000 given away so easily and so needlessly to an American promoter."
Eagleson said everyone should have a chance to bid.
Adjournment Debate
I call upon the minister to investigate the matter thoroughly. I think it would be extremely serious if a matter so evocative of Canadian interest and pleasure as international competition should get under way under a cloud of misapprehension, and that it should be further clouded by a lack of willingness to communicate with the Canadian people as to what is going on in this particular aspect of the Olympic Games. I should be glad for such elucidation as the minister is able to give with his unlimited knowledge but his limited time tonight.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and his enunciation of the problem he raised the other day during the question period. I want to confine my remarks not to what he said this evening but to the question he asked the other day, which related solely to the matter of television rights sold by the organizing committee for the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, the organizing committee for the Olympics in Montreal in 1976 has, I am informed, entrusted its negotiations for these TV rights to a committee headed by Paul Desroches, who is otherwise a financial adviser to the premier of the province, which includes Gerry Snyder, the vice-president in charge of finances for the organizing committee, Louis Chantigny, the vice-president in charge of communications for the organization, and the commissioner-general, M. Roger Rousseau, who was mentioned by the hon. member for Hillsborough.
The matter of the sale of the United States television rights to the Olympic games, which is the subject of his question, is internal to the organizing committee whose job it is to negotiate these rights. There is no federal agency involved in the sale of those rights and there is no federal agency involved in the negotiation of these rights.
The approval of the contract and the approval of the sale of these rights is subject to the approval of the international Olympic organization. If there are some problems or allegations on the question of the sale of these rights or the contract relating to them, I believe it is the responsibility of the organizing committee and of the international Olympic organization.


FISHERIES-EAST COAST SALMON FISHING BAN-PROVISION OF APPEAL PROCEDURE RESPECTING COMPENSATION TO FISHERMEN
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as reported at page 44 of Hansard, the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Smith) asked the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) about the appeal procedure that there might be for fishermen who were not satisfied with their compensation payments under the salmon ban. I asked a supplementary question, knowing that the minister had written me and assured me that there was an appeal procedure. I asked whether the minister would personally investigate the method that was used under this whole compensation matter.
I am thinking more in terms of Saint John harbour, the Saint John river and the Bay of Fundy, but the minister may wish to say something about the Miramichi and other
134

January 9, 1973
Adjournment Debate
parts. I am pleased to see him in his place and I appreciate that he wrote me a comprehensive letter about it. For the record, Mr. Speaker, he had his own crest as Minister of Fisheries on the letterhead, which delighted me as one who has often complained that fisheries is downgraded, alongside environment. Other members, particularly the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) and the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), also have an interest in the area around the mouth of the Saint John River.
There is an interesting history to salmon fishing and the problem surrounding it, Mr. Speaker. It is pointed out that the government should have been taking action on this matter years ago but has only entered the picture on a piecemeal basis. Fishing was restricted, which caused fishermen to increase their investment. Then when they became professionals and should have been making plans for the long term, the minister brought the axe down on April 24, 1972, with a complete ban on salmon fishing in this area and most other areas of Atlantic Canada.
These fishermen lost their livelihood. They were not asking for compensation, but their privilege was taken from them. Consultation was promised but there is not much record of it. We have a situation of extreme dissatisfaction amongst these fishermen. Meetings were held which some of the minister's staff in the Maritimes attended. The fishermen were very worried and objected to the manner in which initial compensation payments were handled. They are puzzled over the further proof that the department is asking in order to get the additional instalment. An atmosphere of confusion now exists between the fishermen and the department.
I do not know whether the civil servants in the field are doing the dirty work of Ottawa or whether they are completely isolated from Ottawa. That is why I raise this question. In addition to all these appeals I have one or two that I will send to the minister. I know the minister will try to look after them in one way or another and that some remedy will result. I think the whole matter needs looking into, because these fishermen were told, "get your documentation in and we will make a 50 per cent instalment payment." That was done early in the fall, and in nearly every case, after payment, the fishermen expected the other 50 per cent of their claims. After all, if you get 50 per cent of something you naturally think you will get the other 50 per cent at some time.
They hoped that they would be paid before Christmas. Then problems arose and they received nothing extra by Christmas eve. The joker was that if total payments exceeded 125 per cent for the area, reductions would take place accordingly. These fishermen acted in good faith. Having lost their livelihood and having been told they would be compensated generously, they found by Christmas eve that, substantially, they would not get the other 50 per cent. That is how the matter rests now.
I am confident that the minister will look into this question and personally cause an investigation to be made. The way this was handled needs to be examined. I believe he should look into it at the earliest opportunity.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying to the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) that I will personally look into individual cases which he or other members bring to my attention. I will also review the methods we have used in compensating or in providing a form of adjustment assistance to the east coast salmon fishermen. This situation is unique in that we are helping fishermen financially and, I add and repeat, generously inasmuch as the general practice across the country when closures occur is not to make payments to fishermen who do not fish. The decline in salmon runs on the east coast has been dramatic and we have moved in to assist fishermen. We want to help them over a difficult period and help them to re-establish themselves in other industries as long as they are not fishing.
Basically, the fisherman has been offered one of two alter natives. He can sell out all his assets. If they are valuable, he may choose that route. The assets are appraised by an individual appraiser and payment is made on that basis. I remember that in the Saint John River case, 64 fishermen chose that route and received compensation in the order of $41,000. Another 173 fishermen chose the other alternative, that of being paid annually for a sequence of five years on the gross value of their catch. They can chose the years to be assessed-they can chose any three years in the last half dozen years-and they selected the best years from their records. They received a payment initially and I asked that they be paid as promptly as possible. They sent in an unaudited claim and received 50 per cent of that claim.
Many of them were somewhat generous in the assessment of their catch, at least according to the records which they produced later, and they received, instead of another equal amount, somewhat less than 50 per cent. All of those who were eligible for initial payments received the supplementary amount, whatever it was, on the basis of records, by December 20.
A number of fishermen believe, even though they were given the opportunity to take the three best years in the past and despite the fact that they incurred no expenses because they did not go fishing, that they have a claim. They may believe that they can produce records, supporting vouchers or testimony from witnesses as to sales on the side, and so on, which gives them a claim to further payments. I will personally look into that. I believe in this case we have been both expeditious and generous in our treatment of the fishermen involved.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

Wednesday. January 10, 1973